Recent Comments
It doesn't sound like he chucked anyone under the bus. It sounds like he has support from teammates. When a prominent public figure unnecessarily and publically spreads a lie, I think we should be grateful to those who reveal the truth. If a coach uses his players as part of a lie to make himself look better, that is the betrayal. I have no problem with those players then speaking up for themselves. I don't understand why all of the focus here is on criticizing the player. If we keep trying to focus on nitpicking the response instead of addressing the actual problem, we'll never make any progress. Let's stop complaining about how loud the fire alarm is and try to actually put out the flames instead.
What was political about this? It looks like we have another pot engaging in name-calling
A scholarship can probably be revoked for that form of protest, but it would also be problematic. I would counter your example with the fact that many people have gone on strike and kept their jobs. But I also wonder why we're comparing this situation to employment when they are student-athletes, not employees?
why only look at 3 years? if you do that, he also doesn't look like a very good coach
you forgot that feelings are now apparently more important than facts and logic
my guess is "screening" is temperature checks. if that's true, then any asymptomatic people (quite possible) would not be caught and could then spread it. so hopefully screening means testing and they just were inconsistent or mistaken with their terms
i'm not sure if people can't see sense or just refuse to. maybe they just don't know/care about anyone in those groups and they are too selfish to care if it doesn't affect them? i want to give them the benefit of the doubt but many people seem to be refusing it.
Just because your demographic isn't at elevated risk for death from covid-19 doesn't mean that your actions can't affect the lives of those who are at greater risk. scenario 1: everyone under 60 w/o pre-existing conditions goes back to normal tomorrow, everyone else continues sheltering in place scenario 2: everyone continues doing what we're doing now many more people die under scenario 1 than under scenario 2. regardless of your personal risk, what you choose to do has a significant impact on the lives of others. and this doesn't even get to the fact that there are still unknowns about the disease, some athletes have underlying conditions that elevate their risk, there's more of a spectrum of outcomes than just the false, implied binary of 'dead' or 'unaffected,' etc. so that's just some of what appears to be lacking from the understanding presented above.
pathetic to keep trying the same nonsense. everytime you're confronted with an argument that you don't like you get offended and start resorting to ad hominems instead of real discourse. then i call you out, then you think it's clever to just accuse me of doing what you're doing. it would be less sad if you were trying to troll. i don't think you're as dumb as you 'argue,' but that just makes it all the more tragic when you are capable of seeing but won't.
well you aren't an expert and clearly don't understand the situation, so let's listen to people who are a bit better informed.
there's plenty of information that is neither widely publically available nor hidden. do you have access to a detailed budget and financial data for every athletic department? Do you have access to all of the analysis and advice of the medical and epidemiological experts that have worked with them? if someone keeps ignoring what is written should i assume they can't read? most of the the decision-makers know that this is a lot more complicated than 'you either have it or you don't', which isn't even a sensible way to look at this. you can stay in denial, but it doesn't change reality.
aw, no real argument so you resort to childish babble. sorry your feelings were hurt
not as stupid as what you keep replying to me. i will keep doing my part to help my fellow humans.
it shouldn't make a difference based on what? feelings? since they have access to more info than us, maybe they're actually using that info.
only online amateurs would draw conclusions from single data points. let's listen to people who know what they're doing.
/s What a liberal snowflake com-socialist anti-american faker! everyone knows you just need an off-label medicine (that actually increases your risk of death) or to take bleach for this thing that is a hoax that has already gone away! /s
/s What a liberal snowflake com-socialist anti-american faker! everyone knows you just need an off-label medicine (that actually increases your risk of death) or to take bleach for this thing that is a hoax that has already gone away! /s
just confirming that you don't know what you're talking about
What a horrible time to get your first AD job.
Well since he has access to more info about their situation than you or I do, he may have any number of reasons. It could be data about projected conditions in the near future or in the extended future. It could be information about the finances at the university. It could be information about legal liability. It could be information about his conference or other teams in his conference. It could be information about staff or employees at the program or university. Enough?
lol "the facts," very specific. I doubt that universities are making these decisions based solely on national data. There is still a lot that no one knows. There is also a lot of information that these types of decision-makers have access to that we do not. My comment was about the reality that neither of us, nor any other random internet commenters, have access to enough relevant information to accurately judge this decision.
You've just argued my point. If it's implied that the SEC is the top and so top of the SEC is the top of the world, then this headline is as misleading as I said it is. Because the current top recruiting class is not in the SEC.