kshoe

Are there any "semi-comprehensive" stats on how teams have performed coming off longer COVID layoffs or is it all anecdotal? I ask because there are also examples of teams doing well after they come back. Georgia tech was off for 17 days and hammered Clemson in its first game back and only lost by 2 to Virginia in it's next game. Florida St was off for 2 weeks and has gone 4-0 since coming back including a 32 point thrashing of NC State in the first game back. I'd think if the "teams always underperform on the first games back" concept was a real issue, Vegas would be all over that

There will be some fans at the game tomorrow.

I know that's the popular narrative that it's really hard to come back from the layoffs, but Florida St and Georgia Tech came back from 2 week or longer layoffs and looked really good. I'm sure there are others.

I suspect NBC plans to put many of its sports properties on it's newly launched Peacock streaming service. Not sure what kind of clauses are in the current agreement that would allow us to break the existing deal (or them to break it with the A-10 if they no longer want college basketball) or if we are just going to be stuck with a handful of games on that service.

I'm pretty sure French has to test now that he is long past the 3 month window, unless he got it a second time (which is pretty unlikely). That would imply that 12 got it this time around. If you add French to the list that is 13 out of 16 which is 81%. Obviously it's good that they have all had minor symptoms, but the other good news is that the 12 that just got it won't have to test again until the end of March when their 3 months are up. It means that the disaster scenario of one player or coach getting it while in Indianapolis for the NCAA tourney won't mean the whole team will have t

The difference between SLU and many of the other hard hit schools is that the other schools had been off, started back up, and then had another positive test result in another shut them down for another couple weeks. It's kind of like two separate shut-downs that happened to be close together. I can't think of any that have had one outbreak lead to a layoff of this magnitude (Dec 30 to Jan 26 at the best). Add in that it had been a week since we had played prior to the shut-down and Dec 23 - Jan 26 is just an enormous amount of time.

Ford has been hinting through the media we will play the Dayton game. Honestly, there is no reason a team should have to go an entire month between games when all of the symptoms of the players have been described as minor.

2-1 vs Dayton at home, Richmond on the road and GW on the road is a major accomplishment? Come on now. Richmond is a toss up but the other two simply have to be wins. We’ve had a bunch of guys back for a week now and they’ll have 3-4 days of full team practices before the Dayton game.

I like it and while the motivation is based on Covid and all the players being in the same location, I'll predict that these changes are here to stay. They'll get more prime-time games and the Sweet 16 games that used to be going head to head will now be spread out on Saturday and Sunday. While everyone will bemoan losing the Thursday all day games and playing hooky from work, it'll be just as sweet to get a full day of first round games on Saturday.

I wouldn't assume that 12 of the 16 had it these last few weeks. The way it was written could mean that all but 4 of the players have had it at some point, including French and any others that may have had it during the summer. While I think it's highly likely that those that had it last summer still have a high amount of immunity, the legal distinction of immunity ends after 3 months. This is critical because if someone else in the program tests positive between now and the end of March, those that tested positive in the last couple weeks would be able to continue to play. In theory we c

How in the world did a thread about this season's COVID shut-down become another discussion about Soderberg and his recruiting?

The question I'd have is whether those 3 are 3 of the 4 Ford references, or they actually got it back in the summer/fall and Ford is counting them in the group that has had Covid.

Seems unlikely given what little I can see of the article. Paragraph says "Ford says all but four of his players have tested positive for the virus,..." If the athletic got that second hand and wrote it that way then shame on them.

I can't read the Athletic article, but the key will be whether the majority of the team got it in this most recent round or whether he's talking cumulative going back to the summer and fall. It matters because I'm pretty sure the NCAA said they won't worry about testing or quarantining players during the NCAA tourney if they got COVID within the last 3 months.

I'd be very surprised if he got it again. While 3 months is the official party line from the CDC, most believe that re-infection is unlikely for much longer (years). Just today there was an article in the Financial Times that said a study of UK health-care workers that have gotten it has shown it it be roughly as effective as getting the vaccine when it comes to likelihood of getting it again.