Wisconsin Game Cancelled

[knapplc]

NU's official statement.

 

 

 

[JJ Husker]

4 minutes 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.

Okay, so you’re good with Wisconsin trusting the testing to go forward with the Illinois game and also good with them using the testing to cancel the Nebraska game, even though that testing placed them in the same situation (orange/orange or orange/red) of being able to decide to play or to cancel?

 

Seems a little inconsistent 

[teachercd]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

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.

 

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.

It makes it true.

 

And they are totally allowed to do it.  I have never said that can't.  

[Cdog923]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

NU's official statement.

 

 

 

 

So sick and tired of us having to put out official statements covering the bull**** that comes out of the Big Ten offices. **** this conference. 

[teachercd]

2 minutes ago, J-MAGIC said:

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.

Yes, I do.

 

 

[RedDenver]

3 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

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?

I'm fine with criticizing the B1G; they certainly have bungled PR and continue not to be transparent. But we don't know if flexibility in the rules is what got enough votes for the season to come back from being cancelled, so it's hard to say whether that's a mistake or not. Giving programs more flexibility seems to me to be a good idea since not every circumstance will be the same, but it does open up the programs to gaming the system.

 

And you're assuming that playing the game is the "right" thing to do. But it's entirely possible that cancelling the game is right. For example, Wisconsin could spread the virus to Nebraska and cause us to lose players for 21 days or even have to cancel games. No one knows for sure.

[Huskers93-97]

11 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

 

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.

It would be interesting to see how the Big Ten would handle things if Ohio State started to have conference foes back out on them. Putting their 6 games at risk. s#!t why not cancel your game against them out of fear of COVID? Save an a$$ whooping- save risking your student athletes playing at ohio state and possibly getting infected at an away game.

[JJ Husker]

5 minutes ago, knapplc said:

NU's official statement.

 

 

 

And there we have it, the precedent that could come back to haunt the B1G conference champion, whoever that may end up being.

[J-MAGIC]

5 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Yes, I do.

 

 

Then for all of our sake I am glad you are not in control of our athletics department.

[Huskers93-97]

Another way to look at how horrible the Big Ten leadership is. They can't get out of their own way. 

 

1. They set a precedent that could hurt Ohio State down the road.

2. They got more egg on their face shutting down our non-con game. If we got approved to play that non-con game they wouldn't be taking heat for saying no and people would stop talking about the Wisconsin game 

[FrantzHardySwag]

9 minutes ago, knapplc said:

NU's official statement.

 

 

 

 

B1G has released a statement of their own:

 

[teachercd]

4 minutes ago, J-MAGIC said:

Then for all of our sake I am glad you are not in control of our athletics department.

is is sake or sakes?  

 

Probably a good thing I am not in control of the UNL English Department either.

 

And also...the NU athletic department not only wants to play Wisconsin but they were also trying to find another team to play.  Soooo

[Huskers93-97]

2 minutes ago, J-MAGIC said:

Then for all of our sake I am glad you are not in control of our athletics department.

I think the people in charge of NU seem to be doing a great job. The Big Ten not so much.

[RedDenver]

10 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Okay, so you’re good with Wisconsin trusting the testing to go forward with the Illinois game and also good with them using the testing to cancel the Nebraska game, even though that testing placed them in the same situation (orange/orange or orange/red) of being able to decide to play or to cancel?

 

Seems a little inconsistent 

I'm not sure of all the details of what Wisconsin knew when, so it's hard to say how similar the situation was from last week to this week. Sounds like Wisconsin had more players test positive this week, so cancelling the game is consistent in that sense. If however, the same number of players testing positive last week or next week and Wissonsin plays, then I'd be against Wisconsin and favor the conference doing something (even though we know they won't).

 

Edit to add: I think the B1G not letting the Huskers play a non-con against a team using just as stringent of testing protocols is absurd.

[JJ Husker]

3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I'm fine with criticizing the B1G; they certainly have bungled PR and continue not to be transparent. But we don't know if flexibility in the rules is what got enough votes for the season to come back from being cancelled, so it's hard to say whether that's a mistake or not. Giving programs more flexibility seems to me to be a good idea since not every circumstance will be the same, but it does open up the programs to gaming the system.

 

And you're assuming that playing the game is the "right" thing to do. But it's entirely possible that cancelling the game is right. For example, Wisconsin could spread the virus to Nebraska and cause us to lose players for 21 days or even have to cancel games. No one knows for sure.

I won’t argue that the virus could be transmitted in a game. It could. But, these teams and this conference chose to go forward with a season and developed Covid testing protocols that they have to be able to rely on. If they aren’t or can’t trust them then they should not have agreed to proceed with a season at all. The grey area in letting individual teams make play/cancel decisions, and thereby giving them the ability to game the system, was a gross error. Not surprising considering their inability to deal with this pandemic every step of the way.