That's fine to not push for it. But you being irrational is no reason to punish 18-22 year old athletes.
Printable View
The nice thing about all this discussion is that we will have a chance to go back and look at athletes who got to play vs those that didn't.
It is irrational to believe that our university should give the players every opportunity to not play if they object to it. It is irrational to believe that the players should have 100% a clear choice whether to play or not. It is irrational to not minimize the risk anyone who is outside their bubble is under.
1. Players get a free choice to either play or don't, maintaining all perks or equal to what they would receive as a player.
2. The AD office to take every single precaution that can be taken to minimize the players ongoing risk day to day during the season.
That is pretty much all I would need to get behind it. None of that is irrational. Acknowledging and not minimizing the risk that humans have to this virus is the irrational part, by definition.
What is weird is that you don't understand, whether they play or not, they still have a scholarship to attend classes and do all the things they would normally do as a student. Just no football. Kylin was talking as if they cancelled football he would be sitting his ass in Columbus every day. Shit man, he still has class and still can stay at his apartment in Starkville and chill. It's not a choice between football and selling shit on street corners.
Now there is a pandemic that needs solving.
Also for all the no football due to safety concerns, just listen to that statement. Athletes are hurt for life and some can even die playing football due to football so this not playing so no one ever gets damaged is a joke.
I got news for some one of out one persons born dies from something.
There is no safe bubble in this world but there is a safe bubble in the other world - trust in Jesus now while you can.
Man, the two of you posting on the same account really need to get separate accounts. It's not like they charge. The one that says he just wants the players to have a choice to play or not and not lose any benefits or perks and doesn't realize that was always going to be the case could be "Lord McBuckiethead1" and the one that does realize they aren't going to be losing their perks but for some reason accuses other people of not understanding that could be "Lord McBuckethead2".
Or maybe y'all could just come up with two completely new user names and cut out some of the confusion. But y'all posting on the same account two minutes apart from each other claiming opposite things is unnecessarily confusing.
But yes, McBuckethead2, you are correct that they won't have to sell shit on the corners if they opt out or if they aren't even given the choice to play. But that's irrelevant to the question of whether they should be denied even the opportunity to play because other people might feel bad if something bad happens in a pandemic. But McBuckethead1, despite not realizing that the players aren't being coerced into playing by threatening their scholarships if they opt to sit out, is correct that it shoudl just be their decision once they are informed of the risk and the procedures that will be put in place to try to minimize the risk to the extent possible.
This is the best talk I’ve seen on the subject yet...
https://youtu.be/6RDffMCAujg