Non conference game payouts ...

[jlb321]

If there are non conf games - with the projected big shortfalls in revenue are the big programs still on the hook for these payouts to lower conference opponents.

Nebraska is set to owe more than 2’million dollars combined to CMU-SDSU and Cincinnati

 

[BeautifulDayintheNeighborhood]

People should pay to play us after the last 5 years

 

[jflores]

Shatel said something about SDSU is not testing and NU may not play that game.

fwiw

 

[dinglefritz]

Shatel said something about SDSU is not testing and NU may not play that game.

fwiw

SDSU is doing it exactly the way the rest of college football should be doing it. If we're really going to test and quarantine kids, there won't be sports this fall.

 

[Baxter48]

SDSU is doing it exactly the way the rest of college football should be doing it. If we're really going to test and quarantine kids, there won't be sports this fall.

If no football season do you think Iowa will claim 2020 national championship?

 

[jlb321]

Anyone have thoughts on the original question. If there are games at 50% attendance capacity - which I believe Moos estimates a $6 million dollar loss per home game under those circumstances - does NU payout full payouts for these games

 

[slwags]

I doubt anyone had the forethought to put a virus clause in the contract so I assume we would owe all of it.

 

[litespeedhuskerfan]

Anyone have thoughts on the original question. If there are games at 50% attendance capacity - which I believe Moos estimates a $6 million dollar loss per home game under those circumstances - does NU payout full payouts for these games

No....and the schools we were going to pay that will say to themselves..."Half a loaf is better than no loaf"...and they will be right.

 

[jflores]

SDSU is doing it exactly the way the rest of college football should be doing it. If we're really going to test and quarantine kids, there won't be sports this fall.

I mean I did vote "no" to my own poll question on the matter some months ago.

 

[jflores]

Anyone have thoughts on the original question. If there are games at 50% attendance capacity - which I believe Moos estimates a $6 million dollar loss per home game under those circumstances - does NU payout full payouts for these games

Hard to tell with the angles from lawyers on both sides. Can you shoehorn covid into act of God or some other clause that may or may not be present? Probably. That really only address full on cancellation though, who knows what angle would have to be worked for reduced payout.

NU would probably prefer to play lets say, the SDSU game, but perhaps not at the cost of facing an untested opponent if it can get out of the payout for that reason.

Given the nature of the reaction to spiking covid cases so far, its probably in NU's best interest to keep case counts low and play as much of the real season it can and not get sidetracked playing SDSU (again for example) if its going to impact "real" games due to the risk of a covid spike.

 

[jflores]

SDSU is doing it exactly the way the rest of college football should be doing it. If we're really going to test and quarantine kids, there won't be sports this fall.

NBA "feels very comfortable going forward" but

"The commissioner reiterated that a single positive test would halt play, but that a substantial number of positive tests might cause another suspension, or cancelation, of the 2019-20 season."

Seems to be a fairly low bar for one of the three major pro leagues. Operating in a bubble even. Those athletes are a few months to a few years older than college athletes, so we can probably agree about low risk category. We'll see I guess what NCAA FB bar is.

 

[dinglefritz]

I doubt anyone had the forethought to put a virus clause in the contract so I assume we would owe all of it.

It's hard to say. Most insurance policies have clauses about acts of terrorism. One would hope given the concern about pandemics shown by the powers that be over the past couple of decades that maybe NU would have attorneys smart enough to include that language in a contract. In any case, the payouts for visiting non-con games is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall loss of revenue if this season doesn't go forward.

 

[SkerInCo]

I doubt anyone had the forethought to put a virus clause in the contract so I assume we would owe all of it.

I'm no lawyer but would it be considered force majeure? I see that in most contracts.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

I'm no lawyer but would it be considered force majeure? I see that in most contracts.

Also not a lawyer, but if I am correct the following 3 criteria need to be met

1 - the event must be beyond the reasonable control of the affected party;

2 - the affected party’s ability to perform its obligations under the contract must have been prevented, impeded or hindered by the event; and

3 - the affected party must have taken all reasonable steps to seek to avoid or mitigate the event or its consequences.

