Why do we care about the Coronavirus?

Welcome Chris Klieman to K-State!
wild@nite
Posts: 3358
Joined: February 28th, 2018, 1:35 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Pick 'Em

Re: Why do we care about the Coronavirus?

Post by wild@nite » April 1st, 2020, 9:46 am

Hypeman wrote:
April 1st, 2020, 9:35 am
ksume2000 wrote:
April 1st, 2020, 8:55 am
I agree with you on several points, but disagree on others as much has probably changed since you were in high school.

For one, need based grants etc. would be much more limited to you today as those generally go to targeted classes only. That’s the harsh reality for rural white kids today.

As for academic scholarships based on ACT, that has changed dramatically too in the last 20 years as it has become big business. Rich kids start studying and tutoring for the test as early as middle school. Poor kids from rural schools don’t have those advantages. As a result, nearly all academic scholarship money goes to wealthy suburban kids. It’s like that everywhere but look no farther than KSU for proof of that. Another harsh reality for poor rural kids today.

One out is to become an offensive lineman and get your head bashed in every day. Another harsh reality.
"One out is to become an offensive lineman and get your head bashed in every day. Another harsh reality."


Yep, that's one, count it, one out. Sure, there is a scholarship discrepancy, but if a kid wants to bad enough, there is a thing called the internet. There are public libraries. There are teachers who will tutor. Football is not the enemy. Football is an avenue, if chosen, that has some risk. Lots of jobs and careers have risks. There are lots of kids who don't have ACT classes in High School either. Life isn't fair. If you want academic scholarships, seek them out. Sounds like a "poor me" blame game you're playing to me. Don't blame football. Many, many of those rich urban kids end up playing college football too. What's your excuse there?

UP next.... "Football linked to the origin of HIV". LOL

Hypeman
Posts: 1826
Joined: December 16th, 2018, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Post by Hypeman » April 1st, 2020, 9:54 am

AJcat7755 wrote:
April 1st, 2020, 8:41 am
Hypeman wrote:
April 1st, 2020, 8:11 am


Yeah, there’s no skill in those other sports. Toss those football players a soccer ball or golf club or tennis racquet and they dominate no problem. :rofl:

And that’s why we have sports ... for garnering publicity.

Wow.
Completely missing the point.

Many football players are dual sport athletes already, some even play 3. Kyler Murray was drafted by the MLB but decided to play football, Terrance Newman was a track star, Patrick Mahomes played SS, we have seen John Holcombe dunk. Ndamunkon Suh, Odell Beckham, Chad Johnson, Andrew Luck, Wes Welker, Karl Joseph, Marcus Mariota, Jay Ajayi, Jake Butt all played soccer growing up but choose football instead. Examples like this are all over the place.

It's not about just tossing them into another sport, but given their athletic abilities, if they spent their whole lives training in another sport, they would probably be successful enough to earn a scholarship to play it. But at some point, even the multi-sport athletes, had to make a decision to focus on football instead.

The argument is the only way they can get a paid education is through football, which is false. If their only goal was an education, they are many other sports, and many other levels of school they could go to to do so. Let's not act like football is mandatory to save their lives. Football is a voluntary sport, they play it because they want a chance at the highest pay day and the most glamor, not because they want an education. If education was their only goal, there are many other ways to do so, with much less risk of bodily harm in the future. Not to mention the number of players that never even finish their degree, showing how much they actually care about that education in the first place. There are risks, CTE being a big one, with seeking out that glamor and $$, but let's not pretend it's their only option in life.

Basketball is actually consider the most accessible sport for urban youth because of the space requirements for a basketball court, or just a hoop, compared to that of a football field or baseball field. So if any sport was the one that had a better chance of helping players get a scholarship, that would be considered higher.
I agree with you that b-ball is accessible, but the scholarships are fewer, especially if your theory that the kids do it for the shot at the pros is true. And if that’s the case, why couple college football with colleges? Just go semi-pro. The P5 could become the south division of the CFL.

