Redoutwest
Junior
Representing in the panhandle.....
Posts: 268
|
Post by Redoutwest on Sept 17, 2020 6:03:10 GMT -5
Wasn't Neb an AAU school at one point - during the application and right when they became a member? I don't think the B1G would have started the process if they weren't.
Nebraska wasn't my preference for expansion, but I don't hate them. Plus, this is a VB forum - and as you note, Neb is a fantastic get for VB.
And, was Delaney really sold on national titles, or was he sold on a program that has a passionate fan base even in bad times and a consistent, if not huge, media market?
That HUGE Omaha market. Hahaha No one cares about Nebraska football anymore. They’re the same thing as Illinois football. And yet Nebraska consistently brings in more money than Minnesota, Minnesota must really suck than.
|
|
|
Post by knapplc on Sept 17, 2020 6:46:32 GMT -5
Congrats, two B1G tickets on the same day -- impressive! Only like an hour and a half apart. The second trooper actually made a comment along the lines of "I see you've already met the Wisconsin State Patrol today". I told him, truthfully, that I thought I *had* slowed down. I was driving I-90 from Boston to Seattle, and I was getting kind of hypnotized by the open road. There was *no* traffic. These days I use cruise control to avoid such incidents, and haven't had a speeding ticket for many years. Interestingly, when I started driving on the tracks I also slowed down on the public highways. Probably a connection there. Nothing you can reasonably do illegally on an interstate is even half as fun as what you can do legally on a racetrack. Huge fan of cruise control. Has likely saved me from many speeding tickets.
|
|
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)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Sept 17, 2020 8:10:40 GMT -5
I think they shut it down because of the politics and bad optics of making money and “jeopardizing the health” of amateur athletes. Then those amateur athletes loudly spoke out and said it’s BS. We understand the risk. We understand what’s going on. Stop the politics, we want to play. I'm pretty sure they don't understand the risk. I say that because literally no one understands the risk right now - especially to young athletes. TIf they want to pretend that not understanding risk is no risk at all, well then i guess they are allowed to play dice. But ideally, we should be allowing them to avoid the risk, maintain eligibility and quelling the community spread so we and they can get back to normal life. They should try it. NY is pretty good right now, because we take the risk seriously. I just wish we didn't have to suffer to learn the lesson. Sounds like you are saying we can not understand risk when there is uncertainty? Everything we do has uncertainty - that is the essence of risk.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2020 9:35:15 GMT -5
That HUGE Omaha market. Hahaha No one cares about Nebraska football anymore. They’re the same thing as Illinois football. And yet Nebraska consistently brings in more money than Minnesota, Minnesota must really suck than. "Brings in more money", is a cryptic claim. You mean, they sell more tickets to football games? So what?
The reason the Big Ten is able to give each university $50M a year, is almost entirely due to TV contracts. Nebraska is a piddly little state, with relatively few TV households to market products for advertisers. And certainly, almost no one in the general, national, college football fanbase gives a crap about mediocre Husker football, anymore. The diehards are mostly Neb alumni, daydreaming about the late 90's and early 2000's.
In the vein of good faith, honest discussion: I would however love to see some actual data on how many cable/satellite subscribers in the Denver and KC TV markets have the Big Ten Network in their main channel tier, due to Nebraska being in the conference. That would move the needle, a bit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2020 9:38:43 GMT -5
That HUGE Omaha market. Hahaha No one cares about Nebraska football anymore. They’re the same thing as Illinois football. That’s a silly comparison. People care about Nebraska football good or bad. Sure ... people who live in Lincoln, Omaha, and the rest of the state. So, like, a million+ people?
National fanbase is not going to watch Nebraska. They don't carry games, anymore.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2020 9:42:15 GMT -5
You do realize that timeline would still break the record for how fast a vaccine had been developed and distributed - by a country mile. It's important that they get it right. There is a very important point that you're glossing over or not understanding: these vaccines weren't being made from scratch. MERS hit some countries pretty hard around 2015. And that was a quite deadly disease. The MERS virus is very closely related to the SARS1 and SARS2 viruses. So work on a vaccine for that has been going on for some years now. I believe that a lot of the vaccines that are almost to the finish line, started from that work ... not from scratch.
