Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

2020 College football thread - It's the offseason, yo.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

After paying his dues, my son gets to finally officially cover Gator football. @alligatorSports: Football writer @Bfarrell727 breaks down DC Todd Grantham's two-pronged defensive strategy and how

There is also great optimism outside Michigan that the deal gets wrapped up soon. 

God Dabo is loathsome. Pour it on. 

@Brett_McMurphy: More news: Mountain West  cancels fall football season because of COVID player health & safety concerns, sources told @Stadium. League will consider playing in spring. MW & MAC are 1st two FBS leagues opting not to play, bringing total to 26 FBS programs https://watchstadium.com/sources-mountain-west-cancels-fall-football-season-08-10-2020

 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jplvr said:

Alabama sororities started coming back to campus last Monday, but people are worried about athletes who have been in quite a bubble since July and being tested regularly, and any time they feel like it.

This is beyond absurd at this point. If anyone wants to opt out of playing, there should be no repercussions, but everyone who wants to play should be allowed. Soccer has been going for months. Basketball... and hockey for Christ sakes... the only big problem I know of is the issue with the Marlins, and I know it was at least rumored a lot of the team got it from a strip club.

As Nick Saban said in his release today: the players are more likely to get it on campus than on the football field, so why aren't we talking about playing football without in person classes?

Seems like Nick Saban made an excellent argument for getting rid of college football and concentrating those resources on making sure the students who are using college to learn are tested and safe. Can’t imagine as a student it’s feel too great to hear the football coach straight out say the college is doing more to keep football players safe than students.

And let’s not forget that colleges still have to comply with Title IX. So if they do all of this to keep football alive, they have to offer the same testing and protection to women’s sports as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, GroveDiesel said:

Seems like Nick Saban made an excellent argument for getting rid of college football and concentrating those resources on making sure the students who are using college to learn are tested and safe. Can’t imagine as a student it’s feel too great to hear the football coach straight out say the college is doing more to keep football players safe than students.

And let’s not forget that colleges still have to comply with Title IX. So if they do all of this to keep football alive, they have to offer the same testing and protection to women’s sports as well.

I think it’s about the controlled schedule outside of class for athletes, which is 99% of their day.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Did Lawrence really say you're more apt to get this virus at home than on campus/football field?  Gotta say, "Um...you're doing it wrong if that's the case".  

This has been a talking point on some sports talk today.  That an even half ### bubble will protect them better than being at home.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, GroveDiesel said:

Seems like Nick Saban made an excellent argument for getting rid of college football and concentrating those resources on making sure the students who are using college to learn are tested and safe. Can’t imagine as a student it’s feel too great to hear the football coach straight out say the college is doing more to keep football players safe than students.

And let’s not forget that colleges still have to comply with Title IX. So if they do all of this to keep football alive, they have to offer the same testing and protection to women’s sports as well.

I haven't seen this completely documented anywhere.  A legal analyst said as long as there is protection of scholarships it's going to be damn near impossible to force a school to play volleyball, or whatever on account that the football team is playing.  Schools would probably roll the dice on that and let the ACLU make the argument that we should be putting women in harm's way.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, culdeus said:

This has been a talking point on some sports talk today.  That an even half ### bubble will protect them better than being at home.

Frost from Nebraska talks about "the dangers (for athletes) of not being around the program" or some such.  Sooooo... are they kicking athletes out of the football program this fall if the school plays no games?  Could the school not continue the monitoring/accountability that would supposedly keep these athletes "safer" during the season, even if they don't play games?  Why is it this notion of, "we have to play, or the athletes will all go out and get sick"?  Sort of telling if you ask me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Osaurus said:

This was gonna be the year Wyoming was going all the way :kicksrock:

I completely understand the decision, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't selfishly a bit sad about losing the season.  Buffalo is coming off of its first ever bowl win and generally projected as the favorite in the conference, and has a legit NFL prospect who's probably the second most-highly-touted player in program history after Khalil Mack.  These years where it all comes together don't come along often for small programs without a long-standing football pedigree.  It doesn't mean much to most people, but it means something to me.  It's a shame it has to end like this.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steve Tasker said:

I completely understand the decision, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't selfishly a bit sad about losing the season.  Buffalo is coming off of its first ever bowl win and generally projected as the favorite in the conference, and has a legit NFL prospect who's probably the second most-highly-touted player in program history after Khalil Mack.  These years where it all comes together don't come along often for small programs without a long-standing football pedigree.  It doesn't mean much to most people, but it means something to me.  It's a shame it has to end like this.

