Ohio State QB Justin Fields starts petition to relaunch Big Ten season

[MisterGopher]

Ohio State quarterback Justin Fields started a petition requesting the Big Ten immediately reinstate the 2020 football season, a petition that had more than 175,000 signatures as of 7:30 p.m. ET Sunday.

OSU QB Fields starts petition for Big Ten season

Ohio State quarterback Justin Fields started a petition requesting the Big Ten immediately reinstate the 2020 football season, tweeting, "This cause is close to my heart."

www.espn.com

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

Schools get a say too.... you don't just have a season because some players want it...

 

[60's Guy]

Schools get a say too.... you don't just have a season because some players want it...

Not at all but it is refreshing to hear these guys do want to play. I’m in group that thinks they are safer being monitored under team supervision with accountability to their teammates.
Hopefully, it opens some dialogue. I also believe it should be their choice to play or sit out.
It is a high risk sport prior to COVID. CTE is also real. ACL’s are no fun etc Let the players decide.

 

[MisterGopher]

Not at all but it is refreshing to hear these guys do want to play. I’m in group that thinks they are safer being monitored under team supervision with accountability to their teammates.
Hopefully, it opens some dialogue. I also believe it should be their choice to play or sit out.
It is a high risk sport prior to COVID. CTE is also real. ACL’s are no fun etc Let the players decide.

I agree the players should be able to make their own choice.

I noticed the article says St Juste signed the petition.

 

[Goldmember]

Schools get a say too.... you don't just have a season because some players want it...

The schools all signed contracts with these players.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

The schools all signed contracts with these players.

What does that mean?

 

[PeoplesFront]

Petitions are nice, but if he really wants to play this season, he should transfer to an SEC school. Georgia would be a good fit, methinks.

 

[Goldmember]

What does that mean?

The schools may have been mistaken in their belief that they could simply stop offering, at their sole discretion, the players the opportunity to play a football season, with little or no financial implications.

It seems that the member schools of the Big Ten may have become a little too used to its revenue-sports athletes having no voice in this case.

 

[Jordekorn]

The schools may have been mistaken in their belief that they could simply stop offering, at their sole discretion, the players the opportunity to play a football season, with little or no financial implications.

It seems that the member schools of the Big Ten may have become a little too used to its revenue-sports athletes having no voice in this case.

Wouldn't it be funny if this resulted in more lawsuits than might have happened from illnesses?

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

The schools may have been mistaken in their belief that they could simply stop offering, at their sole discretion, the players the opportunity to play a football season, with little or no financial implications.

It seems that the member schools of the Big Ten may have become a little too used to its revenue-sports athletes having no voice in this case.

I don't think they're required to play football games... the students are receiving their scholarships.

 

[Taji34]

While I do support the B1G decision of cancelling the season, I do think the players should have been part of the decision making process. There should have been a video call or something where the players were provided all the same evidence the presidents were seeing. There should also have been an opportunity for the players to ask questions and make sure they understand all of the evidence correctly. Then all the players should have been able to voice whether or not they felt safe playing. Potentially with the stipulation that they sign a liability waiver stating they know the risks and will not hold the school responsible.

Then, after seeing how many players wanted to play, and would agree to not hold the school liable, then they should have made a decision. Would it have been the same outcome? Maybe, maybe not.

It will be interesting to see what traction this gets. I don't know what leverage the players have at this point.

 

[Goldmember]

I don't think they're required to play football games... the students are receiving their scholarships.

But it is pretty easy to understand that the scholarship is only part of the deal that the schools offered to student-athletes.

The majority of the benefit is the opportunity to be coached and to participate in a season of games played against quality competition, which will improve the athletes skill and therefore improve their marketability as a professional. It’s pretty obvious that’s a big part of what most of these guys sign-up for.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

While I do support the B1G decision of cancelling the season, I do think the players should have been part of the decision making process. There should have been a video call or something where the players were provided all the same evidence the presidents were seeing. There should also have been an opportunity for the players to ask questions and make sure they understand all of the evidence correctly. Then all the players should have been able to voice whether or not they felt safe playing. Potentially with the stipulation that they sign a liability waiver stating they know the risks and will not hold the school responsible.

Then, after seeing how many players wanted to play, and would agree to not hold the school liable, then they should have made a decision. Would it have been the same outcome? Maybe, maybe not.

It will be interesting to see what traction this gets. I don't know what leverage the players have at this point.

Considering the layers involved:

Player, Coach, Administration, AD, University Presidents, B1G committee.....

I'm not sure who they would have talked to and it might be kinda disingenuous to involve them when really... doesn't matter what their input is considering if the university folks and B1G decide they're not playing, they're not playing.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

But it is pretty easy to understand that the scholarship is only part of the deal that the schools offered to student-athletes.

The majority of the benefit is the opportunity to be coached and to participate in a season of games played against quality competition, which will improve the athletes skill and therefore improve their marketability as a professional. It’s pretty obvious that’s a big part of what most of these guys sign-up for.

I don't think it is that simple.

They're not just buying something and expect to get whatever they're buying.

They're getting their benefits.... even if it isn't how some of them might want it, and for good reasons.

 

[Dances With Gophers]

mgoblog @mgoblog

The B10 looked at the situation and decided to give up nine digits of revenue. I don’t think a strongly worded letter is going to get it done, folks.

 

[MNVCGUY]

While I do support the B1G decision of cancelling the season, I do think the players should have been part of the decision making process. There should have been a video call or something where the players were provided all the same evidence the presidents were seeing. There should also have been an opportunity for the players to ask questions and make sure they understand all of the evidence correctly. Then all the players should have been able to voice whether or not they felt safe playing. Potentially with the stipulation that they sign a liability waiver stating they know the risks and will not hold the school responsible.