As for assuming football players would excel at any sport Is assuming they all require the same physical and mental skill sets. I thinks that’s utterly ridiculous. Suggesting that because some of these guys participated in other sports as kids, like soccer, they could have excelled in those sports is also ridiculous. Perhaps they chose football because they sucked at the other sports and football fit their skill set and body type. It takes brute strength, less touch and hand eye coordination and dexterity and endurance than many other sports. I suspect the skill sets and body types that make a great football player are quite different than say golf, or baseball, or soccer, or cycling, or tennis, or equestrian or ...... Are there exceptions? of course there are. Ever seen Bo Jackson or Tim Tebow or Tony Romo? But those are 1 in a million.

That’s all somewhat off topic, but if the theory that playing football is all about fame, money, and has nothing to do with education is true, why the heck is football associated with an educational institution?

Hypeman
Posts: 1826
Joined: December 16th, 2018, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Post by Hypeman » April 1st, 2020, 10:00 am

wild@nite wrote:
April 1st, 2020, 9:46 am
Hypeman wrote:
April 1st, 2020, 9:35 am


I agree with you on several points, but disagree on others as much has probably changed since you were in high school.

For one, need based grants etc. would be much more limited to you today as those generally go to targeted classes only. That’s the harsh reality for rural white kids today.

As for academic scholarships based on ACT, that has changed dramatically too in the last 20 years as it has become big business. Rich kids start studying and tutoring for the test as early as middle school. Poor kids from rural schools don’t have those advantages. As a result, nearly all academic scholarship money goes to wealthy suburban kids. It’s like that everywhere but look no farther than KSU for proof of that. Another harsh reality for poor rural kids today.

One out is to become an offensive lineman and get your head bashed in every day. Another harsh reality.
"One out is to become an offensive lineman and get your head bashed in every day. Another harsh reality."


Yep, that's one, count it, one out. Sure, there is a scholarship discrepancy, but if a kid wants to bad enough, there is a thing called the internet. There are public libraries. There are teachers who will tutor. Football is not the enemy. Football is an avenue, if chosen, that has some risk. Lots of jobs and careers have risks. There are lots of kids who don't have ACT classes in High School either. Life isn't fair. If you want academic scholarships, seek them out. Sounds like a "poor me" blame game you're playing to me. Don't blame football. Many, many of those rich urban kids end up playing college football too. What's your excuse there?

UP next.... "Football linked to the origin of HIV". LOL
That response sounds like it came straight from the rich and famous.

My original point is we are willing shut down the world because of a “possible” viral outbreak, but willing to promote football and CTE when we know for a fact it will happen.

Anyone willing to work from home but also willing to support CTE is a hypocrite in my opinion.

Are you working from home today?

AJcat7755
Posts: 4107
Joined: February 26th, 2014, 11:29 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 8 times

Pick 'Em

Post by AJcat7755 » April 1st, 2020, 10:05 am

Hypeman wrote:
April 1st, 2020, 9:35 am
I agree with you on several points, but disagree on others as much has probably changed since you were in high school.

For one, need based grants etc. would be much more limited to you today as those generally go to targeted classes only. That’s the harsh reality for rural white kids today.

As for academic scholarships based on ACT, that has changed dramatically too in the last 20 years as it has become big business. Rich kids start studying and tutoring for the test as early as middle school. Poor kids from rural schools don’t have those advantages. As a result, nearly all academic scholarship money goes to wealthy suburban kids. It’s like that everywhere but look no farther than KSU for proof of that. Another harsh reality for poor rural kids today.

One out is to become an offensive lineman and get your head bashed in every day. Another harsh reality.
I'm white, grew up in suburbs, was in the top 5% of my class, great ACT scores, above 4.0 GPA due to taking college credit courses early, several extra circular activities. I applied for many scholarships and was only offered $2k leadership scholarship which was enough to pay for a few things for the very first semester in architecture, and required to take a couple of classes to keep it, which had costly materials just to take freshman classes. My roommate on the other hand was from rural KS (about as far west as you can get in KS), didn't have great scores,or grades and didn't have many activities. Yet he got a scholarship to cover 4 years of tuition and books. Another roommate was from Pitt KS (not rural or suburban), and he also got a scholarship to cover 4 years.

AJcat7755
Posts: 4107
Joined: February 26th, 2014, 11:29 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 8 times

Pick 'Em

Post by AJcat7755 » April 1st, 2020, 10:28 am

Hypeman wrote:
April 1st, 2020, 9:54 am
AJcat7755 wrote:
April 1st, 2020, 8:41 am


Completely missing the point.

