PAC12 player group is not too bright

[savannahfan]

From all I've heard, read, (most reading on our site) WE ARE UNITED Sounds like a LABOR UNION to me...

 

[CINCYVOL]

So blame the unknown lawyer, a person that you don't even know exits? First, just because people do something you don't agree with do not insult them as being dumb or taken advantage of. This was a very smart thing for these college kids to do. Some of their demands were being met, some were not. Some had not even come to fruition yet, so clearly they could not have met. I promise you, the Conferences that canceled the seasons did so because of liability reasons and not because student-ATHLETES were finally beginning to assert their power. The next phase will be when the Conferences that want to play put a general release and waiver in front of these kids that the NCAA initially objected to. Will the lawyers be blamed then? If that happens I think we can no longer view the student-Athlete, as such, but rather an employee/independent contractor of the University and or Conference. They better have a lawyer at that time to negotiate what they get in return for signing that release.

you mean like the release at full throttle cart racing?

 

[The Original Fade]

If the right is boycotting the NFL and the left "hates" the NFL, how are there millions and millions of people still watching?

Because the right still watches....they talk a big game but they don’t really boycott anything. Same for the left, all talk....they still watch too.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

There’s an assumption of risk if one decides that they want to play a contact sport. So an athlete should be allowed to sign a waiver if they accept the risk of playing, as long as they aren’t forced into playing by the coaches or university then I don’t see any wrong.

They are being asked to accept additional risks, unanticipated when they signed on to play football, and are not receiving any additional consideration.

 

[butchna]

Those people generally belong to political parties, and neither one "hates football." That's dumb and saying it's "hated" because it's American and because women can't play is ten times dumber. Not least because there are women's professional leagues already, and essentially every sport we follow is American.

There’s way right and way left and then everybody else. No one BELONGS to a political party...they generally gravitate towards them and vote in a safety in numbers effect. Regarding football, to say there aren’t large numbers with agendas who hate football is an ostrich head in hole startup venture.

 

[BGKYVol]

Trump called McCain a loser for getting captured, I just thought that was the narrative. With all due respect, if you are a Confederate Soldier, you were on the losing side. And guilty of treason to the United States of America, so why should that be celebrated? By the way, just for fun, because I know you will like this, I don't "hear" myself "talk" in posting these words. Context is important.

At that time, each state had the right to leave the Union if they wanted to. That is not treason. Rebelling against the government like the colonies did against the British is a more accurate portrayal of treason.
So the statues that apparently need to be torn down are Washington, Revere, Hamilton, Franklin, etc.. Not advocating it, just making a point. Besides, tearing down statues does nothing to change past history.

 

[RobertPellitt]

I agree reading is important. Your words "If that happens I think we can no longer view the student-Athlete, as such, but rather an employee/independent contractor". By the way, an "employee" and a "contractor" are also apples and oranges.

That is why they are separated .... so yes reading is important.

 

[RobertPellitt]

By the way, also your words again "(which does not happen in real life)", you should really start reading the fine print when you purchase sports tickets. Those waivers on the back of baseball, amusement park, or concert tickets are one form of exculpatory contracts. An exculpatory contract is a “contract clause which releases one of the contracting parties from liability for his or her wrongful act.”[1] Recreational businesses, in particular, utilize exculpatory contracts as a way to try and limit liability or to prevent litigation. For example, I was required to sign an exculpatory contract in which I promised not to sue the last time I went ice skating. Some exculpatory contracts, however, do not even require a signature. Instead, they are placed on the back of most admission tickets—ticket to a basketball game, amusement park, concert, etc. In those instances, one need not sign anything to waive liability; one only need to purchase the ticket. That is, the act of purchasing the ticket is all that is needed for an agreement to form between the parties in which one promises not to sue the other in the event of an injury. Accordingly, businesses, especially those that engage in recreational activities, often rely on exculpatory contracts to limit liability, or to prevent litigation.

You do know the difference correct. Those are injuries that they cannot be prevented without changing the essential aspect of the sporting event. The prime example is a foul ball at a baseball game, the purchaser is on notice that the owner of the stadium, the team and the players cannot do anything to prevent an injury from. It would be impossible to put a protective netting around an entire baseball stadium to prevent injury. I think you will find that these types of "licensees" don't disclaim actual negligence. For instance if a roller coaster malfunctions, operated incorrectly or a light pole falls on some one. It just disclaims liability for those things that are inherent in the use and cannot be avoided. I don't think a viral disease falls within that category for football. Again, at least the debate is getting better.

 

[hog88]

They are being asked to accept additional risks, unanticipated when they signed on to play football, and are not receiving any additional consideration.

"Asked" is the key word in your post. They are not being made to do anything.

 

[RobertPellitt]

At that time, each state had the right to leave the Union if they wanted to. That is not treason. Rebelling against the government like the colonies did against the British is a more accurate portrayal of treason.
So the statues that apparently need to be torn down are Washington, Revere, Hamilton, Franklin, etc.. Not advocating it, just making a point. Besides, tearing down statues does nothing to change past history.

