Will There Be a 2020 Football Season?

Chances of a 2020 season?

  • Full 12 Game Schedule

    Votes: 20 36.4%

  • Shortened Season

    Votes: 13 23.6%

  • No Games Played

    Votes: 22 40.0%
  • Total voters
    55
  • Poll closed .
CAHusker said:
Do you really believe that these scenarios, that are so in-sanely rare, are driving this decision?  I am personally struggling with the idea that these decisions are being made concerning health only.  I am guessing its a little of both, but still consumed by the idea that everything is being driven by a political/power agenda.  Living in Southern California has not helped my sanity either.  :)
Click to expand...


I think a concern for liability is driving this decision, followed by a concern for health.  

I think the people saying it's "political" have a lot more dot-connecting to do before that's a realistic scenario. Let's apply our skeptical minds to the "it's political" idea.

1. There's no direct line between withholding football and getting Candidate A or Candidate B elected.

2. There is no evidence that greater than 60%, and possibly up to 11, of the COC/P's are of a like political mind.

3. There is no evidence that, presuming #2 to be true and #1 to be the aim, that 60%, and possibly up to 11, of the COC/P's are willing to risk their careers - and likely the election if they were discovered - on the off chance that by colluding they could have an effect on the election.

A skeptical mind needs evidence before believing these scenarios. Other than "it's an election year," there's none for "it's political."

 
knapplc said:
I think a concern for liability is driving this decision, followed by a concern for health.  

I think the people saying it's "political" have a lot more dot-connecting to do before that's a realistic scenario. Let's apply our skeptical minds to the "it's political" idea.

1. There's no direct line between withholding football and getting Candidate A or Candidate B elected.

2. There is no evidence that greater than 60%, and possibly up to 11, of the COC/P's are of a like political mind.

3. There is no evidence that, presuming #2 to be true and #1 to be the aim, that 60%, and possibly up to 11, of the COC/P's are willing to risk their careers - and likely the election if they were discovered - on the off chance that by colluding they could have an effect on the election.

A skeptical mind needs evidence before believing these scenarios. Other than "it's an election year," there's none for "it's political."
Click to expand...
I believe some of the political aspects being mentioned are in reference to internal university politics and the egos among the different officials and not necessarily political in the sense of the Presidency. Board of Regents, donors, athletic department officials, coaches, chancellors, university presidents all jostling to get their way.

Big lessons in university power structures are going to come from this year and I wouldn't be surprised to see some restructuring going on in the future. For instance, will Boards of Regents take more authority from individual school presidents when deciding important matters regarding the school? Thankfully this isn't an issue for Nebraska now (finally) but many other schools are going to have some serious discussions regarding who leads the school in the future.

 

 
I’m all for player safety and making sure the teams can function safely in this environment but how inflated is the B1Gs sense of feeling better and above all these other conferences?  Do they really think they have a better handle on the reality of it all than the SEC, ACC, Big XII etc.? As much as we want to believe those teams/conferences don’t care, it’s a pretty safe bet the only difference is they just tried harder to make it happen. I still think the B1G viewed themselves as so self important that they wanted to be the first major to cancel and they assumed everyone would fall in line behind them. What’s the signature Corso catch phrase....not so fast my friend.

It really only requires a slight tweak to the approach. Instead of starting with the idea we’re not going to play until it’s proven it can be done 100% safely, maybe they should say, we’re going to play until it is proven it can’t be done safely.  I think most all indications so far are that it’s just not dangerous enough to be causing all these other problems. The threshold can’t be avoiding even one health issue at this expense. Give the players the choice to opt in or out and get it going. We all took a risk getting out of bed this morning. For most of us, that was a bigger risk than any hard evidence provides for the risk of football being played. Maybe that will change but that’s a bridge to be crossed down the road.

 
Wistrom Disciple said:
I believe some of the political aspects being mentioned are in reference to internal university politics and the egos among the different officials and not necessarily political in the sense of the Presidency. Board of Regents, donors, athletic department officials, coaches, chancellors, university presidents all jostling to get their way.