Many football players are dual sport athletes already, some even play 3. Kyler Murray was drafted by the MLB but decided to play football, Terrance Newman was a track star, Patrick Mahomes played SS, we have seen John Holcombe dunk. Ndamunkon Suh, Odell Beckham, Chad Johnson, Andrew Luck, Wes Welker, Karl Joseph, Marcus Mariota, Jay Ajayi, Jake Butt all played soccer growing up but choose football instead. Examples like this are all over the place.

It's not about just tossing them into another sport, but given their athletic abilities, if they spent their whole lives training in another sport, they would probably be successful enough to earn a scholarship to play it. But at some point, even the multi-sport athletes, had to make a decision to focus on football instead.

The argument is the only way they can get a paid education is through football, which is false. If their only goal was an education, they are many other sports, and many other levels of school they could go to to do so. Let's not act like football is mandatory to save their lives. Football is a voluntary sport, they play it because they want a chance at the highest pay day and the most glamor, not because they want an education. If education was their only goal, there are many other ways to do so, with much less risk of bodily harm in the future. Not to mention the number of players that never even finish their degree, showing how much they actually care about that education in the first place. There are risks, CTE being a big one, with seeking out that glamor and $$, but let's not pretend it's their only option in life.

Basketball is actually consider the most accessible sport for urban youth because of the space requirements for a basketball court, or just a hoop, compared to that of a football field or baseball field. So if any sport was the one that had a better chance of helping players get a scholarship, that would be considered higher.
I agree with you that b-ball is accessible, but the scholarships are fewer, especially if your theory that the kids do it for the shot at the pros is true. And if that’s the case, why couple college football with colleges? Just go semi-pro. The P5 could become the south division of the CFL.

As for assuming football players would excel at any sport Is assuming they all require the same physical and mental skill sets. I thinks that’s utterly ridiculous. Suggesting that because some of these guys participated in other sports as kids, like soccer, they could have excelled in those sports is also ridiculous. Perhaps they chose football because they sucked at the other sports and football fit their skill set and body type. It takes brute strength, less touch and hand eye coordination and dexterity and endurance than many other sports. I suspect the skill sets and body types that make a great football player are quite different than say golf, or baseball, or soccer, or cycling, or tennis, or equestrian or ...... Are there exceptions? of course there are. Ever seen Bo Jackson or Tim Tebow or Tony Romo? But those are 1 in a million.

That’s all somewhat off topic, but if the theory that playing football is all about fame, money, and has nothing to do with education is true, why the heck is football associated with an educational institution?
There are far fewer basketball scholarships then football. Football scholarships represent 28% of overall men's players. Only 8.4% of HS football players play in college (NCAA I, II, III, NAIA, or JUCO). That is higher then basketball as well, but not really a sound strategy to getting an education. It's also not a sound strategy to making the pros as only 1.6% of NCAA FB players make the pros. Men's basketball has far better pro options with 21.3% of NCAA players playing pro ball somewhere as there are many more pro opportunities in basketball compared to football. As someone suggested, would focusing on education in HS be a better route to getting a higher education?

Again, I'm not assuming a "football" player would be good at other sports. I'm assuming a talented athlete could have been trained to play another sport instead of football. Instead of tailoring their talents to football and bulking up strength and size, they could have trained for something else. Their body types wouldn't have been a football body type if they didn't train to be that. Physical abilities can translate to other sports if trained properly. Quick twitch muscles for speed and agility can be used in a variety of ways. Fast athletes could run track, tall athletes can play basketball, etc. Lot of those big linemen in football also wrestle, or perform various track items like shot put or discuss. Athletes aren't just destined for football or nothing, their abilities can be trained for other applicable sports instead of football. A lot of college coaches even look for multi sport athletes because it shows that they have more raw talent. Leach and Harbaugh have said in the past they love getting football/soccer players because of their speed and agility translate well.

And even going to another method, those "football" bodies could also join the military service which takes all body types. The military would also pay for their education if that is their goal. And before we jump on the military is unsafe part, there are plenty of roles in the military that do not involve direct combat. The point being, there are many ways for someone to get an education outside of just playing football. But the goal of a lot of football players is not a degree, its big $$.

