Football is back!
High school football is officially back and the Big Ten announcement of a return is right around the corner. For all you mambee pampees that want to sit around and cower and neg anyone with the believe that football will be played, you might want to just continue hiding in your basements watching cornhole tournament reruns.
September 3rd, 2020 at 3:39 PM ^
With this happening it just makes the B1G look more silly by the day. Every surrounding state(?) will have pro and high school football but no college football.
September 3rd, 2020 at 3:47 PM ^
Yep, the collegiate conference with the greatest concentration of top-tier public schools and medical schools is going to be embarrassed by high school sports associations. You hit the fucking nail on the head.
September 3rd, 2020 at 3:57 PM ^
One side will be right, one side will be wrong, and we won't know until it's over.
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:03 PM ^
Honestly, we might not even know then. The cost/benefit analysis is extremely complex with economic, social, and health effects that are both short- and long-term. I think we'll be arguing about who made the right call for years after this is over.
September 3rd, 2020 at 6:17 PM ^
This is a great point. I think the conclusion is that there really is no right answer. Playing sports is defensible if it comes with careful precautions. So is not playing.
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:08 PM ^
Right and I’m not saying they are right or wrong but the public perception is that they already look silly.
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:20 PM ^
IMO the people who believe amateur football should be played at all costs look silly.
Pro sports are a different animal. Players are being paid millions of dollars to stay healthy, or in most cases they have the option of being paid millions of dollars while opting out. These players can hide in their mansions, and be driven to practice, where testing is happening at rates that cannot be matched at lower levels.
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:31 PM ^
I'd argue that for some college athletes, the sole purpose of attending college is to make it to the pros. They come from bad situations and are trying to get out from that. That is being taken away from them, so I get where they are coming from trying to play at all costs.
"Today, more than half of all NFL players come from a county with a poverty rate higher than the national average. Nearly 70 percent of NFL players are African-American, and face a much higher likelihood of being in poverty than most demographic groups. The average household income for an African-American family hovers roughly around $40,000 a year, making NFL salaries particularly tempting. When a player is making the decision of whether an NFL career is worth the risk, it depends on who you ask and where they’re from."
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:37 PM ^
One thing I am certain of in all of this is that The who was right and who was wrong will never be settled.
September 3rd, 2020 at 6:06 PM ^
unfortunately the debate wont die years to.come. there will be avalanche of meducal research, much of which will be in disagreement with eachother. Endless peer review and washing of the political garbage from it all. I suspect the end result a decade from now will be firmly in between where the political world has positioned themselves....provimg them both wrong.
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:20 PM ^
There are few thrills greater than piling on people in leadership who make decisions that look bad in hindsight. I've come to realize that most of those piling on would crumble if put in a similar position of pressured decision making, myself included. If a student athlete had died, there would have been hoards of protesters (mostly on the internet) screaming that blood is on the hands of the Big Ten for putting sports over people's lives. I'm sure many of them would have been on this website.
September 3rd, 2020 at 5:06 PM ^
This is also the sort of decision that will look bad in hindsight if it was the right decision. If there is no college football, and then no major major outbreaks in the college football community, then it will look like an overreaction.
September 3rd, 2020 at 5:20 PM ^
And if you make an unpopular decision you can have angry mobs at your doorstep, often armed win guns or cans of soup!
September 3rd, 2020 at 5:22 PM ^
Once I had my first leadership position professionally, I started feeling a lot more forgiving toward other leaders. Sometimes you make the best call you can with the data in front of you and you know some portion of people are going to hate it no matter how much you defend or if you're right in the end. Everyone loves to do the monday morning quarterbacking of "well OBVIOUSLY they should've _______". It's not so easy to tell what the right path is right now
September 3rd, 2020 at 7:02 PM ^
You are most likely correct… It would be deafening. WhaT I am trying to reconcile though is if it’s too risky to play football why is it not too risky to bring students back? Are we to assume that what 18 year old boys and girls do when they get together away from home for the first time is different this year than it’s been in the past? Pandemic or not I’d be shocked if that were the case.
September 3rd, 2020 at 7:51 PM ^
This is an extremely important point that is hardly being discussed. The amount of potential spread from organized sports that could are highly controlled and could practice various safety measures is a drop in the bucket compared to a typical weekend of parties on a college campus.
September 3rd, 2020 at 8:10 PM ^
Not correct at all. It’s not a play or not play decision. It’s a decision where you want to make sure you have the right information before you start play because not knowing the complete picture of the medical risks can kill people.
Significant risks were identified that needed to be assessed. It would be negligent to charge forward and put kids lives at risk without knowing the real risk.
Clearly if the risk is confirmed, and worse case lives are lost or players hurt for leagues that acted negligently, then the decision to wait was the best one. But on the other hand, even if it turns out after further study that the potential risks are negligible, it is still the right decision to wait to get a complete assessment of the risks rather than act recklessly with kids lives.
September 3rd, 2020 at 3:40 PM ^
Where are you seeing it's back? The MI Governor said contact sports can resume but recommends against it. It's up to the MHSAA and they haven't done anything yet.
I can't find a concrete source anywhere saying there will be a B1G vote tomorrow, either.
September 3rd, 2020 at 3:43 PM ^
Mick Mcabe just wrote an article it is back
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:01 PM ^
Free Press announced it
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:21 PM ^
The official MHSAA Twitter account has announced fall sports are back including football.
September 3rd, 2020 at 3:43 PM ^
Dear Bolivian gods, please accept this humble sacrifice.
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:51 PM ^
You've been around long enough to know that the Bolivian gods prefer rather outlandish, even frightfully excessive sacrifices. There is an image to maintain, you understand, and there is always keeping ahead of competing sports blog gods.
September 3rd, 2020 at 9:18 PM ^
Look, its lean everywhere. Were all licking lard at this point. If you get someone asking to be negged, up on the alter he goes. Get what grist you can and toss the bones on the pile.
September 3rd, 2020 at 6:45 PM ^
And in return may you grant me a win on this scratch off ticket that I am about to do.
September 3rd, 2020 at 3:46 PM ^
Care to cite sources?
September 3rd, 2020 at 3:47 PM ^
Care to cite sources? Particularly about a big ten decision?
September 3rd, 2020 at 3:48 PM ^
they have cornhole tournaments?
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:06 PM ^
Sponsored by Johnsonville. Usually Friday nights on ESPN2, though they might get bumped to the Ocho now that football season is here. I'm in a fantasy league.
September 3rd, 2020 at 5:47 PM ^
Fantasy Cornhole sounds like an amateur porn star.
September 3rd, 2020 at 3:55 PM ^
"For all you mambee pampees that want to sit around and cower and neg anyone with the believe that football will be played, you might want to just continue hiding in your basements watching cornhole tournament reruns."
Nice, well said. Very thoughtful and respectful. Really, an exemplar of how to communicate with others, and make your point in a most subtle and yet effective manner. Thank you, kind sir, for having such grace in your post; it sets the standard for future MGoBlog communiques.
September 3rd, 2020 at 3:56 PM ^
How eloquent
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:17 PM ^
Do you post this same stuff when someone spouts off negative stuff about the President, people from Alabama and/or Catholics who believe in a right to life? Or just those that you feel hurt by?
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:23 PM ^
Just a little OT here .....
Like the OP, you probably never used cower in a sentence before the pandemic.
Now every covidiot deploys "cower in fear" when they're commenting on Yahoo News articles and the like.
- - - - -
Back to your post: Who's hurt here? I'd say it's you.
September 3rd, 2020 at 5:06 PM ^
There is a difference between calling out beliefs and calling out people. The fact that you take negative stuff about the president personally should tell you something about yourself. As for people from Alabama you have a point there.*
* Full disclosure I live in Alabama.
September 3rd, 2020 at 5:33 PM ^
The lack of respectful discourse and respect for others is possibly the single greatest issue this country faces. It's extremely difficult when you have people like the president doing everything he can to destroy the concept of respect, but a country as large and diverse as this cannot function without it.
Where I will agree with you is that lack of respect is not from just one side. Kirk Cousins gets it. Is he worried about getting covid? Apparently not. Does he still wear a mask out of respect for others regardless of his personal opinion? Yep.
However, when people like the president or OP intentionally troll, it sure makes it difficult to respond respectfully and genuinely. You must get that, right?
September 3rd, 2020 at 6:02 PM ^
Excellent reply and I was thinking the exact same thing. The hypocrisy just oozes out of that post you replied to. But that's just how they roll.
September 3rd, 2020 at 7:20 PM ^
"Do you post this same stuff when someone spouts off negative stuff about the President, people from Alabama and/or Catholics who believe in a right to life? Or just those that you feel hurt by?"
Your question presumes things that are not true. The OP did not "hurt my feelings"; I am actually an adult and my feelings are not too easily hurt, esp. on the internet!
My point: The OP, instead of making a good point - which was probably possible, in this case and many others - immediately jumps to ad hominems against all the perceived "others", which is what I am complaining about.
I also believe that the "liberal" side should avoid this kind of name calling, since you ask. It is what drives us apart. If I see a post that unnecessarily inflames against broad swaths of people, I will happily call that out, too, if in the mood.
As for Alabamans, can't we all just agree that there are some good jokes about Alabamans? https://bleacherreport.com/articles/141225-top-10-alabama-jokes-of-all-time-dont-read-if-you-are-from-alabama
As for the President: I think it's a lot different to attack a President or the President's policies than to name call large groups of people. But, that said, it would serve for better discourse if people said things other than "what a fucking idiot". Whether that's true or not, it's not specific or useful.
Finally, one odd thing about your post, which I see frequently in modern discourse. You don't say whether you think the OP's approach is good or not. You just say "hey, if you're going to call that out, do so of the other side, too." That's fine. But, are you saying you think the OP's approach is a good one? And you support it? If not, then why sit there and indirectly defend it? Because you think some of the perceived "others" are acting badly, too? That, to me, is also part of the problem. You're telling me to call out problems with what you think "my side" is; yet, in the very same post, you are NOT calling out problems on what seems to be "your side". You criticize hypocrisy; yet, your post is hypocritical. Shouldn't we all just call out problematic and non-productive speech when we see it?
September 3rd, 2020 at 5:10 PM ^
Needs to get the spelling correct to: it is Namby Pambies not Nambee Pampees
September 3rd, 2020 at 6:53 PM ^
He was Alabama state spelling bee champion some years back.
September 4th, 2020 at 8:46 AM ^
September 3rd, 2020 at 10:22 PM ^
Yeah I hate grammar and the spelling gestapos more than anything on this board even with the thickest of skin. But from my own hypocritical standpoint I cannot stand the incorrect use of Namby-Pamby given its historical relevance and story.
September 3rd, 2020 at 3:55 PM ^
Nobody express any happiness because PEOPLE WILL DIIIIEEEEE. Also Ace might ban you.
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:04 PM ^
This is very relevant to the discussion.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
Basically, the majority -- if not vast majority -- of "positive" COVID results should not be counted as such.
September 3rd, 2020 at 5:01 PM ^
The main point of the Times piece you linked (thanks for that by the way) is that we should shift to rapid testing and test the living shit of people v. some here, some there with a super sensitive test that takes 4 days to get results. The point is not that testing is flawed, which is how I interpret your last sentence (if I'm wrong about that, I apologize).
September 3rd, 2020 at 5:02 PM ^
You're drawing the wrong conclusion. It's not that the cases are not positive, it's that at the time of the test the individuals were not infectious. If you take a test because you came into contact with someone who was positive, and you test positive, you will likely be infectious eventually, even if you weren't when you took the test.
Basically, the whole point of the article is that instant tests would be better at stopping the spread, even if it could not identify individuals with very small viral loads. This ignores, however, one major hurdle. We don't have enough of the tests to use them how the article recommends. Basically, the thesis is that if you repeatedly test people every day with instant tests or even more often, it'll turn positive by the time someone becomes infectious. But Abbott is only producing 50M tests a month. Less than 1.5M people could use this strategy for a month. Not nearly a high enough population to make this strategy better than the current PCR test usage.
September 3rd, 2020 at 5:40 PM ^
In absolutely no way does the article suggest that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't understand it rather than intentionally spreading misinformation.
This article is not about false positives. It's not suggesting that positive tests are incorrectly reflecting infections. It's focused on the time delays in testing and how contagious the patient is.