bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,904
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 12, 2020 11:31:55 GMT -5
Right, these kids are in a bubble among their peers and away from mom/dad/grandma unless a commuter; which I would think would not be many. Until they have high speed collisions, swapping spit and blood with others. The original comment was that we are trying to protect mom/dad/grandma - and putting people on a football field and away from their family for 4 months doesn't sound riskier for their family back home?
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Aug 12, 2020 11:34:39 GMT -5
I agree with this. I think they are hesitating because they are getting such blowback, but they will give in eventually. One thing to consider -- the vast majority of the players are African American, and COVID has hit that segment of the population particularly hard - with the disparity getting larger in younger groups, apparently. No one is sure why yet, but, if it is not a risk to the players themselves, it is a risk to their families and friends and to the larger community. And we're not going to be able to pull off bubbles in college football. So does playing football increase, reduce, or not change the risk to their families? I guess the answer depends - but unless those players are in lockdown, I just don't see them being better off not playing football for the risk to their families? I agree that it depends on many factors. A primary one is how much travel, and whether it's on charter, commercial, or bus. E.g. a big factor for the PAC-12 was that many teams fly commercially, which increases the risk for spread probably beyond the parties a non-athlete might attend. (Inability to test frequently enough and long turnaround time for tests was another.) The prevalence in the school community is another big one. E.g., if your school is in a hot spot, risk from parties and other social gatherings is high. If it's not but your opponents are from hot spots, playing is probably riskier. You also have increased risk from hotels, food from other areas, etc.
|
|
|
Post by knapplc on Aug 12, 2020 11:39:42 GMT -5
Meanwhile, while everyone is distracted dragging Nebraska for having the temerity to want to play ball this Fall...
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Aug 12, 2020 12:02:54 GMT -5
As long as you ignore 5 times the population, 4 times the GDP and the center of one of the larger and better known industries, then yup, you are right on. Compare to Iowa, sure, but Iowa is a legacy. Comparing to Michigan is just delusional. You know who disagrees with you? The Big Ten. Which is why they jumped at the chance to add Nebraska. Stop equating football success with TV ratings. Nebraska obviously made sense at the time, when it looked like we were moving to a small handful of 16 team conferences. Today the considerations would be different. Nebraska doesn't fit the academic profile that the B1G prefers, and is no where near Michigan in that regard. I know people argue about school rankings and not saying USNWR is the end all, but it is what came up quickly in a first search of B1G schools. Nebraska is last at 139. Iowa is second to last. way up at 84. Michigan is 25. Different universe.
|
|
|
Post by knapplc on Aug 12, 2020 12:17:22 GMT -5
You know who disagrees with you? The Big Ten. Which is why they jumped at the chance to add Nebraska. Stop equating football success with TV ratings. Nebraska obviously made sense at the time, when it looked like we were moving to a small handful of 16 team conferences. Today the considerations would be different. Nebraska doesn't fit the academic profile that the B1G prefers, and is no where near Michigan in that regard. I know people argue about school rankings and not saying USNWR is the end all, but it is what came up quickly in a first search of B1G schools. Nebraska is last at 139. Iowa is second to last. way up at 84. Michigan is 25. Different universe. Definitely agreed. We've had some bad leadership in the past 10-15 years and our standing among our academic peers has suffered. There's nothing to argue about there. When we joined the Big Ten, we were roughly 80-90 (I think?) or something. Not greatly dissimilar to where Penn State was when they joined the league. Penn State used their membership to increase their academic standing, and last I checked they were respectable. Nebraska... has not done that. And that is a huge sore spot with this state. So we're working on that, and hopefully we're a benefit to the conference academically in the not-too-distant future.
|
|
|
Post by yupyupyup on Aug 12, 2020 12:21:53 GMT -5
Until they have high speed collisions, swapping spit and blood with others. The original comment was that we are trying to protect mom/dad/grandma - and putting people on a football field and away from their family for 4 months doesn't sound riskier for their family back home? How does engaging in an activity where there is high likelihood of covid spread with a large number of athletes, coaches, officials be better than not participating in that activity? I understand if there is not a football season than that athlete will either be with family or whatever their living situation is, but we can’t ship off every young person (athlete or not) away from living with their family.
