Unverified Voracity Has An Ungimmicky Top Five
This week in grimace emoji. Good news: COVID case fatality rates are plummeting. Bad news: it seems like a large reason why is that the average age of the infected is also plummeting, because:
Before and After. COVID-19 is real and the real implications for ignoring basic precautions. #mileg #COVID__19 pic.twitter.com/COEe8qPZW6
— Sam Singh (@singhsam94) June 23, 2020
I am dubious that The Youth are going to change their behavior, and The Youth cluster around college football players for obvious reasons.
Meanwhile, what happens if and when someone has to go to the ICU? This is napkin math but napkin math is probably enough in this situation:
Maybe it's lower than 0.1%. Or maybe only 5% of players catch COVID. Then again, maybe 30% do. The exact numbers are wildly uncertain. But, to a first approximation, it strikes me as fairly likely that at least 1 player ends up in the ICU with COVID, which I think ends the season
— Mile High Brendan (@MileHighBrendan) June 22, 2020
That probably shouldn't be the reason. We accept the inevitability that football will produce Eric LeGrands already. The reason should be the inexorable exponential math when R > 1. But that's not easy to put in a news broadcast.
Anyway, buy HTTV! We'll figure out something you'll enjoy even if the season is one FCS game! 30 pages of hardboiled detective Phil Martelli novella? Wait, come back, I didn't mean it!
[AFTER THE JUMP: some good cornerbackin']
Golly. PFF briefly removed this tweet. I assumed that was because someone had screwed up a database query and accidentally limited it to Michigan players, but it was merely because they'd grabbed the wrong 22 for the photo:
Lowest completion % allowed by a B1G DB since 2014:
— PFF College (@PFF_College) June 22, 2020
1. David Long Jr, Michigan ('18) - 29.0%
2. Channing Stribling, Michigan ('16) - 30.2%
3. David Long Jr, Michigan ('17) - 31.0%
4. Jourdan Lewis, Michigan ('16) - 31.7%
5. Vincent Gray, Michigan ('19) - 32.4% pic.twitter.com/mYM3KMTxdo
Michigan's defensive style has something to do with that. Press man coverage is high risk, high reward. So does Michigan's pass rush in the 2016-18 period. Still pretty remarkable, especially when you see Vincent Gray sneak on that list.
That's a good sign; I'm still bracing for some backsliding. Gray's sample is maybe 40% of snaps in a season and is thus less predictive than we'd hope. Also he didn't jump out when I charted in the way Lewis and Long did.
This tweet also prompted one of the worst attempted dunks I've seen in a while:
— Ventrilloquist Mike (@_TG12_) June 22, 2020
A classic example of terrible coverage: almost getting a finger on a ball while three feet off the ground.
Hell yes. An oral history of the Landon Donovan goal against Algeria? Why yes I might click on that, especially when it includes a section obliterating the official from the Slovenia game who inexplicably overturned Maurice Edu's goal. Bob Ley on antagonizing Michael Ballack:
Bob Ley, ESPN 1979-2019: I was at that match, and I go back and I still look for that foul that took away [Edu's] goal in much the same way that I look for how much Michael Ballack was offside in 2002. I still give him s---. "Ah Bob, you're such an a--hole."
I recommend the whole thing.
Also in things I clicked so hard I broke my mouse. A Freekbass deep dive at the Athletic:
“People thought this is gonna be the new alma mater,” Mandell said. “You’re supposed to be laughing about this. It was supposed to be fun. Then it turned into an anger release at Notre Dame for not winning football games.”
Notre Dame supported Mandell, but that didn’t stop people from leaving raging voicemails on his office line. Some demanded he resign in disgrace. There were charges that he had singlehandedly ruined Notre Dame’s reputation around college football. Worries that the video would scare away recruits. Fears that after the football program had bombed the previous three seasons and was paying its former head coach $18 million to not coach, this would make the Irish a running joke.
