College Football and Covid19 (Cancellations, Postponements etc)

[winitall]

27 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

The B1G wants to reiterate that there is no merit to the current lawsuit filed by 8 players and has randomly and coincidentally released a statement about the possibility of playing football this fall.

The coaches and ADs have always wanted to play. The problem is that they have no power and the people that do have been just as clear that it isn’t going to happen most likely. Plus the lawsuit has a 0.01% chance of working.*
 

*I’m being generous at that percentage too tbh. 

Edited August 28, 2020 by winitall

[MWil23]

9 minutes ago, winitall said:

Plus the lawsuit has a 0.01% chance of working.*
 

*I’m being generous at that percentage too tbh. 

It doesn't matter whether or not the lawsuit actually holds up in court, as that won't be determined until well after the season/subsequent years from now. What matters is the court of public opinion, and they look TERRIBLE right now, as they should for all of the aforementioned reasons in my other post.

[Oregon Ducks]

Hmm

https://247sports.com/college/ucla/Article/UCLA-Bruins-Football-Pac-12-Plans-for-Six-Game-Winter-Football-Season--150792368/

[Duluther]

31 minutes ago, winitall said:

Plus the lawsuit has a 0.01% chance of working.*
 

*I’m being generous at that percentage too tbh. 

False. Just because this is the common narrative among average fans doens't make it true.

 

What the plaintiffs are first and foremost asking for is expedited discovery. Normally when a lawsuit is filed, the defendants have 30 days to answer, then you can start your discovery. But the plaintiff’s attorneys want it expedited to five days. And they achieved this in this first hearing; the judge ordered the B1G that they have five days to respond. If the judge allows this discovery, Warren will be under oath.

In their defense, the B1G lawyer’s two prong defense was a lack of precedent.  That’s a nonsensical argument that will likely be dismissed because “postponing” a league like this has literally never happened before. The second prong defense was basically “well, just because the players don’t agree with our decision, you can’t sue.” Well that’s just not how the world works. They really didn't prepare a defense beyond this.

Furthermore, the B1G is a not-for-profit. In many states, not-for-profit organizations are legally subject to freedom-of-information (or open records). I don’t know which B1G states are what, but I would bet the plaintiff lawyers are smart enough to keep other B1G states out of this and keep it in Nebraska (and also not federal, which we’ll get to later) because Nebraska is a state with freedom-of-information. The B1G can’t muscle these players, however small they may be to the B1G, when it comes to court. (And the fact that the B1G is having to have a judge tell them to hand over the minutes and documents should tell you there’s a great chance they don’t say what Warren is saying, and a good chance they don’t exist at all, but that’s besides the point as I want to focus on the legitimacy of the plaintiff’s case).

These players further have a case for expedited discovery and further expedition because the state of Nebraska just passed a law that allows players to profit off their likeness. The players will argue that because of the B1G’s decision, which they do not believe followed the B1G’s own rules (a biggie), we’re being denied an opportunity to make money during our 1-4 year playing window. The players will argue they are 3rd party beneficiaries. Beneficiaries are not bound to the B1G contracts and can sue, especially on the grounds of being deprived of their benefits.

A lot of people may want to throw the legitimacy of this case out the window because cases like these often go to the federal court and are in limbo for months to wither away. Cases go federal when the plaintiffs seek and have a case for $75,001 or more. The plaintiff’s lawyer stated multiple times in the hearing that they would accept no more than $75,000. This case will stay where it can survive.
 

 

 

[winitall]

12 minutes ago, Duluther said:

False. Just because this is the common narrative among average fans doens't make it true.

 

What the plaintiffs are first and foremost asking for is expedited discovery. Normally when a lawsuit is filed, the defendants have 30 days to answer, then you can start your discovery. But the plaintiff’s attorneys want it expedited to five days. And they achieved this in this first hearing; the judge ordered the B1G that they have five days to respond. If the judge allows this discovery, Warren will be under oath.

In their defense, the B1G lawyer’s two prong defense was a lack of precedent.  That’s a nonsensical argument that will likely be dismissed because “postponing” a league like this has literally never happened before. The second prong defense was basically “well, just because the players don’t agree with our decision, you can’t sue.” Well that’s just not how the world works. They really didn't prepare a defense beyond this.

Furthermore, the B1G is a not-for-profit. In many states, not-for-profit organizations are legally subject to freedom-of-information (or open records). I don’t know which B1G states are what, but I would bet the plaintiff lawyers are smart enough to keep other B1G states out of this and keep it in Nebraska (and also not federal, which we’ll get to later) because Nebraska is a state with freedom-of-information. The B1G can’t muscle these players, however small they may be to the B1G, when it comes to court. (And the fact that the B1G is having to have a judge tell them to hand over the minutes and documents should tell you there’s a great chance they don’t say what Warren is saying, and a good chance they don’t exist at all, but that’s besides the point as I want to focus on the legitimacy of the plaintiff’s case).

These players further have a case for expedited discovery and further expedition because the state of Nebraska just passed a law that allows players to profit off their likeness. The players will argue that because of the B1G’s decision, which they do not believe followed the B1G’s own rules (a biggie), we’re being denied an opportunity to make money during our 1-4 year playing window. The players will argue they are 3rd party beneficiaries. Beneficiaries are not bound to the B1G contracts and can sue, especially on the grounds of being deprived of their benefits.