|
|
|
Post by nothingbutcorn on Aug 12, 2020 12:32:08 GMT -5
It goes back to AAU status. NE was and was kicked to the curb by the group. Because of the structure of the NE university system UNMC is off on it's own. If UNMC was on the Lincoln campus it would have been a none issue.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Aug 12, 2020 12:35:19 GMT -5
Nebraska obviously made sense at the time, when it looked like we were moving to a small handful of 16 team conferences. Today the considerations would be different. Nebraska doesn't fit the academic profile that the B1G prefers, and is no where near Michigan in that regard. I know people argue about school rankings and not saying USNWR is the end all, but it is what came up quickly in a first search of B1G schools. Nebraska is last at 139. Iowa is second to last. way up at 84. Michigan is 25. Different universe. Definitely agreed. We've had some bad leadership in the past 10-15 years and our standing among our academic peers has suffered. There's nothing to argue about there. When we joined the Big Ten, we were roughly 80-90 (I think?) or something. Not greatly dissimilar to where Penn State was when they joined the league. Penn State used their membership to increase their academic standing, and last I checked they were respectable. Nebraska... has not done that. And that is a huge sore spot with this state. So we're working on that, and hopefully we're a benefit to the conference academically in the not-too-distant future. Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Aug 12, 2020 12:42:10 GMT -5
Meanwhile, while everyone is distracted dragging Nebraska for having the temerity to want to play ball this Fall... Minimally, the optics of Frost saying it when he did are awful. It came across as both tone deaf and disloyal. Tone deaf because we are in a pandemic that is claiming a lot of lives, creating unemployment and financial hardship to tens of millions. Disloyal because even if you don’t agree with the overwhelming sentiment of your member institutions, you stand in unity with them. I’m a Nebraska fan and really like Frost but it was a dumb statement that shouldnt have come from a coach, he was for all intents and purposes speaking for the University and while the decision centered around football this is a student safety issue, not footballl.
|
|
|
Post by knapplc on Aug 12, 2020 12:50:49 GMT -5
Minimally, the optics of Frost saying it when he did are awful. It came across as both tone deaf and disloyal. Tone deaf because we are in a pandemic that is claiming a lot of lives, creating unemployment and financial hardship to tens of millions. Disloyal because even if you don’t agree with the overwhelming sentiment of your member institutions, you stand in unity with them. I’m a Nebraska fan and really like Frost but it was a dumb statement that shouldnt have come from a coach, he was for all intents and purposes speaking for the University and while the decision centered around football this is a student safety issue, not footballl. With friends like this...
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Aug 12, 2020 13:02:08 GMT -5
Until they have high speed collisions, swapping spit and blood with others. The original comment was that we are trying to protect mom/dad/grandma - and putting people on a football field and away from their family for 4 months doesn't sound riskier for their family back home? You reframed my point to make it seem much more trivial than I intended. Colleges are widely recognized as important vectors of disease because of shared space, resources, crowding and intermixing. That is why they are first to close, and why reopening has been such a huge kettle of fish. Simply having teams in sports that require a certain interaction that would be discouraged everywhere else on campus is risky. That problem is exacerbated exponentially in football because of the sheer numbers of players and potential contacts, and the nature of those contacts. In a situation where you move outside of controlled practice situations to real uncontrolled game situations with other teams from other institutions and communities it gets worse. Given current community infection rates, I'd guess the chances of at least one student athlete in a program getting infected during the season under that situation is almost surely 100%. No one is suggesting bubbling college football - I'm not sure how you could do it - and the testing isn't frequent enough to catch presymptomatic infections on time. If community policies are not geared to stop spread you lose control of who gets infected that means community spread: friends - family - friends - associates. (This is putting aside the issue of liability - which is a different dimension of the problem.) What people seem to be arguing is that sports provides more of a structured environment that should limit spread relative to what happens in a community. But I think that would only apply to sports with much smaller rosters and with different activities and if they were not on campus. Football is really the only sport under consideration here - it's driving everything due to economics. It is true that campuses and programs are trying to enforce stricter protocols than they would see outside of football, but the activities of football are worse than activities in the community in terms of spread - so you have to depend on barriers with the community in which spread is rampant. Again, you are not working in bubbles on campuses, campuses are not bubbled from communities, and the nature of football increases exposure rates and potential spread. It's already happened on several campuses. Officially, one of every 2000 people in the US has now died of COVID. The real number is almost certainly greater. And it is much worse if you consider African Americans alone.
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Aug 12, 2020 13:25:03 GMT -5
God save me from sanctimonious , self involved people who know what’s best for a college whether it be academically or sports. If you we’re half as brilliant as you think you are you would all be billionaires. Gag!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2020 13:30:29 GMT -5
God save me from sanctimonious , self involved people who know what’s best for a college whether it be academically or sports. If you we’re half as brilliant as you think you are you would all be billionaires. Gag! Who says we're not?
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Aug 12, 2020 13:33:35 GMT -5
God save me from sanctimonious , self involved people who know what’s best for a college whether it be academically or sports. If you we’re half as brilliant as you think you are you would all be billionaires. Gag! Who says we're not? anyone who has so much time that they can park on this site and reply endlessly to other posts, is not a billionaire. If you can’do that then you inherited it from mommy and daddy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2020 13:42:28 GMT -5
anyone who has so much time that they can park on this site and reply endlessly to other posts, is not a billionaire. If you can’do that then you inherited it from mommy and daddy. Says the guy with close to 28000 posts... Mommy and daddy leave HH with billions? Guess so...
|
|