goldengophers
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,628
- Reaction score
- 2,063
- Points
- 113
Not shocking, first Declan Sullivan and now this. Brian Kelly is an extraordinary level of awful.
The reality is that there will be plenty of people that disagree with the restrictions and their value but threatening a boycott over it is just stupid.
Not shocking, first Declan Sullivan and now this.
Moving the game out of Pasadena doesn’t take away responsibility for keeping the virus down. Millions of people have made sacrifices and California may have to sacrifice the Rose Bowl.Wrong. You can't change the rules just so some kid gets to have his Mommy in the stands. Everyone needs to take the responsibility to keep the virus down. There are a lot of things that are not fair and millions of people have made sacrifices much greater than just not having their parents attend a football game.
False dilemma and binary fallacy.Sure, reasonable people can disagree on a lot of it. However, if it's safe enough to have a game of football, it's safe enough to have the parents sit in the stadium. If it's not safe enough to get 1,000 folks into a 70,000 capacity stadium, then the game shouldn't be played. But we all know the game brings in $$.
This isn't just a difference of opinion (of which I completely agree with you), this is hypocritical money grab and the regulations are merely a show.
The CFP can move the game, but they don’t own the rights to call it the Rose Bowl.Moving the game out of Pasadena doesn’t take away responsibility for keeping the virus down. Millions of people have made sacrifices and California may have to sacrifice the Rose Bowl.
Moving the game to a state that allows fans in the stands isn’t a big deal.
ND getting steam rolled so Kelly's dilemma is a moot point. Not a good decision on his part for complaining and he definitely comes off as tone deaf.
Totally ridiculous post. Who is grabbing the money? regulations are a show? That is the exactly the type of uninformed, selfish attitudes that have caused this mess and will prevent us from fixing it.Sure, reasonable people can disagree on a lot of it. However, if it's safe enough to have a game of football, it's safe enough to have the parents sit in the stadium. If it's not safe enough to get 1,000 folks into a 70,000 capacity stadium, then the game shouldn't be played. But we all know the game brings in $$.
This isn't just a difference of opinion (of which I completely agree with you), this is hypocritical money grab and the regulations are merely a show.
Your position on this has been abundantly clear to even the most casual of observers. Kudos.Totally ridiculous post. Who is grabbing the money? regulations are a show? That is the exactly the type of uninformed, selfish attitudes that have caused this mess and will prevent us from fixing it.
Have you even looked at the infection rates in California?
View attachment 10921
Will all of the hospital at capacity and thousands of people dying every day, using tracker trailers as morgues, the authorities do not have the time to mess with trying to force a few thousand people to keep there distance. I would much rather have the authorities helping those who are sick, not those who want to get sick!
And the correct decision has been made.
It won't be called the Rose Bowl.
The city of Pasadena and Tournament of Roses, own that intellectual property. The CFP can't use it.
The game at Jerryworld will be "the CFP semi-final game" or some such other silly name.
Thanks for sharing.I agree and certainly hope so but there is a precedent for it. Got a Gopher tie-in too.
In the early 1940s, the champion of the Pacific Coast Conference got to choose its opponent for New Year’s Day.
Oregon State — by virtue of a 7-2 record and a victory over rival Oregon in the regular-season finale — wanted No. 1 Minnesota, but the Gophers were barred from postseason play by their conference.
Second-ranked Duke was the second choice, and the Blue Devils quickly accepted. Smith recalls: “We were elated.” Their delight lasted less than two weeks — until the Japanese raid.
The Rose Bowl had continued through World War I, but this situation was different.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt warned the American public about further attacks on U.S. soil. On Dec. 13, military leaders contacted California Gov. Culbert Olson, who then sent a directive to the Tournament of Roses Assn.
Olson’s telegram said that “the unusually large gathering of people known to the enemy, exposing them to the dangers now threatening, requires that plans for holding of this tournament and football game be abandoned..
.The Rose Bowl moved in 1942, the only time the game hasn't been played in Pasadena. Here's why
A cold rain fell that New Year’s Day, and as the Duke football team ran onto a soggy field, one of the players joked that they should have worn boots instead of cleats.www.latimes.com