At a minimum: - Russia got hit hard, and so no surprise that they had one of the first vaccines ready to go ... they simply converted their MERS vaccine work into a SARS2 vaccine - another point is that South Korea also got hit by MERS. Guess which country had one of the best early responses to the pandemic? You think they just decided to do that from nothing? No, it was because they had a plan in place after what happened from MERS.
|
|
|
Post by knapplc on Sept 17, 2020 9:43:44 GMT -5
So, you don't know the impact Nebraska has had on viewership, you just presume it's confined within the borders of this state, and that's your argument.
You can either keep getting dragged by anyone who wants to respond to you or you can offer a mea culpa and walk away from this "I hate Nebraska" tangent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2020 9:45:23 GMT -5
So, you don't know the impact Nebraska has had on viewership, you just presume it's confined within the borders of this state, and that's your argument. So, you don't know the impact Nebraska has had on viewership, you just presume it's nationally very prominent, because the team was a national contender in the late 90's and early 2000's, and that's your argument.
**Even though I very clearly mentioned Denver and KC, but you of course ignore that. You tend to ignore parts of posts (or whole posts) that you don't like. Not into good faith discussion, are ya?
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Sept 17, 2020 9:52:07 GMT -5
That HUGE Omaha market. Hahaha No one cares about Nebraska football anymore. They’re the same thing as Illinois football. And yet Nebraska consistently brings in more money than Minnesota, Minnesota must really suck than. I saw this the other day for an entirely other reason, but thought it belonged here as a backdrop for this pissing contest about who has more money.
|
|
|
Post by knapplc on Sept 17, 2020 10:05:20 GMT -5
So, you don't know the impact Nebraska has had on viewership, you just presume it's confined within the borders of this state, and that's your argument. So, you don't know the impact Nebraska has had on viewership, you just presume it's nationally very prominent, because the team was a national contender in the late 90's and early 2000's, and that's your argument.
**Even though I very clearly mentioned Denver and KC, but you of course ignore that. You tend to ignore parts of posts (or whole posts) that you don't like. Not into good faith discussion, are ya?
I do know the impact Nebraska has had on viewership, I just don't care to do your legwork for you. I presume you're familiar with Google, you just choose not to use it because you're too focused on your dislike of Nebraska. It's a weird way to live your life, but you do you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2020 10:16:04 GMT -5
So, you don't know the impact Nebraska has had on viewership, you just presume it's nationally very prominent, because the team was a national contender in the late 90's and early 2000's, and that's your argument.
**Even though I very clearly mentioned Denver and KC, but you of course ignore that. You tend to ignore parts of posts (or whole posts) that you don't like. Not into good faith discussion, are ya?
I do know the impact Nebraska has had on viewership, I just don't care to do your legwork for you. I presume you're familiar with Google, you just choose not to use it because you're too focused on your dislike of Nebraska. It's a weird way to live your life, but you do you. You're able to precisely quantify the difference in viewership that all televised Big Ten events would have had since fall of 2011, if they had instead selected Missouri as the 12th member?
Of course you can't. Not even close. You're a fraud if you claim otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Sept 17, 2020 10:45:56 GMT -5
I do know the impact Nebraska has had on viewership, I just don't care to do your legwork for you. I presume you're familiar with Google, you just choose not to use it because you're too focused on your dislike of Nebraska. It's a weird way to live your life, but you do you. You're able to precisely quantify the difference in viewership that all televised Big Ten events would have had since fall of 2011, if they had instead selected Missouri as the 12th member?
Of course you can't. Not even close. You're a fraud if you claim otherwise.
