ADVERTISEMENT

Interesting

Question, would one of the CAREER Politicians(NOT TRUMP), democrat or republican, doesnt matter which, senator, house rep, governor, President, etc, no matter which, would any one of the SMARTER ones, if they were the WSU Head Football Coach, would they either:

1. Not Vax up.

2. If they didnt Vax up, would they let the word get out? would they talk about it? Or would they keep their Mouth Shut about it?

3. If they did say they were not going to Vax, would they explain why?

And what would be the reasons for the above?

Apply the above to SMART SALESMEN

SMART Celebrities

SMART CEO'S

Etc.

What would they do, not do in Rolo's Shoes if they were the WSU Head Coach.

I'll take a stab at it.

1. They probably would get vaxxed for risk management, and because by Vaxxing no one would get OFFENDED.

2. If they didnt Vax, they would either not let it get out or Keep their mouth Shut.

3. They would Explain why.

The reasons why they would do, not do those things, is for risk management, and so as to not OFFEND half the people, students, players, so that coaches players wouldnt get sick, miss games, cancel games. And so that OFFENDED people wouldnt affect RECRUITING. And so that students, players woukdnt gripe about being asked to Vax, while they the Head Coach didnt Vax, so that the players would run tbru walls for them.
 
This right here is scary, scary you would think this and even scarier that you'd go to the length to document it on the internet in perpetuity. This mentality will be our downfall my friend, unfortunately, you aren't alone in your elitest beliefs.
I'm glad to have it documented for as long as necessary. It's not about elitism. It's about pragmatism. You just have to watch how much spittle comes out of true believers on certain topics to know when, whether, and how you can dig in. Or, at least, you must do so if you want to maintain a career in most fields.

Sometimes you need to see where the winds are blowing and not try to stand up against a hurricane, especially when doing so screws a lot of people, not just you (e.g., in nearly all cases, your family, and in Rolo's case, all kinds of people with an interest in WSU football).

Sure, you can type something under a pseudonymous username about the constitution, liberties, or whatever. Perhaps I even agree with some of it. Maybe all. Different thing when you're talking about potentially destroying a career. Have to use some caution with that.

Just realize that history is littered with people who "took stands" -- not BS ones where they stood to gain from being a purported martyr for show, but real ones where they stood to suffer greatly to make a principled stand on an issue -- and they quickly were forgotten. This even is the case when those stands stood some chance of making a meaningful difference in preserving some kind of individual liberty or whatever you might be interested in.

There also are many who took stands of some sort when their doing so stood virtually no chance of making a difference. Nobody remembers them either, especially when the upside is minimal and difficult to assess. Rolo is in this latter category, IMO. Rolo refusing to get this vaccine isn't going to have a meaningful impact on this issue or any broader discussion on the preservation of individual liberties.

Edit to add this: just want to note I understand where you're coming from in terms of people not being forced to take an experimental vaccine to protect against this particular disease. I get it. I think some caution needs to be used in equating this with the battle against segregation, forced sterilization, or similar things, since the facts are quite different here. Among other things, there are safety issues involving other people, regardless of how one feels about COVID-19, means of transmission, masks, herd immunity, or the other stuff people have been arguing about on here for 15 months. But yes, I understand the point that there are good reasons to oppose things like experimental treatments effectively being forced on people. Of course I do. Again, my point is about pragmatism and reflects my personal assessment of the downside of the vaccines, the likelihood of those downsides being realized, the downsides of someone in Rolo's shoes not getting vaccinated (not just from a health perspective but otherwise) and the likelihood of those being realized.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mikalalas
I'm glad to have it documented for as long as necessary. It's not about elitism. It's about pragmatism. You just have to watch how much spittle comes out of true believers on certain topics to know when, whether, and how you can dig in. Or, at least, you must do so if you want to maintain a career in most fields.

Sometimes you need to see where the winds are blowing and not try to stand up against a hurricane, especially when doing so screws a lot of people, not just you (e.g., in nearly all cases, your family, and in Rolo's case, all kinds of people with an interest in WSU football).

