It's better than being ****ing dead and you can still have people over for a few beers while you watch it on TV (assuming there's a CFB season this fall).
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?
- Thread starter Jens1893
- Start date
It's better than being ****ing dead and you can still have people over for a few beers while you watch it on TV (assuming there's a CFB season this fall).
So Disney characters will walk around the park with no customers? Just like players playing the game with no fans in the stands. Got it.
You have thousands of people in a relatively confined space for recreational entertainment purposes and if you find a network that pays a few hundred million to broadcast Disney characters walking around a park, you'll see Disney characters walking around a park live on TV.
So the Disney example is not the same as college football. Thanks for clarifying.
I’m not going to get I to the politics on this. I agree that leadership will be critical but I’m not optimistic. Mostly because I can see this devolving into an “us vs them”’ situation where some groups will be claiming the risks are adequately mitigated while other groups are more cautious. The questions regarding “how many deaths is acceptable” are bull****. Nobody, anywhere is saying there are an acceptable number of deaths. There will come a time where some folks will say that the risks of staying closed are more serious than the risks of opening. It’s just a guess on my part, but people being people, I can see those arguments starting in May and getting very loud by the end of June. Add money and politics to the mix, and risks will be taken. It’s just a matter of when.
OsideBuff
Dimwitted ****
We lose 100k Americans every month due to either cancer or heart disease...we dont stop people from unhealthy lifestyles...we/they accept.risks...if you believe being in a crowd is dangerous..dont do it..choices...the data I'm seeing does not support clobbering freedoms..the economy..
The "how many deaths is acceptable" is THE question. It is THE risk.
If college football is played without fans in the stands, and probably at designated neutral sites, there is a higher likelihood of controlling the situation and playing because the risk of death is lower than having fans in the stands. If college football is played with fans in the stands, there is a higher likelihood of death from Covid-19 spread. In either case, the answer to "how may deaths is acceptable?" verses the possible economic collapse of a wide swath of P5 athletic departments/programs is the question. If the answer is "zero" then we wait this out for possibly a couple of years with no games.
The bad...
- The biggest punch coming from the parks, experiences and products division that’s 34% of total revenue.
- At media networks (ABC, ESPN) took a 33% of revenue hit from the suspension and postponement of the NBA and MLB seasons.
- TV revenue is dependent on advertising sales which is dependent on fresh sportscast product
- Studio entertainment generates 17% of revenue. The movie studio division is being squeezed as cinema closures rise throughout the world. Movies slated for release are being parked.
- All future studio content that was currently in production or planning has stopped.
- investment in Disney+ and streaming capacity has already eaten into free cash flow.
The good....
- $1.6b in cash on hand
- $12.25 billion of revolver capacity, presently undrawn
- Last week, Disney noted that it would be issuing about $6 billion in debt to manage its liquidity, adding to its total borrowings of roughly $48 billion.
- Strong Disney+ subscriber increases
- Large library of movies and programming to attract viewers.
- Mild rumor of an Apple merger being discussed.
I disagree. It’s not “the question”. The real question is when do the risks of staying closed exceed the risks of opening? You can say that’s the same thing, but I don’t think it is. You’ll never get anybody to say “I think I’m ok with “x” number of deaths resulting from opening things up”. So that alone makes it a bull**** question. You will, however, get people to say that the risks of staying closed exceed those of opening.
That’s fair. I think implied in that equation too is “how many deaths is acceptable” related to the importance of the industry. I think we could agree that a food processing plant would be weighted differently than a stadium (or the Disney parks).
dharp
Salad tosser
And who would that be? Would that be Nicolas Maduro in Venzezuela? Lets keep politics out on this feed.
Thanks
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Alright here's what I'd say with this-I think some states can start to safely begin to turn some things back on late this month or early next. Everybody should be working towards that. I think Colorado is one of them. Here's one idea as to what that could mean:
1) Lifting the ban on medical procedures that can be put off. Think knee replacements, hip replacements, or surgeries for athletic injuries here. Our hospital capacity (from the modeling I've seen) at least is at a point where we can safely do that for right now. No need to ask our medical professionals to take cuts in pay or hours if we don't need to. This could be changed if we see a spike in COVID cases.
2) Companies can start to go back to work with a couple caveats-If an employee isn't comfortable going back in or in a high risk group for COVID, they should still be telecommuting.
3) Small gatherings-say no more than 10-15 people-are okay. Think children's playdates and visits to family here.
