|
Post by hcgrad94 on Jan 10, 2021 11:58:04 GMT -5
Here are the number of active players from the Ivy League, per Pro Football Reference: Harvard - 9 Princeton - 5 Penn - 3 Yale - 3 Brown - 2 Dartmouth - 2 Cornell - 1 Columbia - 1 Harvard has more players in the NFL than Syracuse. Just as an example, when Mommy and Daddy (and Junior) Football see a full 100% aid package from Harvard next to a full athletic athletic schollie to Syracuse well it'd be no shocker if Harvard wins one now and again... By the same token when Mommy and Daddy (and Junior) non-athlete see a full 100% aid package from Harvard v a 65K bill from Georgetown (for example) well... Getting back to the original point by DFW, I would think the Georgetown coaches are targeting moderate to high need kids they can offer attractive, no or low-loan packages to. Ultimately, there are plenty of highly skilled football players out there that with an offer like this vs scholarship offers from other FCS and BCS schools will choose GU. If Sgarlata is good, he will continue to keep GU competitive.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jan 10, 2021 13:14:08 GMT -5
Fitzpatrick had the fifth highest QBR this season. Flores should never have benched him in favor of Tua. I'm a season behind đ. I really couldn't get into following the Pats and the AFC East this year with Brady and all the opt outs gone. Amazing how a pro alliegance can disipate so quickly while a college one never wavers. Rooting for the Bucs during the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jan 10, 2021 13:15:42 GMT -5
Just as an example, when Mommy and Daddy (and Junior) Football see a full 100% aid package from Harvard next to a full athletic athletic schollie to Syracuse well it'd be no shocker if Harvard wins one now and again... By the same token when Mommy and Daddy (and Junior) non-athlete see a full 100% aid package from Harvard v a 65K bill from Georgetown (for example) well... Getting back to the original point by DFW, I would think the Georgetown coaches are targeting moderate to high need kids they can offer attractive, no or low-loan packages to. Ultimately, there are plenty of highly skilled football players out there that with an offer like this vs scholarship offers from other FCS and BCS schools will choose GU. If Sgarlata is good, he will continue to keep GU competitive. That's what I was trying to say.
|
|
|
Post by cruskater31 on Jan 10, 2021 20:55:47 GMT -5
Does our non-division game this Spring have to be a PL team? Bucknell should be a win (Lehigh might be interesting) but I would rather play someone like CCSU, URI, Maine, UNH, even Nova or Albany.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jan 10, 2021 21:07:43 GMT -5
Yes, I believe it does.
|
|
|
Post by cruskater31 on Jan 12, 2021 10:27:27 GMT -5
Thanks, rgs. It is unfortunate. If the PL is hoping to reduce spread by limiting travel, I am sure a trip to play CCSU or Albany would involve less hours in a bus than a trip to Lewisburg. At least we have some football to watch!
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jan 12, 2021 10:38:31 GMT -5
Football is a very nice consolation prize! The limit on schedules (for all but the military academies) is because of covid 19 and I believe that PL members think that their fellow PL members will all be following similar protocols. Let's hope that better days are ahead for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by A Clock Tower Purple on Jan 12, 2021 11:58:33 GMT -5
PL is doing nothing different than all the 1A conferences did: league-only games. Easier for schools to be on same page with protocols among their conference school peers than across multiple leagues where protocols may be different.
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Jan 13, 2021 22:35:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nhteamer on Jan 14, 2021 8:15:18 GMT -5
Thanks, rgs. It is unfortunate. If the PL is hoping to reduce spread by limiting travel, I am sure a trip to play CCSU or Albany would involve less hours in a bus than a trip to Lewisburg. At least we have some football to watch! fewer
|
|
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jan 14, 2021 10:31:46 GMT -5
That's kind of like a insurance company CEO saying that high doctor bills are here to stay, too. There are plenty of diseases which exist (from measles to cholera to polio) that are effectively treated and managed so as not to overwhelm society. There are still cases of the bubonic plague, too. With frequent vaccination and a low rate of transmission, there is no reason why SARS-COV2 cannot be managed.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jan 14, 2021 10:57:34 GMT -5
That is a good distinction. We have "lived with" the AIDS crisis coming from HIV for many years now. We have no "cure" but the treatment protocols have extended life and improved the quality of life for those coping with it. This is a far cry from where we started - not knowing what actually caused AIDS or how it was transmitted. Things get complicated when politics gets involved. I can remember when people were asked how they contracted the disease...as if that were a factor in assigning "guilt." Sadly, the current pandemic has been made into a political football. I believe we can learn to live with Covid 19 and do it more effectively once politics get out of the arena - just my personal opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jan 14, 2021 12:15:25 GMT -5
I will put this obit here, --the death several days ago of a "beloved" Augustinian of COVID at Bryn Mawr Hospital (very near Villanova). He was apparently teaching at the archdiocesan seminary, and residing at an Augustinian monastery. (Decades ago, he had taught in the Bronx.) catholicphilly.com/2021/01/news/obituaries/augustinian-father-gus-esposito-teacher-and-mentor-dies-at-age-69/From a local TV news broadcast, he was on a ventilator for two+ weeks and the day before he died, they livestreamed a celebration of the mass to his bedside. The broadcast indicated that it was unknown how he became infected, as he was careful about taking precautions.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jan 14, 2021 12:19:10 GMT -5
May his soul rest in peace. I am glad he was able to attend a virtual Mass before the end. I will be praying for Father Esposito.