I understand completely. My hometown team is East Tennessee State, who had an excellent chance to make the Big Dance in March, possibly even as an at-large, before the NCAA abandoned the season. A real shame for those kids. Now the coach has left for an ACC job and taken his guys with him. Back to square one.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, culdeus said:

Are we concerned about offensive line being at like 35-40 BMI and often black?

This just doesn't seem like the best idea. 

Wat?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, culdeus said:

Are we concerned about offensive line being at like 35-40 BMI and often black?

This just doesn't seem like the best idea. 

You are probably seeing the same stories I am about this affecting minorities in greater numbers. I don't think it's really minorities, I think it's more the case that it hurts people who have less access to good nutrition and health care, ie. poorer people. We just tend to say minorities when we mean poor people since they tend to be poorer, unfortunately. I don't think the virus really is worse based on skin color. 

Having said that, regardless of their home life, most college football players are getting very good nutrition, exercise and health care as a member of a college football team. That's why you see some college coaches saying that their athletes are in better hands facing the disease at college on the team than they are at home. That's likely very true. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, The Commish said:

Did Lawrence really say you're more apt to get this virus at home than on campus/football field?  Gotta say, "Um...you're doing it wrong if that's the case".  

He didn't say staying at home and isolating.  He said staying at home and going about normal activities like going to restaurants, stores, parties (as kids that age will do), vacations.  The players are isolated to a degree in that they aren't going out to parties or out to eat together.  They work out together and the get tested often.  

He also said that while players are on campus they are in the care of school sponsored medical facilities and staff.  If they stay at home and get sick or injured, perhaps the parents would be responsible for health care bills, etc.  This is the context of his comments.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Honus said:

I understand completely. My hometown team is East Tennessee State, who had an excellent chance to make the Big Dance in March, possibly even as an at-large, before the NCAA abandoned the season. A real shame for those kids. Now the coach has left for an ACC job and taken his guys with him. Back to square one.

I'm actually looking forward to following their progress this year - one of our all-time great players, with his jersey hanging in the rafters, Turner Battle just joined as an assistant.  He's been an assistant here, Chattanooga, and has most recently been at UAB for like 6-7 years.  He's perennially mentioned as a possible future head coaching candidate.  Hoping they can keep your momentum going.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Jayrok said:

He didn't say staying at home and isolating.  He said staying at home and going about normal activities like going to restaurants, stores, parties (as kids that age will do), vacations.  The players are isolated to a degree in that they aren't going out to parties or out to eat together.  They work out together and the get tested often.  

He also said that while players are on campus they are in the care of school sponsored medical facilities and staff.  If they stay at home and get sick or injured, perhaps the parents would be responsible for health care bills, etc.  This is the context of his comments.  

So, basically he is saying the athletes are irresponsible and can't be trusted to to the right thing, in the absence of close supervision?

 

Also - why are we suddenly worried about college-aged athletes not being safe, but are not worried about college-aged non-athletes?  (Or high-school aged kids?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, The Gator said:

So, basically he is saying the athletes are irresponsible and can't be trusted to to the right thing, in the absence of close supervision?

 

Also - why are we suddenly worried about college-aged athletes not being safe, but are not worried about college-aged non-athletes?  (Or high-school aged kids?)

who said no one is worried about high school or college aged non-athletes?  This conversation is about college football athletes.  High school athletes and non-athletes alike are being discussed as well in terms of whether or not they should be attending school (not eLearning).  But that is another topic. 

