Big Ten Re-Vote Was 'Wishful Thinking'

Rumors populated last week a Big Ten re-vote was imminent and a start date of Oct. 10 was coming. None of that was true.

When word began surfacing last week that the Big Ten was considering a re-vote on postponing the 2020 sports season, it was met with considerable 'It's about time' reactions among sports fans in the Midwest, but a re-vote was never on the table according to sources familiar with the process, who called it "wishful thinking" among the active and media-friendly voices within the conference trying (in vain) to bring football back by early October. 

As we wrote on both Sept. 1 and Sept. 3 there has been a disconnect between the Big Ten's 14 presidents/chancellors and their athletic directors/coaches/players, the latter pushing the narrative - and leaking to the press - that a potential vote on restarting the season was imminent. 

Those that want to see football played ASAP have been politicking from within the conference, have held rallies - like Michigan's over the weekend - have gone the media route, hoping enough national criticism would weigh on the presidents/chancellors, and even had some support from the President of the United States, but the prevailing thought, among sources, is it hasn't budged the decision-makers from their original stance. 

As we've noted in previous articles, the Big Ten appears committed to taking a wait-and-see approach with the first month of the college football season, relying on multiple weeks of data to determine if returning to the field of play is a viable option for 2020. 

Already we've seen two Big 12 matchups impacted by COVID-19, the TCU vs. SMU game Sept. 11 outright canceled and the Oklahoma State vs. Tulsa contest pushed back a week to Sept. 19. Of course, multiple bye weeks have been built into the schedules to accommodate for just such instances, but this comment from our Sept. 1 story seems appropriate: 

"You can always find data to back your argument up and a number of Big Ten presidents will need overwhelming evidence that college sports can be played without significant issues to vote yes on playing in 2020. And they'll only need a little bit of evidence of concerns to remain steadfast in their belief that the best thing to do is wait."

Perhaps most frustrating to Big Ten fans has been the relative silence from the conference's presidents/chancellors to fully explain what went into the Aug. 11 decision, by a vote of 11-3, to cancel the 2020 season.

We were told last week a re-vote was possible just as a way to be transparent, fending off a lawsuit from eight Nebraska football players, but that mindset shifted quickly, a source sharing the Big Ten "has no incentive to share its internal documents and conversations" unless it is ordered to do so by a judge. 

Where does this leave the players and coaches? Almost certainly not playing football in October. That report, perpetuated by Dan Patrick (of an Oct. 10 start date), was almost certainly started by a coach or athletic director from Ohio State or Nebraska, a little too zealous that they were gaining traction. 

Some inside Big Ten headquarters called the Patrick report "a pipe dream" and said the next time you hear of an October re-start ask who is most likely behind that rumor, not Commissioner Kevin Warren or the 11 presidents that voted to cancel the season. 

A Thanksgiving re-start? Maybe, but again, that idea originated from coaches and athletic directors, not the presidents, Warren himself, or the "Return to Play' committee. Thanksgiving is more likely than an October start, but less likely than a January start and far less likely than next fall. 

Unless there is a seismic shift in the philosophy among the Big Ten's presidents/chancellors, the conference will be on the outside looking in at the 2020 college football playoff and the league's fans will be left every Saturday wondering when their teams will play again.