Football used to be about education, but it has become so much more money driven for schools. We try to make schools care, with APR and such, but not everyone gets their degree, and not every degree gotten is even that great with a lot of athlete filler classes (hello UNC). There are still many that use football, and other sports, to get an education, but it's not what it used to be.
Last edited by AJcat7755 on April 1st, 2020, 12:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

wild@nite
Posts: 3358
Joined: February 28th, 2018, 1:35 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Pick 'Em

Post by wild@nite » April 1st, 2020, 10:58 am

Hypeman wrote:
April 1st, 2020, 10:00 am
wild@nite wrote:
April 1st, 2020, 9:46 am


"One out is to become an offensive lineman and get your head bashed in every day. Another harsh reality."


Yep, that's one, count it, one out. Sure, there is a scholarship discrepancy, but if a kid wants to bad enough, there is a thing called the internet. There are public libraries. There are teachers who will tutor. Football is not the enemy. Football is an avenue, if chosen, that has some risk. Lots of jobs and careers have risks. There are lots of kids who don't have ACT classes in High School either. Life isn't fair. If you want academic scholarships, seek them out. Sounds like a "poor me" blame game you're playing to me. Don't blame football. Many, many of those rich urban kids end up playing college football too. What's your excuse there?

UP next.... "Football linked to the origin of HIV". LOL
That response sounds like it came straight from the rich and famous.

My original point is we are willing shut down the world because of a “possible” viral outbreak, but willing to promote football and CTE when we know for a fact it will happen.

Anyone willing to work from home but also willing to support CTE is a hypocrite in my opinion.

Are you working from home today?
Rich? LOL.... Yes, I'm working from home. I'm a teacher and coach and came from a very, very small community that had nothing. I still don't have a whole lot, but enough be happy. Not sure how that makes me a hypocrite, but whatever, I really don't care. What I do care about is that your original point is "pointless". A viral outbreak is not a choice. Football is. You can converse all you want to the contrary, but you'd be wrong. That is what people are trying to tell you. Individuals get choices in this country.

Football only has this effect (CTE) on a small fraction of the people who ever play it and virtually none who only play until the 12th grade. Football doesn't kill the elderly or people with diabetes and cancer. If you can't see the BIG difference between this and a viral outbreak then I can't waste my time conversing with you any further. It would fall under the definition of insanity.

Hypeman
Posts: 1826
Joined: December 16th, 2018, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Post by Hypeman » April 1st, 2020, 2:12 pm

AJcat7755 wrote:
April 1st, 2020, 10:28 am
Hypeman wrote:
April 1st, 2020, 9:54 am


I agree with you that b-ball is accessible, but the scholarships are fewer, especially if your theory that the kids do it for the shot at the pros is true. And if that’s the case, why couple college football with colleges? Just go semi-pro. The P5 could become the south division of the CFL.

As for assuming football players would excel at any sport Is assuming they all require the same physical and mental skill sets. I thinks that’s utterly ridiculous. Suggesting that because some of these guys participated in other sports as kids, like soccer, they could have excelled in those sports is also ridiculous. Perhaps they chose football because they sucked at the other sports and football fit their skill set and body type. It takes brute strength, less touch and hand eye coordination and dexterity and endurance than many other sports. I suspect the skill sets and body types that make a great football player are quite different than say golf, or baseball, or soccer, or cycling, or tennis, or equestrian or ...... Are there exceptions? of course there are. Ever seen Bo Jackson or Tim Tebow or Tony Romo? But those are 1 in a million.

That’s all somewhat off topic, but if the theory that playing football is all about fame, money, and has nothing to do with education is true, why the heck is football associated with an educational institution?
There are far fewer basketball scholarships then football. Football scholarships represent 28% of overall men's players. Only 8.4% of HS football players play in college (NCAA I, II, III, NAIA, or JUCO). That is higher then basketball as well, but not really a sound strategy to getting an education. It's also not a sound strategy to making the pros as only 1.6% of NCAA FB players make the pros. Men's basketball has far better pro options with 21.3% of NCAA players playing pro ball somewhere as there are many more pro opportunities in basketball compared to football. As someone suggested, would focusing on education in HS be a better route to getting a higher education?

