Big Ten Cancels Fall Football (CFB Thread)

Status
Not open for further replies.
#251      
I wish that before every young person graduated from an American high school they were forced to memorize the sentence, "There is not a legal remedy for every single thing I don't like and/or think is unfair."


My guess is that this has as much (or more) to do with the parents than with the kids......
 
#253      

Deleted member 716187

D
Guest
The B1G really messed this up, I used to hate the SEC as whole (still do), but the B1G has joined them in my hatred. Time to search for an ACC school to root for.
 
#254      
I don’t see what they expect to gain. If there is a spring season, they will still play. (And I know, that is still a major IF)

Do they want money for it?

Nothing happens quickly in the legal world so it’s not like they are going to win in a day and we will see tOSU come to town on Saturday.

Questions questions...
 
#255      
That's precisely the motive many think for canceling the season. If you recall right before the decision to cancel the season, there was a lot of talk by groups purporting to represent players that certain demands should be met before the season was played. The move by the Big Ten was seen to prevent the players from organizing and making more demands. Although, it appears some of the players are trying to organize anyway, but, of course, they don't have the threat of "striking" to give weight to their demands. Oh! those childish clowns!
Interesting to note that same type of “demands” were being talked about or made by Pac 12 players. Were there any similar groups/demands with the 3 conferences that didn’t postpone season? Does make one think twice.
 
#256      

Deleted member 716187

D
Guest
The B1G really messed this up, I used to hate the SEC as whole (still do), but the B1G has joined them in my hatred. Time to search for an ACC school to root for.
* this wasnt supposed to come off as anti illini or that Im not going to be an illini fan anymore. Will always for better or for worse be an illini fan, just meant to say I need to find an ACC team root for this year. I do think covid is a serious problem, but I feel the B1G made the wrong decision on this even if player safety was the main concern, but Im skeptical that it was.
 
#257      
So are you saying that the big ten postponed the season because they were worried players would make demands/conditions under which the season was to be played? So instead of trying to meet those demands, just postpone it outright before those demands could be formally made? Seems a little "nose to spite face" kinda scenario.

i guess the theory that this could've been the opportunity for the players to form a unified coalition that would make demands beyond playing under COVID could be valid. But from a legal perspective, they're going to have a hell of a time trying to prove that given the big ten is potentially voluntarily giving up billions with which those demands could've been met. Plus you could just point to the ACC/SEC to show that this isn't what's happening anyway (at least from what i've seen) so you'd have to prove the big ten/pac12 are different.
No, I believe a big part of the decision to cancel the season was to negate a reason for student-athletes to organize, which would eventually lead to demands for fair wages.

I'm not sure what you are thinking the players need to prove, but here are the three counts from the article:
» Wrongful interference with business expectations. For football student-athletes, the season is a chance to work toward a career as a professional player as well as develop personal brands for eventual monetary gain under name/image/likeness legislation. Canceling the fall campaign based on what is now outdated or inaccurate medical information — while not taking into account why players are actually safer in a team environment that tests them regularly — cannot be justified.

» Breach of contract. The league — through reputation, public statements and its own documents — has established that it exists in part to benefit its student-athletes. It potentially violated that contract by not holding a vote within its Council of Presidents and Chancellors.

» Declaratory judgment. The Big Ten not voting on the decision, or at least being unwilling and/or unable to produce records of such a vote, violates its governing documents. The decision should be invalid and unenforceable.
 
#258      
My guess is that this has as much (or more) to do with the parents than with the kids......
Your guess is correct. It is by the parents who threatened to sue in their letter last week.
I don’t see what they expect to gain. If there is a spring season, they will still play. (And I know, that is still a major IF)

Do they want money for it?

Nothing happens quickly in the legal world so it’s not like they are going to win in a day and we will see tOSU come to town on Saturday.

Questions questions...
From the article:
The lawsuit says represented players won’t seek or accept damages of $75,000 or greater in the action.
To me, it seems like they want to know who made the decision and why, and really hope that the presidents vote to overturn the decision.
 
#259      
"Who made the decision and why?" - will be the most often asked question of 2021
 
#263      
Interesting development.

Was it pressure from players/parents?

Possibly a desire to not fall behind other conferences that didn’t cancel? (I’m thinking the B1G thought all P5 conferences would be pressured to follow suit and were surprised when it didn’t happen)

They cite not wanting to affect the 2021 season. It could simply be that.

COVID cases have gone down recently after the recent spike (deaths never truly “spiked” during this last cases surge). Maybe that?

Maybe it’s the proliferating of the new test capability?

Maybe it’s all of the above?

Myocarditis is still a thing so if they were truly worried about that, they probably wouldn’t be discussing playing earlier without a vaccine.

:popcorn:
 
#264      
Interesting development.

Was it pressure from players/parents?

Possibly a desire to not fall behind other conferences that didn’t cancel? (I’m thinking the B1G thought all P5 conferences would be pressured to follow suit and were surprised when it didn’t happen)

They cite not wanting to affect the 2021 season. It could simply be that.

COVID cases have gone down recently after the recent spike (deaths never truly “spiked” during this last cases surge). Maybe that?