Of course I'm not a fan of Nebraska, but I believe you are off-base in your claims. With a quick search, I found these ratings numbers from a site for the 2018 season (couldn't find the 2019 season). For some reason, it only brought up 6 games for each school. Here's the numbers for Minnesota (the first number is the rating and the second number is the number of viewers in thousands - so for the first game below, the rating is .23 and the number of views is 395 which is 395,000). Minnesota September 8, 2018 Fresno State vs. Minnesota (MWC, B1G) (FS1) 0.23 395 October 13, 2018 Minnesota vs. Ohio State (B1G) (FS1) 1.5 2,405 October 26, 2018 Indiana vs. Minnesota (B1G) (FS1) - 335 November 10, 2018 Purdue vs. Minnesota (B1G) (ESPN2) 0.3 534 November 24, 2018 Minnesota vs. Wisconsin (B1G) (ESPN2) 0.65 1,031 December 26, 2018 Minnesota vs Georgia Tech (Detriot) (ESPN) 1.6 2,686 Nebraska September 8, 2018 Colorado vs. Nebraska (P12, B1G) (ABC) 2.1 3,394 September 22, 2018 Nebraska vs. Michigan (B1G) (FS1) 0.9 1,449 October 13, 2018 Nebraska vs. Northwestern (B1G) (ABC) 1.7 2,450 November 3, 2018 Nebraska vs. Ohio State (B1G) (FOX) 3.1 5,006 November 17, 2018 Michigan State vs. Nebraska (B1G) (FOX) 1.6 2,515 November 23, 2018 Nebraska vs. Iowa (B1G) (FOX) 2.1 3,664
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2020 10:51:27 GMT -5
You're able to precisely quantify the difference in viewership that all televised Big Ten events would have had since fall of 2011, if they had instead selected Missouri as the 12th member?
Of course you can't. Not even close. You're a fraud if you claim otherwise.
Of course I'm not a fan of Nebraska, but I believe you are off-base in your claims. With a quick search, I found these ratings numbers from a site for the 2018 season (couldn't find the 2019 season). For some reason, it only brought up 6 games for each school. Here's the numbers for Minnesota (the first number is the rating and the second number is the number of viewers in thousands - so for the first game below, the rating is .23 and the number of views is 395 which is 395,000). Minnesota September 8, 2018 Fresno State vs. Minnesota (MWC, B1G) (FS1) 0.23 395 October 13, 2018 Minnesota vs. Ohio State (B1G) (FS1) 1.5 2,405 October 26, 2018 Indiana vs. Minnesota (B1G) (FS1) - 335 November 10, 2018 Purdue vs. Minnesota (B1G) (ESPN2) 0.3 534 November 24, 2018 Minnesota vs. Wisconsin (B1G) (ESPN2) 0.65 1,031 December 26, 2018 Minnesota vs Georgia Tech (Detriot) (ESPN) 1.6 2,686 Nebraska September 8, 2018 Colorado vs. Nebraska (P12, B1G) (ABC) 2.1 3,394 September 22, 2018 Nebraska vs. Michigan (B1G) (FS1) 0.9 1,449 October 13, 2018 Nebraska vs. Northwestern (B1G) (ABC) 1.7 2,450 November 3, 2018 Nebraska vs. Ohio State (B1G) (FOX) 3.1 5,006 November 17, 2018 Michigan State vs. Nebraska (B1G) (FOX) 1.6 2,515 November 23, 2018 Nebraska vs. Iowa (B1G) (FOX) 2.1 3,664 Fresno St vs Colorado? Indiana vs Michigan? ESPN2/FS1 vs FOX/ABC? Not at all apples to apples.
But anyway, I wasn't arguing anything about Nebraska vs Minnesota. That isn't relevant to the discussion of if a non-AAU school like Nebraska deserved to be elevated into the Big Ten.
Again, my argument is: what is Nebraska's hindsight VAR (value above replacement) with respect to hypothetically having added Missouri? No one can claim to give a precise estimate. But in a general guess, I say they would've been a far better choice. A legitimate academic school, and much more market bang for the buck, when you realize that neither school will likely ever compete for a national championship in football, going forward.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Sept 17, 2020 10:54:42 GMT -5
You do realize that timeline would still break the record for how fast a vaccine had been developed and distributed - by a country mile. It's important that they get it right. There is a very important point that you're glossing over or not understanding: these vaccines weren't being made from scratch. MERS hit some countries pretty hard around 2015. And that was a quite deadly disease. The MERS virus is very closely related to the SARS1 and SARS2 viruses. So work on a vaccine for that has been going on for some years now. I believe that a lot of the vaccines that are almost to the finish line, started from that work ... not from scratch.
