Branno

2 hours ago, suh_fan93 said:

 

BuT tHe CoAcHeS sAiD iT wAs SaFeR tO pLaY

What next for NU? They hopefully play football in the Spring with the rest of the B1G.

Any other "scenario" is just a fantasy. We'd be stupid to go against the B1G on this.

The link for the official statement if you need it: https://bigten.org/news/2020/8/11/general-big-ten-statement-on-2020-21-fall-season.aspx

It's verbatim what @knapplc posted.

2 hours ago, Hilltop said:

Branno/Kansas45, you guys couldn't find an example of anything severe Covid related in a college athlete.  If there was a case out there, the media would be all ovaer it right now.  

I also couldn't find an example of someone on the moon suffering from a severe COVID related issue, what is your point? 

You keep saying we need to base our information on "current data" but that just doesn't exist for college athletes. I'm not sure if you noticed this or not, but they kind of canceled all college sports since March.

Quote

Everything you guys state regarding football, or any other college sports, is hypothetical. 

 

I have no idea if we will have a season.  But I think we should based on the current data, or lack of, that college athletes aren't severely impacted.

It's hypothetical that humans can't survive in the vacuum of space, should we start pushing people out of airlocks to test that? No. That would be insane. I just don't understand your inability to take information from one thing (increased infections/death in the overall population, COVID outbreaks in MLB) and apply it to another (college sports). 

Look man, I get that you want the football season to happen. I also would like nothing more. But it would be irresponsible for us to ignore the realities of the world and put athletes health in danger just so we can have something to watch on TV for 12 10 Saturdays in the fall.

It is a fact that when players are not put into a bubble that outbreaks are inevitable. We're seeing it in college football already and we're seeing it in MLB. We have nowhere near enough information regarding how severe these cases are, but that doesn't mean everything is alright. 

It is a fact that lingering heart, lung, and mental conditions occur in large numbers of "recovered" COVID patients of all ages.

What is not a fact? That any data or study shows it is safe to play football at any level. That is your opinion. There is a big difference between your opinion and a fact. Try bringing something new to this, this is getting boring.

3 minutes ago, runningblind said:

I was hopeful, but really only expected success for the NHL and NBA.  Both due to the bubble model and only trying to stage tournaments and not seasons.

I'll take any sports, but baseball is my 1 true love (Huskers football is, I guess, a sister wife). It's going to suck if this season, even a 60 game contracted one, doesn't work out. 

3 hours ago, suh_fan93 said:

 

1 open week? Seems like a risky decision.

39 minutes ago, hunter49 said:

interesting, Moos has not come out against a full stadium of 90K people?

that's crazy, only a handful of infected people would cause a huge spike.

It gives him the most room possible when it comes to the number of fans that can be in the stadium if a season happens. Obviously, he wants a full stadium as it gets him the most money. If a season happens, I fully expect to see him lower those numbers drastically. 

43 minutes ago, hunter49 said:

 

it doesn't matter what you call it, it came from China, they hatched it. yes, if many children were dying from it across the world there would be a war over it for sure.

Sigh...

2 hours ago, Hilltop said:

I just posted data a couple days ago - I'll let you go hunt it down and draw your own conclusions.

  https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ece0db09da4d4ca68252c3967aa1e9dd 

I think someone needs a JUMP to conclusions mat. This link has 0 value when discussing how safe it is to play a contact sport at the collegiate, or any, level. It also, hilariously, refutes the idea that Nebraska is "safe" as it clearly shows infections are on the rise over the past month.

Quote

The bottom line is It is very rare that anyone under 30 even has a severe case of Covid.  To take it a step further, people in excellent shape, like athletes, are at an even lower risk.  The vast majority in this age class don't even get symptoms.

That's, just like, your opinion man.

Quote

Here is a quote from the Red Sox chief officer today regarding the one baseball player that made headlines, Eduardo Rodriguez- "  ...the complication that he had was very mild in terms of just the severity of it."  

Rob Manfred just threatened to shutdown the baseball season as early as next Monday because of the threat of COVID-19 and the difficulty to control players without a bubble. https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2020/07/31/manfred-warns-hell-shut-the-baseball-season-down-if-players-arent-more-careful/

Quote

I don't blame the media for running with the story but it sounds like it may not have been worthy of the panic that it created. 

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Quote

Can you find a single severe case involving a college athlete?  There has sure been a lot of positive cases but I'm not aware of a single severe case.  

If we have a football season this fall I'm pretty sure I'll be able to provide plenty of examples. Once, you know, the athletes themselves announce how they are affected (pesky HIPAA and their rules against sharing patient information) or someone inevitably dies.

What do we currently know about sports in the COVID-19 pandemic?

