Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Will there be a season?

Collapse

Support The Site!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ctrabs74
    replied
    Originally posted by MrsThortonMelon View Post
    The State of California just announced all online classes for fall...that means per NCAA that none of them will play football this fall...UCLA, Etc..done for 2020...wow
    Just to clarify, this is the California State University system (ie. Fresno State, San Diego State, San Jose State), which is independent from the UCal system (UCLA, etc.). Even so, the Cal State system schools won't be fielding teams this fall; I'd suspect it's a matter of time before the UCal system is next.

    Leave a comment:


  • twolfbenchwarmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Brandon View Post

    It's my understanding that the announcement was for Cal State schools, not U of C schools.
    https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020...ugh-fall-term/

    Leave a comment:


  • MrsThortonMelon
    replied
    Originally posted by Brandon View Post

    It's my understanding that the announcement was for Cal State schools, not U of C schools.
    Thats a good catch I did not see that part...thank you! I think it is WAY to early to call off things but I also know you have to cancel charters, etc well in advance as well as hotels, meals, the whole traveling circus that is a college football team.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brandon
    replied
    Originally posted by MrsThortonMelon View Post
    The State of California just announced all online classes for fall...that means per NCAA that none of them will play football this fall...UCLA, Etc..done for 2020...wow
    It's my understanding that the announcement was for Cal State schools, not U of C schools.

    Leave a comment:


  • ftballfan
    replied
    Originally posted by MrsThortonMelon View Post
    The State of California just announced all online classes for fall...that means per NCAA that none of them will play football this fall...UCLA, Etc..done for 2020...wow
    Could this mean a football only merger for 2020 of the non-CA Pac-12 schools with the non-CA Mountain West schools (and adding independent BYU)? Here is what a hypothetical Mountain Pacific conference could end up being:
    MPC East: Air Force, Boise State, BYU, Colorado, Colorado State, New Mexico, Utah, Utah State, Wyoming
    MPC West: Arizona, Arizona State, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Oregon State, UNLV, Washington, Washington State
    Three-division setup:
    MPC South: Arizona, Arizona State, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico, UNLV
    MPC West: Boise State, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, Wyoming (despite Wyoming being a better geographical fit in the East, they get put in the West division so the three Utah schools could be together)
    MPC East: Air Force, BYU, Colorado, Colorado State, Utah, Utah State

    Leave a comment:


  • codeblack
    replied
    Originally posted by MrsThortonMelon View Post
    The State of California just announced all online classes for fall...that means per NCAA that none of them will play football this fall...UCLA, Etc..done for 2020...wow

    Leave a comment:


  • MrsThortonMelon
    replied
    The State of California just announced all online classes for fall...that means per NCAA that none of them will play football this fall...UCLA, Etc..done for 2020...wow

    Leave a comment:


  • Thelakerman
    replied
    Originally posted by ftballfan View Post
    Has anyone considered the possibility of some fans being allowed but having to wear face coverings of some kind in the stadium? I think one of the Asian baseball leagues is allowing a very limited amount of masked fans.

    IMHO, the % likelihood of HS and youth football will vary by state. Some states (California among them) have almost no chance of HS or youth football IMHO. Other states (such as much of the South, Midwest, and mountain states) have better odds of HS and youth football.

    Leave a comment:


  • ftballfan
    replied
    Has anyone considered the possibility of some fans being allowed but having to wear face coverings of some kind in the stadium? I think one of the Asian baseball leagues is allowing a very limited amount of masked fans.

    IMHO, the % likelihood of HS and youth football will vary by state. Some states (California among them) have almost no chance of HS or youth football IMHO. Other states (such as much of the South, Midwest, and mountain states) have better odds of HS and youth football.

    Leave a comment:


  • NewEraWarrior
    replied
    Originally posted by D2Ohio View Post
    The higher the level, the better possibility for football this fall, IMHO:
    95% NFL
    90% P5
    85% G5
    75% FCS
    50% D2/D3
    33% High School
    10% Youth
    Agree with the sentiment of the higher the level, the better possibility. I'd knock each level of those down about 10-15% confidence however. I think the NFL could pull off a season w/o fans in the stadium but don't see that being the case for college football.

