ADVERTISEMENT

About to learn how the sausage is made

Yea, you have to endure Pullman for another 2 seasons AND cripple your coaching resume. No coach wants to intentionally lose games and disappoint the players.

I think this "opportunity" tickled his fancy. He immediately gets out of his contract with a winning record in Pullman. He gets to "fight the man" on an issue that's obviously important to him, and he might even walk away with some settlement money.

I actually don't think Rolo's coaching career will be seriously impacted by this. It'll take a while, but once it blows over, certain schools with certain fan bases will take a chance on him. Wyoming would hire him. Utah State would hire him. Nevada or UNLV would hire him.
If i was a betting man (which I'm not except with pretend internet money), I'd say the odds are about 60/40 in favor a settlement.

Unless Chun/WSU come with a ridiculous lowball offer and then it's on like Donkey Kong.

There's a PR/donor factor to consider. This isn't like an uninsured motorist blowing a stop sign and crashing into a one's new car....which, in fact, I've had happen.
Again settling sets an example the school and state do not want . But if you are correct you would be one for two in this matter.
 
In 1905 there were not things like rapid tests. And the SCOTUS is pretty conservative now. The least restrictive means test still exists.

As I've mentioned, every other state has some kind of a testing alternative to the mandate, or (Oregon) has only narrow classes of employees subject to the mandate without a testing alternative. I would like to hear an AAG explain why someone that is tested periodically is a menace to society, but someone that is vaccinated and not tested is not.
Testing is flawed, test results won’t immediately be positive, and a lot of false negatives. Clear arguments that vaccination offers more protection.

And you refer to least restrictive means, suggesting strict scrutiny will be applied, but it is far from clear that rational basis or intermediate scrutiny would not be applied to mandate.
 
Again settling sets an example the school and state do not want . But if you are correct you would be one for two in this matter.
If there's one thing I know, it's that government/elected/public employees do not behave in a logical rational manner. And that was on me. In private enterprise, this would have been solved, agreements reached as to a potential walk away play and all parties would have shook hands and sealed the deal.

Forgot we're dealing with politicos and bureaucratic lackeys here.
 
Testing is flawed, test results won’t immediately be positive, and a lot of false negatives. Clear arguments that vaccination offers more protection.
Not if testing is done frequently. The more frequently the testing, the lower and lower the likelihood of false results. Say the error rate is 10%. On any particular day the odds are 1 in 10. The odd of 2 days in a row drop to 1 in 100. Go out to a week and it drops to 1 in 10million.

It seems that daily testing sufficient.
 
In 1905 there were not things like rapid tests. And the SCOTUS is pretty conservative now. The least restrictive means test still exists.

As I've mentioned, every other state has some kind of a testing alternative to the mandate, or (Oregon) has only narrow classes of employees subject to the mandate without a testing alternative. I would like to hear an AAG explain why someone that is tested periodically is a menace to society, but someone that is vaccinated and not tested is not.
Getting tested doesn't reduce anyone's chances of contracting the virus. Rolo is being treated just like hundreds of other state employees.

Of course, it'd be better if we simply eliminated every exemption except medical exemptions in my opinion. You can sincerely believe anything you want--but it doesn't mean we have to accommodate it.
 
Not if testing is done frequently. The more frequently the testing, the lower and lower the likelihood of false results. Say the error rate is 10%. On any particular day the odds are 1 in 10. The odd of 2 days in a row drop to 1 in 100. Go out to a week and it drops to 1 in 10million.

It seems that daily testing sufficient.
the first positive test is likely to lag behind infection and ability to spread infection. yes, eventually there will be a positive and testing us obviously far better than nothing, but it is not equivalent to vaccination.
 
Testing is flawed, test results won’t immediately be positive, and a lot of false negatives. Clear arguments that vaccination offers more protection.

And you refer to least restrictive means, suggesting strict scrutiny will be applied, but it is far from clear that rational basis or intermediate scrutiny would not be applied to mandate.
Vaccines don't always take, and sometimes people get sick from them. And if the test doesn't work, you can get tested again.
 
