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!

College Football News, Rumor & Humor

Why wait to correct a bad rule and improve the game?

Don't stand on technicalities. Policies and procedures are meant to serve the mission. If they get in the way of it, you change the policies and procedures rather than compromise the mission to serve what's written in your handbook.
 
Buffnik said:
Why wait to correct a bad rule and improve the game?

Don't stand on technicalities. Policies and procedures are meant to serve the mission. If they get in the way of it, you change the policies and procedures rather than compromise the mission to serve what's written in your handbook.
Click to expand...
Because you're taking away an opportunity from teams who find themselves in that situation whoay be competing with UO for the B1G championship or a CFP bid. Changing it now is like giving Oregon two "wins" -- "were going to let your W stand, but we'll also make sure no one else can secure a win in the same manner".

E.g. If Penn State plays Oregon in the CCG and finds themselves in the same situation UO was in vs OSU, but can't leverage the same rules UO did earlier in the year, that seems patently unfair.

I'm struggling to see this as anything different that trying to turn 'two wrongs' into a 'right'.

I understand what you're saying about why wait, but I think the rule correction needs to be at the end of the season.
 
hokiehead said:
Because you're taking away an opportunity from teams who find themselves in that situation whoay be competing with UO for the B1G championship or a CFP bid. Changing it now is like giving Oregon two "wins" -- "were going to let your W stand, but we'll also make sure no one else can secure a win in the same manner".

E.g. If Penn State plays Oregon in the CCG and finds themselves in the same situation UO was in vs OSU, but can't leverage the same rules UO did earlier in the year, that seems patently unfair.

I'm struggling to see this as anything different that trying to turn 'two wrongs' into a 'right'.

I understand what you're saying about why wait, but I think the rule correction needs to be at the end of the season.
Click to expand...
So you lament that we won't see that bs again this year? I don't relate.
 
Buffnik said:
So you lament that we won't see that bs again this year? I don't relate.
Click to expand...
No, not lamenting.

Clearly the rule wasn't well thought out. Clearly it should be changed.

And, I believe it's unfair to let UO have had an opportunity to secure a win that nobody else competing with them for a conference or CFP will have.

Changing rules mid-season is bush league. The XFL did crap like that, IIRC.
 
hokiehead said:
No, not lamenting.

Clearly the rule wasn't well thought out. Clearly it should be changed.

And, I believe it's unfair to let UO have had an opportunity to secure a win that nobody else competing with them for a conference of CFP will have.

Changing rules mid-season is bush league. The XFL did crap like that, IIRC.
Click to expand...
Hard to argue against this.
 
hokiehead said:
Because you're taking away an opportunity from teams who find themselves in that situation whoay be competing with UO for the B1G championship or a CFP bid. Changing it now is like giving Oregon two "wins" -- "were going to let your W stand, but we'll also make sure no one else can secure a win in the same manner".

E.g. If Penn State plays Oregon in the CCG and finds themselves in the same situation UO was in vs OSU, but can't leverage the same rules UO did earlier in the year, that seems patently unfair.

I'm struggling to see this as anything different that trying to turn 'two wrongs' into a 'right'.

I understand what you're saying about why wait, but I think the rule correction needs to be at the end of the season.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, it might stop OSU from losing multiple games in a season due to a dumb rule.
 
hokiehead said:
No, not lamenting.

Clearly the rule wasn't well thought out. Clearly it should be changed.

And, I believe it's unfair to let UO have had an opportunity to secure a win that nobody else competing with them for a conference or CFP will have.

Changing rules mid-season is bush league. The XFL did crap like that, IIRC.
Click to expand...
All I know is that I'm glad I won't have to worry about CU losing due to it and I also don't want to win a game in that way.
 
hokiehead said:
No, not lamenting.

Clearly the rule wasn't well thought out. Clearly it should be changed.

And, I believe it's unfair to let UO have had an opportunity to secure a win that nobody else competing with them for a conference or CFP will have.

Changing rules mid-season is bush league. The XFL did crap like that, IIRC.
Click to expand...
Can they change the Hip Drop Tackle Rule like the NFL has, and give Omarion an extra year? That tackle was bush league, has anyone been asked about that tackle
 
4BienemyTDs said:
Can they change the Hip Drop Tackle Rule like the NFL has, and give Omarion an extra year? That tackle was bush league, has anyone been asked about that tackle
Click to expand...
He still has his regular RS available, although I assume he's played in more than 4 games this year, so he might not be eligible to use it. However, I think there's a chance he could be eligible for a medical RS based on the requirements. They'd have to argue that while he technically played in more than 3 games, he really only saw a small amount of PT in each game.

Honestly, though, if he gets back to 100% health and is WR1 next year as most expect, he's probably looking at the NFL in 2026 anyways.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
He still has his regular RS available, although I assume he's played in more than 4 games this year, so he might not be eligible to use it. However, I think there's a chance he could be eligible for a medical RS based on the requirements. They'd have to argue that while he technically played in more than 3 games, he really only saw a small amount of PT in each game.

Honestly, though, if he gets back to 100% health and is WR1 next year as most expect, he's probably looking at the NFL in 2026 anyways.
Click to expand...
I worry that he has a strong standing CASH offer from Nebraska to transfer there. I pray that he stays, and he should easily be our #1 guy, but who knows about the relationship and our QB.
 
14er said:
What makes you think this?
Click to expand...
That is where he was going to go before he flipped to us, there is constant reference to it, and they have a solid QB moving forward and a crap-ton of cash, and he has honestly gotten a lot of disrespect, especially when they brought in Sheppard, who it not better than him, but apparently we needed him.
 
The solution to potential fake injuries is not a penalty, but making the player leave the sideline for a medical evaluation combined with an ineligibility period. Adding a potential delay of game penalty could work but balancing it would require a mechanism that still protects player heath. After KSU last week it would be nice if some potential mechanism for addressing potential fake injuries was considered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top