If Football Is Cancelled

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Mar 11, 2006
2,802
1,845
1,743
Talking to a friend who has season tickets with me and he pointed out something that is true. He said “players want to play”.

The people that are proponents of playing football in the fall are players, former players, and family of players.
* Nearly all current players want to play this fall
* Nearly all current coaches want to play this fall
* Former players in media (Danny Kannel, Kirk Herbstreit, David Pollock)
* Athletes that are parents of players in college (Shaq, Deion Sanders)
This group is people most concerned and closest to the student-athletes playing. They are proponents of playing.


And those against playing in the fall were generally not player or former players. And generally further away from the players.
* Sports writers that didn’t play sports (Dan Wolken, Max Kellerman)
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,154
3,539
1,743
Sure I understand. And sure a league member will be in breach if they play when the league votes not to play. But in this case, a member deciding to play does not harm or damage those members that do not play. Thus the league can sue, but for what? They have to show damages. The grant of rights is to prevent a member benefitting financially to the determent of other members. If other members pass on the opportunity to play, they've essentially given up any financial rewards. Thus, so what?
Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan, & Penn State have all said that they will consider their options this year. The Big 10 will be harmed financially if they play in the spring and their most prominent members aren't able to compete. On the other hand, each of those programs will lose around $80 to $120 million in revenue if they aren't able to play in the spring.

This is a convoluted mess that can only be sorted out in court. I don't see it going that far though because programs won't want to burn bridges with their conference. Big 10 & Pac 12 members are in a tough spot.
 
Sep 29, 2011
1,555
353
713
60
Breckenridge, CO
Sure I understand. And sure a league member will be in breach if they play when the league votes not to play. But in this case, a member deciding to play does not harm or damage those members that do not play. Thus the league can sue, but for what? They have to show damages. The grant of rights is to prevent a member benefitting financially to the determent of other members. If other members pass on the opportunity to play, they've essentially given up any financial rewards. Thus, so what?
Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan, & Penn State have all said that they will consider their options this year. The Big 10 will be harmed financially if they play in the spring and their most prominent members aren't able to compete. On the other hand, each of those programs will lose around $80 to $120 million in revenue if they aren't able to play in the spring.

This is a convoluted mess that can only be sorted out in court. I don't see it going that far though because programs won't want to burn bridges with their conference. Big 10 & Pac 12 members are in a tough spot.
I agree they’ll be harmed if conferences play in the spring. But spring football with limited conferences (2 or 3) won’t generate the revenue fall football will generate, bowls and polls will be meaningless to nonexistent. It will likely just turn into an exhibition. I actually think the B10 teams that want to play will just say - sue me in an effort to force the league to reconsider.

Of course non of that matters unless the B12, SEC and ACC are willing to integrate those schools into their respective schedules.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,098
40,702
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
1. It is safer for a college football player to be playing football with his teammates where he is SUPPOSED to be being tested and monitored and quarantined when and if he test positive, than for him to be a non-sports participating member of the normal student body who doesn't get tested and goes out and does normal college things.

2. We cannot expect college kids to lock themselves in their dorm rooms, only go to class, not socialize, or party and it is even more likely that college football players with their T levels, being unable to do this without the strict guidelines and shared goals of college football (i.e. mini bubbles with peer pressure).
Do you realize that you're arguing against bring students back to campus?
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,098
40,702
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
5. Warning this one is controversial - Money is the main driving force behind ALL the decisions being made for college football, even for those that are postponing seasons...Litigation and media/political scrutiny being the driver financially for the Big 10 and Pac 12 and tv contracts and others being the driver financially for the others (SEC ACC BIG 12)
I agree that the Big 10 and Pac 12 have considered the financial implications of canceling, they'd be idiots if they didn't. But Ford wouldn't have been infamous for deciding they didn't want to pay out for all the tort claims from deaths in the Pinto and just fixed the design flaw in the gas tank instead. That would have, in fact, been the right thing to do even if the underlying reasons were financial and not ethical.
 
Nov 6, 2010
1,851
649
1,743
Would be bad for us. You don't think we'd have to fight off Nebraska and Iowa for the recruits from Texas that we are getting ? Only reason they don't go there now is they want to play near home and in a conference that they know something about.

