(09-14-2020 06:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 05:25 AM)schmolik Wrote:  If we're going to play the game of Nebraska and Ohio State should be allowed to play individual seasons on their own and screw the Big Ten, then South Carolina should go call Clemson right now and they should play this Saturday, screw Citadel. If individual Big Ten teams should be able to go against the wishes of their conference for their own personal gain, so should individual SEC teams. If you or the SEC have a problem with that, it's a double standard. The Big Ten teams should be able to do what they want but SEC teams have to all fall in line to what the conference says or they're all one big happy family?

IMO there's a difference here. The SEC has rational reasons for wanting uniformity with regard to playing OOC games (in this case, no such games). The presence of an OOC game on the schedules of some teams but not others could reduce flexibility if conference games have to be postponed, which we've already seen a couple times with conferences that are already playing, and you can't have uniformity in virus protocols across all your games because you can't control what the OOC team does. You may agree or disagree with those reasons, but they are rational.

But I don't see any rational reason for the B1G saying that no teams can play. If Nebraska, Ohio State and Iowa want to cobble together a season with games against each other and non-B1G schools, how does that impact the 11 schools that choose not to play? It doesn't. That seemed like a pure control-power move by those not playing, as in "if we think we can't play then you can't play either", spiteful, not rational.

No rational reason other than wanting to ensure all fourteen schools were available to compete in a Spring (or October 17th, apparently) season, you mean?