(05-20-2020 11:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 03:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 02:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  It's a tough situation, but given the economic situation right now, I think the waiver should apply to everyone.

I have no issue with CMU doing this. Are they knowingly breaking the rules? Yes. Are the rules reasonable under the current economic climate resulting from a mixture of global politics and government mandated shutdowns? No.

If it was simply a matter of CMU making poor financial decisions that led them to this point then I would see it differently.

I would say it was a matter of CMU making poor financial decisions - mostly along the lines of continuing to run a football program that loses many millions each year. IIRC, they just spent $32 million on some football complex thing for a program that their own fans will not support.

Poor decisions in the long term? I don't disagree, but the current economic climate was unpredictable.

With regard to the point about CMU being a bad FBS program, I completely agree, but what's our threshold?

The financials at the vast majority of G5 schools are not impressive. It's true that the MAC as a whole is riding in the margins, but there's no order of magnitude between that league and the typical G5 school.

To me, the waiver is not a bad idea as long as it's given a hard expiration date and as long as it applies to everyone.

CMU has traditionally been one of the stronger football programs in the MAC. Kent, Akron, Eastern Michigan and Ohio have historically been the weak ones. Ball St. has been weak over the last decade or so.