Sure, you can type something under a pseudonymous username about the constitution, liberties, or whatever. Perhaps I even agree with some of it. Maybe all. Different thing when you're talking about potentially destroying a career. Have to use some caution with that.

Just realize that history is littered with people who "took stands" -- not BS ones where they stood to gain from being a purported martyr for show, but real ones where they stood to suffer greatly to make a principled stand on an issue -- and they quickly were forgotten. This even is the case when those stands stood some chance of making a meaningful difference in preserving some kind of individual liberty or whatever you might be interested in.

There also are many who took stands of some sort when their doing so stood virtually no chance of making a difference. Nobody remembers them either, especially when the upside is minimal and difficult to assess, as it is here. Rolo is in this latter category, IMO.

In other words choose your battles wisely.

It's ok to take a stand, fight, sacrifice, etc, but if going to do so make sure that it will either make a difference, or if doesnt make a difference, that it is worth taking a stand, fighting, sacrificing, losing career, etc.

I dont think Rolo made a good decision.

I think Rolo didnt choose his battle wisely.

If I'm Rolo, I either Vax, or I dont let it get out that I didnt Vax, or I keep my mouth shut.

Now if I was a Nick Saban type, then I might do what Rolo did, if I thought I really was taking a important stand, because it would make a bigger difference, be remembered, would be worth the consequences, sacrifice, and I wouldnt be hurt extremely bad and could recover in time.

But Rolo is not in that position.

He is not going to make a difference. He is not going to be remembered. Its not worth the consequences, sacrifice. He will probably be hurt by this. And it will probably take a long time to recover, if he recovers at all.

Its not that bad, hard of a ask of Rolo.

All thats being asked of him, is to either Vax up, OR Dont let the word get out that your not vaxxing, or SHUT UP ABOUT IT, or AT LEAST EXPLAIN WHY YOUR NOT VAXXING.

Thats not a Big Deal.

Thats not worth fighting.

Rolo made a STUPID decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KRUSTYtheCOUG
I'm glad to have it documented for as long as necessary. It's not about elitism. It's about pragmatism. You just have to watch how much spittle comes out of true believers on certain topics to know when, whether, and how you can dig in. Or, at least, you must do so if you want to maintain a career in most fields.

Sometimes you need to see where the winds are blowing and not try to stand up against a hurricane, especially when doing so screws a lot of people, not just you (e.g., in nearly all cases, your family, and in Rolo's case, all kinds of people with an interest in WSU football).

Sure, you can type something under a pseudonymous username about the constitution, liberties, or whatever. Perhaps I even agree with some of it. Maybe all. Different thing when you're talking about potentially destroying a career. Have to use some caution with that.

Just realize that history is littered with people who "took stands" -- not BS ones where they stood to gain from being a purported martyr for show, but real ones where they stood to suffer greatly to make a principled stand on an issue -- and they quickly were forgotten. This even is the case when those stands stood some chance of making a meaningful difference in preserving some kind of individual liberty or whatever you might be interested in.

There also are many who took stands of some sort when their doing so stood virtually no chance of making a difference. Nobody remembers them either, especially when the upside is minimal and difficult to assess. Rolo is in this latter category, IMO. Rolo refusing to get this vaccine isn't going to have a meaningful impact on this issue or any broader discussion on the preservation of individual liberties.

Edit to add this: just want to note I understand where you're coming from in terms of people not being forced to take an experimental vaccine to protect against this particular disease. I get it. I think some caution needs to be used in equating this with the battle against segregation, forced sterilization, or similar things, since the facts are quite different here. Among other things, there are safety issues involving other people, regardless of how one feels about COVID-19, means of transmission, masks, herd immunity, or the other stuff people have been arguing about on here for 15 months. But yes, I understand the point that there are good reasons to oppose things like experimental treatments effectively being forced on people. Of course I do. Again, my point is about pragmatism and reflects my personal assessment of the downside of the vaccines, the likelihood of those downsides being realized, the downsides of someone in Rolo's shoes not getting vaccinated (not just from a health perspective but otherwise) and the likelihood of those being realized.

