Rochelobe

I guess for Desmond: Hatred of Ohio State >> Contempt for Nebraska.

I think that fatigue is understandable. This whole thing has to be hard on kids - particularly ~K-6 or so that are just trying to figure out how to learn, and then we have to layer socially distant/masked school or zoom school on them. I could see older kids having a little more patience, but after 2 months of this directly following on the end of a turbulent spring semester, they are probably really frustrated. I'm not sure what the answer is. Distance education just doesn't seem viable as the primary educational paradigm. Using it to cover the occasional snow day, etc. is probably ok, but I would think the vast majority of K-12 students will struggle with distance learning. Having them do in person with all the COVID restrictions probably also saps any enthusiasm. While some children have died due to COVID, that part is a much lower risk for them, however we are starting to see data that shows they are quite able to catch it at high rates, and spread it to their parents/grandparents/etc just as effectively as adults transfer it. For schools it is difficult to win - if they say come to school and relax the rules and a kid dies/suffers debilitating effects, the school district get sued, probably successfully. It is just a tough situation all around. I don't envy those of you having to try and teach younger kids in that environment. I do some part time teaching for a community college, and there the expectations are a little different - students aren't required to be in college. So saying (nicely) "suck it up and put in the effort" is more supported by the college administration.

Yes, the evidence seems to be building up: 1. Anecdotally (increased number of non-masking politicians from one party suddenly testing positive - seemingly from a single event vs none/very few from other party with generally higher masking use) 2. Daily positive counts where we are now seeing a surge in states that have been more relaxed (or even antagonistic) about masking requirements (e.g.: South Dakota). Several of these states are more rural than those that suffered the initial Mar/Apr/May outbreak. Many scientists said earlier this year those rural states would have a coronavirus increase later in the year, unless they were diligent about enforcing masking, no large events, etc. At the end of the day, I chalk up mask resistance to a form of risk analysis failure. Typically we see it the other way around - people that undervalue significant risks since they tend to view things only anecdotally. If it hasn't happened to them (or someone they personally know) then it must not happen to anyone. Mask use is even more difficult to convince doubters on, since the primary purpose is to protect others from your aerosols. Its a mutual protection plan, where you as an individual actually need others to follow the rules to help reduce your risk. It also requires large scale compliance consistency (see the White House Rose Garden event as a counter example, or the recent outbreak from a Sweet 16 party on Long Island). I'd like to think use of the Swiss Cheese Model for accident causation (used heavily in things like aircraft safety design) applied to virus protection would help them understand, but I think they've decided to let emotion rule their thoughts - "politician I believe says masks are bad, so masks are bad". No analysis, no evidence, just opinion. Masks alone are not a 100% solution either, as we know. However: Social Distancing as much as possible + Masks + short exposure when distancing not possible + outdoors where possible + hand washing + ... will keep reducing the risks. The idea is to have multiple weapons simultaneously deployed against the threat. Masks are one of the important weapons in this fight. If people get complacent on one or more of these approaches then the result can be an increase in positivity rates (as we are seeing presently, for example, in several places in Nebraska, South Dakota, etc.)

I've often wondered if people that make such simplistic arguments against masking apply it elsewhere to other things: 1. "Nebraska only got 1 yard rushing on the last play, so running plays are not the answer." or the related "Nebraska threw an incomplete pass, so passing plays are not the answer." 2. "We still have car accidents where people wearing seat belts die, so seat belts are 'no panacea'." 3. "A guy choked to death on a piece of broccoli, so eating vegetables is not a good idea."

Reading this article seemed like a more compressed version of the struggles that Nebraska has had from ~2002 to present. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2020/10/08/florida-state-football-searches-identity-notre-dame-game-looms/3634225001/ This stuff seems similar to what Nebraska has gone through, only just more compressed. 1/2 of the 2018 recruiting class gone by the 2020 season. Hopefully Nebraska has started to establish some stability - I have a hard time picking a final record for this year with all the unknowns - I can see reasonable arguments all the way from 0-8 up to 6-2, but I'll split the difference and say 3-5. I think as long as they stay competitive they will position themselves well for 2021. I just hope that all the fans that clamored for a season this year will be patient if it goes 3-5 or worse.

So perhaps it is now the most unified since the days of Spanier (Chancellor)/Massengale (Pres)/Devaney (AD)/Osborne (Coach), if we are comparing to the current Green/Carter/Moos/Frost lineup. I'm sure there was tension between those guys in some ways (probably not much between Devaney and Osborne), but it seems maybe we just didn't hear about it as much back then. Not compared to the Bryne/Osborne, Pederson/Everyone, Eichorst/Pelini turmoil of the more recent past (as well as Perlman). I do remember when Spanier made the wisecrack after leaving Nebraska and starting at Penn State, saying that he now knew that in actuality the Penn State receiver in 1982 was in bounds. What a freaking wanker.

I think the one positive is that the Big Ten sounds like they will be pretty strict with the immediate testing along with the 21 day mandatory exclusion period. Obviously there is still a chance one or more players could get seriously ill or die due to COVID, but at least they seem to have mitigated the chaos of contact tracing, which seems almost impossible with a large population of college students. In that respect the Big Ten is at least leading, since the other conferences are doing the slower test returns along with contact tracing. I think the SEC/ACC/Big XII have to think about doing the immediate testing approach as well, otherwise, they could actually have a harder time finishing their seasons than the Big Ten will have. I'm like you, I will watch, but part of me is concerned about what happens if a serious COVID related issue develops (beyond asymptomatic positives that simply cause postponement/cancellation, etc.)

But he also always lost 4. So which would be dominant? "The stoppable force vs the movable object"

I think originally this was year 1 (of 2) where Nebraska was supposed to end the season with Minnesota (before the first COVID schedule was released). I think now since the "end of season" is Dec 12 (before the +1 on Dec 19) we could get Iowa on Thansgiving. It will be interesting - will they put the cross over games at the end to try and make sure they get all the division games in first?

Naturally.... http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=29897527 I can't stand Finebaum.

Maybe the Big Ten is trying to enforce a "bubble" mentality among the players without having to officially have programs create formal bubbles for the players?

Thanks, now I'm going to hear Beth Mowins in my head all day talking about "the Carnhuskers"

The "unity" of the Big Ten, which they have cultivated for 100 years, is basically illusory. This may be the first time that internal conflict within the conference on an issue has been exposed so obviously. People want to hate on Warren (and he has been somewhat of a buffoon during this), but he is (was?) simply the mouthpiece. At this point we are seeing things peeled back some to the President/Chancellor level, with some State Governors thrown in for good measure. The fact that there was a hearing before the Senate regarding the playing of Big Ten football this fall is just crazy.

From earlier today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2020/09/15/college-football-wisconsin-chancellor-addresses-big-ten-return-talk/5806021002/ I think everyone following this is going to get whiplash at some point. So did the Chancellors overrule the Presidents on releasing a decision today? Did Carter try to start the ball rolling by intentionally saying his hot mic "accident"? Will Rutgers run away and get married? Tune in tomorrow on the next episode of "As The Big Ten Turns" Edit (to add quote I forgot to include from article) I suppose those answers could come tomorrow, but to me this looks like we won't hear a decision soon.

The announcers were really impressed by that series in particular. You could tell they would like to see David play for a contender.

Sort of the same style as that psychic from years ago (Jeanne Dixon?) that would make ~100 predictions at the start of the year about celebrities, then when one or two of them would come true, crow about how great she was.

Shouldn't those fans that think the Big XII is the place for Nebraska be reconsidering at this point and pushing for the Sun Belt?

Is this the first postponement by a Nebraska high school (other than OPS cancelling the season?): https://www.1011now.com/2020/09/09/kearney-high-school-varsity-and-jv-teams-quarantined-following-positive-test/ We will probably see an increase in these postponements among high schools as the season progresses - will that coupled with the recent death of the one player keep the Big Ten from playing until at least Thanksgiving?

All three pro leagues are being successful, but - NHL and NBA are in a bubble, and not traveling or interacting with the outside world (and keeping all those coming in and out separated from the actual players/coaches). MLB is traveling and playing and has been successful when players follow the protocols. I think that is the biggest issue with college players. We've already seen more outbreaks than I can remember at colleges among the normal student population, mostly caused by not following protocols. If the players would follow all protocols and stay in isolation, then I think that they could have similar success as the pro leagues. However, it is probably a lot to ask of the players when they also have to attend classes with other students who are not following the protocols. Even if the players are diligent, they will probably still get exposed in those scenarios.

Just the very tweet that is the topic within this thread. The last time I'm aware any President said anything concerning the operation of college football was in the days of Teddy Roosevelt (risk of injury/death in football). Unless you count Nixon chiming in on who should be named National Champions. And Trump said this for one reason - to get Big Ten football fans within the light bluish or purplish states to vote for him. He thinks getting football fans in those states to love him for "getting football back" will make them sweep out in droves to vote for him. Several key states that are in play are in Big Ten Country (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa) and he needs to either shore up a small lead or make up a small deficit in order to make sure he gets those Electoral College votes. That is the only college Trump cares about.

Remember, his proper title is Dr. Bleach U.V. Hydroxycholorquine

A little hard to avoid any politics in this thread when the POTUS actually tweets about the topic we are discussing in this thread. Particularly when the POTUS in question has had a large polarizing effect on the American public.

Not even COVID wants to go to West Virginia.

Yes, but I don't remember him ever being part of a gambling organization, an alcohol company, or selling pot. My statement is that he didn't trash organizations he was part of. Are you saying he worked for a casino? Set up a medicinal marijuana store?

I think people forget that. The Pac 12 wanted Colorado and Texas, and was willing to take Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M and Texas Tech. If I remember correctly, there was some push within Texas state level politics to get them to take Baylor and I don't think they could ever come to an agreement between the Big 12 South and the Pac-12 and the deal kind of fell apart. The article you referenced focused on the football aspect, but Osborne also considered the academic benefit very important: https://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/illlni/osborne-nebraska-didnt-join-big-ten-for-the-money/article_edaebe85-a132-52cd-9213-5b4ff09eb841.html Based upon what I've heard the faculty say, the academic side has lived up to the potential promised in 2010. So, I'm not sure why Osborne would need to make some statement now. It has never been his style to trash an organization that he is part of, or even speak publicly against that organization in any significant way. Now that he is retired, he seems even more reticent to make any statements. My guess? If he spoke out it would probably be to emphasize patience to the Nebraska fans that are currently angry right now.