(04-27-2020 10:49 AM)KSUforever Wrote:  ALL universities will be making those tough choices. I wish we could lose Joey's salary and keep a few more people in the department but hard cuts are coming. I am proud to see our university be proactive and not spend their reserves. The zips are spending their reserves and are in a tougher spot.

(04-27-2020 10:57 AM)thanksjim Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 10:49 AM)KSUforever Wrote:  ALL universities will be making those tough choices. I wish we could lose Joey's salary and keep a few more people in the department but hard cuts are coming. I am proud to see our university be proactive and not spend their reserves. The zips are spending their reserves and are in a tougher spot.

+1. Times are changing. The days of relying on one source of income for individuals and businesses/universities are changing. New times calls for different ways of thinking and having multiple streams of income

(04-27-2020 01:04 PM)GFlash68 Wrote:  With the exception of approximately 15 programs, the day of multi million dollar coaches salaries my be over. I have often been sickened at what some of these guys get for coaching a game. This change would be a good thing and it would not dilute the quality of the product.

(04-27-2020 04:07 PM)bopol Wrote:  As someone who works in higher ed, the problems go way beyond athletics. Faculty are hired for their research and given tenure for research, mostly irregardless to their ability to teach or mentor undergraduates. This creates unbelievable amounts of institutional waste and tons of effort being put into work that does not move the line on revenue. Frankly, the whole system needs to be thrown out with probably the majority of tenured faculty.

In general, I find the highly paid leaders of institution of higher ed to be far worse at their jobs then similar leaders in industry, while garnering more pay. Layers of overpaid upper management sucks a ton of $$$ from the institution as well.

And, athletics is very, very bad as well.

Maybe this will be a good thing as the system is unsustainable and will likely break down as it is becoming increasingly obvious that the student loan debt is becoming the next big bubble that will burst.

(04-28-2020 10:20 AM)JimJoyce Wrote:  I get times are tough for everyone and all but how are you going to preach “Flashes Take Care of Flashes” for two months and then take money away from an employee who barely makes a livable wage?

(04-28-2020 08:09 PM)anti-zip Wrote:  So one thing I think is important to think about with this virus, the results have shown that the deaths lag behind the positive tests. Obviously this makes sense because people aren't generally dying the first day or two after testing positive. But what this means is the death rate isn't actually accurate yet. For example right now there's a little more than 1 million positive tests in the US and a little more than 58k deaths. So right now the stats tell you the mortality rate is roughly 5.8%. But since the deaths lag, if all cases abruptly stopped right now we'd still see deaths for probably another week or two. I think there's still around 2k deaths per day so it's realistic to believe that if new cases stopped today the US could still reach 70k deaths meaning the true mortality rate is likely closer to 7%. If left unmitigated that's a lot of people.

Of course we probably won't know for sure what the real mortality rate since there could be significant amounts of people that had it, beat it, never showed a sign, and were never counted in that positive tests total. And of course it seems like the numbers in many other countries aren't reliable so it's tough to look at counties that have got through it to get an accurate idea of the mortality rate.

TL;DR version, the actual mortality rate vs positive tests is likely a little higher than it appears right now and I'm tired of not having sports stats to dig through.

(04-29-2020 07:52 AM)burden Wrote:  

(04-28-2020 08:09 PM)anti-zip Wrote:  So one thing I think is important to think about with this virus, the results have shown that the deaths lag behind the positive tests. Obviously this makes sense because people aren't generally dying the first day or two after testing positive. But what this means is the death rate isn't actually accurate yet. For example right now there's a little more than 1 million positive tests in the US and a little more than 58k deaths. So right now the stats tell you the mortality rate is roughly 5.8%. But since the deaths lag, if all cases abruptly stopped right now we'd still see deaths for probably another week or two. I think there's still around 2k deaths per day so it's realistic to believe that if new cases stopped today the US could still reach 70k deaths meaning the true mortality rate is likely closer to 7%. If left unmitigated that's a lot of people.

Of course we probably won't know for sure what the real mortality rate since there could be significant amounts of people that had it, beat it, never showed a sign, and were never counted in that positive tests total. And of course it seems like the numbers in many other countries aren't reliable so it's tough to look at counties that have got through it to get an accurate idea of the mortality rate.

TL;DR version, the actual mortality rate vs positive tests is likely a little higher than it appears right now and I'm tired of not having sports stats to dig through.

The initial antibody testing is indicating 4% of the population (mostly in big cities so far) have had the disease. That really lowers the death rate. Personally I think the general population could care less about the %. People react much more to the total number of deaths. Listen to the politicians and news networks trying to push their agendas. See how often they quote a %. Almost never. Had we managed nursing homes and New York better I think the resistance to opening up the country would be a lot less. Then again if Whittington had not gotten sick Kent might have won 3 more games.

(04-30-2020 09:27 AM)OLNWFLSH Wrote:  

(04-29-2020 07:52 AM)burden Wrote:  

(04-28-2020 08:09 PM)anti-zip Wrote:  So one thing I think is important to think about with this virus, the results have shown that the deaths lag behind the positive tests. Obviously this makes sense because people aren't generally dying the first day or two after testing positive. But what this means is the death rate isn't actually accurate yet. For example right now there's a little more than 1 million positive tests in the US and a little more than 58k deaths. So right now the stats tell you the mortality rate is roughly 5.8%. But since the deaths lag, if all cases abruptly stopped right now we'd still see deaths for probably another week or two. I think there's still around 2k deaths per day so it's realistic to believe that if new cases stopped today the US could still reach 70k deaths meaning the true mortality rate is likely closer to 7%. If left unmitigated that's a lot of people.

Of course we probably won't know for sure what the real mortality rate since there could be significant amounts of people that had it, beat it, never showed a sign, and were never counted in that positive tests total. And of course it seems like the numbers in many other countries aren't reliable so it's tough to look at counties that have got through it to get an accurate idea of the mortality rate.

TL;DR version, the actual mortality rate vs positive tests is likely a little higher than it appears right now and I'm tired of not having sports stats to dig through.

The initial antibody testing is indicating 4% of the population (mostly in big cities so far) have had the disease. That really lowers the death rate. Personally I think the general population could care less about the %. People react much more to the total number of deaths. Listen to the politicians and news networks trying to push their agendas. See how often they quote a %. Almost never. Had we managed nursing homes and New York better I think the resistance to opening up the country would be a lot less. Then again if Whittington had not gotten sick Kent might have won 3 more games.

The Atlantic has been running really well done pieces on the coronavirus and allowing free access - the piece by Ed Yong today is an excellent summary. They also have run stories on the impact on colleges and universities and what it will take to reopen. I worked in academia for forty years and my own feelings are that universities have lost sight of their purpose in the last 15 - 20 years. I have a long complicated argument but won't get into it. Just to say everything has become about image building, grandiose building projects and trying to do anything to attract students. The Chronicle of Higher Ed ran a story a few years ago on the increase in square footage on campuses being added and obviously costs have soared. In Ohio the demographics and declining state support really require schools take a hard look at their mission and way to fund what is really important. I hold KSU dear - but my initial reaction to their most recent Master Plan was that it was way too much - it should be revisited!

(04-30-2020 11:39 AM)cschierh Wrote:  

(04-30-2020 09:27 AM)OLNWFLSH Wrote:  

(04-29-2020 07:52 AM)burden Wrote:  

(04-28-2020 08:09 PM)anti-zip Wrote:  So one thing I think is important to think about with this virus, the results have shown that the deaths lag behind the positive tests. Obviously this makes sense because people aren't generally dying the first day or two after testing positive. But what this means is the death rate isn't actually accurate yet. For example right now there's a little more than 1 million positive tests in the US and a little more than 58k deaths. So right now the stats tell you the mortality rate is roughly 5.8%. But since the deaths lag, if all cases abruptly stopped right now we'd still see deaths for probably another week or two. I think there's still around 2k deaths per day so it's realistic to believe that if new cases stopped today the US could still reach 70k deaths meaning the true mortality rate is likely closer to 7%. If left unmitigated that's a lot of people.

Of course we probably won't know for sure what the real mortality rate since there could be significant amounts of people that had it, beat it, never showed a sign, and were never counted in that positive tests total. And of course it seems like the numbers in many other countries aren't reliable so it's tough to look at counties that have got through it to get an accurate idea of the mortality rate.

TL;DR version, the actual mortality rate vs positive tests is likely a little higher than it appears right now and I'm tired of not having sports stats to dig through.

The initial antibody testing is indicating 4% of the population (mostly in big cities so far) have had the disease. That really lowers the death rate. Personally I think the general population could care less about the %. People react much more to the total number of deaths. Listen to the politicians and news networks trying to push their agendas. See how often they quote a %. Almost never. Had we managed nursing homes and New York better I think the resistance to opening up the country would be a lot less. Then again if Whittington had not gotten sick Kent might have won 3 more games.

The Atlantic has been running really well done pieces on the coronavirus and allowing free access - the piece by Ed Yong today is an excellent summary. They also have run stories on the impact on colleges and universities and what it will take to reopen. I worked in academia for forty years and my own feelings are that universities have lost sight of their purpose in the last 15 - 20 years. I have a long complicated argument but won't get into it. Just to say everything has become about image building, grandiose building projects and trying to do anything to attract students. The Chronicle of Higher Ed ran a story a few years ago on the increase in square footage on campuses being added and obviously costs have soared. In Ohio the demographics and declining state support really require schools take a hard look at their mission and way to fund what is really important. I hold KSU dear - but my initial reaction to their most recent Master Plan was that it was way too much - it should be revisited!

In an interview with the Stater/KentWired, Diacon said master plan projects may be "paused" during the financial crisis. If enrollment falls (and I'm sure it will in the short term), big chunks may never be unpaused. The "innovation center" (remodeled art building) is well under way. It will be finished. Fashion expansion should go ahead; the school is booming and already overcrowded. The new business building would be the most expensive building in KSU history but is cornerstone of the master plan. They were already having trouble raising money for it. We may not see it for a long time.