Illini Football & CFB 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
I disagree.
This is about playing football and living life.
Many (most?) kids want to play, witness Trevor Lawrence's posts and new group that is skyrocketing in popularity among players.
I don't think you are understanding my post. The players want to play. But they don't get a say. The suits call the shots and they are making that decision based off money, not the well being of the players
 
Likes: KevinC
st petersburg, fl
I don't think I am responsible for your health, nor are you responsible for mine.
You buy insurance as part of your responsibility for your health, or you "get" insurance as part of your employment, sports scholarship, etc.
You may have some coverage limits or exclusions on some things, like skydiving or covid.
You then make your own decision as to whether you opt-in, or opt-out of participating.
If only the legal world was that simple...

I can easily take your scenario and expand it. Football player wants to play. "accepts" the liability. Catches COVID. has little/no symptoms. Goes to practice. They test him that morning but results haven't come back yet. Walks around. Janitor cleaning Smith center catches it from that player. Janitor is now severely ill. What happens then? simplified but entirely plausible scenario with a whole can of worms attached to it.

And it's not like health insurance is the only issue. Sure, insurance may pay for some/most of my bills. It's the liability beyond this that's an issue. Why do you think employers have been pushing for liability waivers in stimulus packages?
 
Can schools just go rogue like Nebraska seems prepared to do? The B1G shuts down, the B12 keeps chugging, Neb wants to play in B12 only football. Are there no repercussions from the B10? NCAA?

At the very least, the B10 can't be happy about this situation playing out.
 
My understanding of the economics of D1 sports is that the university itself does not directly financially benefit from sports programs. It's the athletic depts that have self-funding cross-subsidization structures (though the schools may indirectly benefit through increased alumni engagement, donations, etc.). In fact, in most schools, the schools actually sending funding to the athletic programs (with some major programs like Michigan being exceptions). With that model, if I'm the president of the university, what real motivation do I have to force a season to occur? The risk/reward is asymmetric. I don't lose much if the season doesn't happen (esp. if it's only one season and it's for obvious and ostensibly safety-related reasons), but if a player/staff members gets seriously ill, then the liability could potentially be massive (not to mention the impact on health systems, etc.).

If I'm an AD, head coach, etc., obviously the calculus is very different. But sounds like the presidents are the ones making the final call. If the B1G commissioner is leaning towards their side, I find it unlikely that a season is going to happen.
Whitman's on record as saying there'll be a $20 million hit to the athletic department this school year. That's gotta be covered by the university or donors in some form or fashion.
 
Likes: Dude
st petersburg, fl
Whitman's on record as saying there'll be a $20 million hit to the athletic department this school year. That's gotta be covered by the university or donors in some form or fashion.
Sure. But plenty of ways of doing so without the university cutting a check. Easy place to start is to cut from those that have benefited most from the upside D1 sports have seen for a long time - the ADs and coaches from basketball/football. That'll make a dent on the 20M easy. Beyond that, if I were a college president - I'd just tell them to raise debt and pay it off over time. The economy is awash in cheap debt right now. Power 5 Athletic programs have ideal business models for lenders (steady, contractually obligated revenue models). The cruise lines were able to raise debt in March/April....surely a power 5 athletic dept can raise some to fill the gaps for a year. Beyond that, go on a marketing campaign for donations. Athletic programs have shown a competency to do so.
 
Likes: WeWillWhen
I don't think you are understanding my post. The players want to play. But they don't get a say. The suits call the shots and they are making that decision based off money, not the well being of the players
I think the same suits (Presidents not ADs or coaches) will announce online classes only in several of the BIG states.
 
Can schools just go rogue like Nebraska seems prepared to do? The B1G shuts down, the B12 keeps chugging, Neb wants to play in B12 only football. Are there no repercussions from the B10? NCAA?

At the very least, the B10 can't be happy about this situation playing out.
I'd tell the Huskers, go ahead, but if you play now you aren't eligible if there is spring football since you played in the fall. No B1G or Big Ten Network revenue for you in the spring either!
 
Sure. But plenty of ways of doing so without the university cutting a check. Easy place to start is to cut from those that have benefited most from the upside D1 sports have seen for a long time - the ADs and coaches from basketball/football. That'll make a dent on the 20M easy. Beyond that, if I were a college president - I'd just tell them to raise debt and pay it off over time. The economy is awash in cheap debt right now. Power 5 Athletic programs have ideal business models for lenders (steady, contractually obligated revenue models). The cruise lines were able to raise debt in March/April....surely a power 5 athletic dept can raise some to fill the gaps for a year. Beyond that, go on a marketing campaign for donations. Athletic programs have shown a competency to do so.
The athletic dept. is already sitting on $300 million worth of debt. Without revenue from football it is unlikely that they'll be able to make this year's payment without a bailout from the university.
 
