Home General
Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:

- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)

- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans

- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum

- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.

Where's Kirby

2

Comments

  • AnotherDawgAnotherDawg Posts: 6,756 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited August 2020

    Well sure. You know where I stand and I know where you stand.

    With that understanding, and politics aside, if University presidents are making this decision based on their bottom line, without consideration for the players, the alumni, the fans, and the country, then to hell with them.

  • KaseyKasey Posts: 23,630 mod

    This has been the best explanation so far. Thank you. This helps me understand the other view

  • AnotherDawgAnotherDawg Posts: 6,756 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited August 2020

    Some people operate on that basis. Not all. Every crook I ever dealt with as a lawyer (wrongly) assumed that everyone else viewed the world the same way they did.

  • KaseyKasey Posts: 23,630 mod

    I don’t think I’m being clear...

    @texdawg said he pays $300 per test for his employees. So we are testing 85 scholarship players. Another 20 walk ons. 11 coaches. 10 off field support staff (estimate). 10 on field support staff. 136 tests three times a week. Let’s say 130 to keep it even. That’s $40,800 each time everyone gets tested. I’ve heard they want to test three times a week. $122,400 a week. Four week fall camp, twelve game season...$1.9 million for testing. Without fans in attendance. That’s just for testing. Not counting all the other costs...with no fans. $0 brought in from tickets, concessions, programs, etc.

    i don’t know how a school like Indiana or Rutgers can afford that

  • AnotherDawgAnotherDawg Posts: 6,756 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    That's a reasonable argument, but I don't find it plausible. If Indiana and Rutgers said they couldn't afford to play football under these conditions, I'm pretty sure OSU and Penn St. would find a way to come up with the $1.9M.

  • KaseyKasey Posts: 23,630 mod

    Why would they give a rival money? When they were already losing so much? That would never happen. The tv money wasn’t going to be enough for these schools

  • AnotherDawgAnotherDawg Posts: 6,756 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I'm trying to imagine the discussion in the meeting room. One school says, "we vote to cancel the season because it will result in a $2M loss for us to play." So all the other schools say, "Welp, I guess we have to cancel the season then."

    Somehow I don't think that's how it went down.

    Now, if you're suggesting that ALL of the B1G schools are going to lose money by playing football this fall, then that's a slightly different argument. But EVEN IF that were the case, I would submit that they have an obligation to play, despite the projected loss.

    For decades, you make $10M to $50M (or whatever) per year, and this year you project a $2M loss, so YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE YOUR BALL AND GO HOME???

    If that's the thinking, I'll repeat what I said earlier, to hell with these university presidents.

  • CTBulldogCTBulldog Posts: 100 ✭ Freshman

    After being read only for awhile I signed up especially to comment on this subject. I feel Kirby should not only not make a public indorsement for playing this season, he and all coaches should stay completely out of the decision making process. This isn't about football, it's a general leadership decision based on risk assessment.

    Personally I think The HCs at Nebraska, Penn St. and other schools should be told to stop being insubordinate or put in their resignations.

    I don't have the answers about when or if a 2020 season should be played, but I know those decisions shouldn't be left to people =whose livelihoods depend on football.

  • KaseyKasey Posts: 23,630 mod

    again I’m not explaining myself well enough...$2M for testing is one aspect. There are probably hidden costs we don’t know about. And I went on the low end of the estimate...who knows if it’s more. It probably is.

    Greg Schiano is making $4M a year with $0 brought in. He has $3.9M salary pool for his staff. Now that’s nearly $10M spent with $0 brought in. And $2-3M ON TOP of what they are already spending.

    Now travel...transport, hotels for a 130 (low end) operation. Normally it’s six times a year, now it’s five. Now they didn’t have any really long roadies, but they still have to travel and pay that with $0 brought in. Chartered flight? Or buses? Hotel rooms let’s say 60 at $75 a night for one night because they are trying to save money...close to 5K. And still no money coming in.

