The Barstool Fund - In Support Of The 30 Day FundLearn More

Report: Multiple Non-Big Ten Administrators Were "Blindsided" By Big Ten's Decision

This comes, of course, after the Big Ten announced yesterday that they would be holding a conference only schedule this fall. 

The communication here is a massive issue. Not sure why the Big Ten didn't make this decision known, and/or debated, before announcing. Canceling out of conference games has multiple ripple effects throughout programs. Every single Big Ten team was slotted to pay millions of dollars this year to play out of conference games. They had contracts with those teams and canceling it will become a massive headache legally speaking. That doesn't mean that the Big Ten made the wrong decision yesterday, but instead, they should've let their schools know so they could get along with the fall out of that decision being made. 

Maybe the Big Ten felt the need to be the first conference to do this within the P5? Not sure why that matters. If you pride yourself on being "the first to cancel" you've got an issue. Just not that important in the grand scheme of things. Seems like a much better approach to let your schools know what's going on than being "first."

Weird times in CFB, man.

Update (11:45 AM): Totally misread the tweet. I still find this story meaningful, because it brings up the "should CFB have a commissioner?"

I go back and forth with this. For the most part, I think yes, a commissioner would benefit college football. It would be incredibly useful in crisis situations like these. The NCAA is pretty much a commissioner, but most of their policies are developed for all of collegiate athletics, not just football. However, the downsides of a commissioner would be apparent when you look at what actually might happen in college football this year. If the PAC-12 decides not to play, in a commissioner world, the entire sport would (most likely) get canceled. That would stink if all 4 other conferences were more than ready to play.