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?

GuySmiley said:
For what it is worth, I think many of the college football decisions are driven by politics and/or money. For the Mountain West and smaller conferences, a season with no pay-off games v. larger schools, little tv exposure, and no fans (no money at the gate or concessions); the risks far outweighs any benefits. For the Pac-12, I do think politics is somewhat at play, as California and Washington are just not opening up anything soon. Their governors are keeping things closed down . . . I'm not sure if they are right or wrong, (if you look at the CoVid numbers in California, I can certainly understand the sentiment), but I do think that the pressure comes down from the top. The PAC had to stay together, so we just have to accept the decision. The conclusion that I have learned with CoVid is that we are still learning so much, and everything is a leap of trial and error.
Click to expand...

We have had Pandemics and have history of how it went down!

Do nothing and die

Do everything and take a huge economic hit.

All programs, including CU must create large reserve funds, or pray that a conference loan is a smart move.

As for local businesses in college towns that live and die by college football or businesses near NFL stadiums, this is the reality of business risk. However, if and when the government chooses or is forced to shut you down, relief MUST come.

We (USA) have been crappy financial stewards lately!

Gulf Wars
Financial Recession
Trump Tax Cuts
Covid 19 Pandemic

We have no room for error and now no Football till Spring

“It is what it is”
 
Pretty telling that the SEC is not letting anyone talk to their medical board or even revealing what their medical board is actually saying
 
Those SEC schools are toeing the party lines in their respective states when they need to be more concerned with the well being of their student athletes.
 
Based on the statistics we have thus far, it’s extremely unlikely any college football players will die from this. It’s also very likely that many will catch the virus.
 
onealcd said:
Click to expand...

Coronavirus Task Force warned Georgia to get their act together.

Elsewhere I did an assessment of whether Vandy should play football using P12 criteria for community spread and percent positive tests for Nashville, as a comparator to other metro areas in P12 footprint.

Using chart developed by Harvard Public Health, they should test daily including within 24 hours of competition.

We need to see the SEC criteria and medical plan. And all other conferences.
 
There are simply no comparisons between the cultures of schools in the SEC and those of the PAC12. If you want to attribute that to Politics, fine. But it's Culture. What does one value? There's a reason I live in Boulder Colorado and not Georgia.
 
buffaholic said:
There are simply no comparisons between the cultures of schools in the SEC and those of the PAC12. If you want to attribute that to Politics, fine. But it's Culture. What does one value? There's a reason I live in Boulder Colorado and not Georgia.
Click to expand...
The other thing is just how large the football revenue is in the SEC and some big 12 schools compared to the overall revenues. It simply hurts them a lot more than other schools not to play.
 
onealcd said:
The other thing is just how large the football revenue is in the SEC and some big 12 schools compared to the overall revenues. It simply hurts them a lot more than other schools not to play.
Click to expand...
Yes. It also hurts Tuscaloosa a lot worse if they don’t play than PHX, financially and emotionally.
 
Not Sure said:
Based on the statistics we have thus far, it’s extremely unlikely any college football players will die from this. It’s also very likely that many will catch the virus.
Click to expand...
Extremely unlikely any player will die is at best poorly worded and at worst woefully inaccurate.

Based on avaliable data, the infection fatality rate probably sits somewhere in the range of 1/5000 to 1/200 for 18-23 year olds.

Even at the low end of 1/5000, if we see 500 infections in college players (I'd say a conservative estimate of what we'd see with a full fledged season) there would be about a 5% 9% chance we'd see at least 1 death.

1597434114375.png

Run that with the 1/200 infection fatality rate, and there's a 20% 91% chance we see at least one death in those 500 infections.

1597434251816.png


Does 5% 9% = extremely unlikely? It's more likely than getting two ones if you roll a pair of dice. Does 20% 91% = extremely unlikely? It's about as likely as catching a card of the correct suit on the river to make a flush when you're playing Texas Hold'em Obviously not.

Maybe this feels like a pedantic quibble about language; but I think "extremely unlikely" inappropriately dismisses the non-trivial chance that a player could die of COVID-19 contracted because a football season had to happen.

Edited because I made stupid errors that Aero caught.
 
Last edited:
Good Lord. A simple observation based on the fact that the virus has shown to be more deadly in older patients spawns this.

It’s true that people will argue anything, I suppose.
 
Robert Sorell said:
Extremely unlikely any player will die is at best poorly worded and at worst woefully inaccurate.

Based on avaliable data, the infection fatality rate probably sits somewhere in the range of 1/5000 to 1/200 for 18-23 year olds.

Even at the low end of 1/5000, if we see 500 infections in college players (I'd say a conservative estimate of what we'd see with a full fledged season) there would be about a 5% chance we'd see at least 1 death.

View attachment 38736

Run that with the 1/200 infection fatality rate, and there's a 20% chance we see at least one death in those 500 infections.

View attachment 38737


Does 5% = extremely unlikely? It's more likely than getting two ones if you roll a pair of dice. Does 20% = extremely unlikely? It's about as likely as catching a card of the correct suit on the river to make a flush when you're playing Texas Hold'em.

Maybe this feels like a pedantic quibble about language; but I think "extremely unlikely" inappropriately dismisses the non-trivial chance that a player could die of COVID-19 contracted because a football season had to happen.
Click to expand...
Actually in the 1st trial it is a 9.5% chance that 1 or more die. The second one is a 91.8% chance that 1 or more die. You need an IFR of 0.001% to give a 0.5% chance of having 1 or more people die if you have 500 infections.

Better yet if you have 100 player on the team and end up with 10% infected the odds of one of your players dying is 1%, based on a 0.001% IFR. Apply that to 39 teams and you have an issue. Even if only 1% of players on those 39 teams gets the virus, there is a 3.8% chance one of them dies. If 10% get it, it shoots up to 32%.
 
Not Sure said:
Good Lord. A simple observation based on the fact that the virus has shown to be more deadly in older patients spawns this.

It’s true that people will argue anything, I suppose.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand statistics and probability. Yes the odds for any one person is very small, the cumulative probability that it will happen though is not. These are not trivial numbers. Small probabilities applied to large populations become issues for concern very quickly when there are ineffective mitigation procedures.
 
AeroBuff99 said:
You misunderstand statistics and probability. Yes the odds for any one person is very small, the cumulative probability that it will happen though is not. These are not trivial numbers. Small probabilities applied to large populations become issues for concern very quickly when there are ineffective mitigation procedures.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
Not Sure said:
Based on the statistics we have thus far, it’s extremely unlikely any college football players will die from this. It’s also very likely that many will catch the virus.
Click to expand...

Not Sure said:
giphy.gif
Click to expand...

Read what you said vs what I said. If you had said any ONE will die you would be correct on an individual probability basis, but when you expand to 39 FBS teams with 100 players each, the probability that one or more will die is no longer extremely unlikely. And that is using the lowest estimated IFR rate for that age group.
 
AeroBuff99 said:
Read what you said vs what I said. If you had said any ONE will die you would be correct on an individual probability basis, but when you expand to 39 FBS teams with 100 players each, the probability that one or more will die is no longer extremely unlikely. And that is using the lowest estimated IFR rate for that age group.
Click to expand...
And the parents of that dead player along with his girlfriend/fiance, the rest of his family and all his friends and teammates will take great solace is knowing that it was decided to play the season because people thought the odds of having a player die were extremely unlikely to die and the other players who ended up in the hospital and the others who end up with scarred lungs or heart damage should just suck it up because our entertainment is more important than their lives that will likely be much more manageable in another year.
 
Those who are highly critical of the conferences still trying to play, noting player death risk and other liability, consider that players in the ACC and SEC (not sure about XII) are given the opportunity to opt out while retaining their scholarships.

painting this as forcing players onto the field so that their respective schools can make bank isn't quite accurate. The schools are literally telling them, we'll pay your tuition, etc.. whether or not you play.
 
hokiehead said:
Those who are highly critical of the conferences still trying to play, noting player death risk and other liability, consider that players in the ACC and SEC (not sure about XII) are given the opportunity to opt out while retaining their scholarships.

painting this as forcing players onto the field so that their respective schools can make bank isn't quite accurate. The schools are literally telling them, we'll pay your tuition, etc.. whether or not you play.
Click to expand...
You don’t think there’s any csu stuff going on at bigger programs?
 
hokiehead said:
Those who are highly critical of the conferences still trying to play, noting player death risk and other liability, consider that players in the ACC and SEC (not sure about XII) are given the opportunity to opt out while retaining their scholarships.

painting this as forcing players onto the field so that their respective schools can make bank isn't quite accurate. The schools are literally telling them, we'll pay your tuition, etc.. whether or not you play.
Click to expand...
Typical response to the virus in this country. We're not going to make responsible decisions as a society, we're going to wash our hands of it and hide behind letting teenagers decide for themselves whether to play.

Do better, hokie.
 
BuffsNYC said:
Typical response to the virus in this country. We're not going to make responsible decisions as a society, we're going to wash our hands of it and hide behind letting teenagers decide for themselves whether to play.

Do better, hokie.
Click to expand...
This logic would lead to outlawing alcohol, among many other things.
manhattanbuf said:
...Powerful people in your life can be coercive without putting a gun to your head.
Click to expand...
No question. That applies to everything in life though, not just playing football. And, this reasoning is what led to keeping doctor-assisted suicide illegal in most states.

I get what both of you are saying, I just think you're undervaluing personal choice in this matter.
 
hokiehead said:
This logic would lead to outlawing alcohol, among many other things.

No question. That applies to everything in life though, not just playing football. And, this reasoning is what led to keeping doctor-assisted suicide illegal in most states.

I get what both of you are saying, I just think you're undervaluing personal choice in this matter.
Click to expand...
Personal choice is only relevant in the absence of coercion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top