Inflated tuition, greedy schools, EsPN, too many side endeavors that yield nothing...

People should just embrace it.

Sentiment. They realize how much of an idol it's become.

Granted though, they aren't the guys that listen to Pawwwwwwwl regularly either.

I just dropped my daughter off there last week for the beginning of her summer master’s program.

If you are willing, I can give you my email address. If you’re not willing, that’s OK and I understand.

boardops are authorized to give you my email.

of the men’s room toilet seat at the Backer has already acquired the antibodies.

With few or no fans in seats, the prospect of forfeited games due to covid outbreaks, and loss of many of the tent-pole games that prop up the television ratings, precisely what revenues are we talking about?

There is absolutely nothing but downside to going ahead with a Fall football season. Sooner or later AD's and league poobahs will get past the denial stage and start dealing with the evident collapse of their bubble economy.

Tickets and concessions make up less than 20% of revenue.

What, if any, would be revenue consequences under the following scenario ...

* Wisconsin, USC, Stanford off the schedule
* No postseason bowl games
* Bookstore sales off 80%
* Television ratings off 50%
* Stadium attendance limited to students

Would there be no impact on TV or other non-ticket revenues?

why would having Wisconsin, Sc, and Stanford off the schedule hurt? Not many people in the stands, just replace them with someone else.

Why would there not be postseason bowl games? Do you know that for a fact? You seem to be dealing with hypothetical here.

Bookstore sales off 80%? Again, I'm not sure that would be the right number. Nobody shakes down their alumni and fans better than Notre Dame except maybe the Jesuit high schools (excuse me, college preps) nationwide.

Television ratings off by 50%? "Dear Mr Fantasy, play us a tune something to make us all happy..........."

Stadium attendance limited to students? The math on this is already pretty easy to figure out and was given to you. I would also note that nothing (so far) is limited to "just students." Private suites might be available, and NFL teams have discussed having limited numbers of fans at games.

The TV contracts have been negotiated already; now, I would suppose that there might be some adjustments needed, but I'm not sure why. The games would still be on TV. There would still be high demand (although you seem to disagree there, for some odd reason). The sponsorship options would likely have to be renegotiated since they would no longer be blasted over the jumbo tron. I wouldn't be surprised if ad space was sold on the field and on the uniforms; hell, maybe even on Coach Kelly's shirt.

All of this is really beside the point--it needs to be safe for the players, and they are investigating options for that. But no matter how you slice it (despite you trying to play fast and loose with the numbers) playing games is more profitable than not playing games.

I appreciate the your take on these points, and totally admit this is just a layman's spitballing. If you're right it will still be a bad year for college athletics, but perhaps not burst the bubble.

But we'll see. The only expertise I have to offer is as a modeler and with stats. On that basis, I'm convinced the AD's and league poobahs are in denial about the risks for their programs. If offered odds, I'd say 3:1 that there's no season which will push some programs past a breaking point with much heartache to go around.

We're entering a make or break period, let's hope for some good news.

however, for the reasons that you outline, I tend to believe that they'll try and find a way to do it (perhaps even delayed).

TV ratings would be off 50%? lmfao

1. Wisconsin is already gone from the schedule, there's good chance USC and Stanford will be lost, too. This limits the the upside opportunities for national contention. Clemson is left, but the remaining games have limited national interest.

2. Can a student body spread out through the stadium generate the atmosphere a casual viewer expects in college football? Especially for opponents like Western Michigan, Wake Forest. I'll grant you Clemson could still be a lot of fun, if we are competitive.

3. What rules will be in place during the game to reduce virus transmission? To me, this is the real wildcard. Rules could suck the life right out of the game.

4. I did some numbers on using the current rate of new cases in the US (160/1m/day) for a 120 day practice + schedule period. It works out to an expectation of 2 cases per team per season. If current experience with summer practices and military training is any guide, an infection would rapidly spread throughout the team. So unless the programs are on total lockdown, you can expect most teams will have to fight back one or more outbreaks during the course of the season. On that basis, I'd be surprised if there were no forfeited games over the course of a 10 game season.

5. The consequence of 4 is that conference standings, rankings, and the prospects of post-season play would have little value, again cutting into the interest of the casual fan.

That's my reasoning. Feel free to debunk if you like.

and how it effects TV contracts (hint: it won't lower ND's take this year).

And we've been playing tomato cans for years. Losing Stanford and Wisconsin make 0 difference. Losing Sc sucks, I agree there.

I don't think any of your points have merit, and even if they did it wouldn't effect Notre Dame's take home next year. Besides, any money they would make this year is going to be more than what they would make if they don't play any games.

why, one could go watch the grass grow all day long; that's just as much fun as watching ND play someone that's any good, I suppose.

I concede that people would rather watch Wass deal with the consequences of a bean burrito binge.

Less than 20% comes from ticket sales.

those contracts. Canceled games, forfeited games, a meaningless post-season (at best, assuming there is one), loss of bookstore sales. None of that is good.

I think that the majority of us can also conclude "better than nothing. "

in other words, what's more dangerous to our players in this ballet scheme--playing patsy type ACC programs in front of empty stadiums or playing Alabama?

How many deaths would you tolerate were we to play Alabama? 5? 10? 20?

Last I had heard, the football team had 0 positive tests in the last go-round. I wonder why they wouldn't have the same issues as the regular student body? It sounds like Kelly's plan to separate the players from the student body is paying dividends.

The death of his career might be worth it

great excuse for Kelly to not answer his phone for a few days