2020 Nebraska - An Independent Season?

[knapplc]

I think this is SUPER unlikely to happen.

 

But I think that if it wasn't a possibility, they wouldn't keep talking about it.  First Frost, now Green.

 

There's smoke here. Definitely smoke.

 

 

 

[knapplc]

Good point by Derek, as usual.

 

 

[GSG]

 

[knapplc]

So you're saying there's a chance...

 

 

 

[Cdog923]

Not gonna happen. 

[ColoradoHusk]

If NU is able to play some games this fall, it will either look very smart (with no or few COVID cases) or look very dumb (with a COVID outbreak and mass illnesses).

[gorp512]

25 minutes ago, knapplc said:

I think this is SUPER unlikely to happen.

 

But I think that if it wasn't a possibility, they wouldn't keep talking about it.  First Frost, now Green.

 

There's smoke here. Definitely smoke.

 

 

 

 

 

Can the program not support the players without playing games? 

[krc1995]

Will we continue to practice?  
 

I want to keep the guys we got on campus. 

[bugeater17]

18 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

If NU is able to play some games this fall, it will either look very smart (with no or few COVID cases) or look very dumb (with a COVID outbreak and mass illnesses).

 

Yeah - but a mass outbreak isn't going to be started or caused by playing football. It will be related to players catching while doing non-football related activities, so I think it will be a bit misleading or dishonest to say football is causing an outbreak.

 

Also, testing of players twice a week (or at all) will likely stop and not resume until January so an accurate comparison is unlikely. 

[ColoradoHusk]

1 minute ago, bugeater17 said:

 

Yeah - but a mass outbreak isn't going to be started or caused by playing football. It will be related to players catching while doing non-football related activities, so I think it will be a bit misleading or dishonest to say football is causing an outbreak.

 

Also, testing of players twice a week (or at all) will likely stop and not resume until January so an accurate comparison is unlikely. 

Good point about players more likely contacting it in non-football activities.  

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, bugeater17 said:

 

Yeah - but a mass outbreak isn't going to be started or caused by playing football. It will be related to players catching while doing non-football related activities, so I think it will be a bit misleading or dishonest to say football is causing an outbreak.

 

Also, testing of players twice a week (or at all) will likely stop and not resume until January so an accurate comparison is unlikely. 

 

A big concern is sending a team who isn't testing positive to another campus, only to have infected players cause an outbreak there. 

 

There's no good test right now. Too many false positives/negatives to be sure. That's where the liability comes from.

[knapplc]

Well. Maybe not.

 

The Big Ten would have to give any team permission to play outside the structure of the conference.

 

 

[bugeater17]

23 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

A big concern is sending a team who isn't testing positive to another campus, only to have infected players cause an outbreak there. 

 

There's no good test right now. Too many false positives/negatives to be sure. That's where the liability comes from.

 

Student-athlete travel isn't going to be confined or stop just because there is no fall season. Instead, many student-athletes will likely visit friends at other campuses during this break. Similarly, many student-athletes will travel home, go to bars, go to parties, and engage in 'spreading' activities they would have otherwise avoided or not participated in if a fall season was in place. 

 

Canceling football isn't going to prevent or mitigate the spread of this illness. 

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, bugeater17 said:

 

Student-athlete travel isn't going to be confined or stop just because there is no fall season. Instead, many student-athletes will likely visit friends at other campuses during this break. Similarly, many student-athletes will travel home, go to bars, go to parties, and engage in 'spreading' activities they would have otherwise avoided or not participated in if a fall season was in place. 

 

Canceling football isn't going to prevent or mitigate the spread of this illness. 

 

Canceling football means universities won't be responsible for that travel. It means they won't be liable.

 

This whole thing is liability mitigation. 

[Husker in WI]

8 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Well. Maybe not.

 

The Big Ten would have to give any team permission to play outside the structure of the conference.

 

 

 

Seems like our lawyers either disagree with the interpretation, are stringing Frost/Moos along, or Frost was just bluffing to try and save the Big Ten season. Also how does non-conference work under that interpretation? We play 3 games a year outside of the conference, so if the Big Ten cancels this season can we keep those 3? Or are the non-conference games individually approved and the Big Ten would deny them?