2020 Season Thread

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Wed Sep 16, 2020 4:58 pm

L O L

PHXCATS · Post by **PHXCATS** » Wed Sep 16, 2020 5:01 pm

Amazing how the PAC-12 and Governors Newsom and Brown changed their stance once the Big Ten came back

DrWildcat · Post by **DrWildcat** » Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:18 pm

PHXCATS wrote:Amazing how the PAC-12 and Governors Newsom and Brown changed their stance once the Big Ten came back

I don't think college football is much of a concern to the Governors of the coastal states. To me, this sounds like Larry sat on his hands and wasn't actively trying to start the season earlier until he was forced to by the Big 10 decision. He should have already known what was required by each state in the conference before now. Also, the PAC should already have a season plan that they could immediately submit to the state of Oregon as requested. This is just another case of failed leadership.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:51 pm

DrWildcat wrote:
PHXCATS wrote:Amazing how the PAC-12 and Governors Newsom and Brown changed their stance once the Big Ten came back
I don't think college football is much of a concern to the Governors of the coastal states. To me, this sounds like Larry sat on his hands and wasn't actively trying to start the season earlier until he was forced to by the Big 10 decision. He should have already known what was required by each state in the conference before now. Also, the PAC should already have a season plan that they could immediately submit to the state of Oregon as requested. This is just another case of failed leadership.

To my knowledge, nothing has changed in California. You still can’t practice with more than 12 people.

If Larry was at all earning his enormous paycheck he would have been trying to work with the state government to either rescind that rule or to find a work around. But he’s lazy and good for not a goddamn thing.

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Wed Sep 16, 2020 8:08 pm

Chicat wrote:
DrWildcat wrote:
PHXCATS wrote:Amazing how the PAC-12 and Governors Newsom and Brown changed their stance once the Big Ten came back
I don't think college football is much of a concern to the Governors of the coastal states. To me, this sounds like Larry sat on his hands and wasn't actively trying to start the season earlier until he was forced to by the Big 10 decision. He should have already known what was required by each state in the conference before now. Also, the PAC should already have a season plan that they could immediately submit to the state of Oregon as requested. This is just another case of failed leadership.
To my knowledge, nothing has changed in California. You still can’t practice with more than 12 people.

If Larry was at all earning his enormous paycheck he would have been trying to work with the state government to either rescind that rule or to find a work around. But he’s lazy and good for not a goddamn thing.

It’s changed. Amazing what asking will do. It’s almost as if Larry Scott should’ve explored this avenue prior to the B1G leaving them no choice.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Wed Sep 16, 2020 8:30 pm

ChooChooCat wrote:It’s changed. Amazing what asking will do. It’s almost as if Larry Scott should’ve explored this avenue prior to the B1G leaving them no choice.

Larry has made an entire career out of failing up. Why stop now?

Postmaster · Post by **Postmaster** » Thu Sep 17, 2020 7:52 am

The ACC girl should have pulled out a Touchdown Jesus figurine and put it on the dashboard.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Thu Sep 17, 2020 12:02 pm

Not great...

mofo · Post by **mofo** » Thu Sep 17, 2020 3:25 pm

The state of Washington still has a 14 day mandatory quarantine for any out-of-state employees on construction sites, be them workers or visitors, which it's had since March. I can only assume it wouldn't apply for visiting sports teams. I'm not sure why it's still in place in construction but that's another story.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:06 am

Larry Scott has done a bang up job making the Pac-12 the laughing stock of college football.

DrWildcat · Post by **DrWildcat** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:12 am

Chicat wrote:
Larry Scott has done a bang up job making the Pac-12 the laughing stock of college football.

The depiction of the PAC is on point, but I guess at least we made it in the video this time.

DrWildcat · Post by **DrWildcat** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:26 am

Here is another PAC fail. Maybe it doesn't change the initial vote to postpone sports but just shows overall incompetence.

The Pac-12 presidents and chancellors' unanimous decision last month to postpone all conference sports competition until at least Jan. 1 came after they saw a presentation that included erroneous statistics that overstated the prevalence of COVID-19 in several of the conference’s communities during the first week of August.

https://www.oregonlive.com/collegefootb ... stics.html

mofo · Post by **mofo** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:14 am

So are folks on here ok with the Pac playing football this year now? Seems like only a few weeks ago most on here thought the P12 was the smart conference who valued life over football. Maybe those posters haven't posted this week and I'm mistaken. What changed besides Newsom and Brown's minds?