    Leave a comment:


  • D2Ohio
    replied
    The higher the level, the better possibility for football this fall, IMHO:
    95% NFL
    90% P5
    85% G5
    75% FCS
    50% D2/D3
    33% High School
    10% Youth

    Leave a comment:


  • SW_Mustang
    replied
    Originally posted by Brandon View Post

    Absolutely. As far as your score keeping, I figured it was in response to my comments about being absolutely wrong.

    I never, ever care that someone disagrees with me or says something I said is incorrect or my opinion is flawed. It's a path to self-improvement.

    I only care that people operate in good faith. It annoys me that people think snark and sarcasm actually prove points rather than make them look 12-years old.

    I probably didn't interpret what you were saying in the way you intended. No worries man.

    I actually enjoy being challenged. I don't enjoy people challenging my intent (not saying you did).
    In my opinion, part of our duty as Americans in regards to the First Amendment (and the constitution as a whole) is vigilance. We're supposed to question and discuss when we feel our freedoms are being infringed upon. Regardless if we agree or disagree, I will never fault somebody for questioning whether their 1A rights are being infringed upon. The only exception I have is when someone claims 1A violations purely for attention, or because they aren't getting "their way" with a private entity. I'm not implying that's what you were doing in any way at all though - I think your concerns are very genuine and well placed, again regardless if we agree or disagree on them.

    In regards to the religious establishments - personally, I feel people should stay home of either their own accord, or that of the establishment itself. To their credit, many of them did decide to do this. I believe forcing the churches to close is a massive administrative overreach given the circumstances, regardless if it is technically legal or not. My argument was only based on what I felt was legal, and not how I felt about the situation personally.


    Anyway, I think we had a good discussion. I'm glad I challenged you, and believe me - you challenged me as well. I had to do some digging to find some of those court documents.




    Leave a comment:


  • Redwing
    replied
    Dang, we could use a Sunday chat... BAD.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brandon
    replied
    Originally posted by SW_Mustang View Post

    I hadn't read the previous discussion and I just jumped right in - which was my fault in hindsight. I understand where you are coming from.

    As far as my keeping score comments - that was in response to your comment where you mentioned I was "absolutely wrong" on three of my points, or something to that effect. It's just my patented brand of arrogance. I didn't mean anything by it - but I will admit it was probably excessive and didn't really belong in the convo, so I apologize for that.

    I've read enough threads on the Off-Topic board to know how these discussions typically play out - I just wanted to mention that there's no hard feelings on my end, and it's good to know you enjoyed the conversation as well.
    Absolutely. As far as your score keeping, I figured it was in response to my comments about being absolutely wrong.

    I never, ever care that someone disagrees with me or says something I said is incorrect or my opinion is flawed. It's a path to self-improvement.

    I only care that people operate in good faith. It annoys me that people think snark and sarcasm actually prove points rather than make them look 12-years old.

    I probably didn't interpret what you were saying in the way you intended. No worries man.

    I actually enjoy being challenged. I don't enjoy people challenging my intent (not saying you did).

    Leave a comment:


  • SW_Mustang
    replied
    Originally posted by Brandon View Post
    *snip*
    I hadn't read the previous discussion and I just jumped right in - which was my fault in hindsight. I understand where you are coming from.

    As far as my keeping score comments - that was in response to your comment where you mentioned I was "absolutely wrong" on three of my points, or something to that effect. It's just my patented brand of arrogance. I didn't mean anything by it - but I will admit it was probably excessive and didn't really belong in the convo, so I apologize for that.

    I've read enough threads on the Off-Topic board to know how these discussions typically play out - I just wanted to mention that there's no hard feelings on my end, and it's good to know you enjoyed the conversation as well.

    Leave a comment:

Ad3

Collapse
Working...
X