B1G schedule will be 8 games plus 1 “championship week” slate of crossovers

Submitted by Wolverine Devotee on September 16th, 2020 at 10:37 AM

This is stuff straight out of the Catholic High School League in Michigan HS football.

Schedule will be 8 games plus one. 10/24 to 12/12 and then a championship week on 12/19.

Title game between the B1G East and West winners but also the other 12 teams in action. East #2 vs West #2, East #3 vs West #3, East #4 vs West #4

This all per Barry Alvarez. I really like that idea. 

greymarch

September 16th, 2020 at 10:51 AM ^

So effectively, every team gets 9 games.  Besides the CFB playoffs, will there be regular bowl games?  If so, a B1G team could get 10 games this season.  Fantastic.

 

Heck, I would take one Michigan football game this season and be content.  1 > 0.  Cant fight the math.

joegeo

September 16th, 2020 at 10:52 AM ^

Throwing this out there for your own health considerations as well as expectations for just how long this season will go (or if it will even go):

“We expect the daily death rate in the U.S., because of seasonality and declining public vigilance, to reach nearly 3,000 a day in December."

University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america?view=total-deat…

Go ahead and be excited about the possibility. But this season won't necessarily happen.

Also, it's kind of a cool site with other interesting non-covid data to play around with.

MGoBat

September 16th, 2020 at 10:58 AM ^

Daily testing and the ability of schools to keep players and students/general population separated will be the determining factors. I think once a season starts, if the players are safely separated, there would be enough resistance to canceling that it will keep going. Getting started will be the key. Football will keep people entertained and entertainment in trying times is important.

joegeo

September 16th, 2020 at 11:32 AM ^

This response lends credence to their predictions of 'decreased public vigilance.' 

There's a lot of space between 'nothing to see here' and 'panic.'

Predictions that factor in behaviors of hundreds of millions of people have been pretty damn close to spot on. Like remarkably so. What bad predictions are you referring to? And don't say the 2 million number, which was a 'if we do nothing' scenario.

Of course, actions we take will impact the outcome, so much of the guess work is on how we'll behave. If we were to stay vigilant, this prediction likely would not come to fruition. If the state of the comment board here is predictive, I'd say 'decreased public vigilance' is a good guess.

GET OFF YOUR H…

September 16th, 2020 at 11:14 AM ^

You do realize that anyone can find 100 links of 100 different "health institutes" and "doctors" that all completely contradict one another right?  Everyone thinks they have a right answer because they have a link that backs up what they say.  Yet everyone can have a completely different argument and provide a link that backs up what they say.  We are truly in the twilight zone.

 

joegeo

September 16th, 2020 at 11:27 AM ^

It's a heath institute. Not a "health institute." It has doctors, not 'doctors.' It's a link to an academic institution, not a think tank or political rumor monger site. Your inability to discern between these may be a big part of you feeling like you're in the twilight zone.

So some disagreement among scientists means we know nothing? I'm sorry you weren't taught how science works.

Show me the other 100 projections you're referring to. And include the easy to find link.

mackbru

September 16th, 2020 at 12:44 PM ^

Actually, no. Pretty much all major health organizations and top epidemiologists have reached consensus about most issues pertaining how to fight the pandemic. Sometimes that consensus has changed because science is data-driven. But right now there isn’t much disagreement: The main takeaway is the need for rigorous masking and social distancing. Which is impossible in a contact sport or on an open campus. 
 

The “differing opinion” view is what Trump does when trying to deny the dangers of the pandemic or climate change. He finds one “expert” (usually somewhere obscure) who disagrees and then says, Look, there’s no consensus. It’s insanely reckless and dishonest. 

Mitch Cumstein

September 16th, 2020 at 12:31 PM ^

I’m not entirely clear on the implication or linkage you’re drawing with the quote:


“We expect the daily death rate in the U.S., because of seasonality and declining public vigilance, to reach nearly 3,000 a day in December."

Why do you think that would put the season in jeopardy given the testing and protocols the B1G put in place? I didn’t see anything in the announcement about stopping for community transmission or national positivity or death rates, only team testing positivity. Are you saying if the daily death rate doubles from where it is now by December the season will end due to public pressure and politics? Or are you saying a model showing higher community spread has you predicting that the impact on team infection rates will push the results into the “red” thresholds?

joegeo

September 16th, 2020 at 12:44 PM ^

I think they'll go by the thresholds they set unless something major happened, like a couple b10 players dying from covid maybe could change the political winds once again.

But the point I was making was the latter. Community spread putting us into the red threshold there, and too many players testing positive due to high community spread. I'm not predicting it will happen, just that covid still has more cards to play.

The death data quote was also for psa services. 

Carpetbagger

September 16th, 2020 at 12:01 PM ^

I agree 100%. As a major proponent of them playing from the first I advocated for "3 weeks to play 2 games starting in September and 10 total" for exactly this reason. There is close to zero chance that at least 1 game per team doesn't get postponed.

And I say that as die-hard advocate of the "let them play" crowd.

Oh well, at least the guys get to do what they are going to school to do.

DTOW

September 16th, 2020 at 11:15 AM ^

Just posted this in the other thread, not sure what thread will continue on.

Am I the only one that would like this to continue in non-pandemic years?  A regular schedule of 9 conference games, 2 non conference games, and a "Big Ten Challenge" week could be cool.  I'd much rather watch that than waste a third non conference game on the likes of Middle Tennessee State.  You could do Friday/Saturday full slate of games culminating in a Saturday night championship game.  Plus, a side benefit that we've seen with the CFP and bowl selection, it seems like there's been some recency bias in the past years so something like this could also help in that regard.

KC Wolve

September 16th, 2020 at 11:19 AM ^

I still set the O/U on UM games at 3. 21days after positive diagnosis and the 5% positive. One minor outbreak almost cancels the whole season with no breaks. 

WolvinLA2

September 16th, 2020 at 11:51 AM ^

So if you test positive, you sit out 3 games. Will that make teams thin at some points of the season? Sure. Will that mean some games need to be cancelled? Possibly. But many of these teams have had many of their players already test positive so those players will likely not miss any games, and the team has 85(ish) scholarship players plus walk-ons. Some of the games might be weird, but I'll put a lot of money on the over.

the fume

September 16th, 2020 at 12:33 PM ^

It's actually 7.5%, to total population at risk, which I would assume include coaches and staff. I don't know that number but would guess you'd need double digits to get in the red. And based on how Michigan football has handled so far, i.e. excellently, I wouldn't be worried.

The 5% is positive test percentage, and there will be multiple tests for every person, so it will be easier to pass. And note that you need to surpass BOTH numbers to have the 7 day mandated stop.

Basically, you'd need a pretty large outbreak, at which point you should stop anyways.

Mitch Cumstein

September 16th, 2020 at 12:38 PM ^

I read the 5% as 5% of the players tested on a given day are positive (I’m assuming this is new positive cases? Otherwise how is it different from the other category). The 7.5% is % of currently positive roster. Am reading that right?

So if 5% of daily tests come in positive, but only 6% of total roster is positive then that is red/orange? Anyone have a better idea on those definitions?