UAEebs86 · Post by **UAEebs86** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:23 am

DrWildcat wrote:
Chicat wrote:
Larry Scott has done a bang up job making the Pac-12 the laughing stock of college football.
The depiction of the PAC is on point, but I guess at least we made it in the video this time.

There's no such thing as bad publicity, right?

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:32 am

mofo wrote:So are folks on here ok with the Pac playing football this year now? Seems like only a few weeks ago most on here thought the P12 was the smart conference who valued life over football. Maybe those posters haven't posted this week and I'm mistaken. What changed besides Newsom and Brown's minds?

I haven't changed my mind. Larry Scott is a turd but the PAC 12 is the only conference to seemingly care about human life.

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:32 am

Sad but funny as hell

Merkin · Post by **Merkin** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:47 am

Won't see anything better today.

I still don't see the UA playing football due to the UA having about twice as many cases as the rest of Pima County combined. You think any coach could tell Gronk he isn't going to Starr Pass?

PieceOfMeat · Post by **PieceOfMeat** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:18 am

mofo wrote:So are folks on here ok with the Pac playing football this year now? Seems like only a few weeks ago most on here thought the P12 was the smart conference who valued life over football. Maybe those posters haven't posted this week and I'm mistaken. What changed besides Newsom and Brown's minds?

I think the idea of any conference playing football right now is incredibly idiotic.

But something being incredibly idiotic has never stopped people from doing it before, so, I'm not surprised by what is happening.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:22 am

mofo wrote:So are folks on here ok with the Pac playing football this year now? Seems like only a few weeks ago most on here thought the P12 was the smart conference who valued life over football. Maybe those posters haven't posted this week and I'm mistaken. What changed besides Newsom and Brown's minds?

The rapid testing is a positive development.

The positivity rate and number of new Covid cases daily at UA are not.

My mind hasn’t changed on playing football even though I understand why the minds of ADs and school presidents have.

The one thing that this should crystallize for everyone is that college football is 100% about money and 0% about opportunity for the players.

ByJoveByJingle · Post by **ByJoveByJingle** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:53 am

mofo wrote:So are folks on here ok with the Pac playing football this year now? Seems like only a few weeks ago most on here thought the P12 was the smart conference who valued life over football. Maybe those posters haven't posted this week and I'm mistaken. What changed besides Newsom and Brown's minds?

It’s terrible leadership by Larry Scott and the conference presidents. When they announced the fall ban on sports, the conference should have added “these are the conditions we have determined it is safe to play under, when these conditions are met play can begin (or resume).” That way, when those conditions were met, they have the medical and moral high ground and it would be clear why play could resume. Instead it becomes self-evident it’s not about concern for student athlete welfare but rather it’s about money and perceived loss of prestige. I really don’t understand why we continue to be saddled with such poor leaders country-wide.

pc in NM · Post by **pc in NM** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 11:28 am

ByJoveByJingle wrote:
mofo wrote:So are folks on here ok with the Pac playing football this year now? Seems like only a few weeks ago most on here thought the P12 was the smart conference who valued life over football. Maybe those posters haven't posted this week and I'm mistaken. What changed besides Newsom and Brown's minds?
It’s terrible leadership by Larry Scott and the conference presidents. When they announced the fall ban on sports, the conference should have added “these are the conditions we have determined it is safe to play under, when these conditions are met play can begin (or resume).” That way, when those conditions were met, they have the medical and moral high ground and it would be clear why play could resume. Instead it becomes self-evident it’s not about concern for student athlete welfare but rather it’s about money and perceived loss of prestige. I really don’t understand why we continue to be saddled with such poor leaders country-wide.

It’s a lousy decision. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Regardless, I will not watch a single collegiate sporting event before students are allowed to attend in person. IMNSHO, Empty venues are inconsistent with amateur athletics!

TheCatInTheHat · Post by **TheCatInTheHat** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:22 pm

It's understandably been a mixed bag in the early going. Some schools go no attendance, others have a cap with fans and the band spread out. It's interesting seeing bands form a checkerboard in the stands, but you can hear them. Here's a handful of some of the attendance marks so far:

Oklahoma: 22,700
Florida St: 17,538
Texas: 15,337
Texas Tech: 11,157
Notre Dame: 10,097

Texas required each student to undergo a test before attending, and I believe Notre Dame only allowed students to attend.

