Honestly, this. Look where his feet are when he catches the ball. He travels 5 yards on the field and probably another 1 yard into the endzone before the ball is ripped away. It seems a much bigger stretch to say they should overturn a TD when the receiver traveled 6 vertical yards after initially securing the ball.
It always feels like people are way over focused on what happened recently, when these are multi-year recruiting cycles layered on top of even longer player tenures and Harbaugh building a team over (hopefully) 1-2 decades. It's effectively random *when* players decide to commit. There's no "trend" there's really no "lately", it's all random timing. If you want to see a trend, look back over years. Or look at the class as whole - it is more-or-less random whether the last 5 commitments happened early in the cycle, late in the cycle or in the middle. For goodness sake, we're not even talking about commits from the same cycle. And kids are changing their minds all the time!
Even further, almost by definition every school (including Bama, Georgia, OSU) misses on more than they hit on.
Just look at the class we have as a whole and decide if he's doing a good job. Even more important, so how he's doing as a coach and decide if he's doing a good job. Lighting your hair on fire because a few kids across a few different classes happened to commit elsewhere a few weeks apart is like doing the same because the stock market is up or down any given day - it's 99% randomness and by even focusing on it you're losing the forest for the trees.
We're going to miss on recruits. It's a thing that is 100% expected to happen that is a tiny part of the much larger overall thing which is Michigan Football. And i think by all accounts the much larger overall thing is doing pretty well these days.
I'm sure nobody has done actual digging into that, but it's reasonable to expect a fairly significant spike in the first 3-7 days of the game because that's just when people sign up. I know I didn't sign up on the first day.
Either way, OSU is just obviously hacked and should be banned/eliminated from the game. This has totally ruined the game for everyone else. My bet is the bots will play 100% of days b/c they're bots and build a big star advantage.
1. The general has done a great job rallying troops and posting - give them huge props for organization. Also, I have no idea how the discord works but they got that orders website up which is exactly what I needed and huge props for that too.
2. Strategically, some constructive criticism probably is helpful. We haven't prioritized using our enormous star advantage to lock down full territories (we didn't prioritize this nearly early at all, which was a significant strategic error). We to keep trying to spread ourselves thin with lesser priorities, messing with TAMU, Wisco, OSU, etc. If we let TAMU get strong, they will go after OSU as the next closest strong opponent. They're natural bordering enemies. By trying to disrupt them both at the same time, we have failed to solidify our own base, leaving us exposed.
The adjustment they're making now is late, but is the right one. Ignore TAMU, let's use our star advantage to lock down our own territories, and attack our nearest geographical competitor - OSU. If we play the game they way its meant to be played we'll be on top within 4 turns, have 2 territories, and be unstoppable.
Yeah, seems like this would be the first place OSU and others would look to see what we're planning to do.
I'd vote for prioritizing AA so long as it's strategically important for other reasons (we can get it back eventually - it may take us 19 years but i'm confident we'll come through). I thought i saw bonuses for holding entire territories and stuff like in real risk - would lean towards building a powerful base early in the game. To win at real Risk, it requires taking those continents early and if you don't you just run out of troops.
Just like in sports, the goal is to hold AA at the end of the game, not on turn 12. Nobody cares who's leading after the 1st quarter - only the final score counts. Play the game for all 4 quarters.
That said, also am SO GLAD people people stepped up to run this show. I'm sure it's a ton of fun but also a significant amount of time.
That's a fair argument, and your initial point gets a little lost in this thread. Our opinion differs on where to draw the line for a mask mandate, probably for a variety of reasons. I agree, the debate should be on the merits of the mandate not on whether there should be a debate. Frankly, the latter is kind of self defeating because clearly there's debate...so why bother debating whether we should debate and just get to the topic at hand (not meant as a dig at you, rather at the people saying it's not debatable).
I personally feel a mask mandate makes sense regardless of risk tolerance or what you believe the severity of COVID is.
Mask mandates are, most likely, one of the best ways to deal with (and prevent) localized outbreaks and for most people are a pretty small price to pay. There are a number of studies showing effectiveness of even low-quality masks at reducing spread if there's wide adoption. Preventing outbreaks is the #1 way to get people back to work --> look at Sweden. They didn't formally shut down their economy but it shut down anyway. People are scared, people are getting very ill and dying, there's enough uncertainty around COVID for that to be understandable regardless of what your opinion is on how bad COVID actually is. Get it under control with a mask mandate so more people feel comfortable going back into the world and get people back to work. It'll also save a few lives.
I get your take. But supporting/not-supporting a mask mandate is a little different than adhering to one, or disputing the government's (or private businesses') ability to put a mask mandate in place.
The way I see it, this is not dissimilar to drunk driving. I'm sure any amount of alcohol can be shown to slightly increase the chance of an accident. Still, society set a limit above which it is now illegal to get in your car and drive (and below that limit is determined to be ill-advised but OK). Why? Because, and this is OK and generally accepted, society/lawmakers drew a line where your individual actions have a high enough chance of hurting/killing others that acting in that way is illegal. Whether you actually hurt/kill someone or not.
Now apply to COVID. We weren't wearing a mask before...as a society there was some risk but it was below a generally accepted limit. Now that risk has increased by somewhere between 2x-10x and it is totally reasonable for society to now put in place mandates that reduce that risk back below acceptable levels. By going out without a mask, it is the same as drunk driving, you are endangering others and society can apply penalties to that in the same way.
It also explains perfectly well why the people on this thread may not have been wearing a mask before but now support mandates and wear masks themselves. It's society's call, not any individual person's call, whether to put these mandates in place. Our system of government means lawmakers are given the power to make these decisions.
Are these excess death statistics controlling for reductions in other deaths or just looking at the top-line number of "deaths" and saying we're about equal?
Like another poster said, you realistically can't stop spread on a university campus with any level of "openness". Seems like the best that could be done is to open campus 100% (sports and other mass gatherings are a different matter) and give students the choice to come back or not. Then pour resources into providing as fulfilling of an online experience as possible to students that can't or do not wish to come back to campus this fall.
Professors and staff also have to be given a choice to come back in person or not, you just can't force people to take that kind of risk. It won't be 100%, but it won't be 0% either. Those that are not comfortable work with the university to prepare as fulfilling a remote experience as possible. Video office hours, etc.
Also universities should be stocking up on masks, mandate them in all university buildings, and hand them out for free in front of every classroom. Not that it'll do a ton given the extracurriculars that students will participate in, but at least make sure everyone has access to unlimited masks for those students that come back but want to be careful.
While the 20mm number was a typo, just to answer your question (from the NY State of Health COVID website):
A person may have multiple specimens tested on one day, these would be counted one time, i.e., if two specimens are collected from an individual at the same time and then evaluated, the outcome of the evaluation of those two samples to diagnose the individual is counted as a single test of one person, even though the specimens may be tested separately. Conversely, if an individual is tested on more than one day, the data will show two tests of an individual, one for each date the person was tested.
So, just from a total (+) testing standpoint, it would be entirely possible to go above 100% as many people are getting tested multiple times. Additionally, I'd assume that when someone tests (+) they probably get tested multiple times over the next several weeks to monitor the infection. Not clear the impact this has on people's calculations wrt to death rates, infection propagation, or if that's controlled for elsewhere in those calculations.
re: secrecy - what's stopping the managers of the teams from setting up a bunch of dummy accounts that play for other teams to see what orders they get?
I'd assume OSU has at least a couple dozen accounts spying on where we're sending our armies. They could ask for the order then just not put it in, so in theory there could be an army of silent spies allowing our enemies to see our every move. They wouldn't even show up in the system.
blankets are not banned, so from a practical standpoint if you want to have something to sit on this doesn't appear to do much. Of course that fact means this makes even less sense...
Recent Comments
Honestly, this. Look where his feet are when he catches the ball. He travels 5 yards on the field and probably another 1 yard into the endzone before the ball is ripped away. It seems a much bigger stretch to say they should overturn a TD when the receiver traveled 6 vertical yards after initially securing the ball.
A punt-counterpunt for the ages. Well done.
It always feels like people are way over focused on what happened recently, when these are multi-year recruiting cycles layered on top of even longer player tenures and Harbaugh building a team over (hopefully) 1-2 decades. It's effectively random *when* players decide to commit. There's no "trend" there's really no "lately", it's all random timing. If you want to see a trend, look back over years. Or look at the class as whole - it is more-or-less random whether the last 5 commitments happened early in the cycle, late in the cycle or in the middle. For goodness sake, we're not even talking about commits from the same cycle. And kids are changing their minds all the time!
Even further, almost by definition every school (including Bama, Georgia, OSU) misses on more than they hit on.
Just look at the class we have as a whole and decide if he's doing a good job. Even more important, so how he's doing as a coach and decide if he's doing a good job. Lighting your hair on fire because a few kids across a few different classes happened to commit elsewhere a few weeks apart is like doing the same because the stock market is up or down any given day - it's 99% randomness and by even focusing on it you're losing the forest for the trees.
We're going to miss on recruits. It's a thing that is 100% expected to happen that is a tiny part of the much larger overall thing which is Michigan Football. And i think by all accounts the much larger overall thing is doing pretty well these days.
Walked into the home of the high-flying point-a-minute Scarlet Knights offense and beat them at their own game.
I'm sure nobody has done actual digging into that, but it's reasonable to expect a fairly significant spike in the first 3-7 days of the game because that's just when people sign up. I know I didn't sign up on the first day.
Either way, OSU is just obviously hacked and should be banned/eliminated from the game. This has totally ruined the game for everyone else. My bet is the bots will play 100% of days b/c they're bots and build a big star advantage.
1. The general has done a great job rallying troops and posting - give them huge props for organization. Also, I have no idea how the discord works but they got that orders website up which is exactly what I needed and huge props for that too.
2. Strategically, some constructive criticism probably is helpful. We haven't prioritized using our enormous star advantage to lock down full territories (we didn't prioritize this nearly early at all, which was a significant strategic error). We to keep trying to spread ourselves thin with lesser priorities, messing with TAMU, Wisco, OSU, etc. If we let TAMU get strong, they will go after OSU as the next closest strong opponent. They're natural bordering enemies. By trying to disrupt them both at the same time, we have failed to solidify our own base, leaving us exposed.
The adjustment they're making now is late, but is the right one. Ignore TAMU, let's use our star advantage to lock down our own territories, and attack our nearest geographical competitor - OSU. If we play the game they way its meant to be played we'll be on top within 4 turns, have 2 territories, and be unstoppable.
Yeah, seems like this would be the first place OSU and others would look to see what we're planning to do.
I'd vote for prioritizing AA so long as it's strategically important for other reasons (we can get it back eventually - it may take us 19 years but i'm confident we'll come through). I thought i saw bonuses for holding entire territories and stuff like in real risk - would lean towards building a powerful base early in the game. To win at real Risk, it requires taking those continents early and if you don't you just run out of troops.
Just like in sports, the goal is to hold AA at the end of the game, not on turn 12. Nobody cares who's leading after the 1st quarter - only the final score counts. Play the game for all 4 quarters.
That said, also am SO GLAD people people stepped up to run this show. I'm sure it's a ton of fun but also a significant amount of time.
Wow, had no idea Quinn Nordin was clocking in at #11 all-time
How is it not the Wylie E. Groves Coyotes?
That's a fair argument, and your initial point gets a little lost in this thread. Our opinion differs on where to draw the line for a mask mandate, probably for a variety of reasons. I agree, the debate should be on the merits of the mandate not on whether there should be a debate. Frankly, the latter is kind of self defeating because clearly there's debate...so why bother debating whether we should debate and just get to the topic at hand (not meant as a dig at you, rather at the people saying it's not debatable).
I personally feel a mask mandate makes sense regardless of risk tolerance or what you believe the severity of COVID is.
Mask mandates are, most likely, one of the best ways to deal with (and prevent) localized outbreaks and for most people are a pretty small price to pay. There are a number of studies showing effectiveness of even low-quality masks at reducing spread if there's wide adoption. Preventing outbreaks is the #1 way to get people back to work --> look at Sweden. They didn't formally shut down their economy but it shut down anyway. People are scared, people are getting very ill and dying, there's enough uncertainty around COVID for that to be understandable regardless of what your opinion is on how bad COVID actually is. Get it under control with a mask mandate so more people feel comfortable going back into the world and get people back to work. It'll also save a few lives.
I get your take. But supporting/not-supporting a mask mandate is a little different than adhering to one, or disputing the government's (or private businesses') ability to put a mask mandate in place.
The way I see it, this is not dissimilar to drunk driving. I'm sure any amount of alcohol can be shown to slightly increase the chance of an accident. Still, society set a limit above which it is now illegal to get in your car and drive (and below that limit is determined to be ill-advised but OK). Why? Because, and this is OK and generally accepted, society/lawmakers drew a line where your individual actions have a high enough chance of hurting/killing others that acting in that way is illegal. Whether you actually hurt/kill someone or not.
Now apply to COVID. We weren't wearing a mask before...as a society there was some risk but it was below a generally accepted limit. Now that risk has increased by somewhere between 2x-10x and it is totally reasonable for society to now put in place mandates that reduce that risk back below acceptable levels. By going out without a mask, it is the same as drunk driving, you are endangering others and society can apply penalties to that in the same way.
It also explains perfectly well why the people on this thread may not have been wearing a mask before but now support mandates and wear masks themselves. It's society's call, not any individual person's call, whether to put these mandates in place. Our system of government means lawmakers are given the power to make these decisions.
Question for the board on the "excess death" statistics --
my understanding is that 'other' deaths were significantly reduced during the period of quarantine (auto and other accidents, other diseases like regular flu that often cause death but were also reduced by quarantine, even heart attacks and strokes were significantly reduced (https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/2020-05-11/why-are-hospitals-seeing-fewer-heart-attacks-during-covid-19)).
Are these excess death statistics controlling for reductions in other deaths or just looking at the top-line number of "deaths" and saying we're about equal?
Like another poster said, you realistically can't stop spread on a university campus with any level of "openness". Seems like the best that could be done is to open campus 100% (sports and other mass gatherings are a different matter) and give students the choice to come back or not. Then pour resources into providing as fulfilling of an online experience as possible to students that can't or do not wish to come back to campus this fall.
Professors and staff also have to be given a choice to come back in person or not, you just can't force people to take that kind of risk. It won't be 100%, but it won't be 0% either. Those that are not comfortable work with the university to prepare as fulfilling a remote experience as possible. Video office hours, etc.
Also universities should be stocking up on masks, mandate them in all university buildings, and hand them out for free in front of every classroom. Not that it'll do a ton given the extracurriculars that students will participate in, but at least make sure everyone has access to unlimited masks for those students that come back but want to be careful.
While the 20mm number was a typo, just to answer your question (from the NY State of Health COVID website):
A person may have multiple specimens tested on one day, these would be counted one time, i.e., if two specimens are collected from an individual at the same time and then evaluated, the outcome of the evaluation of those two samples to diagnose the individual is counted as a single test of one person, even though the specimens may be tested separately. Conversely, if an individual is tested on more than one day, the data will show two tests of an individual, one for each date the person was tested.
So, just from a total (+) testing standpoint, it would be entirely possible to go above 100% as many people are getting tested multiple times. Additionally, I'd assume that when someone tests (+) they probably get tested multiple times over the next several weeks to monitor the infection. Not clear the impact this has on people's calculations wrt to death rates, infection propagation, or if that's controlled for elsewhere in those calculations.
So many congrats. Best of luck. I'd say welcome to the family, but clearly you've always been a member of the family!
re: secrecy - what's stopping the managers of the teams from setting up a bunch of dummy accounts that play for other teams to see what orders they get?
I'd assume OSU has at least a couple dozen accounts spying on where we're sending our armies. They could ask for the order then just not put it in, so in theory there could be an army of silent spies allowing our enemies to see our every move. They wouldn't even show up in the system.
I mean, if they're NOT doing that I'd be shocked.
blankets are not banned, so from a practical standpoint if you want to have something to sit on this doesn't appear to do much. Of course that fact means this makes even less sense...