Wisconsin Game Cancelled

[teachercd]

1 minute ago, Loebarth said:

 

Actually, Alvarez said last night that wisconsin has placed all the team members in a hotel in individual rooms. So.. yeah, they are heavily restricting them. Likely allowing them to workout but even that will be in very small groups I'd assume.

Oh well, then there is NO chance any of them violate anything at all!  Problem solved! 

[RedDenver]

Just now, teachercd said:

Well, it is that simple.  Because the regulations the conference have in place have made it that simple.  

 

We know the testing is not 100% accurate and they have accounted for that by saying that if you have X number of positives, you can't play.

 

Wisconsin does not have X number of positives but they are still quitting.

Wisconsin IS following the rules which literally give Wisconsin the option to decide whether to play or not. By not playing though, Wisconsin also has to follow the rule of not having any in-person contact for 7 days.

 

We can say the B1G rules are dumb, but Wisconsin is following them.

 

Just now, teachercd said:

  Fine, no problem BUT if they are worried about more players having it and possibly bad testing...they need to cancel all their games now.  It can't magically be better in 10 days.

It can actually get better in 10 days because by isolating the players, the chain of infection can be broken. But if you want to argue it should be 14 days, then I won't argue that. However, it's ridiculous in the extreme for Wisconsin to cancel all their games.

 

Just now, teachercd said:

Secondly, what do you think the players are going to do for the next 7 days.  Sit in their rooms, alone?  They are not.

If they choose not to isolate, then the spread will get worse and Wisconsin will miss more games.

[JJ Husker]

11 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

No test is 100% accurate, so it's not at all simple. The more players that have it, the greater the chance that another player also has it but testing was inaccurate. And because it's extremely infectious, it can spread quickly from just a player or two to dozens.

So now we’re into a debate on not trusting the testing 

 

If you don’t want to trust the testing and the protocols that are in place then you really don’t want any football activities to occur. Pick one or the other and stick with it.

[teachercd]

Say Wisconsin is tied with whoever...that team plays and gets beat Friday night, last game of the season...or the 11am game Saturday...

 

Does Wisky all of a sudden have Covid issues again and quits on their last game, to insure they win the league???

 

I would, why not.  

[Loebarth]

1 minute ago, teachercd said:

Oh well, then there is NO chance any of them violate anything at all!  Problem solved! 

 

I didn't say that but I (and you too) can assume they will be curfewed. 

[knapplc]

Per the Wisconsin Covid Dashboard, they've had 101 total students test positive in the past week and 22 staff. That's 123 total positives in the past week, and they're saying 10% of those are on the football team/staff.  LINK

 

UT-Chattanooga currently has 50 total students and 4 total staff with positive cases. According to this morning's news, none of their players, coaches or staff tested positive.  LINK

 

Why is a conference mate so poor at keeping their team from breakouts while a Southern Conference opponent is perfectly capable?

[teachercd]

26 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Wisconsin IS following the rules which literally give Wisconsin the option to decide whether to play or not. By not playing though, Wisconsin also has to follow the rule of not having any in-person contact for 7 days.

 

We can say the B1G rules are dumb, but Wisconsin is following them.

 

It can actually get better in 10 days because by isolating the players, the chain of infection can be broken. But if you want to argue it should be 14 days, then I won't argue that. However, it's ridiculous in the extreme for Wisconsin to cancel all their games.

 

If they choose not to isolate, then the spread will get worse and Wisconsin will miss more games.

They are not following the rules...they are using the rules to their advantage.  Big difference.  If it was Johnny Walkon and Billy Benchsitter that had it...the would be playing.

 

No in-person contact for 7 days...so if one player has contact with anyone in the next 7 days...they need to "no-contest" the next 3 weeks.  

 

 

Also, don't get me wrong, I would manipulate the hell out of the rules as well.  I get why they are doing it.

 

[teachercd]

2 minutes ago, Loebarth said:

 

I didn't say that but I (and you too) can assume they will be curfewed. 

I 100% get it...

 

And we all know that not 100% of the players will follow 100% of the rules 100% of the time.  

[RedDenver]

2 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

So now we’re into a debate on not trusting the testing 

 

If you don’t want to trust the testing and the protocols that are in place then you really don’t want any football activities to occur. Pick one or the other and stick with it.

It's not a binary choice; there are shades of gray. We can can use the test results to make decision while also keeping in mind that the tests aren't perfect.

[Husker in WI]

6 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

If you are going to cancel when you are still in compliance with the big ten rules set forth for this season it should be voted on. Sorry but this does not only impact wisconsin. Their decision impacts another school. 

 

Would it make us feel better to have that voted on? Do you doubt the Big Ten would vote to cancel? I don't think teams should need a vote to decide they themselves are not playing, and the wording around Orange/Red includes possibly cancelling games. It's not like they pulled this out of nowhere, cancellations in the Orange/Red were always an option. If a team wants to cancel, other schools shouldn't be able to say "no, you have to play." Under the Big Ten rules, teams are allowed to cancel in the Orange/Red - they don't have to wait until Red/Red.

 

I'm not against potential consequences for cancelling when you don't need to, can't play and won't play are different. But there's a difference between removing a game and adding one from a school following different protocols. I could see at least NW and Penn State getting a say in us playing outside the conference, it is introducing more risk. I personally think that risk is addressed by the reports of the entire UTC team testing negative yesterday. But as we've seen testing is not 100% foolproof - there are lag times and false negatives. I don't think voting on adding a game is inconsistent, I do think the outcome of the vote was dumb and there was no way in hell the conference would vote yes regardless. That is very frustrating, but not at all unexpected. I think the voters (is this the COP/C?) should be required to give the rationale for their vote, because I am sure behind close doors it is F Nebraska.

[teachercd]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

It's not a binary choice; there are shades of gray. We can can use the test results to make decision while also keeping in mind that the tests aren't perfect.

50 of them?  

 

Wink

[JJ Husker]

At the very least, can we all agree that the B1G Covid rules are f#&%ed and that they dropped the ball on coming up with those as well?
 

Way too much grey area in the orange/orange and orange/red conditions. It should not have been structured to allow teams to game the system. Red/Red game cancelled by conference...easy. But anything short of that where one team opts to not play should be a forfeit loss. Where is the accountability to encourage these institutions to do the right things?

[teachercd]

This conference sucks...University of Chicago saw this coming a mile away and left this lame d!(k conference.  Good for them.

[RedDenver]

2 minutes ago, teachercd said:

They are not following the rules...they are using the rules to their advantage.  Big difference.  If it was Johnny Walkon and Billy Benchsitter that had it...the would be playing.

No way for you or anyone else outside the Wisconsin leadership to know their reasoning. You're welcome to your opinion, but that doesn't make it true.

 

Regardless, you need to read the B1G covid rules. Wisconsin is allowed to decide what they want to do under the rules, so they are following the rules.

 

2 minutes ago, teachercd said:

No in-person contact for 7 days...so if one player has contact with anyone in the next 7 days...they need to "no-contest" the next 3 weeks.  

I'm not sure what the rules are, but IMO players caught not following the isolation rules should be held out for 21 days - the same as what would happen to their teammates that they are risking.

[J-MAGIC]

12 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Well, it is that simple.  Because the regulations the conference have in place have made it that simple.  

 

We know the testing is not 100% accurate and they have accounted for that by saying that if you have X number of positives, you can't play.

 

Wisconsin does not have X number of positives but they are still quitting.  Fine, no problem BUT if they are worried about more players having it and possibly bad testing...they need to cancel all their games now.  It can't magically be better in 10 days.

 

Secondly, what do you think the players are going to do for the next 7 days.  Sit in their rooms, alone?  They are not.

You're not reading what anyone is saying in response to you. Wisconsin doesn't know who has it and who doesn't. These tests giving people false negatives allowed it to spread there in the first place. It's not "keep the sick kids home" because they don't know who the sick kids are, and the only way to know is to get everyone away from each other and test for a period of time.

 

Real question: Do you really want Nebraska to play Wisconsin this week, knowing Wisconsin has an uncontrolled outbreak that would then put Nebraska's next three games in jeopardy? Because I don't! Let's just punt this one and play eight total games  instead of for-sure playing this week and potentially only playing six.