And he isn't saying athletes are irresponsible and can't be trusted.  Just that being structured as a team can be better than being a bunch of individuals where some may not be as careful as others.  Not saying all of them will go wild.  Maybe none of them will, but there may be temptation to go places where they may not take all the safety precautions that they would if they stay on campus as a team.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jayrok said:

who said no one is worried about high school or college aged non-athletes?  This conversation is about college football athletes.  High school athletes and non-athletes alike are being discussed as well in terms of whether or not they should be attending school (not eLearning).  But that is another topic. 

And he isn't saying athletes are irresponsible and can't be trusted.  Just that being structured as a team can be better than being a bunch of individuals where some may not be as careful as others.  Not saying all of them will go wild.  Maybe none of them will, but there may be temptation to go places where they may not take all the safety precautions that they would if they stay on campus as a team.  

That is exactly what he is saying - because the "safest" place would be at home - away from the public.

He is saying they need the structure as it is safer - the implication being without structure, they can't be trusted to do the right thing.

 

But, lets be honest, college athletes want to play - because that is what they love to do.  Elite college athletes want to play to open up opportunities at the professional level.  None of this is about being "safe".

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jayrok said:

He didn't say staying at home and isolating.  He said staying at home and going about normal activities like going to restaurants, stores, parties (as kids that age will do), vacations.  The players are isolated to a degree in that they aren't going out to parties or out to eat together.  They work out together and the get tested often.  

He also said that while players are on campus they are in the care of school sponsored medical facilities and staff.  If they stay at home and get sick or injured, perhaps the parents would be responsible for health care bills, etc.  This is the context of his comments.  

Thanks...make a bit more sense, but there seems to be conflation of a lot of different things even in that thought process.  Is Clemson saying that everyone is going to have to be remote at their house?  If so, then he's essentially saying "If I stay on campus they will make me do the right thing I wouldn't do while I was at home"...that becomes a personal choice and has really nothing to do with if football stays green or not.  If Clemson is making everyone go home, then the medical angle makes a little sense but we'd have to understand the school policy.  It sounds like Clemson has a policy of "if you get hurt while not under our supervision, you're on your own"...that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  I've never heard of that.  Think of all the injuries kids have had over the years (getting on motorcycles and breaking arms, severely twisted ankles playing bball in the offseason at home etc)....they all get treatment by the staff and rehab (that I've seen anyway).

Sorry for the ramble....just trying to piece this all together based on what I thought I heard...so far it comes across as a dude who just wants to play and is throwing out there all kinds of stuff that isn't really well thought out.

Edited by The Commish
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, The Gator said:

Elite college athletes want to play to open up opportunities at the professional level.  None of this is about being "safe".

Trevor Lawrence doesn't have to play another down to open up opportunities at the pro level.  He's a top 3 pick regardless if this season is played or not.  

Of course he wants to play, I believe all of them want to play.  And I believe all of them are concerned about safety.  They know what they're doing day to day and if they feel like it is safer than leaving kids to their own, then why should we rip them for their opinion?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jayrok said:

Trevor Lawrence doesn't have to play another down to open up opportunities at the pro level.  He's a top 3 pick regardless if this season is played or not.  

In all reality in terms purely about what's best for his future, this is an absolute best case scenario for Lawrence.  He avoids any risk of major injury and is the locked in 1.01 pick next year.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

In all reality in terms purely about what's best for his future, this is an absolute best case scenario for Lawrence.  He avoids any risk of major injury and is the locked in 1.01 pick next year.

Agreed.  He's risking injury playing this fall.  If they move to spring there's no way he'll play.  He'll prepare for the draft.  I'm sure that's another reason why he's lobbying to play this fall.  He probably feels he has unfinished business or something with the way last season ended.  

But yeah, for his future livelihood, he is better off not playing anymore college football.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jayrok said:

And he isn't saying athletes are irresponsible and can't be trusted.  Just that being structured as a team can be better than being a bunch of individuals where some may not be as careful as others.  Not saying all of them will go wild.  Maybe none of them will, but there may be temptation to go places where they may not take all the safety precautions that they would if they stay on campus as a team.  