4) Non-essential retail can re-open provided they can maintain good physical distancing. How they do that is up to them.
Bars and restaurants should continue to do what they're doing through at least May 11. Cinemas can probably reopen as soon as the CDC says gatherings of 50 or more are safe. Gyms should probably wait until that number reaches at least 100. Amusement Parks? Probably even longer.
Lets talk sports now-which can start planning on returns to TV only for right now in June or later....which gives us another month to ramp up the testing infrastructure. Golf being first is logical, and now that the PGA has shown their hand-I would expect everybody else to start to follow suit. Baseball, basketball, and hockey can start to plan a return in a bubble setting in which only essential personnel and families would be allowed to attend in person if they can find a governor willing to play ball (pun intended) with them in that regard. You can't tell a guy like Mike Trout you either miss the birth of your kid or you're quarantined for 2 weeks after you get back from that. Doug Ducey in Arizona said he's good with MLB playing an entire season of some length down there as soon as its safe to do so. DeSantis in FL has already declared sports an essential business in that state-so playing the entire season at empty spring training stadiums is probably not that far off. Doug Burgum in North Dakota made similar comments on the NHL up there. Basketball and hockey should probably focus on trying to crown champions more than anything-No point in bringing teams who were hopelessly out of playoff contention when those sports went on hiatus like the Knicks, Red Wings, and Warriors back to play 17ish games that do nothing but hurt their draft lottery position. I'd say expanded playoffs of 12 teams per league (so we're not ****ing over the teams like the Blazers that could still make the playoffs if there were a normal finish) is a pretty good place to start.
Football? I think the NFL goes off as planned with some minor changes. No international series for this year (which may help the Broncos given that "road" game against the Falcons was probably going to be played in the UK). That's more of a made for TV product anyway, so the question of fans or not is something they can deal with later this summer, and it probably wouldn't be a huge concern. The NFL can easily survive a year of no ticketing revenue given how big their TV deals are.
I think Fowler's take from over the weekend was spot on on college football. The only way we don't see a full season at some point during the 20-21 calendar year IMO is if it isn't safe for students to return to campus for the better part of the fall. Still think a delayed start isn't out of the question for CFB, but the end of May timeline Fowler cited in the IG vid he did over the weekend is logical. Too much economic/title 9 damage for schools if there were no football.
1) Lifting the ban on medical procedures that can be put off. Think knee replacements, hip replacements, or surgeries for athletic injuries here. Our hospital capacity (from the modeling I've seen) at least is at a point where we can safely do that for right now. No need to ask our medical professionals to take cuts in pay or hours if we don't need to. This could be changed if we see a spike in COVID cases.
2) Companies can start to go back to work with a couple caveats-If an employee isn't comfortable going back in or in a high risk group for COVID, they should still be telecommuting.
3) Small gatherings-say no more than 10-15 people-are okay. Think children's playdates and visits to family here.
4) Non-essential retail can re-open provided they can maintain good physical distancing. How they do that is up to them.
Bars and restaurants should continue to do what they're doing through at least May 11. Cinemas can probably reopen as soon as the CDC says gatherings of 50 or more are safe. Gyms should probably wait until that number reaches at least 100. Amusement Parks? Probably even longer.
Lets talk sports now-which can start planning on returns to TV only for right now in June or later....which gives us another month to ramp up the testing infrastructure. Golf being first is logical, and now that the PGA has shown their hand-I would expect everybody else to start to follow suit. Baseball, basketball, and hockey can start to plan a return in a bubble setting in which only essential personnel and families would be allowed to attend in person if they can find a governor willing to play ball (pun intended) with them in that regard. You can't tell a guy like Mike Trout you either miss the birth of your kid or you're quarantined for 2 weeks after you get back from that. Doug Ducey in Arizona said he's good with MLB playing an entire season of some length down there as soon as its safe to do so. DeSantis in FL has already declared sports an essential business in that state-so playing the entire season at empty spring training stadiums is probably not that far off. Doug Burgum in North Dakota made similar comments on the NHL up there. Basketball and hockey should probably focus on trying to crown champions more than anything-No point in bringing teams who were hopelessly out of playoff contention when those sports went on hiatus like the Knicks, Red Wings, and Warriors back to play 17ish games that do nothing but hurt their draft lottery position. I'd say expanded playoffs of 12 teams per league (so we're not ****ing over the teams like the Blazers that could still make the playoffs if there were a normal finish) is a pretty good place to start.