1. Putting an entire league (NHL, MLS, etc) in a bubble works pretty damn well

2. Placing restrictions on players without removing them from society at large (hello MLB) doesn't work.

The CDC has provided guidance on sports, that full-contact sports like Football are high risk (feel free to google this, I provided the link forever ago). The NCAA says football is high risk.

Additionally, all of the evidence shows it's not a good idea to play team sports, even low contact sports like baseball, if you can't remove the players, coaches, etc from their communities. As this is something you just can't do in college, all the available information tells us it's the opposite of safe. 

So, I'm sorry man but I'm not going to take your faulty conclusions over facts (covid spreading like wildfire in MLB) and guidance from experts.

22 hours ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

Obviously the Big Ten believes it controls non-con games as it summarily cancelled them all.  They could have applied safety protocols to the games and required opponents to verify compliance.  Makes more sense fiscally and gives Big Ten at least a decent argument in the litigation over contract breaches that will likely follow as to why games ultimately are cancelled. 

To simply declare up front all non-con schools are unsafe without a good basis is a losing position I would suspect.  Its insulting and wont endear them to future scheduling either without upfront $ 

The Big Ten controls its member schools. If it tells them to cancel the game, they cancel the game. I'm not sure what the exact language is in the contracts between member schools and their non-conference opponents but I doubt it gives the Big Ten the ability to dictate anything to non-conference opponents. The idea that they can tell another school that they have to comply and allow the B1G to verify anything is laughable. 

37 minutes ago, Hilltop said:

I do believe college athletes would be safe to play.  The current data shows this.

Any credible source for this would be awesome, because from what we're seeing in baseball it is clearly not safe to play. 

Btw, the NBA, NHL, MLS, or any other sport that put literally everyone in a bubble doesn't count. College athletes won't be in a bubble.

On 7/8/2020 at 2:13 PM, 84HuskerLaw said:

This would be terribly unfair to the lower half of the Big ten who lose two or three home games and all badly need the $.   Its silly really.  What is “safer” about playing Big ten games vs other teams?   

 

Why not play all the other teams?   

The Big 10 can mandate member teams follow specific guidelines regarding the spread of COVID-19. They have no authority over non-conference members.

It’s also easier to reschedule big 10 only games if needed. 

1 hour ago, Landlord said:

 

 

I included Idaho in my 'dominance' list and Miami in my 'entertaining' list.

 

Also, let me take the time to pimp myself:

 

 

Dude, I miss these videos.

7 hours ago, Hilltop said:

Makes sense.  Figured you or Kansas45 would find some way to cast a shadow on our good time.  

It was obviously in good fun, come on man. Don't take things so seriously.

The “Why do we even have a football team” season:

Game 1: 2018 vs Colorado, L 33-28

Game 2: 2017 at Oregon, L 42-35

Game 3: 2013 vs UCLA, L 41-21

Game 4: 2008 vs Virginia Tech, L 35-30

Game 5: 2015 at Illinois, L 14-13

Game 6: 2010 vs Texas, L 20-13

Game 7: 2019 at Minnesota, L 34-7

Game 8: 2007 vs TAMU, L 36-14

Game 9: 2016 at Ohio St, L 62-3

Game 10: 2014 at Wisconsin, L 59-24

Game 11: 2011 at Michigan, L 45-17

Game 12: 2017 vs Iowa, L 56-14

CCG: 2012 vs Wisconsin, L 70-31

Bowl: 2011 vs S Carolina, L 30-13

We played Wisconsin twice in a single season so I figure I can include them twice here. 
 

Not a lot of week 2 losses to pick from, led to a repeated year. Bowl ended up repeating a year too. 

Spring game: 2014 (Pelini cat tunnel walk)

Game 1: 2013 vs Wyoming, W 37-34

Game 2: 2007 at Wake Forest, W 20-17

Game 3: 2016 vs Oregon, W 35-32

Game 4: 2014 vs Miami, W 41-31

Game 5: 2012 vs Wisconsin, W 30-27

Game 6: 2011 vs Ohio St, W 34-27

Game 7: 2006 at Kansas St, W 21-3

Game 8: 2017 at Purdue, W 25-24

Game 9: 2018 vs Bethune-Cookman W 45-9

Game 10: 2015 vs Michigan St, W 39-38

Game 11: 2019 at Maryland, W 54-7

Game 12: 2010 vs Colorado, W 45-17

CCG: 2009 vs Texas, L 13-12

Bowl: 2008 at Clemson, W 26-21

Tried to get a mix of important games (last big 12 game), comebacks, and fun moments. Added constraint of single game per year and opponent, except for the spring game 

Looks like more states are about to experience an outbreak

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/28/fauci-says-there-are-early-signs-coronavirus-outbreaks-are-brewing-in-ohio-indiana-kentucky-and-tennessee.html

2 hours ago, GBRFAN said:

TF will be used like the TE from SF season in Florida that finished undefeated

Id like to solve the puzzle!

