Big Ten Update: "They simply don't have enough teams to play" - Dan Patrick
https://twitter.com/dpshow/status/1303354980263436291
Dan Patrick on his show a moment ago says that, per his source, it's still up in the air, but "they simply don't have enough teams to play. I was told The Michigan teams not going to play, Illinois teams Illinois/Northwestern not going to play, Maryland's not going to play and Rutgers probably won't play."
He says they were originally going to try and start in October, but now some are pushing towards November (so no post-season play then) . January could technically still happen but it's not the consensus.
Patrick also says they were more optimistic a week ago, but now the likelihood they play at any time seems very doubtful . Says a lot players at "certain universities" don't want to practice anymore due to wondering why they are practicing when there probably isn't ever going to be any games played.
September 8th, 2020 at 11:49 AM ^
Big Ten Football Update: "They simply don't have enough teams to play. I was told The Michigan teams not going to play, Illinois teams Illinois/Northwestern not going to play, Maryland's not going to play and Rutgers probably won't play." pic.twitter.com/DP0QKIUYT8
— Dan Patrick Show (@dpshow) September 8, 2020
September 8th, 2020 at 11:54 AM ^
Why don’t we just plan for a normal season in 2021. Set a schedule with knowledge of 2020 being a lost season.
September 8th, 2020 at 2:00 PM ^
Great question!!! The answer is because it's a business and if the machine can keep the illusion that it will be up and running "soon" then "they" will be able to make more money!!! eg. Merchandise sales, podcasts, news stories, blogs, etc, etc
September 8th, 2020 at 2:53 PM ^
100% this.
We do work with Carnival Corp, and this is exactly what they've been doing. Need to steadily decrease outflows while not giving up the ghost on future revenues.
September 9th, 2020 at 6:02 PM ^
How do you know that Schlissel won't cancel the 2021 season? If I'm a recruit, I'm marking Michigan off the list. If we don't play next month, we might as well be Eastern Michigan going forward.
September 8th, 2020 at 11:53 AM ^
This is all Shitsell’s fault!!! (Am I doing “dumbass” right here???)
September 8th, 2020 at 12:14 PM ^
I think your supposed to blame democrats first.
September 8th, 2020 at 12:41 PM ^
Whether or not people want to admit it, if we don’t play this year and the other conferences do and they don’t have major problems, there’s a good chance Schlissel is gone.
Spare me the “he’s an epidemiologist” and “it’s to keep the kids safe” talk. The whole pandemic is very difficult and messy but when it passes and hindsight sets in people are going to look at this decision as being very binary. Either it’s the right decision because other conferences struggled or it’s the wrong decision because other conferences didn’t. Wrong decisions that cost you $100 million dollars get people fired. Just the way it is.
September 8th, 2020 at 12:43 PM ^
Lol, no. Football isn’t getting Schlissel fired. The loss revenue hurts the AD, not the university.
September 8th, 2020 at 1:27 PM ^
You’re right. Football isn’t getting Schlissel fired. The Board of Regents can though. They control the purse and are lobbied by people that put money in to that purse. Some of those people happen to be very big supporters of Michigan football. You think that if the likes of Stephen Ross call a Regent member and says “what the fuck happened!” that the answer of “well, it’s football not academics so it’s fine” is going to be sufficient?
September 8th, 2020 at 1:32 PM ^
There is ZERO talk of removing Schlissel in the alumni community. Nobody is getting fired, especially over football. We are not Alabama or OSU, we actually have academic reputation that we care about more.
September 8th, 2020 at 2:30 PM ^
Football drives a ton of engagement at the University and every time the team does well, applications jump. It's not as simple as separating the two.
Also, what happens to the students on scholarship if the AD has a $100mm shortfall. It comes out of the general, fund is my guess, so the University as a whole is definitely going to feel this. As are all the local businesses that depend on the University for revenue. I'm sure the town is really loving all the lost sales tax revenue and inevitable bankruptcies.
Will make a great buying opportunity for the University, though. I'm sure the town will love that too.
September 8th, 2020 at 4:11 PM ^
The Ath dept stands to lose a ton of money this year anyway. It's not like a switch is going to be flipped. If they do play, no one can really go to the games.
They're basically going to be scrimmages that count.