The only one I could see coming into question would be number 3. How could a school, for example, prove they took reasonable steps to seek, avoid or mitigate the event or its consquences when they bring in a 100 or so kids, put them in dorms and and have them workout, especially if one or more kids gets the virus. Or if enough get the virus to the season is cancelled. Just spit-balling

 

[Baxter48]

As if July 1st I’ll say there will be no fall or winter sports, just a hunch but it appears to many top officials don’t want anything remotely reopened. Chicken little the sky if falling

 

[jflores]

Also not a lawyer, but if I am correct the following 3 criteria need to be met

1 - the event must be beyond the reasonable control of the affected party;

2 - the affected party’s ability to perform its obligations under the contract must have been prevented, impeded or hindered by the event; and

3 - the affected party must have taken all reasonable steps to seek to avoid or mitigate the event or its consequences.

The only one I could see coming into question would be number 3. How could a school, for example, prove they took reasonable steps to seek, avoid or mitigate the event or its consquences when they bring in a 100 or so kids, put them in dorms and and have them workout, especially if one or more kids gets the virus. Or if enough get the virus to the season is cancelled. Just spit-balling

I think legally its clearer cut if we attempt to cancel a game than try and get a lower payout? Just my uneducated guess. Open to any educated opinions.

My reasoning would be, taking again the SDSU situation into account. We could try and back out on the terms they aren't following public health guidelines for an event this size in the state of Nebraska. Or we could hold the game, pending them using the money they are getting paid from us to first pay for testing of the entire football travel roster before said event can occur.

If we say, "oh yah, come play, but we aren't as rich as we used to be and we'd like to pay you less", I think we'd have less of a leg to stand on. For one, we can cover. We don't want to cover, but we could do it.

 

[jlb321]

As if July 1st I’ll say there will be no fall or winter sports, just a hunch but it appears to many top officials don’t want anything remotely reopened. Chicken little the sky if falling

which top officials are you referring to?

These officials could simply say we appreciate the advice from medical professionals but we don’t really know the extent of the problem and until we have more proof we are going to play ball with capacity full stadiums

 

[slwags]

It's hard to say. Most insurance policies have clauses about acts of terrorism. One would hope given the concern about pandemics shown by the powers that be over the past couple of decades that maybe NU would have attorneys smart enough to include that language in a contract. In any case, the payouts for visiting non-con games is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall loss of revenue if this season doesn't go forward.

 

[slwags]

You are talking about people that didn’t have a weather clause in the contract with Akron last year.

 

[Baxter48]

which top officials are you referring to?

These officials could simply say we appreciate the advice from medical professionals but we don’t really know the extent of the problem and until we have more proof we are going to play ball with capacity full stadiums

I mean medical people

 

[leodisflowers]

I'm no lawyer but would it be considered force majeure? I see that in most contracts.

This will probably be used.

 

[jlb321]

I mean medical people

which medical people are in positions to decide no fall sports or to close businesses?

 

[Dean Pope]

I doubt anyone had the forethought to put a virus clause in the contract so I assume we would owe all of it.

I think I remember Sean Callahan discussing it. They have just about everything under the sun listed except for a pandemic. However, I think pandemic would fall under some of the natural/acts of God/government intervention clauses. If it came to it, the issue would be decided in a courtroom.

The buyouts for the Central Michigan and Cincy contracts are north of a million bucks. All things considered, I think it would be best to negotiate a way out of those deals. A smaller buyout and not play the game? Keep the contract but move it back to a different season? Just play the game anyway and lose money? SDSU has a much smaller buyout, but it's a 3 game contract.

It's been reported that NU officials are looking at an alternate schedule with potentially playing an all Big 10 schedule or even some different non-conference teams (think Big 8 rivals, Colorado St, Wyoming).

This should be interesting.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

which medical people are in positions to decide no fall sports or to close businesses?

I don’t know why he believes it to be true. What I will say is that, while not directly making decisions, the amount of influence on those decisions is immeasurable. If these high level medical officials say football should not be played, it won’t be played. If you cannot see that, then you are just being deliberately obtuse.

 

[jflores]

I don’t know why he believes it to be true. What I will say is that, while not directly making decisions, the amount of influence on those decisions is immeasurable. If these high level medical officials say football should not be played, it won’t be played. If you cannot see that, then you are just being deliberately obtuse.

Should the medical professionals alter their opinion to bow down to a sports league?

Or do we want honest advice? If the honest advice is no-go, the job of the medical professional ends. If other business or political leaders want to shun such advice, they are going to have to have cajones. They don't get to have their cake and eat it too, more than anyone else.

 

[jlb321]

I don’t know why he believes it to be true. What I will say is that, while not directly making decisions, the amount of influence on those decisions is immeasurable. If these high level medical officials say football should not be played, it won’t be played. If you cannot see that, then you are just being deliberately obtuse.

the medical professionals are advisors to those making the decisions
in a pandemic the medical people are going to advise on what they believe to be the best way to limit loss of life due to this virus and they will err on the side of lives saved

they are not charged with taking economic impact or the effects on universities as it relates to football into account

that is up to the leaders they are advising to balance the advise of medical professionals with economic, etc impact and make a decision

 

[jflores]

Leaders of every type are looking for "no consequence" decision making. It is unfortunate for Ricketts and the B1G in particular in this situation, that they don't have any personal expertise in the matter and so they must rely heavily on what UNMC and Fauci and others tell them. But that's the way things go. There's plenty of other decisions they make, that don't require near as much outside reliance on folks.

A natural counter to that, is a second opinion. Also unfortunately for those guys, most places places around the country are advising very similarly to their primary sources. So they have to also weigh the optics of "shopping" for the answer they want. Which is also not UNMC's or Fauci's concern.

But they are the chosen leaders, and if they want to make the big time decisions and garner the praise, they are also going to take the blame if they pick wrongly (or even rightly and unpopular). They are not always going to be able to deflect blame on the "little people" who possess the expertise to guide them on particular issues. And arguably as good leaders, they shouldn't attempt to do such anyway. The whole "buck stops here" thing.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Should the medical professionals alter their opinion to bow down to a sports league?

Or do we want honest advice? If the honest advice is no-go, the job of the medical professional ends. If other business or political leaders want to shun such advice, they are going to have to have cajones. They don't get to have their cake and eat it too, more than anyone else.

Agree to a point. The problem, in my opinion, is how that decision is critiqued by the media. Just look at decisions made early on by Trump and de Blasio. Trump’s decision to impose travel bans was widely criticized by the media and those on the left. While it probably saved lives, you never hear, even with hindsight, that that decision was a good one. de Blasio chose to keep subways open and move Covid infected elderly from hospitals to nursing homes. While that decision likely led to many many deaths and further infections you never hear anything about what a poor decision it was.

 

[jflores]

Agree to a point. The problem, in my opinion, is how that decision is critiqued by the media. Just look at decisions made early on by Trump and de Blasio. Trump’s decision to impose travel bans was widely criticized by the media and those on the left. While it probably saved lives, you never hear, even with hindsight, that that section was a good one. de Blasio chose to keep subways open and move Covid infected elderly from hospitals to nursing homes.

If right is right, to hell with the media. Are we talking about doing the right thing or are we talking about making our favored politicians look good? Personally I prefer my leadership to lead rather than peacock about.

If you are politician media is part of the game. Mills doesn't get to complain about having to make 10 yards for a first down. Politicians don't get to complain that all the people won't like them if they make a decision.

 

[jflores]

Personally I get tired of the media conspiracy stuff. We've heard numerous times about how dumb, inconsequential, and low ratings the lamestream media are from the Admin. And then some crowing about Fox and right wing media destroying them all in ratings.

And the 10 sec later, the same dumb and inconsequential outlets are driving the country in the ground despite the Administration being at the head of a media "Death Star"? Right.

Pick one.

 

[jlb321]

Agree to a point. The problem, in my opinion, is how that decision is critiqued by the media. Just look at decisions made early on by Trump and de Blasio. Trump’s decision to impose travel bans was widely criticized by the media and those on the left. While it probably saved lives, you never hear, even with hindsight, that that decision was a good one. de Blasio chose to keep subways open and move Covid infected elderly from hospitals to nursing homes. While that decision likely led to many many deaths and further infections you never hear anything about what a poor decision it was.