Then, after seeing how many players wanted to play, and would agree to not hold the school liable, then they should have made a decision. Would it have been the same outcome? Maybe, maybe not.

It will be interesting to see what traction this gets. I don't know what leverage the players have at this point.

Going to have to disagree with you on this one. This isn't the NFL where you have an organized players union. Bringing the players into the process would have added a whole extra layer of confusion to what is already a very complex situation.

As for leverage, the players have very little, especially as it pertains to trying to restart the season. They can request it but the powers that be looked at things and decided to forgo millions of dollars in revenue so some upset players is unlikely to have any major impact on their thinking.

It isn't surprising that many players and coaches want to play, but there is so much more to it then just wanting to be out there and being willing to say you won't hold the school accountable if something happens.

 

[PMWinSTP]

But it is pretty easy to understand that the scholarship is only part of the deal that the schools offered to student-athletes.

The majority of the benefit is the opportunity to be coached and to participate in a season of games played against quality competition, which will improve the athletes skill and therefore improve their marketability as a professional. It’s pretty obvious that’s a big part of what most of these guys sign-up for.

Ah, no. The majority of the benefit is the opportunity for free education, free room & board, and a degree (or two). For a vast majority of FBS college players, there is little or no opportunity to play in the NFL.

 

[zman]

Clearly he knows less than Eddie Cole.

 

[MplsGopher]

While I do support the B1G decision of cancelling the season, I do think the players should have been part of the decision making process. There should have been a video call or something where the players were provided all the same evidence the presidents were seeing. There should also have been an opportunity for the players to ask questions and make sure they understand all of the evidence correctly. Then all the players should have been able to voice whether or not they felt safe playing. Potentially with the stipulation that they sign a liability waiver stating they know the risks and will not hold the school responsible.

Then, after seeing how many players wanted to play, and would agree to not hold the school liable, then they should have made a decision. Would it have been the same outcome? Maybe, maybe not.

It will be interesting to see what traction this gets. I don't know what leverage the players have at this point.

The government (senators were saying they’d put a bill forth to make it illegal, if necessary) and the NCAA are on record that risk waivers are not appropriate for amateurs. That goes against what an amateur is and is much more appropriate for a professional.

So once that was off the table, the schools decided they could not bear the risk this fall, given the abundance of data and expert opinions against it.

 

[MplsGopher]

Going to have to disagree with you on this one. This isn't the NFL where you have an organized players union. Bringing the players into the process would have added a whole extra layer of confusion to what is already a very complex situation.

As for leverage, the players have very little, especially as it pertains to trying to restart the season. They can request it but the powers that be looked at things and decided to forgo millions of dollars in revenue so some upset players is unlikely to have any major impact on their thinking.

It isn't surprising that many players and coaches want to play, but there is so much more to it then just wanting to be out there and being willing to say you won't hold the school accountable if something happens.

Very well said.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

with all due respect, a lot of the players and parents who are putting up a stink want to have it both ways.

they want to push the "we want to play" button -

but, they also want to retain their right to sue if things go fubar.

how many of the fans on the "we want to play" bandwagon would be willing to assume personal financial responsibility if something goes wrong?

it's easy to complain when you face no consequences.

I am not thrilled with having no B1G football, but I understand why they did what they did.

 

[howeda7]

While I do support the B1G decision of cancelling the season, I do think the players should have been part of the decision making process. There should have been a video call or something where the players were provided all the same evidence the presidents were seeing. There should also have been an opportunity for the players to ask questions and make sure they understand all of the evidence correctly. Then all the players should have been able to voice whether or not they felt safe playing. Potentially with the stipulation that they sign a liability waiver stating they know the risks and will not hold the school responsible.

Then, after seeing how many players wanted to play, and would agree to not hold the school liable, then they should have made a decision. Would it have been the same outcome? Maybe, maybe not.

It will be interesting to see what traction this gets. I don't know what leverage the players have at this point.

Which players would be invited on this call? There are a couple thousand. The players had input through their coaches (hopefully). Ultimately the school Presidents were not going to be moved by that though. Giving them token input might only have made it worse.

 

[Word]

I don't think it is that simple.

They're not just buying something and expect to get whatever they're buying.

They're getting their benefits.... even if it isn't how some of them might want it, and for good reasons.

Its like getting paid without having to work.

 

[MplsGopher]

Ultimately, until and if P5 players organize into a union, that can strike if reasonable demands/conditions aren’t met, they’re never going to have a real voice.

 

[MNVCGUY]

Ultimately, until and if P5 players organize into a union, that can strike if reasonable demands/conditions aren’t met, they’re never going to have a real voice.

And the forming of and leadership of a union like this would be next to impossible to coordinate. So I don't see something like that happening anytime in the near future if ever.

 

[MplsGopher]

And the forming of and leadership of a union like this would be next to impossible to coordinate. So I don't see something like that happening anytime in the near future if ever.

I think there were already a few states (Ohio was one, if I recall correctly) that either put bills forward or actually passed laws disallowing student-athlete unions at public universities, in response to the NW unionization vote.

 

[Plato]

Believe it or not the players are also students.
Students do not make decisions Presidents and Chancellors do.
It is that simple.
These petitions, letters from parents etc etc have no more effect than the cry babies deprived a few hours of entertainment on this board do.
The decision for the BIG has been made.
It is not going to change.

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

Schools get a say too.... you don't just have a season because some players want it...

Or maybe the schools didn’t get a say

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

Or maybe the schools didn’t get a say

I think the schools did decide.... I think Sandy just doesn't want to take shit from the fans.

Too bad that's her job...

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

Or maybe the schools didn’t get a say

I don't know whether there was an actual vote, but to suggest that the schools didn't control the decision or that one person made the decision, announced it and now everyone is stuck with it is ridiculous.