At this point, is there really any sense in playing games that don’t involve a team that still has a shot at a conference championship?

Also, shouldn’t the conference front offices be trying to ensure that those who are in the hunt and healthy are getting scheduling priority against the conference opponents who are healthy and available to play?

I’m going to be seriously peeved if Michigan St or Michigan cancels on Ohio St, handing the Big Ten East to an Indiana team that the Buckeyes beat due to a scheduling technicality.

(11-30-2020 02:18 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Hasn't happened yet, but the SF 49ers were informed they can have no contact practices in Santa Clara county, and games are off. Santa Clara County is also home of the Stanford Cardinal and the San Jose State Spartans.

In fact all counties of the Bay Area, except Marin went into Purple status, which probably means the Cal Bears are also impacted. I know the situation in LA county is much worse, and affects UCLA and USC. Basically California is reaching Covid-19 capacity in hospitals, so the whole state may be going into a period of stricter restrictions.

So expect a bunch of MWC and P12 cancellations.

I think it is an overreaction. Santa Clara County has a 3.0 % Covid-19 positivity rate, which is not bad all things considered. LA County was at 3.9% on November 1 and is now at 6.9%. LA County had to get a bit stricter. The goal is to keep the hospitals from being overrun. So far, that is working.

The Rams and the Chargers are okay. The Rams practice facility is in Ventura County and the Chargers is in Orange County. They have been meeting all LA County guidelines, so they are fine for games. UCLA and USC are meeting the Covid-19 guidelines and they are fine as well.

The NFL Covid-19 guidelines are strict, so I don't get why Santa Clara County is closing the 49ers down. I get the concern over spreading the virus, but the NFL facilities and stadiums are in almost in a bubble.

(11-30-2020 08:47 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  At this point, is there really any sense in playing games that don’t involve a team that still has a shot at a conference championship?

Well yes, the 'sense' would be that first and foremost, schools have football programs to play games, not to cancel them due to conference championship concerns. And TV media deals and viewers at home want to see games too.

(11-30-2020 08:47 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  At this point, is there really any sense in playing games that don’t involve a team that still has a shot at a conference championship?

Also, shouldn’t the conference front offices be trying to ensure that those who are in the hunt and healthy are getting scheduling priority against the conference opponents who are healthy and available to play?

I’m going to be seriously peeved if Michigan St or Michigan cancels on Ohio St, handing the Big Ten East to an Indiana team that the Buckeyes beat due to a scheduling technicality.

Its not really any worse than the first week of the season.

Why play at all once you have two losses?!

(11-30-2020 08:47 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  At this point, is there really any sense in playing games that don’t involve a team that still has a shot at a conference championship?

Also, shouldn’t the conference front offices be trying to ensure that those who are in the hunt and healthy are getting scheduling priority against the conference opponents who are healthy and available to play?

I’m going to be seriously peeved if Michigan St or Michigan cancels on Ohio St, handing the Big Ten East to an Indiana team that the Buckeyes beat due to a scheduling technicality.

If Ohio St doesn't play Michigan St- it's going to most likely be on the Buckeyes side of things....

Wonder if we see them try to get to play that game on Sunday or Monday- to be able to get the 6th game in.

Michigan now on pause.

Also-

(11-30-2020 12:02 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Michigan now on pause.

Also-

Michigan could also clinch the division for Indiana by canceling their Ohio St game.

(11-30-2020 10:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 08:47 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  At this point, is there really any sense in playing games that don’t involve a team that still has a shot at a conference championship?

Well yes, the 'sense' would be that first and foremost, schools have football programs to play games, not to cancel them due to conference championship concerns. And TV media deals and viewers at home want to see games too.

It would also eliminate the fiction that these games were being played for the well-beings of the student athletes who as non-employees are participating entirely on a voluntary basis and that every opportunity to play matters.

That then would eliminate the plausible deniability of any college or university that they brought football players to campus for any reason other than to fulfill media contracts (which the players are not compensated from). And, then it would severely damage the schools' ability to argue that they did not solely bring all students back to campus in order to justify bringing the football players back.

(11-30-2020 12:55 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 10:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 08:47 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  At this point, is there really any sense in playing games that don’t involve a team that still has a shot at a conference championship?

Well yes, the 'sense' would be that first and foremost, schools have football programs to play games, not to cancel them due to conference championship concerns. And TV media deals and viewers at home want to see games too.

It would also eliminate the fiction that these games were being played for the well-beings of the student athletes who as non-employees are participating entirely on a voluntary basis and that every opportunity to play matters.

That then would eliminate the plausible deniability of any college or university that they brought football players to campus for any reason other than to fulfill media contracts (which the players are not compensated from). And, then it would severely damage the schools' ability to argue that they did not solely bring all students back to campus in order to justify bringing the football players back.

Except they are.

Room and board.
Top of the line clothing.
Medical treatment far better than regular students get at the campus clinic.
Access to first class workout facilities.
Oh, and tens of thousands of dollars worth of free education.

If that's "not being compensated" then sign me up!

(11-30-2020 01:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 12:55 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 10:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 08:47 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  At this point, is there really any sense in playing games that don’t involve a team that still has a shot at a conference championship?

Well yes, the 'sense' would be that first and foremost, schools have football programs to play games, not to cancel them due to conference championship concerns. And TV media deals and viewers at home want to see games too.

It would also eliminate the fiction that these games were being played for the well-beings of the student athletes who as non-employees are participating entirely on a voluntary basis and that every opportunity to play matters.

That then would eliminate the plausible deniability of any college or university that they brought football players to campus for any reason other than to fulfill media contracts (which the players are not compensated from). And, then it would severely damage the schools' ability to argue that they did not solely bring all students back to campus in order to justify bringing the football players back.

Except they are.

Room and board.
Top of the line clothing.
Medical treatment far better than regular students get at the campus clinic.
Access to first class workout facilities.
Oh, and tens of thousands of dollars worth of free education.

If that's "not being compensated" then sign me up!

Can they bargain for more? If all of that is so great, why does the head coach or athletic director not work for the same?

Not opinion here, just reporting. Santa Clara County is doing this and it will likely be statewide soon. The 49ers are looking at San Diego, but consensus opinion is Arizona. Stanford is now looking to relocate football to the Northwest (Oregon or Washington). San Jose State is probably SOL, but may try a nearby county not in the ABAG group -- have heard nothing but will report when I hear.

(11-30-2020 01:50 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Not opinion here, just reporting. Santa Clara County is doing this and it will likely be statewide soon. The 49ers are looking at San Diego, but consensus opinion is Arizona. Stanford is now looking to relocate football to the Northwest (Oregon or Washington). San Jose State is probably SOL, but may try a nearby county not in the ABAG group -- have heard nothing but will report when I hear.

49ers already announced going to Arizona for the games they have. No word on practices yet.

I was speaking practices

(11-30-2020 01:11 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 01:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 12:55 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 10:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 08:47 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  At this point, is there really any sense in playing games that don’t involve a team that still has a shot at a conference championship?

Well yes, the 'sense' would be that first and foremost, schools have football programs to play games, not to cancel them due to conference championship concerns. And TV media deals and viewers at home want to see games too.

It would also eliminate the fiction that these games were being played for the well-beings of the student athletes who as non-employees are participating entirely on a voluntary basis and that every opportunity to play matters.

That then would eliminate the plausible deniability of any college or university that they brought football players to campus for any reason other than to fulfill media contracts (which the players are not compensated from). And, then it would severely damage the schools' ability to argue that they did not solely bring all students back to campus in order to justify bringing the football players back.

Except they are.

Room and board.
Top of the line clothing.
Medical treatment far better than regular students get at the campus clinic.
Access to first class workout facilities.
Oh, and tens of thousands of dollars worth of free education.

If that's "not being compensated" then sign me up!

Can they bargain for more? If all of that is so great, why does the head coach or athletic director not work for the same?

Why would they bargain for more? They agreed to the deal when they signed the LOI.

But nice movement of the goalposts there.

(11-30-2020 12:15 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 12:02 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Michigan now on pause.

Also-

Michigan could also clinch the division for Indiana by canceling their Ohio St game.

And or MSU.

(11-30-2020 02:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 01:11 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 01:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 12:55 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 10:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well yes, the 'sense' would be that first and foremost, schools have football programs to play games, not to cancel them due to conference championship concerns. And TV media deals and viewers at home want to see games too.

It would also eliminate the fiction that these games were being played for the well-beings of the student athletes who as non-employees are participating entirely on a voluntary basis and that every opportunity to play matters.

That then would eliminate the plausible deniability of any college or university that they brought football players to campus for any reason other than to fulfill media contracts (which the players are not compensated from). And, then it would severely damage the schools' ability to argue that they did not solely bring all students back to campus in order to justify bringing the football players back.

Except they are.

Room and board.
Top of the line clothing.
Medical treatment far better than regular students get at the campus clinic.
Access to first class workout facilities.
Oh, and tens of thousands of dollars worth of free education.

If that's "not being compensated" then sign me up!

Can they bargain for more? If all of that is so great, why does the head coach or athletic director not work for the same?

Why would they bargain for more? They agreed to the deal when they signed the LOI.

But nice movement of the goalposts there.

I'm not moving the goalposts, I didn't say bargain for more now. At the time they signed their letters of intent, did they have any opportunity to bargain for more than was being offered? Could they say "Hey, University X, University Y is offering me five sweatshirts, can you give me six?"