5 hours ago, Enhance said:

What if we had been told that we could have a college football season in 2020, but one Husker player had to die? Or, 1% of college football athletes had to die? Would people be so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ about it all then?

The answer to that question is clearly yes. There are a shockingly high number of people on this board that would be fine with players dying. 

2 hours ago, Huskers93-97 said:

I just think people have been in such hysteria since this thing broke that no one has paused and said ok what are the actual risks here. 

What are the actual risks? Death is an actual risk to ~1% of those that catch the virus. Serious ongoing impaired health to some number of those infected is an actual risk. Literally the longer this goes on, and the more we learn about the health risks outside of death, the more we understand that this isn't just some bad case of the flu. One study shows 78% of recovered patients show ongoing heart issues. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2768916

Quote

I just dont think people would freak out over a small percentage of people with side effects. Hell have you ever read the small percentage of side effects they show on almost every prescription drug? Heart attack, stroke, on and on. No one worries about popping the pill when their is risk.

 

So your argument is that because small portions of the US sometimes voluntarily choose to take medication that might have negative health impacts we should just stop caring about a virus that continues to spread in which those that are infected have no choice? This is absurd.

If everyone listened to you we'd end up with 3.8 million people dead in the US alone with millions more suffering from ongoing heart/lung/psychiatric conditions. 1% doesn't sound like a lot until you do the math does it?

3 hours ago, Undone said:

 

I did not and am not denying that some hospitals are at capacity. Don't make that claim - that is not true at all. If you think it's true, the misunderstanding is on you. I'm being really fair here.

 

A couple days ago you said:

"Many hospitals are at capacity."

Just so we're clear - "many" is subjective, not objective. I left a post for you on this topic in the shed; we can take it there.

I chose many, because due to differences in how states collect data and the Executive Branch's decision to change how data is reported to make it not available to the public it's hard to be specific.

Regardless, this is a football forum. How much specificity is needed?

But seriously, man nothing about how you approached this would be considered fair:

Quote

Link? Seriously - provide me some evidence to show this is actually a true statement.

I don't understand the combativeness, the accusatory tone. What I said wasn't outrageous. If you want clarification, there are much better ways to ask.

2 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

What percentage of hospitals are currently in that category?

I'm going to stick with Texas, since its where I live and I neither have enough time to nor care enough to research all 50 states (or even just those hit the hardest) and well... honestly... open ICU beds in Nebraska don't help someone sick in Texas.

I can't give you an answer. Texas doesn't report individual hospital numbers like that. It's all regional and even these numbers aren't complete due to the recent reporting changes from Trump.

What I can say is that statewide Texas is at currently at 73.6% capacity, with only 1267 ICU beds available. 

The "Capital Region" where I live has 23 open ICU beds for 2.3 million people, with overall capacity at 83%. There are at least 15 hospitals serving this region.

North Central Texas Region (Dallas/Ft Worth) has 279 open ICU beds for 8 million people, with overall capacity at 89%. There are at least 24 hospitals serving this region.

There are other regions that are just as bad, and some less populated areas that have higher capacity available. If you want more info this is a great resource (for Texas) https://apps.texastribune.org/features/2020/texas-coronavirus-cases-map/

1 hour ago, Undone said:

I think it's important to not create a false dichotomy where someone is in one of only two camps:

 

1. You're a "science denier" and you think COVID is not dangerous at all.

2. You're on every rooftop championing for how dangerous COVID is.

While, yes, the amount of giving a s#!t that people have towards the dangers of COVID-19 is a spectrum it ultimately can be broken down into two camps. I think your choice or making those camps the extremes on either side is disingenuous as that isn't what I've been saying (nor have I seen others go to that extreme). 

The way I see it there are effectively two sides to this. Those that:

• Don't take the threat of COVID-19 seriously enough
• Those that do

Those two sides, have a spectrum which we've seen play out here. But ultimately that distinction isn't all that important, at least to me. I don't care if you think it's safe enough to reopen schools or if you think covid is a hoax to make Trump lose the election. I see the actions this group suggests we take as dangerous, even those near the moderate end of the spectrum.

Quote

Edit: 140,000 deaths definitely falls under the "it's serious" category for me.

I'll try to take you at your word here, but your refusal to even consider that hospitals are reaching/have reached capacity because one hospital hasn't been reopened (with no understanding of why that's the case) makes it hard.

The crazies are coming out tonight in force.