So it's a function of losing a hundred million or lose the high tens of millions.
and then there is the liability. What if something does happen with the outbreak? You're talking about an institution where some smart ass law student would sue the university for some obscure reason. Like that jackass in the 60's who sued over a snow day.
September 8th, 2020 at 4:19 PM ^
Ding ding ding! This ∆∆∆
September 8th, 2020 at 6:35 PM ^
I think you are confusing Michigan with some other school. The school already gets WAAAAY more applications than it can handle. The acceptance rate is up there with Ivy League schools for out of state students. Do you seriously think Stanford and Harvard are worried about dropping applications because of athletics?
There are certainly schools that need extra promotions that athletics to up the application numbers, but I would not count Michigan among them. The academic reputation is already enough to get enough applicants.
I would believe that donations would go up and down with success of athletics, but not enough to where it will influence Schlissel.
This is a non-issue when it comes to Schlissel and he is certainly acting like it (as he should).
September 9th, 2020 at 12:41 AM ^
I'm sorry, but we are nowhere near the Ivies when it comes to application and acceptance rates. The requirements to get INTO an Ivy are absurd.
Stanford and Harvard are a pretty big jump above us.
September 8th, 2020 at 2:11 PM ^
Not sure why your comment has gotten negative responses but I think you are on the right track. You can add Al Glick to that short list of big donors who have enough influence to get "things" done.
Schlissel has put himself on the hot seat and not just because of his expertise in epidemics and views on this virus but also his handling of lack of communication with his athletic department. This all depends on if the other three power conferences are successful in pulling off a fall FB season.
September 8th, 2020 at 2:15 PM ^
September 8th, 2020 at 3:05 PM ^
I wonder how much say, if any, the regents have had in this entire process. Even in just an advisory role, has Schlissel received their input at all?
September 8th, 2020 at 4:23 PM ^
To win a liability suit you would have to prove where they caught it, and you can’t do that. If the university is taking reasonable precautions, there is no liability. And before you ask, yes that still stands if 10 people on the team come down with it at the same time.
September 8th, 2020 at 2:50 PM ^
People keep bringing up $$$ as such a huge deal for to football or not to football and how that should somehow weigh heavy on Schlissel's head. While money is absolutely a concern for the Athletic Dept. in the big picture of the University as a whole it's only a very tiny drop in the bucket. The budget for the University is almost $9 BILLION. The entire AD has a budget of just under $200M (i.e., about 2% of the entire budget. Incidentally, total gifts (not just those for the AD) are about 4% (a bit under $400M). So, while a couple big donors might make some noise, they aren't carrying the water for the University. It's also worth noting that "only" about 1/3 of the $$$ Ross donated went to the AD. The rest went to the B School. The vast majority of revenue for the University (over 50%) comes from the medical facilities.
September 8th, 2020 at 2:56 PM ^
Ross' name is on the business school and not the stadium for a reason. While many big donors care about football, they care a lot more about the school and academics. So no, the majority of the big donors aren't going to call to get the president fired over this and there is almost no way the regents fire him for this.
September 8th, 2020 at 12:48 PM ^
I'm not sure being cautious about playing football will determine Schlissel's fate. He's the president of a major university, not a football factory. If there's ultimately a reason for canning him, it would be for bringing back students and then seeing dangerous virus surges.
Barring that, I wouldn't be surprised if he stepped away voluntarily. He must think all this emphasis on FOOTBAWL during a pandemic is kind of sad and embarrassing.
September 8th, 2020 at 1:00 PM ^
More than 120 Michigan State University students, nearly all of them living off campus, have tested positive for COVID-19 since Aug. 30.
That is happening just down the road. Some folks will read that and think, what does that have to do with football? Others will read that and realize that football provides another opportunity for large crowds to gather. No, they won't be in the stadium, but college kids watch games together. It's a social activity. Schlissel is not getting fired for how he handled football, or the athletic program in general. That is prima facie ridiculous.