Or you can be like Biggs and demand other people and institutions spend their money to meet your demands without donating to the school or buying a ticket.
 
In other words choose your battles wisely.

It's ok to take a stand, fight, sacrifice, etc, but if going to do so make sure that it will either make a difference, or if doesnt make a difference, that it is worth taking a stand, fighting, sacrificing, losing career, etc.

I dont think Rolo made a good decision.

I think Rolo didnt choose his battle wisely.

If I'm Rolo, I either Vax, or I dont let it get out that I didnt Vax, or I keep my mouth shut.

Now if I was a Nick Saban type, then I might do what Rolo did, if I thought I really was taking a important stand, because it would make a bigger difference, be remembered, would be worth the consequences, sacrifice, and I wouldnt be hurt extremely bad and could recover in time.

But Rolo is not in that position.

He is not going to make a difference. He is not going to be remembered. Its not worth the consequences, sacrifice. He will probably be hurt by this. And it will probably take a long time to recover, if he recovers at all.

Its not that bad, hard of a ask of Rolo.

All thats being asked of him, is to either Vax up, OR Dont let the word get out that your not vaxxing, or SHUT UP ABOUT IT, or AT LEAST EXPLAIN WHY YOUR NOT VAXXING.

Thats not a Big Deal.

Thats not worth fighting.

Rolo made a STUPID decision.
Yeah, it's about reading the "room" and knowing who you are and where you stand. I was thinking about this before your post and Saban is who I thought of, too. If you're Saban -- powerful, well-regarded, at a southern school, already very wealthy, near hanging it up anyway, and who could actually make a difference on this if taking a stand -- then *maybe* you dig in on this. (Near zero chance Saban would anyway even if he held this view; lots of reasons for him not to want to, too.) If you're Rolovich, a guy getting your first P5 shot and who still hasn't coached what most would consider a meaningful down, getting your feet under you and at a place with every factor in the world already cutting against you in recruiting and in your ability to succeed, at a school on the west coast ... you just don't. IMO. Either take the damned thing or, if not, realize what you are in for and work very hard to keep it as low-key as possible and try to avoid fallout through good messaging and smart political moves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikalalas
Well, you don't appear to understand that they can. Here's an analogy for you.

Because Rivals has an obligation to serve the public good and avoid misinformation and disinformation in the communities it serves, it will implement a widely available AI based system that has been shown to nearly eliminate the misinformation and disinformation on other platforms which is a critical element in protecting the worldwide public good. Rivals will require you to check a box agreeing to this change in the terms and conditions of subscription in order to participate on message boards. Exemptions will be allowed for medical, religious or personal reasons.

Now at first a typical reader may think, wow that sounds serious. It does say "require" after all. Ed is in big trouble. He constantly spews misinformation. That is very bad for Ed. Ed will almost certainly be banished. Oh, but wait. That last sentence says Ed can exempt himself for personal reasons, which sounds pretty broad and kinda vague. Maybe Ed's well-documented history of being total unable to educate himself on a topic would qualify as a "personal reason." It's certainly personal, and a reason. Maybe Ed will be OK after all. What a relief.
Or you can be like Biggs and demand other people and institutions spend their money to meet your demands without donating to the school or buying a ticket.
Happens all the time. I won’t support the school as long as wulff is coach. I won’t support leach cause he introduced trunp . People make these decisions all the time .
It is just unfortunate these self inflicted wounds come up.
 
Yeah, it's about reading the "room" and knowing who you are and where you stand. I was thinking about this before your post and Saban is who I thought of, too. If you're Saban -- powerful, well-regarded, at a southern school, already very wealthy, near hanging it up anyway, and who could actually make a difference on this if taking a stand -- then *maybe* you dig in on this. (Near zero chance Saban would anyway even if he held this view; lots of reasons for him not to want to, too.) If you're Rolovich, a guy getting your first P5 shot and who still hasn't coached what most would consider a meaningful down, getting your feet under you and at a place with every factor in the world already cutting against you in recruiting and in your ability to succeed, at a school on the west coast ... you just don't. IMO. Either take the damned thing or, if not, realize what you are in for and work very hard to keep it as low-key as possible and try to avoid fallout through good messaging and smart political moves.

