If it turns out that some schools play and some do not, I am sure that there would be an adjustment to the revenue distribution, just as there would be adjustments to the television contracts, sponsorship agreements, etc. Who would suggest otherwise?
It sure does. Again, who would suggest otherwise? But that doesn't mean that it will be the only motivating factor and, of course, the people making the decisons on whether to play football are not the same people who will be making the decisions on restrictions that make playing football in any particular jurisdiction feasible or even lawful.
I was not suggesting anything of the sort and I don't think that is what will happen. I replied to a post from go4rob about the Big Ten making a "unilateral" decision on whether all member schools play or don't. I merely pointed out that the conference can't dictate whether all member schools field football teams this fall. They can decide there will be conference football or there will not, but each school will ultimately have to decide its own path. In theory, the schools could decide to act collectively, but that is unlikely as it would mean that even one holdout would scuttle the season for all. I don't think that will happen, but it would be the only way the conference could make a "unilateral" decision as suggested by go4rob that it could enforce.