Again, I'm not assuming a "football" player would be good at other sports. I'm assuming a talented athlete could have been trained to play another sport instead of football. Instead of tailoring their talents to football and bulking up strength and size, they could have trained for something else. Their body types wouldn't have been a football body type if they didn't train to be that. Physical abilities can translate to other sports if trained properly. Quick twitch muscles for speed and agility can be used in a variety of ways. Fast athletes could run track, tall athletes can play basketball, etc. Lot of those big linemen in football also wrestle, or perform various track items like shot put or discuss. Athletes aren't just destined for football or nothing, their abilities can be trained for other applicable sports instead of football. A lot of college coaches even look for multi sport athletes because it shows that they have more raw talent. Leach and Harbaugh have said in the past they love getting football/soccer players because of their speed and agility translate well.

And even going to another method, those "football" bodies could also join the military service which takes all body types. The military would also pay for their education if that is their goal. And before we jump on the military is unsafe part, there are plenty of roles in the military that do not involve direct combat. The point being, there are many ways for someone to get an education outside of just playing football. But the goal of a lot of football players is not a degree, its big $$.

Football used to be about education, but it has become so much more money driven for schools. We try to make schools care, with APR and such, but not everyone gets their degree, and not every degree gotten is even that great with a lot of athlete filler classes (hello UNC). There are still many that use football, and other sports, to get an education, but it's not what it used to be.
LoL! Have you looked at the research. Studies estimate over 90 percent of college football players suffer from CTE. It’s okay though. It’s not our brains. It’s the gladiators’.

AJcat7755
Posts: 4107
Joined: February 26th, 2014, 11:29 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 8 times

Pick 'Em

Post by AJcat7755 » April 1st, 2020, 4:53 pm

Hypeman wrote:
April 1st, 2020, 2:12 pm
LoL! Have you looked at the research. Studies estimate over 90 percent of college football players suffer from CTE. It’s okay though. It’s not our brains. It’s the gladiators’.
What does that have to do with anything? Where did I say CTE was not an issue? We all know CTE is an issue. But it has nothing to do with COVID. Football is a voluntary sport. It is not slaves being forced to fight as gladiators like Roman times. Players are signing up to play with known risks (although they need to do better education about these risks). Just like people continue to smoke. No one is forcing players to take on the risk of CTE. Saying it's the only way for players to get an education is through football is also not correct as there are many other sports, or academics, or the military, etc. which can provide funding for an education if that is their goal.

COVID on the other hand is not something anyone can completely opt out of getting as the spread of it is due to actions of others. It's a community spread virus that can infect those even if they are being safe. It's also unknown as to all the different ways it can be spread. Recent news is even saying it can be airborne and it has the chance of mutating on top of that.

Feel free to battle against CTE as it is an issue, but trying to use COVID as a mechanism to garner attention is not the right method to do so.

Hypeman
Posts: 1826
Joined: December 16th, 2018, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Post by Hypeman » April 1st, 2020, 6:57 pm

AJcat7755 wrote:
April 1st, 2020, 4:53 pm
Hypeman wrote:
April 1st, 2020, 2:12 pm
LoL! Have you looked at the research. Studies estimate over 90 percent of college football players suffer from CTE. It’s okay though. It’s not our brains. It’s the gladiators’.
What does that have to do with anything? Where did I say CTE was not an issue? We all know CTE is an issue. But it has nothing to do with COVID. Football is a voluntary sport. It is not slaves being forced to fight as gladiators like Roman times. Players are signing up to play with known risks (although they need to do better education about these risks). Just like people continue to smoke. No one is forcing players to take on the risk of CTE. Saying it's the only way for players to get an education is through football is also not correct as there are many other sports, or academics, or the military, etc. which can provide funding for an education if that is their goal.

COVID on the other hand is not something anyone can completely opt out of getting as the spread of it is due to actions of others. It's a community spread virus that can infect those even if they are being safe. It's also unknown as to all the different ways it can be spread. Recent news is even saying it can be airborne and it has the chance of mutating on top of that.

Feel free to battle against CTE as it is an issue, but trying to use COVID as a mechanism to garner attention is not the right method to do so.
My bad, I was responding to Wildman who, I tend to agree with on many issues, but don’t agree that CTE affects very few football players. They research show it affects nearly all that played college football.

Post Reply