AMEN!!!!
 
I mean, what the hell is science right now? For 12 months we were told to believe the science. We were told to get vaccinated. Once we did, we were still in masks until June 30th. We have to wear masks on airplanes. They want kids in masks in at school still. People still want mask mandates. People believe in science until it’s inconvenient for them to continue to do so.
Except (as a whole) we didn‘t. Some areas still have very low vaccination rates. And there is nothing bit bad faith misinformation suggesting the science for vaccines was wrong. Similarly, it is clear masks help inside, particularly in poorly ventilated areas. That hasn’t changed. Less needed where people are all vaccinated, but that is still not the case, though more on June 30th than previously. Some continue to want masks, because of the low vaccination rates in many areas and variant that Is especially spreading among the unvaccinated. None of what you are pointing to is actually inconsistent.
 
Except (as a whole) we didn‘t. Some areas still have very low vaccination rates. And there is nothing bit bad faith misinformation suggesting the science for vaccines was wrong. Similarly, it is clear masks help inside, particularly in poorly ventilated areas. That hasn’t changed. Less needed where people are all vaccinated, but that is still not the case, though more on June 30th than previously. Some continue to want masks, because of the low vaccination rates in many areas and variant that Is especially spreading among the unvaccinated. None of what you are pointing to is actually inconsistent.

Well, you can point a finger Biden for part of that. Shouldn’t be speaking in absolutes.

 
Except (as a whole) we didn‘t. Some areas still have very low vaccination rates. And there is nothing bit bad faith misinformation suggesting the science for vaccines was wrong. Similarly, it is clear masks help inside, particularly in poorly ventilated areas. That hasn’t changed. Less needed where people are all vaccinated, but that is still not the case, though more on June 30th than previously. Some continue to want masks, because of the low vaccination rates in many areas and variant that Is especially spreading among the unvaccinated. None of what you are pointing to is actually inconsistent.
It's 100% inconsistent. The messaging was " get the shot, ditch the mask." Now, yet again, the goal posts have moved and there is an ever increasing call for a federal mask mandate including those who got shots. This goes against everything they've been saying over the past 18 month, from "flatten the curve" (its flat, btw...) to "60%, no 70%, no 80%, wait no.. it's 90%", not counting previously infected into the herd immunity numbers... they're all full of shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NMBRCRNCHR
It's 100% inconsistent. The messaging was " get the shot, ditch the mask." Now, yet again, the goal posts have moved and there is an ever increasing call for a federal mask mandate including those who got shots. This goes against everything they've been saying over the past 18 month, from "flatten the curve" (its flat, btw...) to "60%, no 70%, no 80%, wait no.. it's 90%", not counting previously infected into the herd immunity numbers... they're all full of shit.

Agree, your right that what they are doing is BS.

Still doesnt change HALF the people's perception, even if they are wrong. Doesnt change them getting offended. And doesnt change them getting offended negatively affecting donations, recruiting, attendence, etc.

Doesnt change Rolo risking players maybe getting sick, maybe missing games, maybe opting out.

Doesnt change Rolo maybe not getting recruits he otherwise might get if he vaxed, shut up, or explained.

Doesnt change that if he vaxes no harm done, no one offended

Doesnt change that if he didnt speak about his decision not to vax, no one would know he hasnt vaxed, no one would get offended, no harm would have been done to recruiting.

Doesnt Change that if he had explained why, no one offended, recruiting, etc, not harmed.

Doesnt change that Rolo has harmed the program like Paul Wulf harmed the program.

Doesnt Change that a Smart Politician, Salesman, CEO would either Vax up, not talk about it, or explain why in order to not offend, not harm recruiting, donations, etc.

I share the same beliefs as you, Rolo, etc, and even I would either Vax up, shut up, or answer why so as to not offend, not harm recruiting, not harm donations, my own beliefs about vaccination, covid, etc, be damned. That is not as important as not harming recruiting, donations, by offending HALF the people with my anti vax, covid beliefs.
 