Likes: Dude
st petersburg, fl
The athletic dept. is already sitting on $300 million worth of debt. Without revenue from football it is unlikely that they'll be able to make this year's payment without a bailout from the university.
OK - you got me. Down the rabbit hole I go. Can you (or someone) point me to the DIA detailed financials (specifically balance sheet and cash flows)? All I could find is the below. DIA has budgeted ~$12.5M for debt service in 2020 (I believe that was for last fiscal year ending June 2020). If the DIA isn't able to finance 12.5M on an annual normalized revenue base of ~$131M, then they're irresponsibly over-extended.

obviously that doesn't account for other ongoing expenses, so i thought i'd do a bit of a thought experiment.
  • Assume there's zero DIA revenues for the year
  • Also assume Benefits, Student Aid, and debt service costs are fixed (can't be reduced)
  • Assume 15% cut in salaries, 0% benefits, 33% in Supplies/Services/Equipment, 25% in Utilities, 50% in capital.
  • That leaves a remaining budget of just over $100M
  • Then assume they raise the same as they did last year in donations (~27M). Leaves about $75M hole
  • That requires ~25% increase in debt to fill the debt (assuming they have $300M currently). If you're running an operation where you're so extended that you can't raise debt by 25% in the current debt markets, you're irresponsibly managing it.
  • Again this assumes ZERO revenue from TV/tickets/branding etc. for the entire year. Worst case scenario.


1597093771634.png
 
Likes: Cairo
I'd tell the Huskers, go ahead, but if you play now you aren't eligible if there is spring football since you played in the fall. No B1G or Big Ten Network revenue for you in the spring either!
Lol I’m sure they will take that chance. Big 12 checks clear? Cause if they do then I would want Illinois to move to the big 12 too. Why would playing 24 games in 10 months make things safer for the players?
 
st petersburg, fl
Notwithstanding, in your scenario, the janitor is in the same boat as the players, and should be covered with the same covid insurance, and accept the same liability for covid that the players do. Ditto all employees everywhere that come in contact with other employees (or any people) as part of their job. If each employee everywhere needs to sign a liability waiver regarding covid, then so be it. We cannot live in a bubble, we need to live life.
I generally agree with you. however, the nature of this pandemic is a bit of a unique beast, IMO. The combination of political/social scrutiny, the uneven experience the general population has (by age, location, family structure etc), (as I mentioned in my earlier post) economic implications for the schools, and the likely temporary nature of it all I think will lead university officials to be conservative (esp if the B1G commissioner supports it).

As an aside, the university would also be on the hook for medical costs even if the employee is insured. Large employers are typically self-insured (take on the medical costs for their insured employees). It's administered through health insurance companies, but UofI would likely be paying most, if not all, out of pocket.
 
OK - you got me. Down the rabbit hole I go. Can you (or someone) point me to the DIA detailed financials (specifically balance sheet and cash flows)? All I could find is the below. DIA has budgeted ~$12.5M for debt service in 2020 (I believe that was for last fiscal year ending June 2020). If the DIA isn't able to finance 12.5M on an annual normalized revenue base of ~$131M, then they're irresponsibly over-extended.

obviously that doesn't account for other ongoing expenses, so i thought i'd do a bit of a thought experiment.
  • Assume there's zero DIA revenues for the year
  • Also assume Benefits, Student Aid, and debt service costs are fixed (can't be reduced)
  • Assume 15% cut in salaries, 0% benefits, 33% in Supplies/Services/Equipment, 25% in Utilities, 50% in capital.
  • That leaves a remaining budget of just over $100M
  • Then assume they raise the same as they did last year in donations (~27M). Leaves about $75M hole
  • That requires ~25% increase in debt to fill the debt (assuming they have $300M currently). If you're running an operation where you're so extended that you can't raise debt by 25% in the current debt markets, you're irresponsibly managing it.
  • Again this assumes ZERO revenue from TV/tickets/branding etc. for the entire year. Worst case scenario.


View attachment 6256
I can not. I will offer this: https://illinois.rivals.com/news/budget-50
Among public universities, Illinois ranks second in the nation with athletic department debt at $325 million. The service debt is more than $20 million a year,
 
st petersburg, fl
I can not. I will offer this: https://illinois.rivals.com/news/budget-50
Among public universities, Illinois ranks second in the nation with athletic department debt at $325 million. The service debt is more than $20 million a year,
Thanks. I still think there are viable avenues to manage through it without having to ask the University to cut a check (if cruise lines are able to do it, then college football should be able to as well). Whether JW follows them is up to him (obviously he'd rather just get a bailout and not have to repay it vs. having to repay debt over time).

