Jump to content


zeWilbur

Members
  • Posts

    429
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Alexandria, VA

Recent Profile Visitors

6,015 profile views

zeWilbur's Achievements

Three-Star Recruit

Three-Star Recruit (4/21)

235

Reputation

  1. Dang. You might be onto something. I figured they would just try to bury TO alive, also at the 50 yard line, to absorb his power and help get Frost over the hump.
  2. Agreed. We went from a nice rhythm based offense all second half to playing as slow as possible in that drive and failing immediately, then switching into an air-raid hurry-up and took that mindset into overtime. No idea why we never made it back to what was generally successful all game.
  3. I did use historical vaccine as an ambiguous term, sorry. I meant that since we aren't rolling out shiny new vaccines for new illnesses ever year, modern society only has the concept of what it looks like at the end when have things essentially figured out with all the data we are going to get. Potential implementations for the sake of getting to the end as fast as we can often ignore what happen along the way. It appears to me that is the lynch pin to this whole scenario. People with concerns that can only be assuaged with enough data can't be convinced until long-term data is available. People who don't need that much data/convincing are able to reap the benefits sooner but take that trade with the potential costs. I see the disconnect now. I am not in any way saying to not have a strategy unless it is perfect. I am pointing out that the more aggressive/extreme the strategy the more it needs to be justified. Let's use your example. Having free testing/vaccines, education, and quarantining are akin to your speed limits. Low ask and not hard to get people to go along. But when someone in the school decides that isn't enough so they are going to ban traffic with 1/4 mile of the school. Including staff and student drop-off. Much bigger ask but maybe you could implement that as a strategy with a good enough argument. People just want to 'feel' safe more than anything. Regardless, it would certainly require a greater argument than getting the initial speed limit restrictions. That effort would be hard enough but when someone advocates for that policy to be mandated by a person without a background in civil engineering, logistics, child health, etc., it is even harder. Let's say it is the school janitor is this mystery hero. He truly believes he is doing the right thing. All he needs to do is stop being a coward and attack any car he sees near the school. Any who disagree should just shut up and do what they are told. If they don't like it they can go to another school. That is an extreme/ridiculous example but people are advocating for a football coach, or athletic director, mandating an invasive medical procedure for participation. This could be a college coach but it could just as easily be at the pop warner level. It isn't anywhere near his scope of responsibilities but that shouldn't stop him. He just needs to stop being a coward. If you don't get how saying that out loud might sound crazy to someone then you I don't think you understand the other side of the argument. I don't expect anyone to agree with any side. Everyone has a different world view and everyone is wrong. Forcing people to live according to your world view is just as wrong as you being forced to live by someone else's.
  4. Agreed. For some people, abandoning your principles isn't a choice.
  5. I never said that vaccines don't work. I pointed out that the current 'vaccine' does not work as we are used to with historical vaccines so we can't treat the expectations the same. If you get a polio vaccine then you 100% don't get polio and are incapable of passing on polio. Not so with covid. If you get a covid vax (picked pfizer for timely relevance but others are in alignment) you are looking at a ~90% resistance for catching and ~85% less likely to have it be a serious case if you do catch it. Both of those are great things and warrant recommending getting the vax. However, the viral shedding (contagiousness) is the same amongst vaxxed and un-vaxxed. So, my point was that mandating something to get a result MIGHT be warranted if you could guarantee the outcome. At this point you can't guarantee that a fully-vaxxed team couldn't have an outbreak or that any outbreak can only be caused by an un-vaxxed player. Having Frost "stop being a coward" and enforce a mandate with just that information is a tough sell on its own. Combining that with the variety of reasons someone won't/can't get the vax and the case isn't clear. Link where I pulled the vax numbers from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/Pfizer-BioNTech.html
  6. That level of authoritarianism might be justified if it completely kept you from catching it or spreading it, but it doesn't. Until that silver bullet exists you won't be able to know who on the team was/wasn't actually spreading anything. I struggle to find the rationality and common sense in forcing something to happen wouldn't guarantee a result while increasing risk in other areas. But maybe we just differ on that.
  7. Does anyone else think this whole thing is just a conspiracy to redo the scheduling so we have to play Ohio State for another 6 consecutive years?