It's 100% inconsistent. The messaging was " get the shot, ditch the mask." Now, yet again, the goal posts have moved and there is an ever increasing call for a federal mask mandate including those who got shots. This goes against everything they've been saying over the past 18 month, from "flatten the curve" (its flat, btw...) to "60%, no 70%, no 80%, wait no.. it's 90%", not counting previously infected into the herd immunity numbers... they're all full of shit

You show a complete lack of understanding of what science is. Of course as more facts and evidence comes available, greater understanding leads to changes. But you are also misrepresenting what are actually changes vs just different opinions and different policies from different people and different places, etc.

Masks were never represented as perfect. They have been shown to reduce transmission particularly indoors, just as social distancing has. The evidence has continued to show that. They reduce risk but don’t eliminate it. The messaging over being able to ditch the mask is obviously aimed at getting more people vaccinated. Vaccines more protective than masks but obviously also not 100% effective.

Obviously getting the percentage as close to 100% as possible is and has always been what is needed. None of the actual science has ever used the lower percentages, particularly for herd immunity. Only those thinking herd immunity would result from just letting the virus run its course with much much lower percentages have made that claim. The actual experts and science had been showing much higher levels are needed for herd immunity all along, as has been case with herd immunity for other viruses. Different percentages you cite may be reflecting the reality that some people are reluctant to get vaccinated, or unable (younger kids) or previously lack of supply, so a balance between what is realistic and what would be ideal. But if you are saying the same science on what would be needed for herd immunity then show the same person or studies changing and then look at why. But what you are citing is different percentages not strictly as a measure of what herd immunity is. Unfortunately, too many people are Not getting vaccinated. Vaccination rates in some places are still very low. Obviously many of these unvaccinated people, like Rolo (e.g. see photo of him blowing into horn in arena) are also not masking or taking other measures, so of course it is not enough, and is continuing to spread.
 
Agree, your right that what they are doing is BS.

Still doesnt change HALF the people's perception, even if they are wrong. Doesnt change them getting offended. And doesnt change them getting offended negatively affecting donations, recruiting, attendence, etc.

Doesnt change Rolo risking players maybe getting sick, maybe missing games, maybe opting out.

Doesnt change Rolo maybe not getting recruits he otherwise might get if he vaxed, shut up, or explained.

Doesnt change that if he vaxes no harm done, no one offended

Doesnt change that if he didnt speak about his decision not to vax, no one would know he hasnt vaxed, no one would get offended, no harm would have been done to recruiting.

Doesnt Change that if he had explained why, no one offended, recruiting, etc, not harmed.

Doesnt change that Rolo has harmed the program like Paul Wulf harmed the program.

Doesnt Change that a Smart Politician, Salesman, CEO would either Vax up, not talk about it, or explain why in order to not offend, not harm recruiting, donations, etc.

I share the same beliefs as you, Rolo, etc, and even I would either Vax up, shut up, or answer why so as to not offend, not harm recruiting, not harm donations, my own beliefs about vaccination, covid, etc, be damned. That is not as important as not harming recruiting, donations, by offending HALF the people with my anti vax, covid beliefs.

The job is bigger than Rolo can handle. He is over his head handling this situation. Glorified middle school PE teachers shouldnt be running Power 5 conference football programs.
 
The job is bigger than Rolo can handle. He is over his head handling this situation. Glorified middle school PE teachers shouldnt be running Power 5 conference football programs.
Write the check.
 
You show a complete lack of understanding of what science is. Of course as more facts and evidence comes available, greater understanding leads to changes. But you are also misrepresenting what are actually changes vs just different opinions and different policies from different people and different places, etc.

Masks were never represented as perfect. They have been shown to reduce transmission particularly indoors, just as social distancing has. The evidence has continued to show that. They reduce risk but don’t eliminate it. The messaging over being able to ditch the mask is obviously aimed at getting more people vaccinated. Vaccines more protective than masks but obviously also not 100% effective.