The St. Louis Cardinals, Miami Marlins, as well as Mike Clevinger and Zach Plesac of the Indians would like a word.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

In all reality in terms purely about what's best for his future, this is an absolute best case scenario for Lawrence.  He avoids any risk of major injury and is the locked in 1.01 pick next year.

Agreed. It’s like what Jadeveon Clowney did, but It was COVID and not his ego. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2020 at 7:37 AM, Capella said:

The decision is being made by the school presidents and certainly very high paid lawyers. I’ll be very very surprised if they factor in player sentiment but maybe? It’s an emotional attachment for very many. I just think the overwhelming liability possibilities won’t allow them to go forward. 

Players who don't want to play should be able to opt out without repercussions. What's the problem then? Have the ones who play sign waivers, and then get on with it.

I'm pretty much done worrying about this virus. I've lost weight, and I'm the healthiest I've been in a decade. Keep hiding in bunkers, cancel everything you have going, and I'm going to get on with my life... while wearing a Buff in stores, of course. This has gone on way, way too long. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, culdeus said:

I haven't seen this completely documented anywhere.  A legal analyst said as long as there is protection of scholarships it's going to be damn near impossible to force a school to play volleyball, or whatever on account that the football team is playing.  Schools would probably roll the dice on that and let the ACLU make the argument that we should be putting women in harm's way.

And besides, who thinks they'd have a sport going if they weren't also testing those players like football players? People just want to let this virus rule every part of their lives going forward, or at least as long as it suits their purposes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jplvr said:

Players who don't want to play should be able to opt out without repercussions. What's the problem then? Have the ones who play sign waivers, and then get on with it.

 

They’re are litany of problems with having unpaid teenagers or 20 year olds sign away liability protection without legal counsel present for a disease nobody knows anything about. Are you kidding? 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Capella said:

They’re are litany of problems with having unpaid teenagers or 20 year olds sign away liability protection without legal counsel present for a disease nobody knows anything about. Are you kidding? 

Are you kidding? They are adults, and allowed to judge for themselves. Go look around and see how many players want to play. They worked hard to get ready, and a bunch of suits are trying to keep them from something they want to do. Keep the most of the fans at home, but let the young, healthy players make decisions on their own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2020/08/11/Colleges/ACC.aspx

Quote

The ACC still is planning to play football in '20, and a Duke doctor who is advising the conference believes it can be done safely. Dr. Cameron Wolfe, a Duke infectious disease specialist who chairs the ACC’s medical advisory team, confidently said he expects the conference to continue its steady march toward a football season. While the unpredictable coronavirus poses a risk, Wolfe said doctors have learned enough over the last six months to understand how to manage that risk. “We believe we can mitigate it down to a level that makes everyone safe,” Wolfe told THE DAILY exclusively. “Can we safely have two teams meet on the field? I would say yes. Will it be tough? Yes. Will it be expensive and hard and lots of work? For sure. But I do believe you can sufficiently mitigate the risk of bringing COVID onto the football field or into the training room at a level that’s no different than living as a student on campus.”

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jplvr said:

Are you kidding? They are adults, and allowed to judge for themselves. Go look around and see how many players want to play. They worked hard to get ready, and a bunch of suits are trying to keep them from something they want to do. Keep the most of the fans at home, but let the young, healthy players make decisions on their own.

I don’t know what to tell you man. There’s no way that is going to happen. If they can play safely then play but powerful schools asking players who might not understand the risk or want to sign it away just because they want to chase their nfl dreams is flat out evil.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Capella said:

I don’t know what to tell you man. There’s no way that is going to happen. If they can play safely then play but powerful schools asking players who might not understand the risk or want to sign it away just because they want to chase their nfl dreams is flat out evil.  

Evil? I think you've lost it. Evil? Good lord. Alabama said in their press release yesterday they have epidemiologists educate players on a regular basis of the risks and mitigation procedures. 

Take a gander at the thoughts from the Duke guy above, but he's just a Dr. who specializes on this subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jplvr said:

Evil? I think you've lost it. Evil? Good lord. Alabama said in their press release yesterday they have epidemiologists educate players on a regular basis of the risks and mitigation procedures. 

