B1G Forfeiture Policy

[RabidDawgClassic]

Because that's not really fair to the teams. We are at a point where you can do everything "right" (i.e., get your program 100% vaccinated) and still have an outbreak because omicron isn't as susceptible to the vaccines (though they still work to substantially reduce the severity). So you can't really punish a team for something that was outside their control, in my opinion. If you find out there was some kind of negligence involved, however, throw the book at them.

The point here is that all reasonable attempts to reschedule will be made before there’s a forfeit. Last year, Michigan could’ve returned to play earlier, but wasn’t in “game shape” so they delayed their return. It was then practically impossible for them to make up all missed games, so their “punishment” was three no-contests and a Big Ten championship.

Under my proposal, all attempts to make up the game will be exhausted before it becomes a forfeit. But it’s unfair for any team who doesn’t play the games to have an advantage.

 

[sacraig]

The point here is that all reasonable attempts to reschedule will be made before there’s a forfeit. Last year, Michigan could’ve returned to play earlier, but wasn’t in “game shape” so they delayed their return. It was then practically impossible for them to make up all missed games, so their “punishment” was three no-contests and a Big Ten championship.

Under my proposal, all attempts to make up the game will be exhausted before it becomes a forfeit. But it’s unfair for any team who doesn’t play the games to have an advantage.

So what happens if Team A misses a game in January, which can be made up over the next two months, while Team B misses a game in early March just before the conference tournament when there is no chance for a make-up?

 

[the juiceman cometh]

The point here is that all reasonable attempts to reschedule will be made before there’s a forfeit. Last year, Michigan could’ve returned to play earlier, but wasn’t in “game shape” so they delayed their return. It was then practically impossible for them to make up all missed games, so their “punishment” was three no-contests and a Big Ten championship.

Under my proposal, all attempts to make up the game will be exhausted before it becomes a forfeit. But it’s unfair for any team who doesn’t play the games to have an advantage.

There's a solution to last year's problem that doesn't also punish teams for getting sick. I thought the best course was to set a minimim number of games that gave every team some leeway, and then to award the championship to the team with the most wins as well as to every team that mathematically could have caught up with them if all games were played. Last year this would have resulted in Michigan and the Illini as joint Big Ten champions.

 

[sacraig]

There's a solution to last year's problem that doesn't also punish teams for getting sick. I thought the best course was to set a minimim number of games that gave every team some leeway, and then to award the championship to the team with the most wins as well as to every team that mathematically could have caught up with them if all games were played. Last year this would have resulted in Michigan and the Illini as joint Big Ten champions.

You could make that easier by saying something like: "If, at the end of the regular season, one team has the most wins while another has the best winning percentage, a share of the conference regular season championship will be awarded to both teams provided that each has played at least 90% of their scheduled games."

You can adjust the percentage accordingly.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

You could make that easier by saying something like: "If, at the end of the regular season, one team has the most wins while another has the best winning percentage, a share of the conference regular season championship will be awarded to both teams provided that each has played at least 90% of their scheduled games."

You can adjust the percentage accordingly.

Yeah, I suppose I'm envisioning a scenario even murkier than last year's. Say one team ends up 17-3, a 2nd team ends up 16-3, and a third team ends up 15-1. The 16-3 team doesn't have most wins or best percentage, and I guess you could argue they don't doesn't deserve a share, but they'd have missed one game which if they'd won they'd be tied for the best record. And what if the one game they missed was against the worst team in the conference? I think with Covid what it is, just let any team that had a legitimate argument hang the co-Champions banner.

 

[sacraig]

Yeah, I suppose I'm envisioning a scenario even murkier than last year's. Say one team ends up 17-3, a 2nd team ends up 16-3, and a third team ends up 15-1. The 16-3 team doesn't have most wins or best percentage, and I guess you could argue they don't doesn't deserve a share, but they'd have missed one game which if they'd won they'd be tied for the best record. And what if the one game they missed was against the worst team in the conference? I think with Covid what it is, just let any team that had a legitimate argument hang the co-Champions banner.

But the 15-1 team wouldn't meat the 90% threshold and so would not be eligible. Now the 16-3 team has the best percentage and 17-3 the most wins.

 

[BretMyBeachHouse]

But the 15-1 team wouldn't meat the 90% threshold and so would not be eligible. Now the 16-3 team has the best percentage and 17-3 the most wins.

Gender studies major?

 

[sacraig]

Gender studies major?

Hey, you try making an intelligent post while your kids hit you with inflatable lightsabers!

 

[Bucktown]

Yeah, I suppose I'm envisioning a scenario even murkier than last year's. Say one team ends up 17-3, a 2nd team ends up 16-3, and a third team ends up 15-1. The 16-3 team doesn't have most wins or best percentage, and I guess you could argue they don't doesn't deserve a share, but they'd have missed one game which if they'd won they'd be tied for the best record. And what if the one game they missed was against the worst team in the conference? I think with Covid what it is, just let any team that had a legitimate argument hang the co-Champions banner.

