Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

2020 CU football season POSTPONED until Nov 6th?

ahoelsken said:
Klatt brought up the other variable with the B1G's restart-what's the minimum number of games a team would have to play to be CFP eligible this year?
Click to expand...

There's not going to be a defined minimum number of games required to get into the CFP in a year like this but a 6 or 7 game season probably wouldn't cut it. If the B1G gets in an 8 game regular season in then an undefeated B1G champ would almost certainly get in.
 
CarolinaBuff said:
This whole post is spot on but especially the bolded part. All of a sudden LS and the schools decide to get clarification from state and local politicians. Nothing to see here.

The Pac12 has followed the B1G around like a little puppy dog over the past 5 weeks and it's nothing short of comical if not pathetic.

All that aside it would be great if CU football ends up coming back much sooner than expected.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how you could say that though. Larry Scott said right when the testing deal was announced that it could allow them to return earlier and the most prominent college football insider said that usc was working hard behind the scenes to get this resolved. Oregon and Oregon State were clearly working on it behind the scenes because they had an in person meeting today and just need to submit the formal documents to finalize everything. If you think that all happened in one day up in Oregon you are out of your mind.
 
CarolinaBuff said:
There's not going to be a defined minimum number of games required to get into the CFP in a year like this but a 6 or 7 game season probably wouldn't cut it. If the B1G gets in an 8 game regular season in then an undefeated B1G champ would almost certainly get in.
Click to expand...
Sec and ACC fans complaining that other conferences didn’t play enough conference games to get into the playoff would be so awesome. I hope it happens.
 
NewEra 2014 said:
No, but you are rooting for COVID to shut down college sports due to number of cases, which is a meaningless statistic, particularly for college-aged kids.

According to the CDC:
43,000,000 kids between the ages of 15 and 24
21,000 positive tests
333 died of COVID 19
687 died of influenza/Pneumonia and/or COVID

The number of hospitalizations for COVID due to these "major outbreaks" at colleges is practically zero.
Click to expand...
This is an intentional misreading of my posts.

For starters, college athletes don’t just interact with college athletes. Is your argument that it’s okay for schools to make it more likely employees and spectators get COVID-19?
Also, college towns all over the country are populated by many vulnerable people. I guess you’re unconcerned with them too.

I’ll reiterate: I am not rooting for people to get sick and/or die. That is a terrible, bad faith statement.
 
Last edited:
onealcd said:
I don’t see how you could say that though. Larry Scott said right when the testing deal was announced that it could allow them to return earlier and the most prominent college football insider said that usc was working hard behind the scenes to get this resolved. Oregon and Oregon State were clearly working on it behind the scenes because they had an in person meeting today and just need to submit the formal documents to finalize everything. If you think that all happened in one day up in Oregon you are out of your mind.
Click to expand...

So it's totally coincidental that a few mere hours after the B1G officially announced they're returning that all this activity in the Pac12 suddenly starts gaining traction? If that's what you think you're clueless.
 
CarolinaBuff said:
So it's totally coincidental that a few mere hours after the B1G officially announced they're returning that all this activity in the Pac12 suddenly starts gaining traction? If that's what you think you're clueless.
Click to expand...
It all came from the players coming out last night with letters to the governors. Did that come from them being mad being left out, the schools being frustrated with the progress? Probably both, but to say that the pac 12 wasn’t trying to get back to playing and just followed the big 10 simply isn’t true. They communicated what they wanted to do and went out and did it, it’s not like returning to play sooner came out of no where.
 
Vote on practices could come on Friday, all depending on if they are able to practice without the daily tests for a small amount of time.
 
onealcd said:
It all came from the players coming out last night with letters to the governors. Did that come from them being mad being left out, the schools being frustrated with the progress? Probably both, but to say that the pac 12 wasn’t trying to get back to playing and just followed the big 10 simply isn’t true. They communicated what they wanted to do and went out and did it, it’s not like returning to play sooner came out of no where.
Click to expand...

