Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

172 Excellent

About zeWilbur

  • Rank
    Three-Star Recruit

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Alexandria, VA

Recent Profile Visitors

5,458 profile views
  1. Just put buckets of bleach on the floor and dunk the chains every rep. Added benefit of randomly disinfecting proximal surfaces with splashing and dripping on the way back up. This would include leaving puddles on the platform that players would walk through coating the bottom of the shoes. They would then walk around disinfecting other areas as they go. I see absolutely no way this could go badly.
  2. Trusting the numbers is part of the problem as they have not been well explained or even consistent. States like Virginia, Georgia, and Texas count virus and antibody tests as the same thing. Some states do not. There is also no filtering out of duplicates for people getting tested more than once. With antibody tests being reported and becoming generally available mid-May you would expect the numbers to inflate even with nothing really changing. Unfortunately as the testing was increasing states started to reopen, some goobers started running around with no masks for 'ma freedom', protests happened, and riots happened. Any of those would have a notable effect on the numbers. Combine them all and we don't have a controlled trickle as we turn the faucet back on. Instead we get a wide open fire hose and it becomes impossible to track what each portion led to. Because of the ambiguity I don't think anything will change unless the death rate significantly increases toward previous levels. If that doesn't happen I think we'll see something resembling football this fall. Another 6 weeks should be enough to determine what the current higher numbers really mean. That should give the decision makers enough top cover to make a decision either way.
  3. Bagmen have been following social distancing guidelines forever. Now more than ever it should be easy to drop off a package without making contact and not raise suspicion. They can even wear a mask if they like. This is truly a golden age for buying recruiting athletes.
  4. I agree that the Women's Soccer CBA is terrible. However, they do have guaranteed money contracts where I'm pretty sure the men do not. That part keeps getting overlooked when numbers get discussed and it is a pretty big deal.
  5. "Revolutionary" is a great word to describe this as it would burn everything down. Using the merit model you describe would mean that non-revenue producing sports would have unpaid athletes.That would be a title IX nightmare. Egalitarian and elitist systems do not play well together. That is why some of us are reticent to entertain this "revolution".
  6. Maybe. How much of that is Frost turning over the roster?
  7. California has lost more taxpayers than it has gained from other states every year in this decade. Worst rate in the country but still less than 1% of California's population. The 'exodus' term is overblown. Also, the 6.5% you reference includes birth and immigration so a bit of apples and oranges going on.
  8. I generally agree with the sentiment but the data has been skewed higher and is being treated as gospel. Some of your numbers are a gross exaggeration. I don't blame you at all as these have been told so many times people just stopped questioning them. Maybe this is better suited in a different forum but I think it is relevant here. tl;dr The numbers are bad enough already so why do people inflate them? It just distracts from the discussion. This is not a statement on whether the two players are right or wrong, just a missive pointing out a few issues with some generally accepted "truths" from the greater debate. Questioning the validity of numbers is not an argument that no issue exists, only to question the voracity of the claims from the data in question. That way we can have the same conversation and make progress without disagreeing on the facts. The internet can not be trusted. Do your own research people. Please. Here is a link to the 2019 survey the numbers are pulled from: https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Key-Issues/Campus-Safety/FULL_2019_Campus_Climate_Survey.pdf "80% of rapes or assaults are not reported because of you and your ilk. That's a fact. " That comes from this BJS report and is an extrapolated opinion. Unfortunately, proving a negative is notoriously difficult. At best it is an educated guess but it is certainly not a fact. "1 in 5 women is raped in college. That's a fact." - That is not a fact. That is a conflation of any unwanted touching and penetration, at best, from the 2015 version of this survey. The numbers are up a bit in the 2019 iteration over 2015. 15.3% reported unwanted touching, 10% reported unwanted penetration or an attempt at such (this is interesting only because it is the only time an 'unsuccessful attempt' is mentioned in the data set that I could find. 2.5% of female respondents were in both categories. The numbers from the BJS across all sexual assault categories for that age range is actually 6.1/1000 per year from 1995-2013, including men and women. Even if that is only 20% of actual (given the claim of 80% unreported) then you are at 30.5/1000. You would still need another 656% increase to make it to 200/1000. This is simply an absurd claim. "Nearly 1 in 10 women has been raped by someone she knows. That's a fact. " - That is not a fact. Perhaps this is just poorly worded. The majority (~85% of respondents) are victims of someone they know. So I am left to believe we have abandoned the college scope and entered the US as a whole. The current reported US rape rates are about 2.1(female age 12+) per 1000 in a given year, and has been trending down for decades. This makes things much more difficult as focusing on what has happened in a roughly 4 year window and opens up a whole can of worms. Using 2010 census data there are 117282036 women over 18. We have sexual assault data for 12+ but no census data for 12+. Using the 12+ number would only strengthen the 1 in 10 argument. Also using the assault BJS data from 1990 of 3/1000 ( worst number in the past 30 years I could find that wasn't estimated), and multiplying by 5 to grant the 80% argument, it would still take almost 67 years to hit 10% of the eligible population assuming no duplicates in the