Wouldn't impact uT. Wouldn't impact 0U. But everyone else should vote "no thanks".
Meh, I used to worry about that more than I do anymore. Nebraska and Iowa are still a long ways from Texas, and for the player or two they would get every year from Texas above and beyond what they do now, the impact on the remaining schools in the conference would be negligible compared to getting two major power 5 programs into the conference to bring us back to 12. Formal offer to Iowa and Nebraska to join the conference should be in the mail.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,098
40,702
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
6. Using health and safety for the athletes for a reason to cancel football is disingenuous unless you are going to force lockdowns on everyone, because they are more safe being in a strict protocol than outside of one.
Life is not a collision sport. Football is a collision sport. COVID-19 has long-term cardiovascular implications that we are only beginning to understand, and that we understand not at all in the context of collision sports. There are some professional athletes that are playing contact sports right now (basketball, soccer) that will give us a better idea, even if we can't completely extrapolate the data to football. Admitting that we don't know enough to allow participating in a collision sport doesn't mean we have to lockdown the rest of non-collision society. That is simply non sequitur.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,098
40,702
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
7. With a National election in November, for kids playing sports what are they going to do if the party or person they desire to win doesn't win? Would it not be better for the nation if they were focused on something else besides our divided political climate.
I only care about the health of the athletes, I don't give a flying hoot about the election.
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,154
3,539
1,743
I agree they’ll be harmed if conferences play in the spring. But spring football with limited conferences (2 or 3) won’t generate the revenue fall football will generate, bowls and polls will be meaningless to nonexistent. It will likely just turn into an exhibition. I actually think the B10 teams that want to play will just say - sue me in an effort to force the league to reconsider.
I'm not really sure how this would play out in court. Programs enter into grant of rights agreements with TV networks for a guaranteed payday. What happens to those rights if that guaranteed revenue goes away? You can make a strong argument that the TV networks have no claim to those rights if they aren't going to pay out for the 2020 season.

All of this is probably covered by the contracts, but I've never had the opportunity to read the fine print. It will be interesting to see what this upheaval does to the TV money.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,098
40,702
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
I really want to understand the other side of this. You, and others can accuse me of it being about entertainment,
It isn't an accusation, it is entertainment to us. Nothing else. That's a simple fact. It's entertainment to me, I enjoy watching it. I presume you enjoy watching it and thus it's entertainment to you. It's entertainment to most of the players, only a very small fraction will go on to be paid to play it, otherwise they play it because they are good and it and enjoy it. That last part is why I particularly love the college game over the NFL, because the players are mostly playing because they enjoy it and are good at it.

I don't know why you would have a problem admitting that.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
6,556
3,302
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
It isn't an accusation, it is entertainment to us. Nothing else. That's a simple fact. It's entertainment to me, I enjoy watching it. I presume you enjoy watching it and thus it's entertainment to you. It's entertainment to most of the players, only a very small fraction will go on to be paid to play it, otherwise they play it because they are good and it and enjoy it. That last part is why I particularly love the college game over the NFL, because the players are mostly playing because they enjoy it and are good at it.

I don't know why you would have a problem admitting that.
It’s not entertainment to a lot of us. It’s a love.
 
Nov 6, 2010
1,851
649
1,743
I agree they’ll be harmed if conferences play in the spring. But spring football with limited conferences (2 or 3) won’t generate the revenue fall football will generate, bowls and polls will be meaningless to nonexistent. It will likely just turn into an exhibition. I actually think the B10 teams that want to play will just say - sue me in an effort to force the league to reconsider.

Of course non of that matters unless the B12, SEC and ACC are willing to integrate those schools into their respective schedules.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The more I think and read about this, the only way I think any of these teams play is if they're willing to leave their respective conferences permanently and join one of the conferences that are playing. The schools that want to play can definitely show damages, so I would think they could get our of their conference agreements pretty easily. And as soon as a Nebraska says they're leaving the conference and open that door, the B1G I think would be forced to reverse course and play. The next week will be interesting.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,098
40,702
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
I honestly don't know the answer but how many of these schools that cancelled football are having true 100% virtual learning? If they don't go that route, then why worry about cancelling football?
Because students don't smash into each other at high velocities in the classroom, generally?

Sitting in classroom is an apple.

Tackling a running back coming at you full steam is an orange.

This ain't rocket surgery, people.