Recruiting Forum Football Talk II

Status
Not open for further replies.
#158,801
#158,801
vol9799 said:
Not every concern raised by a lawyer is legitimate. They are charged with providing advice and risk assessments on legal matters, not making decisions. Leaders are charged with weighing all the information they can muster and make the best long-term strategic decisions. Managers are typically risk averse. Leaders don't typically possess that same risk averse nature. I don't begrudge lawyers the right to offer their opinions, I do have a problem when their opinions are allowed to shape policy without consideration of weightier strategic considerations.
Click to expand...
That's a great point and a great post.😁
 
#158,802
#158,802
pierce60 said:
The reason all of these groups can go ahead and play is because there is no question/illusion about their amateur status.

I firmly believe this has moved beyond just a COVID situation (player health is still the cover) and moved into a play by the NCAA to keep leverage on the players and prevent them from organizing further.

For example, if the players want to organize then the NCAA/presidents will just pull the plug on the season under the guise of player health to show the players who is still in charge.

No professional league has this problem and neither does high school football.
Click to expand...

There’s some merit to this.
 
#158,803
#158,803
Devo182 said:
Is he stretching words here or did they literally ban these? Don't remember hearing this

Click to expand...

Neuheisal was talking about this yesterday, and basically concluded a waiver is not enforceable not worth the paper it’s written on. Idk? I believe he does have a law degree however.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Devo182
#158,805
#158,805
vol9799 said:
Not every concern raised by a lawyer is legitimate. They are charged with providing advice and risk assessments on legal matters, not making decisions. Leaders are charged with weighing all the information they can muster and make the best long-term strategic decisions. Managers are typically risk averse. Leaders don't typically possess that same risk averse nature. I don't begrudge lawyers the right to offer their opinions, I do have a problem when their opinions are allowed to shape policy without consideration of weightier strategic considerations.
Click to expand...

As an attorney, there is some merit to this. I have said all along that it's a cost-benefit analysis. The legal counsel will be one of the people in the room offering advice, along with health professionals, business people, and university and athletic administration. Some people don't realize that this is a complex decision, and there are quite a few issues that are considered. At the end of the day, the job of the legal counsel is to provide the things that could backfire (legally). When a company's legal counsel drafts a contract or policy, most of the time, the goal is to avoid litigation. Same with universities. The university leader then takes all of the information together and then decides if it is worth playing or participating in the activity.

The only question I would have in your post is how you know what weight is placed on certain opinions because they have a better grasp as to how this all works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Devo182 and jakez4ut
#158,808
#158,808
VolGee4 said:
As an attorney, there is some merit to this. I have said all along that it's a cost-benefit analysis. The legal counsel will be one of the people in the room offering advice, along with health professionals, business people, and university and athletic administration. Some people don't realize that this is a complex decision, and there are quite a few issues that are considered. At the end of the day, the job of the legal counsel is to provide the things that could backfire (legally). When a company's legal counsel drafts a contract or policy, most of the time, the goal is to avoid litigation. Same with universities. The university leader then takes all of the information together and then decides if it is worth playing or participating in the activity.

The only question I would have in your post is how you know what weight is placed on certain opinions because they have a better grasp as to how this all works.
Click to expand...
It’s surprising to me that there’s legitimate legal concern over lawsuits regarding negative effects from an inherently risky environment that a plaintiff voluntarily entered. Can patients sue hospitals for staph infection? Not challenging you, btw, genuine question for your legal expertise :)

Edit: just looked up suing hospitals for staph. Google says the plaintiff must prove they contracted staph due to negligence on part of the medical staff. Seems like that would be easy enough to mitigate in SEC football programs if things were apples to apples.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeadVol77
#158,810
#158,810
CreiveHallVol said:
Click to expand...


6RKu.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheMagnificantOne, TurnoverTrashCan, VOLSONLY and 12 others
#158,812
#158,812
NashVolDavis said:
It’s surprising to me that there’s legitimate legal concern over lawsuits regarding negative effects from an inherently risky environment that a plaintiff voluntarily entered. Can patients sue hospitals for staph infection? Not challenging you, btw, genuine question for your legal expertise :)

Edit: just looked up suing hospitals for staph. Google says the plaintiff must prove they contracted staph due to negligence on part of the medical staff. Seems like that would be easy enough to mitigate in SEC football programs if things were apples to apples.
Click to expand...