Those letters came out last night and it's been a given since Saturday that the B1G was coming back. So those letters are also a reaction to what everyone knew, which is that the B1G was coming back.

Right after the B1G announced it was cancelling a little over a month ago players like Justin Fields and others in the B1G spoke out about their desire to play. Where were the Pac12 players and coaches then?
 
hawg1 said:
If they allow some degree of practice to begin Monday, Oct 31 is in play.
Click to expand...
It would be earlier to start practice if they got that approval to start without the antigen tests. I just don’t think they will get approval from the California and Oregon officials to do so after they just made the antigen test such a big deal in their attempt to get an exemption. That is probably where Wilner got his numbers from. Below.


If they get the okay to start without the tests then we will be able to start with the big 10 but if not then it will be Halloween or later.
 
CarolinaBuff said:
Those letters came out last night and it's been a given since Saturday that the B1G was coming back. So those letters are also a reaction to what everyone knew, which is that the B1G was coming back.

Right after the B1G announced it was cancelling a little over a month ago players like Justin Fields and others in the B1G spoke out about their desire to play. Where were the Pac12 players and coaches then?
Click to expand...
The big 10 announced today they were going to play. You can say all you want about speculation but that’s when it came out. I just said that the pressure from the big 10 definitely helped push the pac 12 forward but they were always trying to get back on the field earlier, there is no debating that. It was made public two weeks ago. The players letter brought everything to light today because reporters asked the governors in Oregon and California why they hadn’t received approval to start playing and then everything changed. These questions were in direct response to the players from last night, as mentioned in the press conferences. It has been posted here numerous times that the teams were working to get approval from their governments for two weeks now, so no your little theory isn’t correct. It did however provide public pressure for it to be resolved.
 
onealcd said:
The big 10 announced today they were going to play. You can say all you want about speculation but that’s when it came out. I just said that the pressure from the big 10 definitely helped push the pac 12 forward but they were always trying to get back on the field earlier, there is no debating that. It was made public two weeks ago. The players letter brought everything to light today because reporters asked the governors in Oregon and California why they hadn’t received approval to start playing and then everything changed. These questions were in direct response to the players from last night, as mentioned in the press conferences. It has been posted here numerous times that the teams were working to get approval from their governments for two weeks now, so no your little theory isn’t correct. It did however provide public pressure for it to be resolved.
Click to expand...

The PAC 12 being aligned and professional has honestly screwed them in this to some extent. In the B1G everyone was kicking and screaming so everyone knew the AD's were doing everything they could. The PAC schools all accepted the decision when it was made but the conference was obviously trying to get back faster the whole time. You don't sign the testing deal without it. When the testing deal gets announced the schools, again instead of yelling why can't we start tomorrow or leaking all sorts of plans, go to the governors and start working on plans to get back (assumably linking everything to when the testing is available). You can argue that it would have gotten done faster if they were kicking and screaming because there was more pressure on the politicians but I think it was just everyone doing things the right way.

The Audible podcast today was talking about how even though the B1G got its football back the tension and in-fighting will have lasting effects on the conference. OSU started acting more like Texas did in the Big XII. The PAC 12 won't have those issues and will get the same result as if they had been kicking and screaming the whole time.
 
dwyermj said:
The PAC 12 being aligned and professional has honestly screwed them in this to some extent. In the B1G everyone was kicking and screaming so everyone knew the AD's were doing everything they could. The PAC schools all accepted the decision when it was made but the conference was obviously trying to get back faster the whole time. You don't sign the testing deal without it. When the testing deal gets announced the schools, again instead of yelling why can't we start tomorrow or leaking all sorts of plans, go to the governors and start working on plans to get back (assumably linking everything to when the testing is available). You can argue that it would have gotten done faster if they were kicking and screaming because there was more pressure on the politicians but I think it was just everyone doing things the right way.

