Balsy

Yes, and you'd be here crying about it. But I can bring up your feelings on bowden regardless of what you said in the previous post because your displeasure with the direction of the Zips is well known, and Bowden is at the helm... sooooooooooo...... Anyways, Go Zips! Let's enjoy THIS game now that it's on. It's 6:39...

Dude, chill out for a bit. We get you're unhappy with the current state of the Zips and the direction Bowden. But now Toledo is getting smoked by Miami. So your point is kinda moot.

Indeed.

It's 6:58 am in the morning....

Well I didn't get to vote because I apparently got buried somewhere: Zips Win, 200-274 Passing Yards, 1-2 sacks. Go Zips.

How many of our peers went 3-33? After only one winning season in a decade before that? And then pulled off the type of Success you're talking about? That's been the central debate on this forum. Can we reconcile that contention. And, those one-hit-wonders like KSU and now (apparently) BGSU, if we were in their position was it worth it? I too want what Toledo NIU, WMU have. But what is the realistic time-frame to get there...sustainably. Who in the hell is there that we can bring in who can take us to the next level? The last time the brought someone in not-named Bowden, it destroyed the what little program we had, if anything. I want more. I'm getting to that point, I agree with you. My expectations are not being met. But I'm not sold that there is a silver-bullet out there. I'm more convinced we're going to get worse, than I am that we are going to get better. Call me a tortured Browns/Indians/Cavs/Zips fan (though some of those teams are now seeing success after decades of torture).

It also, probably, has something to do with the fact that the game kicked off at 8:30pm EST...which is 5:30 WCT. People just got off work.

I have an even easier solution: don't say the national anthem at sporting events to begin with. Why do we even do that at sporting events at all? The history of it is kinda murkey...apparently back in 1918 they started playing it during the 7th inning stretch in Baseball...some teams did prior to 1918, but really didn't hit off until WWII...

Merriam Websters defines it as: conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities ... the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people. Now I agree with you it's sometimes a stretch, when people cry about being discriminated against because their called "Climate Change Deniers"...but they do. A politician bans a word or phrase, to prevent from insulting or offending, "triggering" if you will, those who don't think Climate Change is a real thing. There's no better, modern, example of a conservative version of PC than that. Don't want to offend poor science denying segment of the base, (and our donors). People often claim their being discriminated against because they are "climate change deniers", when in reality they aren't. So yes, banning a science concept and any discussion about it because some people can't handle it, is absolutely being PC, and honestly in the worst kind of way. A decree coming from a position of power of what is right and wrong to say. As opposed to a social condemnation of certain speech. One is definitely worse than the other. It is also censorship too. Preventing the public from access to reality, and the reality that their tax dollars have paid to independently discover, is the definition of censorship. I didn't bring up the issue of censorship; but it absolutely is I'm glad you brought it up. "Oh the public can't handle the truth...so lets just not tell them about it." If that's not Censorship, I don't know what is. They were posted by another (hint you can go to google if you like) but here are some for ya: Energy Department Officials Ban Use of Climate Change. US Department of Agriculture bans the use of Climate Change, More on USDA officials being "coached" to not say the phrase "Climate Change" by Trump Officials. Florida. FWIW here's Former Chief Oceanographer for the US Navy, retired Rear Admiral David Titley talking about Climate Change. He's a former climate change denier himself, but a scientist who later changed his mind after conducting research as the head of the Navy research on the matter.

Thats a very interesting comparison: they're both pretty equally terrible at their jobs. I wonder who's more incompetent is the real question...

My morning news reading turned up this from BU: Study suggests link between youth football & later-life emotional, behavioral impairment "This study adds to growing research suggesting that incurring repeated head impacts through tackle football before the age of 12 can lead to a greater risk for short- and long-term neurological consequences," said Michael Alosco, PhD, lead author of the study and a post-doctoral fellow at Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM). However, more research on this topic is needed before any recommendations on policy or rule changes can be made," stated corresponding author Robert Stern, PhD, professor of neurology, neurosurgery and anatomy and neurobiology at BUSM. The researchers point out there are many important health and psychosocial benefits of participating in athletics and team sports during pre-adolescence. Certainly good research, I'm interested in seeing a larger sample size of course.

I think it is completely logical to make the connection between football and CTE in the case of Aaron Hernandez. CTE is not a "when you developed" condition, it's a cummulative condition with varying levels of severity, severity increasing with the constant exposure to head trauma, like boxing (which is the first instances of it's discovery). One could make the argument "how do we know it wasn't some other thing that boxers were doing?" and it'd be rather illogical. How do we know there is a link between smoking and lung cancer: not all lung cancers are caused by smoking, but the majority are because lung cancer can be the result of constant exposure to carcinogenic chemicals being breathed in. Lex Parsimoniae, the simplest solution is most likely the correct one.

To me his BIGGEST need to improve was maturity. No way in hell would I bring him to my NFL franchise based on what I saw AFTER the play. I'd give a chance to JoJo Natson over Lane (who looks the part at least) any day of the week.

I mean it is objectively true...Akron has always been terrible...

If a bunch of guys (us) sitting on our couches could predict that you're not going to be an NFL WR after last season...why on earth would you believe someone "more" experience...(who probably has something to gain financially by giving such advice...)?

Man that 22,811 crowd was amazing!

It all depends, my line in the sand is BGSU. No excuse for not beating them this year. Period.

Indeed, my mistake. I wasn't paying attention to that stat that closely, I shall correct it to 0.1% ...so 1/10 of 1% making the 17,100,000 x 0.001 (which is what I had envisioned when I was writing at 5 this morning...).

I put a lot more work into that previous post than I realize it did...clearly not well received?

I agree completely. With this part.

Which I've pointed out before, and it's completely valid. We don't know the static rate of CTE occurring in the general population either. However, I offer a caveat because CTE was first observed in former boxers, and was later found in people of high contact sports (football, rugby, ice hocky, etc). From my limited troll through the science research I haven't come across studies on former soccer players. The problem with research is that it's mostly voluntary, and you must be dead in order for it to be confirmed. Symptoms of people whom are given the post-mortem diagnosis of CTE are consistent, and fall within a predictable range. The problem is, however, how do you separate the static occurrence of these symptoms vs. the random appearance of them in the general population. However even with that in mind, it does appear that donated brains of former high contact sports listed above do in fact show a higher rate of CTE and other related brain trauma, than donated brains of other walks of life; which is what sparked the curiosity in the first place. But I think it's also misleading to say that because we don't fully understand the static occurrence of a phenomena, or it's comparative diagnosis across all contact sports, doesn't mean that there isn't an increased risk that we can be highly confident about. The reason Football is focused on, is because it is a high contact sport, that does involved a higher rate of incidental head contact. It is known that CTE is caused by repeated head trauma, and there are an estimated 17.1 million people (mostly children) playing some sort of organized football in the US; making it more than legitimate and prudent to study. The way the research is conducted is very similar to smoking and the link to cancer spin. For nearly 30-years there was a corporate campaign against good science making similar arguments: We don't know the static occurrence of lung cancer in all walks of life, therefore it's premature to act. Anytime there is a "therefore" statement, it's a value-based judgement on risk-management. Etymologically you'd have to be crazy to not research the connection between smoking and cancer because of the reported cases of lounge cancer in smokers. The research, however, is rather conclusive that head trauma = bad. You don't need to have studied the brain directly to observe this phenomena with boxers, and the higher diagnosis of brain related ailments that exists with them. And it's something that I think people are beginning to think about. Am I willing to risk my brain for X, Y, Z? Is it worth the risk? Even if the increased risk is small? Not everyone who smokes develops lung cancer, but is it worth the increased risk? Those are all questions of risk-management and are value-based. Science can't tell you what to think, it can only report the relative chance of something happening. The ESPN's of the world polarize the issue, because that's what media does. They do it on Evolution, Climate Change, Smoking (once upon a time), Lead contamination (once upon a time), and now CTE; despite the science behind it being pretty well founded. Addiction, brain chemistry, also has strong connections to habitual conditioning during adolescent brain development, putting adolescents at a higher risk of developing addictions. Which is logical, because if you're tampering with brain chemistry/homeostasis during development...you should almost expect something to happen. Which is another, legitimate, reason to target research to a sport that involves lots of children that is high contact, and involves a lot of incidental head trauma. So the science research is unfounded. I'll leave with this: my own personal assessment of risk management. Say it is found that 0.1% of those who play football competitively end up later in life being diagnosed with CTE. There are 17.1 million people who play this year, making that number 17,100 people with CTE from playing a game....am I willing to take that risk? That's better odds than winning the lottery. Am I willing to risk my brain, to play that game competitively? I'm not sure that I am. With my luck, I would be the 0.001% . But that's personal assessment of risk-management.

I guess the bottom-line here is that this in the end boils down to an assessment of risk-management. Science can only tell us the data-driven probability...the chance...of something occurring based on current understanding. What risk people decide to act on is ultimately up to them. There is less than 1% chance your house will ever be robbed, yet most people act on that less than 1% risk and make sure they have insurance to cover it in case that it does. The risk of pregnancy complications doubles after the age of 35 for women, from 0.04% to 0.08% (yes that's hundredths of a single percent), yet people act on that Risk, hell even freak out about that risk! I'd argue that most likely those who play football are most likely at a higher risk for developing CTE than the general population. How much so, and how much risk is what is currently unknown. That is where Risk-management comes into play. How many parents will encourage other sports over football. Science can't tell us at which % you should act. It can only tell us "hey watch out, there's a % chance of X, Y or Z occurring." What you do as a result of that information is up to you.

Which life lessons are those? That adults with something to gain personally; will manipulate, scheme and otherwise rig things in order to guarantee the personal benefit? Not to be a downer, but I have personally witnessed the, frankly, immoral manipulation/bending of academics and rules/standards held to other students; by adults in order to give byes to student athletes (mostly basketball and football). I too am supporter because I can see the benefit, however I do think it's important to be cautiously vigilant

This is a little OT: Not that I'm defending anything in the back and forth with anyone here, I will gladly admit I'm a Bowden homer (once calling myself the self-proclaimed leader of the Bowden-cheerleaders), but it was out of a place of hope. I haven't been a Zips fan as long as you guys have. Hell I didn't even know our mascot was a Kangaroo until like 1/4 through my freshman year or something ridiculous like that. Saw the team go 10-38 over the next couple of years, and two coaches. Every game I went to they got blown out at. Bowden was hired, and when I watched the Zips that season, for the first time following the Zips...I went to games thinking "we've got a chance". Went to visit my cousin in Tennessee that year, expecting to be shut out, and watching the team compete. I guess I've been a Bowden homer because it's been his tenure that I first felt excitement for Zips football. I'm weary of going to an offseason unsure about what unknown coach may bring here (only no-name coach I have personal reference to is iCoach). Even when Bowden is gone I will still be a Zips supporter. And by my comments earlier I'd say that I'm getting more frustrated as the games wear on. When is it our turn? Before Bowden's tenure it was nothing but downs for my fandom (regarding football...soccer and Basketball have been great...the point being why even bother following Zips football?) I've contemplated cancelling my tickets in the past, wondering if it even matters being a diehard Zips fan. What's the point? But everytime I get that thought, I have a wonderful conversation with some other Diehard fan (either here or elsewhere) that convinces me to kick that idea to the curb. IDK. Rant over.

My bad I will correct momentarily! One slips through every now and then