At a minimum: - Russia got hit hard, and so no surprise that they had one of the first vaccines ready to go ... they simply converted their MERS vaccine work into a SARS2 vaccine - another point is that South Korea also got hit by MERS. Guess which country had one of the best early responses to the pandemic? You think they just decided to do that from nothing? No, it was because they had a plan in place after what happened from MERS.
OK. So, how does any of that contradict my point about COVID vaccine development being extremely fast? It's still going to take months to get testing done. The russian vaccine was fast-tracked for approval in Russia, but a lot of people aren't happy about the lack of thorough safety testing, and others are pointing to irregularities in the data. Such vetting is what you go through when you are trying to make a vaccine. The Russian vaccine won't be widely available for months and may not even get approved by the FDA and WHO because of the lack of testing. There are literally dozens of vaccine candidates that build on a lot of preexisting knowledge about Coronaviruses. I posted about that and the optimism about vaccines on here back in May, I think. Still, vaccines are tricky because the immune responses they elicit can be quite dangerous (those are usually what kill people with COVID after all), unpredictable and variable from person to person. That is why it's important to test them well. Their effects can also be fleeting depending on what part of the immune system they trigger. One reason phase 3 trials take so long is that the duration of the immune response needs to be assessed. It's definitely true that countries - like South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan - with prior experience with respiratory disease outbreaks like MERS and SARS did much better at dealing with COVID. They adopted mask use very quickly, tested heavily early on and traced and isolated contacts effectively. That's where a lot of the best data about spread comes from. It's how we know that people without symptoms spread the disease, and that there are superspreaders.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2020 10:58:18 GMT -5
There is a very important point that you're glossing over or not understanding: these vaccines weren't being made from scratch. MERS hit some countries pretty hard around 2015. And that was a quite deadly disease. The MERS virus is very closely related to the SARS1 and SARS2 viruses. So work on a vaccine for that has been going on for some years now. I believe that a lot of the vaccines that are almost to the finish line, started from that work ... not from scratch.
At a minimum: - Russia got hit hard, and so no surprise that they had one of the first vaccines ready to go ... they simply converted their MERS vaccine work into a SARS2 vaccine - another point is that South Korea also got hit by MERS. Guess which country had one of the best early responses to the pandemic? You think they just decided to do that from nothing? No, it was because they had a plan in place after what happened from MERS.
OK. So, how does any of that contradict my point about COVID vaccine development being extremely fast? It's still going to take months to get testing done. The russian vaccine was fast-tracked for approval in Russia, but a lot of people aren't happy about the lack of thorough safety testing, and others are pointing to irregularities in the data. Such vetting is what you go through when you are trying to make a vaccine. The Russian vaccine won't be widely available for months and may not even get approved by the FDA and WHO because of the lack of testing. There are literally dozens of vaccine candidates that build on a lot of preexisting knowledge about Coronaviruses. I posted about that and the optimism about vaccines on here back in May, I think. Still, vaccines are tricky because the immune responses they elicit can be quite dangerous (those are usually what kill people with COVID after all), unpredictable and variable from person to person. That is why it's important to test them well. Their effects can also be fleeting depending on what part of the immune system they trigger. One reason phase 3 trials take so long is that the duration of the immune response needs to be assessed. It's definitely true that countries - like South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan - with prior experience with respiratory disease outbreaks like MERS and SARS did much better at dealing with COVID. They adopted mask use very quickly, tested heavily early on and traced and isolated contacts effectively. That's where a lot of the best data about spread comes from. It's how we know that people without symptoms spread the disease, and that there are superspreaders. I disagree with nothing in your post.
In your previous post, I disagreed with "country mile". I disagreed with that because, it's not take a 10 year process and compressing it into <1 year, as it read to me you were trying to make it sound.
It is still compressing it, somewhat.
|
|