The Audible podcast today was talking about how even though the B1G got its football back the tension and in-fighting will have lasting effects on the conference. OSU started acting more like Texas did in the Big XII. The PAC 12 won't have those issues and will get the same result as if they had been kicking and screaming the whole time.
Click to expand...
Never really thought about the infighting part, especially with Nebraska but you are right that those schools remember events like this.
 
dwyermj said:
The PAC 12 being aligned and professional has honestly screwed them in this to some extent. In the B1G everyone was kicking and screaming so everyone knew the AD's were doing everything they could. The PAC schools all accepted the decision when it was made but the conference was obviously trying to get back faster the whole time. You don't sign the testing deal without it. When the testing deal gets announced the schools, again instead of yelling why can't we start tomorrow or leaking all sorts of plans, go to the governors and start working on plans to get back (assumably linking everything to when the testing is available). You can argue that it would have gotten done faster if they were kicking and screaming because there was more pressure on the politicians but I think it was just everyone doing things the right way.

The Audible podcast today was talking about how even though the B1G got its football back the tension and in-fighting will have lasting effects on the conference. OSU started acting more like Texas did in the Big XII. The PAC 12 won't have those issues and will get the same result as if they had been kicking and screaming the whole time.
Click to expand...
The BIG conference also has some of the worst scandal's college athletics has ever seen (MSU, PSU, OSU, etc). This didn't surprise me at all. They are not aligned whatsoever
 
Schwarzenegger wouldn’t have played politics with this.

would have done the goofy font thing but requires too much effort.
 
Denver_sc said:
Dude. No one here is rooting for COVID to shut down college sports. I, for one, was absolutely crestfallen on Saturday that there was no Buffs football, just like I was on 9/5 when there was no RMS, but I do not think it's responsible for football to return.

Firstly, I do not agree with your framing that deaths are the only negative outcome. There is a non-insignificant number of people that experience lingering consequences even if they don't die. Check out this article detailing the daily challenges that some college athletes have to face when they get this disease. It's not a picnic, even if they don't die.

Secondly, even if we completely discount the impact to the athlete populations, you have to consider the people with whom they come in contact. For example, consider the "super spreader" event in Maine where a wedding in August has (so far) resulted in over 175 cases with 7 deaths- none of the 7 people who died attended the wedding.

This is even further supported by this article, which says that a majority of campus deaths due to COVID are deaths of faculty and staff, not of the actual students themselves. The people that this is putting at danger of dying isn't so much the football players, but the people connected to them.
Click to expand...

bahhhhhhh...BAHHHHHHH....
 
I think this is a good, objective opinion supporting Pac-12. Doing what's best for health, safety and wellness should take precedence over money. (Though money and sport takes precedence for many over (others') HSW).

www.nytimes.com

A College Football Conference Can Choose Players Over Profits for a Change (Published 2020)

The Big Ten’s reversal on playing college football this fall puts young players at risk for our entertainment. The Pac-12 should resist pressure and continue to stand down.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

Edit: added (others)
 
Last edited:
RiverBuff said:
I think this is a good, objective opinion supporting Pac-12. Doing what's best for health, safety and wellness should take precedence over money. (Though money and sport takes precedence for many over HSW).

www.nytimes.com

A College Football Conference Can Choose Players Over Profits for a Change (Published 2020)

The Big Ten’s reversal on playing college football this fall puts young players at risk for our entertainment. The Pac-12 should resist pressure and continue to stand down.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...

This guy is 100% correct. However, reading this:
Sending young, unpaid Black athletes to provide football entertainment for wealthy, predominantly white universities that are laden with the virus — and knowing many of the players will return to their vulnerable neighborhoods and possibly spread more infection — is a dubious proposition. It could end up adding more layers of suffering.
Click to expand...

convinces me that there's no chance the Pac 12 won't play this fall.
 


Pretty crazy. The thing with this antigen test that Wilner pointed out is it can catch the virus before a player becomes contagious, which is crazy to think about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top