Obviously getting the percentage as close to 100% as possible is and has always been what is needed. None of the actual science has ever used the lower percentages, particularly for herd immunity. Only those thinking herd immunity would result from just letting the virus run its course with much much lower percentages have made that claim. The actual experts and science had been showing much higher levels are needed for herd immunity all along, as has been case with herd immunity for other viruses. Different percentages you cite may be reflecting the reality that some people are reluctant to get vaccinated, or unable (younger kids) or previously lack of supply, so a balance between what is realistic and what would be ideal. But if you are saying the same science on what would be needed for herd immunity then show the same person or studies changing and then look at why. But what you are citing is different percentages not strictly as a measure of what herd immunity is. Unfortunately, too many people are Not getting vaccinated. Vaccination rates in some places are still very low. Obviously many of these unvaccinated people, like Rolo (e.g. see photo of him blowing into horn in arena) are also not masking or taking other measures, so of course it is not enough, and is continuing to spread.

I suggest that you wag your finger at the errant messengers rather those listening to the errant messengers.
 
It's 100% inconsistent. The messaging was " get the shot, ditch the mask." Now, yet again, the goal posts have moved and there is an ever increasing call for a federal mask mandate including those who got shots. This tgoes against everything they've been saying over the past 18 month, from "flatten the curve" (its flat, btw...) to "60%, no 70%, no 80%, wait no.. it's 90%", not counting previously infected into the herd immunity numbers... they're all full of shit.
Of course they moved . Their worst fear came true something that they have talked about the entire covid pandemic. That the virus mutates and can become more transmissible . There was probably a 45 day window , and it was a short window , that could have made the Delta variant “die off. “
 
I suggest that you wag your finger at the errant messengers rather those listening to the errant messengers.
I will wag my finger at you and others that continue to rehash all the same errant bad faith messaging that you either lack the discernment to see, or more likely continue to yourself repeat in bad faith, and trying to falsely equivalate that misinformation with overstating actual very very high vaccine effectiveness as being 100% effective. You are more transparent than you think you are.
 
Write the check.
I’m with you, WSU does not have the $$ to send Rolo packing even if they want to.

Question for you - How do you think Rolo has handled this situation and what ramifications do you see going forward?
 
You show a complete lack of understanding of what science is. Of course as more facts and evidence comes available, greater understanding leads to changes. But you are also misrepresenting what are actually changes vs just different opinions and different policies from different people and different places, etc.

Masks were never represented as perfect. They have been shown to reduce transmission particularly indoors, just as social distancing has. The evidence has continued to show that. They reduce risk but don’t eliminate it. The messaging over being able to ditch the mask is obviously aimed at getting more people vaccinated. Vaccines more protective than masks but obviously also not 100% effective.

Obviously getting the percentage as close to 100% as possible is and has always been what is needed. None of the actual science has ever used the lower percentages, particularly for herd immunity. Only those thinking herd immunity would result from just letting the virus run its course with much much lower percentages have made that claim. The actual experts and science had been showing much higher levels are needed for herd immunity all along, as has been case with herd immunity for other viruses. Different percentages you cite may be reflecting the reality that some people are reluctant to get vaccinated, or unable (younger kids) or previously lack of supply, so a balance between what is realistic and what would be ideal. But if you are saying the same science on what would be needed for herd immunity then show the same person or studies changing and then look at why. But what you are citing is different percentages not strictly as a measure of what herd immunity is. Unfortunately, too many people are Not getting vaccinated. Vaccination rates in some places are still very low. Obviously many of these unvaccinated people, like Rolo (e.g. see photo of him blowing into horn in arena) are also not masking or taking other measures, so of course it is not enough, and is continuing to spread.
Nice rant.

The messaging sucks and the public shouldn't be expected to divine what is actually meant when the lying liars lie. Constantly moving the goalposts under the pretense of "there is new science" has become the biggest cop out of this whole thing, allowing policy makers to make statements and promises to manipulate the public, knowing they can fall back on " but the science changed!!"

How about making measured responses since they know the science will change?

But again, feel free to go on your strawman rant about the science and vaccinations instead of what the topic was -the messaging and how much it sucks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NMBRCRNCHR
Nice rant.