September 8th, 2020 at 1:50 PM ^
I know a lot of people don't want to admit it, especially non-alumni fans of Michigan athletics, but Mark Schlissel is an excellent university president, arguably one of the best in the country. Under his watch, academic rankings have risen, fundraising has exploded, the university's prestige has risen, applications have increased year-on-year - basically every objective measure of what a university president is there to do has been a massive success. Michigan could have had almost anyone (note that 3 of the 8 sitting Ivy League presidents came directly from Michigan, only one of whom was president here)...and they chose Schlissel in a landslide. Despite the difficult circumstances the whole country is in now, his star has done nothing but climb.
(Before you go wild, no I don't think only alumni are allowed to be fans, some of the best/most loyal fans did not attend, etc.)
September 8th, 2020 at 2:41 PM ^
DTOW
Now which President is it that you believe should be held accountable for decisions related to COVID19?
I take it your vote is for the president of a prestigious university who is actively making the difficult decisions necessary to continue its leadership programs in education and research, while maintaining the safety of its students and faculty, during a global pandemic.
Or did I get that wrong? Maybe you’re thinking someone else should be fired?
Edit based on new info: Now if both presidents made decisions contrary to the guidance of their “experts” I would agree they should both be fired, but only because of their primary duties and not because of football.
September 8th, 2020 at 3:55 PM ^
I'm not sure if I'm totally following where you're going or not but if you're inferring that I'm trying to incorporate politics involving POTUS with the President of the University I can assure you that is not the case. I've voted for people in both major politically parties and I did not vote for Trump the last go around.
What I'm saying is that if we don't play and other conferences do and they have a relatively smooth go of it, Schissel's decision is going to come under increasing criticism not less. The roars will get louder. The phone calls from donors, alumni and fans will grow increasingly more frequent. The threats to withhold donations will be more common. We're still in the infancy of this decision. The other P5 schools haven't even started playing yet and the uproar is palpable. Its going to get worse with each passing week that Michigan supporters are watching other schools go about playing.
Tell me if you think this is an original story: Person in X leadership position makes a decision that makes people extremely unhappy. Said person actively seeks out ways to not be transparent about the decision. Uproar ensues from stakeholders leading to said person being forced to release a public statement justifying their position. Stakeholders no longer give a shit or, worse, disagree even more fervently with the decision. Said person's bosses release a statement of support which is followed by continued uproar. Said person's position is now untenable leading to a termination of position or a resignation from said person. We've all seen it before and there's a thousand examples of it.
I saw mackbru comment above which stated, "He's the president of a major university, not a football factory." I disagree. Schlissel is the President of a very prestigious university that also happens to be a football factory. He can't be half pregnant with the job he chose to accept.
September 8th, 2020 at 5:06 PM ^
I understand your logic that the politics and pressure behind the scenes related to football would force him out and I disagree. Not only was he only one vote of ten, but also there are absolutely no university presidents that would be forced out because of making a positive or negative vote on playing covid football. This is true even if Alabama voted against playing.
My reference to the other president was simply stating that if you think that football at Michigan is enough to get one president fired that surely there are overwhelming reasons to fire the other.
September 8th, 2020 at 3:38 PM ^
If it goes south do the other Presidents get fired?
September 8th, 2020 at 4:59 PM ^
If you jump off a cliff and survive, that doesn't make it a good decision.
September 8th, 2020 at 6:50 PM ^
I'm assuming you're not an alum, but you are talking through your behind. There is nothing but praise in high circles for him. Please come back for your humble pie when Mark leaves of his own accord. . . when he is good and ready.
September 8th, 2020 at 2:35 PM ^
He's the one that didn't want Michigan to play so correct, you've got it right. Why does that bother you guys so much?
September 8th, 2020 at 11:55 AM ^
I think I heard that the Governor won't allow football to be played - is that right and the reason Michigan teams won't be playing?
September 8th, 2020 at 12:00 PM ^
I know that high school football is now a go and the Lions are scheduled to start next Sunday. Not sure if the Governor has any control or say over the colleges and universities in the state and what sports they can play or not.
September 8th, 2020 at 12:00 PM ^
That conspiracy makes ZERO sense considering she allowed pro sports to happen and just allowed the MHSAA to play if they want to.
September 8th, 2020 at 12:38 PM ^
I didn't think it was a conspiracy and never said as much. It was just something I heard in passing the other day on a college football talk show on Sirius. I asked the question because many of you are in Michigan and may know the answer.
September 8th, 2020 at 12:51 PM ^
The governor has issued no orders about B10 football. The decision was made by a large majority of school presidents.