But if we really are that extended and are not able to finance our way out of this, then I guess it'll be interesting how the president votes tonight. Will be a knock against the "just doing it for $" if he votes for no season.
 
New York City, N.Y. City
These are the worst times, when everyone knows exactly what’s about to happen but they’re straining to come up with some reason to believe, maybe it won’t? Two more dominoes fell today (B1G and MWC) and they’re all coming down soon. Face it, America, you threw up on Dean Wormer.
 
I acknolwedge the issues with the legal world; implied liability is valid in some cases and rediculous in others, and at some point there needs to be a line in the sand for covid liability.

Notwithstanding, in your scenario, the janitor is in the same boat as the players, and should be covered with the same covid insurance, and accept the same liability for covid that the players do. Ditto all employees everywhere that come in contact with other employees (or any people) as part of their job. If each employee everywhere needs to sign a liability waiver regarding covid, then so be it. We cannot live in a bubble, we need to live life.
Essentially what you are saying is individuals need to bear the risk of decisions made by their employers. This is not how it ever works and while there have been some calling for basically immunity from work comp liability for COVID, that seems highly unlikely to happen (thankfully). If it's worth the risk, fine, but employers should have to make that calculation. If employers don't bear the risk, what stops them from putting their employees in harm's way, for some trivial gain?
 
No-yes-no-yes-no
Main Quad
Lol I’m sure they will take that chance. Big 12 checks clear? Cause if they do then I would want Illinois to move to the big 12 too. Why would playing 24 games in 10 months make things safer for the players?
Illinois has no interest in joining the Big 12. There isn't very good evidence any of the big ten teams want to leave.

The season will likely be dependent on whether or not the SEC decides it's had a change of heart and now values player safety. At this point, I'm betting no conferences play.
 
I can not. I will offer this: https://illinois.rivals.com/news/budget-50
Among public universities, Illinois ranks second in the nation with athletic department debt at $325 million. The service debt is more than $20 million a year,
We are in that much debt and they were looking to add a hockey team? This is the most illinois thing I've ever heard. No wonder they decided against that huge stadium renovation a couple years ago.
 
Illinois has no interest in joining the Big 12. There isn't very good evidence any of the big ten teams want to leave.

The season will likely be dependent on whether or not the SEC decides it's had a change of heart and now values player safety. At this point, I'm betting no conferences play.
Thank you president noyes. I had no idea you knew what Illinois was thinking. I’ll let ya take the floor and what else happened in the meeting this evening?
 
Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me this is how it ALWAYS works. The employer has a job offering, there is always some level of risk involved, some way of mitigating risk (NEVER to zero, currently a bit higher risk than usual), and you either opt-in or not. Your choice. Free country.

And, "some trivial gain"?! Football is but one aspect of our entire economy, but is experiencing the same considerations, which basically result in some outsider deciding for you that you need to shut your business down "for the better good". Nonsense. Some business stays open and you think it puts you at risk, stay the heck away. Your choice. Free country.

At least it was supposed to be.

Rant over. Won't post on this again. These are my opinions, you are welcome to yours, and I won't cancel you, but I will debate you.
Many different things going on here. You seem to be equating working in the COVID era with some risky job, like coal mining. You go into coal mining knowing the risks. Unless you were a new hire after mid-March, you can't have known your employer would be putting you at risk of contracting a dangerous and highly contagious disease amid a global pandemic. Not to mention that even if you are a coal miner and you are injured in a predictable accident at work, your employer is likely STILL liable. And I'm sure the rebuttal is "if you don't like it, just quit." Most people can't afford to do that, especially since quitting your job would make you ineligible for unemployment benefits, and especially since most people's health insurance is tied to their jobs.

I'm not saying football is trivial. It might well be that a football season is worth the risk. That is the decision all these schools are trying to make. Your comments strongly suggested you weren't just talking exclusivley about football though. If your employer brings you back to work because you're 2% more productive working at the office rather than at home, that would be trivial. If that employer faces no risk, then why would they care if that minimal gain comes at increased risk to you? If they want to take that risk, they should bear the cost of that risk.
 
With respect,
the suits calling off the season foregoes money, so that point is invalid, and
the players that have signed on to Trevor Lawrence's lead had ID'd their well being as being allowed to play, which they apparently have little say in.
How does it forgo money when the point is liability that scares them?
 
Likes: KevinC
Status
Not open for further replies.