2020 Nebraska - An Independent Season?

NM11046 said:
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 coache'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.
Click to expand...


I think you are missing the point. I'm not saying players are "viginic" but they do curb their extra-curricular activities during the season. Any person that either played college sports or was friends with college athletes knows this. Yes, parties still occur during the season but on teams with a unified purpose they are much much less frequent. However, those activities are not going to be curbed now with no season.

I genuinely disagree with the premise that student-athletes are safer not playing than they would be playing. The strict rules and structure that have been implemented and would have been implemented going forward created the safest environment for those players. With no season, coaches and medical staff have even less control over players and their lecturing carries less weight with no season. 

 
Undone said:
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!
Click to expand...
And all of OSU and Michigan’s five stars will leave! #brightside #3starsaremybreadandbutter

 
ColoradoHusk said:
If NU is able to play some games this fall, it will either look very smart (with no or few COVID cases) or look very dumb (with a COVID outbreak and mass illnesses).
Click to expand...


If other conferences play football and NU also plays football then they will look very smart.  Nebraska is committed to testing and if both teams go in clean then they will come out clean.

 
bugeater17 said:
I think you are missing the point. I'm not saying players are "viginic" but they do curb their extra-curricular activities during the season. Any person that either played college sports or was friends with college athletes knows this. Yes, parties still occur during the season but on teams with a unified purpose they are much much less frequent. However, those activities are not going to be curbed now with no season.

I genuinely disagree with the premise that student-athletes are safer not playing than they would be playing. The strict rules and structure that have been implemented and would have been implemented going forward created the safest environment for those players. With no season, coaches and medical staff have even less control over players and their lecturing carries less weight with no season. 
Click to expand...


I do think this is all logical. It's not, like, something we could probably objectively prove - but the argument makes a lot of sense.

 
krc1995 said:
The interesting thing is how the MLB publishes the test results every week, with names. Isn’t there some hippa violations in that? I do t think colleges could do that. 
Click to expand...


MLB must have gotten approval from the players association in order to release results with names.  Colleges wouldn't be able to do that.

 
HIPAA (not hippa or hippo) prevents medical professionals from sharing medical information without the patient's knowledge.

It has nothing to do with employers or athletic departments. Those are bound by general privacy policies or laws, depending on the jurisdiction.

 
bugeater17 said:
I think you are missing the point. I'm not saying players are "viginic" but they do curb their extra-curricular activities during the season. Any person that either played college sports or was friends with college athletes knows this. Yes, parties still occur during the season but on teams with a unified purpose they are much much less frequent. However, those activities are not going to be curbed now with no season.

I genuinely disagree with the premise that student-athletes are safer not playing than they would be playing. The strict rules and structure that have been implemented and would have been implemented going forward created the safest environment for those players. With no season, coaches and medical staff have even less control over players and their lecturing carries less weight with no season. 
Click to expand...
I don't think I'm missing your point - I know that athletes are limited in their social life during the season, my point is that even if they curb their extra-curricular activities they are still exposed.  They associate with people who are not on the team.  They do not live in an isolated bubble.  Even if our players are 100% compliant they still get exposed, and we don't control those they take the field with at all.

A man in a classroom with a mask on surrounded by others wearing masks and breathing normally is safer than a man on a football field blocking a competitor, touching them, transferring sweat, spit, etc.  

If a sclolarship is based on staying in shape, at an appropriate weight, to go to class, get a min grades etc then staying safe and unexposed can easily be added to that list of criteria.  The risk of these young men having long term complications from this disease is a risk that nobody who calls themself a fan should want to risk.  I hate that the season is off, but our state would never recover if a player, any player dies of the virus or complications from it.  

 
NM11046 said:
I don't think I'm missing your point - I know that athletes are limited in their social life during the season, my point is that even if they curb their extra-curricular activities they are still exposed.  They associate with people who are not on the team.  They do not live in an isolated bubble.  Even if our players are 100% compliant they still get exposed, and we don't control those they take the field with at all.

A man in a classroom with a mask on surrounded by others wearing masks and breathing normally is safer than a man on a football field blocking a competitor, touching them, transferring sweat, spit, etc.  

If a sclolarship is based on staying in shape, at an appropriate weight, to go to class, get a min grades etc then staying safe and unexposed can easily be added to that list of criteria.  The risk of these young men having long term complications from this disease is a risk that nobody who calls themself a fan should want to risk.  I hate that the season is off, but our state would never recover if a player, any player dies of the virus or complications from it.  
Click to expand...


How does having a season affect any of this?? Canceling/postponing the season does nothing to guarantee players won't contract or die from the virus. It boils down to what is best for the student-athletes. If you truly believe players are safer not playing, then I get it. We just disagree. I think players are safer with the stricter protocols, testing, and unified goal of a season in place to continue to engage in safer practices. But to resort to an emotional argument/position reveals the true weakness of your position.

 
bugeater17 said:
How does having a season affect any of this?? Canceling/postponing the season does nothing to guarantee players won't contract or die from the virus. It boils down to what is best for the student-athletes. If you truly believe players are safer not playing, then I get it. We just disagree. I think players are safer with the stricter protocols, testing, and unified goal of a season in place to continue to engage in safer practices. But to resort to an emotional argument/position reveals the true weakness of your position.
Click to expand...
Dude.

 
Part of this is related to the optics of what we've been fed from university and educational leaders for several months i.e. "if there are no students on campus, then there won't be football."

As a result, a lot of people reasonably assumed that students on campus would mean football. Now we're being told at the last minute that students can be on campus, but no football. It's sort of a confusing situation.

Further, having students on campus is going to come with its own host of coronavirus problems, and some of the reasons they're saying football can't take place seem like they would apply to not having students on campus then, either. I know the situations aren't 1:1 but there are some odd overlaps happening.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NM11046 said:
I hate that the season is off, but our state would never recover if a player, any player dies of the virus or complications from it.  
Click to expand...


I am not being disingenuous with this question: I wonder, then, if we should also feel some kind of complicit guilt in the potentially hundreds of former players with some degree of permanent CTE damage? And in all seriousness, maybe we really do?

And maybe players will rise up and take matters into their own hands as a result of some of these questions finally being asked on a broader scale. Because really, they put in a lot of work for our entertainment for arguably not a whole lot to show for it (most of them, anyway).

The thing about the concept of "safety" is that it's not exactly an extremely easy thing to navigate. 

 
Back
Top