Did they cancel our next game also??? | The Boneyard

Did they cancel our next game also???

Status
Not open for further replies.
Still shows scheduled on the ESPN site.
 
Seems like a typo. Believe they are trying to say two bball games this week have already been cancelled - Men vs Xavier and Women vs Marquette. Cancelling the Butler game is still on the table however.
 
Seems like a typo. Believe they are trying to say two bball games this week have already been cancelled - Men vs Xavier and Women vs Marquette. Cancelling the Butler game is still on the table however.
I think the Butler game will ultimately be called off as well. I think the staff would want a least a few days to prepare, and depending on when they tested positive, who knows when they can even take the floor to practice as a team again? I highly doubt If they are cleared to go Friday, they would turn around and play a game the next day after not practicing for over a week.
 
.-.
Anyone else have a bad feeling we could see fanless games again soon?

sure it could be possible but at this point, I'm sure the NCAA is more concerned for the players testing than the fans.
 
sure it could be possible but at this point, I'm sure the NCAA is more concerned for the players testing than the fans.

The question is whether the NCAA (and NHL and NBA) will follow the NFL and stop testing asymptomatic, vaccinated players. Unless they do, games are unlikely in the short term.
 
The question is whether the NCAA (and NHL and NBA) will follow the NFL and stop testing asymptomatic, vaccinated players. Unless they do, games are unlikely in the short term.

This may be a dumb question but does the NCAA have a players union like pro sports? If the players were fine with playing despite someone being possibly asymptomatic playing against them or with them, I'd have no problem with them doing the same.
 
The question is whether the NCAA (and NHL and NBA) will follow the NFL and stop testing asymptomatic, vaccinated players. Unless they do, games are unlikely in the short term.
That's already the NCAA policy from before the season started
 
.-.
.-.
That’s the guidance that came out from the BE.
No, those are the rules that came out from the BE. That's why the previous post was busting your chops. You seemed to imply the teams had a choice, which is not the case (unless they want to forfeit).
 
I would bet that UConn could have had 1 coach and 7 scholarship players for Xavier not testing positive but chose to contrive ways to not play at Xavier shorthanded, based on contact with the positive players or others infected, and an 'abundance of caution', (ie code for we don't want to play a top 25 team shorthanded). We probably will never know if I would win my bet.

Hurley is also on record last year that he won't put a team on the floor that hasn't practiced, for the 'safety of the players'. (ie code for making sure they are prepared to win). It will likely be that UConn will not have the practice time before Butler, I suspect Hurley will press not to play, Irregardless of the 1 coach 7 player availability advertised BE standard.

I personally think if you meet the stated standard and don't play, you should forfeit, else scrap the standard. If a team does play according to that standard they are disadvantaged if others are avoiding games they could play.
 
I would bet that UConn could have had 1 coach and 7 scholarship players for Xavier not testing positive but chose to contrive ways to not play at Xavier shorthanded, based on contact with the positive players or others infected, and an 'abundance of caution', (ie code for we don't want to play a top 25 team shorthanded). We probably will never know if I would win my bet.

Hurley is also on record last year that he won't put a team on the floor that hasn't practiced, for the 'safety of the players'. (ie code for making sure they are prepared to win). It will likely be that UConn will not have the practice time before Butler, I suspect Hurley will press not to play, Irregardless of the 1 coach 7 player availability advertised BE standard.

I personally think if you meet the stated standard and don't play, you should forfeit, else scrap the standard. If a team does play according to that standard they are disadvantaged if others are avoiding games they could play.
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
 
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
Or did you mean FS1 rules?
 
.-.
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
Unless the team determines what being in the protocol means.
 
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

Unless the team determines what being in the protocol means.
Borges explains here:


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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,639
Messages
4,587,266
Members
10,497
Latest member
Orlando Fos


Top Bottom