I'm not sure the anger was mostly about not winning football games. As Matt Hinton described it at the time:
• The new Notre Dame hype video undermines everything Notre Dame claims to hold dear. Whatever pretense Notre Dame ever had to possessing some kind of unique, dignified otherness that set it apart from the craven secularists of college football has been completely and utterly destroyed forever by a guy named "Freekbass" pretending to play guitar and what appears to be a rapping hobbit who majors in library sciences:
YouTube comments: Disabled. Black people associated with this "hip" marketing campaign: Negative five. Irish Guard cloggers: On suicide watch. The Irish are now aesthetically obligated to join the "Hang Time" Division of the TNBC Conference circa 1996.
Michigan would blunder down the same path a few years later when they enlisted a satanic collective of dog groomers to create "In The Big House," which featured lyrics like "in the big house, yeah" and "it's a really big house, y'all" and "uh yeah this domicile is expansive screeeeeeee."
What stands out about these two monuments to People Are Just In Charge Of Things is how cringeworthy they remain years after the fact. I couldn't stand more than 15 seconds of "We Are Notre Dame," and that's the one I'm supposed to like because it's my rival's problem.
Uh yeah good call. Michigan is not going to host a presidential debate:
“Given the scale and complexity of the work we are undertaking to help assure a safe and healthy fall for our students, faculty and staff and limited visitors — and in consideration of the public health guidelines in our state as well as advice from our own experts — we feel it is not feasible for us to safely host the presidential debate as planned.”
This eliminates the possibility I will forget about the scheduled debate and go downtown into a hellish maelstrom of takes. Instead, Miami will get to host that debate because Florida's approach to COVID is to assume it is the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.
Incoming. Hockey is in the midst of announcing their incoming class on their twitter account. They haven't gotten through everyone but they have resolved the one question I had about the composition of the class by announcing this gentleman:
Our first defenseman of the group is @Sholtz024, who led @PentictonVees D-men in scoring this season!#GoBlue | #NewBlue 〽️ pic.twitter.com/3DTQZ59gqD
— Michigan Hockey (@umichhockey) June 23, 2020
So:
- G: Erik Portillo
- D: Jacob Truscott, Owen Power, Steve Holtz
- F: Kent Johnson, Thomas Bordeleau, Brendan Brisson, Josh Groll, Philippe Lapointe
Holtz a 1999 birth year, so he's out of junior eligibility, and is from Michigan. He is likely to be a 7th or 8th D who gets a minimal amount of money.
Holtz was one of a group of three D who had publicly announced Michigan commits without flipping elsewhere. (This used to be a group of four until Jake Harrison flipped to UNO.) That leaves Ethan Szmagaj and Cole McWard to defer or decommit. It'll probably be the latter since Michigan has just one spot on D next year (Cam York's) and has three D committed. Two of them (Luke Hughes, probable top ten pick in 2021, and Ethan Edwards, probable ~3rd rounder this year) have higher profiles than Szmagaj and McWard; the third is Luca Fantilli.
Etc.: The decade in a headline. Why Marco Rubio's NIL bill sucks. You can sign the petition to rename Columbus, Ohio, to "Flavortown." Eli Brooks heads into year four.
I can't accept that you're too ignorant to understand that you can not, CAN. NOT. control these young men's lives. If they're not playing ball, they'll still hang out with friends, do workouts, go to class, and if they pick up Covid at any of those locations, they can spread it just as easily as they could if they got it on the field. So Schreibee, what exactly is your point?!?
You're trying to note the difference as a way to defeat Bolivar, but you're arguing the wrong thing, badly.
Why would you be such a deluded self-righteous prick? Makes no sense...
Tal, not one thing you said either refutes any point I made, NOR excuses or explains the logic of comparing ligament tears to a pandemic. They aren't even apples & oranges. More like apples & hand grenades! Injuries are rarely fatal, never contagious.
If the players were to go on about life without football, but also without any social distancing, they may indeed come up against some increased risk. But could anything short of a 1970s Studio 54 orgy compare in proximity or bodily fluids excreted to football practice & weight training?
So why not instead theorize that common sense practices were followed? Wouldn't that really be what a safe & gradual return to normalcy should look like?
