Conference only scheduling hurts FCS the most

[ksummerlin]

FCS schools depend on those one or two big paychecks from their FBS brethren. I'm not sure how some programs (including ours) will afford to play a conference schedule with travel. My guess is there will be a lot of overnight bus rides if they do get to play.

What do PAC-12 and Big Ten Decisions mean for College Football

[The Jackal]

FCS schools depend on those one or two big paychecks from their FBS brethren. I'm not sure how some programs (including ours) will afford to play a conference schedule with travel. My guess is there will be a lot of overnight bus rides if they do get to play.

What do PAC-12 and Big Ten Decisions mean for College Football

I mentioned this on the other thread, but the language of the individual contracts with FBS schools may become highly relevant.

If Furman does not play UT, for instance, because the SEC opts to play conference only, the question is what, if anything, does UT owe Furman pursuant to their contract to play the football game?

I guess one silver lining is that last year when the schedule went to 12 games Furman played two FBS schools. Many programs didn't.

[Furmanoid]

I’m not sure they can get out of it with force majeure because it’s hard to explain how said force would make ooc games impossible but not conference games.

[The Jackal]

I’m not sure they can get out of it with force majeure because it’s hard to explain how said force would make ooc games impossible but not conference games.

Probably also worth noting that some of the big money games for the SEC are non conference matchups.

There are traditional rivalries: UGA/GT, USC/Clemson, Florida/FSU. SEC is a little unique in that a lot of their rivalry games are nonconference matchups.

There are also some big "nontraditional" games: LSU/Texas, UGA/UVA, Auburn/UNC, Arkansas/ND, UT/Oklahoma

It would be really hard to argue that USC could play Clemson, but not Wofford a week earlier. If you start picking and choosing which games to play, I don't see how the force majeur clauses could apply.

You likely have to play both, or neither.

[apaladin]

I’m not sure they can get out of it with force majeure because it’s hard to explain how said force would make ooc games impossible but not conference games.

Probably also worth noting that some of the big money games for the SEC are non conference matchups.

There are traditional rivalries: UGA/GT, USC/Clemson, Florida/FSU. SEC is a little unique in that a lot of their rivalry games are nonconference matchups.

There are also some big "nontraditional" games: LSU/Texas, UGA/UVA, Auburn/UNC, Arkansas/ND, UT/Oklahoma

It would be really hard to argue that USC could play Clemson, but not Wofford a week earlier. If you start picking and choosing which games to play, I don't see how the force majeur clauses could apply.

You likely have to play both, or neither.

Agreed. Another example is how could Tennessee go to Oklahoma one week and not play Furman at home the next.

[Roundball]

The argument of playing conference teams only is the control of protocols for the virus. Each conference will set its own rules for every team. The conference does not trust what the other teams are doing, hence they want to only play teams they can verify have done everything possible to stop the spread. I still think there will be an agreement between the ACC and SEC, but after that, all bets are off.

[Roundball]

Good piece in the P&C. Sapakoff: Post-COVID college sports will be survival of the fittest, richest
https://www.postandcourier.com/sports/c ... 227f5.html

[Furmanoid]

Good piece in the P&C. Sapakoff: Post-COVID college sports will be survival of the fittest, richest
https://www.postandcourier.com/sports/c ... 227f5.html

Interesting article. I get the heeby jeeby’s about sponsorships since lately sponsors are getting pretty bold about imposing their will on those they sponsor. If a school had Nike as a major sponsor is there any doubt that they would want to interfere in “social justice” aspects of the school? He may be right about reorganizing to eliminate travel and hotels. But I’m not sure about the distinction between “revenue sports” and non revenue. Despite high revenue most football programs lose money. Basketball might be the only money maker. Wouldn’t be surprised if there is a trend toward nonscholarship, and the more I hear people bitch about the “exploitation” of scholarship athletes the better that sounds.

[The Jackal]

The argument of playing conference teams only is the control of protocols for the virus. Each conference will set its own rules for every team. The conference does not trust what the other teams are doing, hence they want to only play teams they can verify have done everything possible to stop the spread. I still think there will be an agreement between the ACC and SEC, but after that, all bets are off.

That may be the stated position of these teams, but I do not think it is the driving force.

What is more likely is that these larger schools do not want to shell out money to smaller programs knowing that they are going to be unable to fill their own stadiums this fall. They are going to make less money and therefore will take a financial hit to play the game.

Your statement about trust is simply subjective. Contracts do not care about how you subjectively feel about something (unless there's a small chance the contract actually states that). Saying that Wofford isn't following protocols like Clemson is, and therefore we will play Clemson but not Wofford isn't going to fly.

[FurmAlum]

The argument of playing conference teams only is the control of protocols for the virus. Each conference will set its own rules for every team. The conference does not trust what the other teams are doing, hence they want to only play teams they can verify have done everything possible to stop the spread. I still think there will be an agreement between the ACC and SEC, but after that, all bets are off.

That is complete hogwash RB. Saying the SEC thinks it has better protocols than the Big Ten, or the ACC , or vice versa does not hold water with me.

It is purely financial. The excuse will be we can't fill our stadium, hence we can't afford to pay you $500K to come play us. That is suspect too, though. Wouldn't they be able to make up some of that by more T.V. viewers/revenue?

I don't see how they could go play OK on the road and not play FU at home, either.

Your thoughts?

[apaladin]

Agree, it’s all about the money. There was a big discussion on WCCP this week about the big boys not playing non-conference games and they agreed the reasons given were BS and the real reason was they don’t won’t to pay the money to teams when there will be no or few fans.

[Roundball]

The argument of playing conference teams only is the control of protocols for the virus. Each conference will set its own rules for every team. The conference does not trust what the other teams are doing, hence they want to only play teams they can verify have done everything possible to stop the spread. I still think there will be an agreement between the ACC and SEC, but after that, all bets are off.

That is complete hogwash RB. Saying the SEC thinks it has better protocols than the Big Ten, or the ACC , or vice versa does not hold water with me.

It is purely financial. The excuse will be we can't fill our stadium, hence we can't afford to pay you $500K to come play us. That is suspect too, though. Wouldn't they be able to make up some of that by more T.V. viewers/revenue?

I don't see how they could go play OK on the road and not play FU at home, either.

Your thoughts?

I agree with your points. It is about the dollars, which there will not be much of this year. The conferences are counting on money from television. I only stated the part about virus protocols because that was the discussion on ESPN with one of the conferences commissioners. That was not my opinion. We cannot ignore those comments, but we can question that angle. On the other side of the equation, if there is not agreement and no games between conferences, how will canceling the Clemson vs. Carolina game or the Georgia vs. Georgia Tech game be about money only? Wouldn't Clemson make more money from a game against S. Carolina that a game against Wake Forest? For the games against FCS opponents, no doubt, it is all about the money. The commissioners have to spin it that way in order to get the contracts voided. As for the contracts, it's going to be difficult for the Furman's of the world to fight it. Can we afford to file lawsuits against the big boys? In light of our situation, I don't think we can do anything about not getting paid.

[FurmAlum]

The argument of playing conference teams only is the control of protocols for the virus. Each conference will set its own rules for every team. The conference does not trust what the other teams are doing, hence they want to only play teams they can verify have done everything possible to stop the spread. I still think there will be an agreement between the ACC and SEC, but after that, all bets are off.

That is complete hogwash RB. Saying the SEC thinks it has better protocols than the Big Ten, or the ACC , or vice versa does not hold water with me.

It is purely financial. The excuse will be we can't fill our stadium, hence we can't afford to pay you $500K to come play us. That is suspect too, though. Wouldn't they be able to make up some of that by more T.V. viewers/revenue?

I don't see how they could go play OK on the road and not play FU at home, either.

Your thoughts?

I agree with your points. It is about the dollars, which there will not be much of this year. The conferences are counting on money from television. I only stated the part about virus protocols because that was the discussion on ESPN with one of the conferences commissioners. That was not my opinion. We cannot ignore those comments, but we can question that angle. On the other side of the equation, if there is not agreement and no games between conferences, how will canceling the Clemson vs. Carolina game or the Georgia vs. Georgia Tech game be about money only? Wouldn't Clemson make more money from a game against S. Carolina that a game against Wake Forest? For the games against FCS opponents, no doubt, it is all about the money. The commissioners have to spin it that way in order to get the contracts voided. As for the contracts, it's going to be difficult for the Furman's of the world to fight it. Can we afford to file lawsuits against the big boys? In light of our situation, I don't think we can do anything about not getting paid.

I am afraid that you are right. Filing a lawsuit would be too expensive and counterproductive. Better to stay on good terms with UT. Maybe get the game rescheduled.

The P&C article was very interesting. Sponsorships give me the creeps,too. But if its the only way...

My mean half says a contract is a contract. UT should have to pay!

[FUKA61]

Unless all SEC games are cancelled I believe FU will collect whatever the cancellation amount is in the contract.

IF they do not play us wouldn't they have to refund all their season ticket holders for what they paid for that game. That would be at least three times the amount that they were going to pay Furman.

[The Jackal]

Furman can absolutely "afford" to file a lawsuit. It's technically not that complicated of a question.

This isn't a toxic tort against a Fortune 500 company. There aren't dozens of witnesses or medical experts and days of testimony. This would be a breach of contract.

Breach of contract disputes are rarely decided by a jury. They are usually matters of law for the judge. That is, was the contract breached? If so, what are the damages?

There's a unique fact question as to whether the force majeur provisions of a contract related to COVID. Is COVID like a natural disaster that makes playing the game unfeasible? This issue is playing out all over the country right now - what obligation do I have to fulfill my agreement because of an unforeseen viral pandemic?

I can tell you this - if Tennessee opts to play Oklahoma on the road, they are going to have a devil of a time convincing a judge that force majeur allows them to cancel the home contest against Furman. I also agree that if UT plays football against anyone (SEC included), they'll have to compensate Furman for canceling the game due to COVID. If it is safe enough to play Arkansas, it is safe enough to play Furman.

I'll put it this way, if Furman has to seek compensation because of a canceled game, I would think that risk would be absolutely worth it if it meant a significant amount of funding to our athletic program.