People can sue for almost anything, and it costs money to defend a lawsuit. My expertise is not in tort law, so the waiver issue is not something I handle on a daily basis. I would certainly ask that players sign them, but each state is different. A waiver is not a "can't sue me ticket" though. If a court finds that a party was "grossly negligent" then a waiver doesn't protect them. You can't ask a person to sign a waiver for riding a roller coaster that you know is deadly. People assume certain risks all of the time, but they don't expert certain harmful consequences.

Just doing quick research, it looks like the TN Supreme Court issued an opinion last year that makes it a little more difficult for waivers to be enforceable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLSONLY, Devo182, HeadVol77 and 3 others
#158,814
#158,814
JT3 said:
Boss Move!
Click to expand...
It’s not, unfortunately. The headline is misleading. It’s the same quote:

“
I don’t think that’s the right direction, really,” Sankey said. “ Could we? Certainly. So, there’s a difference between can you do something and should you do something in life. And so, we’re actually set up with our schedule, with our own health protocols, that we could if that was the circumstance; operate on our own. I’m not sure that’s the wisest direction, but you know, there’s been a lot of interesting things have happened since March in college sports.”

The SEC playing a season by itself might not take palce even if the other four Power Five conferences did cancel. While that is a small possibility, according to Sankey, it just might not make sense in the long run.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Devo182
#158,816
#158,816
vol9799 said:
Not every concern raised by a lawyer is legitimate. They are charged with providing advice and risk assessments on legal matters, not making decisions. Leaders are charged with weighing all the information they can muster and make the best long-term strategic decisions. Managers are typically risk averse. Leaders don't typically possess that same risk averse nature. I don't begrudge lawyers the right to offer their opinions, I do have a problem when their opinions are allowed to shape policy without consideration of weightier strategic considerations.
Click to expand...
fear of litigation drives a lot of decisions coporations/organizations make in regards to handling "people issues". making a strategic decision in the course of doing business or direction of the organization is one thing.....making a call on whether or not we should open up in a situation like this has the potential to be an organization ending problem IF things go the other way.

i'm not advocting for or against any one action here, just saying that if you don't think potential liabilities from players, fans, universities, employees, etc, etc, etc.....aren't in play here, you're ignoring a really big picture isssue.

and just "blaming leadership" is short sighted. we're not talking whether or not the SEC should add or remove a team and being scared of the fall out from that...or negotiating a new TV deal or something.........
 
#158,817
#158,817
Bassmaster_Vol said:
It’s not, unfortunately. The headline is misleading. It’s the same quote:

“
I don’t think that’s the right direction, really,” Sankey said. “ Could we? Certainly. So, there’s a difference between can you do something and should you do something in life. And so, we’re actually set up with our schedule, with our own health protocols, that we could if that was the circumstance; operate on our own. I’m not sure that’s the wisest direction, but you know, there’s been a lot of interesting things have happened since March in college sports.”

The SEC playing a season by itself might not take palce even if the other four Power Five conferences did cancel. While that is a small possibility, according to Sankey, it just might not make sense in the long run.”
Click to expand...

Guess we have to wait and see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bassmaster_Vol
#158,818
#158,818
delfonic said:
Ryan Day's statement about playing with another conference if the Big Ten doesn't play makes about as much sense as my statement that I'll just finish out my marriage with Ana de Armas if things deteriorate between me and my wife.

We can make statements all day but statements don't override contract law or restraining orders.
Click to expand...
What are the limits of your restraining order? Just curious 🤔
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLSONLY, Brillovol, CreiveHallVol and 1 other person
#158,820
#158,820
VolGee4 said:
As an attorney, there is some merit to this. I have said all along that it's a cost-benefit analysis. The legal counsel will be one of the people in the room offering advice, along with health professionals, business people, and university and athletic administration. Some people don't realize that this is a complex decision, and there are quite a few issues that are considered. At the end of the day, the job of the legal counsel is to provide the things that could backfire (legally). When a company's legal counsel drafts a contract or policy, most of the time, the goal is to avoid litigation. Same with universities. The university leader then takes all of the information together and then decides if it is worth playing or participating in the activity.

The only question I would have in your post is how you know what weight is placed on certain opinions because they have a better grasp as to how this all works.
Click to expand...
this is all i was getting at.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolGee4
#158,825
#158,825
scienceteaching_vol said:
Can't disagree with you there but it is an interesting profession, in the fact that people with no educational experience or training like to believe they know how to do your job and do it better. It's like me scheduling an appointment with my doctor to tell him how to practice medicine. 😛
Click to expand...

My mask helps hide my annoyance 😷😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLSONLY, Rishvol, tnhunter 10 and 4 others
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top