I renewed my season tickets, so I'm just waiting to see what they do. Considering our attendance woes, I think I'd feel pretty safe sitting in the middle of my own section. As far as the beer line goes, that's probably about the same as standing on the dots at Starbucks, which has been the situation since June or so.

azgreg · Post by **azgreg** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:59 pm

azgreg · Post by **azgreg** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:33 pm

azgreg · Post by **azgreg** » Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:39 pm

TheCatInTheHat · Post by **TheCatInTheHat** » Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:04 am

So it sounds like Stanford's holding out, with maybe Cal and UCLA leaning in their direction. This whole thing is interesting. First, you had the Ivy League jumping the gun, cancelling, and apparently hoping everybody else would follow. Of course, they're completely irrelevant in college football, but this time they finished first. Stanford is (in many cases much more than) Ivy-equivalent, and there's some like-minded branding involved here. Phone calls were made among Pac-12 presidents, as well as crossing over to talk to Big Ten presidents to present a joint, safe, anonymous two-conference face. And so they did. Then the Big Ten buckled, and the Pac-12 would be left out in the cold as the only P5 not to play, with long-term financial and other impacts. So here we are, with Stanford's arms still crossed as this comes to a head. I'm glad their president is outed, as this could be a very healthy thing for the league. We don't need members who are more than equal and effectively get more than one vote. It sounds like the majority in the league is full-go and will start with or without them. If Stanford doesn't like it, they can go indy like BYU for all I care. If the Big Ten could add Maryland and Rutgers, well I'd rather go on a road trip to San Diego State anyway.

Merkin · Post by **Merkin** » Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:20 am

TheCatInTheHat wrote:So it sounds like Stanford's holding out, with maybe Cal and UCLA leaning in their direction. This whole thing is interesting. First, you had the Ivy League jumping the gun, cancelling, and apparently hoping everybody else would follow. Of course, they're completely irrelevant in college football, but this time they finished first. Stanford is (in many cases much more than) Ivy-equivalent, and there's some like-minded branding involved here. Phone calls were made among Pac-12 presidents, as well as crossing over to talk to Big Ten presidents to present a joint, safe, anonymous two-conference face. And so they did. Then the Big Ten buckled, and the Pac-12 would be left out in the cold as the only P5 not to play, with long-term financial and other impacts. So here we are, with Stanford's arms still crossed as this comes to a head. I'm glad their president is outed, as this could be a very healthy thing for the league. We don't need members who are more than equal and effectively get more than one vote. It sounds like the majority in the league is full-go and will start with or without them. If Stanford doesn't like it, they can go indy like BYU for all I care. If the Big Ten could add Maryland and Rutgers, well I'd rather go on a road trip to San Diego State anyway.

https://247sports.com/college/ucla/Arti ... 151726326/" target="_blank

Details about Stanford’s communication with both the league and its own players suggest that the Cardinal does have concerns about its athletes’ health in playing a football season, but perhaps the main tenet of Stanford’s objection is the matter of amateurism. The argument is that football players, as student-athletes, should not receive preferential treatment over other students – and in this case, very simply, be allowed on campus to participate in a university activity when other students are not.

TheCatInTheHat · Post by **TheCatInTheHat** » Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:32 am

I'd immediately throw the flag and call that a smokescreen from them. If we want to start listing all of the benefits NCAA athletes receive that the general student population doesn't receive, even at...Stanford, it'll be a very long list. Full cost of attendance for out of state tuition, even at an average public school, is over six figures annually, and then you start to add up the value of all of the perks. And that's been going on forever. If they chose to close their campus and go full-remote, that was a Stanford decision, not a Pac-12 decision. I walk around on the UArizona campus, and there are plenty of cars in the dorm parking lots and plenty of students on campus, and only a small subset of them are athletes. So it gets back to my point about somebody who's more equal that somebody else trying to unilaterally dictate terms for the rest.

pc in NM · Post by **pc in NM** » Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:30 pm

Merkin wrote:
TheCatInTheHat wrote:So it sounds like Stanford's holding out, with maybe Cal and UCLA leaning in their direction. This whole thing is interesting. First, you had the Ivy League jumping the gun, cancelling, and apparently hoping everybody else would follow. Of course, they're completely irrelevant in college football, but this time they finished first. Stanford is (in many cases much more than) Ivy-equivalent, and there's some like-minded branding involved here. Phone calls were made among Pac-12 presidents, as well as crossing over to talk to Big Ten presidents to present a joint, safe, anonymous two-conference face. And so they did. Then the Big Ten buckled, and the Pac-12 would be left out in the cold as the only P5 not to play, with long-term financial and other impacts. So here we are, with Stanford's arms still crossed as this comes to a head. I'm glad their president is outed, as this could be a very healthy thing for the league. We don't need members who are more than equal and effectively get more than one vote. It sounds like the majority in the league is full-go and will start with or without them. If Stanford doesn't like it, they can go indy like BYU for all I care. If the Big Ten could add Maryland and Rutgers, well I'd rather go on a road trip to San Diego State anyway.
https://247sports.com/college/ucla/Arti ... 151726326/" target="_blank

