They knew the rules before they arrived- get a vaccine= avoid trouble. Don’t and you will be tested daily, with positives potentially exposing your entire team to forfeiting games. They chose to believe internet BS instead of taking a very easy step to avoid this. This is 100% on the players and coaches who refused the vaccine.
I was referring to those who think the vaccine was going to prevent one from getting the virus... not what a young man decides to do. I respect their decision not to. And I hate this happened to NC St. But I also dont think rules should be changed for one team if others had to play under the same rules. What they need to do is make changes I think we would agree on as soon as the season is over.
Of course I do. I also know you can't be tested positive if you don't get tested. Having everyone vaccinated would have obviated their removal.
If they're testing NCSTs vaccinated players, they should test vandy's also.
Only if they have had non-vaccinated Vanderbilt players test positive. Have they?
While you are correct about could have been vaccinated, the positive tests that got them booted came from vaccinated players. And thanks to both political parties, the vaccine became politicized. State having 50% of their team vaccinated is really a reflection of society in general. And no way can a coach make a player take the vaccine.
We've been through all this. If they wanted to immunize themselves from disqualification, they should have ensured that all their people were vaccinated. I'm uninterested in discussing the macro aspects of all this.
If it's true that 4 vaccinated players tested positive, then I don't see how you can lay the blame for that at the feet of the unvaccinated players. By definition, if the vaccination was so ineffective as to allow 4 people on one team to test positive, then those 4 guys would have been susceptible to catching the virus from, literally, anyone, even each other.
“Perhaps “ is the operative word in your response. Our whole nation is banking on” perhaps.”
Agreed on all points.
It may not have prevented them from a positive test result.Your logic is flawed.
See, now you're wanting to confuse the micro with the macro when the only pertinent factor is the protocol as regards vaccinations. One team took care of business; another evidently did not.
Doesn't matter. They were testing all of NCSTs players. Some of the vaccinated ones tested positive and they kicked them out. Therefore, due to vandy playing them yesterday, they too should be tested.
Not without probable cause regarding Vandy. Were they testing all of State's players at first? State was only in the situation they got into because of their lack of diligence. That failure should not devolve on anyone else. If Vandy gets a positive test from a non-vaccinated person, they could go from there. How many unvaccinated people does Vandy have? That's the salient point.
Your failure to realize the irrelevance of this point based on NCSTs positive vaccinated players is frustrating. Make no mistake about it, the tipping point was the vaccinated players testing positive. If NCSTs vaccinated players can test positive, let's see if vandy's can also.
Is that the protocol? Your failure to accept that the protocol does not require that is mystifying to me. My lack of skin in the game immunizes me from frustration, however. I'd have to be more invested.
@king ward , with all due respect the correct thing to do would be to put BOTH teams in contact tracing until BOTH teams cleared any testing protocols. And do so BEFORE making one team forfeit in favor of the other. If you have to delay the completion of the CWS, so be it. Instead the NCAA caved to Corbin's whining so he wouldn't have to burn Leiter's arm today, and would have him for the Championship Series.
It doesn't make a d@mn. Go back to post #66. What the lady posted there depicts the actions of a man who has his own stuff wired tight, contemptible though it might be.
I understand your point of view. By happenstance, my response to the other poster cited your post #66. I'm good with what happened, though not entirely for the best reasons. I suspect that some who aren't good with it are also operating out of bias.
That's fair enough. To each his own, as it should be. Unfortunately I believe the country will be banking on "perhaps" for quite some time to come. Hopefully time will tell how good or bad our decisions were during this time. Be good to know anyway. I doubt this will be our last rodeo.
Well, then, I suppose a lawsuit would be in order. Who can say that such a scenario will never happen again?