Big lessons in university power structures are going to come from this year and I wouldn't be surprised to see some restructuring going on in the future. For instance, will Boards of Regents take more authority from individual school presidents when deciding important matters regarding the school? Thankfully this isn't an issue for Nebraska now (finally) but many other schools are going to have some serious discussions regarding who leads the school in the future.
Click to expand...


Nah. The "political" talk speaks directly to the fact that this is an election year. It's hand-in-hand with the "this virus will be gone after November 3rd" talk.

Nobody cares about the internal political machinations of colleges or universities as it pertains to this discussion.

There's a reason upwards of 100 posts have been moved out of this thread into the P&R junkyard in the Shed.

 
knapplc said:
Nah. The "political" talk speaks directly to the fact that this is an election year. It's hand-in-hand with the "this virus will be gone after November 3rd" talk.

Nobody cares about the internal political machinations of colleges or universities as it pertains to this discussion.

There's a reason upwards of 100 posts have been moved out of this thread into the P&R junkyard in the Shed.
Click to expand...


I believe that is how you may be interpreting the political references but I would argue that there are also internal politics at these schools playing out. Michigan is the prime example.

This postponement has had politicians weighing in from the start (Sasse) and from my perspective it is justified. This is a +$100 million decision for Nebraska in which Nebraska has little to no control over the decision.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
Nah. The "political" talk speaks directly to the fact that this is an election year. It's hand-in-hand with the "this virus will be gone after November 3rd" talk.

Nobody cares about the internal political machinations of colleges or universities as it pertains to this discussion.

There's a reason upwards of 100 posts have been moved out of this thread into the P&R junkyard in the Shed.
Click to expand...
If its not political and based on liability then why would Mich high schools be playing but not the high profile economic monsters that are Big Ten sports?   Cant be medical as what possibly is safer about high schools vs college?   If anything, college is safer with students not interacting with families etc.  

If a Gov wants to she has no problem telling a univ president what to decide / vote.  

It may not be strictly red vs blue politics, as there are plenty of local politics to funding, regents, etc etc as well as rivalry issues between big ten schools, states, etc.  

The Big Ten has legal issues that may be percolating still.  There are facts not yet in evidence that could be decisive.   It seems the votes are split but we dont know yet what the votes (there were several in the past couple months) were with each schedule change.  We dont know who what when where and how several decisions happened yet.  Until we read the by laws AND meeting minutes AND actual resolutions passed, we just don’t know.   The FOIAs and suit should ultimately reveal much needed information.  There is a reason we have not seen this long ago.  A lawsuit had to be filed to get information that should be public already.  We don’t know that reason but one must exist unless the Big Ten presidents are just plain ignorant fools. And it cant be all of them.  

 
84HuskerLaw said:
If its not political and based on liability then why would Mich high schools be playing but not the high profile economic monsters that are Big Ten sports?   Cant be medical as what possibly is safer about high schools vs college?   If anything, college is safer with students not interacting with families etc.  

If a Gov wants to she has no problem telling a univ president what to decide / vote.  

It may not be strictly red vs blue politics, as there are plenty of local politics to funding, regents, etc etc as well as rivalry issues between big ten schools, states, etc.  

The Big Ten has legal issues that may be percolating still.  There are facts not yet in evidence that could be decisive.   It seems the votes are split but we dont know yet what the votes (there were several in the past couple months) were with each schedule change.  We dont know who what when where and how several decisions happened yet.  Until we read the by laws AND meeting minutes AND actual resolutions passed, we just don’t know.   The FOIAs and suit should ultimately reveal much needed information.  There is a reason we have not seen this long ago.  A lawsuit had to be filed to get information that should be public already.  We don’t know that reason but one must exist unless the Big Ten presidents are just plain ignorant fools. And it cant be all of them.  
Click to expand...


Whitmer, Michigan's governor, personally lifted restrictions on High School sports. That's a pretty good indicator that she isn't the one making the decisions preventing Michigan and Michigan State from playing. Those dots don't connect.

