Wisconsin QB tests positive for Covid

  • Fanatics -

    Thank you for your patience today and welcome to the newest version of Cyclone Fanatic!

    Most of the changes we have made are very simple, but will greatly improve your user experience while visiting the website.

    We have upgraded our forum software to speed things up. Our homepage is much cleaner and should be even more mobile friendly than before.

    We appreciate your loyalty and are committed to not only keeping Cyclone Fanatic in tip-top shape, but continuing to build this community for the next decade and beyond.

    We ask that if you are experiences any glitches to let us know in this thread . Will will be diligently working on the site all day.

    Thanks again.

    Chris Williams - Publisher

madguy30

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2011
24,788
19,628
113
In defense of the B1G, Wisconsin is swimming in Corona postives the last few weeks. They had 7,000+ cases a few days ago.
That was reported cases due to the system being shut down for a weekend so that 7,000 is skewed, but yeah, Wisconsin is loving it some Covid right about now.
 

BryceC

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 23, 2006
20,395
8,648
113
Man Iowa couldn’t have been handed a more finely crafted deck to get to the title game. I hope Mertz does well and is back to give them a wake up call to end the season.
Well, other than losing to a Purdue team also hit by COVID.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: SECyclone

Neptune78

Well-Known Member
Aug 12, 2020
616
554
93
East of Neptune, IA.
Barry is working the 'false positive' phones as we speak. I would too if I was in the Badger football offices.
The guy on the other end of the phone said--"You're screwed Barry, Mertz' PCR test confirmed. He should be back for Michigan. We'll see if we have better luck with Wolf's confirmation test."
 

BryceC

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 23, 2006
20,395
8,648
113
The stuff that's come to light after this makes me think the Big 10 wasn't really serious about restarting. We can debate the risks associated with football and COVID all we want - but starting a season with a 21 day sit out rule and no by weeks, and making a game a no contest with a team having 5% or higher rates (which isn't that much) means games won't be played. Period.
 

BillBrasky4Cy

Well-Known Member
Dec 10, 2013
7,666
14,244
113
The stuff that's come to light after this makes me think the Big 10 wasn't really serious about restarting. We can debate the risks associated with football and COVID all we want - but starting a season with a 21 day sit out rule and no by weeks, and making a game a no contest with a team having 5% or higher rates (which isn't that much) means games won't be played. Period.
It is going to be interesting to see what the Big 10 does here.
The B1G didn't really have a choice but to put these strict guidelines in when they decided to return to play. After their concerns were on the record they couldn't just come back full throttle. With that being said it's hard to not expect multiple no contests this year.
 

ArgentCy

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2010
20,384
11,168
113
The stuff that's come to light after this makes me think the Big 10 wasn't really serious about restarting. We can debate the risks associated with football and COVID all we want - but starting a season with a 21 day sit out rule and no by weeks, and making a game a no contest with a team having 5% or higher rates (which isn't that much) means games won't be played. Period.
They played it similar to the Des Moines School Board. Very, very reluctantly.
 

Acylum

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2006
7,562
6,309
113
The B1G didn't really have a choice but to put these strict guidelines in when they decided to return to play. After their concerns were on the record they couldn't just come back full throttle. With that being said it's hard to not expect multiple no contests this year.
Their response to the pandemic had been a series of missteps.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: isutrevman

flycy

Well-Known Member
Jul 17, 2008
1,364
1,193
113
Crescent, IA
#1 and #3 are out due to protocols. What happened to #2? Why are we on to the 4th string. I think this would meet the protocol of a certain percentage of a position group being out, or is that only a Big 12 thing?
 

IASTATE07

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
May 30, 2016
8,748
13,053
113
#1 and #3 are out due to protocols. What happened to #2? Why are we on to the 4th string. I think this would meet the protocol of a certain percentage of a position group being out, or is that only a Big 12 thing?
I think their original starting quarterback is actually injured. The #2 and #3 are out for protocols.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: CyPunch

clonedude

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2006
21,172
13,590
113
#1 and #3 are out due to protocols. What happened to #2? Why are we on to the 4th string. I think this would meet the protocol of a certain percentage of a position group being out, or is that only a Big 12 thing?
Actually, #1 is out with an injury, and #2 and #3 are out with Covid, so they are down to #4 the way I understand it. Mertz wasn't #1.... Jack Coan was.
 

clonedude

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2006
21,172
13,590
113
Was Mertz possibly positive when he played the game? Or did he go out and party after the game and get it?
 

madguy30

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2011
24,788
19,628
113
#1 and #3 are out due to protocols. What happened to #2? Why are we on to the 4th string. I think this would meet the protocol of a certain percentage of a position group being out, or is that only a Big 12 thing?
OG starting QB Coan is out for the year.
 

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron