Will There Be a 2020 Football Season?

Chances of a 2020 season?

  • Full 12 Game Schedule

    Votes: 20 36.4%

  • Shortened Season

    Votes: 13 23.6%

  • No Games Played

    Votes: 22 40.0%
  • Total voters
    55
  • Poll closed .
Really, what does it say about our Big Ten brethren that only Nebraska took a true public stand in favor of sports?   

Little side comments talking both sides by a few others don’t mean much to me.  Its like “i voted for the sports before I voted against them” and with no published official minutes or even a final vote record, such statements are just playing both sides vs the rest. 

 
84HuskerLaw said:
 How can we really expect a good vaccine when they dont even have a reliable test yet?   
Click to expand...
This isn't fair. The bests tests in the world have 95-97% accuracy in regards to false positives/false negatives, and that is if they are run by the book correctly. So, in 1000 tests even the best tests in the world are going to have approx 40 false results. I haven't seen much to make me think these accruate covid tests are much worse than that.. I think some of them are 88% or so, but even that is on par with other acceptable tests in usage in the medical industry, so they aren't "bad" at all.  And a vaccine and its efficacy has nothing to do with tests and their accuracy. A vaccine can be considered "good" even with 50% efficacy and usable at 30%.  The efficacy of a vaccine has little to do with the vaccine itself, as in, the vaccine will do what it is programmed to do.. The variation in how effective it is has everything to do with the flexibility of the virus you are trying to vaccinate against.  In the case of flu and covid, they are slippery little things so it may be hard to come up with a slam dunk vaccine for them, due to the fact that they are nimble, not due to the fact that vaccine makers are inept. 

 
JJ Husker said:
I've always been curious.....how do they know if it was a false positive? What do they do that is better to confirm or deny the test result? Maybe they should just do that and skip the initial shaky test.
Click to expand...
Genius!

Yeah, I have no clue.  That seems like a lot of false positives.

 
Husker03 said:
This isn't fair. The bests tests in the world have 95-97% accuracy in regards to false positives/false negatives, and that is if they are run by the book correctly. So, in 1000 tests even the best tests in the world are going to have approx 40 false results. I haven't seen much to make me think these accruate covid tests are much worse than that.. I think some of them are 88% or so, but even that is on par with other acceptable tests in usage in the medical industry, so they aren't "bad" at all.  And a vaccine and its efficacy has nothing to do with tests and their accuracy. A vaccine can be considered "good" even with 50% efficacy and usable at 30%.  The efficacy of a vaccine has little to do with the vaccine itself, as in, the vaccine will do what it is programmed to do.. The variation in how effective it is has everything to do with the flexibility of the virus you are trying to vaccinate against.  In the case of flu and covid, they are slippery little things so it may be hard to come up with a slam dunk vaccine for them, due to the fact that they are nimble, not due to the fact that vaccine makers are inept. 
Click to expand...
So, how many?  How many false negatives?    I would guess that they retest to get a confirmation or not.  Then go best two out of three?  Or ?  

You hope they are not just assuming and quarantining the false + kids or not quarantining the false negs ?   

If the accuracy is 80% then I would want 3 to be 99% sure.  If 98% accurate, 2 seems like enough.  

A 30% effective rate for a vaccine sounds “ok” for a flu shot I guess but even 50% for corona wont give us football or resumption of any sort of normalcy based on the fear factor in most areas of society today.  When college sports are cancelled without even 1 death or hospitalization amongst thousands of infected athletes nationally, it seems basically hopeless doesnt it?  

 
Both CU and MU were known for their dirty play over decades.  I dont miss that and have not found much in that way about Big Ten teams really.  Maybe that is part of why the Big Ten has not yet produced any real rivalry type games.   Opinions differ but rivalries take long times and extra meaning/import to the games for them to be ‘rivalries’ for me.  

 
knapplc said:
The Big XII sucks.
Click to expand...
I agree, but so does the big10. We left all our tradition and have no rival. No history with big10. That is a huge part of what is fun about college football. Now we have more $$$. Yay, I guess if money is the most important thing in life for some the big10 is great and a smart decision. I miss college football being fun. I miss playing Oklahoma, beating Colorado and hating Texas. 

 
Huskers93-97 said:
I agree, but so does the big10. We left all our tradition and have no rival. No history with big10. That is a huge part of what is fun about college football. Now we have more $$$. Yay, I guess if money is the most important thing in life for some the big10 is great and a smart decision. I miss college football being fun. I miss playing Oklahoma, beating Colorado and hating Texas. 
Click to expand...


The Big Ten sucks far, far less than the Big 12. 

And we have history with these teams. We've been in this conference half the lifetime of  the players on our roster. They barely remember a time when the Huskers weren't in the Big Ten. 

If money isn't important to you, then quit your job and become a pauper. For the rest of the world, we need money - it's the tool our society has created to make life function. 

 
Undone said:
There are several potential answers to this. One is using a different kind of testing method and then getting back a negative result. I'm not sure what they did in this case though.
Click to expand...
But there are also false negatives....

I was trying to be funny but also was seriously wondering how or what they might use to confirm test results. What's to say the confirmation test is accurate? I mean if somebody actually gets sick that's easy but what about people with no symptoms, how do they prove false negatives or positives? Don't worry, it's a rhetorical question at this point.

 
Back
Top