Report: Wisconsin QB Graham Mertz tests positive for COVID-19

[MplsGopher]

Shouldn't be hard to juke the PCR test. Whoops, the wrong vile was tested, mixed up with a student on campus. The mistake wasn't discovered until Feb, during an audit.

 

[MNVCGUY]

It could and probably will happen to the Gophers. I would be mildly surprised if everyone in the Badger huddle does not eventually test positive.

It kind of already did with our kicking situation. But obviously losing your top 3 QBs (if it ends up working that way) is even worse. Sure this will be an ongoing theme all season.

 

[MplsGopher]

As a physician I say we could do without the petty accusations and “COVID-shaming.” Having positive cases within teams is going to be a reality, not necessarily “failure to enforce enough control of your team.” The schools cannot put these kids in an NBA bubble where housing is locked down, their food is catered in, they don’t have to leave for errands or class related activities. Is your tone going to be the same with more positive Gopher players? It was fortunate that it was the kickers who don’t have much physical contact or prolonged proximity to the rest of the team, otherwise it may have been a larger spread.

You should Google the word "if".

Then you can spare us the pretentious "as a physician" crap.

 

[Catechol]

You should Google the word "if".

Then you can spare us the pretentious "as a physician" crap.

I think your use of “if” was in the passive aggressive form.

“Pretentious” seems like an over sensitive reaction - I think it’s reasonable when discussing COVID-19 to disclose if one is actually a medical professional with direct experience. How about further qualifying with: I’m a cardiologist who has evaluated college athletes for COVID return to participation. It’s not like I am saying “as a physician, I think I’m more qualified than you to grade the LB play from last week.” Sheesh!

 

[MplsGopher]

I think your use of “if” was in the passive aggressive form.

“Pretentious” seems like an over sensitive reaction - I think it’s reasonable when discussing COVID-19 to disclose if one is actually a medical professional with direct experience. How about further qualifying with: I’m a cardiologist who has evaluated college athletes for COVID return to participation. It’s not like I am saying “as a physician, I think I’m more qualified than you to grade the LB play from last week.” Sheesh!

First bold: well no surprise, you're wrong.

Second bold: thus your cardiology training and covid athlete evaluation experience makes you better able to pronouce when it's not appropriate to "covid shame", than someone who doesn't have those experience? Silly. And you were wrong anyway (see first bold), so clearly you aren't.

 

[Urbandale]

This season will have an asterisk next to it and will be meaningless.

This season, games will be won and games will be lost. Players and fans will feel joy and they will feel despair. A championship will be awarded, coaches will be fired, recruits will be inspired and they will be discouraged.

For everyone in our program and other programs who have worked and perspired and labored and put in the hours to do the best they can, it's insulting to call the season meaningless.

Besides, the Gophers have won national titles playing eight or fewer games.

 

[Catechol]

First bold: well no surprise, you're wrong.

Second bold: thus your cardiology training and covid athlete evaluation experience makes you better able to pronouce when it's not appropriate to "covid shame", than someone who doesn't have those experience? Silly. And you were wrong anyway (see first bold), so clearly you aren't.

Appears you deleted or edited the original post that I commented on so I can’t speculate any further. But the tone of your other posts “sure hope he didn’t go out and party” and “it’s not hard to fake a PCR test” imply something along the same lines.

All I took issue with was the implication that positive COVID cases assumes lack of institutional control, or could end up with individual athletes getting vilified because they “must have been partying” or were otherwise careless. Medical experience and perspective is relevant.

 

[MplsGopher]

Appears you deleted or edited the original post that I commented on so I can’t speculate any further. But the tone of your other posts “sure hope he didn’t go out and party” and “it’s not hard to fake a PCR test” imply something along the same lines.

All I took issue with was the implication that positive COVID cases assumes lack of institutional control, or could end up with individual athletes getting vilified because they “must have been partying” or were otherwise careless. Medical experience and perspective is relevant.

It's still there, unchanged (post #18). I said I hope. Neither passive aggressive or pronouncing anything. You were wrong.

*If* it happened because of partying, that would absolutely imply a lack of control -- as I said in post #35 (also still there), by the coach over his team, nothing having to do with institutional control.

I'm hoping for the young man's sake that this was just a false positive from the less accurate saliva testing.


Medical experience has literally nothing to do with this part of it. Has nothing to do with medical.


The latter post where I mentioned that a PCR test could be juked, may or may not have to do with the institution. Or could just be an unethical manager of the testing lab. Etc.

 

[DCinOK]

A ridiculous throwaway season thanks to absurd hand-wringing over this nonsense. Kevin Warren is ridiculous. "Oh look, a germ landed on a players' ankle! He can't play for 21 days!" Absurd, all because of Collective Peoples' Stupidity.

 

[Urbandale]

A ridiculous throwaway season thanks to absurd hand-wringing over this nonsense. Kevin Warren is ridiculous. "Oh look, a germ landed on a players' ankle! He can't play for 21 days!" Absurd, all because of Collective Peoples' Stupidity.

I'm not sure that hyperbole is exactly your strong suit.

 

[BuiltFordTough]

Is Wisconsin down to one QB?


Chase Wolf being in COVID protocol, so the Wisconsin Badgers have to use Vandenboom at QB and then the RB Garrett Groshek as the back up. 9 Badgers have COVID, yeesh.
8:57 PM · Oct 26, 2020

 

[Spaulding!No!]

It's still there, unchanged (post #18). I said I hope. Neither passive aggressive or pronouncing anything. You were wrong.

