GVSU football season to open September 19!

[Turbonium]

Look it up Einstein. The info is there for you or discover if you chose to.

Yeah, that's what I figured the answer would be.

[Redwing]

Yeah, that's what I figured the answer would be.

I find that posting sources rarely convinces those asking for them. So, if I just want to I'll provide one. If asked for curiosity/interest, I'll try to dig it up. If it's to convince a doubter, I'll likely blow it off since they still won't accept the premise. Face it, most of us do hear/read/ACCEPT tons of info without specific sources. It's not wrong to pass info along without a source.

How many stories do you swear as truth when there is no source listed or the source is anonymous? I also find that even so called studies have their bias. I used to have first hand information (part of my career) where two entities published conclusions that were almost (not totally) direct opposite but based upon the same lab data. This wasn't a political topic either.

So, for me, I'll try to look at the study, but yes, I also consider the background of the authors. But, all in all, my point is that bias exists and showing the study rarely convinces those that disagree with a position... especially when it has large societal impacts. So yeah, if I read the study, the bias of the results are lurking in the background and will color my acceptance of information. And for me, it works for things that I disagree with AND agree with.

[Turbonium]

I find that posting sources rarely convinces those asking for them. So, if I just want to I'll provide one. If asked for curiosity/interest, I'll try to dig it up. If it's to convince a doubter, I'll likely blow it off since they still won't accept the premise. Face it, most of us do hear/read/ACCEPT tons of info without specific sources. It's not wrong to pass info along without a source.

How many stories do you swear as truth when there is no source listed or the source is anonymous? I also find that even so called studies have their bias. I used to have first hand information (part of my career) where two entities published conclusions that were almost (not totally) direct opposite but based upon the same lab data. This wasn't a political topic either.

So, for me, I'll try to look at the study, but yes, I also consider the background of the authors. But, all in all, my point is that bias exists and showing the study rarely convinces those that disagree with a position... especially when it has large societal impacts. So yeah, if I read the study, the bias of the results are lurking in the background and will color my acceptance of information. And for me, it works for things that I disagree with AND agree with.

I don't need it to convince me, it just seems like including anything related to all these claims as far as what he KNOWS would be helpful to at least have a useful conversation.

For example, yesterday in the thread in General Discussion you were able to provide the study that you referenced and it was a great read, much appreciated. The other links to the studies on various treatment methods were great as well, much more useful than the discussion that's taken place in this thread.

Back to football for a moment - as far as the potential GV trip to Pueblo this year, the RMAC is supposed to announce their fall plans tomorrow. They met last week and apparently needed more time and pushed the decision to tomorrow. I'll be headed to Yellowstone & Grand Tetons but will try to update if I hear anything.

[Thelakerman]

I find that posting sources rarely convinces those asking for them. So, if I just want to I'll provide one. If asked for curiosity/interest, I'll try to dig it up. If it's to convince a doubter, I'll likely blow it off since they still won't accept the premise. Face it, most of us do hear/read/ACCEPT tons of info without specific sources. It's not wrong to pass info along without a source.

How many stories do you swear as truth when there is no source listed or the source is anonymous? I also find that even so called studies have their bias. I used to have first hand information (part of my career) where two entities published conclusions that were almost (not totally) direct opposite but based upon the same lab data. This wasn't a political topic either.

So, for me, I'll try to look at the study, but yes, I also consider the background of the authors. But, all in all, my point is that bias exists and showing the study rarely convinces those that disagree with a position... especially when it has large societal impacts. So yeah, if I read the study, the bias of the results are lurking in the background and will color my acceptance of information. And for me, it works for things that I disagree with AND agree with.

[KleShreen]

You do realize that you are admitting that the people in this thread who need scientific evidence to support a position are the ones asking for your scientific evidence to support your position? And your refusal to share it is implying that there is no scientific evidence to support your position? So yea, you're probably right. It wouldn't convince us, because there's no evidence to support it. But you'll keep pulling the classic move of just acting like it is common knowledge, when in reality, the knowledge doesn't exist in the first place.

[unc4life]

It seems now that it is a matter of when not if the season gets cancelled. It seems now D3 schools aren't going to be playing. In the last 2 days the OAC ( Mount Union) and NCAC the two biggest D3 conferences in Ohio have both cancelled all sports till January. I know a few D2 conferences have pushed back starting, but at this point is it realistic to think D2 schools can pull this off?

[tip79]

It seems now that it is a matter of when not if the season gets cancelled. It seems now D3 schools aren't going to be playing. In the last 2 days the OAC ( Mount Union) and NCAC the two biggest D3 conferences in Ohio have both cancelled all sports till January. I know a few D2 conferences have pushed back starting, but at this point is it realistic to think D2 schools can pull this off?

I agree. 4 or 5 D2 schools have already suspended fall sports.

[CALUPA69]

I agree. 4 or 5 D2 schools have already suspended fall sports.

Uh, the largest D2 CONFERENCE, PSAC, has suspended all fall sports until Jan 1, 2021.

[tip79]

Yes I know. I posted about it when it was announced.

[bigmrg74]

We're going to face a lot of challenges in the next 50 years that will require tough sacrifices out of mutual interest and solidarity, so I'm very concerned that we've so badly bungled the challenge who's solution is literally "wear a mask and pay people to stay home"

Especially when we already have plenty of Data from other counties that show that mask wearing and social distancing are effective in reducing the spread of the virus.

[bigmrg74]

It seems now that it is a matter of when not if the season gets cancelled. It seems now D3 schools aren't going to be playing. In the last 2 days the OAC ( Mount Union) and NCAC the two biggest D3 conferences in Ohio have both cancelled all sports till January. I know a few D2 conferences have pushed back starting, but at this point is it realistic to think D2 schools can pull this off?

No butts in the seats and the additional cost of PPE and testing, I can't see many schools making that work right now.

[Packfootball]

The silence from the RMAC is deafening. Makes it hard to plan for ya GV folks.

[Redwing]

The silence from the RMAC is deafening. Makes it hard to plan for ya GV folks.

Well, it's not like the GLIAC or GV have made and decisions yet. And who knows what's in the mind of the NCAA. We know Delta is flexible with purchased fares.. too bad we made ours so early (had some free $$ to use up.) Maybe have to sub in with a Vegas trip instead (if things settle down soon enough.)

[Packfootball]

Been thinking of a Vegas trip myself.