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Jan 14, 2021 15:59:36 GMT -5
That's kind of like a insurance company CEO saying that high doctor bills are here to stay, too. There are plenty of diseases which exist (from measles to cholera to polio) that are effectively treated and managed so as not to overwhelm society. There are still cases of the bubonic plague, too. With frequent vaccination and a low rate of transmission, there is no reason why SARS-COV2 cannot be managed. Depending on the degree and number/nature of mutations I agree, but with that said, individual compliance is required and a trusting big brother/sister if things are to return to a place we might call normal. I would encourage the next administration to provide more educational material on how and why each vaccine works and the differences so individuals and physicians can make the appropriate choices. The antibody vaccines are not typical and dont take the same number of years to develop.- in other words the process was faster but not by years, just months. For the medical profession or scientists on the board please correct me if I am wrong. The JNJ vaccine moves to a DNA approach vs RNA and then we will eventually get T Cell Vaccines- While I would prefer the T Cell vaccine, I will be getting my vaccine once offered.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Jan 15, 2021 8:04:46 GMT -5
That's kind of like a insurance company CEO saying that high doctor bills are here to stay, too. There are plenty of diseases which exist (from measles to cholera to polio) that are effectively treated and managed so as not to overwhelm society. There are still cases of the bubonic plague, too. With frequent vaccination and a low rate of transmission, there is no reason why SARS-COV2 cannot be managed. Depending on the degree and number/nature of mutations I agree, but with that said, individual compliance is required and a trusting big brother/sister if things are to return to a place we might call normal. I would encourage the next administration to provide more educational material on how and why each vaccine works and the differences so individuals and physicians can make the appropriate choices. The antibody vaccines are not typical and dont take the same number of years to develop.- in other words the process was faster but not by years, just months. For the medical profession or scientists on the board please correct me if I am wrong. The JNJ vaccine moves to a DNA approach vs RNA and then we will eventually get T Cell Vaccines- While I would prefer the T Cell vaccine, I will be getting my vaccine once offered. There was some discussion on another board I frequent regarding the Moderna vaccine. Apparently it is 86% effective for folks over 65 (the vulnerable group) and there were questions as to whether that number was high enough to reassure the most nervous among us and fully reopen society: "The vaccine is less effective in older people, the FDA analysis finds. For people ages 18 to less than 65, the effectiveness is 96%, compared with 86% for people 65 and older." www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/12/15/946554638/fda-analysis-of-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-finds-it-effective-and-safe
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jan 15, 2021 9:40:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 15, 2021 10:26:46 GMT -5
I wouldn't quibble about the effectiveness of these covid vaccines as while none is perfect, they are both much more effective than flu vaccines that most of us take and the flu is generally much less virulent.
From the CDC website (highlight mine):
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jan 15, 2021 11:05:27 GMT -5
The flu is so 2019. My 77 year old friend has had bronchitis/flu every fall and winter for a decade. Until this fall and winter. Nobody's breathing on anyone.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jan 15, 2021 11:40:16 GMT -5
I think one has to really understand the underlying statistics when evaluating these statements about vaccines or any medical treatment. What does "95% effective" mean---does it mean that 5% of those who take the vaccine will get the disease? Does it mean that the risk was, say, 20% before, and now it's only 1%? It's like when you hear that such and such a pharmaceutical has, as a side effect, an "increased risk of getting XYZism"--if your risk without the medicine was 1 in 500,000 and it's now 10 in 500,000 sure enough that's a 900% increase in the risk but the risk is still infinitesimal. Regarding the flu vaccine: "flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population"---does that mean that each individual who takes the vaccine has his/her risk reduced by 40 to 60% or that, because the vaccine is available and many people take it , instead of 20MM people getting the flu only 8 to 12MM get it?