The messaging sucks and the public shouldn't be expected to divine what is actually meant when the lying liars lie. Constantly moving the goalposts under the pretense of "there is new science" has become the biggest cop out of this whole thing, allowing policy makers to make statements and promises to manipulate the public, knowing they can fall back on " but the science changed!!"

How about making measured responses since they know the science will change?

But again, feel free to go on your strawman rant about the science and vaccinations instead of what the topic was -the messaging and how much it sucks.
Much of the public has been perfectly capable of understanding. Most of those who don’t understand are not interested in doing so.
 
Last edited:
Nice rant.

The messaging sucks and the public shouldn't be expected to divine what is actually meant when the lying liars lie. Constantly moving the goalposts under the pretense of "there is new science" has become the biggest cop out of this whole thing, allowing policy makers to make statements and promises to manipulate the public, knowing they can fall back on " but the science changed!!"

How about making measured responses since they know the science will change?

But again, feel free to go on your strawman rant about the science and vaccinations instead of what the topic was -the messaging and how much it sucks.
What exactly do you think they are trying "to manipulate the public" about? Do you think there is something nefarious going on here? For what purpose?
 
I will wag my finger at you and others that continue to rehash all the same errant bad faith messaging that you either lack the discernment to see, or more likely continue to yourself repeat in bad faith, and trying to falsely equivalate that misinformation with overstating actual very very high vaccine effectiveness as being 100% effective. You are more transparent than you think you are.
Have you been ordained by the Creator as the divine messenger of truth?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NMBRCRNCHR
I’m with you, WSU does not have the $$ to send Rolo packing even if they want to.

Question for you - How do you think Rolo has handled this situation and what ramifications do you see going forward?

Less than ideal. I posted this elsewhere, it would have been better to just say nothing ahead of time and just say something about Covid protocols when asked why he’s not there in person.

Going forward, this is not significant. Price shot Tommy Trojan with a starter’s pistol and called himself the King of Poop Island. Coaches are evaluated on wins and losses. Recruits chose WSU because WSU is their best option.
 
Less than ideal. I posted this elsewhere, it would have been better to just say nothing ahead of time and just say something about Covid protocols when asked why he’s not there in person.

Going forward, this is not significant. Price shot Tommy Trojan with a starter’s pistol and called himself the King of Poop Island. Coaches are evaluated on wins and losses. Recruits chose WSU because WSU is their best option.

Price didn't do those things in a social media world under heavy scrutiny.

If Price had done that today, would have had a way worse effect.

Also the world back then wasn't as PC(Politically Correct), as it is now.

Also there is a big difference between what Price did, and what Rolo is doing.

Price didnt OFFEND HALF of the people, students, players, parents, recruits, like Rolo has done.

Also even tho it's a extremely LOW chance, Rolo could get players sick, and cause them to miss games, and cause canceled games.

Even if that doesn't happen, some players might opt out of the season, because of what Rolo has done.

Also the HALF of the people that are offended, might not donate, or donate less, and might not attend, watch games as much.

And he might not be able to get into some recruits homes.

And he might not get some recruits that he would otherwise get if he hadn't done that.

Now each of these things might be a low chance of happening. Maybe, maybe not.

But the Amalgamation, combination of all these things, makes it's more likely that one or more of these things could, would happen.

It's about risk management.

And Rolo has caused a harm to the program of a greater risk of the program being harmed by what he has done, then if he had just either vaxed, or kept it to himself.

If Rolo had either Vaxed or kept it to himself there would not have been no problem, no risk, less risk, then the risk of what he has done, even if it were to be only a 2 percent greater risk.

Like I said a Smart Politician, Salesman, CEO would not have done what Rolo did or didn't to.

They would have either Vaxed, or if they didn't Vax, they would keep it to themselves.

Even Leach was smart enough to not do what Rolo did

I'm pretty sure Leach didn't Vax, and he kept it to himself, and said that's private between a doctor, no comment, next question, topic

Rolo should have done what Leach did.

If he had, there would not be this greater risk of WSU being harmed by what he Rolo did, and there wouldn't have been a problem.

Rolo screwed up.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT