Woods called to inform Rolovich that he was opting out of the 2020 season because he has sickle cell trait and would be at an enhanced risk amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
In the call with Rolovich, Woods said he wanted to continue working out with the team.
"Shoot, that's all I've got to say about it. If they had shown me they wanted me to stay, they wouldn't have done all this. So, I'm not the problem here. I didn't create the problem. They did."
Based on the selected lines and quote from the story, I'm guessing the call was more about the movement first, then sickle cell as a way to leave but stay on scholarship.
Why would he call his coach to say he wants to opt out of the season but then hang around with the very players who would spread the virus to him?
tbqh, i dont think cuog can afford rolo's buyout to send him on his way. theyre gonna have to waddle him up to the podium and say 'im going to be re-educated on player's needs.'
tbqh, i dont think cuog can afford rolo's buyout to send him on his way. theyre gonna have to waddle him up to the podium and say 'im going to be re-educated on player's needs.'
Am I the only one who doesn't see the problem? Admittedly, I just learned of this on this thread, and I've only read the transcript of the call, but that transcript seemed pretty above board to me. If you hold out from playing--for any reason--what right do you have to stay "on the team" and keep a scholarship?
As someone who largely agree with the players' demands (or might agree with them once I've read them--which I'll probably be too lazy to do), being free to protest doesn't mean you're free from the consequences of protest.
Am I the only one who doesn't see the problem? Admittedly, I just learned of this on this thread, and I've only read the transcript of the call, but that transcript seemed pretty above board to me. If you hold out from playing--for any reason--what right do you have to stay "on the team" and keep a scholarship?
As someone who largely agree with the players' demands (or might agree with them once I've read them--which I'll probably be too lazy to do), being free to protest doesn't mean you're free from the consequences of protest.
Agreed. But it's a horrible recruiting tactic. Most coaches are content laying low while expecting this to blow over. If we still do end up having a season and players start holding out, then you'll see coaches actually start to hand out punishment.
But given that the former looks increasingly unlikely, there's no reason to make a move yet. All Rolovich did was play his hand before there was a need to. And other coaches will happily sit back and watch him get skewered on the recruiting trail for it.
Am I the only one who doesn't see the problem? Admittedly, I just learned of this on this thread, and I've only read the transcript of the call, but that transcript seemed pretty above board to me. If you hold out from playing--for any reason--what right do you have to stay "on the team" and keep a scholarship?
As someone who largely agree with the players' demands (or might agree with them once I've read them--which I'll probably be too lazy to do), being free to protest doesn't mean you're free from the consequences of protest.
I would imagine pretty much every coach in America silently agrees with Rolo but he is the only one bold enough to say it. A well-crafted public address by him could probably sway a lot of minds
Am I the only one who doesn't see the problem? Admittedly, I just learned of this on this thread, and I've only read the transcript of the call, but that transcript seemed pretty above board to me. If you hold out from playing--for any reason--what right do you have to stay "on the team" and keep a scholarship?
As someone who largely agree with the players' demands (or might agree with them once I've read them--which I'll probably be too lazy to do), being free to protest doesn't mean you're free from the consequences of protest.
Agreed. But it's a horrible recruiting tactic. Most coaches are content laying low while expecting this to blow over. If we still do end up having a season and players start holding out, then you'll see coaches actually start to hand out punishment.
But given that the former looks increasingly unlikely, there's no reason to make a move yet. All Rolovich did was play his hand before there was a need to. And other coaches will happily sit back and watch him get skewered on the recruiting trail for it.
This matters now because we are competing for the same tier of recruit as WSU. Victory! All your MWC recruits are belong to us CUOG!
Am I the only one who doesn't see the problem? Admittedly, I just learned of this on this thread, and I've only read the transcript of the call, but that transcript seemed pretty above board to me. If you hold out from playing--for any reason--what right do you have to stay "on the team" and keep a scholarship?
As someone who largely agree with the players' demands (or might agree with them once I've read them--which I'll probably be too lazy to do), being free to protest doesn't mean you're free from the consequences of protest.
Agreed. But it's a horrible recruiting tactic. Most coaches are content laying low while expecting this to blow over. If we still do end up having a season and players start holding out, then you'll see coaches actually start to hand out punishment.
But given that the former looks increasingly unlikely, there's no reason to make a move yet. All Rolovich did was play his hand before there was a need to. And other coaches will happily sit back and watch him get skewered on the recruiting trail for it.
This matters now because we are competing for the same tier of recruit as WSU. Victory! All your MWC recruits are belong to us CUOG!
Move the fuck over Wazzwho (LOL), there's a new sheriff in town.
Did Rolovich know the call was being recorded? I think it varies from state to state but I’m 81% certain if you record a call in Washington that both parties have to consent to it.
Rolovich seems like a good, honest dude. Everything he said in that call is completely reasonable.
But he's not savvy enough to have side stepped this whole shit show. Now clowns like Quincy Avery are going to have a field day with him. Know your audience.
Did Rolovich know the call was being recorded? I think it varies from state to state but I’m 81% certain if you record a call in Washington that both parties have to consent to it.
Woods forced their hand legally to remove him from the football sphere when he decided to opt out due to his dangerous health risks. It’s an obvious litigation issue that they only made more prominent by recording a private call.
And if you’re choosing not to play for a political reason, well the show goes on. The coach has an obligation to make sure Johnny Fattits the third stringer from Omak isn’t starting because half the team decided football isn’t their priority at the moment. Doesn’t discount your movement, but your movement doesn’t stop the world from running either.
Am I the only one who doesn't see the problem? Admittedly, I just learned of this on this thread, and I've only read the transcript of the call, but that transcript seemed pretty above board to me. If you hold out from playing--for any reason--what right do you have to stay "on the team" and keep a scholarship?
As someone who largely agree with the players' demands (or might agree with them once I've read them--which I'll probably be too lazy to do), being free to protest doesn't mean you're free from the consequences of protest.
Agreed. But it's a horrible recruiting tactic. Most coaches are content laying low while expecting this to blow over. If we still do end up having a season and players start holding out, then you'll see coaches actually start to hand out punishment.
But given that the former looks increasingly unlikely, there's no reason to make a move yet. All Rolovich did was play his hand before there was a need to. And other coaches will happily sit back and watch him get skewered on the recruiting trail for it.
It’s WSU. They can’t recruit anyways. I don’t think it will end up being a big deal either way.
Emoterman
Member Posts: 3,333
Comments
In the call with Rolovich, Woods said he wanted to continue working out with the team.
"Shoot, that's all I've got to say about it. If they had shown me they wanted me to stay, they wouldn't have done all this. So, I'm not the problem here. I didn't create the problem. They did."
Based on the selected lines and quote from the story, I'm guessing the call was more about the movement first, then sickle cell as a way to leave but stay on scholarship.
Why would he call his coach to say he wants to opt out of the season but then hang around with the very players who would spread the virus to him?
As someone who largely agree with the players' demands (or might agree with them once I've read them--which I'll probably be too lazy to do), being free to protest doesn't mean you're free from the consequences of protest.
But given that the former looks increasingly unlikely, there's no reason to make a move yet. All Rolovich did was play his hand before there was a need to. And other coaches will happily sit back and watch him get skewered on the recruiting trail for it.
But he's not savvy enough to have side stepped this whole shit show. Now clowns like Quincy Avery are going to have a field day with him. Know your audience.
And if you’re choosing not to play for a political reason, well the show goes on. The coach has an obligation to make sure Johnny Fattits the third stringer from Omak isn’t starting because half the team decided football isn’t their priority at the moment. Doesn’t discount your movement, but your movement doesn’t stop the world from running either.