Did they cancel our next game also???

[August_West]

You can make all the bets you want but it's not up to Hurley or UConn if we play. There's no grey area in the Big East rules, if you have 7 players and a coach available you play

This is true, but I bet that’s easy to manipulate.

 

[8893]

You can make all the bets you want but it's not up to Hurley or UConn if we play. There's no grey area in the Big East rules, if you have 7 players and a coach available you play

Borges explains here:

Here’s why UConn was unable to field seven healthy players for game against Xavier

COVID cancellations are decided by schools, not Big East, and don’t only involve...

www.nhregister.com

But perhaps the biggest change in the league’s policy from a year ago remained intact. Unlike last season, when the Big East deemed whether games would be canceled, that decision now rests with the member schools. If a school tells the league it can’t field a roster to play a game under the new policy, the game won’t be played.

That explains, for instance, why on Monday Georgetown canceled its upcoming games for Saturday and on Jan. 4, yet UConn, which canceled its slated Tuesday night game at Xavier, still hasn’t officially canceled its New Year’s Day bout on Saturday in Hartford against Butler — at least not yet.


Quite simply, Georgetown has informed the Big East that it doesn’t believe it will have seven healthy players on Saturday or Jan 4. UConn (or Butler) has not yet told that to the league, though it would seem highly unlikely the game would be played.

The Big East’s COVID-19 cancellation policy is pretty succinct: Games are canceled if a school has fewer than seven scholarship players and one countable coach available for a game. Pretty straightforward and easy to understand. And yet, like most things with this pandemic, chaos and multiple questions seem to have arisen since the new policy was instituted.
How are teams, ostensibly with 13 scholarship players and sometimes more (thanks to the extra year of eligibility afforded to all players from last season), unable to field seven healthy players? That’s a lot of players coming down with COVID.


Well, yeah. Schools aren’t allowed to reveal who or how many players and/or coaches have tested positive. We know Dan Hurley tested positive and is in isolation at home with relatively mild symptoms that he was still feeling as of Monday night.


According to an NCAA source, UConn’s number of positive players is far more than just one or two. Multiple players tested positive since the players returned to campus on Christmas Day through Monday.


And those aren’t the only players who don’t count towards the seven healthy ones needed to field a team. For one, walk-ons are out; the new rule specifically states a team needs seven scholarship players. So that rules out UConn’s Matt Garry and Drew Hurley as available players

***

Then there are players who are out with other injuries — either for the entire season or for an extended period of time. Such players wouldn’t count towards the “healthy seven.”


So what about Adama Sanogo, who missed four straight games with an abdominal injury before returning for a Dec. 21 win at Marquette? The sophomore center was averaging over 26 minutes per game prior to Marquette, but was on a minutes-restriction for that game and played just 13. He was due to gradually increase his minutes with each game, but logic would dictate he probably wouldn’t have played more than 15-18 against Xavier.


While Big East policy specifies that all available players should be counted as healthy, it appears that Sanogo may have been deemed an unhealthy player.


And so, that’s how a 15-man roster gets down to less than seven healthy players: Two walk-ons, one redshirt, one player on a minutes-restriction, and suddenly all it takes is five COVID-positive players to force a cancellation. Still a pretty big number, but hardly the 8-10 that may have danced through some peoples’ minds.

 

[navery12]

This is true, but I bet that’s easy to manipulate.

I guess that's true, but outside of faking positive tests I don't see how. You test negative you're cleared to play, you test positive you're out

 

[8893]

I guess that's true, but outside of faking positive tests I don't see how. You test negative you're cleared to play, you test positive you're out

Read the Borges article I linked above.

 

[navery12]

Read the Borges article I linked above.

I read it, that's what spurred my post that the only way to manipulate it would be providing fake test results to the Big East

 

[HuskyHawk]

That's already the NCAA policy from before the season started

You are right. Seems UConn regular student testing is only "surveillance" which is less strict than many. Lots of schools testing every kid every week.

 

[Kemba15]

I read it, that's what spurred my post that the only way to manipulate it would be providing fake test results to the Big East

Well if you look at what he said about Sanogo, this isn’t accurate

 

[8893]

Well if you look at what he said about Sanogo, this isn’t accurate

Bingo

 

[Get a Job]

I read it, that's what spurred my post that the only way to manipulate it would be providing fake test results to the Big East

Are we to assume (or maybe you know definitively?) that a positive test is the only way for a non-injured scholarship player to not count toward the 7 playable players? Is all the "close contact" stuff out the window?

 

[navery12]

Well if you look at what he said about Sanogo, this isn’t accurate

Fair, I guess you could fake injuries too. My point is that you're going to need to provide something to the Big East to prove it, I can't imagine they're just taking teams at their word. In either direction, for the 7 players cleared to play or the 5+ who aren't cleared

 

[8893]

Fair, I guess you could fake injuries too. My point is that you're going to need to provide something to the Big East to prove it, I can't imagine they're just taking teams at their word. In either direction, for the 7 players cleared to play or the 5+ who aren't cleared

Per the article, schools aren’t allowed to reveal who or how many players and/or coaches have tested positive.

 

[OUTATIME]

We aren't playing Saturday then.

 

[navery12]

Per the article, schools aren’t allowed to reveal who or how many players and/or coaches have tested positive.

That's to the public no? Or is the conference also not allowed to know? If that's the case then yeah I agree this policy is wide open to manipulation

 

[Rico444]

Fair, I guess you could fake injuries too. My point is that you're going to need to provide something to the Big East to prove it, I can't imagine they're just taking teams at their word. In either direction, for the 7 players cleared to play or the 5+ who aren't cleared

We're probably arguing semantics, but I don't think saying Sanogo isn't ready to be one of 7 players and be forced to play significant minutes is the same as faking an injury. A couple of guys foul out and now a guy you're still trying to ramp up coming off of an abdominal injury is forced onto the court with no breaks.

 

[8893]

That's to the public no? Or is the conference also not allowed to know? If that's the case then yeah I agree this policy is wide open to manipulation

I'm not sure, but I read it to include the conference, meaning it's essentially an honor system.

 

[navery12]

We're probably arguing semantics, but I don't think saying Sanogo isn't ready to be one of 7 players and be forced to play significant minutes is the same as faking an injury. A couple of guys foul out and now a guy you're still trying to ramp up coming off of an abdominal injury is forced onto the court with no breaks.

Definitely not what I was implying, that's a legitimate injury which is why he wasn't included in our 7 healthy players to begin with. Was talking about the implication being made of using future injuries to get below 7 and not just test results

 

[navery12]

I'm not sure, but I read it to include the conference, meaning it's essentially an honor system.

I'm probably just being naive but I can't imagine anyone in the Big East is stupid enough to implement that policy and not see all the lies they'll be fed from teams in both directions

 

[businesslawyer]

Fair, I guess you could fake injuries too. My point is that you're going to need to provide something to the Big East to prove it, I can't imagine they're just taking teams at their word. In either direction, for the 7 players cleared to play or the 5+ who aren't cleared

Did you read what was posted? It literally said that the conference takes the schools at their word.

 

[8893]

I'm probably just being naive but I can't imagine anyone in the Big East is stupid enough to implement that policy and not see all the lies they'll be fed from teams in both directions

And I'm probably trying to divine too much from the article, but I read this to mean that that's the policy:

But perhaps the biggest change in the league’s policy from a year ago remained intact. Unlike last season, when the Big East deemed whether games would be canceled, that decision now rests with the member schools. If a school tells the league it can’t field a roster to play a game under the new policy, the game won’t be played.

 

[businesslawyer]

I'm probably just being naive but I can't imagine anyone in the Big East is stupid enough to implement that policy and not see all the lies they'll be fed from teams in both directions

They very well may recognize that risk, but what do you want them to do? Schools under federal law can't share students health records with anyone else, so they can't ask for the tests and count themselves.

 

[gampelcrazies]

If they aren’t going to play this weekend can we just cancel the game now and not let us keep holding out hope they are going to play.

 

[navery12]

They very well may recognize that risk, but what do you want them to do? Schools under federal law can't share students health records with anyone else, so they can't ask for the tests and count themselves.

That was my question that I asked for an answer to a few posts ago, so thank you. I assumed test results would have to be shared with the Big East

 

[Get a Job]

Did you read what was posted? It literally said that the conference takes the schools at their word.

I don't think it says that. The words used in the article are, "If a school tells the league it can’t field a roster to play a game under the new policy, the game won’t be played." This could mean that the league simply takes the schools at their word, but it does not necessarily preclude alternatives. Perhaps "telling" in this instance refers to providing some kind of documentation, for example.

 

[Get a Job]

If the league truly takes the schools at their word, this is a fascinating scenario. Let's assume that the decision-makers (DMs) at the schools will act in their team's best interest, and ignore the letter of the Big East's rules. (I think this is a realistic assumption.)

So, before every game, the DMs must ask themselves, "Are we better off playing this game as scheduled, or opting out and possibly playing it at a later date." This is usually a very hard question to answer, I'd imagine. There are so many variables. How likely are we to win as scheduled? How likely is it that we will be better equipped to win in the future? How much would a win help us relative to the damage a loss would do? How important would this game be to the overall resume, win or lose?