(09-17-2020 08:38 AM)monarx Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeyXd3rBLWU
Looks like the MAC players are pushing to reverse their conference decision too. Though the MAC admin seems to be standing firm at this point. This is the type of effort and passion for the game I wish we'd see from our players though. Where are the "ODU/Let us play" conversations? Surely happening somewhere within the team.
With MWC looking like they will play now too, the only option for spring football would be the MAC. I don't think they want to be the only ones playing in the spring, and they were counting on the Big10 OOC games still happening. I no longer think we will see a spring football season.
Big 10 decided to go ahead with the availability of rapid tests and more in depth heart saftey programs. I wonder if other conferences/schools can afford this.
The players will be tested before every practice and game.
They have a Chief Infection OFficer
They implemended comprehensive cardiiac testing (labs, biomarkers, ECG, echocardiograom, and cardia MRI) for all athletes that test positive.
No athlete can return before 21 days after a positive test.
(09-17-2020 08:49 AM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2020 08:42 AM)Chillie Willie Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2020 08:26 AM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2020 07:07 AM)Mr.BigBlue Wrote: [ -> ]ODU's decision was not made because of player safety. I feel that was an excuse. There were many ways to keep them safe. It was made for a couple of reason in my opinion. 1) likely to provide support for the Governor because the region at the time this decision was made had a slightly higher positivity rate that other regions. 2) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. it was less costly not to play than to play. If they played and could not bring in $ from revenue sources then ODU had to find $ to pay for those expenses associated with playing. They needed to think out of the box and could have easily fund other revenue sources such as broadcasting all the games, etc.
I firmly believe the money was the driving factor. The question is why was money more of an issue for us than broke ass programs like So Miss? Are we that broke, and if so, why? Our budget is strong. If we are in that bad of shape then Wood should be on the chopping block. The ONLY thing that he is supposedly good at is fund raising. If he is not meeting the needs there, then there is no argument in favor of keeping him.
It’s possible that broke ass programs decided it was more important to play than to go more broke. Or they didn’t even consider the financials.
The argument is that we would lose money, so I would assume those schools would lose money as well, and I don't believe for a second that these schools aren't even considering the financials. These are large institutions with tons of checks in place for these types of things.
Yeah, that didn't come out right. I meant to say play AND go more broke.
(09-17-2020 08:26 AM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2020 07:07 AM)Mr.BigBlue Wrote: [ -> ]ODU's decision was not made because of player safety. I feel that was an excuse. There were many ways to keep them safe. It was made for a couple of reason in my opinion. 1) likely to provide support for the Governor because the region at the time this decision was made had a slightly higher positivity rate that other regions. 2) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. it was less costly not to play than to play. If they played and could not bring in $ from revenue sources then ODU had to find $ to pay for those expenses associated with playing. They needed to think out of the box and could have easily fund other revenue sources such as broadcasting all the games, etc.
I firmly believe the money was the driving factor. The question is why was money more of an issue for us than broke ass programs like So Miss? Are we that broke, and if so, why? Our budget is strong. If we are in that bad of shape then Wood should be on the chopping block. The ONLY thing that he is supposedly good at is fund raising. If he is not meeting the needs there, then there is no argument in favor of keeping him.
Perhaps we are a program that sticks to our budget better than the "broke" programs that don't stick to their budget? Now we know why they are broke...
(09-17-2020 09:19 AM)ODUODUODU Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2020 08:26 AM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2020 07:07 AM)Mr.BigBlue Wrote: [ -> ]ODU's decision was not made because of player safety. I feel that was an excuse. There were many ways to keep them safe. It was made for a couple of reason in my opinion. 1) likely to provide support for the Governor because the region at the time this decision was made had a slightly higher positivity rate that other regions. 2) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. it was less costly not to play than to play. If they played and could not bring in $ from revenue sources then ODU had to find $ to pay for those expenses associated with playing. They needed to think out of the box and could have easily fund other revenue sources such as broadcasting all the games, etc.
I firmly believe the money was the driving factor. The question is why was money more of an issue for us than broke ass programs like So Miss? Are we that broke, and if so, why? Our budget is strong. If we are in that bad of shape then Wood should be on the chopping block. The ONLY thing that he is supposedly good at is fund raising. If he is not meeting the needs there, then there is no argument in favor of keeping him.
