August 10, 20206 yr Just now, Voice of Reason said: I see the end result of this pay the players debate being the Power 5 conferences going on their own breaking away from the NCAA. As much as we'd like to see it, that's never going to happen.
August 10, 20206 yr 2 hours ago, LongTimeReader said: Then how can university administrators justify bring 20,000 to 30,000 students back on campus in a much less restrictive environment? Cant charge 25k a year for online classes only is my guess.
August 10, 20206 yr Heard this conversation this weekend from some folks who have quite a bit of knowledge about the inner-workings of this mess. Just paraphrasing their explanation folks, not stating facts: They explained that having a season without fans the schools collectively look to lose some 4 BILLION dollars in total losses and expenditures, while not playing the season they cut those losses in half strictly from just lost revenue (again I'm paraphrasing and they were just using round numbers). The players will remain on scholarship and retain their eligibility for another year. It sounded to me like "playing football" is the least of the university's concerns and I get that. Those are staggering potential monetary losses if accurate.
August 10, 20206 yr 5 minutes ago, bulldog77 said: Heard this conversation this weekend from some folks who have quite a bit of knowledge about the inner-workings of this mess. Just paraphrasing their explanation folks, not stating facts: They explained that having a season without fans the schools collectively look to lose some 4 BILLION dollars in total losses and expenditures, while not playing the season they cut those losses in half strictly from just lost revenue (again I'm paraphrasing and they were just using round numbers). The players will remain on scholarship and retain their eligibility for another year. It sounded to me like "playing football" is the least of the university's concerns and I get that. Those are staggering potential monetary losses if accurate. This assumes the NCAA does the right thing in regards to eligibility.
August 10, 20206 yr 43 minutes ago, bulldog77 said: Heard this conversation this weekend from some folks who have quite a bit of knowledge about the inner-workings of this mess. Just paraphrasing their explanation folks, not stating facts: They explained that having a season without fans the schools collectively look to lose some 4 BILLION dollars in total losses and expenditures, while not playing the season they cut those losses in half strictly from just lost revenue (again I'm paraphrasing and they were just using round numbers). The players will remain on scholarship and retain their eligibility for another year. It sounded to me like "playing football" is the least of the university's concerns and I get that. Those are staggering potential monetary losses if accurate. I may be wrong, but I think this issue was raised for spring sports. Eligibility was extended, but whether or not the scholarship was retained, was up to the school. Scholarships are never guaranteed, and get pulled all the time. With a limited number of scholarships available, extending all the seniors scholarships will affect this years recruiting efforts unless the scholly number is increased.
August 10, 20206 yr OSU never really flexes the power it has in the conference. Now would be the time, problem is we have a brand new president who doesn’t start for another two weeks. I tend to think she’s for canceling anyways. The player lead movement has been interesting. OSU just finished practice today. I think the players would have to explore options against the league/NCAA to save the season.
August 10, 20206 yr 5 minutes ago, John Anthony said: The player lead movement has been interesting. OSU just finished practice today. I think the players would have to explore options against the league/NCAA to save the season. I think if the players started openly asking about their transfer options if they decide to cancel the year, that would carry a lot of weight. Whether or not they were serious, the schools would have to listen.
August 10, 20206 yr 2 minutes ago, TheDeuce said: I think if the players started openly asking about their transfer options if they decide to cancel the year, that would carry a lot of weight. Whether or not they were serious, the schools would have to listen. The PAC-12 players, along with Northwestern making player safety demands, has rattled the conference admins to their core.
August 10, 20206 yr 34 minutes ago, TheDeuce said: I think if the players started openly asking about their transfer options if they decide to cancel the year, that would carry a lot of weight. Whether or not they were serious, the schools would have to listen. Yes sir... Justin Fields (or any other star player) asks for a transfer waver and OSU fights a little harder to play this season.
August 10, 20206 yr 4 hours ago, LongTimeReader said: Then how can university administrators justify bring 20,000 to 30,000 students back on campus in a much less restrictive environment? They can’t...
August 10, 20206 yr 2 hours ago, Hellcats said: Anybody think canceling the season is a move to show players you need us more than we need you? Not the entire reason but I’m sure it played a part in the decision. This virus created the perfect storm. It opened the door for the players to make demands based on the revenue they bring in and it gave administrations the perfect reason to cancel the season. From a public relations standpoint, canceling the season to protect the players looks a lot better than having the players say they won’t play without safety protocols and compensation.
August 10, 20206 yr 2 hours ago, Hellcats said: Anybody think canceling the season is a move to show players you need us more than we need you? I mean it’s still because of the virus. But what needs to be done to get them on the field would be once and for all relinquish the power to the athletes and the powers that be want no part of that.
August 10, 20206 yr 2 minutes ago, MBWC41 said: From a public relations standpoint, canceling the season to protect the players looks a lot better than having the players say they won’t play without safety protocols and compensation. This is what they think they are doing. But I think most fans of the sport see through smoke they are blowing and realize this has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the student athletes. If they cared about their health, their success, their future, they would 100% be playing the season because it’s way safer to have them in a situation where they have increased safety measures to protect them. They don’t have those safety measures without football.
August 10, 20206 yr 6 minutes ago, GrantNKY said: I mean it’s still because of the virus. But what needs to be done to get them on the field would be once and for all relinquish the power to the athletes and the powers that be want no part of that. No sport, pro or amateur, on any level is going to allow the athletes to run the show. For college athletes to gain some power they will need to unionize.
August 10, 20206 yr 5 minutes ago, GrantNKY said: This is what they think they are doing. But I think most fans of the sport see through smoke they are blowing and realize this has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the student athletes. If they cared about their health, their success, their future, they would 100% be playing the season because it’s way safer to have them in a situation where they have increased safety measures to protect them. They don’t have those safety measures without football. Agreed. When you open a campus back up and allow tens of thousands of kids to attend, you lose the safety argument.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.