Details about Stanford’s communication with both the league and its own players suggest that the Cardinal does have concerns about its athletes’ health in playing a football season, but perhaps the main tenet of Stanford’s objection is the matter of amateurism. The argument is that football players, as student-athletes, should not receive preferential treatment over other students – and in this case, very simply, be allowed on campus to participate in a university activity when other students are not.

It really just comes down to the question: What is the primary purpose of the university?

Education?

Athletics?

azgreg · Post by **azgreg** » Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:35 pm

Postmaster · Post by **Postmaster** » Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:49 pm

The other day on Dan Patrick, Larry Scott tried to say that the 12 would be unanimous.

azgreg · Post by **azgreg** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:15 pm

Robert A Booey · Post by **Robert A Booey** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 7:59 pm

Kylan Wilborn enters transfer portal. I wonder if he got passed up on the depth chart and that is why he transferred.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:15 pm

Notre Dame is cancelling their next game. They had 7 positive Covid tests yesterday.

TheCatInTheHat · Post by **TheCatInTheHat** » Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:53 pm

Robert A Booey wrote:Kylan Wilborn enters transfer portal. I wonder if he got passed up on the depth chart and that is why he transferred.

With all of our depth problems at linebacker, I had him penciled-in as a starter there, so this is a blow to depth at an already weak position. Who knows if I was remotely accurate, and I'm sure Sumlin hasn't published any depth charts. Not saying Wilborn was any great shakes, because he wasn't, but he has experience and physical maturity in an area where we desperately need bodies. So now we patch together some starters around Pandy, and we've got true freshmen and walk-ons as our second and third string LBs. Ugh. Not sure how much of this has to do with the new coaches pushing the defense harder than "player's coaches" and/or if the difference in scheme/approach switching to the 3-4 was considered intimidating. I had the impression it was more of a conscious decision to go with the KISS principle to avoid mistakes and focus on avoiding overrunning plays and making sure tackles. Maybe those fundamentals aren't fun. In any event, I wonder if he'll wind up at West Virginia with Fields, who seemed to be actively recruiting our players. Another thought is any school on the quarter system (like UCLA) which hasn't started yet. All just speculation on my part.

PHXCATS · Post by **PHXCATS** » Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:30 pm

Football is officially back now

TheCatInTheHat · Post by **TheCatInTheHat** » Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:53 pm

Yep! No fans in Pac-12 stadia until January, but they'll be playing.

84Cat · Post by **84Cat** » Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:01 pm

azgreg · Post by **azgreg** » Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:11 pm

https://pac-12.com/article/2020/09/24/p ... nouncement" target="_blank

In the sport of football, Pac-12 universities with the necessary public health approvals may commence practice immediately with a seven game Conference-only season to begin on November 6, and the Pac-12 Championship Game on December 18, enabling Pac-12 teams to be considered for selection by the CFP. The football schedule will be released in the coming days.

PHXCATS · Post by **PHXCATS** » Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:17 pm

84Cat wrote:

This is fake news

azgreg · Post by **azgreg** » Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:33 pm

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:36 pm

kind of is a necessity this year if they want to have bowls. Some teams will be playing like 13 games and and some like 4 and some 8 and some 10...

Don't be surprised if some like 2-3 ACC team goes to a bowl.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Thu Sep 24, 2020 6:40 pm

azgreg · Post by **azgreg** » Thu Sep 24, 2020 6:49 pm

Don't know if it's true but I'm reading that the schedule will be 5 divisional games and 2 crossovers.

azgreg · Post by **azgreg** » Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:27 pm

PHXCATS · Post by **PHXCATS** » Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:35 pm

azgreg wrote:Don't know if it's true but I'm reading that the schedule will be 5 divisional games and 2 crossovers.

It's true

One scheduled game and one on championship weekend vs your game seed in the other division

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:03 pm

Boulder county Colorado today banned all gatherings of any size for 18-22 head olds, university athletics included. So as of now, no Colorado this season. College kids can't be trusted.

Login • Register