Perhaps we are a program that sticks to our budget better than the "broke" programs that don't stick to their budget? Now we know why they are broke...
They are broke because they have a tiny budget. Our athletic department budget is approaching $50M which puts us at #71 and among the top 10 no P6 FBS schools in the country, Southern Miss budget is around $25M.
(09-17-2020 09:39 AM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2020 09:19 AM)ODUODUODU Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2020 08:26 AM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2020 07:07 AM)Mr.BigBlue Wrote: [ -> ]ODU's decision was not made because of player safety. I feel that was an excuse. There were many ways to keep them safe. It was made for a couple of reason in my opinion. 1) likely to provide support for the Governor because the region at the time this decision was made had a slightly higher positivity rate that other regions. 2) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. it was less costly not to play than to play. If they played and could not bring in $ from revenue sources then ODU had to find $ to pay for those expenses associated with playing. They needed to think out of the box and could have easily fund other revenue sources such as broadcasting all the games, etc.
I firmly believe the money was the driving factor. The question is why was money more of an issue for us than broke ass programs like So Miss? Are we that broke, and if so, why? Our budget is strong. If we are in that bad of shape then Wood should be on the chopping block. The ONLY thing that he is supposedly good at is fund raising. If he is not meeting the needs there, then there is no argument in favor of keeping him.
Perhaps we are a program that sticks to our budget better than the "broke" programs that don't stick to their budget? Now we know why they are broke...
They are broke because they have a tiny budget. Our athletic department budget is approaching $50M which puts us at #71 and among the top 10 no P6 FBS schools in the country, Southern Miss budget is around $25M.
Part of it is different accounting practices. Part is the sports we carry. Most other G5 schools will have Track and Field, indoor and outdoor and cross country that count as many different sports for NCAA minimums and Title 9 but share facilities and coaching thus saving a bunch of money on nonrevenue sports. We have field hockey, women's lacrosse, rowing and sailing. We're built more like a Big East basketball school in our nonrevenue sports than an FBS program. I don't know the answer to that, raise more money I suppose or completely revamp our athletic program which would not go over well and cost a lot up front if it's even feasible.
Charlotte has cancelled their game against UNC. Apparently pretty much their entire O Line tested positive.
(09-17-2020 09:53 AM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ]Charlotte has cancelled their game against UNC. Apparently pretty much their entire O Line tested positive.
I'm wondering (no idea) if they got "infected" from the game at Appy?
(09-16-2020 04:32 PM)99Monarch Wrote: [ -> ]NC is under the same 50 person gathering restrictions.
BLM protests have more than 50 fifty people and the governor doesn't complain. Let have football, and just call it a protest for "social justice". Heck, the gov might even come to praise the protest.
Talk about budget is meaningless if debt load is not considered. I wonder how much debt service schools like USM have compared to us? remember we are just starting to pay for a stadium, an expense few others have to deal with.
(09-17-2020 09:53 AM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ]Charlotte has cancelled their game against UNC. Apparently pretty much their entire O Line tested positive.
Thats stinks for them, not terribly unexpected.
I know there was some concern for if athletes were more likely to catch when traveling. Lots of eyes are on the tests after the first week of the NFL season, for example. Though, its a lot easier to keep them in a "bubble" than broke college students.
(09-17-2020 10:20 AM)Gilesfan Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2020 09:53 AM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ]Charlotte has cancelled their game against UNC. Apparently pretty much their entire O Line tested positive.
Thats stinks for them, not terribly unexpected.
I know there was some concern for if athletes were more likely to catch when traveling. Lots of eyes are on the tests after the first week of the NFL season, for example. Though, its a lot easier to keep them in a "bubble" than broke college students.
And there goes a nice payday (I assume) for UNCC.
(09-17-2020 10:20 AM)Gilesfan Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2020 09:53 AM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ]Charlotte has cancelled their game against UNC. Apparently pretty much their entire O Line tested positive.
Thats stinks for them, not terribly unexpected.
I know there was some concern for if athletes were more likely to catch when traveling. Lots of eyes are on the tests after the first week of the NFL season, for example. Though, its a lot easier to keep them in a "bubble" than broke college students.
Well all tests from the Chiefs Houston match up came back negative so theres that...