Especially because they are not allowed, by rule, to enter the open market and negotiate with NFL teams, they have literally no option whatsoever if they don't like the deal being offered by the colleges.

What if they don't want an education? What if they want to wear something that isn't branded with their university's logo? What if they don't want to live in a college dormitory or apartment? Why can't they exchange their labor for the compensation they choose like every other American?

(11-30-2020 01:53 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 01:50 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Not opinion here, just reporting. Santa Clara County is doing this and it will likely be statewide soon. The 49ers are looking at San Diego, but consensus opinion is Arizona. Stanford is now looking to relocate football to the Northwest (Oregon or Washington). San Jose State is probably SOL, but may try a nearby county not in the ABAG group -- have heard nothing but will report when I hear.

49ers already announced going to Arizona for the games they have. No word on practices yet.

I don't understand why Santa Clara County is being so stringent. Oregon is playing at Cal on Saturday at 4PM on ESPN. Alameda County is okay with the game. Washington State is playing at USC on Sunday at 6 PM in the Coliseum. The game is on FS1. LA County is okay with this game. So what is the deal with Santa Clara County?

(11-30-2020 02:23 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 02:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 01:11 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 01:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 12:55 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  It would also eliminate the fiction that these games were being played for the well-beings of the student athletes who as non-employees are participating entirely on a voluntary basis and that every opportunity to play matters.

That then would eliminate the plausible deniability of any college or university that they brought football players to campus for any reason other than to fulfill media contracts (which the players are not compensated from). And, then it would severely damage the schools' ability to argue that they did not solely bring all students back to campus in order to justify bringing the football players back.

Except they are.

Room and board.
Top of the line clothing.
Medical treatment far better than regular students get at the campus clinic.
Access to first class workout facilities.
Oh, and tens of thousands of dollars worth of free education.

If that's "not being compensated" then sign me up!

Can they bargain for more? If all of that is so great, why does the head coach or athletic director not work for the same?

Why would they bargain for more? They agreed to the deal when they signed the LOI.

But nice movement of the goalposts there.

I'm not moving the goalposts, I didn't say bargain for more now. At the time they signed their letters of intent, did they have any opportunity to bargain for more than was being offered? Could they say "Hey, University X, University Y is offering me five sweatshirts, can you give me six?"

Sure you are. You've morphed from "They don't get compensated" to "Can they bargain for more?"

Quote:Especially because they are not allowed, by rule, to enter the open market and negotiate with NFL teams, they have literally no option whatsoever if they don't like the deal being offered by the colleges.

Take that up with the NFL. It's their rule preventing that, not the NCAA's.

And there's always an option. They can forgo college for three years and then try the NFL route when thy meet the criteria as set forth the NFL and the NFLPA for employment.

Quote:What if they don't want an education? What if they want to wear something that isn't branded with their university's logo? What if they don't want to live in a college dormitory or apartment? Why can't they exchange their labor for the compensation they choose like every other American?

Then don't sign a LOI to a university. If they can find a market where they can get paid for their skills right out of high school they are free to pursue that as there's absolutely nobody forcing any athlete to go to college.

There's no reason a team w/ out any COVID concerns, and a second team that doesn't have COVID concerns, can schedule & play each other.

Do all 4 of Florida St, Duke, Miami & Wake have COVID concerns? If Miami & Duke don't, for example, they should play each other. That's why their in a conference, to ease scheduling concerns.

(11-30-2020 03:00 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 01:53 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 01:50 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Not opinion here, just reporting. Santa Clara County is doing this and it will likely be statewide soon. The 49ers are looking at San Diego, but consensus opinion is Arizona. Stanford is now looking to relocate football to the Northwest (Oregon or Washington). San Jose State is probably SOL, but may try a nearby county not in the ABAG group -- have heard nothing but will report when I hear.

49ers already announced going to Arizona for the games they have. No word on practices yet.

I don't understand why Santa Clara County is being so stringent. Oregon is playing at Cal on Saturday at 4PM on ESPN. Alameda County is okay with the game. Washington State is playing at USC on Sunday at 6 PM in the Coliseum. The game is on FS1. LA County is okay with this game. So what is the deal with Santa Clara County?

This is Santa Clara county we're talking about

Also, lolz at 49ers having to play in Arizona. Called it, tho Stanford playing in the Pacific NW catches me off guard

(11-30-2020 05:55 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  There's no reason a team w/ out any COVID concerns, and a second team that doesn't have COVID concerns, can schedule & play each other.

Do all 4 of Florida St, Duke, Miami & Wake have COVID concerns? If Miami & Duke don't, for example, they should play each other. That's why their in a conference, to ease scheduling concerns.

Wake does, but I don't think Duke or Miami do. Not sure about FSU.