I know you thought you were being both clever and reasonable, but you were, in fact, being neither.
Sorry...
The primary question is whether Covid puts them at a significantly greater threat than normal football.
You took it to an offshoot when you brought up contagion, suggesting that Covid's ability to spread makes it different than injury. Not technically inaccurate, but avoiding the original question to try to beat the original question. Contagion is an additional discussion, but only peripheral to the primary question.
Then you suggest they're more likely to be at risk of catching while playing vs. other activities. This assumes little to no precaution by the teams (i.e. pretesting) and still isn't the point of the original question.
They're football players, they're going to be in weight training regardless of football or no football. Maybe some will train less, but by and large? There's ways to work on this, but nothing will be perfect.
Your definition of common sense and mine probably don't sync up.
All your precaution is based on one thing, you getting your way. I acknowledge and respect that you've good intentions, but A) you don't get to dictate the decisions of others, they are not your children. B) These are all grown ups who don't need you to decide what level of risk they're willing to accept. C) These teams have a lot of investment in doing football as safely as possible, they've been doing so for many years. If there is football, it is because very smart people have determined that it can be done so at a safe enough level to be worth the risk.
Irregardless?
Phenomenal use of irregardless there.
The risks are small and the reward isn't "our entertainment." It's a degree of wealth that could change the trajectory of their family for generations. "Our entertainment" is not their reason for taking the risks associated with playing football.
Thing is the NFL is still gonna come calling for those guys even if they canceled the entire college football season for 2020. Some guys have draft position to gain by playing this year to move up/break out but it's not like the NFL would just cancel the 2021 draft if college didn't play this year.
Do you honestly believe the motivation of those arguing for football this year is their interest in the financial outcomes of the football players? I give your mental gymnastics a 10.
The fans give the game meaning -> the meaning gives the game value -> the value gives the players interest -> their interest draws better players -> better players draw more fans. It's a symbiotic relationship that only works if both sides participate.
So ... yes, people who argue for football has a direct relationship on the total dollars in football, and thus on the players bottom line.
The motivation doesn't matter - is playing football in the player's best interest? That's a question for the PLAYERS and their families, with input from doctors - NOT well intended but ultimately busybody outsiders.
Rollerball had a similar symbiotic relationship, I believe.
Way back when it was a SciFi parable about how our obsession with spectator sports would lead us back to the gladiator's arena.
I think if you add maybe 2 more factors & another -> you're right there!
You make an interesting philosophical point. I'll be giving it some thought.
Initial reply is to point to arctic crab fishers, coal miners, and other jobs that are dangerous but allow people to earn a living that supports their family in the hope that generational growth can occur. Athletes do take risks, but for some, the payoff can be generational wealth. Would you give up 10 years of your life for your kids not to have to wonder about money? I can't answer that for you, because it's a decision every individual has to make for themselves.
How we invest ourselves and how we each profit off our own talents is a question that has existed since the dawn of humanity. Do we take for now or invest for the future? What are the costs of short term gain vs. long term? And no matter what some would like, life is always a lottery. There will be winners who gain fame and fortune and those that tear a knee in high school and have to find a different path altogether.
---
I do read some implied snark in your reply. There are lines across which I would not watch or engage in sports. That line is something everyone has to draw for themselves based on their own experience and morality. It's fine and good for some to share their line and even explain their decision to influence others. The moment that sharing becomes judgement, then it ceases to be good and becomes bad. That difference is how the US separated from the UK and created the world's oldest continuing Constitutional republic. Caused us to decide it was worth fighting and killing our fellow man to come closer to living up to the ideals of our founding documents. Fight against totalitarianism, took us to the moon, and continue to try to drive our species forward. Differences are what makes us great.
Yep, the difference between letting these kids play football or not is the difference between civilization and chaos :)
That was super long man! I will try to be brief in response:
Playing football in 2020 (and by God I hope they fucking do!) doesn't have to be a make or break financial decision for the players. There will be a combine & draft whenever the nfl deems it feasible, with or without a ncaa season.