A lot of people may want to throw the legitimacy of this case out the window because cases like these often go to the federal court and are in limbo for months to wither away. Cases go federal when the plaintiffs seek and have a case for $75,001 or more. The plaintiff’s lawyer stated multiple times in the hearing that they would accept no more than $75,000. This case will stay where it can survive.
 

 

 

Not going to address the rest right now, but the third party beneficiary portion is mostly moot. Nebraska’s state law for NIL doesn’t go into place until 2023. 

[Duluther]

1 hour ago, winitall said:

Not going to address the rest right now, but the third party beneficiary portion is mostly moot. Nebraska’s state law for NIL doesn’t go into place until 2023. 

The NCAA is actively working to supersede the 2023 date in federal courts. (May or may not withstand in this case.)

Furthermore, all eight players in the lawsuit will still be on the team in 2023 (all are between true freshman and sophomores). They can claim this (allegedly invalid) decision damages their immediate ability to build their brand by 2023 or whatever closer date the NCAA receives. They can claim this based on senior starters getting 1's reps for another calendar year over them, loss of the diet and trainer's table this season, and medical amenities that some coaches (like Frost in his pre-Warren postponement) alledge they could have given players access to had they had a season.

[winitall]

13 minutes ago, Duluther said:

The NCAA is actively working to supersede the 2023 date in federal courts. (May or may not withstand in this case.)

Furthermore, all eight players in the lawsuit will still be on the team in 2023 (all are between true freshman and sophomores). They can claim this (allegedly invalid) decision damages their immediate ability to build their brand by 2023 or whatever closer date the NCAA receives. They can claim this based on senior starters getting 1's reps for another calendar year over them, loss of the diet and trainer's table this season, and medical amenities that some coaches (like Frost in his pre-Warren postponement) alledge they could have given players access to had they had a season.

1. Even if we use the NCAA date of next season, it’s not now. If they had NIL rights now, they could make that argument. Future rights don’t mean much when there will still be a season in the winter. How are they going to argue that the winter season is less valuable? Which requires them to first even prove that the B1G owes them a season at all, which is dubious. 
 

2. The NCAA determines eligibility, not the B1G. Following the logic about seniors getting an extra season, SEC players could also sue. 
 

3. The players will still get the same value of scholarship. If the schools close down the dining areas, I’m sure the players will receive more money to purchase their own food with. 

[Duluther]

2 minutes ago, winitall said:

1. Even if we use the NCAA date of next season, it’s not now. If they had NIL rights now, they could make that argument. Future rights don’t mean much when there will still be a season in the winter. How are they going to argue that the winter season is less valuable? Which requires them to first even prove that the B1G owes them a season at all, which is dubious. 
 

2. The NCAA determines eligibility, not the B1G. Following the logic about seniors getting an extra season, SEC players could also sue. 
 

3. The players will still get the same value of scholarship. If the schools close down the dining areas, I’m sure the players will receive more money to purchase their own food with. 

May address the rest later, but quickly:

The plaintiffs entire premise rests on the B1G's decision to cancel being invalid as the B1G didn't follow its own protocol. This premise extends to point 2. 

Because of this, I'll concede on the extra year for seniors point.

[NateDawg]

So many question marks still. The backtracking has certainly begun though. Maybe, just maybe, they should have delayed their definitive decision making until they had more of a plan? This has been handled so  poorly. Even if they started in late November, I don’t think that would allow for any college football playoff participation. If that’s the case, you are going to have a junior varsity lineup out there or guys that are playing only if they have a chance to improve their NFL stock. If the other conferences were to delay or the college football playoff were to be backed up though, I guess anything is a go. Imagine the other conferences participating in a playoff know if there is a clearly elite 6-0 Big Ten team at the time. What a year. 

[Duluther]

2 hours ago, winitall said:

Not going to address the rest right now, but the third party beneficiary portion is mostly moot. Nebraska’s state law for NIL doesn’t go into place until 2023. 

Okay, did further looking into it and asked around a bit (not a Nebraska fan), and Nebraska is actually able to, and is, implementing this immediately. The 2023 part of the law means schools don't have to recognize this "up until 2023".

 

 

[candyman93]

OSU is going through with a 1.8 billion dollar medical facility.

 

It’s like I said before. The schools in the Big 10 and PAC 12 have other means of income besides sports.

 

Southern schools are totally screwed if football is canceled.

 

The ACC is the only real puzzler. They have phenomenal schools.

Edited August 29, 2020 by candyman93

[BobbyPhil1781]

I didn't realize we have a game tonight.

[pf9]

The only chance of killing the idea of separate fall and spring seasons was in the hands of the state of South Carolina.

Had they said "SC and Clemson have to play, it's the law, even if you have to wait until spring to do it", the ACC and SEC would have gladly postponed their seasons to accommodate the game. Then the rest of FBS would have postponed too, that way we could have a chance of seeing most of the intended 2020 schedule.

But the state of South Carolina did NOTHING. Even though their state was one of the COVID hotbeds.

[JammerHammer21]

 

[malibuspeedrace]

Nebraska

iowa

 

is Ohio State the 3rd?