re: Why no talk of playing the game on 11/19 in Baton Rouge?

quote:

---

It's my understanding that insurance is for loss of a home game. Under this scenario FLA would completely lose a home game and insurance would cover that.

---

I don't believe that's correct at all. The loss of a home game chosen by the parties in order to reschedule is not covered under any policy I'm aware of.

The covered game would be for the one canceled by the SEC due to the disaster. If that game is rescheduled, it's not covered.

I can't imagine any change or endorsement that an insurance provider would offer that would cover a loss of a game if both parties chose cancel it to play another one.

quote:

---

I don't believe that's correct at all. The loss of a home game chosen by the parties in order to reschedule is not covered under any policy I'm aware of. The covered game would be for the one canceled by the SEC due to the disaster. If that game is rescheduled, it's not covered. I can't imagine any change or endorsement that an insurance provider would offer that would cover a loss of a game if both parties chose cancel it to play another one.

---

Obviously we'd have to look at the language of the policy. But the way I see it is UF loses a home game either way. They can say the SEC is forcing the cancellation of the Presbyterian home game Due to a Natural Disaster that affected a more important game. Or they can collect insurance for the lost LSU game. I think it's feasible.

quote:

---

Correction, The SEC postponed it due to the chance of hazardous weather conditions

---

It's really irrelevant who postponed or cancelled it.

quote:

---

Nah, apparently the better option is to have UGA cancel our game on 11/19 and play the WLOCP that day so uf/lsu can play this month.

---

lol I said that as a troll

catch and release bro I didn't mean it

quote:

---

Obviously we'd have to look at the language of the policy. But the way I see it is UF loses a home game either way. They can say the SEC is forcing the cancellation of the Presbyterian home game Due to a Natural Disaster that affected a more important game. Or they can collect insurance for the lost LSU game. I think it's feasible.

---

I'm not trying to be contrarian. I agree with all of your post, except I'm almost certain the insurance part is wrong. Of course, I would have to read the exact policy wording.

I believe you're off on the:

quote:

---

SEC is forcing the cancellation of the Presbyterian home game Due to a Natural Disaster that affected a more important game.

---

quote:

---

I understand about the money and no it isn't fair, just saying that in terms of actually getting the game played, LSU is going to have to take the shite end of the stick

---

Why wouldn't FL have to take that? Disaster was in FL. UF refused alternative plans offered to play the game. But LSU should take the shite end?

quote:

---

or allow it to be cancelled.

---

I don't think LSU has any power to avoid a cancellation by the SEB. What they allow or not never comes into play. It's what the SEC decides, period.

quote:

---

LSU just doesn't have any leverage in this situation because it seems like LSU wants / needs the game to be played more than Florida.

---

And this illustrates the reason for the frustration of the fan base. UF and the SEC admits this situation helps FL, and hurts LSU. And yet, despite the fact that it could have been avoided by UF, just like all the other games rescheduled, the SEC decided to give LSU the short end of the shite stick.

How is that fair? Why not give UF the short end?

quote:

---

Why wouldn't FL have to take that? Disaster was in FL. UF refused alternative plans offered to play the game. But LSU should take the shite end?

---

i just don't know of any precedent where someone can force UF to pay for lost revenue due to a re-scheduled game and I doubt UF is going to agree to it. See below comments regarding alternative plans.

quote:

---

And this illustrates the reason for the frustration of the fan base. UF and the SEC admits this situation helps FL, and hurts LSU. And yet, despite the fact that it could have been avoided by UF, just like all the other games rescheduled, the SEC decided to give LSU the short end of the shite stick.

---

As others have said on the board - I don't think it is a good policy for the SEC to be able to REQUIRE teams located in a state of emergency / natural disaster area to travel to previously unscheduled away games while said disaster is hitting the area. If something happened to someones family, etc. during that tame, it could end up as a very ugly situation.

I know many will disagree, but just my opinion on the subject of moving the game and still playing on Saturday. Also there are reasonable concerns regarding the availability of emergency personel on Sunday / Monday - again I'm just saying these are just valid points one could bring up regarding why the game wasn't able to be played - this has nothing to do with UFs actual motives, just says that they have valid talking points as to why the game couldn't be played this weekend.

quote:

---

And this illustrates the reason for the frustration of the fan base. UF and the SEC admits this situation helps FL, and hurts LSU. And yet, despite the fact that it could have been avoided by UF, just like all the other games rescheduled, the SEC decided to give LSU the short end of the shite stick.

---

Life isn't fair - you could also say the Hurricane wasn't UF's fault, they had valid concerns as to why the game couldn't be played -regardless of their actual underlying motives. Its not like they just postponed the game due to potential heavy rainfall.

At this point, there are only two options, play on 11/19 or cancel the game. I just really don't see how you can require UF to cover lost revenue.

Also would be a pretty bad look as the country doesn't dive as deep into this stuff and would only see the SEC requiring a college located in a disaster area to pay out money to another school because of a hurricane. Certain media outlets could easily spin the story that way.