2020 Nebraska - An Independent Season?

knapplc said:
Well. Maybe not.

The Big Ten would have to give any team permission to play outside the structure of the conference.
Click to expand...


Seems like our lawyers either disagree with the interpretation, are stringing Frost/Moos along, or Frost was just bluffing to try and save the Big Ten season. Also how does non-conference work under that interpretation? We play 3 games a year outside of the conference, so if the Big Ten cancels this season can we keep those 3? Or are the non-conference games individually approved and the Big Ten would deny them?

 
knapplc said:
Canceling football means universities won't be responsible for that travel. It means they won't be liable.

This whole thing is liability mitigation. 
Click to expand...
If it’s liability mitigation then I guess we  have Congress to blame for not passing the Covid-19 liability legislation.  

 
knapplc said:
Canceling football means universities won't be responsible for that travel. It means they won't be liable.

This whole thing is liability mitigation. 
Click to expand...
I get the concept; however, if you are going to allow workouts, meetings, and team activities you are just as "liable" as if there is a season and travel. Similarly, liability for the University doesn't go away if you are going to continue to conduct in person classes or have students on campus. 

 
bugeater17 said:
I get the concept; however, if you are going to allow workouts, meetings, and team activities you are just as "liable" as if there is a season and travel. Similarly, liability for the University doesn't go away if you are going to continue to conduct in person classes or have students on campus. 
Click to expand...


There are degrees of liability. Clearly they're OK with what they've chosen, and not OK with what they've decided not to do.

 
NM11046 said:
How can you guys say that?  Any contact is a possible infection - do they live in dorms?  Do they eat?  Do they go to in person classes?  Order pizzas?  Visit parents?  Have girl/boyfriends?

Acting like they're protected because they are part of the team is pretty naiive.  
Click to expand...


So you agree that whether or not there is a season players can still contract the virus and by cancelling the season it will not mitigate the chances of contracting?

 
bugeater17 said:
So you agree that whether or not there is a season players can still contract the virus and by cancelling the season it will not mitigate the chances of contracting?
Click to expand...
Yes I'll agree to that.

So you will then agree that should said player contract covid (however it is contracted) that those that he lifts with, spots for, runs with, eats next to, trains with, sleeps with, high fives with, yells at, blocks against, runs stairs with, runs by, throws a football too, rides an elevator with are at increased risk of also contracting the virus?  Especially when we know it is passed via respiratory droplets - athletics are not a safe place to be, and high impact, high touch, close quartered athletic endeavors are really increasing risk.  Unneccessarily.

If baseball players are passing it around what do you think happens on a football field?

I am completely bummed about this and will miss my football, but this is the right decision.  

 
bugeater17 said:
I get the concept; however, if you are going to allow workouts, meetings, and team activities you are just as "liable" as if there is a season and travel. Similarly, liability for the University doesn't go away if you are going to continue to conduct in person classes or have students on campus. 
Click to expand...


I assume these will also be curbed more in the next few weeks. Right now it's pretty low risk because most students aren't back. They'll maybe let schools keep practicing, this would be the 'Spring Ball' for the next season. But the conference will step out since the season is postponed, and the individual schools will eventually limit those themselves I would think.

 
knapplc said:
When the other conferences cancel their seasons, are you going to say the same about them?
Click to expand...
Yep... when you're the first of the Power 5 to cancel,  then you're a joke of a conference.  

The Pac just cancelled also but waited for the B1G to do it first.  The Big 12 actually moved games up to start football earlier. The SEC is looking to do the same. 

 
NM11046 said:
Yes I'll agree to that.

So you will then agree that should said player contract covid (however it is contracted) that those that he lifts with, spots for, runs with, eats next to, trains with, sleeps with, high fives with, yells at, blocks against, runs stairs with, runs by, throws a football too, rides an elevator with are at increased risk of also contracting the virus?  Especially when we know it is passed via respiratory droplets - athletics are not a safe place to be, and high impact, high touch, close quartered athletic endeavors are really increasing risk.  Unneccessarily.

If baseball players are passing it around what do you think happens on a football field?

I am completely bummed about this and will miss my football, but this is the right decision.  
Click to expand...


The difference is based on the premise that student-athletes participating in a fall sport will curb extra-curricular activities to limit exposure to the illness than they would have otherwise engaged in with no season. Similarly, cancelling fall sports is not going to prevent student-athletes from lifting, spotting, running, eating, training, and etc. from occurring - they are still going to do all those things but in a less safe environment. Put simply, student-athletes are going to engage in more dangerous activities without the structure, incentive of a season, and rules implemented by the team (for fear of letting down their brothers and canceling a season). By canceling the season you are actually putting those student-athletes more at risk. 

 
bugeater17 said:
The difference is based on the premise that student-athletes participating in a fall sport will curb extra-curricular activities to limit exposure to the illness than they would have otherwise engaged in with no season. Similarly, cancelling fall sports is not going to prevent student-athletes from lifting, spotting, running, eating, training, and etc. from occurring - they are still going to do all those things but in a less safe environment. Put simply, student-athletes are going to engage in more dangerous activities without the structure, incentive of a season, and rules implemented by the team (for fear of letting down their brothers and canceling a season). By canceling the season you are actually putting those student-athletes more at risk. 
Click to expand...
no.

edit:  they're still  members of a team, the expectations are still high, for protecting themselves, limiting risk etc.Testing is still happening I assume, as they'll still eat at training table etc.  

Let's say that our athletes stay 100% virginic (which is not going to happen) and then they go to Iowa where one jacka$$ decides to go visit grandma on an off week, then he lines up against us.  Or a head coach's wife who is a school teacher brings it home and then he shakes hands with the ref.  Or the ref who travels from last week's game in Ann Arbor to Lincoln on an airplane seated next to someone.  It's not just our guys we have to worry about.  And while Frost may run a tight ship (which is debatable based on the past year of arrests/charges and incidents) these are kids who will not follow all the rules.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NM11046 said:
Yes I'll agree to that.

So you will then agree that should said player contract covid (however it is contracted) that those that he lifts with, spots for, runs with, eats next to, trains with, sleeps with, high fives with, yells at, blocks against, runs stairs with, runs by, throws a football too, rides an elevator with are at increased risk of also contracting the virus?  Especially when we know it is passed via respiratory droplets - athletics are not a safe place to be, and high impact, high touch, close quartered athletic endeavors are really increasing risk.  Unneccessarily.

If baseball players are passing it around what do you think happens on a football field?

I am completely bummed about this and will miss my football, but this is the right decision.  
Click to expand...
Not one baseball player has contracted Covid from playing baseball. 
 

they got it at the strip joints. 

bugeater17 said:
The difference is based on the premise that student-athletes participating in a fall sport will curb extra-curricular activities to limit exposure to the illness than they would have otherwise engaged in with no season. Similarly, cancelling fall sports is not going to prevent student-athletes from lifting, spotting, running, eating, training, and etc. from occurring - they are still going to do all those things but in a less safe environment. Put simply, student-athletes are going to engage in more dangerous activities without the structure, incentive of a season, and rules implemented by the team (for fear of letting down their brothers and canceling a season). By canceling the season you are actually putting those student-athletes more at risk. 
Click to expand...
Plus no incentive to be extra good. 

 
I don't think it can realistically happen.

But if it could, playing maybe even 6-8 games when the majority of other programs didn't play could give our team a big leg up.

It's almost hilarious to think about how eligibility would all stack up there. But it would be awesome to go into the (hypothetical) 2021 season with more experience and some extra tuning that other programs in the B1G didn't get to have!

 
Back
Top