NoSaint

you’ve never struck me as particularly self aware. Maybe it is hitting you harder than you think. Are you drunk now?

he’s the much rarer specimen between the LBs. Milano as a body type and skill set is easier to find. Edmunds rangy body and athleticism would be very difficult to replicate.

I feel like you should probably put some of the advantages in the original post of the thread [I'll put them here, how about that? So here's an article with some background on the project. It started with a Yale group headed by Anne Wylie showing that testing of saliva could be as or more sensitive than testing the brain-poking nasopharangeal swabs. This is important because you kinda need someone else to poke your brain with one of those swabs, and that someone else wants PPE lest you snork virus all over them. Whereas any of us fools can spit in a tube. Here's a blurb about the project with more detail. They built on the saliva sample results to develop a simpler test. Advantage #1: No brain-poking special swab Advantage #2: Extensive PPE not needed for worker collecting your sample Next they decided to skip the CDC's cumbersome RNA extraction step. They get around it by adding a protease to munch on the viral proteins then using a heat inactivation to melt the lipids on the viral particle and let the RNA out. Advantage #3: No RNA extraction step, which requires its own set of reagents and for high throughput, its own special machine Here's the paper https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.03.20167791v1 So what's the disadvantage? Well, the CDC put the RNA extraction step there for a reason, and that reason if I'm not mistaken, was that the original Chinese test did not use RNA extraction and Chinese clinicians wound up using lung CT scans to diagnose covid-19 - the original test just missed that many cases. Some said 50%. Yikes. This group claims 94% comparison with the Thermo-Fisher covid-19 test. If that's where it is, it's a boon If it's more like the antigen test that's been being developed, 54-60%, it's .....well, IMO, a useful test needs to work better than flipping a coin. Time will tell.

I’m not banking on a guy giving up $10m+ on his prime contract because he’s got a humble lifestyle. that’s the thing- a good 43 OLB is nice... but doesn’t require a rare body type or other worldly athleticism. It isn’t even a 3 down position always. if you find a really special guy, sure- 12-14M would be on the table. But I think we’ve just got ourselves a good hard working starter quality player. If you pay all of them, you won’t be a good team. keep drafting OLBs or plugging vets short term and spend the money elsewhere.

Yea- I’m sure the pats hated beating up on us and having home field in the playoffs for 20 years. just go win. I disagree with quite literally all of your points.

he’s such a fool

Nice spot for everyone

Great tight end money but not elite wide receiver money. curious if it’s 5 years total or 5 plus this years existing (with some upfront thrown in)

you are forgetting about the ones that would pay double to attend just to prove a point.

Washington football team has been used by various media for a few years now

What do you think the balance sheet on 65-130 looks like? Illinois is #32 out of 130 so the 75th percentile By the middle of the 130 D1 programs you aren’t always in the black.

I don’t largely disagree with the broad strokes here but the level of hyperbole got a bit out of hand. Even after dialing it I think you are high balling it a fair amount. on my phone so not deep analysis here but grabbed two fast articles and 1 year was sited as nearly half the power 5 broken even or worse. Another year had 5 of the top 65 in the red. obviously there’s a ton of grey space in how revenues and costs are calculated but what I’m getting at is that outside the top 50ish teams you arent seeing those profits regularly. Heck, outside the top 5-10 it starts to drop quickly with the top 5 carrying 50-100m in profits each and 15-20 all being 30-35m. Not small potatoes but you are talking a very small slice of schools in your argument. yup. And that’ll see some dip... but won’t disappear completely without games. Boosters still want top prospects in the pipeline etc... and the prestige of being the big man around a town like auburn (to use a recent favorite of yours)

football puts more in than it takes at many big schools but there’s definitely a tipping point where that doesn’t hold true as you work down the rankings. And those schools still have English departments.

it’s entertainment provided by unpaid college students. it’s ok to just cancel at some point. Many of these schools aren’t even doing in person classes.

Also highly compensated career vs student athlete

Yea- 19 year old should play like 24 games in under a year

PAC 12 will likely make the call too i think you might see a few schools, perhaps even conferences, play but it’ll be very limited and fast to shut down at any risk.

so I think the verbiage around WFH is where I get a little rankled. In a past post you mentioned that if you could, you should... but now it’s a luxury. I don’t think going to an office in NYC is a huge risk, but I’d venture the guess that the overwhelming majority of employees could work from home. if you say they should WFH if they can, than why is there anything wrong with the nfl getting a little pushback from their workers?

on the bright side, it’s absolute minutiae at that level.

agreed.

bingo. getting in on a couple lucky bounces in a weak division doesn’t move the needle for me if I’m in qb purgatory. if I’m a solid team that wouldn’t need tooooo many breaks to make noise in the playoffs I’d take that

and my point is that it really might not have to ha- I’m mostly just ribbing you... though that does kind of make the grumpy old man schtick even more... well... I’m not sure the best word.

Ok, boomer

While they do generally need to set up the work flow for sake of structuring a business...just because they declared their plan it doesn’t mean it’s a good one. Plenty of mid to senior managers have very little concrete data on best practices and simply revert to how it has been done as the safe “don’t rock the boat” way to do it. In this case that boat may just be not wanting to look bad in front of people in the 32 other buildings- which wouldn’t be a good reason. I don’t know their individual tasks though so really I’m just railing against the assumption that it’s by default right because the employer said so and they should be grateful to work. Odds are general nfl office jobs could be overwhelmingly accomplished at home though, with quite limited time and titles in office.

which in many work environments is pretty normal right now. More than a few office places are going the extra mile for safety and not bringing people back in unless they can provide a reason you are needed in person. It’s ok to press your employer on stuff like this. I know employees rights aren’t a thing to many many Americans... but “the players have to show up” isn’t a great reason for why sally in accounting can’t WFH any longer. If she is truly needed and they’ve taken the reasonable precautions that’s different. Also your assertion that the general rule is you are more productive in the office is not much of a rule. Many studies have found various roles accomplish more from home. Depends on the job and the person but broad strokes put WFH ahead for quite a few positions.