Rochelobe

I'm sorry some of these posts are kind of getting off topic. To push it back toward football, I think had we followed masking, had we kept up with social distancing, even while doing some reopening to help the economy, I think the % chance of football would have been pretty good - maybe above 70% (for at least a Oct start, shortened season). But with the way things are, I think the % chance has dropped, possibly down to 15 to 20% or so. The move by the Big Ten to do conference only for all fall sports probably helps - since it most likely indicates some kind of agreement about testing protocols of players/staff, that may not be enough with the increases we are seeing in positive cases. So far at least, Big Ten states haven't seen as sharp an increase in June/July as the South/Southwest part of the country, so by Oct we may have rolled over to a low enough rate to be possible. However, without masking I think the Midwest/Great Plains will likely see another spike, probably starting in Aug/Sep, which would basically mean full cancellation.

Aside from vaccines another important medical area that doesn't get discussed as much - treatment of those with the virus. It seems progress is being made on better treatment which may be a reason for the decline in deaths despite the increase in positive cases. Granted other factors (younger people being more of the positives, lag between developing the disease and getting hospitalized/dying), but it seems that they are learning a few things about how to treat it, which means that while we wait for a vaccine they may be able to lower the death rate. I'd argue that would likely result in a lower death total until a vaccine rather than just doing, well nothing. But of course, we could just do what you want. Lets just cram everyone in giant football stadiums until they catch the disease. "Kill em all and let God sort em out" Otherwise known as "The Trump Solution". Sounds like a plan. For those that are pro-death panels, I guess it is the logical approach.

I saw some stories yesterday that said they were thinking about a 10-game conf only season - so each team gets 5 home, 5 away. Of course if there are no fans in attendance, home/away doesn't matter as much, outside of just the hassle of traveling.

I remember looking at NFL careers a few years ago for the starters from the '95 defense. I believe all but one started at least one NFL game at some point in their careers. Sure, not hall of fame material, but just getting to the point of starting an NFL game is a pretty significant accomplishment. I think Farley was the only one that didn't accomplish that. And it had nothing to do with his talent level. But the rest - Wistrom, Tomich, C. Peter, J. Peter, J. Williams, Coleman/Ellis (whichever), T. Williams, Booker, Minter, and Veland. Veland and Coleman/Ellis may have only just made rosters and maybe played as backups, but I'm pretty sure the rest started at least one game in the NFL

Honest questions: 1. Do you think if masks had been used in the United States starting in late February we would be in a better place now? 2. Do you think if Fauci had come out in late February and said "please use masks" it would have mattered (by "use" I mean recommend, not require - I think a requirement would have been nearly impossible to implement in the US, particularly in late Feb/early Mar)? My opinion below: For question 1, I'd answer yes, and for question 2, I'd answer a little. There would have been some people that heeded the recommendation (maybe 20-30% of Americans) and it would have slowed things a little, but not as effectively as we've seen in other countries because of American ideals of freedom to do whatever they want, without regard to its impact on their fellow citizens. History and context matter. In early March, when things first started surging in the U.S., there was not yet much evidence that cloth masks, would have an impact whatsoever on the virus. At that time, when we looked at most other countries and saw people out everyday wearing masks (e.g., Japan), it seems they were generally wearing medical grade masks (N95 or other styles close to that level of protection). That seems to be a tradition in countries that were more effective at going to a full mask environment - I remember seeing people with those masks on several times in the past through previous flu, etc., epidemics. I think Fauci and others did not want to see a large run on medical masks, not because they wouldn't help, but to keep supplies available for those that would definitely be facing COVID on the front lines - medical personnel. As evidence came in that cloth masks had a measurable mitigating impact, you started to see recommendations. Had Trump merely said that when he was instead rambling on about hydroxychloroquine and ingesting lysol, it would probably have had a positive impact. (My guess) I think Fauci was hesitant to recommend cloth masks early on before evidence was in of their usefulness since he may have thought "Americans will put on masks and just abandon all social distancing." Had this happened and there was no impact on masks reducing the transmission rate, we would probably be worse off than we are now. I think he did a risk mitigation analysis and went with the best possibilities based upon the scientific evidence at the time. As additional data has come in, he's modified his statements. Most high ranking doctors are generally risk adverse - sort of a like a societal implementation of "First do no harm". Does that mean that some methods that would help get started later? Yes. But beyond having people with ability to see the future, what do you recommend?

And get haircuts. Don't forget the haircuts!

"Upper Great Plains Champions 2020" After a 20+ year conference championship drought, I'd take it.

Admittedly I haven't done a detailed look at the numbers, but from a quick glance it looks like much of the reason things have flattened is that NY-NJ-MA have dropped over the last month while TX-FL-AZ have gone up. In other words, the pandemic has just moved locations. To support that, look at the daily death counts - Texas has 3 of its 4 highest daily death counts over the last 3 days. The other day was a sharp one day spike in April - possibly due to "clumped" reporting where they didn't confirm deaths over several days until all at once. Thus, TX has a sharp increase in Daily Deaths over a smoothed 7 day average. I guess we see where it goes the next week or so, but if they follow a model similar to NY, they could have high death totals for another 1 or 2 months. This doesn't directly affect Nebraska Football that much (or some of the surrounding geographical area), but could another outbreak occur in Omaha or Lincoln similar to the meat packing plant spike?

These guys agree.

I think _some_ programs are implementing a good testing protocol. Wasn't there a story about how South Dakota State will not test (due to budget costs)? That may be moot if Nebraska ends up with a conference only schedule. I guess I would like to see the NCAA implement a "no testing - no playing" rule. I realize that would probably make (some/several) non-P5 schools unlikely to play, but I think it would be a reasonable requirement to levy on schools that want to field a team. However, I think one difference between what we would have with college football vs pro sports (both in the US and Europe) is that it will probably be harder to put college athletes in a bubble the same way as they are doing with the professional athletes. This would most likely lead to higher cases of positive tests thus leading to forfeits. Even if only 4 or 5 players test positive, if it is all of your QBs, due to having to be in the same meetings, etc., would you actually still play a game that week? If they decide to not have on campus courses, that would help - house the players, they are there for practice and to play and do their coursework online. That would probably go a long way toward lowering the risk.

Which makes the attitude of those that say "play college football anyway - its highly unlikely any players will have serious consequences". Yet, most projections show that if you do have an outbreak through all of college football, which is possible if you just play games and don't do adequate testing (and continue to do as poor a job as we've done so far as a country), you end up with a reasonable probability of one or two deaths (just among players, not even considering coaches, support personnel, officials, etc.). Makes us sound like a wimpy version of the Romans. Bread and circuses, indeed.

Yeah, outrage at gassing protestors in front of the White House in order to have a photo-op is completely the same as the outrage directed at Obama for wearing that tan suit. Really, there is absolutely no difference between the two things, right?

By the time things return to "normal" (or whatever normal becomes post COVID), we may see a large reduction in college athletics. Most minor sports will probably be cut, since they have always been money losers, and if we have a year without football, this will put a lot of athletic departments in jeopardy. COVID will have ramifications on higher education for years to come. (Minor) sports will be an easy target.

While realizing the Ivy's are not the same as the P5s, this is most likely bad news as far as how other conferences will approach this: https://nypost.com/2020/07/08/ivy-league-cancelling-football-all-fall-sports-amid-coronavirus/

I wonder how the NOMASKS4EVR!!! people explain the drop off of positive cases in Europe? Somehow they've restarted sports (in empty stadiums) and it is not because they've reached herd immunity. I know American college sports are not the same as European/American pro sports, due to educational considerations, etc. It will be much harder to "bubble-wrap" college football players in the same way as EPL, La Liga, MLS, NBA, etc. are doing/planning to do. However, having people mask diligently for the next 2 months will at least give an opportunity to force a downward curve in positive cases. If we keep going at 50K or more positive cases per day over July/August/September, we will probably not have any college sports for the rest of 2020 and possibly even spring 2021.

Columnist for USAToday offers his opinion: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/dan-wolken/2020/06/09/iowa-football-kirk-ferentz-looking-ill-suited-lead-change/5329678002/ Doesn't look good for Ferentz. The comment about 8-5 seasons made me laugh.

I've had a hard time being optimistic this season - seeing things like the bad center snaps, the kicking problems, the struggles to move the ball, etc. I thought I'd try to take a look at how things have gone. 2 years ago at this point (6 games into Riley's last season), Nebraska was 3-3. Then the bottom fell out. Whether the team gave up, Riley gave up, or whatever (its already been hashed to death), the impact of that horrible last 1/2 of the season seemed to have a huge impact into 2018 and maybe even still a little this season. I think most of the "give up" attitude was addressed by Frost through 2018, and the issue this year has more to do with depth, inexperience (the O-line) and mental mistakes. Maybe the players are pressing too much at times. Anyway, over the last 24 games, there is a stark contrast: Last 6 games under Riley, First 6 games under Frost: record of 1-11, avg score was 23.5-42.3. Last 12 games under Frost: record of 8-4, avg score of 32.7-25.3 So that is an improvement of +9.2 ppg on offense, +17 ppg on defense. Granted the quality of opponents they've beaten hasn't been all that high. Probably Mich St last year was maybe the best(?), but at least Frost is generally beating the poor to mediocre teams over the last 12, once the team started getting some experience with both his offensive and defensive philosophy. I'd say roughly their record is 7-1 against poor to mediocre (the loss being to Colorado, who is currently 3-2), and 1-3 against good to great teams (MSU, Iowa, and Ohio State (twice)). Other than the loss this season to Ohio State, the other losses have been competitive. Hopefully they can keep it up against the poor to mediocre teams left this season (Indiana, Purdue, Maryland) and at least compete with Wisconsin and Iowa. I'm not sure where to put Minnesota yet - as good or mediocre. They are undefeated, but have played a very weak schedule. Nebraska will probably be the best team they have faced so far this season. After yesterday, perhaps Iowa can be moved out of the good down to mediocre category, but not ready to do that quite yet. I think what people probably want to see is a team that doesn't look totally out of it against great teams. Yesterday was important to not lose to a poor team - yeah the win was ugly, but it was a win. So is everything sunshine and rainbows? Of course not - but I think there was been progress. It is hard to see during the games when yet another snap makes the QB jump like he's going for a rebound, but I think there is cause for optimism.

Texas up to their usual shenanigans: https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/27581991/lsu-locker-room-lacking-c-texas "Texas athletic director Chris Del Conte issued a statement following Orgeron's comments, saying it was the 'first we've heard of any issues in that area.' " Get caught, just deny, deny, deny. Of course if you consider it a "feature" of visiting Texas, then I guess you wouldn't think it was an issue.

Thanks for starting us down the path of ruining this site. Your other site (admax or adpedia or whatever) is so full of freaking ads it is unreadable. I suppose for the suckers that pay you money the site is a little better, but oh well. Again, thanks for ruining things.

You mean you don't want any "Reign" of terror enforced here? Sorry, I couldn't pass that up - I lurked at HuskerMax off and on for years, but never joined due to certain individuals styles of moderation - I could tell people would get annoyed and leave due to the approach. I hate going there now - the ads are excessive. I guess I'll have to look at leaving here. I was never a significant poster, but I certainly read a lot of the threads. I would try to contribute occasionally. Oh well, nothing is forever. As long as this doesn't become HMax 2 ("the ads are everywhere" version) I'll stick around. Otherwise, time to look for something else, I guess.

oops - guess I should have read down a couple more posts before my reply :-)

Yeah, Brenden Stai, Ralph Brown, Abdul Muhammad, Vince Ferragamo, Steve Taylor, Derek Brown. Sure wish those guys hadn't wasted a scholarship, eh? I mean what was Osborne thinking with guys like that on the team?

I used to post on rsfc quite a bit from ~93 to ~96. I still remember some of the main themes - aggie jokes, bbq sauce (yellow vs red), etc. There were a couple of major trolls I remember interacting some with - "emerson" a tOSU fan and "Ted Smith" a CU buff fan. I most remember emerson from an argument I had with him concerning the '95 Nebraska team vs '95 tOSU being better. Guy argued that since the Heisman winner was from tOSU it automatically meant tOSU was the best team - best player had to be on the best team. From all accounts (many people chimed in) he was serious. It was fun doing an opponent vs opponent analysis between NU and tOSU's schedules. Hilarious stuff.

I hear a nice echo in here ......

It's too hard for some people to actually enjoy a win over a top 10 team. Yeah, who knew winning could be so painful for some "fans" Obviously this season hasn't gone like most of us hoped it would, but you have to enjoy whatever success there is, don't you? No, everything's not running perfect, but why are you a fan if you can't enjoy a win over an undefeated top 10 team? Imagine how miserable they will be if Nebraska beats Rutgers and Iowa. Positively apoplectic.