ADVERTISEMENT

Don't shoot the messenger...

But I expect the Big10 to play this fall and you should see an announcement by Wednesday.

Hope you are right. But if Iowa ain’t playing...

tenor.gif
 
Fox Sports radio discussing it now. Says if Ohio State asserts themselves and pushes the conference, we'll play.


The Bad about the Big 12 , is 1 or 2 schools will often dictate the larger decisions. The good about the Big 12, is 1 or 2 schools will dictate the larger decisions.

Point being OSU is but 1 vote in a conference where everyone has an equal voice. Unless they threaten to leave or negotiate their own deal outside the Big 10 network, their voice is not much louder than Rugers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: papabeef
The Bad about the Big 12 , is 1 or 2 schools will often dictate the larger decisions. The good about the Big 12, is 1 or 2 schools will dictate the larger decisions.

Point being OSU is but 1 vote in a conference where everyone has an equal voice. Unless they threaten to leave or negotiate their own deal outside the Big 10 network, their voice is not much louder than Rugers.

OSU's voice is quite a bit larger than Rutgers. The Big 10 has done a good job of being unified on most things. OSU, Michigan, PSU have recognized for a great deal of time that making the entire conference better was always in their best interests. Which has made everyone happy (for the most part). Schools like Purdue, Minnesota, Indiana, etc., with the Big 10 revenues generated from TV deals have been able to keep them building. While also letting OSU, Michigan, PSU etc pursue their dreams to compete for national titles. And those TV deals have allowed every conference team to invest heavily in non-revenue sports such as volleyball, baseball, etc.

It's a long-winded way of saying that yes, everyone in the Big 10 has a voice, but if OSU pushes for something others will listen. If OSU were to start to make rumblings about looking elsewhere it would definitely get the attention of the Big 10. If Rutgers pushes for something, they would get told nicely that they are free to look for other conferences to be a part of.
 
OSU's voice is quite a bit larger than Rutgers. The Big 10 has done a good job of being unified on most things. OSU, Michigan, PSU have recognized for a great deal of time that making the entire conference better was always in their best interests. Which has made everyone happy (for the most part). Schools like Purdue, Minnesota, Indiana, etc., with the Big 10 revenues generated from TV deals have been able to keep them building. While also letting OSU, Michigan, PSU etc pursue their dreams to compete for national titles. And those TV deals have allowed every conference team to invest heavily in non-revenue sports such as volleyball, baseball, etc.

It's a long-winded way of saying that yes, everyone in the Big 10 has a voice, but if OSU pushes for something others will listen. If OSU were to start to make rumblings about looking elsewhere it would definitely get the attention of the Big 10. If Rutgers pushes for something, they would get told nicely that they are free to look for other conferences to be a part of.
this is my point, Texas has looked elsewhere before, so the threat is real and why others tow the line.

Unless there is a real threat, there is no teeth with it.
 
I have no idea what is going to happen but this guy is going flipping ballistic if pressure by whomever results in a reversal of the decision, it turns out to be a fiasco and winter sports are a victim of a response to - on the outside - feels and looks very much like a "Veruga Salt" tantrum.

I want Iowa football back ASAP but if I was told that it would seriously jeopardize a basketball season, I'm in the "postpone/cancel" football camp . . . at least for this year.
 
OSU's voice is quite a bit larger than Rutgers.
Yes, that's unquestionably true. However, both schools have but one vote. If OSU is able to persuade enough members to reconvene and vote "yes" for 2020 football, I'm all for it. IMO it would mean the previous medical and legal concerns which aparently drove their original decision have since been satisfied. In the end, I don't think they reverse course but I hope I/m wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: papabeef
I expect it as well. This has not gone well for the Big 10. Recruits are looking at other conferences, unrest in the Big 10 will blow up, Commissioner is on the hot seat already, and the Spring idea is crazy. It won't work. And Ohio State could do a Longhorn Network of their own and go to any conference they want and be in the money.
 
The ACC, Big 12, and SEC kicked the can down the road as far as possible for a fall season, starting games on Sept. 26. They could still wind up postponing until spring, depending on various factors. I would not be surprised either way. No doubt the B1G considered that option already. Perhaps they thought other P5 conferences would follow their lead, as they did regarding conference-only schedules, and are now regretting their decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iowanole1
The ACC, Big 12, and SEC kicked the can down the road as far as possible for a fall season, starting games on Sept. 26. They could still wind up postponing until spring, depending on various factors. I would not be surprised either way. No doubt the B1G considered that option already. Perhaps they thought other P5 conferences would follow their lead, as they did regarding conference-only schedules, and are now regretting their decision.

You are correct. They will now use the new and less expensive saliva testing as a reason they're more comfortable with it, when in actuality, it had very little to do with safety
 
OSU's voice is quite a bit larger than Rutgers. The Big 10 has done a good job of being unified on most things. OSU, Michigan, PSU have recognized for a great deal of time that making the entire conference better was always in their best interests. Which has made everyone happy (for the most part). Schools like Purdue, Minnesota, Indiana, etc., with the Big 10 revenues generated from TV deals have been able to keep them building. While also letting OSU, Michigan, PSU etc pursue their dreams to compete for national titles. And those TV deals have allowed every conference team to invest heavily in non-revenue sports such as volleyball, baseball, etc.

It's a long-winded way of saying that yes, everyone in the Big 10 has a voice, but if OSU pushes for something others will listen. If OSU were to start to make rumblings about looking elsewhere it would definitely get the attention of the Big 10. If Rutgers pushes for something, they would get told nicely that they are free to look for other conferences to be a part of.
It was not called the Big Two and Little Eight for years
for nothing.
 
I think the players unionizing and the subsequent cancellation go hand in hand. Perhaps cancellation was a bluff in order to stop the movement
 
  • Like
Reactions: Twoooooooo
My thoughts exactly. It was a power move.

If so, it is only delaying the inevitable. Just cancelling seasons isn't going to magically make the issue of players organizing go away. Name and likeness money will help, but at some point the players are going to want more of the revenue than scholarships when coaches, administrators and support staff are all making a very good living. I very much think there is a lot of value in a free college education, but public would likely back players in getting some additional money.

The complexity is in how it impacts all the other sports. There isn't enough money to pay all the non-revenue sports athletes.
 
If so, it is only delaying the inevitable. Just cancelling seasons isn't going to magically make the issue of players organizing go away. Name and likeness money will help, but at some point the players are going to want more of the revenue than scholarships when coaches, administrators and support staff are all making a very good living. I very much think there is a lot of value in a free college education, but public would likely back players in getting some additional money.

The complexity is in how it impacts all the other sports. There isn't enough money to pay all the non-revenue sports athletes.


I'd be okay with players receiving likeness money - same for everyone across the board - $5K/year perhaps?

- With a rule being that everyone and anyone who gets drafted, they are required to pay back double or even triple what they received over the three or four years. The draftee payback would be a fraction of their upcoming payday, yet it would largely help fund the pot of money to distribute to all athletes across the board.

If this is what the athletes want...this plan seems fair, does it not?
 
Would money also go to walk-ons or just scholarship players?
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT