I was opposed to cancel culture but am reconsidering my stance based on Obstacle's emergence on this board
Fordham just canceled the first 3 games of the season. It genuinely seems to me that everyone is about to retreat into conference-only games, and try to pull up the drawbridge there.
Dallas FC got sent home from the MLS tournament. Nashville may not be able to play.
Not saying that to say the sky is falling, but it's whistling past the graveyard to suggest that somehow sports are back and college sports are coming.
Ditto. One and done for football doesn’t work for me.
The presidents and deans care.
it’s not like Bama is going to say, “if Yale is out, so are we!” But as people pointed out in the forum yesterday, if the Ivy cancels, then the Patriot League maybe cancels. Then maybe you lose another non Power 5 league - maybe Rice can’t play because Houston is jacked up. Maybe SMU can’t go. Then Stanford and Northwestern and Duke and Vanderbilt - places that view the Ivy as peers - start to get jittery.
Interesting points. I think everyone assumes, well, you have to make a call in July so that we can plan. But there really is no planning if you cancel it. We could kick the can down the road.
Not sure how exactly that would work, but I suppose you could: 1) cancel non-conference; 2) announce conference-only schedule that you hope to start the first week of October; 3) start practices in August some time and see how it all goes.
I fully agree that spring football seems like a bad idea. Top players won't play, but it also would seem to have a health risk playing seasons so close together. Plus no guarantee you can play starting in Jan/Feb anyway.
I have a college kid and broadly think you are right - that keeping them bubbled together is the safest call. I don't think it's lawyers though - I think it's parents and faculty members. Faculty do not want to teach in person this semester - that is pretty clear. And I think we, as parents, are in the minority based on polling.
At any rate, I think the directionality is parents + faculty express serious concern => classes move on line => no reason to take on dorms and student living if classes are on line => no students on campus means no small-time sports => no small time sports means playing football looks like a crass $$ grab.
This is a good point. That's how I think the dominos start tipping over.
We can haggle away at whether it's smart, wise, whatever. I'm trying to avoid that.
But what I take from you is: the momentum is against us, there will likely not be a season.
I think that is right. But I hope I am wrong.
Five games in two weeks would be a real banger for the champs. War of attrition.
That is why I am not yet in that camp. The implications are enormous.
On the other hand, it is highly likely that dozens and dozens of small colleges will shut down permanently this year if they don't open their doors, and that may be the hand they are dealt.
In the words of the mayor on The Wire, "It's a shit sandwich" but it may be all that is on the menu.
Think people are hoping for an anti-viral or vaccine breakthrough before January, which is plausible.
It was kind of the party line at one point. No idea what OSU said but other schools and conferences said it too.
Ugh, I am not there yet but you may be right. I may be in denial. Or bargaining.
Harvard's endowment is $41B
This is sort of what I think - that Stanford cares. Northwestern cares. Duke cares. Vanderbilt cares.
That covers four major conferences.
Yeah, the Ivy was first in hoops. And everyone else hoped against hope that they could make it work, but they couldn't. I suspect that the immediate aftermath is going to be a bunch of FCS conferences canceling football for the fall.
The no scholarship is a big differentiator. And obviously it's harder for the Ivy League to say, "We prioritized the football team over the debate team" and not hard at all to say that if you are an FBS program.
What I wonder though, especially with Rutgers going online classes only: are FBS university presidents willing to walk away from their previous assertions that they need regular students on campus in order to play?
Basically, it's an optics thing if you are Rutgers and others. You have an empty campus, all classes online, have canceled all university clubs and activities, but the football team is playing. At some point it becomes clear this is a cash cow and not an actual university activity.
I agree that there are not going to be any out of conference road trips. Not gonna happen.
The big question is your assumption that schools must have students on campus to play football. This is clearly what everyone said a couple of months ago. I don't know that the presidents' won't walk that one back (for $$ reasons). Rutgers just canceled in person classes.
My belief is that there will be conference games only and teams will play with no kids on campus in some cases. But I think there is some chance we lose the season. And NO CHANCE there are fans in the stands. None. Zero.
Funny thing about college football: if kids don’t want to come play for you because you act like a douche, then you will be less effective at your job. Good luck recruiting today if you insist on flogging views that the vast majority of your recruits think are wrong.
The shirt was just the last in a string of stuff. Players felt like he was way out of touch.
Tryst, eh? It’s only been four days!
That ship has sailed. Poor bastard.
The idea that Adeleye - one of the more thoughtful and opinionated recruits - is listening to Wilcoxson on how to approach this process is laughable.