Friday, the NCAA Board of Governors is scheduled to meet. We could see a vote in this meeting on whether NCAA-sponsored fall sports (the various non-football sports plus FCS football) will be postponed or allowed to continue.
FBS football is not part of this, since the NCAA doesn’t operate the FBS. However, the obvious point arises that if the non-FBS sports are postponed, everyone will wonder if the FBS will be left with no choice but to postpone its season as well.
Nicole Auerbach of The Athletic reported on this basic tension point, gathering the views of various (unnamed) people in the college sports world on how to proceed.
There is a lot to unpack from Auerbach’s story, but this is the general overview of the matter and where the political fault lines exist:
“If every other fall sport on campus is canceled, can college football play on?
“That’s one of the many pressing questions on the minds of college sports’ power brokers this week in advance of Friday’s meeting of the NCAA Board of Governors, which could at that time decide to vote on whether or not to cancel the fall’s NCAA-sponsored championships, including the playoffs for the Football Championship Subdivision and lower levels. (The FBS postseason is controlled by the College Football Playoff and the bowl system.) The board could also kick the can down the road if it so chooses; the next scheduled meeting is Aug. 4.
“Multiple people with knowledge of the situation told The Athletic that FBS league commissioners are opposed to such a vote at this time. The reason is rather obvious: If the NCAA decides to shut down every fall sport, including football at the FCS level, how can anyone make the case that it’s safe enough to play big-time college football? The FBS could still push forward with football, citing legitimate benefits of athletic departments not having to worry about testing and contact tracing more than one team of athletes. But fairly or not, that decision would come across as being only about the money.”
The above paragraphs convey a number of points, one of them being that the decision makers in the room are worried about the optics of trying to play football when other sports have been postponed.
Let’s be clear: There are valid and good reasons to postpone sports this fall. It might soon be necessary to do that. Some of the people in the room — people Auerbach talked to in her report — already think the decision should be made to call things off for the fall and reevaluate the future. I want to be explicit in saying that calling for a fall postponement of sports is not, in itself, irresponsible. A perfectly sound and appropriate argument can be made in support of that decision.
However:
Optics is NOT a good reason for choosing to postpone fall sports.
When I refer to optics, I am referring to the last sentence I excerpted from Auerbach’s story:
“But fairly or not, that decision (to go ahead with FBS football) would come across as being only about the money.”
That is a concern with optics.
It has very little to do with the merits of any decision which might be made.
You postpone fall sports if you think you can’t play them safely. You don’t postpone FBS football if you’re worried about how “bad” it will look.
You postpone FBS college football if the logistics, isolation, quarantining, player education, and actual game play can’t be conducted in a way which will maximize safety and minimize COVID-19 spread. You don’t worry what other people will think.
Can we be grownups here?
We all KNOW — and have known — that football is the main pillar of athletic department budgets, and that there is a unique burden on football to deliver those revenues. Being worried about playing FBS football while other sports are postponed should not enter into the equation as a reason for postponing the FBS season.
What should also be discussed — but hasn’t been (at least not in public, to the extent that it has received noticeable news coverage) — is the need to give players hazard pay and extra protections if we do play a season.
There is currently a fight in Congress to determine what an economic stimulus package should look like. Conference commissioners and university presidents should be asking for a block grant (not a loan) to provide added testing resources, hazard pay, and medical provisions for college football players. THAT would be a proactive and tangible way to improve the chances of playing FBS college football, in a way which would honor the labor of the athletes.
Worrying about optics? That achieves absolutely nothing.
Either prove that player safety can be established, and work to duly compensate players for taking this risk… or shut down fall football if you can’t get the job done.
Optics? That’s not a good answer to any truly important question or conflict.