|
Post by irimi on Aug 25, 2020 20:06:04 GMT -8
If the Pac 12 sucks so much, how did Oregon net a 5* quarterback and the 5th best recruiting class in the nation? Pretty sure recruitment at Ohio State won’t skip a beat either. I suspect the issues that the Pac 12 have with recruiting are older than the COVID pandemic. Answer to question #1: Nike $$$ It’s a possible answer. But a lot of schools have money and important alumni. Take USC for example or Michigan. As much as we hate it, the Ducks did make it to the championship game not so long ago. That remains a selling point, as it should.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Aug 26, 2020 10:10:47 GMT -8
I am sure a lot of people are upset about it. I am annoyed as well. I LOVE the fall. my favorite time of year for a large number of reasons. Football, of course, is a big one. My big problem here is more or less what I am going to call toxic masculinity. The idea of doing something in the face of some measure of danger for no other reason than to prove your toughness. That is, in my opinion, ludicrously stupid. It isn't just with football, but with the entire pursuit of all "policy" related to covid. But I will keep it on football and not the larger economy... I have no real problem with an SEC or other school that thinks they can play football safely giving it a go. I have my doubts they will succeed, but I won't root for their failure. I just think it is unnecessarily risky, but at the same time I am not going to pretend I actually care about the well being of people I do not know, more so than I care about the general well being of all people in general. That is only to say I don't want to see anybody be hurt or be sick, as a general principle. So at the end of the day, if an SEC football game is on ESPN, you bet your ass I will watch it. But what I support is the idea of simply delaying football a few months for a number or reasons. the big one is we basically, 99.9% are assured a vaccine by the end of the year. There are too many candidates with too strong of previous trials for one of them to not come through. I cannot stress enough how much this changes the paradigm. A vaccine comes out, is in use for a month or two and then we kick off games that: 1. have way, way, way reduced risk of COVID exposure for players and fans. 2. OH, fans. hey they can be there! 3. More fans = Mo' Money 4. Zero risk of just cancelling the season after a week or two anyway because half your starters got COVID! It just makes sense. Nobody really knows what happens if Trevor Lawrence tests positive at some point. Even if he is barely sick or has no symptoms at all, he misses two games. Like... is that fair? Is it fair to Lawrence? is it fair to the fans? Replace Lawrence with any other big name or star player. I understand there is always risk that at any snap, in a game or at practice, a player can have a career ending injury... it is that fact that makes me question why you want to pile more risk on top. Important players ARE going to get infected at some point this season. If isn't if, it is when. I have no doubt those players will be "fine". Other than missing a game or two, or three. Or, if they are really unlucky, they are not fine... But honestly, to me, this whole issue is less about safety, not that it isn't important, and more about just being able to play some f%#*ing football without worrying about the other stuff. So do it in January... Why does it HAVE to be September? The issue I have with the defiance shown by other schools (in a toxic masculinity display... really. A show that they won't let some virus disrupt them!) is what really is their reward for the risk? To play in half empty (or worse) stadiums under the blanket of controversy with the ongoing risk to just call the whole thing off anyways? To me the schools wanting to play are not deciding that from a logical decision making process, but rather an emotionally defiant one. One born of frustration and anger that COVID has taken over our lives, one born from the deep seated need to be back to normal. Other schools are pretending life is normal. faking it. But you can't fake your way out of this one. I, personally, would rather let the scientists and companies that are very eager to make billions of dollars, do their thing, give us a vaccine, let me be protected, then I can show up to a game an watch my team in peace. I don't give a s%#t if it is January or September, I will root for the Beavers any time, any place. This has nothing to do with toughness. Nothing to do with being a quitter and everything to do with simply being logical and pragmatic. You are making a lot of assumptions here though. First, that toxic masculinity has anything to do with their decision. Yes, there's a lot of bravado in some voices that get amplified, but that it has anything to do with the mindset of those making decisions. Bravado vs. a virus is foolish, and if that's the origin, then sure, unwise. However, given the info available, it's not cut and dry at all. Consider: - Vaccines being available and distributed ahead of spring season is speculation at this point; original timeline was 18 months back in March. That's the data they have to work with, not speculation on when a viable vaccine might be available based on the status of trials. Yes, there's a lot of companies working on them, but real efficacy, volume of vaccines available, who has priority, etc are very much unknown. As a result, there's absolutely no guarantee that spring will be much safer. It certainly seems likely to be safer, but if the decision criteria is only if a high-efficacy vaccine is available and broadly distributed leading into the season, then that is very much still in question. - There's increasing evidence that herd immunity for Covid-19 is much lower than 70%, may be actually between 20-50%, especially in younger populations. So we may find that by the time vaccines are available, there's little need for them beyond unexposed, high-risk people. We may also find that campuses in the south have long achieved herd immunity, even before the fall season is well under way. Bottom line, whether bravado plays into the decision or not, the available facts do not make this a cut-and-dry decision at all in my view. My issue with the Pac-12's decision, and with a lot of decisions that are happening, is that because they are hard decisions, they choose to punt. That's not leadership in my view, but because so many political positions are short-term positions (including at the university and conference level), there's no reward for bold leadership - it's career ending if wrong (or even if it just can be painted as wrong), while often not justly rewarded when right. Kicking the problem down the road and hoping it goes way is the safe bet and default M.O. Might you be mistaking 'toxic maculinity' for actual leadership here? Sorry man, when you see the exact same presidents that are in favor of playing football be the ones to open up their campuses fully with no restrictions only to shut them back down in a week does not instill me with confidence they were showing "real leadership" and are on to something the others are not. Proof is just in the pudding on that one. They tried for the sole reason of looking like they were trying... To sell the idea they were trying. To look tough. It shows me they were putting up a strong face and a stiff upper lip but doing something tremendously stupid. So the same universities that have it all figured out for football, can't figure it out on their own campuses? Sorry, that doesn't exactly pass the mustard. If their campus opening plans are any indication, football start up will be equally disastrous. I also take offense to the notion the decision of delaying something is punting. Or is taking the weak way out. If we really want to go down the road of being tough, and standing up to adversity, I can sit here and name dozens of military campaigns, and victories that were famously won by the decision to stop and wait for a more opportune time. I can point to and equal number of military campaign lost due to bravado. Desecration is the better part of Valor I mean, we can really begin at the beginning of this one. The story of Fabius Maximus defeating Hannibal. As Hannibal was well renowned for his bravado and risk taking, famously crossed the alps in the dead of winter to occupy Italy and inflicted massive devastating losses to Roman forces via surprise, brute force, and will. In the face of these losses, Rome named Fabius Dictator (i.e top military dude) and he employed the now named Fabian Strategy. He waited. he picked and choose small fights. He waged a battle of attrition and started slowly whittling down Hannibal's forces, and controlling access to food, leaning on scorched earth policies of destroying food sources needed to support the massive Hannibal invading army. He avoided large conflicts at all costs, knowing the forces of Hannibal were both stronger and more well trained in the traditions of large battlefield combat. He chose not to defeat Hannibal face to face in a battle of glory and renown, and was rewarded. He has a military strategy nobody knows about named after him! But seriously. he beat Hannibal and secured the Roman empire for at least another day. Of course at the time it was not popular. Romans nicknamed him Cunctator, literally meaning "the delayer". It was meant as an insult. He picked up a number of political enemies, and rivals in the Roman military. Minucius, was one such rival, that openly accused Fabius of being weak and cowardly for failing to meet Hannibal in battle. I think we know how this plays out, or I wouldn't be telling the tale. The general Roman population sided with badass Minucius allowing him to become promoted to essentially Fabius's equal. As such, Fabius divided his army in two giving half to control of Minucius. Shortly after than, Minucius lead his army to an open fight with Hannibal and got his ass kicked. Fabius, upon learning Minucius was losing in battle rushed his forces to the scene and rescue him. Upon having his live saved, Minucius relinquished co-commandership back to Fabius, and the campaign of waiting continued on to success. Opinion turned on Fabius's strategies and they are now celebrated. Scoreboard baby. Of course, anybody that took middle school US history knows George Washington famously adopted Fabian strategies to defeat the larger, better trained, better equipped British Army. And of course we know the British pouted, and complained, and accused the Americans of being cowardly, weak, and scared to fight. It wasn't until the French help level the playing field, large decisive battles were waged and won. But had Washington met the British on their terms. Had he "manned up" we'd be sippin' tea right now. Scoreboard baby. That is all that matters in the end. who won? at what cost? what was the reward? I will take having our forces be called pussies for a reward of begin a free nation any day man... That is my point. Measuring decisions on a scale of "tough" or how aggressively they spit in the face of adversity is a disease. it is toxic, it is stupid. The rational of "at least we are trying" just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Doing the tough thing, the brave thing, the strong thing is SO ingrained in our values as humans, dating back 1,000s of years, I am not sure how conscious people really are that they are ultimately leaning their decision making on that criteria. I am not sure there is a person alive on this planet that hasn't heard some version of "you can't back down from a fight" told to them at some point in their life. Is delaying really a punt? or is it a valid decision and strategy. I guess that depends on your own interpretation and review of what is going on. I guess it is ultimately someone's opinion and not a strictly objective thing. Lastly, man you can't come out and say "back in march they were saying 18 months..." It is August man. The decision to postpone fall sports was made back on August 10th, was made well after dozens upon dozens of studies and news articles were put out. After well publicized purchases by the government under operation warp speed were announced, purchases that have enabled these companies to begin production NOW on vaccines. Astra Zeneca, for example, published notification in middle July about arrangements made to have 400 million doses of their candidate vaccine ready by year end, and are building capacity for 3 billion doses produced, per year, on an ongoing basis. Moderna has announce similar news, taking government money to begin immediate production of the candidate vaccine that is in phase III trials now. They are making doses at a rate of about 2 million per day. To be clear, we have never in human history seen a stronger global effort by the scientific community to solve a single issue than this. NEVER. 18 months became 9 months because billions upon billions of dollars are being poured into research by more than 165 independent organizations and labs, leveraging decades of research and cutting edge technology to get somewhere. And it isn't like we are starting with nothing, the entire framework and backbone of vaccine production and delivery has existed for decades now. The preponderance of evidence suggest a vaccine will be ready by year end, and available to most, if not all, people that want it. The preponderance of evidence of early trial data indicates the vaccines work, and the preponderance of evidence suggest the vaccine efficacy will be sufficient to greatly change this pandemic. What there has not been, is a preponderance of evidence to suggest that trials are not going well, that there are supply chain issues, that availability is in jeopardy, etc. We are more than a month into two major players, well more than enough time to understand if the thousands upon thousands of people that have gotten a shot already are experiencing serious or significant adverse reactions. There is far more evidence to suggest we will have a vaccine than there is evidence to suggest we wont have one, we are no safer in the winter, and that delaying the start of football was simply a punt and a prayer. It is an evidence backed decision that seems more likely than not to pan out in our favor. Of course it could all be wrong... but right now it looks like a well informed bet, not a gutless punt.
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Aug 26, 2020 10:54:08 GMT -8
Desecration is the better part of valor?
That made me laugh
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Aug 26, 2020 11:04:31 GMT -8
Desecration is the better part of valor? That made me laugh LOL... and too late for the typo edit. We are rolling with it!
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on Aug 26, 2020 11:37:13 GMT -8
You are making a lot of assumptions here though. First, that toxic masculinity has anything to do with their decision. Yes, there's a lot of bravado in some voices that get amplified, but that it has anything to do with the mindset of those making decisions. Bravado vs. a virus is foolish, and if that's the origin, then sure, unwise. However, given the info available, it's not cut and dry at all. Consider: - Vaccines being available and distributed ahead of spring season is speculation at this point; original timeline was 18 months back in March. That's the data they have to work with, not speculation on when a viable vaccine might be available based on the status of trials. Yes, there's a lot of companies working on them, but real efficacy, volume of vaccines available, who has priority, etc are very much unknown. As a result, there's absolutely no guarantee that spring will be much safer. It certainly seems likely to be safer, but if the decision criteria is only if a high-efficacy vaccine is available and broadly distributed leading into the season, then that is very much still in question. - There's increasing evidence that herd immunity for Covid-19 is much lower than 70%, may be actually between 20-50%, especially in younger populations. So we may find that by the time vaccines are available, there's little need for them beyond unexposed, high-risk people. We may also find that campuses in the south have long achieved herd immunity, even before the fall season is well under way. Bottom line, whether bravado plays into the decision or not, the available facts do not make this a cut-and-dry decision at all in my view. My issue with the Pac-12's decision, and with a lot of decisions that are happening, is that because they are hard decisions, they choose to punt. That's not leadership in my view, but because so many political positions are short-term positions (including at the university and conference level), there's no reward for bold leadership - it's career ending if wrong (or even if it just can be painted as wrong), while often not justly rewarded when right. Kicking the problem down the road and hoping it goes way is the safe bet and default M.O. Might you be mistaking 'toxic maculinity' for actual leadership here? Sorry man, when you see the exact same presidents that are in favor of playing football be the ones to open up their campuses fully with no restrictions only to shut them back down in a week does not instill me with confidence they were showing "real leadership" and are on to something the others are not. Proof is just in the pudding on that one. They tried for the sole reason of looking like they were trying... To sell the idea they were trying. To look tough. It shows me they were putting up a strong face and a stiff upper lip but doing something tremendously stupid. So the same universities that have it all figured out for football, can't figure it out on their own campuses? Sorry, that doesn't exactly pass the mustard. If their campus opening plans are any indication, football start up will be equally disastrous. I also take offense to the notion the decision of delaying something is punting. Or is taking the weak way out. If we really want to go down the road of being tough, and standing up to adversity, I can sit here and name dozens of military campaigns, and victories that were famously won by the decision to stop and wait for a more opportune time. I can point to and equal number of military campaign lost due to bravado. Desecration is the better part of Valor I mean, we can really begin at the beginning of this one. The story of Fabius Maximus defeating Hannibal. As Hannibal was well renowned for his bravado and risk taking, famously crossed the alps in the dead of winter to occupy Italy and inflicted massive devastating losses to Roman forces via surprise, brute force, and will. In the face of these losses, Rome named Fabius Dictator (i.e top military dude) and he employed the now named Fabian Strategy. He waited. he picked and choose small fights. He waged a battle of attrition and started slowly whittling down Hannibal's forces, and controlling access to food, leaning on scorched earth policies of destroying food sources needed to support the massive Hannibal invading army. He avoided large conflicts at all costs, knowing the forces of Hannibal were both stronger and more well trained in the traditions of large battlefield combat. He chose not to defeat Hannibal face to face in a battle of glory and renown, and was rewarded. He has a military strategy nobody knows about named after him! But seriously. he beat Hannibal and secured the Roman empire for at least another day. Of course at the time it was not popular. Romans nicknamed him Cunctator, literally meaning "the delayer". It was meant as an insult. He picked up a number of political enemies, and rivals in the Roman military. Minucius, was one such rival, that openly accused Fabius of being weak and cowardly for failing to meet Hannibal in battle. I think we know how this plays out, or I wouldn't be telling the tale. The general Roman population sided with badass Minucius allowing him to become promoted to essentially Fabius's equal. As such, Fabius divided his army in two giving half to control of Minucius. Shortly after than, Minucius lead his army to an open fight with Hannibal and got his ass kicked. Fabius, upon learning Minucius was losing in battle rushed his forces to the scene and rescue him. Upon having his live saved, Minucius relinquished co-commandership back to Fabius, and the campaign of waiting continued on to success. Opinion turned on Fabius's strategies and they are now celebrated. Scoreboard baby. Of course, anybody that took middle school US history knows George Washington famously adopted Fabian strategies to defeat the larger, better trained, better equipped British Army. And of course we know the British pouted, and complained, and accused the Americans of being cowardly, weak, and scared to fight. It wasn't until the French help level the playing field, large decisive battles were waged and won. But had Washington met the British on their terms. Had he "manned up" we'd be sippin' tea right now. Scoreboard baby. That is all that matters in the end. who won? at what cost? what was the reward? I will take having our forces be called pussies for a reward of begin a free nation any day man... That is my point. Measuring decisions on a scale of "tough" or how aggressively they spit in the face of adversity is a disease. it is toxic, it is stupid. The rational of "at least we are trying" just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Doing the tough thing, the brave thing, the strong thing is SO ingrained in our values as humans, dating back 1,000s of years, I am not sure how conscious people really are that they are ultimately leaning their decision making on that criteria. I am not sure there is a person alive on this planet that hasn't heard some version of "you can't back down from a fight" told to them at some point in their life. Is delaying really a punt? or is it a valid decision and strategy. I guess that depends on your own interpretation and review of what is going on. I guess it is ultimately someone's opinion and not a strictly objective thing. Lastly, man you can't come out and say "back in march they were saying 18 months..." It is August man. The decision to postpone fall sports was made back on August 10th, was made well after dozens upon dozens of studies and news articles were put out. After well publicized purchases by the government under operation warp speed were announced, purchases that have enabled these companies to begin production NOW on vaccines. Astra Zeneca, for example, published notification in middle July about arrangements made to have 400 million doses of their candidate vaccine ready by year end, and are building capacity for 3 billion doses produced, per year, on an ongoing basis. Moderna has announce similar news, taking government money to begin immediate production of the candidate vaccine that is in phase III trials now. They are making doses at a rate of about 2 million per day. To be clear, we have never in human history seen a stronger global effort by the scientific community to solve a single issue than this. NEVER. 18 months became 9 months because billions upon billions of dollars are being poured into research by more than 165 independent organizations and labs, leveraging decades of research and cutting edge technology to get somewhere. And it isn't like we are starting with nothing, the entire framework and backbone of vaccine production and delivery has existed for decades now. The preponderance of evidence suggest a vaccine will be ready by year end, and available to most, if not all, people that want it. The preponderance of evidence of early trial data indicates the vaccines work, and the preponderance of evidence suggest the vaccine efficacy will be sufficient to greatly change this pandemic. What there has not been, is a preponderance of evidence to suggest that trials are not going well, that there are supply chain issues, that availability is in jeopardy, etc. We are more than a month into two major players, well more than enough time to understand if the thousands upon thousands of people that have gotten a shot already are experiencing serious or significant adverse reactions. There is far more evidence to suggest we will have a vaccine than there is evidence to suggest we wont have one, we are no safer in the winter, and that delaying the start of football was simply a punt and a prayer. It is an evidence backed decision that seems more likely than not to pan out in our favor. Of course it could all be wrong... but right now it looks like a well informed bet, not a gutless punt. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You make a good case for the Pac-12's decision for sure. I am not entirely confident that the reasons you laid out were what they used, but I hope that a) that's the case, and b) they things play out they way anticipate. I'm not privy to the vaccine timelines - I have read some of what you state, but I honestly have a lot of faith in them; public companies make optimistic statements all the time. I do think that the SEC is taking a very hard path; it's tricky, complex and it's risky. It also takes courage; if it goes badly, it can go really badly, and heads roll. Stupidity and courage sometimes get confused, but I give them the benefit of the doubt that this is a calculated judgement, not a blind rush into battle to show how tough they are. You see it differently, obviously. Whether the Big-10/Pac-12's decisions was a wise calculation, or a punt because they were unwilling to face the complexity of the challenge will probably never be fully known. What I will say is that there's fallout to these types of decisions. For instance, the decision to not put kids in normal classrooms right now and instead educate them using tools built for businesses in an adult setting is handicapping their education. It was not a brave decision, it was a punt - their education is being dramatically compromised, and I am unconvinced this was the best we could do. I work for a business with offices all of the world that has a major launch at the end of this year that has been years in planning. Logistics have become extremely complex, and creative solutions have been needed on all fronts to maintain the plan, and we have held the plan - and nobody's safety has been compromised. This wasn't done because we were too proud to change the plan, it was because we believed we could find a way. I've been wildly impressed with how people have stepped up. My issue is that I'm not seeing this type of effort on other fronts to figure out solutions. Could we have punted? Sure - it's a valid strategy ... that has it's own consequences, and the Pac-12/Big-10 will have them. Are the conferences having fall football going to just do things this year as always? No, they are having to find some creative solutions. Is it enough, or are they taking on too many risk? We'll soon find out.
|
|
|
Post by greshambeaver on Aug 26, 2020 14:03:21 GMT -8
I sure bet the Pac-12 coaches are not excited whatsoever about this development. I also don't think piling on the south for their pandemic strategy is even handled evenly here. Are people dying in the south because hospitals are overflowing? If not, then business as usual was the overall strategy from the get-go; the shutdowns were not intended to stop spread altogether, it was to 'flatten the curve' - meaning reduce infection rates so that local hospitals are not overwhelmed. If the goalposts have been moved to a 100% containment strategy, I missed the memo, as did the country, because at no point has any federal or state initiative had any chance of accomplishing that, nor has it been the stated goal by those governments. In reality, the there is a strong possibility that things go just fine with the SEC's football season, some campuses close periodically to again flatten the curve for the local health care systems case load, and they reach herd immunity regionally, well ahead of the other regions. Pointing their approach as being due to "valuing football more highly than others" while generally true, is a disingenuous argument for their general approach to the pandemic, IMO. Excellent post. Bravissimo!
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Aug 26, 2020 14:41:34 GMT -8
You are making a lot of assumptions here though. First, that toxic masculinity has anything to do with their decision. Yes, there's a lot of bravado in some voices that get amplified, but that it has anything to do with the mindset of those making decisions. Bravado vs. a virus is foolish, and if that's the origin, then sure, unwise. However, given the info available, it's not cut and dry at all. Consider: - Vaccines being available and distributed ahead of spring season is speculation at this point; original timeline was 18 months back in March. That's the data they have to work with, not speculation on when a viable vaccine might be available based on the status of trials. Yes, there's a lot of companies working on them, but real efficacy, volume of vaccines available, who has priority, etc are very much unknown. As a result, there's absolutely no guarantee that spring will be much safer. It certainly seems likely to be safer, but if the decision criteria is only if a high-efficacy vaccine is available and broadly distributed leading into the season, then that is very much still in question. - There's increasing evidence that herd immunity for Covid-19 is much lower than 70%, may be actually between 20-50%, especially in younger populations. So we may find that by the time vaccines are available, there's little need for them beyond unexposed, high-risk people. We may also find that campuses in the south have long achieved herd immunity, even before the fall season is well under way. Bottom line, whether bravado plays into the decision or not, the available facts do not make this a cut-and-dry decision at all in my view. My issue with the Pac-12's decision, and with a lot of decisions that are happening, is that because they are hard decisions, they choose to punt. That's not leadership in my view, but because so many political positions are short-term positions (including at the university and conference level), there's no reward for bold leadership - it's career ending if wrong (or even if it just can be painted as wrong), while often not justly rewarded when right. Kicking the problem down the road and hoping it goes way is the safe bet and default M.O. Might you be mistaking 'toxic maculinity' for actual leadership here? Sorry man, when you see the exact same presidents that are in favor of playing football be the ones to open up their campuses fully with no restrictions only to shut them back down in a week does not instill me with confidence they were showing "real leadership" and are on to something the others are not. Proof is just in the pudding on that one. They tried for the sole reason of looking like they were trying... To sell the idea they were trying. To look tough. It shows me they were putting up a strong face and a stiff upper lip but doing something tremendously stupid. So the same universities that have it all figured out for football, can't figure it out on their own campuses? Sorry, that doesn't exactly pass the mustard. If their campus opening plans are any indication, football start up will be equally disastrous. I also take offense to the notion the decision of delaying something is punting. Or is taking the weak way out. If we really want to go down the road of being tough, and standing up to adversity, I can sit here and name dozens of military campaigns, and victories that were famously won by the decision to stop and wait for a more opportune time. I can point to and equal number of military campaign lost due to bravado. Desecration is the better part of Valor I mean, we can really begin at the beginning of this one. The story of Fabius Maximus defeating Hannibal. As Hannibal was well renowned for his bravado and risk taking, famously crossed the alps in the dead of winter to occupy Italy and inflicted massive devastating losses to Roman forces via surprise, brute force, and will. In the face of these losses, Rome named Fabius Dictator (i.e top military dude) and he employed the now named Fabian Strategy. He waited. he picked and choose small fights. He waged a battle of attrition and started slowly whittling down Hannibal's forces, and controlling access to food, leaning on scorched earth policies of destroying food sources needed to support the massive Hannibal invading army. He avoided large conflicts at all costs, knowing the forces of Hannibal were both stronger and more well trained in the traditions of large battlefield combat. He chose not to defeat Hannibal face to face in a battle of glory and renown, and was rewarded. He has a military strategy nobody knows about named after him! But seriously. he beat Hannibal and secured the Roman empire for at least another day. Of course at the time it was not popular. Romans nicknamed him Cunctator, literally meaning "the delayer". It was meant as an insult. He picked up a number of political enemies, and rivals in the Roman military. Minucius, was one such rival, that openly accused Fabius of being weak and cowardly for failing to meet Hannibal in battle. I think we know how this plays out, or I wouldn't be telling the tale. The general Roman population sided with badass Minucius allowing him to become promoted to essentially Fabius's equal. As such, Fabius divided his army in two giving half to control of Minucius. Shortly after than, Minucius lead his army to an open fight with Hannibal and got his ass kicked. Fabius, upon learning Minucius was losing in battle rushed his forces to the scene and rescue him. Upon having his live saved, Minucius relinquished co-commandership back to Fabius, and the campaign of waiting continued on to success. Opinion turned on Fabius's strategies and they are now celebrated. Scoreboard baby. Of course, anybody that took middle school US history knows George Washington famously adopted Fabian strategies to defeat the larger, better trained, better equipped British Army. And of course we know the British pouted, and complained, and accused the Americans of being cowardly, weak, and scared to fight. It wasn't until the French help level the playing field, large decisive battles were waged and won. But had Washington met the British on their terms. Had he "manned up" we'd be sippin' tea right now. Scoreboard baby. That is all that matters in the end. who won? at what cost? what was the reward? I will take having our forces be called pussies for a reward of begin a free nation any day man... That is my point. Measuring decisions on a scale of "tough" or how aggressively they spit in the face of adversity is a disease. it is toxic, it is stupid. The rational of "at least we are trying" just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Doing the tough thing, the brave thing, the strong thing is SO ingrained in our values as humans, dating back 1,000s of years, I am not sure how conscious people really are that they are ultimately leaning their decision making on that criteria. I am not sure there is a person alive on this planet that hasn't heard some version of "you can't back down from a fight" told to them at some point in their life. Is delaying really a punt? or is it a valid decision and strategy. I guess that depends on your own interpretation and review of what is going on. I guess it is ultimately someone's opinion and not a strictly objective thing. Lastly, man you can't come out and say "back in march they were saying 18 months..." It is August man. The decision to postpone fall sports was made back on August 10th, was made well after dozens upon dozens of studies and news articles were put out. After well publicized purchases by the government under operation warp speed were announced, purchases that have enabled these companies to begin production NOW on vaccines. Astra Zeneca, for example, published notification in middle July about arrangements made to have 400 million doses of their candidate vaccine ready by year end, and are building capacity for 3 billion doses produced, per year, on an ongoing basis. Moderna has announce similar news, taking government money to begin immediate production of the candidate vaccine that is in phase III trials now. They are making doses at a rate of about 2 million per day. To be clear, we have never in human history seen a stronger global effort by the scientific community to solve a single issue than this. NEVER. 18 months became 9 months because billions upon billions of dollars are being poured into research by more than 165 independent organizations and labs, leveraging decades of research and cutting edge technology to get somewhere. And it isn't like we are starting with nothing, the entire framework and backbone of vaccine production and delivery has existed for decades now. The preponderance of evidence suggest a vaccine will be ready by year end, and available to most, if not all, people that want it. The preponderance of evidence of early trial data indicates the vaccines work, and the preponderance of evidence suggest the vaccine efficacy will be sufficient to greatly change this pandemic. What there has not been, is a preponderance of evidence to suggest that trials are not going well, that there are supply chain issues, that availability is in jeopardy, etc. We are more than a month into two major players, well more than enough time to understand if the thousands upon thousands of people that have gotten a shot already are experiencing serious or significant adverse reactions. There is far more evidence to suggest we will have a vaccine than there is evidence to suggest we wont have one, we are no safer in the winter, and that delaying the start of football was simply a punt and a prayer. It is an evidence backed decision that seems more likely than not to pan out in our favor. Of course it could all be wrong... but right now it looks like a well informed bet, not a gutless punt. First comparing a pandemic response to war is tricky. In a pandemic, we win no matter what. Your argument is basically one to limit losses, The problem that I have with your post is that Fabian strategy is a path of last resort. It is by definition a path of weakness. Stalling for time should not be anyone's first choice. Your example of General Washington is an interesting one, because, originally, he did not employ the Fabian strategy. However, he was forced to employ one, because he lacked a functioning cavalry and had a deficient engineers. Viscount William Howe (a third generation English Baron of Clanawley--Southwestern County Fermanagh--anglicized to Glenawley) won the Battle of Long Island on August 27, 1776, by using cavalry to outflank the American Left. Without a functioning cavalry, scouting was slow and the British were able to screen their true intentions, until it was too late for the Americans. The British Army was able to arrive at the Americans' rear in almost total surprise. The Continental Army was saved by Maryland "400." Less than a dozen of the 260+ men in the Maryland "400" made it back to American lines. Washington referred to the Maryland "400" as his "Old Line," which led to one of Maryland's oldest nicknames, the Old Line State. The Continental Army was again saved by General Howe's timidity and a divine fog, which concealed the Americans' retreat, while Howe foolishly dug in for a siege. A more aggressive strategy by Howe, and we might all still be in the Commonwealth. Howe won the Battle of Brandywine on September 11, 1777 by using cavalry to outflank the American Right. Without a functioning cavalry, scouting was slow, which enabled the British to arrive on the American Right in almost complete surprise. Polish General Count Casimir Pulaski (a man without a country after the First Partition of Poland) saved Washington and the whole of the Continental Army by aggressively charging the British Army to buy time for the rest of the Continental Army to retreat. Washington again offered battle at Malvern but was saved by the Battle of the Clouds (a torrential downpour) and withdrew. Washington left "Mad" Anthony Wayne with a Division to guard Malvern, but Wayne was surprised in a night attack in the Paoli Massacre. Britain lost four killed and seven wounded in exchange for a rout of Wayne's entire Division. Washington then attempted to defend Philadelphia, but Howe pretended to attack Washington's Right. Not wanting another Brandywine, Washington bit and abandoned his center, which enabled Howe to attack the American Center and Left. The Continental Left broke and ran, yielding three cannon. Howe marched into Philadelphia unopposed. Washington then rolled the dice at Germantown and attempted to launch a surprise attack en masse to defeat the British, who were spread out. (Washington basically was trying for a redo of his victory at Trenton.) However, this time, it was his own troops who were intoxicated, which led to a third consecutive defeat in the campaign (four or five, depending how you count the Battle of the Clouds and the British taking Philadelphia). Germantown was actually a decent strategy in the abstract, but the Continentals were simply not up to the task of coordinating a surprise attack of that magnitude. Nevertheless, a successful victory at Germantown coupled with the victory at Saratoga may have ended the Revolutionary War then and there without the extended use of Fabian tactics. Instead the War drug on an additional five years. Like at the Battle of Long Island, Howe was timid and failed to follow up on the attack, which enabled Washington to escape to Valley Forge. Howe was no Hannibal. And Washington did not solely employ Fabian strategies. In fact, if Howe had been more aggressive, America still may be part of the Commonwealth. It was Howe's passivity, which enabled Washington's ability to employ the Fabian strategies that he did employ. Because of the perception back in England of Howe's failure to support General Burgoyne at Saratoga, Howe resigned his command. General Henry Clinton took over and immediately withdrew from Philadelphia, due to France's increasing help as a result of Saratoga. Washington deployed the entire Continental Army at his disposal but was only able to win a tactical victory over Clinton at Monmouth. After Monmouth, the War in the North devolved into a series of disjointed raids, international intrigue, needlessly complicated espionage and propaganda. Clinton hated America and wished to be transferred to a different position. There was a worry in England that he would be a poor choice for the job as Commander-in-Chief, and he lived up to their fears. Clinton clashed with his most senior subordinate, Marquess Charles Cornwallis. Eventually, it became so bad that Clinton quit the South and allowed Cornwallis to command by himself. Cornwallis took Georgia and South Carolina and appeared to be in a position to take North Carolina before the Loyalists lost the Battle of Kings Mountain. Cornwallis determined at that point that North Carolina could not be subdued until Virginia was defeated. He joined Benedict Arnold and the pair employed Fabian strategies, until Clinton ordered Cornwallis to the "Williamsburg Neck." Arnold wisely advised Cornwallis to avoid the "Williamsburg Neck," because of the possibility of becoming trapped by the French Navy, but Cornwallis ignored the advice. Arnold withdrew to the North, where he won the Pyrrhic Victory of the Battle of Groton Heights, which effectively ended offensive operations in the North. At the Williamsburg Neck, Washington and the French worked together in an aggressive strategy to trap Cornwallis, which succeeded, ultimately leading to the end of the War. There is little Fabian in Washington's strategy. Hannibal was a foreign invader. One reason that Fabian was successful was that he worked to deny Hannibal a port. Washington was an American in America and had many ports to work with. There are many examples of Wars turning on successful aggressive strategies and Wars being lost on overly-cautious strategies. World War II in Europe turned on the aggressive Battle of Arras and Germany's overreaction and subsequent overly-cautious Halt Order. The Allies aggressive actions coupled with Germany's overly-cautious actions led to Operation Dynamo and 338,000 Allied troops being saved. The Japanese were overly-cautious at Pearl Harbor and declined to commit to a Third Wave, which ultimately helped the Americans win the War in the Pacific. The Americans responded with the very aggressive Doolittle Raid, which encouraged Japan to spend energy, time, men and oil in taking the Aleutian Islands. The Americans followed that up with aggressive actions at the Coral Sea and Midway. It also led to the Americans killing Yamamoto, which led Japanese high command to be ultra cautious to their detriment. In the Battle off Samar, the three destroyers and four destroyer escorts of Taffy 3 (each smaller than one set of three guns on board the Yamato) beat off the bulk of the Japanese Navy in a preposterous all-out attack. Discretion is the better part of valor. But discretion for discretion's sake is foolish. I agree with the bulk of your post, but I would disagree in how your application of military strategy.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Aug 26, 2020 15:36:25 GMT -8
First comparing a pandemic response to war is tricky. In a pandemic, we win no matter what. Your argument is basically one to limit losses, The problem that I have with your post is that Fabian strategy is a path of last resort. It is by definition a path of weakness. Stalling for time should not be anyone's first choice. Your example of General Washington is an interesting one, because, originally, he did not employ the Fabian strategy. However, he was forced to employ one, because he lacked a functioning cavalry and had a deficient engineers. Viscount William Howe (a third generation English Baron of Clanawley--Southwestern County Fermanagh--anglicized to Glenawley) won the Battle of Long Island on August 27, 1776, by using cavalry to outflank the American Left. Without a functioning cavalry, scouting was slow and the British were able to screen their true intentions, until it was too late for the Americans. The British Army was able to arrive at the Americans' rear in almost total surprise. The Continental Army was saved by Maryland "400." Less than a dozen of the 260+ men in the Maryland "400" made it back to American lines. Washington referred to the Maryland "400" as his "Old Line," which led to one of Maryland's oldest nicknames, the Old Line State. The Continental Army was again saved by General Howe's timidity and a divine fog, which concealed the Americans' retreat, while Howe foolishly dug in for a siege. A more aggressive strategy by Howe, and we might all still be in the Commonwealth. Howe won the Battle of Brandywine on September 11, 1777 by using cavalry to outflank the American Right. Without a functioning cavalry, scouting was slow, which enabled the British to arrive on the American Right in almost complete surprise. Polish General Count Casimir Pulaski (a man without a country after the First Partition of Poland) saved Washington and the whole of the Continental Army by aggressively charging the British Army to buy time for the rest of the Continental Army to retreat. Washington again offered battle at Malvern but was saved by the Battle of the Clouds (a torrential downpour) and withdrew. Washington left "Mad" Anthony Wayne with a Division to guard Malvern, but Wayne was surprised in a night attack in the Paoli Massacre. Britain lost four killed and seven wounded in exchange for a rout of Wayne's entire Division. Washington then attempted to defend Philadelphia, but Howe pretended to attack Washington's Right. Not wanting another Brandywine, Washington bit and abandoned his center, which enabled Howe to attack the American Center and Left. The Continental Left broke and ran, yielding three cannon. Howe marched into Philadelphia unopposed. Washington then rolled the dice at Germantown and attempted to launch a surprise attack en masse to defeat the British, who were spread out. (Washington basically was trying for a redo of his victory at Trenton.) However, this time, it was his own troops who were intoxicated, which led to a third consecutive defeat in the campaign (four or five, depending how you count the Battle of the Clouds and the British taking Philadelphia). Germantown was actually a decent strategy in the abstract, but the Continentals were simply not up to the task of coordinating a surprise attack of that magnitude. Nevertheless, a successful victory at Germantown coupled with the victory at Saratoga may have ended the Revolutionary War then and there without the extended use of Fabian tactics. Instead the War drug on an additional five years. Like at the Battle of Long Island, Howe was timid and failed to follow up on the attack, which enabled Washington to escape to Valley Forge. Howe was no Hannibal. And Washington did not solely employ Fabian strategies. In fact, if Howe had been more aggressive, America still may be part of the Commonwealth. It was Howe's passivity, which enabled Washington's ability to employ the Fabian strategies that he did employ. Because of the perception back in England of Howe's failure to support General Burgoyne at Saratoga, Howe resigned his command. General Henry Clinton took over and immediately withdrew from Philadelphia, due to France's increasing help as a result of Saratoga. Washington deployed the entire Continental Army at his disposal but was only able to win a tactical victory over Clinton at Monmouth. After Monmouth, the War in the North devolved into a series of disjointed raids, international intrigue, needlessly complicated espionage and propaganda. Clinton hated America and wished to be transferred to a different position. There was a worry in England that he would be a poor choice for the job as Commander-in-Chief, and he lived up to their fears. Clinton clashed with his most senior subordinate, Marquess Charles Cornwallis. Eventually, it became so bad that Clinton quit the South and allowed Cornwallis to command by himself. Cornwallis took Georgia and South Carolina and appeared to be in a position to take North Carolina before the Loyalists lost the Battle of Kings Mountain. Cornwallis determined at that point that North Carolina could not be subdued until Virginia was defeated. He joined Benedict Arnold and the pair employed Fabian strategies, until Clinton ordered Cornwallis to the "Williamsburg Neck." Arnold wisely advised Cornwallis to avoid the "Williamsburg Neck," because of the possibility of becoming trapped by the French Navy, but Cornwallis ignored the advice. Arnold withdrew to the North, where he won the Pyrrhic Victory of the Battle of Groton Heights, which effectively ended offensive operations in the North. At the Williamsburg Neck, Washington and the French worked together in an aggressive strategy to trap Cornwallis, which succeeded, ultimately leading to the end of the War. There is little Fabian in Washington's strategy. Hannibal was a foreign invader. One reason that Fabian was successful was that he worked to deny Hannibal a port. Washington was an American in America and had many ports to work with. There are many examples of Wars turning on successful aggressive strategies and Wars being lost on overly-cautious strategies. World War II in Europe turned on the aggressive Battle of Arras and Germany's overreaction and subsequent overly-cautious Halt Order. The Allies aggressive actions coupled with Germany's overly-cautious actions led to Operation Dynamo and 338,000 Allied troops being saved. The Japanese were overly-cautious at Pearl Harbor and declined to commit to a Third Wave, which ultimately helped the Americans win the War in the Pacific. The Americans responded with the very aggressive Doolittle Raid, which encouraged Japan to spend energy, time, men and oil in taking the Aleutian Islands. The Americans followed that up with aggressive actions at the Coral Sea and Midway. It also led to the Americans killing Yamamoto, which led Japanese high command to be ultra cautious to their detriment. In the Battle off Samar, the three destroyers and four destroyer escorts of Taffy 3 (each smaller than one set of three guns on board the Yamato) beat off the bulk of the Japanese Navy in a preposterous all-out attack. Discretion is the better part of valor. But discretion for discretion's sake is foolish. I agree with the bulk of your post, but I would disagree in how your application of military strategy. equally valid is that in a pandemic, we aren't fighting anyone... there is nobody to appear weak or cowardly too other than ourselves, I suppose. we give up no edge in a psychological warfare games that always coexist in any real battle. Our enemy is not human, and nobody is keeping score but us. I wouldn't go military strategy as a first option either, but the conversation is mired in value statements. Ambiguous notions of toughness, strength, courage, what will you... So I just went to examples from maximum tough. I thought about a fishing analogy at first (is moving a fishing day because of bad weather "quitting" or common sense!) but I opted for this. Besides, it is always fun to tell a story of a couple thousand year old solider... Last resort does not make it invalid, and sure you can argue it is weak by definition... I would counter at this juncture all of our lungs are weak and our enemy is superior! Like Washington lacked equal firepower in the early days of the war, as a population we lack immunity. We cannot afford to be wage a one on one battle until we have evened the playing field (vaccine). People often seem to forget "last resorts", particularly used in the lens of stalling or delaying is not actually the last resort. The REAL last resort is to ride out to battle, to face certain doom and annihilation, and go down swinging.... that is generally the true, final, and ultimate last resort. Washington did not choose to ride out to battle in a blaze of glory and go out swinging and I think we should all be grateful he did not. I do not think this pandemic is so dire, and situation so grave, we need to subject our soldiers (err, football players, whatever) to become martyrs to the cause of normality and our collective need for entertainment on a traditional schedule. When a very good option is to wait a little bit and still get the thing we want. Yeah, overly hyperbolistic analogy on my part... but I am going with it.
|
|
|
Post by OriginalWhizzinator on Aug 27, 2020 7:22:01 GMT -8
From Seattle Times: “There’s already negative recruiting going on,” 247Sports national recruiting editor Brandon Huffman said. “It’s like, ‘Hey, we care about your kid’s wellbeing, but we also still care about football more than the Pac-12 does or the Big Ten does. We’re taking all these precautionary measures, but we’re also still supporting these kids’ efforts to play football.’ “So I think now they’re going to have to deal with the already permeating feeling that football is just not as serious out west. I think the good schools in the Pac-12 are able to offset that. “… Will the Pac-12 even have a spring season? Can you see their states saying, ‘No, we’re not playing in the spring either’? If they end up losing a year, I’m not saying the Pac-12 is going to become a Group of Five conference. But do they pretty much solidify their standing as the least relevant Power Five conference if they don’t play football in the spring? Probably.” “One of the initial responses I heard from the (Pac-12) conference’s fans was, ‘Oh, we’re going to have an easier time recruiting.’ Well, no you’re not,” Huffman said. “The NCAA keeps pushing back the dead period. Coaches have all this free time but no ability to get on the road and evaluate and recruit. I looked at it like with my kids doing activities and playing sports in the spring and summer. I’ve never been more available to go to their events, but if there are no events to go to, then it really doesn’t make a difference. “That’s kind of how coaches are. If they’re not allowed to get on the road, yeah, they’re not having to game plan for State U this weekend. So they can watch more (highlight tapes) and do more zoom calls and all that. But if they’re not getting the face time in person with these guys it really is all for naught.” But if they play, the Pac-12’s omnipresent perception problem will be amplified even more. www.seattletimes.com/sports/uw-husky-football/theres-already-negative-recruiting-going-on-how-fall-sec-acc-and-big-12-football-seasons-would-impact-pac-12-recruiting/If the Pac 12 sucks so much, how did Oregon net a 5* quarterback and the 5th best recruiting class in the nation? Pretty sure recruitment at Ohio State won’t skip a beat either. I suspect the issues that the Pac 12 have with recruiting are older than the COVID pandemic. The SEC just pays their players more.
|
|
|
Post by OriginalWhizzinator on Aug 27, 2020 8:18:57 GMT -8
The SEC, ACC, and Big 12 are actually the ones who punted. They will likely end up in the same exact place that the Pac-12 and Big Ten are now. This is all just political posturing.
|
|
|
Post by tn0000 on Aug 27, 2020 9:13:03 GMT -8
I live in the middle of SEC country. The decision to play football this fall is almost 100% due to financial reasons. Without football a ton of these schools' athletic departments would go under.
So, while football may not be taken as seriously out west, you all should feel good that you aren't as dependent on it for survival.
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Aug 27, 2020 9:40:30 GMT -8
I live in the middle of SEC country. The decision to play football this fall is almost 100% due to financial reasons. Without football a ton of these schools' athletic departments would go under. So, while football may not be taken as seriously out west, you all should feel good that you aren't as dependent on it for survival. Of course it’s all about the money. What other reason could there be to play football but cancel the other sports?
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Aug 27, 2020 15:41:06 GMT -8
I live in the middle of SEC country. The decision to play football this fall is almost 100% due to financial reasons. Without football a ton of these schools' athletic departments would go under. So, while football may not be taken as seriously out west, you all should feel good that you aren't as dependent on it for survival. We are. Many folks just haven’t come to grips with it yet. If there is a silver lining to this thing, maybe the football arms race will be trimmed back and set a wise and needed trend.
|
|
|
Post by zeroposter on Aug 27, 2020 16:13:17 GMT -8
I live in the middle of SEC country. The decision to play football this fall is almost 100% due to financial reasons. Without football a ton of these schools' athletic departments would go under. So, while football may not be taken as seriously out west, you all should feel good that you aren't as dependent on it for survival. We are. Many folks just haven’t come to grips with it yet. If there is a silver lining to this thing, maybe the football arms race will be trimmed back and set a wise and needed trend. But Beaver athletics is totally dependent on football for survival of several other sports. Football is just not the driver for overall quality of life that it seems to be in other areas. I hope football works out for the conferences that are going forward. I just don't see any way in hell that it will work without a total bubble and a total bubble at an academic institution where football is secondary to academics just doesn't seem realistic.
|
|
|
Post by zeroposter on Aug 28, 2020 7:49:53 GMT -8
|
|