Take a gander at the thoughts from the Duke guy above, but he's just a Dr. who specializes on this subject.

You’re either not reading what I said or not comprehending it. Having them play can be safe. Having them sign a waiver is insane. I don’t know how else to clarify this to you. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Capella said:

To be clear I very much want them to play if it’s safe. Having them sign off on liability waivers because you have a dangling carrot over their head is Mr. Burns level of evil. 

I said "if they want to play." I've said twice no one should face any repercussions if they don't want to play. Full ride, access to facilities... hell, even let them practice or run drills to stay sharp, if that's the level of participation they want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What would they even be waiving?  Who has the leverage here?  I think the players have the leverage, and should be given concessions like a full ride no matter what happens first with whatever is required to deal with red-shirts and all that.  

Waiving liability is silly, I doubt anyone approaches any player for such a thing.  whether they want to play or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jplvr said:

I said "if they want to play." I've said twice no one should face any repercussions if they don't want to play. Full ride, access to facilities... hell, even let them practice or run drills to stay sharp, if that's the level of participation they want.

Still a major difference between what you are writing and a liability waiver. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, culdeus said:

What would they even be waiving?  Who has the leverage here?  I think the players have the leverage, and should be given concessions like a full ride no matter what happens first with whatever is required to deal with red-shirts and all that.  

Waiving liability is silly, I doubt anyone approaches any player for such a thing.  whether they want to play or not.

People are saying the schools are scared to play over liability of someone catching the virus. That would be the waiver. It's not like I'm the only one discussing this, so calling me or the idea evil, or even saying it's not on the table, is a little confusing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jplvr said:

People are saying the schools are scared to play over liability of someone catching the virus. That would be the waiver. It's not like I'm the only one discussing this, so calling me or the idea evil, or even saying it's not on the table, is a little confusing.

It's not on the table. The NCAA has already said no school can ask the players to sign such waivers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Capella said:

Still a major difference between what you are writing and a liability waiver. 

What exactly do you think I'm talking about here? I'm saying they would be signing a waiver of the school's liability in a player catching the virus because they played football. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RUSF18 said:

It's not on the table. The NCAA has already said no school can ask the players to sign such waivers. 

Well, there it is. Thanks.

Edit: Actually Emmert just said he was opposed to it.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/07/22/ncaa-president-mark-emmert-inappropriate-for-schools-to-ask-players-to-sign-covid-19-waivers/

 

But hey, it's evil to suggest it on a message board, Cappy.

Edited by jplvr
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jplvr said:

People are saying the schools are scared to play over liability of someone catching the virus. That would be the waiver. It's not like I'm the only one discussing this, so calling me or the idea evil, or even saying it's not on the table, is a little confusing.

I don't think this is on the table at all.  Based on my understanding.  At least a general "if you catch the virus you can't sue us" waiver.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jplvr said:

Well, there it is. Thanks.

Edit: Actually Emmert just said he was opposed to it.

From Gabe Feldman (@SportsLawGuy): NCAA Board of Governors added this requirement on 8/5/20 for fall sports. "Member schools may not require student-athletes to waive their legal rights regarding COVID-19 as a condition of athletics participation."

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RUSF18 said:

From Gabe Feldman (@SportsLawGuy): NCAA Board of Governors added this requirement on 8/5/20 for fall sports. "Member schools may not require student-athletes to waive their legal rights regarding COVID-19 as a condition of athletics participation."

Word.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jplvr said:

Well, there it is. Thanks.

Edit: Actually Emmert just said he was opposed to it.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/07/22/ncaa-president-mark-emmert-inappropriate-for-schools-to-ask-players-to-sign-covid-19-waivers/

 

But hey, it's evil to suggest it on a message board, Cappy.

I didn’t say you were evil for suggesting it. I was clearly referring to the universities. Unless for some reason you thought I was suggesting you were the one holding the carrot of their NFL dreams over their head and had the ability to ask them to sign. 

Edited by Capella
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Tom Servo changed the title to 2020 College football thread - It's the offseason, yo.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...