None of the rest of your post connects dots to this being a conspiracy to tip an election.

Wistrom Disciple said:
I believe that is how you may be interpreting the political references but I wouldthis postponement has had politicians weighing in from the start (Sasse). 
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, I don't know what you're saying here.

 
knapplc said:
I'm sorry, I don't know what you're saying here.
Click to expand...


Edited post, keyboard moving a little too fast. 

In short, yes the decision has politicians weighing in and some have been speaking up from the start of the postponement. No, it is not just because it is an election year and I agree, the decision to not play football is not based on whether university presidents want Biden or Trump in office.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Crusader Husker said:
I don't like him, but I do respect him.  I am not going to give him any flack, he wants to play.  I live in Ohio so I get caught up in the feud.  I am jealous, because Nebraska down't have anything like this yet.  Never will to that level.  I teach with a former player who played with Harbaugh and my boss is a season ticket holder.  They both say there is no way B1G is playing anytime soon.
Click to expand...
I am old enough to remember Osborne vs Switzer. I watched those games growing up in Big Ten country. Maybe someday they will return.

 
We dont know but that is the problem.   We know that “health and safety” is all they say and refuse to provide their sources, medical data, etc.  Why not disclose and support their vote?  Why hide their decisions at all?

They have ‘voted’ three or four times to change the schdduling per the 60% rule which they acknowledge applies.  Yet started with “overwhelmingly voted” and nothing more.  No plans, no discussion, no discourse with ADs or coaches or Regents apparently.

The biggest decision in Big Ten history and the most devastating impacts on 14 cities and 8 states in a lifetime.  Yes, it was a tough choice in many ways, but that is all the more reason to get things together and communicate.  Have a plan for a new schedule when cancelling the current one (the third one I believe).   Show the public you have thought things thru very carefully and thoroughly.  Then put out the proposal publicly in advance as is done with most rule changes etc.  Get some kind of consensus or at least a public understanding as to why it had to be done.   

 
knapplc said:
I think a concern for liability is driving this decision, followed by a concern for health.  

I’m not saying this doesn’t have some validity.  Additionally, if this is the case then why are the ACC, SEC and Big 12 conferences playing?  Does the Big10 know something the others don’t know or understand?  It just doesn't feel right, but hey if I am wrong I will be the first one stepping up and say so.

I think the people saying it's "political" have a lot more dot-connecting to do before that's a realistic scenario. Let's apply our skeptical minds to the "it's political" idea.

1. There's no direct line between withholding football and getting Candidate A or Candidate B elected.

Probably not, but there is something to be said about the nature of the statements below.  Additionally, my original message included Politics and/or Power.  Why you could argue these statements are not political, you can’t argue that they are not a power play.  I believe they are both.

·         Ongoing lock-down banter between Michigan’s Governor and Trumph

·         Big 10 Commissioners lack of communication and transparency about the decision to play.  You could add the unprofessional response to the economic concerns of the University of Nebraska and others. 

·         Biden launches commercials that show empty stadiums in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Ohio

·         Trump reaches out to assist in medical equipment and asks what the federal government can do to help the Big 10

2. There is no evidence that greater than 60%, and possibly up to 11, of the COC/P's are of a like political mind.

3. There is no evidence that, presuming #2 to be true and #1 to be the aim, that 60%, and possibly up to 11, of the COC/P's are willing to risk their careers - and likely the election if they were discovered - on the off chance that by colluding they could have an effect on the election.

I don’t think they care if they are discovered or not.  What is the repercussions?  You can literally say anything you want if you state that you are trying to save lives, even if there proof you may be causing more damage in other ways. 

A skeptical mind needs evidence before believing these scenarios. Other than "it's an election year," there's none for "it's political."

Sure

I do want to be clear about one thing, you may be right on all of this and that's fine.  I am just stating that it all feels odd.  Additionally, I am not a Trump guy, but are perplexed by the some of the decisions being made that differ from other conferences.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top