(08-03-2020 12:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-03-2020 12:44 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-03-2020 11:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-03-2020 11:46 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-03-2020 11:43 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Possibly - but by moving the season back three weeks they didn't give themselves much flexibility either. As I understand it there will be one bye week for teams and then just one open week for makeup games on Dec 12. If any more than two games get postponed/cancelled it's going to throw the whole thing off and you'll have some teams playing fewer games than others.

Exactly. You need more flexibility in the schedule to improve the likelihood to get get all you're games in.

Should start the season on Aug. 29. Give everyone 3 or 4 bye weeks and the Dec. 12 flex week.

I told you guys, it's not about virus control, it's not about flexibility, it's about liability as I posted above. But sometimes everyone gets into the mode of only reading the last post when they check into a thread. The 10 game all one conference format was adopted because it is the most legally defensible one. No player is compelled to play, all games are within conference with the same precautionary protocol so no variations that open legalities, and it maximizes the profits under the circumstances because there are no games which split revenue with another conference and no OOC away games.

As far as pushing back the opening until to mid to late September, they aren't looking for flexibility. This too is a risk averse move in that the conference is delaying, as long as is possible, the opening of the season hoping for a downturn in the viral activity. This too is a mitigating decision where legal risk is concerned.

I agree that liability mitigation is a major concern. Good point on pushing the season back in hopes of a downturn. But, I don't buy the protocol argument when it comes to P5 conferences not playing each other. The SEC and Big Ten are going to use the same or substantially similar precautionary protocols.

It's about $$$$. Smaller schools and conferences probably won't be able to afford the same precautionary protocols - so, there's too much risk - so, that's a no go.

It's also about $$$$ in that the SEC and Big Ten will control the media rights to every game played by their conference schools this year. This better ensures that the conferences get the maximum possible payout, even if some games are cancelled....the conferences will have the flexibility to quickly rearranged schedules to ensure that attractive games are still played each week in the most lucrative timeslots...even when certain games are postponed.

Conference mates are much less likely to sue than those which are not. Not playing OOC mostly eliminates the liability of having to buy all OOC games out and if a COVID outbreak occurs and is claimed because of your protocols by the visiting team or by your players for not having checked the other team's protocols you are liable. Furthermore if you just play one of your OOC games you could be liable for buyout fees for the ones not played.

All of it is about limiting liability. And it's about keeping all revenue in house.

I'm totally on board with the "keep the revenue in house" motivation. I think proof of this is that among the two conferences with a +1, one (the Big 12) has explicitly said it has to be a home game and the other (ACC) has come as close as possible to ensuring that by mandating the game be played in an "ACC state". And I agree about the liability of paying for all OOC games, because now a school can't claim no liability for a buy game by saying they had no choice due to a conference mandate.

But the CV liability aspect just doesn't resonate. Where's the liability? It's not going to be school-to-school, because the schools can choose not to play if they do not have assurances about the other school's protocols, conference or not. I guess maybe if there was lying or subterfuge involved, like school X having positive CV test results on the eve of a game, but not reporting it to the other school Y and letting the infected guys play, and then the other team gets the virus. But that kind of outrage would spark a lawsuit among any schools, conference or not.

The only other liability I see is outside the boundaries of the conference, e.g., Syracuse travels to Chapel Hill and brings the virus with them. UNC isn't going to sue, but the city of Chapel Hill might. And if they are inclined to sue it doesn't matter to them that UNC and Syracuse are both ACC schools or not. That's a civic matter not a conference matter. So IMO, travel within conference has that same liability as travel to a non-conference city.

(08-03-2020 12:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-03-2020 12:44 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-03-2020 11:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-03-2020 11:46 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-03-2020 11:43 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Possibly - but by moving the season back three weeks they didn't give themselves much flexibility either. As I understand it there will be one bye week for teams and then just one open week for makeup games on Dec 12. If any more than two games get postponed/cancelled it's going to throw the whole thing off and you'll have some teams playing fewer games than others.

Exactly. You need more flexibility in the schedule to improve the likelihood to get get all you're games in.

Should start the season on Aug. 29. Give everyone 3 or 4 bye weeks and the Dec. 12 flex week.

I told you guys, it's not about virus control, it's not about flexibility, it's about liability as I posted above. But sometimes everyone gets into the mode of only reading the last post when they check into a thread. The 10 game all one conference format was adopted because it is the most legally defensible one. No player is compelled to play, all games are within conference with the same precautionary protocol so no variations that open legalities, and it maximizes the profits under the circumstances because there are no games which split revenue with another conference and no OOC away games.

As far as pushing back the opening until to mid to late September, they aren't looking for flexibility. This too is a risk averse move in that the conference is delaying, as long as is possible, the opening of the season hoping for a downturn in the viral activity. This too is a mitigating decision where legal risk is concerned.

I agree that liability mitigation is a major concern. Good point on pushing the season back in hopes of a downturn. But, I don't buy the protocol argument when it comes to P5 conferences not playing each other. The SEC and Big Ten are going to use the same or substantially similar precautionary protocols.

It's about $$$$. Smaller schools and conferences probably won't be able to afford the same precautionary protocols - so, there's too much risk - so, that's a no go.

It's also about $$$$ in that the SEC and Big Ten will control the media rights to every game played by their conference schools this year. This better ensures that the conferences get the maximum possible payout, even if some games are cancelled....the conferences will have the flexibility to quickly rearranged schedules to ensure that attractive games are still played each week in the most lucrative timeslots...even when certain games are postponed.

Conference mates are much less likely to sue than those which are not. Not playing OOC mostly eliminates the liability of having to buy all OOC games out and if a COVID outbreak occurs and is claimed because of your protocols by the visiting team or by your players for not having checked the other team's protocols you are liable. Furthermore if you just play one of your OOC games you could be liable for buyout fees for the ones not played.

All of it is about limiting liability. And it's about keeping all revenue in house.

Concur, it is about having full control of the situation. Cancellations, re-scheduling, and making other in-season adjustments on short notice, is best done with a centralized, operative authority. Given the circumstances, I like the SEC decision.

No Politics on the CS/CR board. Political posts were unapproved.