Well it does prevent honoring it. I mean if your rationale is correct why did Germany ban the swastika? Why did it remove all images of the Nazi Party? It did so because it was on the wrong side of history. You don't need to memorialize the wrong side of history to adequately remember it.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

"Asked" is the key word in your post. They are not being made to do anything.

If they want to play they are being forced to sign a waiver. It's a simple concept, if I'm required to accept additional risk, I should receive additional consideration.

 

[hog88]

If they want to play they are being forced to sign a waiver. It's a simple concept, if I'm required to accept additional risk, I should receive additional consideration.

No, you have a choice not to play. It's as simple as that.

 

[Doctrippin]

Those people generally belong to political parties, and neither one "hates football." That's dumb and saying it's "hated" because it's American and because women can't play is ten times dumber. Not least because there are women's professional leagues already, and essentially every sport we follow is American.

Wrong, because it is a hyper masculine sport. You haven't been listening to feminists lately. They are off the charts. NFL dominates pro sports, and it is a huge part of American culture that local communities rally around (ie... nationalism). These people are considered far left fringe, but they are driving a lot of policy and cultural change right now.

 

[RobertPellitt]

Wrong, because it is a hyper masculine sport. You haven't been listening to feminists lately. They are off the charts. NFL dominates pro sports, and it is a huge part of American culture that local communities rally around (ie... nationalism). These people are considered far left fringe, but they are driving a lot of policy and cultural change right now.

I would love to know the specific group that is part of the American democratic process and "driving a lot of policy and cultural change" that is suggesting football should be banned because it is too masculine. This is the type of genarlized rhetoric people use when they disagree with something, but don't have anything logical to use to defend their point of view.

 

[RobertPellitt]

There’s an assumption of risk if one decides that they want to play a contact sport. So an athlete should be allowed to sign a waiver if they accept the risk of playing, as long as they aren’t forced into playing by the coaches or university then I don’t see any wrong.

The NFL lied to its players about the risk of concussions, so part of the waiver process is informed consent. But again, if you are talking about a broken bone then yes, I agree with you. A student-Athlete should not be able to sue the University because he was sacked and broke his wrist. That is not the dialogue that we are discussing. The dialogue is a virus that is not a normal consequence to playing a sport. If the University is communicating with its players that it is safe to play and it turns out that it was not safe to play, especially since other Conferences have determined it is not safe, then yes there is a liability risk. If there is a liability risk that the University profits from then the person placed in danger should get something for that risk that was assumed, I mean why is that not fair?

 

[05_never_again]

I would love to know the specific group that is part of the American democratic process and "driving a lot of policy and cultural change" that is suggesting football should be banned because it is too masculine. This is the type of genarlized rhetoric people use when they disagree with something, but don't have anything logical to use to defend their point of view.

Think the crowd that ran what used to be Deadspin, for example.

There isn't some specific group that has a devious secret plot to destroy football. However, there is a group of people who have never really liked the aggressive, macho image of the game, for example, or how is frequently intertwines itself with patriotism and religion (Christianity in particular). There definitely is a chattering class of people out there who like taking shots at it on that basis.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

No, you have a choice not to play. It's as simple as that.

It is not that simple.

 

[hog88]

It is not that simple.

It is that simple.

That’s the problem with lawyers, you take simple stuff and try to make it complicated.

 

[GVF]

Do they get anything besides a letter in return for their services?

An offer for a free college education, maybe? You ever been to games in GA, FL, and Texas. These boys are compensated quite well. Ask Rush Probst.

 

[DarkAvenger]

The NFL lied to its players about the risk of concussions, so part of the waiver process is informed consent. But again, if you are talking about a broken bone then yes, I agree with you. A student-Athlete should not be able to sue the University because he was sacked and broke his wrist. That is not the dialogue that we are discussing. The dialogue is a virus that is not a normal consequence to playing a sport. If the University is communicating with its players that it is safe to play and it turns out that it was not safe to play, especially since other Conferences have determined it is not safe, then yes there is a liability risk. If there is a liability risk that the University profits from then the person placed in danger should get something for that risk that was assumed, I mean why is that not fair?

As long as the person isn’t coerced or forced against their will and they play knowing fully the risk of possibly contracting the virus then I don’t think they should be allowed to sue. They had the option to sit out and chose to play. At some level the player has to own responsibility if it was an optional choice.

 

[DarkAvenger]

They are being asked to accept additional risks, unanticipated when they signed on to play football, and are not receiving any additional consideration.

They do have the option to sit out if they deem the risk not worth it you know. Nobody has a gun to their heads so stop acting like they were drafted to Vietnam against their will. Again, I will say that as long as the players aren’t forced or coerced into playing and THEY THEMSELVES CHOOSE TO PLAY KNOWING THE RISK OF CONTRACTING THE VIRUS IF THEY DO THEN THEY HAVE TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY.

 

[RobertPellitt]

As long as the person isn’t coerced or forced against their will and they play knowing fully the risk of possibly contracting the virus then I don’t think they should be allowed to sue. They had the option to sit out and chose to play. At some level the player has to own responsibility if it was an optional choice.

