I realize Auburn was just 3-8 against Georgia this decade, but Auburn won a national championship and played for another, along with 3 other NY6 bowl appearances I believe. Not sure if they had some kind of point system they used for this ranking or if it was just opinion based, but both teams would appear to have similar resumes to me, at least off the top of my head. Auburn's one losing season may have been the difference.
Oddsmakers expecting crowd reductions? Sportsbook lists over/under average attendance figures for upcoming college football season
What game are they expecting 101,000 at??? Is anyone confident there will be any games full-capacity crowds this season? I'm certainly not.
I'm not really, either. But it's gotta be worth more than a Kylin Hill jersey.
If he has to go to an SEC school other than auburn, I’d like to see him at Tennessee. Tennessee’s fan base deserves to see some kind of success again.
How KJ Britt isn’t even 2nd team All-SEC at LB is beyond me.
Bet I can guess which one. lol
Tbh that’s probably the most iconic jersey in SEC history. Any big time SEC fan would instantly know what game that was from.
I think those are really the only two clear choices for LSU fans.
I think there are maybe 3 or 4 jerseys in the conversation for me. Bo over the top—1982 Cam’s comeback—2010 Tebow’s FSU game—2008 Chris Davis kick six—2013 Ultimately, I think I’d go with Chris Davis’s Jersey.
Paul Finebaum agrees with Lincoln Riley, believes rushed return could be ‘catastrophic’ for college football
Completely agree. I doubt a June 1 return happens, but the sooner they can get these kids on campus, the better. Getting them all in a semi-centralized location makes it easier to contain the virus should one of them get it, and they'll be able to receive what is probably better medical care than they could at home anyway. However, I am doubtful about the likelihood of being able to play college football with fans in attendance this fall. If that's the case, I'd honestly rather not have college football at all, because it isn't worth having without fans in the stands.
Burrow. He's almost certainly gonna start week 1. Tua likely won't start until later into the season, if he starts at all this year. It has nothing to do with one being far more talented than the other. Just a matter of their different situations.
With the tournament right around the corner I had forgotten about him, but you're right. Last I'd heard he was gonna make a decision the second week in April. Not sure where all this leaves him in his decision-making process now.
After doing some more digging, you are right, China did not admit to creating the disease. These, however are some facts that have emerged about the location of the virus's origin. -The disease originated in bats. -The city of Wuhan, where there outbreak first occurred, is home to a market, which regularly sells bats, which are eaten in many parts of China. Wuhan is also home to a biological research lab, which... a) is known to have been conducting experiments on bats late last year, and b) has been known to sell animals to the market that have been used in experiments, and the market then sells meat from those animals. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect those dots, especially given that the Communist Chinese government is known to release diseases on its people for experimental and population control purposes. Now, obviously that doesn't prove that China deliberately created and released the coronavirus, but China also hasn't exactly been helpful, or truthful, in helping the rest of the world deal with this outbreak. It seems very convenient that just as our tariffs were really starting to hurt their economy, an outbreak starts in their country that decimates the rest of the world's economies as well.
I will admit that I just learned today that in the last few days they have changed the test to something that is supposed to be more consistent in the results it gives. I don't think enough results have come back from the new test yet to really know if it's any more accurate, though.
The mortality rate for flu wouldn't drop off much if you exclude the 80+ demographic since they aren't as much at risk from it as small children. It would still be around .15% to .16%.
Maybe I'm not making this clear, but I'm not saying I don't care about those people. Quite the opposite, actually. But these extensive overreactions are unwarranted. We could ride this out by implementing a few simple ideas for the next couple of weeks, including restricting nursing home visitation and limiting ER visits to just the most extreme cases, so that the demographics most at risk will be able to get treatment should they catch the virus. Those demographics aren't typically the type that attend many sporting events anyway, although I didn't have a problem with not letting fans in to watch games. Basically, for the next couple of weeks, if those of us less at risk from this disease would just stick to going to work, and then going home, and not venturing outside of those two environments unless absolutely necessary, as well as not going to the doctor for flu-like symptoms unless they fall under the extreme category as outlined by the CDC, then we could maintain a pretty much normal daily routine without overly compromising the ability of the at-risk demographics to get treatment quickly if they should need it.
From what I've gathered, it's gonna be around every year kind of like the flu. But after this first spell, scientists will have to guess at what strand of coronavirus we will have next year in order to create a shot for it, just like they do for the flu shot. The years we have flu epidemics are because the scientists just guessed wrong on what strands of flu we would have that year.
That's exactly what I have been saying. A little common sense is all that is needed to get past this. The elderly and others with weakened immune systems have a higher mortality rate from any disease than the rest of us. So obviously those people need to take more extreme precautions than the rest of us. But it's not like those same people aren't just as likely to die from the flu, pneumonia, or another disease.
And pretty much every other sport that I can think of.
But aren't most basketball players already signed by now?
But this disease is no more deadly than the flu for 95% of the population. The other 5% are people over 80 or with pre-existing medical conditions, and the mortality rate for every disease is higher for those people. We could get through this just fine by restricting nursing home visitation, banning international travel, and limiting ER visits to only extreme cases for a couple of weeks. I'm with the comment above. If this disease had an extremely high mortality rate, then I'd be all for doing whatever is necessary. But the only demographics at an abnormally high risk are those who already have much weaker immune systems, and those same people are just as likely to die from the flu, pneumonia, bronchitis, etc.
My point isn't that those people don't matter. My point is that this virus is no more deadly than the regular flu is to those demographics. We don't shut down the country for the flu every year do we? Why are we shutting down over this, then?
Kudos to the NCAA on this. I can see where there could be some debate over whether or not to grant the Winter sports' athletes an extra year. I mean, on one hand, they did get play out their entire regular seasons. But on the other hand, it just doesn't seem right that the majority of these guys had to play their final game of their athletic careers without knowing it. I hope those athletes get granted an extra year as well, just because it would be heart-breaking to have someone's career end like this.
I'm kind of disappointed this didn't materialize. The debate over who should have gotten in would have been just intriguing as the actual games.
Actually, right the opposite. The statistics I used were averages from multiple official health resources, including the CDC. There were very clear tables showing the mortality rate of every age demographic and those with different respiratory illnesses. Then I found the total deaths/case for those two groups, subtracted it from the deaths/case of everyone else, and was then able to come up with the mortality rate of the 150,000 or so people who have tested positive worldwide. Pretty simple and basic math really. It doesn't take an "expert" to use data to solve basic equations for determining mortality rates.
I'm not saying old people don't matter. Just that all this paranoia is unwarranted. Perfectly healthy people probably aren't going to die from this disease. There's no need for people to do anything any different than we do during regular flu season. Most of the old folks I know already don't go out much during the winter due to the risk of getting the flu, so it's not like they are having to completely change how they live. Just keep doing that and they'll be fine, and so will everyone else for the most part. That small a percentage of the population isn't worth tanking our entire economy.
You're right. It's not like China came out in January and stated they "accidentally" released the virus from a lab.
If you don't have the virus, then it's impossible to spread it to someone else. Common sense. Can't spread something you don't have. Normally I'd say if you don't test positive for it then you don't have it, but the test kits for Coronavirus are very unreliable, so it's possible to test multiple times over a 3 or 4 day stretch and get different results on each day. Also, learn how to use punctuation.