September 8th, 2020 at 12:54 PM ^
Don't you know you aren't allowed to not know anything nowadays? Everyone is an expert on everything, or has personally heard from an expert, so is an expert by proxy.
I'm readying your stake now, and we will burn you at dawn.
September 8th, 2020 at 1:35 PM ^
You must be an unscrupulous opportunist.
Yes - user name checks out.
September 8th, 2020 at 1:41 PM ^
You didn't say it was a conspiracy, but it's absolutely a conspiracy theory to insinuate that Michigan's governor is keeping the Big Ten from playing football. As mentioned elsewhere, this theory makes no sense. You didn't insinuate that, but other prominent politicians have...which is why people here probably get annoyed when it's brought up.
September 8th, 2020 at 2:50 PM ^
You mean she kept everything closed until the internal polling showed the D's are in trouble in Michigan and Pennsylvania and suddenly it defame imperative to open up HS football.
September 8th, 2020 at 12:01 PM ^
high school football is allowed now, but with limits on attendance - 2 people per player. and the EO that did that (176, i think) also limits gatherings to 100 total or something like that downstate. which means you couldn't even have your teams, coaches, and field officials in the stadium for a college game. it's a cluster-muck.
link: https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/0,9309,7-387-90499_90705-538730--,00.html
September 8th, 2020 at 12:18 PM ^
If that's the case, how are the Lions planning on playing in Ford Field on Sunday? The two 53 man rosters alone take it past 100 people.
September 8th, 2020 at 3:00 PM ^
You are wrong. There are separate rules for separate events.
- Pro sports has been allowed for at least a couple months; if you consider the Lions are pro team, they are playing this Sunday at Ford Field. There will be a full complement of players, coaches and officials. Just no fans.
- High school has different rules (which you mentioned).
Now, if the B1G Presidents decide to play college football, which rules do you think they would fall under (or would have a new EO modeled after)? College football is much more like the NFL than high school, so UM would be fine.
For the millionth time, Whitmer is not holding B1G football back; if they decide, as a group, it is safe to do it, they will.
September 8th, 2020 at 3:06 PM ^
i didn't mention pro sports, i cited the actual order, so how could i be 'wrong' about pro sports? and without a waiver - which i think the pros got - colleges aren't going to be able to play AFAIK. do you have different information?
September 8th, 2020 at 3:36 PM ^
B/c you are trying to create confusion when there really is none. You talk about high school sports and other executive orders, when pro sports is the clear comparable from a public health point of view: top-level football events involving a couple hundred people held in massive stadiums which are financed by multi-billion TV contracts (which allows for high-levels of $$$ to be spent on tests, PPE, health care, etc).
There is every reason in the world to assume that if Whitmer allows the Lions to play, she would readily allow the Wolverines and Spartans to play (if their presidents decide they are playing football; it's up to them).
Do you honestly think she would allow the Lions to play home games, high schools to play home games, yet somehow say, "Nope -- where I draw the line is college football"? Be real.
September 8th, 2020 at 3:55 PM ^
it wasn't what we were talking about. i made no proclamation on it, and simply commented on high school, made a pass at the college issue, and linked the order for folks to read to figure it out on their own. what the heck is wrong with people? man.
September 8th, 2020 at 4:10 PM ^
Because you are concern-trolling and acting like there is a chance that the state of Michigan wouldn't allow college football. Your original post made the proclamation "which means you couldn't even have your teams, coaches, and field officials in the stadium for a college game. it's a cluster-muck."
It's not a cluster-muck; the EO you linked to is irrelevant for B1G college football's chances of being played; if UM, MSU presidents want to play college football, they'd ask (like the Lions & Tigers did) and a new EO would be issued. There is zero chance that Whitmer would block college football -- you don't allow pro sports *and* high school sports, yet somehow draw the line in the middle and say "Not so fast, colleges!"
B1G football happening or not is completely up to the University Presidents. It has nothing to do with Whitmer.
September 8th, 2020 at 6:02 PM ^
i never said whitmer would say no, i only opined under the existing EO that it wouldn't be allowed. the EO she issued on thursday. i then linked that actual order for others to make their own decsion. if you can see a troll in there you need to try the decaf.