You really just understand how the law works and it is hard for me to explain the nuances to you. If a person is relying on any entity to provide a safe environment, especially a governmental entity of higher education that makes millions of dollars from these athletic events, then yes you can and should be able to sue if they are unable to provide that safe environment. Your analogy would be that a person who works for a company should not expect the environment to be safe from harassment, safety concerns or be given a reasonable accommodation, because if that person doesn't like how I run my business, they can work somewhere else. That analogy does not work there and it should not work in the student-Athlete context either. You seem to be upset with people expressing appreciation for these students finding their voice and expressing their opinions, those of us that support that dialogue don't dislike the University of Tennessee, we appreciate the candor by which these kids are making there feelings known. There is nothing wrong with that. It's not a "cancel culture" to know your worth and demand that it be respected. I for one support our players in getting EVERYTHING they need! By doing so it is not an anti-UT campaign (I probably have more ties to the school than you) or a statement against playing the season.

They do have the option to sit out if they deem the risk not worth it you know. Nobody has a gun to their heads so stop acting like they were drafted to Vietnam against their will. Again, I will say that as long as the players aren’t forced or coerced into playing and THEY THEMSELVES CHOOSE TO PLAY KNOWING THE RISK OF CONTRACTING THE VIRUS IF THEY DO THEN THEY HAVE TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY.

Suggesting that players be allowed to express their feelings, especially ones that ensure their safety and be protected (which was the topic of this thread) at all cost is not analogous to the Vietnam War draft, but hey if hyperbole is your thing - saddle it up and ride it. Just don't expect for it to be persuasive. Good night, its been a real pleasure. Go Vols!

Think the crowd that ran what used to be Deadspin, for example.

There isn't some specific group that has a devious secret plot to destroy football. However, there is a group of people who have never really liked the aggressive, macho image of the game, for example, or how is frequently intertwines itself with patriotism and religion (Christianity in particular). There definitely is a chattering class of people out there who like taking shots at it on that basis.

Again, my point is there is nothing in your answer or the original post that actually demonstrates that this is a real thing. It is just another example of someone's intuition and belief trying to start a narrative based on facts. That has become way too common in this country where a generalized hunch is argued as a verified truth. Again, good night, I love the University of Tennessee and all of our Vols.

 

[GroverCleveland]

... why did Germany ban the swastika? Why did it remove all images of the Nazi Party? ....

The short answer is because Germany's Constitution and Basic Law does not have a protection for freedom of expression at the same level as the 1st Amendment in our Bill of Rights. It is why Americans can display Nazi (Soviet, Moaist, etc) memorabilia and Germans cannot.

And who died and made you King to decide what its "right" with regards to history and political questions? Secession was a very real question of the day and only the force of arms proved the Confederacy wrong. Another time, a different outcome, and we could find out secession is, indeed, a valid outcome.

In east Tennessee, only one county voted for secession on the first vote. After Lincoln called for volunteers to invade the southern States, the vote in east Tennessee shifted significantly overall with an additional four more counties voting essentially in favor of secession. Did east Tennessee suddenly decide slavery wasn't such a bad idea? No, a significant portion of the population believed states did have the right to leave the Union and the Federal government had no right to stop them.

The adage violence never solves anything is patently false. If one disagrees with that, I will refer you to the Carthaginian embassy, or maybe Imperial Germany's or our local CSA officials. If it gets bad enough, secession will be tested again.

 

[DarkAvenger]

You really just understand how the law works and it is hard for me to explain the nuances to you. If a person is relying on any entity to provide a safe environment, especially a governmental entity of higher education that makes millions of dollars from these athletic events, then yes you can and should be able to sue if they are unable to provide that safe environment. Your analogy would be that a person who works for a company should not expect the environment to be safe from harassment, safety concerns or be given a reasonable accommodation, because if that person doesn't like how I run my business, they can work somewhere else. That analogy does not work there and it should not work in the student-Athlete context either. You seem to be upset with people expressing appreciation for these students finding their voice and expressing their opinions, those of us that support that dialogue don't dislike the University of Tennessee, we appreciate the candor by which these kids are making there feelings known. There is nothing wrong with that. It's not a "cancel culture" to know your worth and demand that it be respected. I for one support our players in getting EVERYTHING they need! By doing so it is not an anti-UT campaign (I probably have more ties to the school than you) or a statement against playing the season.

I like they have a voice but I also believe that there can be a common middle ground without one side screwing over the other. There is a downside to getting paid for hazardous work, you better work or play bc now the university has more reasons to go after you if you were to take compensation then back out or not meet the agreed upon contract.

 

[Volfan76]

The PAC12 player group is now mad that the conference cancelled football and has reiterated its list of demands WHICH WERE ALREADY BEING MET BEFORE THEY DECIDED TO FORM THEIR GROUP. Now they want to form a players association. I get the sense these players are being taken for a ride by some lawyers

Entitlement society. This isn't the fault of lawyers. Lawyers do what lawyers do. This is a bunch punk kids that dont appreciate the opportunity they have been given. The majority of them are mediocre skill level players at best and don't have much to lose.