Let people and entities make their own choices, it doesn’t make sense to force schools into an either or decision.
That would seem to point toward no football. Too many schools like Rutgers & Wisconsin with too many local outbreaks.
If I were to manage this I’d say that a school which doesn’t play then they shouldn’t complain about anything they don’t get, but with that said, it’s a conference and I think a *very* small percentage of revenue should be shared. Revenue will be gained from viewers in those regions and it’s the right thing to do.Exactly. No reason to force Rutgers to play because Nebraska wants to, and no reason to force Nebraska to sit because Rutgers wants to.
Although I wonder if this decision isn't being driven by a revenue-sharing discussion. If a school doesn't play, do they get a share of the revenue? Is that fair to the schools who do play?
Exactly. No reason to force Rutgers to play because Nebraska wants to, and no reason to force Nebraska to sit because Rutgers wants to.
Although I wonder if this decision isn't being driven by a revenue-sharing discussion. If a school doesn't play, do they get a share of the revenue? Is that fair to the schools who do play?
I agree. Any school voting no should get a $1000 piece of the pie. If they want more they can vote yes.If I were to manage this I’d say that a school which doesn’t play then they shouldn’t complain about anything they don’t get, but with that said, it’s a conference and I think a *very* small percentage of revenue should be shared. Revenue will be gained from viewers in those regions and it’s the right thing to do.
One way to be more sure is to click on the link I generously provided.
Exactly. No reason to force Rutgers to play because Nebraska wants to, and no reason to force Nebraska to sit because Rutgers wants to.
Although I wonder if this decision isn't being driven by a revenue-sharing discussion. If a school doesn't play, do they get a share of the revenue? Is that fair to the schools who do play?