Wisconsin vs. Nebraska game cancelled
- Thread starter SqueakyClean
- Start date
Thought the same thing when I read this. I know the Big Ten requires six games to be played to qualify for division championship.
Wisconsin cancels game at Nebraska after 12 test positive for COVID-19, including coach Paul Chyrst
Coach Paul Chryst is among those who have tested positive
www.cbssports.com
Wow, just wow!
Still certainly conceivable they could play, especially if there is leeway to moving the game till Sunday. WI will have had plenty of time to prepare on paper for Purdue.
Wonder if there is another P5 game that could be scheduled in its place. I dont think so, but it would be interesting.
Wonder if there is another P5 game that could be scheduled in its place. I dont think so, but it would be interesting.
A tough WI team taken down by a virus. They will be ostracized for this by any public polls the remainder of the season. In reality, they may have faired better with a tight loss than a 7 game or less season.
Since UW-Madison has a party reputation, like it or not, that will be public perception when rating them for the remainder of 2020.
Since UW-Madison has a party reputation, like it or not, that will be public perception when rating them for the remainder of 2020.
It seems likely that Wisconsin will have their active case numbers under control before they miss more than 1 or 2 games. Probably the bigger issues are: (1) they won't be practicing (2) they'll be missing players for at least 3 games (3) another outbreak will do their season in
Hypothetically, however, just so I have this straight.. If Wisconsin were to miss 3 games and the final standings went something like this:
Wisconsin 5-0
Purdue 4-3
Iowa 4-4
Northwestern 4-4
Minnesota 4-4
Nebraska 3-4
Illinois 2-6
...Purdue would be in the BTCG.
And this is only 1 week into the season, so don't be surprised if other teams run into similar issues.
Success this year might be as much about just getting to your games as it is about winning them.
Hypothetically, however, just so I have this straight.. If Wisconsin were to miss 3 games and the final standings went something like this:
Wisconsin 5-0
Purdue 4-3
Iowa 4-4
Northwestern 4-4
Minnesota 4-4
Nebraska 3-4
Illinois 2-6
...Purdue would be in the BTCG.
And this is only 1 week into the season, so don't be surprised if other teams run into similar issues.
Success this year might be as much about just getting to your games as it is about winning them.
I don’t see how our game with Wisconsin could be played, because I thought players had to quarantine for 21 days, unlike coaches, and it seems to be hitting all of their QBs.
Play QB #4 and move on assuming no more outbreaks than the 6 they have now. Their history is predicated on running. Graham Mertz is an unusual piece of puzzle that they haven't had till game 1 of this season.
From what I understand, there are a lot of factors that go into it, including the %positive rate of the team and %positive rate of the area / state that you are in. Wisconsin (the state) in particular is getting hit hard right now (over 7.5% positivity of tests, IIRC).
They are shutting down team operations right now because they are required to. While the players have the 21 day isolation, the coaches only have 10 (I think). So in 10 days, they could conceivably get their 6 coaches back and be under the %positive threshhold for the team.
They will absolutely be out the 6 players though if it is confirmed that they are positive.
They are allowed to practice and play as long as they achieve a <5% positivity rate. Individual players will have to sit for 21 days, but that doesn't affect the team's eligibility to play unless their overall number of players available to dress drops below 50 something. I don't think there are minimums on individual position groups, so they could conceivably be required to play a game without a backup QB.
Here is my question. We know 21 days (players) and 10 days (coaches) are the required lengths to sit out. But what is the typical amount of time from first positive test to first negative test? That will be the determining factor now for when they get back under 5% and will be allowed to resume, assuming no new cases.
Edit: I see the minimum shutdown for a >5% positivity is 7 days, but that is the minimum assuming after 7 days they are <5% positivity
Last edited:
it was said even in the best case scenario, they will only have 1-2 days at best to prepare for purdue. People, coaches and players demanded we have college football in the fall. They forgot what people, players and coaches do after big wins and in the early hours of Saturday mornings.
Starting to wonder if maybe the Big Ten made the correct decision initially to not play this season. With this spike of Covid affecting everywhere, I would not be surprised if the season doesn't finish. And this applies to all of the other conferences. Will be a sad New Year's Day.
On the other hand, with the Nebraska game cancelled, they have 10 days to study Purdue.
True, but Purdue will have an additional game of experience under their belt. We will have had double the amount of time to work out kinks than they will have. Supposedly, there is alot of improvement between games 1 and 2, and then 2 and 3.
With COVID exploding, I say that we need to enjoy every game that we can, because we never know when Warren might try to shut it down.
I cannot speak about the ACC or Big 12, but no way the SEC shuts down.
The main thing they will miss is practice reps with their 4th string QB. That's big. However, the rest of their team looked basically kink-free in their first game. I'd agree they would rather have the practice time, just pointing out that they won't be waiting until next Wednesday to start with game planning and mental reps.
Only 6 players have tested positive, meaning they would not be available for the Purdue game. 6 staff members, including coach Chryst, has the 10 day countdown starting now up until the Purdue game. They did not meet the red/red threshold but by shutting down, they hope to only have a few more players test positive and not continue to spread to the whole team where they would need to miss 3 games and not be able to qualify for the league championship.
To show how much IU basketball fans and Nebraska football fans are alike there was actually a clown claiming that Wiscy was fudging there positive Covid numbers to avoid playing the Husker team (that got smoked by O$U).
Agree, they want to party hardy and show covid who is boss.it's not the reputation... it's the actual partying
Looks like we have 16 positive cases for Wisconsin now. I would say it is looking likely that our game with Wisconsin will not happen next weekend. We will see I guess.
www.espn.com
Badgers report 16 active cases of COVID-19
The Wisconsin football program now has 16 active cases of COVID-19 after two additional staff members and one student-athlete tested positive since late Wednesday. The team has now had 15 positive tests since Oct. 24.
www.espn.com
Something I have never really seen defined is how the total number of athletes is figured - is it based on the 85 scholarship level or that number plus all walk-ons? For staff, a similar question - those defined as "coaches" or the total number of that plus all support staff(which could include any number of support staff, including I would guess academic support personnel)? If anyone is clear on that or has seen a definitive rule I'd appreciate the information/link.
"Big Ten protocols state a team cannot practice or play for at least seven days if its seven-day rolling average of virus positivity rate surpasses 5% among the team and 7.5% among the team population. UW is between 2-5% among the team and over 7.5% among the team population as of Thursday. "
They have 8 athletes and 8 staff members tested positive. I am not sure how they can be below 5% for the team with 8 players testing positive, that would mean they have at least 160 players if the rate was 5%.
They have 8 athletes and 8 staff members tested positive. I am not sure how they can be below 5% for the team with 8 players testing positive, that would mean they have at least 160 players if the rate was 5%.
So, last Friday, the positivity rate would have been 0%, right (since Mertz hadn't yet tested positive)? And Saturday, the rate would be around 1% (one positive out of roughly 100 players, including walk-ons). The rate would have started increasing Sunday through Wednesday as more positive tests came back, but remember that a roughly 8% rate on Wednesday is being balanced out by the 0% rates from Thursday and Friday oi the prior week.
So, by early next week, even if Mertz and others start to test negative, they're still counted in the rolling average from this week. It takes longer to get to a rolling average up to 5%, but the decay rate is also more drawn out.
That's my guess.
So, by early next week, even if Mertz and others start to test negative, they're still counted in the rolling average from this week. It takes longer to get to a rolling average up to 5%, but the decay rate is also more drawn out.
That's my guess.