(09-17-2020 11:15 AM)bench jockey Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2020 10:20 AM)Gilesfan Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2020 09:53 AM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ]Charlotte has cancelled their game against UNC. Apparently pretty much their entire O Line tested positive.
Thats stinks for them, not terribly unexpected.
I know there was some concern for if athletes were more likely to catch when traveling. Lots of eyes are on the tests after the first week of the NFL season, for example. Though, its a lot easier to keep them in a "bubble" than broke college students.
And there goes a nice payday (I assume) for UNCC.
It'd be interesting to see what these contracts that are made on the fly this year look like. UNC isn't going to pay the same for a game when they know they can't fill their stands.
Does anyone know if ODU will be pursuing having UVA pay us the buyout for the home game they shorted us? We may not have canceled the season if they hadn’t bailed on the agreement.
(09-17-2020 12:11 PM)monarx Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone know if ODU will be pursuing having UVA pay us the buyout for the home game they shorted us? We may not have canceled the season if they hadn’t bailed on the agreement.
I haven't heard anything. I hope that game and the Wake game are rescheduled though. Don't care about UCONN.
(09-17-2020 12:16 PM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2020 12:11 PM)monarx Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone know if ODU will be pursuing having UVA pay us the buyout for the home game they shorted us? We may not have canceled the season if they hadn’t bailed on the agreement.
I haven't heard anything. I hope that game and the Wake game are rescheduled though. Don't care about UCONN.
Wasn't it the ACC's decision to not have non conf away games the reason we lost the UVA and Wake games? They could say their hands were tied.
(09-17-2020 12:20 PM)ODU_NYG Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2020 12:16 PM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2020 12:11 PM)monarx Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone know if ODU will be pursuing having UVA pay us the buyout for the home game they shorted us? We may not have canceled the season if they hadn’t bailed on the agreement.
I haven't heard anything. I hope that game and the Wake game are rescheduled though. Don't care about UCONN.
Wasn't it the ACC's decision to not have non conf away games the reason we lost the UVA and Wake games? They could say their hands were tied.
We'll see what happens, I'd think and hope that our position is one where we're trying to work with them to have the games played at a later date though. Exposure to the 757 is likely still on their mind so hopefully it works out that way. I'd rather have the games then a payout.
(09-17-2020 12:20 PM)ODU_NYG Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2020 12:16 PM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2020 12:11 PM)monarx Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone know if ODU will be pursuing having UVA pay us the buyout for the home game they shorted us? We may not have canceled the season if they hadn’t bailed on the agreement.
I haven't heard anything. I hope that game and the Wake game are rescheduled though. Don't care about UCONN.
Wasn't it the ACC's decision to not have non conf away games the reason we lost the UVA and Wake games? They could say their hands were tied.
They could, except UVA could have still chosen to have us be their home game this year. Then they could have just played in Norfolk when we were supposed to play there. That seems to be what WF had in mind. Since they were willing to swap years for home and away (if that is in fact accurate), and we canceled on them I don't think they owe us anything. On the other hand, I can see the argument for UVA paying up unless they do follow through with a home game for us.
Plus, the contract is with the schools, not the ACC. Seems a school can do what it wants. Case in point, ODU not playing.
(09-17-2020 12:46 PM)monarx Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2020 12:20 PM)ODU_NYG Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2020 12:16 PM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2020 12:11 PM)monarx Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone know if ODU will be pursuing having UVA pay us the buyout for the home game they shorted us? We may not have canceled the season if they hadn’t bailed on the agreement.
I haven't heard anything. I hope that game and the Wake game are rescheduled though. Don't care about UCONN.
Wasn't it the ACC's decision to not have non conf away games the reason we lost the UVA and Wake games? They could say their hands were tied.
They could, except UVA could have still chosen to have us be their home game this year. Then they could have just played in Norfolk when we were supposed to play there. That seems to be what WF had in mind. Since they were willing to swap years for home and away (if that is in fact accurate), and we canceled on them I don't think they owe us anything. On the other hand, I can see the argument for UVA paying up unless they do follow through with a home game for us.
Plus, the contract is with the schools, not the ACC. Seems a school can do what it wants. Case in point, ODU not playing.
According to this schedule the game with WF would have been in Winston Salem
https://theacc.com/news/2020/8/6/acc-unv...edule.aspx