I'm confident the Big Ten will never say this publicly, but there's no way the conference reverses its decision to not play football this fall without lawyers and risk management experts determining schools won't be successfully held liable if something really bad happens.
It's probably the case that the Big Ten determined the risk of something really bad happening to an athlete, coach, etc. is acceptably low. But I don't think that's enough. The schools would want to know that they won't be in any significant financial or legal trouble if it does.
In addition, I'm sure there are lots of stated and unstated reasons--fast testing, grumpy fans, other schools going for it, American COVID fatigue--for changing course. I don't think those matter much; all support what the Big Ten wanted from the start, which is to play football!
What matters is whatever risk assessment calculation caused the conference to pump the breaks in the first place. And that risk is as much--if not more--about the schools as the athletes.
IMO there's similar dynamic playing out with schools bringing students back to campus but not having in-person classes. It's a way to collect more cash but not be liable for viral spread, and to kinda sorta simulate what everyone really wants, which is for things to be normal!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
