Michigan 70, Purdue 53 Comment Count

Ace January 22nd, 2021 at 10:04 PM

Michigan never trailed in a dominant performance at Mackey Arena, ending Purdue's four-game winning streak and cementing their hold on first place in the Big Ten.

Let's hope the victory doesn't come at a cost. This game never should've been played. Less than two hours prior to tipoff, Purdue's official men's basketball account tweeted a "Roster Note" that Sasha Stefanovic, who played in Tuesday evening's game against Ohio State, would sit out the next three games after testing positive for COVID-19. The Boilermakers would play, however, and their communications guy was so "VERY confident" in the team's protocols that he tweeted such while locking the responses. This passed as protocol, evidently:

The Big Ten didn't step in. The game went on as scheduled. I hope they get away with taking this needless risk. That's what it was, though: needless.

As for the basketball itself, the two most heralded Wolverines combined to shoot 5-for-17 from the field, both true centers battled foul trouble against a team with a 7'4 backup, and only two M players finished in double figures. I deign to point out the officiating could easily be described as one-sided towards the home team. Yet this game was never particularly close.


a more literal floater than most [Campredon]

While Hunter Dickinson and Franz Wagner never got their offense going, Isaiah Livers was on the mark from the outset, finishing with a game-high 22 points on 17 shooting possessions. Livers crammed the rest of the box score with ten rebounds, three assists, two blocks, and only one turnover in one of his best all-around games of the season. Eli Brooks added 11 points on 5-for-8 shooting with some tough finishes around the basket.

Michigan's stout defense held the Boilermakers to their lowest point total of the season, which made effective secondary scoring somewhat unnecessary; Purdue also had only two double-digit scorers. Star center Trevion Williams needed 21 shooting possessions to tally 14 points. Guard Jaden Ivey was even less efficient in his first start replacing Stefanovic, going a wild 3-for-14 from the field but getting to the line for half of his dozen points. As a team, Purdue shot 20-for-65 with 11 assists and 14 turnovers.


well contested [Campredon]

Sticky perimeter defense and solid contributions from Austin Davis (six points, 3/6 FG) and Brandon Johns (four points, an offensive rebound, an assist, and a steal) helped weather early foul trouble by Dickinson. Juwan Howard even got some solid first-half minutes with Terrance Williams playing next to Johns and, for a brief stretch, using him next to Wagner with the latter defending Trevion Williams in the post. The Boilermakers rarely got all the way to the basket, got a clean look at the rim even less often, and couldn't hit their jumpers.

Thus, another blowout in another fashion. Michigan heads into the weekend 13-1 overall and 8-1 in the Big Ten, 1.5 games clear of Iowa and Wisconsin, which are tied for second at 6-2. They've won every game they've played with all their starters and every victory since Christmas has been by at least 11 points.

The upcoming round of COVID tests may be all that can stop this team. At full strength, they've been amazing. I hope the so-called adults in charge of all this don't ruin it by ignoring the lessons we should all have learned in the ten months we've dealt with this pandemic up close.

[Hit THE JUMP for the box score.]

Comments

OkemosBlue

January 23rd, 2021 at 1:54 AM ^

Needless risk is needless because it can be easily avoided.  By that definition, the risk was needless. But Ace has not framed the question right.  The question is whether playing the game was an acceptable risk.  Was the potential benefit greater than the potential risk?  If your facts are correct, then the positive test increased the risk of playing the game very, very little.  It did not change the existing calculus enough to cause the game to be canceled.

blueboy

January 23rd, 2021 at 3:10 PM ^

After being exposed to the virus, you can be a carrier for several days while continuing to test negative because the virus hasn’t built up enough. Stepanovic was definitely with his team 4 days ago when he played with them against OSU. If he tested positive two days ago he almost certainly had it during the OSU game.

Which means the chances that at least one teammate has the virus are fairly significant, despite the negative tests.

 

gbdub

January 23rd, 2021 at 8:51 AM ^

Seriously though, what’s the supposed angle here? Juwan is going to risk the team’s season for a road game against Purdue? Purdue is going to push to play a game they are already expected to lose down a man? For what? It’s not like these guys are getting paid by the game, there is still time to reschedule games, and unlike football single games are not at a premium. 

Since there is nothing to be really gained by playing, I’m inclined to believe Juwan, Brooks, et al when they said they evaluated the situation and determined the additional risk was small. And so should the rest of us. 

bronxblue

January 22nd, 2021 at 10:52 PM ^

They needed to take the risk of possibly contracting COVID and, beyond the health concerns, put their season title hopes in jeopardy by testing positive?  All because Purdue seems to play a bit fast-and-loose with what 15 minutes of close proximity means?

I don't want to get in a fight over this, but ever since the Wilton Speight had to travel by cart to a hospital a decent distance away from Purdue's stadium due to inadequate medical facilities nearby, I've been a bit dubious about the Boilermakers' adherence to the best medical practices.

Clarence Beeks

January 22nd, 2021 at 11:16 PM ^

A different take: if they are actually do have a process in place to measure individual cumulative time in close proximity, that's actually pretty impressive. It's clear that a lot of people don't understand this, but the fifteen minute cumulative time threshold IS protocol compliant.  The question (and a fair one) is whether they actually do have that infrastructure in place (and whether they can be trusted, for the reason you mentioned).

bronxblue

January 23rd, 2021 at 1:27 PM ^

Sure, but I think the 15-minute contact rule is a lot like the 6-feet distance rule; it's a convenient number that probably encompasses a broad range of possible interactions but shouldn't be treated as dispositive one way or another.  In this case, guys on a team are around each other for hours on end, usually in enclosed environments while engaging in heavy-exertion activities.  I have my doubts that you can accurately measure the time spent in terms of risk exposure, and even if you can the spread across college athletics since the year began points to the entire exercise as a bit of a guess.

Clarence Beeks

January 23rd, 2021 at 2:45 PM ^

There has actually been an excellent study on this (I think it was out of MIT and I wish I could find it) where they were able to actually develop an interactive tool with variables that you could move (e.g. type of activity, distancing used, masked or not, type of environment, etc.) and it produces a number of hours (definitely not 15 minutes) of time in environment before risk was achieved.  Point here being that if they were masked, distanced, and in decently open spaces (like a large gym, rather than small meeting room) the risk analysis would show that you could many hours (like eight plus hours) in those conditions before the risk level triggered.  This is actually why, particularly in the education setting, they are "podding" kids and that has proven effective because if someone comes up positive in that pod, only that pod gets quarantined, not an entire class.

TheCube

January 23rd, 2021 at 12:02 AM ^

Doctor here, sports during a pandemic that has killed almost half a million Americans is pretty needless in the grand scheme of things. 
 

However if the M AD requested 2 rounds of negative PCR testing prior to playing/traveling, then I’d be fairly okay with playing the games. 
 

RT-PCR have higher sensitivity and specificity even in asx pts who are just presumed to have exposure to infected individuals. Unless Purdue is lying about those results or the exposure rates among its team, then I would be okay...college kids caveats apply obviously.

 

Scout96

January 23rd, 2021 at 12:47 AM ^

Also, there is a more contagious version of Covid (UK strain) that has spread across the country, so now we have to cross our fingers that no Purdue player from tonight’s game tests positive in the next few days.  Otherwise we restart that clock and cross our finger that our players don’t get it from them.  Life during a pandemic.

VicTorious1

January 23rd, 2021 at 9:30 AM ^

An optometrist has an OD (doctor of optometry), not MD.  An MD (even one without infectious disease expertise), has far more knowledge about biology than someone who simply has a doctor in the family.  This, however, does not make all MDs experts on COVID.  Sadly, politics some experts in the wrong direction.

rice4114

January 23rd, 2021 at 2:57 AM ^

How old is Coach Martelli? Did Purdue just put his life at risk? Im being serious here if there is a spread brought on by Purdue you have to consider the implications. 1% chance isnt something that is worth a basketball game. Hell even 1/10th of 1%. 

mrjblock24

January 22nd, 2021 at 10:14 PM ^

I’m not sure your personal opinion based on second hand information obtained from tweets is necessary when writing a post game column. It’s at best irresponsible to comment on a situation you’re not privy to, and at worst soapboxing by saying “I hope they get away with it” as though they acted with criminal intent. If safety protocols were followed, players and fans don’t deserve to suffer the consequences when they are not at risk. Do better, Ace.

melandtoto

January 22nd, 2021 at 10:20 PM ^

Including the “suffering” of fans as a reason to play is so offensive. If i miss my weekly dose of Joy (and it is that), i will get over it. And frankly, as the parent of two college aged kids, their desires are hardly what I would be basing my risk/reward analysis on. 

No, this game should not have been played. If one of Michigan’s players comes down with a potentially deadly disease, there is no one who will say this game should have been played, and I’m certain you wont be showing up in the comments of THAT post.

mrjblock24

January 22nd, 2021 at 10:24 PM ^

The point is that two university athletic programs both decided to play a game in which they were made aware of the situation. Both programs (and their players) agreed to go ahead with the game. It’s not our place to decide for them what we feel is safe environment for them to play. Passing judgment and soapboxing has no place in fan discussion. Let them decide for themselves.

mrjblock24

January 22nd, 2021 at 10:51 PM ^

A soap box: a thing that provides an opportunity for someone to air their views publicly.
 

It’s a game recap. If he wants to write an op-ed about the morality/ethics of playing sports during a pandemic that’s his prerogative. It’s unprofessional and poor journalism to sideswipe readers who are being drawn in under the premise of reporting to then get opinion.

Denard In Space

January 22nd, 2021 at 10:55 PM ^

There are plenty of news sites that actually do reporting for you to check out. I don't understand why you'd go to a blog to get your reportage, but go ahead and shake your fist at the sky for being too high, I guess. 

And your definition of a soapbox being "a place to air one's views" sounds pretty similar to a place to air one's opinions, like a blog.