quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
Quirt, what makes you say there is a good chance the waivers wouldn't hold up?

I don't believe it's certain they'd be considered knowing and voluntary, and I believe that there is a risk they could be considered contracts of adhesion (a quaint notion in the 21st century, but when the stakes are as high as they are here, I don't view it as beyond the pale).

I'm not a litigator, just a simple corporate advisor, but I'm willing to bet I could find plenty of litigators who (1) would tell a board of trustees that there is a substantial risk that those waivers wouldn't hold up, or (2) would just love, even on a contingency basis, to get a group of sympathetic plaintiffs with lifelong medical conditions together and take a whack at it.

As just one example, here's a tweet by a woman who was the right-hand person to Al Davis and the CEO of the Oakland Raiders for a time, is a respected lawyer, and is now a television analyst for NFL and other issues (the "hi" is how she ends all her tweets and messages on Twitter, it's sort of her signature):

quote:

Setting aside for the moment the ethics of requiring a waiver and that some schools have banned the use of them, they are quintessential contracts of adhesion (i.e., contracts drafted by a party in a position of power, leaving a weaker party to “take it or leave it”) - and hi.

She points out that the power imbalance is particularly notable for kids who are on athletic scholarships. Not signing could mean losing their education.

In case anyone is interested in reading all the commentary on Amy Trask's position, here's the link to the thread. She's notable in that she very frequently responds to people who comment, always politely.

https://twitter.com/AmyTrask/s.../1293213937282895872

Penn State is one of the Big Ten, so I'd think their games were cancelled indefinitely

Thing is as far as I can tell a few games are to take place, and synagogue members chatting last Friday after the service (ZOOM) reported that they had heard games were to take place WITHOUT ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE! (Is this possible?)

Also, concern was expressed about the famous tail-gating (?!). I really can't make heads or tails of the upcoming plans either for football or much of anything FTM.

E.g., whether all students in dorms will have singles or what (different info all over the place). Not even counting what rules apply to off campus housing!

It seems the news is different all the time and depending on where one reads/hears it.

The whole college football thing has been problematic for decades.

Now is the perfect time to fix it.

Not sure what's been an ongoing problem about football, except for those of us in "Happy Valley" who (SHHH!) don't worship at the altar of the gridiron.

And FWIW those who much take umbrage at the power football wields in law enforcement here - undoubtedly as an extension of the overall corruption of our police (township and Penn State police).

That is through how the Golden Rule is applied. ("Who has the gold, rules".)

Not related to the above, I just heard someone from the PSU sports program, saying the provisional new plan is to switch Fall Football season to a short SPRING football season.

("Is it ideal? No. Is it possible? Yes!")
Just as doable as switching Halloween and Easter. Come to think of it, I wonder just what new regs will be in invented governing Halloween. (Masks on masks? Leaving candy by the door without interaction between kids and homeowners? Social distancing between tricker treaters themselves? More??)

When it comes to money, football rules much of the local economy: the buying and selling of football-employed people such as coaches (they earn more than college presidents on same campuses), players (paid in academic credits), and cheerleaders (paid in...? Glory like the players?)

And all the peripheral industries - temporary rentals, souvenirs, hospitality...

If all the long-disputed (now reluctantly admitted) health hasards from concussions to the players - at all age levels - haven't made any discernible dent* in the popularity of the sport, what can?

*Ouch!

(What problems did you have in mind, Steve? )

Yes, there's talk about a spring sports season. And how that would work with the NFL, because a lot of this revolves around how those kids can be evaluated before the draft (in April or May).


And how that would affect actual spring sports, because there'd be, in some places, a shortage of practice fields.

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
Quirt, what makes you say there is a good chance the waivers wouldn't hold up?

I just read another reason why liability waivers wouldn't hold up, which I just learned:

The NCAA banned them.

https://www.buckeyextra.com/sp...id-liability-waivers

In another galaxy, far, far away (OK, in Australia) they started the AFL (Australian Rules Football, aka footy) season without spectators. But they had a "fan in the stands" program that allowed fans to purchase giant cardboard seat holders, or whatever you'd call them, to fill the first few rows of the stands in TV-friendly locations. They didn't limit the photos to actual fans, or for that matter, actual people. They also had crowd sounds added to their TV broadcasts, so you could watch a footy game on TV complete with crowd noises, and apparently being watched by Shrek in on the front row.

And in the "this is why we can't have nice things" files, they had to abandon the program because people started putting photos of serial killers and others in the stands. Jeez.

Footy is now playing to very small live crowds, but has a new challenge because they are no longer allowing any play in NSW or Victoria due to spikes in COVID there.

On the plus side (for we weirdo fans), many games are being picked up by Fox sports, because it's currently one of the few live sports programs available.

They did not have to suspend the program. They just needed to vet the photos. Not hard because google.

Sometimes I get the sense people do t try hard enough before giving up.

I'm guessing they were just annoyed at people being jerks and figured it wasn't the hill they wanted to die on, or more specifically, it wasn't where they wanted to expend any more resources.

It was just a disheartening annoyance, is my guess.