I get the flu vaccine every year and look forward to getting the Covid vaccine asap. It's just that having used statistics for so many years I know how they can be used properly and improperly. What's the "fastest growing super-premium bourbon in the state", the one that grew from 150 cases last year to 300 cases this year, +100%, or the one that grew from 5,000 cases LY to 6,000 cases TY, up "only" 20% but adding 1,000 cases versus the other brand's 150 added cases. I guess it really depended on what brand I was representing
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 15, 2021 14:18:33 GMT -5
KY, you bring up some valid points. One of my management 101 themes is âdata is worthless until it becomes information.â I use it on my Data Analytics son frequentlyđ. (He does an excellent job converting data to information.đ§)
I am reasonably confident that whatever the stats, these are effective vaccines and I intend to get mine as soon as it is available to me, which canât come soon enough.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jan 15, 2021 22:37:59 GMT -5
I think one has to really understand the underlying statistics when evaluating these statements about vaccines or any medical treatment. What does "95% effective" mean---does it mean that 5% of those who take the vaccine will get the disease? Does it mean that the risk was, say, 20% before, and now it's only 1%? It's like when you hear that such and such a pharmaceutical has, as a side effect, an "increased risk of getting XYZism"--if your risk without the medicine was 1 in 500,000 and it's now 10 in 500,000 sure enough that's a 900% increase in the risk but the risk is still infinitesimal. Regarding the flu vaccine: "flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population"---does that mean that each individual who takes the vaccine has his/her risk reduced by 40 to 60% or that, because the vaccine is available and many people take it , instead of 20MM people getting the flu only 8 to 12MM get it? I get the flu vaccine every year and look forward to getting the Covid vaccine asap. It's just that having used statistics for so many years I know how they can be used properly and improperly. What's the "fastest growing super-premium bourbon in the state", the one that grew from 150 cases last year to 300 cases this year, +100%, or the one that grew from 5,000 cases LY to 6,000 cases TY, up "only" 20% but adding 1,000 cases versus the other brand's 150 added cases. I guess it really depended on what brand I was representing I can offer one tidbit. I recently heard one of the TV talking heads with an MD degree, the one on CNN who kept Dick Cheney ticking I believe, say adamantly that the vaccine will prevent people from dying of Covid. That leaves open the question of some still getting infected but I understood him to mean no one or almost no one who has been vaccinated will die. Regarding stats/data/information no one can massage stats like SIDs when they compose coach bios. They regularly make coaches with losing records sound like Adolph Rupp, to throw in a Kentucky reference.
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Jan 16, 2021 8:39:07 GMT -5
I think one has to really understand the underlying statistics when evaluating these statements about vaccines or any medical treatment. What does "95% effective" mean---does it mean that 5% of those who take the vaccine will get the disease? Does it mean that the risk was, say, 20% before, and now it's only 1%? It's like when you hear that such and such a pharmaceutical has, as a side effect, an "increased risk of getting XYZism"--if your risk without the medicine was 1 in 500,000 and it's now 10 in 500,000 sure enough that's a 900% increase in the risk but the risk is still infinitesimal. Regarding the flu vaccine: "flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population"---does that mean that each individual who takes the vaccine has his/her risk reduced by 40 to 60% or that, because the vaccine is available and many people take it , instead of 20MM people getting the flu only 8 to 12MM get it? I get the flu vaccine every year and look forward to getting the Covid vaccine asap. It's just that having used statistics for so many years I know how they can be used properly and improperly. What's the "fastest growing super-premium bourbon in the state", the one that grew from 150 cases last year to 300 cases this year, +100%, or the one that grew from 5,000 cases LY to 6,000 cases TY, up "only" 20% but adding 1,000 cases versus the other brand's 150 added cases. I guess it really depended on what brand I was representing Good post, KY. Many of us out here in the real world have the same questions. You would think someone from Pfizer or Moderna could issue a 90 second video explaining what â90% effectiveâ means to regular people. Iâm getting it regardless when my turn comes but would be good to understand it better.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Jan 16, 2021 8:43:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Jan 16, 2021 9:45:45 GMT -5
I only glanced at the NYT article but it seems that the trigger for lack of efficacy is a patient becoming symptomatic. If so, you would expect younger people to do better as they are often asymptomatic even without the vaccine.
|
|