Theses and Dissertations

In the early years of the National Football League, scouting and roster development resembled the wild west. Drafts were held in hotel ballrooms the day after the last game of regular season college football was played. There was no combine, limited scouting, and no salary cap. Over time, these aspects have changed dramatically, in part due to key figures from Pete Rozelle to Gil Brandt to Bill Belichick. The development and learning from this time period have laid the foundational infrastructure that modern roster construction is based upon. In this modern day, managing a team and putting together a roster involves numerous people, intense scouting, layers of technology, and, critically, the management of the salary cap. Since it was first put into place in 1994, managing the cap has become an essential element of building and sustaining a successful team. The New England Patriots’ mastery of the cap is a large part of what enabled their dynastic run over the past twenty years. While their model has undoubtedly proven to be successful, an opposing model has become increasingly popular and yielded results of its own. Both models center around different distributions of the salary cap, starting with the portion paid to the starting quarterback. The Patriots dynasty was, in part, made possible due to their use of both models over the course of their dominance. Drafting, organizational culture, and coaching are all among the numerous critical factors in determining a team’s success and it becomes difficult to pinpoint the true source of success for any given team. Ultimately, however, effective management of the cap proves to be a force multiplier; it does not guarantee that a team will be successful, but it helps teams that handle the other variables well sustain their success.

Especially during the current COVID-19 pandemic and age of social unrest in the United States, there has been an increasing need for comfort, yet the idea of comfort is quite vague and rarely elaborated upon. To simplify the idea of comfort and communicate the ideas around it effectively, I am defining comfort as a subset of escapism in which a person escapes to reduce or alleviate feelings of grief or distress. As companies rush to comfort their customers in this current state of uncertainty, marketers are pressed to identify people’s insecurities and comfort them without coming off as insensitive or trite. Current comfort marketing focuses on inspiring nostalgia in its customers, having them recall previous positive experiences or feelings to comfort them. Nostalgic marketing techniques may ease mild grief in some cases, but using them to alleviate severe distress probably will not be as effective, and has contributed to several seemingly out-of-touch “COVID-19 era” commercials.<br/>When addressing comfort, marketers should understand the type and hierarchy of comfort that they are catering to. Not all comforts are equal, in that some comforts make us feel better than others and some do not comfort us at all. A better understanding of how and why comforts change among different individuals, and possibly being able to predict the comfort preference based on a product or service, will help marketers market their goods and services more effectively. By diversifying and specializing comfort marketing using this hierarchical method, marketers will be able to more significantly reach their customers during “uncertain times.”

The COVID-19 pandemic places significant strain on the U.S. healthcare system due to the high number of coronavirus cases. During the pandemic, there was much unknown about the virus, its course of the disease, COVID-19 diagnosis, treatments, or other imperative information needed to contain the virus. Resources within the healthcare system, such as PPE and healthcare workers, were in short supply and exacerbated the difficulty of managing the viral outbreak. Peer-reviewed articles suggest that telehealth, the application of electronic information and telecommunication technologies in healthcare, proved useful in public health and clinical care during the 2020 public health emergency due to a novel virus. The scoping review broadly assessed themes of telehealth’s strengths and weaknesses during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings could suggest how virtual medicine may be a helpful tool to improve access in addition to the quality of care in the future of medicine. Assessments of case studies suggest that telehealth helped provide care to large patient volumes by aiding with communication, data collection, triage, remote patient monitoring, and critical care. Limitations of expanding telehealth subsequent to the pandemic include, but not limited to, a lack of national standards for practice and restrictions of utility for certain populations. Populations may include those with low socioeconomic status, specific cultural practices, and beliefs, or physical and cognitive ability barriers. Outlining the benefits and limitations of telehealth may suggest how virtual medicine can provide valuable in day-to-day medical practices and other pathogenic outbreaks.