But playing football in 2020 COULD be a make or break health decision, which would most certainly impact a player's future if they got sick. ?♂️
Right, but playing football in 2020 could be a make or break injury decision. Getting in a car could be a make or break crash decision. Sitting inside could be a make or break house-falling on you in an earthquake decision...
Life isn't about sure things - it's about looking at the risks, mitigating them as best we can, and accepting that no matter what we can't get risk to 0.0%.
I am not at all saying there must be football, but not giving the teams an opportunity to look at ways to mitigate is wrong. As would canceling outright based on the statistically unlikely (long term harm) effects to a small small percentage of players.
First and foremost, listen to the doctors. Then, remember that the doctors job is to protect health, so understand their response is the worst case. Then listen to the teams ideas for mitigating risks, do they make sense, do they pass the smell test. Then listen to the players, do they think the risk is worth it. Put all this together, THEN make a call. You're stopping at the first door without looking down the hall.
I love the attempts to tell people they don't have the right of self-determination.
Does a dancer dance with bloody toes? Does Curt Schilling pitch with a bloody sock? Does a guitarist bleed on their strings?
Gov. Whitmer + the UMich Athletic Department are both highly risk-adverse organizations. If there is football, it is because more bodies than just the fans think that the risks do not outweigh the ability to keep people as safe as possible.
TV execs and the NCAA who don't get their salaries if they shoot the goose laying their golden eggs know that if players get sick in numbers they risk the viability of their product. Since I'm certain you are the type to ascribe them malicious intent - assume they aren't all short sighted enough to get out their shotguns for one season.
Your intentions are good, I'm comfortable saying no rational person one wishes ill will on the players (aside from hurt feelings when they lose to M). Still, your analysis is perhaps a bit shallow.
It is sad that all these young people are too stupid to make good life choices on their own. (/s)
Will people please STOP with the narrative the the debate about college sports is somehow only about $$ or selfish motives by fans? Yes these items play a role but the vast majority of college athletes and students WANT to get back to their sports and classes.
As noted above, athletes are probably going to be safer than the average college student— partly because they will be closely monitored and tested but even more so because their athletic responsibilities will reduce the opportunity to go to bars and house parties which will be the real opportunities for infection.
If people disagree with the sports angle they should first question the reopening of universities. These decisions are also being made to balance safety and economic impact and I feel that the economic aspect was not the primary factor - at least not at UM.
If colleges close campuses in the fall and the powers that be still push forward for CFB then your comment would be valid.
Side note — (not directed at anyone specifically) but if folks get frustrated with some of posters on this or other forums...I came across a video on the Dunning-Kruger effect on YouTube yesterday which may explain a few things......will attempt to link... https://youtu.be/GJz66wm95-M
This is all true, but we already are seeing college athletes being treated somewhat differently than students. The simple fact most schools are pushing for remote teaching and limited attendance classes while athletes are expected to be on campus and practicing/training in person, then compete against student-athletes from other schools, is different. I'm sure the athletes want to compete for their teams; it's natural given the upheaval recently to want some normalcy. But it will be interesting to see how schools handle athletes who decide they don't want to compete because of fears of exposure. The NBA, for example, has had a number of players decide they don't want to come back to end the year because of concerns about being exposed and how that may affect some vulnerable member of their families.
And I can say with near-certainty that if, say, there's a flare-up at UF and the school sends students home the Gators will still be fielding a team every Saturday. Barring some catastrophic event if college football starts this year it'll likely play out regardless of what happens on campuses in terms of their responses to COVID-19. Which on one hand is probably for the best (because as you noted, the student-athletes will get better assistance), but it is different and there are a lot of external pressures that, if not explicitly about money and AD's needing to keep their budgets healthy, certainly plays a part.
"And I can say with near-certainty that if, say, there's a flare-up at UF and the school sends students home the Gators will still be fielding a team every Saturday."
I mean you have a very near and very similar scenario in the 2019-2020 college basketball season, where they cancelled it literally just prior to the most lucrative portion (which are the conference and NCAA tournaments). What you postulate above is not remotely likely to be true. How did you convince yourself of that?
No, what’s sad is there is no payment structure in the NCAA that comes anywhere close to compensating these student athletes for the revenues and brand creation they build for the universities (bagmen and scholarships included).
Covid is simply one more risk (however minimal the short or longterm Health affects may be for that demographic) that these kids are absorbing without compensation.
Of course the kids want to play and of course we want CFB back ASAP. But Covid in college sports vs Covid in professional sports are completely different paradigms because of the exploitative nature of huge revenue sports and events like March Madness and the CFB playoff.
And of course elite college players with NFL futures want to get back on the field - but this is shining a light on the disequilibrium that already exists in the future earnings vs. current risk model, when there should be a system in place already that isn’t the most profitable minor league system in professional sports - one which pays its performers nothing above board.
Covid just further illuminates the exploitative nature of big revenue college athletics, and hopefully helps to accelerate the player compensation movement.
Two completely different issues.
FYI - I agree with you on wanting changes in compensation etc. but please don’t let your strong feelings interject this into a Covid and safety discussion. Adding this argument into every possible adjacent topic is right up there with the “just beat OSU” posts in my eyes. (Not accusing you but I see it a lot.)
The two issues can not be partitioned in that student athletes will be signing waivers specific to Covid, like they already have at OSU, relieving the Universities' of liability. I didn't create this association out of thin air...the universities make it a Covid and safety discussion upon requiring the student-athletes to sign these waivers.
These issues are absolutely intertwined once they take a legal stance to protect their $. Does this legal protection make sense? - absolutely from an institutional and business perspective, but let's be intellectually honest about unpaid players making millions of dollars for their coaches and universities now being asked to sign waivers specific to this virus - It's the already exploitative institution adding a layer of liability protection, knowing that the young healthy players want to play and are willing to take that risk. This is not the same reality as NBA or NFL stars making the same decision while making millions of dollars for themselves.
Saying they get nothing is to suggest that players would be equal or better off if they didn't play. I think you'd have a hard time arguing Charles Woodson or Spike Albrecht would have been better off not playing for M. Even a kid who never gets off the practice squad has been given soft skills training wrt being on time, working on a team, etc.
You've got to start this argument from a place of intellectual honesty. I think there is a discussion to be had that players deserve a bigger piece of the pie. That discussion would be more likely to have fruitful results, either in benefits or even cash if it doesn't start from a pile of bullshit.
Reread post please.
Never said they get "nothing" (they get scholarships, maybe some bags $$$, and an opportunity to learn both sports and academics) or anything about the individual being better off without the sport. I specifically said they are not getting paid (above board) while they make hundreds of millions of dollars for the universities, staff, industry etc. They get "nothing" in terms of above board payments.
Indeed, there are these student athlete scholarships as well as intangible benefits to being a student-athlete in a big revenue sport in a Power 5 conference. It's not, however, nearly proportional and is completely exploitative relative to what the industry rakes in.
You wrote, "one which pays its performers nothing above board. "
You meant to write, "one which pays its performers no (honest) salary."
There is a massive - and critical - difference.
There's a great deal of subjective and nuanced space in the discussion over how and how much to pay players. I'll grant you that the spate of building on athletic campuses over the last decade as a sop for cash flush athletic departments is a great argument to say there's room for more to go to the students.
Even within the idea of salaries, there are arguments, if football, why not waterpolo? If Football is paying for waterpolo to exist, does that mean that waterpolo players shouldn't get paid? Who decides?
The answer is that you (the fan) should and do have a voice. Should you (the individual fan) have a voice? HELL NO. Even though you're convinced that doesn't mean you're right. It also doesn't mean your solution is automatically in the player's best interest or that it won't end up with unfortunate unintended consequences. *Note I'm intending the royal you - my answers aren't necessarily right or necessarily in the player's interest or won't end up with unintended consequences either, though the fact that I've spent a lot more time thinking through the nuances and trying to figure out the consequences than you have (based if nothing else on knowing the difference between paid and salaried) suggests I'm closer, but it's still possible.
The truth is, D1 schools spend massive amounts over and above what they spend on "normal" students to ensure they have everything they need. There's always room for more, and there should be an on-going discussion, but that discussion has to start from a place of recognition that these students _ARE_ getting a great deal of return on their time and effort.
Nice try, spare us the sanctimony and word play- especially if you can't even get your definitions correct. There are fortunately many ways to "pay" - (compensate, recompense) an individual above board (no bagmen) without giving him/her a salary. I actually think "salaries" are a bad idea and would rather promote something like annuities that accrue until graduation or the player is drafted. If drafted before round X, player would waive the right to annuity pay out, etc, if not drafted, student-athlete has a more solid financial base upon which to begin his/her life. This could also be a horrible idea, and not work - I'm not so arrogant to think I have the answers, specifically when dealing with the smaller sports, smaller schools, issues like Title IX, etc, etc, etc.
Other options of "payment" (not salary) include the current movement around compensating players for their likeness, and it looks promising, as it probably requires the least amount of structure and red tape, being it is individual compensation.
You, however, would be best served in not assuming you know what one "meant to write", especially when disingenuously cherry picking a word in an attempt to buttress an argument - especially if you epically fail to understand the very definition of the word which you chose to illuminate.
As you state - [You meant to write, "one which pays its performers no (honest) salary."] - No, I did not. Never mentioned salaries, good day.
Perhaps what you "mean to write" is "I'm sorry for having poor reading comprehension and attempting to misconstrue your words in an attempt to elevate my opinions over yours."
I quoted you, not my fault you weren't clear - you said not paid, then you said they are paid. You still haven't acknowledged that the schools invest well north of 6 figures per player per year, that's "payment". So I'll ask you to clarify, you said the boys are not paid. What did you mean by that? PRECISELY.
My belief is that players for the major revenue producing sports (Bball, CFB) need to be better compensated for the money and brand value they bring to the respective universities. I don't believe salaries or contracts are the right choice. I don't claim to have answers for how to spread this wealth across other student athletes or smaller schools or what is the correct path to funnel this money back towards both the student-athletes and to better the academic opportunities at some of these institutions. Alabama, for example, has the funds to hire the best professors and build first in class educational facilities if they choose- but that's another issue.
The student-athletes are rewarded with a scholarship, education (depending on the institution), room and board, coaching, meals and everything needed to develop them into the best football players possible - and at some institutions, into educated students-athletes with degrees in higher education. The 6 figure investment is not a payment, however, it is the cost to put the product on the field or in the arena. Payment would be that which compensates the player above his/her marginal cost to the university. Further, the fact that the scholarship can be pulled (it was much worse back in the day with injured players or those processed out), suggest that it is at its core a riskier proposition for the individual athlete than the money printing athletic departments.
I do not disagree with you that it is an honor and opportunity to play at these institutions, especially for the big revenue, high visibility sports - and it has greatly benefitted many, many young men. But it has disproportionately (and increasingly so with the BCS, then CFB playoff and March Madness) benefitted the industry, media, broadcasters, coaches, and institutions such that the CFB and NCAAB are printing cash, while the NFL and NBA have been given free development leagues.
So payment to me is the ability for the player to be compensated beyond the marginal cost of producing a student-athlete at the university. It's the ability for the player to earn on his likeness and perhaps earn a small portion of that crazy AD $ raining in- imo- in the form of deferred payouts upon completion of their collegiate athletic careers.
My office lets me use a laptop for my job, but when I leave the job I don't take that with me, that's not payment. Now, if my job sends me to a professional class, they do expect to make money for me being better at my job, but at the same time, when I leave, I'm more marketable and more skilled than I was before. It may not show up on my taxes, but I definitely benefited over and above my normal paycheck.
The nutritionists, weight room staff, etc. these players have full access to adds value to their lives. The professional contacts and other follow up support (depends a lot on the school) also has value.
From your last post, you and I actually are pretty close. You put a bit more dig on the athletic departments, but as far as more benefits to the kids, not necessarily a salary, I agree.
I believe it's inevitable that at some point in the season, a key player on some top 10 team is going to test positive before a major game with a big rival, even though he seems to be asymptomatic.
That's going to put the HC in a tough spot: does he let the kid play and expose players on both teams, or does he sit him and risk losing?
I assume schools will put that decision in the hands of doctors/medical staff or just have a blanket policy similar to concussions where guys basically have to sit for some prescribed time.
Agree with this. Also agree with Don that it will happen. And no they won't play. It'll probably be two weeks sitting out, even with no symptoms.
I believe you might see a lot of draftable players sit out games if there are cases mid to end season on their team. Their risk is not so much death or the icu hospitalizations but possible long term recovery from respiratory or other organs that covid could impact that could result in say 5-10 percent worse performance at the combine, like 40 yard times or bench press reps. That would impact their draft stock. So if there is a major player that gets impacted that way, athletes will rethink their participation until they sign a contract or are able to get an insurance policy.
The NIL article mentioned quotes Marc Edelman, who's a Michigan guy AND a stalwart on the NYC alumni softball team.
The people signing the Flavortown petition are assuming it's a positive thing for the city and the university, when in reality, it would truly highlight the white trashiness of capital and the state as a whole. Let em do it
I think it should be Flavor Flavtown - yeah boy!
Columbus is not worthy of being called Flavortown. Forget about what he looks like, Guy is seriously a good dude:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/scaachikoul/guy-fieri-food-people-alison-roman-chrissy-teigen
Had to look up UNO. Learned something today.
Thank you for the link to the Freekbase deep dive that I never would have otherwise seen. At first I thought, We Are ND is a tone deaf masterpiece and and endless supply of schadenfreud-tastic comedy for us Michigan fans that really speaks for itself. But I am never disappointed by Athletic articles (in this I am serious - I do love the Altheltic) and reading through this attempt at revisionist history by ND was worth it for this gem alone...IT TOOK A YEAR TO CONVINCE Freekbase to do the project. HAHAHAHAHA!
And I think I speak or the rest of the nation, please god let them next do a deep dive into why the ND business school tailgate video has been removed www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/2006/05/02/your-tailgate-is-teh-sux0rz….
So this site will be pretending to the idea that the current and coming wave of COVD cases is related to young people getting a beer at Harper's brewpub, and not the largest and most massive wave of protests this country has seen since the 60's?
I attended a protest, and I don't say that to virtue signal. But I'm not going to excuse myself from consequences either. I thought it was important and worthwhile enough to stand with that crowd even in the middle of a pandemic. While there though, it was impossible for me to ignore the super-spreader nature of the event, and think about COVD's outsized negative effect on the black community. I'm still not sure if it was the right thing to do. Now the reality is hitting, and if the deaths pile up, we need to talk honestly about those choices.
It will open you up to criticism, but it's honest. And you have to start there. Fuck both political parties because neither of them care about honesty. But individual people can, and we should and must.
All politicians lie. Some, however, are incapable of ever telling the truth.
Nowhere were there more protests than here in Minnesota, and our Covid cases and deaths have been on a downward trajectory since then. Maybe it's because the protests were . . . outdoors?
LA county public health director says they're connected to protests. I'll take her science and assumptions over a rando on the internet. And death rates are dropping everywhere, Minneapolis is not unique.
"It’s “highly likely” that the surge is connected to mass protests that erupted in recent weeks over the death of George Floyd, L.A. County Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer said."
And I wonder if you support football and baseball games with fans? The Big House is outside - by your own logic, would... you fill it?
I'm getting tired of this coronavirus but it may be time for new lockdown measures. They don't have to be as stringent as before but it seems like bars and restaurants in certain areas/states should close again for a few weeks. Its clear that some states reopened too early and there are outbreaks all over the place.
I've been trying to plan a trip to NY to visit family and friends but Cuomo announced today that he wants all out-of-state visitors to go into automatic quarantine bc NY's phased re-opening appears to be working. So that complicates things for me.
Anyway, Dear America: Unless you want a Thanksgiving with no turkey and no football, stay at home, wash your hands and wear a goddamn mask when you go out.
We can't afford another lockdown, quite literally. The state of Michigan projects a $3 billion shortfall for the current fiscal year and a $4 billion shortfall for next year. This is assuming somewhat normal tax revenue from here on out. The state needs a federal bailout to balance its books. That's why we're reopening. That, and our 21% unemployment rate.
The general public needs to be informed about the consequences of our policy decisions. We're being bombarded about COVID from all sides but get a lot less information about all the side effects of our anti-COVID strategy, even though some of them are going to be very grave, and we'll likely be dealing with the repercussions for years.
If we want to have any kind of functional government and economy, our short-term future is going to have to look like Sweden's. Wear masks, keep 6 ft distance and hope for the best.
Michigan is not one of the states that should shut down. States like Florida, Arizona and Texas should. And they should go to a phased reopening like NY has. Alabama's hospital/health care system could get overwhelmed in the next few weeks. The point I'm trying to make is that several states opened without giving a damn about its spread rate and the cases have started to jump (the protests didn't help either).
I understand the idea that we have to take on some risk to get the economy moving again. And I was all for phased or flexed reopenings that would allow rural or areas that were not hard hit to open certain businesses earlier. But even if we ease all or most restrictions in the name of the economy, the virus is still going to spread and have a detrimental affect. And places like the one in the twitter post above are going to close anyway. And that just prolongs this damn crisis.
It's almost July and America basically got annoyed with being responsible so we never really flattened the curve. This is stupid and was very avoidable.
(Also - I think I should mention that Sweden's health minister apologized for his country's coronavirus strategy IIRC)
The answer from day 1 was probably much simpler, but we apparently didn't have the infrastructure, information or supplies in place. Mailing every home 100 masks and ticketing people who went to crowded public locations without wearing one would have save tens of thousands of lives.
Fauci essentially came out and said they were hoarding the masks for healthcare and frontline workers, which makes sense given their level of exposure, but suggests that we had a shortage. They should not, however, have told people the mask was useless (either they lied, weren't sure, or just didn't own the situation), as many people could have used bandanas or other face coverings. No, this would not have prevented all the cases, but could have cut down on tens of thousands of infected individuals, saved lives, and created a culture of safety, social distancing, and personal health responsibility much earlier.
Societies that were used to wearing masks during outbreaks or in polluted urban areas, specifically in Asian countries like Singapore, Japan and S. Korea were able to "flatten the curve" much earlier. They had other advantages and structures in place as well, but no doubt that not propagating the covering of the mouth and nose earlier during the crisis was a big miss.
Having individuals still walking around or gathering in congested public areas without masks is idiocy.
Will Michigan shut down again when it approaches the situation of TX and AZ? MI is starting from a lower principle Bc of the extended shut down, but at least according to this ongoing analysis of R values by state (which made a recent update that looks a lot more pessimistic), MI has essentially the same infection growth as TX and AZ. I’m thinking this may just be a several year cycle of go/stop/go/stop by city and state. That would really suck. Hopefully either a vaccine comes through or after the first go/stop/go there is some modification of behavior that slows this down.
That people aren't aware of what this is all doing to the economy-- closed or pushed open with safety restrictions, is a matter of opinion. And a highly debatable opinion.
We're all living this. We get the consequences like we get the weather outside our door.
Sure sounds like a variation on the repeated politically-driven take that we are enjoying this in some way. And the answer is for us to suck it up and live with heightened risk,
A direction that's potentially very disastrous. But that possibility of disaster never gets discussed.
"Meanwhile, what happens if and when someone has to go to the ICU?"
That's going to happen whether football is played or not. Why does it only matter if football is played?
We accept the inevitability that football will produce Eric LeGrands already. The reason should be the inexorable exponential math when R > 1. But that's not easy to put in a news broadcast.
That's an argument for not allowing spectators in the stadiums, but not much of an argument for not allowing them to play. The impact of football players competing on the spread of a virus in society would be minuscule.
The real reason to not play games would be PR, because the NCAA would be accused of "not caring" by playing games during a pandemic, regardless of the actual risk to the players involved.
Comments