Yesterday the B10 Show talked about letting Nebraska & possibly Purdue schedule a nonconference game against someone with a bye week because of the cheesehead situation. Short notice but doable. Do it B10.
Big Ten Network
- Thread starter Jaycee79
- Start date
this is why the initial schedule starting in September was better, it had more flexibility with byes.
Purdue could do everything right and still get screwed because their opponents have COVID
(MUST......KEEEP.......STRAIGHT......FACE......)
Even though Nebraska lost this past week to OSU, they are still well in the hunt for the Big Ten West championship, and if they are at all worried about other games being cancelled further down the road during the season, they may need that extra game for the minimum 6 games division championship requirement.
The Big Ten isn't going to give them credit for a win against an FCS opponent, which is all they would be able to get at such short notice. This is beside the fact that the Big Ten won't permit a breach of its COVID protocol and allow games outside the conference. If Brohm couldn't sit in the press box and players have to sit for 21 days, there's absolutely no way they are budging on this. Take the free bye week and use it to your advantage.
That reads like a perfect synopsis for a new episode in the ongoing saga entitled "The Most Purdue Thing Ever."
Bummer, let em play. Teams should not be punished for following protocol correctly.
Yea. I wonder what the justification for denial was. Seems like playing any game would be better than doing nothing for the brand.
Because it is much simpler to stick to the established COVID ground rules that the entire conference agreed to, which includes a "closed system" approach to scheduling. They are being very consistent in not approving any deviations (so far).
I guess I get it. Just seems silly to have a closed system for scheduling but not have players who are exposed to potentially 1000s of people weekly on lockdown. I just don’t see the need to restrict teams playing outside of the conference especially now that we see how quickly they are going to cancel games. Of course assuming the team they want to play agrees to the same protocols. I wouldn’t be shocked to see some teams play 5 or less games based on how they have shut down Wisc. Football.
On the Covid side, I think the Big Ten is concerned that teams outside the conference don't have the same level of commitment to ensuring the protocols are being followed and have no interest in making exceptions on the fly and invite more liability.
On the competitive side, it would open Pandora's box to allow teams to replace B1G opponents with FCS opponents and then have to decide whether or not that game qualifies as a 6th game for the purposes of winning the division. For instance, what if Wisconsin were to miss Nebraska, Purdue, and Michigan and add an FCS team to meet the minimum of 6 games and finish 5-1. And let's say for the sake of argument Purdue and Nebraska were to finish 6-2. Now is it fair to crown Wisconsin as champions of the West based on beating up an FCS cupcake and not playing the next 2 best teams? You'd have to somehow arbitrate that. Simply put, if nonconference games were allowed on the schedule in the first place, I believe the 6 game minimum would have been stated as a 6 conference game minimum and that is the interpretation.
Just to be clear on who "they" is, it was Wisconsin that temporarily suspended football activity, not the B1G. From the linked article: "Even though Wisconsin did not reach the Big Ten "red/red" level with its team and population positivity rates that automatically triggers a seven-day pause in team activities, the decision to pause was made jointly by athletic director Barry Alvarez and chancellor Rebecca Blank after the recent rise in positive tests."
https://www.espn.com/college-footba...ball-game-vs-nebraska-outbreak-covid-19-cases
hold on... you were thinking there has been some sort of logic being applied in the handling of this virus?
If you did, the infinitesimally low impact on the 0-24 age group should have put that to rest.
yea. I guess I just don’t understand because obviously the other team would have to agree to the Big Ten protocols. And it would have zero impact on a Big Ten champion. Heck out of conference wins is like the 4th or 5th tiebreaker and really wouldn’t have to be considered at all this year if they chose not to.
just doesn’t seem fair to Nebraska that Wisc basically forfeited but they don’t take a loss and Neb doesn’t get a win or a game. Lots of bars and restaurants make their living off of Nebraska games and not have a game at all is impactful.
You raise some interesting points FDB - I think the Big Ten conference would be wise to clarify the rules if that situation were to arise. I agree that it probably was meant to be 6 conference games due to the schedule consisting of only conference games originally. Non-conference games don't factor into the division record, so why should you count them - FCS or otherwise.
Or we could go back to the days of the '70s when Ohio State won the vote to go to the Rose Bowl over Michigan in 1973. Secret ballots though this time, naturally. Purdue would likely lose Iowa's vote.
Last edited:
