Trust me as a Syracuse fan we lose way more legacy recruits than follow their Dad at the school. Rob Gronkowski is probably our best example but there are many others.
We are recruiting George Rooks son this year (kid is a solid 4 star)...he looks to be a Notre Dame lean. Looking forward to the game in late September. I should be there tailgating in Lot 1.
So Cuse just got one of your legacy recruits in Austin Roon. Is this as much a problem for you guys as it is for us (keeping legacies)?
After growing up as Western Michigan legacy recruit, LB Austin Roon ready to ‘make my own path’ at Syracuse
Updated May 25, 2:52 PM; Posted May 25, 10:11 AM
Byron Center vs Holland Christian
Michigan prospect Austin Roon committed to Syracuse as a linebacker. (Joel Bissell | MLive.com)Joel Bissell | MLive.com
418
shares
By Stephen Bailey | sbailey@syracuse.com
Syracuse, N.Y. — Austin Roon grew up a Western Michigan fan.
His family made the 40 minute trip south from Byron Center, Michigan, to Kalamazoo regularly for football games during his childhood. They sat in Waldo Stadium and cheered on the Broncos team that his father, Steve, played linebacker for in the 1990s.
Austin began playing linebacker himself in third grade and as he developed into a Football Bowl Subdivision prospect, many in the community expected Austin to play for his father’s alma mater.
He announced his commitment to Syracuse on Sunday.
“He’s always told me, ‘This is your decision,’” Austin said. “I was a Western fan growing up so it was always something I loved watching, but I just wanted to switch it up a little bit. I didn’t want to be exactly like him. I love him to death, but I wanted to make my own path.”
Austin and Byron Center head coach Marc Cisco were adamant that there was minimal pressure placed directly on the Class of 2021 prospect to be a legacy recruit. Steve made that clear to him from the start of the process, as did WMU head coach Tim Lester, who previously served as the Orange’s offensive coordinator under Scott Shafer. They’d worked together before.
The older Roon and Lester were teammates for one season in 1997 when the Broncos finished 8-3 for their best record in a decade. Roon racked up a career-high 104 tackles as a senior while Lester threw for 2,160 yards as a freshman. The highlight was beating rival Central Michigan 38-24 — a victory sealed when Roon intercepted a pass and returned it to the CMU 10-yard line.
So for Austin, calling Lester to tell him about the Syracuse commitment was still “hard.” Playing linebacker is “in my blood,” Austin said, and those roots are invariably tied to Western Michigan. It was on the WMU campus last summer that he ran a 4.53-second 40-yard dash and caught the attention of Power-Five recruiters. Then on Dec. 28, Lester extended him his first offer.
“I think from the, outside that’s what everyone thought,” Cisco said. "If you played with him, it was a done deal; Steve was his dad. But from the inside, the people who know Steve and Coach Lester, that didn’t really matter.
“... Both parties understood that they were going to do whatever’s best for Austin.”
Austin believes he found the community feel that he was raised around in Central New York.
Orange defensive coordinator Tony White, defensive line coach Vinson Reynolds and linebackers coach Chris Achuff spent three weeks building up that feeling through Zoom calls with the entire family, film breakdowns with the full defensive staff and a virtual tour of campus. Conversations were light and the staff, including head coach Dino Babers, came across as authentic.
A family environment was the first thing that Austin pointed to when asked why he chose SU, followed by the opportunity to play Power-Five ball. He was already leaning hard toward the Orange when he was informed that Malik Matthew took one of only two-to-three linebacker spots in the program’s class. A final scholarship could go to a priority target like Jason Henderson, who confirmed his offer is still committable, or be used at another position.
“I just think that the coaches at Syracuse did a great job of developing that atmosphere with Austin,” Cisco said, “making him feel comfortable that this is a place that not only wants you, but is going to help you develop as a young man.”
Syracuse, Cisco said, is getting a prospect with versatility and a high ceiling. Austin’s always been more physical than his peers, but bulking up to 6 feet, 3 inches and 220 pounds -- and having just turned 17 years old -- makes his projection wide-ranging. Steve grew to about 6 feet, 5 inches, Cisco said.
Austin said he’s being recruited for the middle linebacker position in White’s 3-3-5 scheme, but the weak-side 'backer spot is also a comfortable fit and his quickness makes the blitz-heavy strong-side position an option as well. Depending on how he continues to fill out his frame, Cisco could see him becoming a defensive end in the system or possibly cover-heavy hybrid linebacker/safety.
“With the 3-3-5, you’ll find guys who can just run around and cut it loose,” Cisco said. “And if you don’t have those guys, you’re not going to win.”
Austin has primarily aligned at inside linebacker in Byron Center’s 4-2-5 scheme, playing downhill against a slate of league opponents who tend to run the ball a lot. He’s led the team in tackles each of the last two seasons, according to MLive.com, including an 82-stop campaign last fall as the Bulldogs went 10-1. Austin has also worked at defensive end in sub-packages and has played tight end, H-back and fullback on offense.
With his recruitment wrapped up, Austin is shifting his focus to offseason training during the coronavirus pandemic and becoming a smarter player during his senior season. Film study, he and Cisco agreed, is the key to his next stage of development.
Then it’ll be on to Syracuse, where he plans to make his own mark on a program.
CORRECTION: She said no full stadiums. Apparently she had to clarify herself after her original statement.
But no, there's been rumors other than that (and I guess Harbaugh saying he'll play in full stadiums or empty stadiums). I wonder if the schools know something.
(This post was last modified: 05-27-2020 08:33 PM by Bronco'14.)
MSU announced today there will be students back on campus. Yesterday the President of UM said he was unsure if there would be football. Did say if no students on campus then no sports.
Money will rule the day with colleges. Most college admins know that the longer we continue to "play it safe", and the less "normalcy" we get to, the more the budgets will be cut, and that effects how much $ they bring home. So, even though college presidents, admins, and professors are generally leftists who follow the same playbook used by Gov Gretch, and ordinarily would continue fanning the flames of panic, because millions and millions of people are going to die from this "pandemic" worthy virus (which a very large percentage of people who get it dont even know they are "sick", and its looking like the probability of dying from it is less than .5%), they will find justification to get the kids to campus in the fall, and not only have sports, but get as many paying folks in the stands as political correctness will permit, because it is sterting to effect them personally. Destroying the economy is great when done to get a douchy president out of office, but its quite another thing when it might cost those high level "educators" a piece of their already unjustified salaries.
I am not sure what is going on in southeast Michigan, but in the mid to upper parts of the state there are an increasing number of businesses, operations, and individuals who have been ignoring the governors orders. Every day more places are opening up, in conspicuous defiance of the orders (which have been so poorly written, from beginning to end, that, even utilizing the embarrassingly long list of FAQ's,are difficult to discern what is OK vs what isnt). This will just continue and grow as the weather gets better, and really makes a wannabe iron-fisted totalitarian style governor look more like a comedy character than a leader. Her only face-saving solution might be to open things up.
It really is becoming far more clear that covid-19 is not close to what the "experts" projected. The death figures are questionable to begin with, as they include, and are in fact dominated by cases of people who had serious underlying health conditions prior to contracting covid-19, and were very old. If those people either were tested, or suspected to have covid-19, they were statistically deemed a "covid death", even if the primary cause of their death was heart failure, pulmonary failure, or anything else. The fact that so many of the deaths were people in nursing homes tells us something. And indeed, the mortality rate for healthy people under 65, or even 70, is far more revealing. (I am not diminishing the significance and tragedy of elderly or vulnerable people dying, but the death rate for unhealthy and older people is always an unfortunate reality). Even including those figures in the calculations though, when we add the most recent figures regarding how many people have had covid-19, based on the immunity tests, the mortality rates are indeed getting closer to what seasonal flu has been in prior years (even if three or four times the seasonal flu death rate). The steps and closures taken might have, arguably, been appropriate as a precautionary measure, it doesn't make nearly as much sense to continue them now.
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2020 09:42 AM by brovol.)
You missed a lot @brovo!. For example, what you said about the deaths may be true, but there are many people who died of coronavirus at home and it was never reported as such. The death rate may in fact be under reported. That is the view of epidemiologists.
You also give our governor too much credit. Look at her history in the legislature. She is true to what she always has been. She is much too smart to believe she can bring down a sitting US president with a plan that financially hurts and/or ruins many Michigan citizens. Her pandemic decisions are clearly not politically motivated. Now, if you want to talk about contracts being awarded to political cronies that is fair game.
My background is in insurance. Assuming campus reopens and students reside in dorms, if one gets COVID-19 and dies, who pays the legal settlement when the university is found guilty because they opened the campus back up? That's a big IF and I get that, but at the moment I'm not sure there is legal protection for the schools should they reopen. One should pause when the president of UofM doubts if there will be classes on campus in the fall. Reopening campus to students is tantamount to stating that the university is providing a safe and healthy environment. I would think it can easily be argues that is not the case during a pandemic
You may be right. Perhaps decisions will be driven only by economic policy. If so, you have to wonder what is wrong with capitalism that it would create a choice between potentially getting sick and/or dying from coronavirus vs suffering economic hardship and loss.
(05-28-2020 10:25 AM)Aimless1 Wrote: You missed a lot @brovo!. For example, what you said about the deaths may be true, but there are many people who died of coronavirus at home and it was never reported as such. The death rate may in fact be under reported. That is the view of epidemiologists.
You also give our governor too much credit. Look at her history in the legislature. She is true to what she always has been. She is much too smart to believe she can bring down a sitting US president with a plan that financially hurts and/or ruins many Michigan citizens. Her pandemic decisions are clearly not politically motivated. Now, if you want to talk about contracts being awarded to political cronies that is fair game.
My background is in insurance. Assuming campus reopens and students reside in dorms, if one gets COVID-19 and dies, who pays the legal settlement when the university is found guilty because they opened the campus back up? That's a big IF and I get that, but at the moment I'm not sure there is legal protection for the schools should they reopen. One should pause when the president of UofM doubts if there will be classes on campus in the fall. Reopening campus to students is tantamount to stating that the university is providing a safe and healthy environment. I would think it can easily be argues that is not the case during a pandemic
You may be right. Perhaps decisions will be driven only by economic policy. If so, you have to wonder what is wrong with capitalism that it would create a choice between potentially getting sick and/or dying from coronavirus vs suffering economic hardship and loss.
I feel like there will be a lot of decisions being made and unmade in the next few months after watching the cases rise in states that opened up.
I don't see people feeling comfortable about sending their kids to school come fall. It's still very early in this journey, especially since we're just getting up to speed with our testing and data which is necessary for the world to understand this.
Anectdotally speaking, we are just learning that many more asymptomatic (at the moment) people are walking around in the world spreading the virus, and it's long term effects are just starting to be quantified. We just don't know.
The "Old people" narrative is just naive. I remember past SARS breakouts targeting younger people due to the cyclotron bombing that young people's immune systems are capable of producing. This could easily mutate into that once again, so being so caviller about "old people" really looks like a short sighted, myopic rationalization.
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2020 10:37 AM by CorkNCleaverAlum.)
(05-28-2020 09:33 AM)brovol Wrote: Money will rule the day with colleges. Most college admins know that the longer we continue to "play it safe", and the less "normalcy" we get to, the more the budgets will be cut, and that effects how much $ they bring home. So, even though college presidents, admins, and professors are generally leftists who follow the same playbook used by Gov Gretch, and ordinarily would continue fanning the flames of panic, because millions and millions of people are going to die from this "pandemic" worthy virus (which a very large percentage of people who get it dont even know they are "sick", and its looking like the probability of dying from it is less than .5%), they will find justification to get the kids to campus in the fall, and not only have sports, but get as many paying folks in the stands as political correctness will permit, because it is sterting to effect them personally. Destroying the economy is great when done to get a douchy president out of office, but its quite another thing when it might cost those high level "educators" a piece of their already unjustified salaries.
I am not sure what is going on in southeast Michigan, but in the mid to upper parts of the state there are an increasing number of businesses, operations, and individuals who have been ignoring the governors orders. Every day more places are opening up, in conspicuous defiance of the orders (which have been so poorly written, from beginning to end, that, even utilizing the embarrassingly long list of FAQ's,are difficult to discern what is OK vs what isnt). This will just continue and grow as the weather gets better, and really makes a wannabe iron-fisted totalitarian style governor look more like a comedy character than a leader. Her only face-saving solution might be to open things up.
It really is becoming far more clear that covid-19 is not close to what the "experts" projected. The death figures are questionable to begin with, as they include, and are in fact dominated by cases of people who had serious underlying health conditions prior to contracting covid-19, and were very old. If those people either were tested, or suspected to have covid-19, they were statistically deemed a "covid death", even if the primary cause of their death was heart failure, pulmonary failure, or anything else. The fact that so many of the deaths were people in nursing homes tells us something. And indeed, the mortality rate for healthy people under 65, or even 70, is far more revealing. (I am not diminishing the significance and tragedy of elderly or vulnerable people dying, but the death rate for unhealthy and older people is always an unfortunate reality). Even including those figures in the calculations though, when we add the most recent figures regarding how many people have had covid-19, based on the immunity tests, the mortality rates are indeed getting closer to what seasonal flu has been in prior years (even if three or four times the seasonal flu death rate). The steps and closures taken might have, arguably, been appropriate as a precautionary measure, it doesn't make nearly as much sense to continue them now.
Well said as usual bravol. Although I think in the end it might be less about the greedy capitalists & more about people just wanting to return to normal. Students want the college experience. People want to get back to work. People want to be able to go to games. People want to be able to go to the barber. Students especially: I'd feel so cheated if I was a student. Hell, I'm not even a student & i feel the government is screwing us over.
As more and more states open up and ease more and more restrictions, we're going to see people become less & less scared & wonder more & more why things aren't opening up. I've been waiting since February, March for hospitals to be overwhelmed & bodies piling up & I'm still waiting. I'm sick of being told 'wait more & it'll happen.' We can't keep this up. We've got to try to re-open & turtling isn't the solution.
I personally have little faith in Gretchen opening up & she can easily tell the college presidents 'too bad'. Colleges like Michigan St, Northern Michigan, and Saginaw Valley St are clearly showing signs they want to re-open & feel confident there won't be insurance issues (Universal & Disney opening up in a couple weeks & we were previously told no way they'd do that due to insurance issues by the Dems here) but Gretchen rules in Lansing & being leftists, the universities will comply w/ what she says in the end. University of Michigan will lead the charge being a Democrat cesspool & as usual it'll be up to the Red States & SEC to shut them up. It's already happening.
The news was reporting bars in Flint are opening up. You know it's bad when a Democrat stronghold Flint is defying the governor's orders. Tourist cities like Grand Haven & South Haven are opening up their towns as well. Not because of the greedy capitalists, but because people don't want to be told by the government to hide in their cave. If you want to hide in your cave go for it, but some of us recognize the joys a capitalist society offers.
Also Gretchen isn't trying to throw the president out, so much as wreck the economy so he gets voted out - & Michigan gets bailed out.
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2020 10:47 AM by Bronco'14.)
Quote:As more and more states open up and ease more and more restrictions, we're going to see people become less & less scared & wonder more & more why things aren't opening up. I've been waiting since February, March for hospitals to be overwhelmed & bodies piling up & I'm still waiting. I'm sick of being told 'wait more & it'll happen.' We can't keep this up. We've got to try to re-open & turtling isn't the solution.
There might have been some key actions that transpired in the meantime so that didn't happen.
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2020 10:48 AM by CorkNCleaverAlum.)
(05-28-2020 10:25 AM)Aimless1 Wrote: You missed a lot @brovo!. For example, what you said about the deaths may be true, but there are many people who died of coronavirus at home and it was never reported as such. The death rate may in fact be under reported. That is the view of epidemiologists.
You also give our governor too much credit. Look at her history in the legislature. She is true to what she always has been. She is much too smart to believe she can bring down a sitting US president with a plan that financially hurts and/or ruins many Michigan citizens. Her pandemic decisions are clearly not politically motivated. Now, if you want to talk about contracts being awarded to political cronies that is fair game.
My background is in insurance. Assuming campus reopens and students reside in dorms, if one gets COVID-19 and dies, who pays the legal settlement when the university is found guilty because they opened the campus back up? That's a big IF and I get that, but at the moment I'm not sure there is legal protection for the schools should they reopen. One should pause when the president of UofM doubts if there will be classes on campus in the fall. Reopening campus to students is tantamount to stating that the university is providing a safe and healthy environment. I would think it can easily be argues that is not the case during a pandemic
You may be right. Perhaps decisions will be driven only by economic policy. If so, you have to wonder what is wrong with capitalism that it would create a choice between potentially getting sick and/or dying from coronavirus vs suffering economic hardship and loss.
Well, I have a suspicion that if the universities had as much revenue coming in right now (or got more, from federal "stimulus", like unemployment is working), they would be less inclined to open in the fall. Perhaps I am wrong.
All due respect, I think the insurance argument is a red herring. The insurance premiums have already been paid, and at some point, now or later, university presidents will open. If at that time some kid dies from covid-19, and his/her family sues the university claiming it opened prematurely, the claim would be one of negligence. Coverage for errors and omissions, or any general liability, would exist without question. Frankly, I think it would be pretty difficult to establish any breach of the standard of care owed by the university at all.
As for the governors motivations, we can agree to disagree on that, but I think, even among your most liberal of friends you would find your conclusion that GW isn't basing her decisions at all on "politics" is far more naive than my conclusion that she is driven by political agenda, and particularly during this covid-19 stuff. And you are the first person I have every heard claim that she is "smart". She has signed too many orders to count during this covid stuff, and almost all of them have been unclear, short sighted, loaded with typographical and other errors, and require 100 FAQ's to explain what the gov's intent was (if not when she signed it, then now).
One thing is fairly clear, GW is on the brink of losing control, because folks honestly care less and less about what she is doing. I am not suggesting that is a good thing. Its very much a bad thing. But her leadership couldn't be worse.
(05-28-2020 10:25 AM)Aimless1 Wrote: You missed a lot @brovo!. For example, what you said about the deaths may be true, but there are many people who died of coronavirus at home and it was never reported as such. The death rate may in fact be under reported. That is the view of epidemiologists.
You also give our governor too much credit. Look at her history in the legislature. She is true to what she always has been. She is much too smart to believe she can bring down a sitting US president with a plan that financially hurts and/or ruins many Michigan citizens. Her pandemic decisions are clearly not politically motivated. Now, if you want to talk about contracts being awarded to political cronies that is fair game.
My background is in insurance. Assuming campus reopens and students reside in dorms, if one gets COVID-19 and dies, who pays the legal settlement when the university is found guilty because they opened the campus back up? That's a big IF and I get that, but at the moment I'm not sure there is legal protection for the schools should they reopen. One should pause when the president of UofM doubts if there will be classes on campus in the fall. Reopening campus to students is tantamount to stating that the university is providing a safe and healthy environment. I would think it can easily be argues that is not the case during a pandemic
You may be right. Perhaps decisions will be driven only by economic policy. If so, you have to wonder what is wrong with capitalism that it would create a choice between potentially getting sick and/or dying from coronavirus vs suffering economic hardship and loss.
Well, I have a suspicion that if the universities had as much revenue coming in right now (or got more, from federal "stimulus", like unemployment is working), they would be less inclined to open in the fall. Perhaps I am wrong.
All due respect, I think the insurance argument is a red herring. The insurance premiums have already been paid, and at some point, now or later, university presidents will open. If at that time some kid dies from covid-19, and his/her family sues the university claiming it opened prematurely, the claim would be one of negligence. Coverage for errors and omissions, or any general liability, would exist without question. Frankly, I think it would be pretty difficult to establish any breach of the standard of care owed by the university at all.
As for the governors motivations, we can agree to disagree on that, but I think, even among your most liberal of friends you would find your conclusion that GW isn't basing her decisions at all on "politics" is far more naive than my conclusion that she is driven by political agenda, and particularly during this covid-19 stuff. And you are the first person I have every heard claim that she is "smart". She has signed too many orders to count during this covid stuff, and almost all of them have been unclear, short sighted, loaded with typographical and other errors, and require 100 FAQ's to explain what the gov's intent was (if not when she signed it, then now).
One thing is fairly clear, GW is on the brink of losing control, because folks honestly care less and less about what she is doing. I am not suggesting that is a good thing. Its very much a bad thing. But her leadership couldn't be worse.
Great post again bravol.
I will say, however, that I don't think she's making the decisions to stand out amongst the Democrats to be Biden's VP. I don't doubt she ranks high in the Democrat Party, but I think her primary motivation in locking down the state & turtling as long as she can is that she's just that far Left.
(btw I know we used to clash on the WCHA/NCHC debate, but honestly I'm open to leaving the NCHC. Just like me & you both enjoy the MAC in football, I wonder if the new CCHA is just a better fit. I used to be concerned the GLIAC schools would cut the sport & being in their conference we would have too as well, but I feel confident the GLIAC schools are dedicated to the sport & - much as I dislike the move throwing out the Alaska schools & Huntsville to the wolves - will help them out big. Bowling Green St especially is dedicated, & if Miami leaves for the CCHA............ I just don't think floundering in the NCHC is getting us anywhere. Maybe if a post-season had happened we would've finally got some glory, who knows. Being bad in the CCHA would be awful, but I suspect it'd be like the MAC where no school is able to be consistently good due to all the schools being on the same budget. BGSU/MU/MT/NMU especially, & then FSU & LSSU might be the EMU of the league)
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2020 12:14 PM by Bronco'14.)
(05-28-2020 10:25 AM)Aimless1 Wrote: You missed a lot @brovo!. For example, what you said about the deaths may be true, but there are many people who died of coronavirus at home and it was never reported as such. The death rate may in fact be under reported. That is the view of epidemiologists.
You also give our governor too much credit. Look at her history in the legislature. She is true to what she always has been. She is much too smart to believe she can bring down a sitting US president with a plan that financially hurts and/or ruins many Michigan citizens. Her pandemic decisions are clearly not politically motivated. Now, if you want to talk about contracts being awarded to political cronies that is fair game.
My background is in insurance. Assuming campus reopens and students reside in dorms, if one gets COVID-19 and dies, who pays the legal settlement when the university is found guilty because they opened the campus back up? That's a big IF and I get that, but at the moment I'm not sure there is legal protection for the schools should they reopen. One should pause when the president of UofM doubts if there will be classes on campus in the fall. Reopening campus to students is tantamount to stating that the university is providing a safe and healthy environment. I would think it can easily be argues that is not the case during a pandemic
You may be right. Perhaps decisions will be driven only by economic policy. If so, you have to wonder what is wrong with capitalism that it would create a choice between potentially getting sick and/or dying from coronavirus vs suffering economic hardship and loss.
Well, I have a suspicion that if the universities had as much revenue coming in right now (or got more, from federal "stimulus", like unemployment is working), they would be less inclined to open in the fall. Perhaps I am wrong.
All due respect, I think the insurance argument is a red herring. The insurance premiums have already been paid, and at some point, now or later, university presidents will open. If at that time some kid dies from covid-19, and his/her family sues the university claiming it opened prematurely, the claim would be one of negligence. Coverage for errors and omissions, or any general liability, would exist without question. Frankly, I think it would be pretty difficult to establish any breach of the standard of care owed by the university at all.
As for the governors motivations, we can agree to disagree on that, but I think, even among your most liberal of friends you would find your conclusion that GW isn't basing her decisions at all on "politics" is far more naive than my conclusion that she is driven by political agenda, and particularly during this covid-19 stuff. And you are the first person I have every heard claim that she is "smart". She has signed too many orders to count during this covid stuff, and almost all of them have been unclear, short sighted, loaded with typographical and other errors, and require 100 FAQ's to explain what the gov's intent was (if not when she signed it, then now).
One thing is fairly clear, GW is on the brink of losing control, because folks honestly care less and less about what she is doing. I am not suggesting that is a good thing. Its very much a bad thing. But her leadership couldn't be worse.
^THIS!^
Bravo, brovol! I was just talking with a friend who is very much in the know at CMU and I was told if CMU (and many other universities) doesn't open in the fall, it's going to create a very bad financial situation.
FIRE UP CHIPS! :)
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2020 12:25 PM by BeatWestern!.)
(05-28-2020 12:21 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote: Bravo, brovol! I was just talking with a friend who is very much in the know at CMU and I was told if CMU (and many other universities) don't open in the fall, it's going to create a very bad financial situation.
FIRE UP CHIPS! :)
The schools might want to open up, but if they get checks from the government, all is good w/ them.
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2020 12:28 PM by Bronco'14.)
(05-28-2020 10:25 AM)Aimless1 Wrote: You missed a lot @brovo!. For example, what you said about the deaths may be true, but there are many people who died of coronavirus at home and it was never reported as such. The death rate may in fact be under reported. That is the view of epidemiologists.
You also give our governor too much credit. Look at her history in the legislature. She is true to what she always has been. She is much too smart to believe she can bring down a sitting US president with a plan that financially hurts and/or ruins many Michigan citizens. Her pandemic decisions are clearly not politically motivated. Now, if you want to talk about contracts being awarded to political cronies that is fair game.
My background is in insurance. Assuming campus reopens and students reside in dorms, if one gets COVID-19 and dies, who pays the legal settlement when the university is found guilty because they opened the campus back up? That's a big IF and I get that, but at the moment I'm not sure there is legal protection for the schools should they reopen. One should pause when the president of UofM doubts if there will be classes on campus in the fall. Reopening campus to students is tantamount to stating that the university is providing a safe and healthy environment. I would think it can easily be argues that is not the case during a pandemic
You may be right. Perhaps decisions will be driven only by economic policy. If so, you have to wonder what is wrong with capitalism that it would create a choice between potentially getting sick and/or dying from coronavirus vs suffering economic hardship and loss.
Well, I have a suspicion that if the universities had as much revenue coming in right now (or got more, from federal "stimulus", like unemployment is working), they would be less inclined to open in the fall. Perhaps I am wrong.
All due respect, I think the insurance argument is a red herring. The insurance premiums have already been paid, and at some point, now or later, university presidents will open. If at that time some kid dies from covid-19, and his/her family sues the university claiming it opened prematurely, the claim would be one of negligence. Coverage for errors and omissions, or any general liability, would exist without question. Frankly, I think it would be pretty difficult to establish any breach of the standard of care owed by the university at all.
As for the governors motivations, we can agree to disagree on that, but I think, even among your most liberal of friends you would find your conclusion that GW isn't basing her decisions at all on "politics" is far more naive than my conclusion that she is driven by political agenda, and particularly during this covid-19 stuff. And you are the first person I have every heard claim that she is "smart". She has signed too many orders to count during this covid stuff, and almost all of them have been unclear, short sighted, loaded with typographical and other errors, and require 100 FAQ's to explain what the gov's intent was (if not when she signed it, then now).
One thing is fairly clear, GW is on the brink of losing control, because folks honestly care less and less about what she is doing. I am not suggesting that is a good thing. Its very much a bad thing. But her leadership couldn't be worse.
Great post again bravol.
I will say, however, that I don't think she's making the decisions to stand out amongst the Democrats to be Biden's VP. I don't doubt she ranks high in the Democrat Party, but I think her primary motivation in locking down the state & turtling as long as she can is that she's just that far Left.
(btw I know we used to clash on the WCHA/NCHC debate, but honestly I'm open to leaving the NCHC. Just like me & you both enjoy the MAC in football, I wonder if the new CCHA is just a better fit. I used to be concerned the GLIAC schools would cut the sport & being in their conference we would have too as well, but I feel confident the GLIAC schools are dedicated to the sport & - much as I dislike the move throwing out the Alaska schools & Huntsville to the wolves - will help them out big. Bowling Green St especially is dedicated, & if Miami leaves for the CCHA............ I just don't think floundering in the NCHC is getting us anywhere. Maybe if a post-season had happened we would've finally got some glory, who knows. Being bad in the CCHA would be awful, but I suspect it'd be like the MAC where no school is able to be consistently good due to all the schools being on the same budget. BGSU/MU/MT/NMU especially, & then FSU & LSSU might be the EMU of the league)
I am not allowed to discuss the NCHC/WCHA issue any more. LOL. It was me against the world on that, and it got too exhausting even for me. WMU's hockey situation will develop as it does. I expressed my concern before, and as we were joining the new league, and feel my arguments most recently have been exactly the same as the ones I gave then. And I thought we would struggle to win at any consistent level, based on those concerns, which proved top be accurate. But again, I digress....
I agree that GW is less likely to get a VP bid than she was a month ago; perhaps because of the angst she has been receiving. The Dems need to win Michigan, so it seemed like a good thing to get a younger, female, and relatively popular governor on the ticket, but right now the folks who still lover her are folks who are going to vote for Biden regardless, so no real gain to add her, and she does have the baggage of these strict and extended orders.
(05-28-2020 12:20 PM)CorkNCleaverAlum Wrote: Don't you all think that the mitigation efforts had something to do with the lower case and fatality numbers?
Even though they're over 50K and 5K deaths, which is much higher than flu number for a year.
I do believe that mitigation was the primary goal of the lock-downs. "flatten the curve". But the curve was flattened in virtually every state quite a while ago, but the lock-downs continued. At the same time, we have learned that covid-19 is far less of a threat than what was initially thought.
With respect to the numbers you cite, I don't quibble with the figures as reported. But, like with most statistics, you need to understand what they are, and what they are not. The total cases reflect only individuals who actually were tested, and were positive. They dont include the majority of the people who have or have previously contracted the virus, but who never got tested. A very large percentage (anywhere between 33-60% as far as I have read) are completely non-symptomatic, and others have symptoms so mild that they dont recognize it as a serious illness, and therefore dont get tested. Others might get sick enough that they should be tested, but dont go to the hospital, and just grind it out till they recover. Point being, the "total cases" number should be increased by a factor of (who really knows, but a lot).
As for the death number, that number is even less reliable, primarily because it reflects not just people who died "because of covid-19", but also "people who died while they were either positive for covid-19, or suspected to be positive", but who had an underlying health issue which was likely the "primary" cause of death. Look at the statistics of the covid-deaths of people who were in nursing homes. They are a huge percentage of the total deaths. Somewhere between 45-60% of the deaths. These are people who had extremely low life expectancies before they entered into a nursing home, much less before they contracted covid-19. Did covid-19 lessen their lives? I am sure it did, but it is hard to utilize that number as a foundation to determine the danger or risk for the other 99+% of Americans. And that is not even considering the fact that there are other secondary motives (like financial gain) that hospitals have with respect to these reported numbers. Not that I am skeptical, but.....
The CDC numbers are now suggesting that the probability of dying from covid-19 is about .28%. The probability from seasonal flu is about .13%; thus, about half. But with seasonal flu we don't even discuss doing anything different. People die from hundreds of different things, and we accept that as part of the life cycle and move on with our daily routines. But, based on unjustified panic, which I personally think was at least partially motivated by politics and other agendas, a huge portion of our economy was shut down, our market tanked, our lives were changed in a very negative way, and indeed our health has been compromised (and I'm not referring to covid-19 here). Crazy!
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2020 01:48 PM by brovol.)
(05-28-2020 12:20 PM)CorkNCleaverAlum Wrote: Don't you all think that the mitigation efforts had something to do with the lower case and fatality numbers?
Even though they're over 50K and 5K deaths, which is much higher than flu number for a year.
I do believe that mitigation was the primary goal of the lock-downs. "flatten the curve". But the curve was flattened in virtually every state quite a while ago, but the lock-downs continued. At the same time, we have learned that covid-19 is far less of a threat than what was initially thought.
With respect to the numbers you cite, I don't quibble with the figures as reported. But, like with most statistics, you need to understand what they are, and what they are not. The total cases reflect only individuals who actually were tested, and were positive. They dont include the majority of the people who have or have previously contracted the virus, but who never got tested. A very large percentage (anywhere between 33-60% as far as I have read) are completely non-symptomatic, and others have symptoms so mild that they dont recognize it as a serious illness, and therefore dont get tested. Others might get sick enough that they should be tested, but dont go to the hospital, and just grind it out till they recover. Point being, the "total cases" number should be increased by a factor of (who really knows, but a lot).
As for the death number, that number is even less reliable, primarily because it reflects not just people who died "because of covid-19", but also "people who died while they were either positive for covid-19, or suspected to be positive", but who had an underlying health issue which was likely the "primary" cause of death. Look at the statistics of the covid-deaths of people who were in nursing homes. They are a huge percentage of the total deaths. Somewhere between 45-60% of the deaths. These are people who had extremely low life expectancies before they entered into a nursing home, much less before they contracted covid-19. Did covid-19 lessen their lives? I am sure it did, but it is hard to utilize that number as a foundation to determine the danger or risk for the other 99+% of Americans. And that is not even considering the fact that there are other secondary motives (like financial gain) that hospitals have with respect to these reported numbers. Not that I am skeptical, but.....
The CDC numbers are now suggesting that the probability of dying from covid-19 is about .28%. The probability from seasonal flu is about .13%; thus, about half. But with seasonal flu we don't even discuss doing anything different. People die from hundreds of different things, and we accept that as part of the life cycle and move on with our daily routines. But, based on unjustified panic, which I personally think was at least partially motivated by politics and other agendas, a huge portion of our economy was shut down, our market tanked, our lives were changed in a very negative way, and indeed our health has been compromised (and I'm not referring to covid-19 here). Crazy!
![[Image: A7K3AGL3CZD5LBEHQKPCMTB47I.JPG]](https://www.syracuse.com/resizer/vqRvpW0gQa6lY7KRyrsYGyAp0Og=/1280x0/smart/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/advancelocal/A7K3AGL3CZD5LBEHQKPCMTB47I.JPG)