Getting tested doesn't reduce anyone's chances of contracting the virus. Rolo is being treated just like hundreds of other state employees.

Of course, it'd be better if we simply eliminated every exemption except medical exemptions in my opinion. You can sincerely believe anything you want--but it doesn't mean we have to accommodate it.
Vaccines don't either apparently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Observer11
the first positive test is likely to lag behind infection and ability to spread infection. yes, eventually there will be a positive and testing us obviously far better than nothing, but it is not equivalent to vaccination.
Meanwhile vaccinated people are spreading the virus.
 
How long did it take for the narrative to change from "get vaccinated and you won't get sick" to "get vaccinated and you'll stay out of the hospital and won't die"?
Do you have different data that shows the vaccine does not reduce transmission? Does ivermectin? Hydroxi?
 
Yea, you have to endure Pullman for another 2 seasons AND cripple your coaching resume. No coach wants to intentionally lose games and disappoint the players.

I think this "opportunity" tickled his fancy. He immediately gets out of his contract with a winning record in Pullman. He gets to "fight the man" on an issue that's obviously important to him, and he might even walk away with some settlement money.

I actually don't think Rolo's coaching career will be seriously impacted by this. It'll take a while, but once it blows over, certain schools with certain fan bases will take a chance on him. Wyoming would hire him. Utah State would hire him. Nevada or UNLV would hire him.
What does Wyoming unlv and the like pay? He would have to coach an additional 6 years just to make what he would in three . It took a top 20 coach two years to find a gig . How long did it take Colin K to find a job ?

Is Nick Saban going to take a flyer on him to resurrect his career ? They are 100% vaxed .

The one thing I have found is that Presidents and ADs have the same size ego as the coach . One person writes the check .. not a lot of ads want that headache
 
What does Wyoming unlv and the like pay? He would have to coach an additional 6 years just to make what he would in three . It took a top 20 coach two years to find a gig . How long did it take Colin K to find a job ?

Is Nick Saban going to take a flyer on him to resurrect his career ? They are 100% vaxed .

The one thing I have found is that Presidents and ADs have the same size ego as the coach . One person writes the check .. not a lot of ads want that headache
Craig Bohl is working on a 7 year / $11,950,000 contract at Wyoming. A little under $2M/yr, but still, a pretty damn good guarantee with an ultra low cost of living.

There's no way Rolo is going to make $3M/year anytime soon, but again, I don't think he's concerned about that or he would have handled this differently. Maybe he wants out of coaching? Maybe he genuinely disliked Chun and/or Schulz, and/or Pullman? Perhaps his kids have reached an age where he wants to be around them more, and being an offensive coordinator somewhere will be more appealing?

There's a lot to unpack here, but he clearly has something up his sleeve other than money or his coaching resume.
 
Getting tested doesn't reduce anyone's chances of contracting the virus. Rolo is being treated just like hundreds of other state employees.

Of course, it'd be better if we simply eliminated every exemption except medical exemptions in my opinion. You can sincerely believe anything you want--but it doesn't mean we have to accommodate it.
Eliminate every exemption except medical? Does that include the SEIU exemption?
Just curious...
 
Inslee giving SEIU this exemption isn't anything SEIU asked for (at least publicly) and has really nothing to do with COVID.

It is showing prospective donors and possible future employers that Jay Inslee delivers and is open for business.
😂😂😂😂
 
Inslee giving SEIU this exemption isn't anything SEIU asked for (at least publicly) and has really nothing to do with COVID.

It is showing prospective donors and possible future employers that Jay Inslee delivers and is open for business.
Does he go by "The Big Guy", too, or have a special nickname with some Northwest flair?

The Big Tahoma?

Yaki-honcho?
 
Inslee giving SEIU this exemption isn't anything SEIU asked for (at least publicly) and has really nothing to do with COVID.

It is showing prospective donors and possible future employers that Jay Inslee delivers and is open for business.
The exemption is only partial for only one sector of union employees and doesnt apply to another often usually supportive union (teachers). So, I just don't think this is the big conspiracy and palm-greasing the anti-inslee folk are making it out to be. That's all I have to say about that.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT