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.

51 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

Re:   Q # 1 & 2.     My answer:

It depends on what being better off today means.  If your goal is fewer deaths and fewer cases as of today, then YES.   If Fauci would have plainly said “Basic masks made at home will reduce virus emissions/ingestion rate by 25% and slow the spread, most people would have gladly taken that with todays social distancing stuff vs shutting downs millions of people’s lives.  

 

If your goal is to get the nation thru the epidemic quickly and reduce the collateral damage, then my answer is NO.  

I think total lives lost would be about the same.  But we would be nearing herd immunity by Sept 1.  2020, not 2022.   

Final outcomes:   Case #s the same.  Econ damage less than 1/4th of present approach.   

 

I say this because (a) I don’t see a vaccine any time in next 8 mos.  

and (b) masks and social distancing slow spread but dont stop it and eventually 90% of the population will get it and 0.3 % will die, either way.  

 

80% of masks are homemade.  No mask shortage would have followed.  No matter when he advised it. Early distancing measures, better than later. 

 

As for public/mass compliance, it would have been much higher (masks etc) if they had not shut everything down.  That created mass fear of financial death for 80 million and angered the fraction who suffered will the rest lived without much sacrifice. 

 

In the end, the numbers are the same (300 million cases & 900,000 deaths.    A big number of deaths - very sad - but ultimately very likely - especially as Fauci has all but denied most trial uses of existing meds without offering any better alternatives.  

 

History of vaccines for viruses within 5 years is almost NONE.  

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.

1 hour ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

I'd guess 9 and they move the season back, or space out games more.

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.

On 6/27/2020 at 4:55 PM, lo country said:

NU fans alive during the hey day were all so spoiled with the talent we had in the 80's and 90's.  70's (I was too young to remember) We were 2 -3 deep at most if not every position....Crazy

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

4 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

Just 5 months and 3 million cases too late.  lol.  Hes been the expert for infectious diseases for 40 years.  I am sure he will have it all figured out by early next year!   Better late than never!  Or maybe not in the case of pandemics.  

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?

45 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Yeah, but they don't have people that NEED to hit the beach and applebee's and peacefully protest!  That s#!t is important right now!

And get haircuts.  Don't forget the haircuts!

14 minutes ago, krc1995 said:

All we need to do is find some division 2 schools, pay for their testing, give em some fun money, beat the hell out em, send em home wealthy and well. 
 

then argue forever about not getting a trophy. Or maybe we’ll make our own. 

"Upper Great Plains Champions 2020"

After a 20+ year conference championship drought, I'd take it.

10 minutes ago, WyoHusker56 said:

The hopeful thing is daily cases are starting to flatten out a bit so hopefully they roll over and slow down. The less encouraging thing is we're basically 3 weeks from the spike really taking off and the death rate started to tick higher today. I think an accelerating death toll would put an end to any hopes of a season. 

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?

32 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I like tan suits!

These guys agree.

43 minutes ago, krc1995 said:

Personally I think players will be safer if they are playing due to routine testing. If we’ve learned anything about that demographic, it’s that they’re not prone to be cautious. 
 

as far as I can tell, sports programs are making a great effort to test.  

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.

4 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Major League Baseball's attempt to pull off a shortened season is quickly unravelling as more players test positive. NBA players are getting nervous about being committed to a bubble in Orlando. These multimillionaire players are being allowed to opt out, but if unpaid college athletes are expected to assume the risk in order to entertain us, the season could have a pretty bad vibe. No matter how low the statistical probability, if just one player, coach, staffer or family member dies, the ripple effect would stop everything in its tracks. 

 

I know there's an attempt to politicize this, but the same pandemic is affecting almost every country on Earth, with no left or right agenda, no TDS. Virtually no one is accusing the United States of going too far to stop the spread of the coronavirus. 

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.

7 hours ago, Huskers93-97 said:

Yes he brings much of that stuff on himself but most of it is exaggerated and made out to be a bigger deal than it is or is just not even true, same thing happened to Obama and all presidents.

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? 

4 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

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/

5 minutes ago, Scarlet said:

 

As to people b!^@hing about giving our best effort based on the available science...f them.  We're a society of spoiled brats.  You don't give a brat the time of day.

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.

20 hours ago, BigRedMax said:

 

Not really. Some posters have requested an option to not view ads. That is in response to that request. Huskerboard will always be a free site to post and register and there will be ads. The subscription is optional and only if you don't want to view ads. 

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.

On 8/29/2019 at 8:14 PM, KCBuc said:

I came here to get away from Huskermax. I hope they do keep this website the same and don’t have these twat moderators trying to control every post like over there. 

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.

22 hours ago, TheSker said:

Ralph Brown, Taylor Martinez, Brendan Stai, Roy Helu, Abdul Muhammed, Vince Ferragamo...........

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

22 hours ago, Huskers93-97 said:

I have not researched this so I don't know how accurate it is. But perception to me feels like California kids are always rated as high as southeast kids. But they never seem to pan out- they do ok in the soft PAC 12. The only cali guy I can think of off the top of my head that was an all out stud was Phillips- as far as playing at Nebraska anyway. 

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.

Here's the best view yet of the play. From this angle it actually looks like Reilly was "forced out of bounds."

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A0NOceUx7I

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

 

 

Bottom line, Nebraska won! Let's Enjoy and get ready for Rutgers.

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.