Page 2 of 23 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 223
  1. #11
    Sophomore Lamont Sanford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The freaking 'Nati
    Posts
    1,918
    On the ESPN ticker this weekend, it reported that NFL sources are saying the 2020 NFL season will start as planned in September with the Super Bowl on 2/7/21 in Tampa. Didn't say anything about fans in the stands, but that they are planning to play in Fall 2020 in September. That is some form of hope to me.
    "Xavier born and Xavier bred, and when I am gone I will be Xavier Dead!"
    NJ!NP! 8/30/12

  2. #12
    Supporting Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
    I REALLY hope you're right. But....

    All ten FBS conference commissioners have basically said that they won't play any fall sports unless all the students are back. They've said that publicly both collectively and as individuals. Bob Bolwsby said the Big 12 wouldn't play unless all students were back. Hell, all ten of them told the Vice President of the United States that.

    Playing in empty stadiums is far less likely in college than it is in the pros. A lot of presidents don't want to do it. Gene Smith at Ohio State has indicated that he doesn't want to do it, and I believe that he is far from alone on that. The thing is that playing in empty stadiums doesn't really do anything to protect the players. Unless fans rush the field, the players don't really come into contact with them.

    But, I think the biggest thing is this. Schools aren't going to want to spend money on football if they aren't even sure if there is going to be football. If they are able to determine that football will go on uninterrupted, then great! Game on! But if they aren't sure, and they run the risk of losing revenue from not playing, then they aren't going to want to devote any revenue or resources to it and run the risk of it being cancelled anyway. All campuses are going to be stretched very thin as it is, and they may look for ways to suspend athletics in the fall and try and save money by furloughing coaches and staff. Simply put, if presented with the question of whether or not to spend tens of millions of dollars on something that may not even happen, or coming up with a way to not have to do that, then they may look to go the route of Option B. I know coaches have contracts, but apparently if football is suspended then a lot of schools will be able to get around having to pay them.
    Significant TV $ at stake. They will play without fans if they have to. The money will drive a fall return.

  3. #13
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,314
    Quote Originally Posted by JEHARDI View Post
    Significant TV $ at stake. They will play without fans if they have to. The money will drive a fall return.
    There was significant TV money at stake for the NCAA Tournament, and there are more schools that rely on that than what rely on football money. Plus, if they say they're to play and then end up not being able to because some of the states won't allow it, then they're out both the TV money and the money for operations.

    You also have to look not so much at what you think makes sense, but rather at what the people who will ultimately end up making the decision are saying. That's the presidents and the commissioners. I can't find one example of either a president or a commissioner saying that they are considering playing without fans.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  4. #14
    Senior xavierj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Northern KY
    Posts
    5,421
    Quote Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
    There was significant TV money at stake for the NCAA Tournament, and there are more schools that rely on that than what rely on football money. Plus, if they say they're to play and then end up not being able to because some of the states won't allow it, then they're out both the TV money and the money for operations.

    You also have to look not so much at what you think makes sense, but rather at what the people who will ultimately end up making the decision are saying. That's the presidents and the commissioners. I can't find one example of either a president or a commissioner saying that they are considering playing without fans.
    Football is the cash cow. I saw something that said that teams that play college football generate more football revenue Combined than all other sports the offer, including basketball. Alabama generates around $110 million from football, and $14 million from basketball. Football cancelling would have a huge impact on all college sports. Much greater than cancelling the basketball tourney.

  5. #15
    All-Conference xudash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    8,829
    If you believe that the SEC is going to cancel football this season, then I have some swampland in Florida to sell to you.
    X A V I E R

  6. #16
    Supporting Member paulxu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    17,798
    I'm surprised they have cancelled pro golf.
    Have to believe the majority of the money made comes from TV ads, rather than gate receipts.
    Thought they could have reduced purses, and played without spectators.
    ...he went up late, and I was already up there.

  7. #17
    All-Conference xudash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    8,829
    Quote Originally Posted by paulxu View Post
    I'm surprised they have cancelled pro golf.
    Have to believe the majority of the money made comes from TV ads, rather than gate receipts.
    Thought they could have reduced purses, and played without spectators.
    Good point from a logistics/staging point of view.

    It probably was locked up for the potential for bad optics.
    X A V I E R

  8. #18
    Supporting Member paulxu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    17,798
    Quote Originally Posted by xudash View Post
    Good point from a logistics/staging point of view.

    It probably was locked up for the potential for bad optics.
    That make sense. Also means they should be the first back.
    ...he went up late, and I was already up there.

  9. #19
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,314
    Quote Originally Posted by xavierj View Post
    Football is the cash cow. I saw something that said that teams that play college football generate more football revenue Combined than all other sports the offer, including basketball. Alabama generates around $110 million from football, and $14 million from basketball. Football cancelling would have a huge impact on all college sports. Much greater than cancelling the basketball tourney.
    There are 353 div1 schools. 97 of those are like Xavier and don't even play football, and of the 256 that do, about 180-190 of them make more money off of basketball than they do off of football. Outside of the FBS, and even in some cases within the FBS, football is not the big moneymaker. They rely much more on the basketball tournament revenue than the football revenue.

    Quote Originally Posted by xudash View Post
    If you believe that the SEC is going to cancel football this season, then I have some swampland in Florida to sell to you.
    Okay, just think about what you just said and see if you can figure out why it makes no sense. I've been laughing at it since I read it. Saying you have beachfront property in Nebraska is an obvious scam because it offers something that people would want, but that clearly does not exist. Saying you have swamp land in Florida is offering something that no one wants, but that in actuality exists in abundance and that really isn't that hard to acquire.

    I have no doubt that the SEC wants to play and will make every effort to play. All ten FBS commissioners talk several times a week. They all want to try to go ahead with the season, which is good. But, it's also true that they've discussed postponing and even cancelling. None of them have ruled it out as a possibility. And, it ultimately may not even be up to them. If there is another spike after the states start to open up again and shelter in place orders are renewed, then it's out of their hands.

    I think by July 1st, one way or another, we will have a much better idea of what things will look like. We can look at places like Sweden and see where they are. We can look at states that have opened back up and see where they are. We can see if there is an adequate amount of testing by then or not. But, I seriously doubt that university presidents will want to devout money and resources toward athletic operations unless they are certain that the games can actually be played. It's bad being out TV and attendance revenue. It's worse being out the operational revenue on top of that, especially when they're having to make cuts, furloughs, and layoffs right now across campus as it is. If no cuts are made to athletics, and the games don't happen, good luck on maintaining any support from the faculty and staff if you're a university president.
    Last edited by xubrew; 05-05-2020 at 11:38 AM.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  10. #20
    Supporting Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    330
    The NCAA is circulating a document titled the "Core Principles of Resocialization of Collegiate Sport" it documents what needs to happen to start sports back up. Fans are not part of the requirement and the requirements on whole are very achievable given where most states are now headed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •