- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,107
- Reaction score
- 64,393
- Points
- 148
1. I agree that its a bit about the hypocrisy of being able to test for your cash cow (football), while not ponying up the testing for students as well.
I just want to point out that football is the "cash cow" for some schools with respect to their athletic programs only. But that stuff is absolutely dwarfed by the primary function and purpose of the university, and by all the money that comes and things that have absolutely nothing to do with football, or with athletics at all. Just to put that in perspective, there are what, 100 guys on the Ohio State football team? There are nearly 8,000 in the School of Engineering alone.
Also, it's not a question just of "ponying up" money to pay for all students to be tested every day, or even more often than that. It is 1) the logistical impossibility of testing all students (and ensuring that each and every student has in fact been tested every day) in the manner being suggested for football players, and 2) the fact that colleges themselves are not a bubble. And as long as those athletes are part of that college, a bubble isn't possible.
2. Undeniably, the dynamic changed only after players decided to organize and voice their very legitimate demands about health and safety protocols, prompting this response from the administrators. The causation case seems crystal clear here.
Again, I have no doubt that if the players were demanding preferential health-related treatment in excess of what the universities could ensure for other students, then that could well have been a major factor in the schools' decisions. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
3. The NFL isn't in a "bubble," like the NBA or NHL teams are. But they should be able to stand up a similar set up, given the dollars at stake and the desire for kids to try.
Well of course! I mean, who wouldn't want to have their health care concerns treated as far more important than everyone else's? So of course players and coaches are willing to to get preferential treatment over other students as a condition precedent for playing. But it also should be obvious that the schools themselves and other parents don't have the same priorities in terms of treating the lives of certain athletes as being more important than everyone else's.
As for the dollars at stake...those dollars would all be going to the schools themselves anyway, which is a practice you've condemned. Assuming the schools themselves are willing to give up those dollars rather than value the health/lives of some students over others, that shouldn't be an issue because they're only hurting themselves anyway.
Last edited: