TheColonyEagle

2020 just keeps delivering....

It seems that receivers leaving UNT before their eligibility is up don't really get the result they were expecting.....

yep

Hard to argue with him.....

IF/When this happens.....we are rather lucky in that we are in a good spot geographically surrounded by schools with some sort of tradition....and the other amazing thing is the SMU, Houston, UCF, etc...think the same way some here think. "no way will we "MOVE DOWN"....Again...they're not going to have a choice. The 65 P5 teams will want to shed some of the dead weight they have now...why would they want to take an SMU with them? Alabama doesn't care about SMU or UH. I got into an argument with an ECU fan and he just kept telling me how much money they have and showing me their facilities....dude......Alabama and Texas and Clemson don't care about you or your little athletic budget. Those schools and TV are in control. The fear of the G5s is that when the P5 breaks away...we'll be irrelevant (like we're not now) However, this new world is not going to be like when we went down to 1AA. We're not going to be playing McNeese State. We're going to be playing La Tech and SMU and Southern Miss and UH. Because they'll be right there with us. Which gets back to my first point....UNT is actually lucky in our location will still have interest for media and in our footprint. I would hate to be MTSU or a MAC school... I've gone back and forth on this but a potential playoff with a semifinal of Boise St, UCF, Cincinatti and App St? That would garner some interest. That's not equivalent to James Madison, Sam Houston, etc. Edit: and I'll add....the schools that should really be concerned about this are the FCS schools...this will push them further out.

Why do some look at this as "don't make the decision to move down" like we're going to have a choice? Meaning: if the P5 break away from NCAA and decide to just play each other...what are we supposed to do about it?

Sure wish we would've won more football games the past 4 years..... We're 27-25 playing the worst competition in the country, no bowl wins. Not sure that gets us any credibility with other conferences

I think the problem people have...if you're going to apply that standard to Kavanaugh....then you must think Biden's Presidential run should be over....because it would be better for Congress to wait until a full investigation is completed or replace the candidate. All based on an accusation. That was the standard used for Kavanaugh. I actually agree with you on the inconsistencies of Biden's accuser. A large portion of people are so fired up about the Biden accusation because of the way Kavanaugh was treated. The same standard should be applied to both. The standard is due process. Kavanaugh didn't get it...so people don't think Biden should get it.

94,000 are dead that weren’t before this started 39,000,000 are jobless that weren’t before this started 🤷🏼‍♂️

agree

So what would you consider a credible news source?

I don’t understand how some can’t see that a country with 15% unemployment headed toward 25% and greater unemployment (if we don’t open up soon) is sacrificing everyone as well. Everyone will be impacted by the economic ruin of our country. No one is immune to that. There will be more health problems come out of the reaction to this virus than this virus itself. You can’t deny that.

Curious.....

This seems to be a fairly balanced article. It makes points made by some that admit, yes, Sweden's culture is different...but locking down for much longer is simply not sustainable. Ask ourselves: how many people do we know that have actually gotten the virus. Now ask how many people we know whose jobs have gone away. I would say the latter is probably 10 fold.... https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/sweden/2020-05-12/swedens-coronavirus-strategy-will-soon-be-worlds As scientists learn more about the virus and authorities develop new and better ways to work around the contagion—altering the parameters for calculating herd immunity to account for behavioral changes, for instance—the justification for general lockdowns grows weaker and weaker. Even in places like the United States and the United Kingdom, where the pool of at-risk people is much larger, the cost of protecting these people is much lower than forcing everyone to stay home. Managing the path to herd immunity means, above all, protecting the vulnerable. Sweden learned that the hard way, but the situation there is now under control.

Ok...was curious. My wife and I both work from home and our travel is totally gone. (not that I'm complaining....but it does make it a little more difficult)

do you travel?

Umm.....yes

exactly

When this is all over...I wonder how many people will have been affected by Covid that never had Covid...a lot of people aren't getting routine care because of this virus. Logic would say that cancer rates, heart issues, etc that are currently not being treated will be an issue down the road. But heart disease and cancer are suddenly not a big deal. She has seen patients with burns, heart failure, and other illnesses be treated for COVID-19, often at the neglect of what could be a more pressing medical issue.” Not everyone presents the symptoms the same, but they are ignoring the other things that are contributing to their demise,” she says. https://www.dmagazine.com/healthcare-business/2020/05/this-dfw-nurse-went-to-new-york-to-fight-covid-19/

How would I infect someone at my favorite restaurant? All the guidelines from the experts were followed. Seems like I tried "to stay safe." But to be sure....I guess I should've stayed home. That's really the only way to be sure. (at least that's what we thought...data suggests otherwise)

who defines "safe"? Fires aren't the only danger and we can't prevent every danger that's on the highway. To continue your analogy...if we know there are deer close to a highway up ahead, we should close the highway down until we can be sure that there are no deer anywhere near that highway. No one's allowed on it until we're sure. This could go on forever.... Let's just agree to disagree.

But they didn't force people to stop driving. the "sweeping changes" aren't putting on seat belts....they're telling you to not get in your car. I'm not saying don't wear seat belts....I'm saying let me drive and I'll wear my seat belt.

We went to dinner Saturday night at a favorite restaurant of ours. They had hand sanitizer at the door....wore masks, took us to a booth. empty booth next to us. Tables spaced out. Moved tables they weren't using inside, outside. Had a card on the table to scan on our phone for the menu. We had drinks, dinner....it was great. They were also preparing food for curbside pickup. As we're walking out, my wife says to me: "why couldn't we just do that all along? Why force everyone to totally close?" That's a good question. There's no science to forcing that restaurant to close. We as healthy individuals made the choice to go into a business that is taking it seriously. I'm not saying don't take precautions...I'm saying don't make sweeping rules based on (so far) horribly flawed models. To the point of @CMJ's article....the economy is going to be hit anyway because people are worried. But being down 30% is better than 90%. And there's still no data that shows we should totally close schools in the fall. Yet our leaders are out telling everyone "get ready for home school next year!" And they have no information to base that on. At some point you have to ask yourself is the motivation really to save lives? Because we were perfectly safe to go into that place of business based on the science and data we have from this virus.

So then compare them to 2 countries closer to them. UK and Italy. Both have higher death rates and they totally locked down. France, Spain, Belgium all higher rates per capita

I don't know how we can trust the "experts" when their models have been overwhelmingly wrong. And before you say "yeah it's because we locked down" Then explain 2 things to me: Sweden and New York. Sweden didn't lock down and they're no worse off than any other country and NY has discovered that a majority of new cases are coming from people that are home. The point being....destroying our country is not necessarily stopping this virus. While data shows the coronavirus is on the decline in New York, the new survey results appear to clash with Cuomo’s prior assurances that isolation can reliably prevent transmission. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/ny-gov-cuomo-says-its-shocking-most-new-coronavirus-hospitalizations-are-people-staying-home.html One reason why the models failed is that they – just like most countries’ politicians – underestimated how millions of people spontaneously adapt to new circumstances. They only thought in terms of lockdowns vs business as usual, but failed to consider a third option: that people engage in social distancing voluntarily when they realise lives are at stake and when authorities recommend them to do so. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/can-we-trust-covid-modelling-more-evidence-from-sweden If you're going to use anecdotal evidence from Ghana as a way to convince people we need to continue to shut down our country you have to use anecdotal evidence from Sweden as well. I'm not saying we don't take the virus seriously....I'm saying the degree in which we are is excessive. My mom has pre existing conditions....I would take precautions before I went to her house and she would do the same. But let me decide how best to take care of my family.