data. That does indicate a possibility that 1 in 10 women (over 18) may be raped in their lives. This is where most people just stop looking. But we can't forget that includes rape and unwanted touching numbers. The majority of those numbers are unwanted touching independent of rape. To err high I will assume half of those claims are rape. That changes it to 1 in 20 that a woman might be raped. Then, using the college survey, we can use ~85% having known their attacker, the number supporting that statement change to 1 in 26. That is the most favorable number I can come up with to support the statement "Nearly 1 in 10 women has been raped by someone she knows." and it is very generous. Getting back to the college survey... To me the most interesting part of the survey analysis being ignored was table A4.5 (Apendix 4-18). This table analyzed "Direction of non-response bias according to analysis of incentive groups for 10 outcome measures, by gender and affiliation status". It isn't made tangible in the result set but it is mathematically significant. - Penetration by Physical Force or Inability to Consent. There is one significant difference. The difference for undergraduate females is negative, indicating the survey estimates is too high. - Penetration or Sexual Touching without Ongoing Consent. There is one significant difference. The difference for undergraduate females is negative, indicating the survey estimates is too high. - Intimate Partner Violence. There is two significant difference. The differences for undergraduate males and females are negative, indicating the survey estimates are too high. Hopefully this was appreciated.
  9. tl;dr - Testosterone is throwing gasoline on a fire and we can't know when anybody's kicks in. Think of it like a growth spurt but for filling out instead of getting taller. The "seasoned lifter" argument is great but I feel it is more applicable to an upperclassmen. I think we are missing a crucial factor in this. He is a 18/19 year old kid and the hormones are raging. Every kid is different so you never know how/when it will hit. Anecdotally I think back to the summer before my senior year in high school. Doing T&F summer was my time off. I sat around my friends pool and played video games all day. I miss those days... Regardless, when school started up I had put on 15 pounds (205 to 220) and all my lifts increased about 10%. I have no idea what happened with muscle vs. fat so I won't make any claims but I would bet bone density was in there too. I had been lifting about 3 years at that point and was in shock that I had improved that much just sitting around. Even crazier, It happened again the next year. I thought it would just go like that forever. I was an idiot. Probably still am. But I would think a kid with better genes than mine would have something kick in similarly at some point. Combine that with actually lifting and eating well over a year and it wouldn't surprise me if they could put on 30 pounds of good weight in a year, but certainly not not every year.
  10. If a kid needs two years to develop then he isn't a day one starter. A day one starter is simply better than what you currently have, not what every school currently has. Some kid that needs two years to develop into a starter at Alabama might be physically ready to start as a freshman at Nebraska based on their current rosters.
  11. I disagree because it is a subjective statement. A day one starter at Nebraska might not be at Alabama. The statement is about recruiting yourself forward no matter where your team is at right now. We all want the 5 star kids but 3's and 4's can still meet the need.
  12. I would disagree about how a NG should be in a 3-4. The stalemate is great but he only takes one block. Both of the ends eat two. That is more useful even if they give ground (within reason). Unfortunately Honas blitzes (or reads run ridiculously quickly) on the weak side A gap. This play already had a numbers advantage to the strong side and that made it worse. Barry wasn't able to flow to the hole and Bootle can't make up the difference. If TR is able to eat two blocks this is a very different play.
  13. They can't, in the B1G at least. Every player could quit the team tomorrow and their scholarships are honored through at least 4 years if they are still getting the grades. It goes into a non-athletic distinction so it doesn't count against the 85 limit. The training camps are usually paid for by the agents who recoup when the checks start rolling in. They won't pay for the camps unless they are pretty darned sure they are getting their money back. Lower tier kids usually work out at their usual facilities with the coaches blessing.
  14. Sure. I would be on board with the FU-NCAA. The NCAA's spineless inconsistency neutered my faith in them years ago. Even if you removed the concerns of smaller schools I am not sure how you keep the same issues (corruption, lack of consistency, etc.) from happening. And if you were willing to go that far why not just separate from the schools completely and have a legitimate minor league? I don't want to strawman you but I haven't been able to think of a way to allow for any 'pay the players' type action without creating a best team money can buy scenario. How happy would you be losing indefinitely to Iowa because a T. Boone Pickens type figure emerged and bankrolled them because he "decided" that every player's autograph was worth at least $100k/year? No one in the B1G West (and likely the East) would be able to compete and every year would be a race for second at best. I just don't see that as a field all but 2-3 schools can compete on and would rather not ruin everything in pursuit of it. I am also not sure of which schools it would be but history tells me a few would likely be in Texas. And to head off the silliness Warren Buffet has already said he will never be that guy for us.
  15. Every major sports manages by having a single centralized power and players with collective bargaining. To accomplish that you would need every P5 and G5 school to give up whatever their specific benefits are so the NCAA can redistribute it in a 'fair' manner a la NFL, MLB, NHL. It would very likely take care of your concerns. However, you already feel that the NCAA is "unbelievably corrupt and greedy". I am not disagreeing at all. So the answer is giving them more power?
  • Create New...