  8. Playing Power 5 teams will always look better than the lower conference teams in terms of strength of schedule. - Sure, if you have the same record. But an 11-1 team with a win over podunk state has ALWAYS gotten the nod over a 10-2 team that didn't play podunk state. It all evens out - Nope. If the Pac 12 and B1G schools are both based on 7 home games, which they are, then it can't 'even out'. Every school has to take a hit. The only way to 'offset' having 6 home games one year is to have 8 the next. That isn't going to happen in this kind of a deal. We have already seen that going to a 9 game conference schedule in the B1G led to teams schedules two podunk games a year on the schedule to try and make up for it. In 2018 (don't have 2019 data) NU made about $5 million per home game. If they paid $1mil to the 'sacrificial' school then they are netting $4mil in that game. Technically, anything less than $5Mil is going to be profitable. Doing that twice a year would net an extra $8Mil for NU. Going to a home/home series to replace those two games would cost NU about 3.3Mil/year. Current - 4+4=8M Projected - (0 -.3(travel costs) )+5(not paying non P5 school)=4.7M Unless the media rights deal changes then this is a negative for most schools. Even then it may still be a net negative as all games are already baked into the cake and the new slice to offset this change has to come from somewhere. Maybe it can come from some synergy with the PAC and B1G but I doubt it. If the replacement non-P5 game every year is worth an extra $6/7mil, split amongst both teams playing, then it is certainly feasible to do that and break even. That would require the Pac12 having a media contract similar to the B1G. Not impossible but history has shown that isn't realistic to expect. You are correct, in the current model hundreds of millions would be saved over a long enough timeline. But, at the same time, billions would be lost. All for the privilege of not playing non-P5 schools. I just see it as stepping over dollars so you can pick up dimes.
  9. But it doesn't solve those problems at all. 1. Dramatically increasing the strength of schedule will do nothing to reduce national TV embarrassments. Even more people might watch it happen. No one cares who the opponent is when you lose by 30+. There are also plenty of embarrassing losses to be had, i.e. Rutgers, Oregon State, etc. 2. The reason for paying the smaller schools is to get seven home games. The entire fiscal model is based on that. They only pay because they make ridiculously more. Having a partnership with another conference doesn't solve that problem. It actually makes it worse because you have schools with more negotiating power all arguing for the seventh home game. Any media agreement would be shared with PAC12. Likely far better for the PAC12 than the B1G. Also likely at the cost of a home game and a net loss for Nebraska. 3. . The SEC has proven beyond doubt that SOS only matters with equal records. The B1G has proven that cannibalizing your conference with more conference games leads to obvious inclusion/exclusion and exactly zero edge cases getting in. I think it is lose-lose-lose.
  10. Basically, yes. A couple Oregon kids got a memorabilia deal in place. https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/oregon-football-kayvon-thibodeaux-signs-six-figure-endorsement-deal/ar-AALR4Hc
  11. "Market Rate" is terrible legal jargon that has been thoroughly dismissed in the courts in this context. You are reading it as the average of what everyone else gets which is fine when determining what reimbursement rates might be. However, if you can get that rate then it is literally "market rate". There is nothing that says where any individual would fall on the spectrum of current rates. It is well documented that Kylie Jenner makes over $1,000,000 per Instagram post. Saying that only a handful of athletes will be significantly impacted is likely short-sighted. It might still be illegal to just hand recruits piles of cash but I can't see how any coach will walk into a player's home without being able to talk to their player marketing department and show actual revenue numbers. Those numbers being directly impacted by business owners(boosters) and very likely growing as people figure out how to do this more effectively.
  12. Researchers at universities have to give LARGE percentages, sometimes north of 50%, of their funding to their departments to help fund other stuff. E.g. Grad student stipends, etc. Wonder if any schools repeat the model in sports to help spread the money around to other athletes. Also, has there been any sort of disclosure database announced? There has to be some system to keep in compliance with the university's rules. Just wondered if they were making it public.
  13. There has been some efforts done, mostly using the star rating based on 247/rivals/etc. So "analysts" select their favorite recruiting service and map that to what happened in the draft. I haven't seen one with a team/offers focus but there are things like a 5-star is 80% likely to make the NFL but 5-stars only make up about 10% of players drafted in a given year. The numbers for a given year also get skewed when players leave early for the draft. From a data perspective it is almost entirely garbage in/garbage out.
  14. My guess is aggregating independent studies. There are a staggering number of ongoing small studies being done by strength coaches, asst strength coaches, kinesiology majors, pt folks, etc. They have been gathering data for decades. You might not know the exact details for a given athlete at a given school but being able to determine averages by height/weight/age is likely pretty standard at this point.
×
×
  • Create New...