I posted in another thread that there a plenty of purely "red" states that they should be immune to those on the left getting in the way of football

there are 21 states with both the governor and legislative branches "red" for lack of a better term

every one of these states has at least one D1 football team - many with more than 1
there are 33 power 5 teams within these states

medical professionals are going to give recommendations regarding their opinions on how to save the most lives and they are going to err on the side of lives saved - they are not going to factor in the economy or the effects on athletic programs in these recs

it is up to the officials to take these recommendations and balance them with the economic factors including whether or not to play football and decide where things will land

if you are of the believe that these decisions are in some way politically motivated then as above there are enough power 5 teams in very "red" states to have a near normal football season if these state officials have the cajones to decide football is going to proceed with minimal, if any, restrictions

 

[saluno22]

One question I have for the NCAA is if they have a patchwork or no season, do they award an extra year of eligibility to seniors whose teams didn't play like they did for spring sports?

I know the NCAA had regrets after making the spring eligibility decision, so my guess is "no".

 

[jflores]

I posted in another thread that there a plenty of purely "red" states that they should be immune to those on the left getting in the way of football

there are 21 states with both the governor and legislative branches "red" for lack of a better term

every one of these states has at least one D1 football team - many with more than 1
there are 33 power 5 teams within these states

medical professionals are going to give recommendations regarding their opinions on how to save the most lives and they are going to err on the side of lives saved - they are not going to factor in the economy or the effects on athletic programs in these recs

it is up to the officials to take these recommendations and balance them with the economic factors including whether or not to play football and decide where things will land

if you are of the believe that these decisions are in some way politically motivated then as above there are enough power 5 teams in very "red" states to have a near normal football season if these state officials have the cajones to decide football is going to proceed with minimal, if any, restrictions

yes the concern for football has been bipartisan. see south carolina and georgia for the latest.

As of yet, even if more red states were quicker on the draw about opening, in football terms, none has come out in front and said "this is not an issue for us anymore".

Abbott, Kemp and others were perfectly willing to take the heat on early opening of the businesses, but strangely, no one has been willing to do so on NCAA FB.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

If right is right, to hell with the media. Are we talking about doing the right thing or are we talking about making our favored politicians look good? Personally I prefer my leadership to lead rather than peacock about.

If you are politician media is part of the game. Mills doesn't get to complain about having to make 10 yards for a first down. Politicians don't get to complain that all the people won't like them if they make a decision.

well as I said the problem is the decision, fairly or not, is judged as right or wrong based on what the media decides to push. As far as this decision to play football or not, the right or wrong will have varying degrees of opinion. I may have a threshold of 25 infected players as acceptable whereas the sports guy on the news may have a threshold of 1. If 2 players get the virus, then he can get on his platform and say the decision was wrong. This isn’t like calling heads and it coming up heads so you are right.

 

[jflores]

well as I said the problem is the decision, fairly or not, is judged as right or wrong based on what the media decides to push. As far as this decision to play football or not, the right or wrong will have varying degrees of opinion. I may have a threshold of 25 infected players as acceptable whereas the sports guy on the news may have a threshold of 1. If 2 players get the virus, then he can get on his platform and say the decision was wrong. This isn’t like calling heads and it coming up heads so you are right.

Yah I mean, I think its fairly certain at this time that doctors aren't going to be real supportive of football in the fall barring some big swing in 3 weeks. Alot of the powers that be are probably going to try and go anyway, some may say they have to.

But there's alot unknown that we won't know until retrospect. How much money is going to be put into "giving it a go" that we wouldn't otherwise spend in a normal year. How much of that can be recoup if we only play a handful of games. What do payouts from big to small schools look like if those games are even played. Do big schools subtract cost of testing for the smaller schools who weren't going to test before those games? What do media payouts look like for big schools who play a handful of exhibition games if we don't get a competitive season going?

Its entirely possible that if we don't play a normal pre-covid season, between the covid hoops and the lessened payouts and whatever, only the richest schools will see any benefit to try to lace them up. But they were the schools who could have afforded to sit this year out anyway.

 

[jlb321]

well as I said the problem is the decision, fairly or not, is judged as right or wrong based on what the media decides to push. As far as this decision to play football or not, the right or wrong will have varying degrees of opinion. I may have a threshold of 25 infected players as acceptable whereas the sports guy on the news may have a threshold of 1. If 2 players get the virus, then he can get on his platform and say the decision was wrong. This isn’t like calling heads and it coming up heads so you are right.

my gosh .. I hope leaders, in a time of national crisis, aren't making multi billion dollar decisions based on what Les Nessman or Champ Kind might have to say