In that case, I think they need to adjust for strength of schedule. The conference should pick a method...KenPom, Sagarin, RPI, NET, whatever to determine standings.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

But the 15-1 team wouldn't meat the 90% threshold and so would not be eligible. Now the 16-3 team has the best percentage and 17-3 the most wins.

Actually the 17-3 team would have both percentage and wins. I also think the 90% threshold may be a tad harsh. That's 2 games. One bad outbreak could theoretically knock you out for more than that in a packed portion of the schedule. And in a world where we're not doing forfeits, you don't only lose games for your own outbreaks, but for those on other teams as well. I think 75-80% is more realistic.

 

[sacraig]

Actually the 17-3 team would have both percentage and wins. I also think the 90% threshold may be a tad harsh. That's 2 games. One bad outbreak could theoretically knock you out for more than that in a packed portion of the schedule. And in a world where we're not doing forfeits, you don't only lose games for your own outbreaks, but for those on other teams as well. I think 75-80% is more realistic.

Yes, see where @BretMyBeachHouse called me out already and my excuse.

 

[altgeld88]

Dislike button

On this board I didn't really believe I needed the "/s" on that one.

 

[altgeld88]

If he gets it wrong again, maybe he shouldn’t get another chance to get it right the next time this comes up.

If competent leadership were a prerequisite for the position he shouldn't ever have a second chance.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

Yes, see where @BretMyBeachHouse called me out already and my excuse.

Fair enough. I was responding in the wake of disciplining my 4 year old for throwing a fist full of spaghetti (or a pretend snowball as he put it) at my 2 year old, so I both fully get your excuse and have my own for missing that exchange.

 

[Navy_illini]

I do not care about the Big Ten regular season championship. If you do not play every team twice then then it is never fair

I hope we are not affected in March/April. Covid is never going away and eventually it wont be a big deal. However we are no where close to that point yet

 

[sacraig]

Fair enough. I was responding in the wake of disciplining my 4 year old for throwing a fist full of spaghetti (or a pretend snowball as he put it) at my 2 year old, so I both fully get your excuse and have my own for missing that exchange.

My kids are also 4 and 2. I feel you.

 

[Thaillini22]

What constitutes "unable to play bc of covid"?

If it isn't already the rule, I think if you can suit up 7 healthy players and have 1 healthy adult chaperone, the game should be played.

 

[Thaillini22]

What constitutes "unable to play bc of covid"?

If it isn't already the rule, I think if you can suit up 7 healthy players and have 1 healthy adult chaperone, the game should be played.

I guess I'm wondering if this is actually being monitored/enforced. Sorry if stupid questions.

 

[sacraig]

What constitutes "unable to play bc of covid"?

If it isn't already the rule, I think if you can suit up 7 healthy players and have 1 healthy adult chaperone, the game should be played.

That's the SEC's current stance. I don't know about the B1G.

 

[EllderIlliniFan]

What constitutes "unable to play bc of covid"?

If it isn't already the rule, I think if you can suit up 7 healthy players and have 1 healthy adult chaperone, the game should be played.

The decision on forfeit loss or draw needs to be objective and not subject to decision. Pick a number of non covid players who are available. If the number is met, you play. If the number is not met you do not play. It is no contest if you do not play. A reschedule is required for a team up to a maximum of 3 games per week. Failure to schedule a makeup is a forfeit. Have some firm rules in place ahead of time. Everyone lives by the same rules. No adjustments based on individual team situations.

 

[doowink]

Because that's not really fair to the teams. We are at a point where you can do everything "right" (i.e., get your program 100% vaccinated) and still have an outbreak because omicron isn't as susceptible to the vaccines (though they still work to substantially reduce the severity). So you can't really punish a team for something that was outside their control, in my opinion. If you find out there was some kind of negligence involved, however, throw the book at them.

That would require the B10 office or ncaa to do some investigation...and we all know how that works.....might have a decision handed down by the start of the 22-23 season

 

[WhiteHorseWings]

My kids are also 4 and 2. I feel you.

4 teenagers. Trade you any day you’re looking for a “break”

 

[EllderIlliniFan]

4 teenagers. Trade you any day you’re looking for a “break”

They eventually grow up. And it is amazing how much smarter you are as they get older.

 

[BRucks]

Because that's not really fair to the teams. We are at a point where you can do everything "right" (i.e., get your program 100% vaccinated) and still have an outbreak because omicron isn't as susceptible to the vaccines (though they still work to substantially reduce the severity). So you can't really punish a team for something that was outside their control, in my opinion. If you find out there was some kind of negligence involved, however, throw the book at them.

But, of course, we have no idea if the teams in question did everything right. What if they did much wrong?

 

[BRucks]

What constitutes "unable to play bc of covid"?

If it isn't already the rule, I think if you can suit up 7 healthy players and have 1 healthy adult chaperone, the game should be played.

Good point. Should covid trump, say, sports hernia or concussion protocol?