Maybe it’s the proliferating of the new test capability?

Maybe it’s all of the above?

Myocarditis is still a thing so if they were truly worried about that, they probably wouldn’t be discussing playing earlier without a vaccine.

:popcorn:
Money. Donors were dropping like flies. Ohio state had an 7 digit donor willing to pull the plug. Shifted their position quickly. Pressure from others as well helped.
 
#265      
Forgottonia
Interesting development.

Was it pressure from players/parents?

Possibly a desire to not fall behind other conferences that didn’t cancel? (I’m thinking the B1G thought all P5 conferences would be pressured to follow suit and were surprised when it didn’t happen)

They cite not wanting to affect the 2021 season. It could simply be that.

COVID cases have gone down recently after the recent spike (deaths never truly “spiked” during this last cases surge). Maybe that?

Maybe it’s the proliferating of the new test capability?

Maybe it’s all of the above?

Myocarditis is still a thing so if they were truly worried about that, they probably wouldn’t be discussing playing earlier without a vaccine.

:popcorn:
It's hard to know what's really going on. The coaches never had a say in the decision and probably 100% wanted to play, so I don't see them discussing things as a big development. Unless we hear the presidents are meeting to discuss possibilities, I can't get too excited. It still seems very difficult to walk this decision back without looking like fools. I'm guessing they would rather hold their moral high ground of safety than admit they made a mistake. At least at this point. We are still weeks away from knowing what campus infection rates will really do. 217 cases reported in the last 2 days at Illinois.
 
#267      
If true (and I'm not doubting you), that is absolutely disgusting.
For many years now, the Big Ten has been making major decisions that don't necessarily align with the league's tradition or even the wishes of many fans. The response to objectors has always been "Yeah, we know, but look at the money." Use that rationale enough and it becomes awfully hard to come back to the same people and say, "You need to look beyond the money. There are bigger things involved here."
 
#268      
Something is up. They don’t want stuff to come out.
They don't want to have to produce their deliberations everytime an athlete's parents disagree with a decision. It's incredibly expensive and disruptive to litigate every decision.
No, I believe a big part of the decision to cancel the season was to negate a reason for student-athletes to organize, which would eventually lead to demands for fair wages.
I think fair compensation IS the rallying issue. And they have a point.
 
#269      
They don't want to have to produce their deliberations everytime an athlete's parents disagree with a decision. It's incredibly expensive and disruptive to litigate every decision.

I think fair compensation IS the rallying issue. And they have a point.
This is the largest decision in the leagues history. These school presidents make millions of dollars from the taxpayer, they should have to explain their decisions. Yes people shouldn’t sue every decision, but this is too big off one (and had been such a debacle) that I think the players deserve more clarity.
 
#270      
Who cares about money? The players' health should be the top priority. Not playing this fall was the right decision and I don't care about any opinions to the contrary.
 
#271      
Interesting development.

Was it pressure from players/parents?

Possibly a desire to not fall behind other conferences that didn’t cancel? (I’m thinking the B1G thought all P5 conferences would be pressured to follow suit and were surprised when it didn’t happen)

They cite not wanting to affect the 2021 season. It could simply be that.

COVID cases have gone down recently after the recent spike (deaths never truly “spiked” during this last cases surge). Maybe that?

Maybe it’s the proliferating of the new test capability?

Maybe it’s all of the above?

Myocarditis is still a thing so if they were truly worried about that, they probably wouldn’t be discussing playing earlier without a vaccine.

:popcorn:
How a cardiologist may have saved the college football season
This was a terrific article and I meant to share it last week, but got too busy on other things. This will give you some insight into the decision by the Big 12 and a cardiologist's opinion on handling myocarditis.
 
#272      
If you were really following the science you would have more confidence in your position that we do. Like so much with Covid, this looks to me like a political decision. Its a lot easier to walk back a political miscalculation.
 
#273      
If you were really following the science you would have more confidence in your position that we do. Like so much with Covid, this looks to me like a political decision. Its a lot easier to walk back a political miscalculation.

The challenge is that the existence of COVID and reaction to it varies so widely. Our school decided to be a leader in this area and statewide positivity is 4.2%. Iowa came late to the party and is at 17.5%. Among B1G states, New Jersey is lowest at 1.6%. Do you tell Rutgers to pack a couple hundred people in a plane and go to a state where things are 10 times worse for a few days?
 
#274      
This is the largest decision in the leagues history. These school presidents make millions of dollars from the taxpayer, they should have to explain their decisions. Yes people shouldn’t sue every decision, but this is too big off one (and had been such a debacle) that I think the players deserve more clarity.
None of this is the issue. The issue is that if the legal precedent is set, the judgement can then be referenced and applied in all future decisions. If the B1G were more competent, they would have handled this process better. That doesn't mean all future decisions should be subject to the blackmail of litigation by setting a bad legal precedent. The lawyers on this board can tell me if my understanding of this is wrong, but just because the B1G wants the case thrown out doesn't mean they have anything to hide. I mean let's face it, the embarassing stuff is incompetence, and that's already in full view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.