It’s a colossal failure. They thought they were going to be praised for going first, and that the rest of the conferences would follow suit. The PAC-12 did, but honestly no one cares about the PAC-12. They’re not the conference you want to coordinate with. They’ve only had a team make the playoff twice since it started in 2014. Two of the Power 5 conferences are starting this week, and a third is starting next week. In front of fans, nonetheless. Last week Marshall played in front of fans. And the Big Ten is sitting at home watching. The players want to play. The coaches want to play. The parents want them to play. What more do you need?
The Big 10 went with the Pac 12 because they're aligned....for all purposes they're like husband/wife or brother/sister going back to Rose Bowl alliance.
But you also look at the Pac 12 and their member institutions that are also part of the AAU, and it aligns very closely to the Big 10 which has 12 of 14 institutions that are in AAU. The Pac 12 has (9) universities in AAU.
No other conferences are touching those numbers.
I stated it a while back, but the grant money you get for being in AAU dwarfs athletic department revenue. The downside for Big 10/Pac 12 is one lost season of college football revenue, but it can easily be absorbed. And then the negative blow back from fans, players, and families will be there, but I assume they (the university presidents and chancellors) are comfortable with that.
A lot of people forget the University of Chicago used to be in the Big 10 (was a founding member) until they bowed out in 1946 because they felt the conference was too focused on athletics. They are still an AAU member, but play DIII sports now and remain one of the finest academic institutions in the world.
The Big 10/Pac 12 are ultimately run by "academics". And when I use the term "academics" I'm primarily referring to the presidents and chancellors who are institutionalists who care about academic reputation and prestige of their departments ahead of any single athletic achievement. And there is often turmoil behind the scenes between the "academics" and athletic departments.
So when you see the Rutgers president come out and say things like "well you can see where the priorities lie in other conferences, but I'm proud to be in the Big 10 and my mind hasn't changed on sports" you see the chasm that exists. The "academics" in the Big 10/Pac 12 are flexing their muscle right now. I don't doubt the sincerity of their beliefs necessarily (that playing football in a pandemic is dangerous and risky, therefore football should be postponed until at least January) but it certainly comes across as short-sighted and obtuse.
If they can allow kids to risk permanent brain damage every time they strap a helmet on, it seems at odds with covid-19 which has less chance of killing an athlete than regular influenza. So it's frustrating as an outside fan looking in, as all these other conferences go forward. And are admittedly doing a very good job thus far......from some universities having over 30 confirmed cases, to getting those players quarantined and back in the fold, they've shown it's entirely possible. Some schools have multiple players opting to sit season out (whether its an upperclassmen who is going to turn pro or a freshman who is not comfortable playing) and some schools have positional coaches who are opting out of season with a commitment of getting their jobs back next season.
They're making it work.
I guess I understand the Big 10/Pac 12 decision, but I certainly don't like it. The Rutgers President said Trump "is using it to score cheap political points". Which I tend to agree with, but at that the same time, who is allowing that to happen?
Anyways, I'm not optimistic for fall football in Big 10. It feels like the decision is set in stone, especially with Wyatt Davis announcing for NFL today on top of the Rutgers Presidents comments. It's kind of agitating/painful watching schools like Notre Dame, Syracuse, Pitt, etc all getting ready for games while the Big 10 pushed for cancellation/postponement.
I do think there will be significant fall-out for many Big 10/Pac 12 programs....not all, but a lot. The Big 10/Pac 12 definitely thought they had more influence than they do.....the fact the ACC, SEC, and especially the Big 12 (which caught the Big 10 off-guard) are going forward, shows the dwindling power they once had. I think, easily in year 2000, the Big 10 and Pac 12 decision would've forced the other conferences hands. But things have changed a lot.....certainly with the explosion of the TV contracts and money on the table.