    Now you’re suggesting they go to Ohio with their hands out...asking for welfare for testing? Ain’t gonna work. College football is a business. Georgia has a fat kitty right now and I’d be mad as hell if they gave some to another member school out of the kindness of their heart. That would be a total waste.

    so the losses START at $2M. The tv money doesn’t even begin to get a school like Rutgers out of water. Instead they can hide under the guise of “safety of the kids” and not have to fire anyone or sacrifice their salary. Maybe these coaches make too much money?

    all this money football makes pays for the recruiting victories we love, the facilities improvement we say we need to keep up, and the sports no one pays to see but still puts kids in college.

    so I say again...follow the money.

  • CTBulldogCTBulldog Posts: 100 ✭ Freshman

    I simply think you're incorrect. The presidents were swayed by the fact 5 Big10 athletes who had covid soon afterward developed a potentially fatal condition where the heart enlarged and became damaged. I think this is the opposite of a business decision. I commend them.

  • dawgnmsdawgnms Posts: 4,752 mod

    Think it is more about liability than anything else. Player gets sick spreads it and some1 dies. Who is responsible, well the University is according to the lawyers and the lawyers make $$$ regardless.

  • how2fishhow2fish Posts: 2,527 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I hear this liability argument all the time, but I have to wonder how valid it is ? Every season we have hundreds of serious injuries on the field, dozens of which end players careers and a handful that ends lives...no one gets sued successfully unless there are signs a team ignored or didn't follow safety protocols. Why would Covid be different? Oh and on the cost factor... don't all the power 5 conferences have TV deals ? If they do I'd think that money would cover the costs..money they wouldn't get if they don't play. I'm pretty sure the SEC, ACC and Big 10 do have deals not sure of the others. If was just a money deal that would seem like a lot to leave on the table.

  • CTBulldogCTBulldog Posts: 100 ✭ Freshman

    I keep seeing this posted as fact, but I don't see it confirmed by decision makers. There is an important distinction to make between the words liable and responsible. These schools have responsibilities beyond football.

  • skidmarksskidmarks Posts: 1,899 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @AnotherDawg can you give some insight on the liability risk angle ?

  • otis1105otis1105 Posts: 324 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited August 2020

    Wait.. you think the Rutgers gate sales and concessions is what keeps them afloat? I think you underestimate tv revenue and overestimate the Rutgers fan base


    rutgers received roughly 37MM From the big 10 in 2018. Ticket sales were about 10MM. The split has probably increased the ticket sales are probably about the same.

  • CabinSaturdayCabinSaturday Posts: 55 ✭✭✭ Junior

    And our coach is still silent....

  • BankwalkerBankwalker Posts: 5,348 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    First thing is I don’t believe @texdawg said what you’ve attributed to him.

    Second, the SEC has negotiated a contract for the entire conference for the two weekly tests. The medicare rate for a swab test is estimated at between $100-200 by QuestDiagnostics and LabCorp, which allows for the party collecting the sample (Dr’s office) to keep a portion for their own expenses and/or profit. Given the high volume of tests and regularity, the costs to the school will likely be below the medicare rate (probably <$100). Perhaps substantially. Most likely, the conference itself will cover the costs of the tests and then sort it out come TV money distribution time.

    Third, why would you care if UGA adopted a bit of a socialist approach by sharing some of its wealth with member conference schools? Such an activity would seem to align with a few of your publicly shared views on this forum. Plus, while this may seem a little harsh; you are neither a taxpaying resident of the State of Georgia, a donor to the athletic program, nor an alumnus of the University of Georgia. I just don’t think any of us have much right to complain about how the UGAAA spends its money if it involves putting a team on the field this Fall.

    Fourth, it ain’t the money for testing that is playing a role in these decisions. Not even remotely.

  • dawgnmsdawgnms Posts: 4,752 mod

    Who sez it has to be valid, just an excuse not to play......and why is it being pushed to add liability protections for businesses in the next CV bill, after all College Football is a business.

Sign In or Register to comment.