sunnyvol79
Tennessee Vol till I die
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,348
- Likes
- 3,508
UCLA apparently lost most of their defensive front. Checking the depth chart, they're mostly just 2 deep at those positions. That's all they have.Without getting into the pointlessness of testing asymptomatic people, the sheer lunacy of all these protocols....college football teams have close to 100 players on the roster. Let the walk ons play and play the damn game.
==I== give them too little credit? Seriously?I think you give these athletes too little credit.
Seems reasonable.
I suggest you line up play after play with some OLineman who knows how to play the position and outweighs you by about 50lbs.
You'll last about 5 minutes.
It's demonstrating that there's too many meaningless, nothing but TV money, bowl games.So, would your position be the same if this was a regular season game?
Personally, I think that if a team is unable to play at the agreed date, it should be a forfeit and count as a loss for the other team. If that were the case, I have a feeling a great deal of these cancellations would not be happening.
==I== give them too little credit? Seriously?
Perhaps you should rethink that. What would happen if I was the OC of NC State would be to double team some undersized, clueless CB/LB for about 3 plays, then run a trap on him and literally knock him out.
You're ridiculously disrespectful to the big uglies. Is it a "skill" position? You try to fight off a swim move OR have a decent chance rushing against a guy who defends it daily for the last several years.Firstly, let's assume your original premise is correct, that the entire defensive front for ucla is out. Your notion that they are only "2 deep" is preposterous. A quick Google search shows that they have 14 players listed at defensive line. Now, they may not all be scholarship players, but they have bodies they could play that are heftier than a cornerback. They also have nearly 20 listed as offensive lineman; I'm sure more than a few of those big 'uns played on the defensive side at some point in their lives. As you so aptly stated, it's a meaningless bowl game...let em play.
Secondly, and a more realistic viewpoint, it's probably safe to say that most of these positive tests for UCLA, and other teams, are asymptomatic, which means there is no scientific reason why they couldn't play.
To reiterate my main point, play the damn game.
It's demonstrating that there's too many meaningless, nothing but TV money, bowl games.
It's NOT the regular season. It's meaningless hence the UCLA team was at SeaWorld yesterday or the day before...... vacationing, unconcerned if they can't play.
Only fans (and perhaps admins hoping for bowl money) care. The teams realize the Holiday Bowl is nothing.
All failures to play in regular season games should start from being a forfeit if there's not some explanation (hurricane, etc) truly beyond the team's control.Once again, you are not answering my question. Merely arguing other points in order to obfuscate the fact that you are not answering the question.
You're ridiculously disrespectful to the big uglies. Is it a "skill" position? You try to fight off a swim move OR have a decent chance rushing against a guy who defends it daily for the last several years.
Your notion that "well, he played D a few times in Middle School, he's ready to play in college because he's big" is disrespectful of the linemen. Period.
I'm not triggered at all. I'm just being serious. If TN lost their entire QB room, should they play because they have some guys who played QB in HS?Someone is easily triggered....
It's football. And these guys are athletes. They'll be alright.
So, would your position be the same if this was a regular season game?
Personally, I think that if a team is unable to play at the agreed date, it should be a forfeit and count as a loss for the other team. If that were the case, I have a feeling a great deal of these cancellations would not be happening.
If you are going to have nonsensical rules in place, then you move forward with the nonsensical results.UCLA apparently lost most of their defensive front. Checking the depth chart, they're mostly just 2 deep at those positions. That's all they have.
You can't expect a team to play with 2nd string corners subbing in at nose tackle, can you?
The rules are nonsense.If you are going to have nonsensical rules in place, then you move forward with the nonsensical results.
They REALLY don't care about attendence at ESPN who owns/runs a lot of these bowls because they're selling millions in TV ads.If this continues I don't know how people spend money buying tickets. Even if they play the game, sitting 10 players could mean a vastly different product on the field.
If they aren't running a fever and had covid previously or are vaccinated... Play the game and let them play.Firstly, let's assume your original premise is correct, that the entire defensive front for ucla is out. Your notion that they are only "2 deep" is preposterous. A quick Google search shows that they have 14 players listed at defensive line. Now, they may not all be scholarship players, but they have bodies they could play that are heftier than a cornerback. They also have nearly 20 listed as offensive lineman; I'm sure more than a few of those big 'uns played on the defensive side at some point in their lives. As you so aptly stated, it's a meaningless bowl game...let em play.
Secondly, and a more realistic viewpoint, it's probably safe to say that most of these positive tests for UCLA, and other teams, are asymptomatic, which means there is no scientific reason why they couldn't play.
To reiterate my main point, play the damn game.