Football? I think the NFL goes off as planned with some minor changes. No international series for this year (which may help the Broncos given that "road" game against the Falcons was probably going to be played in the UK). That's more of a made for TV product anyway, so the question of fans or not is something they can deal with later this summer, and it probably wouldn't be a huge concern. The NFL can easily survive a year of no ticketing revenue given how big their TV deals are.
I think Fowler's take from over the weekend was spot on on college football. The only way we don't see a full season at some point during the 20-21 calendar year IMO is if it isn't safe for students to return to campus for the better part of the fall. Still think a delayed start isn't out of the question for CFB, but the end of May timeline Fowler cited in the IG vid he did over the weekend is logical. Too much economic/title 9 damage for schools if there were no football.
Last edited:
When you mention "freedoms", the oh so precious "economy" and are essentially saying people should go about their business like they usually would you automatically bring politics into this feed. Thanks.
If you don't think that major corporations - and their insurers - calculate the impact of possible deaths into their risk equations, you are being exceedingly naive. When Disney reopens parks, it will be after many actuarial hours spent analyzing the impact and tolerance for all manor of subsequent lawsuits and public opinion fallout.
That is the right, and really, only defensible approach.
To do anything else would so blatantly expose the hypocrisy at the heart of college football that even the
Define risk(s) as you are using it. Unless you define risk(s) you are just handwaving at the issue.
FIFY. Calling it "risk" allows someone to not grapple with difficult fact that it really is human lives we are talking about.
Lots of people are very uncomfortable about confronting the choices we make every day.
We choose to have higher speed limits on highways than really is absolutely "necessary" - even though we know (if we admit it) that that choice leads to additional deaths every single year, and many of those deaths are "innocent," aka they weren't the ones speeding.
We choose to deploy vaccines with side effects that will kill a microscopically small number of people because the benefit to the many is so large. Lots and lots of people live as a result of that choice, but that's small comfort to the one in a hundred million whose kid dies.
Even bringing it back to football: it's a sport whose "risk" really is measured in human lives. That's hard to grapple with - see some of the threads discussing CTE on this very board. Calling it "risk" instead of "this many people die" helps us ignore the true costs.
I'm not, and I don't think anyone here is, advocating for a "zero risk" society, but we owe it to ourselves to be brutally honest about what our collective choices about "risk" really mean.
They mean that often innocent people die as a result of our collective choices to pursue entertainment.
And under a certain threshold that's probably ok. Life isn't really worth living with zero entertainment. I firmly believe that entertainment actually is a basic human need. The trick is to find the balance where the
Modern football is, in my opinion, right on that edge of "ok." But it can easily (and sometimes does) get to the wrong side of that line. Of course there were probably ancient Romans who held similar opinions about the colosseum, so I'm going to admit that I could be wrong. And I sometimes worry that I am.
So sorry, @Not Sure , but Jim is right: it really is a question that you need to grapple with in a direct way.
Turn it over to ESPN U, if you have it.
Not being naive at all. I would expect all that to take place.
But when I talk about risks, I’m referring primarily to economic risks. At a certain point, the number of deaths becomes secondary to the economic catastrophe taking place. I don’t know when that will happen, but the voices bringing up that trade-off will get louder the longer this goes on.
You seem to be picking a fight with me for some reason.
So. to summarize, you are saying that a calculation of human loss vs. economic cost will take place. In other words, how many deaths are you willing to accept.
I don't get the obfuscation.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Nobody in their right mind thinks that's even going to happen, Jens. Come on. That said, Garcetti and Newsom overreached and both didn't know what the hell they were talking about when they made these comments. If you're arguing for something like this as a politician or arguing for an extension of a stay at home order into May, you better be able to come up with something better than "The modeling says....." to back it up.
Last edited:
Oh my head.
I’m simply saying that at a certain point there will be a line crossed where the risks of staying closed outweigh the risks of opening. That line is different for everybody. I think some have already crossed it. Governments will likely fall on the side of keeping things closed while industry will be looking to get back to normalized operations much faster.
I don’t get the obtuseness.
You bristled at the question of how many deaths are acceptable in order to get a theme park reopened. I believe you called the question asker a "dick". When you change the words "deaths" and "money" to the word "risk", it doesn't change the fact that those are the risks.
Until we have widespread testing, opening events and attractions that bring in large crowds will absolutely lead to a greater number of deaths. How many are you willing to accept to take that chance?