Beep, beep, beep, here it comes.
After a week that featured more backing up than a teen driving class, the Mid-American Conference has joined the line of cancel-early-come-lately leagues suddenly feeling peer pressured to return.
As Nick Piotrowicz and I first reported this week, there is a growing faction within the conference that sees the football season as a fall-or-nothing proposition.
And, on Saturday, the campaign moved into the red zone.
The dozen university presidents convened to discuss a proposal for a six to eight-game season, which, per league sources, would begin as soon as Oct. 24 and culminate with a championship game Dec. 19 at Ford Field. No fans would be permitted at games and players would be tested multiple times per week, though not necessarily daily, as they will be in the Big Ten.
The virtual meeting Saturday was described as informational and did not result in a vote, but my sense is the return of the MAC could be imminent.
“The optics of being the only league not playing would be incredibly negative,” a high-ranking conference source said. “We have to play. We have no choice.”
Now, I’m not sure I’d go that far.
If I were a president, I wouldn’t jump off the bridge just because the Big Ten did.
I would take a long look at the consequences of a reversal, good and bad, ultimately asking these two questions:
Can my school afford to play football this season?
Can my school afford not to?
To the first question, the truth remains: It would cost MAC schools more to play than to punt.
This isn’t the Big Ten, which has more money than God to invest in the daily rapid testing that will be needed to pull off a successful season. (Sorry, but the status quo isn’t working. Entering Saturday, there had been 29 FBS games played, 16 postponed or canceled.)
Even in the best of times, schools like Toledo and Bowling Green rely on eight-figure subsidies to keep their athletic departments afloat.
Where are the money trees to fund the testing that would allow schools — which, remember, already lost their lucrative buy games against power programs — to play a season in empty stadiums? (And, no, they’re not in Bristol, Conn. The ESPN contract nets each school less than $1 million per year.) As one wise-guy reader suggested, “The MAC will have to find free drive-thru testing in public library parking lots.”
From an economic perspective, it doesn’t take Alan Greenspan to see the bottom line. Your costs are going up. Your revenues are going down. You don’t play.
But, of course, the equation isn’t so simple.
While my concerns about playing football this season are well documented, I appreciate the forces compelling a return.
Look around. The three FBS leagues that followed the MAC’s lead in postponing fall football — the Big Ten, Pac-12, and Mountain West — have either caved or are set to cave.
Is the MAC willing to be the odd league out?
And to what end?
As those pushing for an autumn comeback see it, if you’re in for a penny, you’re in for a season.
We can question the economic model of mid-major sports, but, for better or worse, schools have decided that football is an important public face of their university. Last year, Toledo spent $11.7 million on its program, per federal records; BG spent $7.8 million.
Given that most of those expenses are fixed, what makes more sense: spending, say, $10 million to play or $9 million to not play? There is value in keeping your program in sight and in mind, in keeping your recruits, fans, and donors engaged.
And what about your players?
Imagine being Toledo coach Jason Candle. You have a team of guys raring to go — not one player has opted out — and, all around them, they see football coming back, including in the Glass Bowl, where St. Francis de Sales plays its home games.
“From my perspective, our kids deserve the opportunity to go compete,” Candle said. “It’s a really hard sell from a coach to a team that watches pro football on Sundays, watches high school football played in their home stadium, and watches [college players] across the country do what they love to do.
“It’s tough to have the conversation, because when kids ask you, ‘Why?’ you can’t give them an honest answer why not. I’m all for playing in the spring, but if this can get done in the fall, I’m encouraged and excited to cross that path and exhaust all resources to give ourselves and our kids the opportunity.”
Hear, hear.
If the MAC were intent on waiting out the pandemic before playing football, I would respect that. But if it’s committed to playing a season this academic year, one way or another, a half-cooked spring exhibition season is not the answer. (Don’t get me started on the spring.)
For all of the criticism the Big Ten has endured, it has the blueprint for a responsible fall season, and the MAC could do worse than following its lead. (One compromise: Perhaps the MAC could test every other day, which, as long as players limit their social activity to one socially distanced kegger every two weeks, I suspect that would be enough to foil outbreaks and offset contact tracing concerns.)
My suggestion: Play a six-game season, starting Oct. 31, with one uniform off week and the championship game on Dec. 19.
Or don’t.
Selfishly, and for the players and coaches, I hope they do. But, either way, it’s time for the MAC to run its cost-benefit analysis and make a decision (again).
It might still be summer, but already it’s getting late early in autumn. Expect an answer by Tuesday.
“We can’t kick the can down the road,” one league source said.
Unless it’s across the goal line.
First Published September 19, 2020, 10:59 p.m.