*If* it happened because of partying, that would absolutely imply a lack of control -- as I said in post #35 (also still there), by the coach over his team, nothing having to do with institutional control.

I'm hoping for the young man's sake that this was just a false positive from the less accurate saliva testing.


Medical experience has literally nothing to do with this part of it. Has nothing to do with medical.


The latter post where I mentioned that a PCR test could be juked, may or may not have to do with the institution. Or could just be an unethical manager of the testing lab. Etc.

Following. Fake MD vs the guy people block- it’s getting good.

 

[#2Gopher]

A ridiculous throwaway season thanks to absurd hand-wringing over this nonsense. Kevin Warren is ridiculous. "Oh look, a germ landed on a players' ankle! He can't play for 21 days!" Absurd, all because of Collective Peoples' Stupidity.

Personally I believe Warren is taking much more heat than he should be. These are the rules that the presidents have approved to follow. If they didn't like them, then they should have spoke up, modified them etc. Warren follows the directions of the schools and puts forward a plan based on that.

Yes perhaps Warren suggested 21 days, maybe he didn't. Don't put it all on him. He and the presidents are looking out for the student/athletic. If they didn't then they would be criticized and sued for not looking out for them.

 

[swelna]

Is Wisconsin down to one QB?


Chase Wolf being in COVID protocol, so the Wisconsin Badgers have to use Vandenboom at QB and then the RB Garrett Groshek as the back up. 9 Badgers have COVID, yeesh.
8:57 PM · Oct 26, 2020

Isn't the threshold something like 7 players for the game to be cancelled? If it's true that thet have 9 in protocol, it'll only be a matter of time until we hear their game got cancelled

 

[MGGopher]

As a human being, I hate to see this and wish them all a quick recovery or asymptomatic isolation. Assumi8ng that happens, as a Gophers fan, this could make for a delicious 3 weeks of drama.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

I'm glad they're testing but all the stories about folks getting tests and then confirmations and continued tests when it took like 5 days for them to get me one test result is kinda annoying in a way...

 

[Some guy]

It is interesting to me that canceling 2 games would be better for Wisconsin than playing 2 with backups and losing 1

BUT

if they cancel 3 then they are inelligible for the BT Title game unless the big ten average number of games played falls below 7

 

[PMWinSTP]

Isn't the threshold something like 7 players for the game to be cancelled? If it's true that thet have 9 in protocol, it'll only be a matter of time until we hear their game got cancelled

Found the protocol. It's a combo of positive test rate and positive rate of the team population.

Big Ten Conference

The official athletics website for Big Ten Conference

bigten.org

 

[MNVCGUY]

Looks like Mertz's second test was positive as well so he is in the 21 day protocol. Will be interesting to see how many others outside of the QBs there come down with it. Although I am sure that info will be tough to come by so probably won't know a ton until Saturday.

 

[Sparlimb]

Isn't the threshold something like 7 players for the game to be cancelled? If it's true that thet have 9 in protocol, it'll only be a matter of time until we hear their game got cancelled

Didn't we have 7 special teams guys out last game? Seemed that way...

 

[Urbandale]

Isn't the threshold something like 7 players for the game to be cancelled? If it's true that thet have 9 in protocol, it'll only be a matter of time until we hear their game got cancelled

I think (and I see PMWinSTP has perhaps posted the more official explanation) it goes something like this:

It's a rolling average over seven days. Let's say nine Badgers tested positive out of 100 (because of walk-ons) on day one. Everyone is retested on day two, and those same nine again tested positive. They would then be removed from testing, because they would be in the protocol. Let's say that for the next five days, the remaining 91 players tested negative. That would leave:

Day 1: 9/100
Day 2: 9/100
Day 3: 0/91
Day 4: 0/91
Day 5: 0/91
Day 6: 0/91
Day 7: 0/91

Total: 18/655 = 2.7%, which is well below the 5% threshold. Of course, that's assuming no other positive tests, either before those nine or after, either of which would affect the rolling 7-day average. And perhaps the 100 number is high or low.

That's my interpretation. I welcome any corrections.

 

[Catechol]

It was this post, sorry I missed it on my phone. It was in direct response to die hard’s post; your wording directly suggests Wisky had a lack of control and you could see them engineering a “false positive” storyline. Not a big deal, it is what it is and many people I’m sure thought that, you don’t need to deny it. I think it’s a possibility that they were not tight enough about who players were in contact with. I do not think that anyone with the university would try to falsify COVID results given the public health implications.

die hard gopher said:

Apparently a Wisconsin recruit in Instagram live said there are 9 others who tested positive which would mean they would have to cancel the next 3 games which would make them ineligible for Indy.

Mplsgopher said:
The rules are the rules. If you can't enforce enough control of your team, those are the consequences.

Somehow ... I just doubt that is going to happen. I foresee the phrase "false positive" leaking into the narrative

 

[PMWinSTP]

I think (and I see PMWinSTP has perhaps posted the more official explanation) it goes something like this:

It's a rolling average over seven days. Let's say nine Badgers tested positive out of 100 (because of walk-ons) on day one. Everyone is retested on day two, and those same nine again tested positive. They would then be removed from testing, because they would be in the protocol. Let's say that for the next five days, the remaining 91 players tested negative. That would leave:

Day 1: 9/100
Day 2: 9/100
Day 3: 0/91
Day 4: 0/91
Day 5: 0/91
Day 6: 0/91
Day 7: 0/91

Total: 18/655 = 2.7%, which is well below the 5% threshold. Of course, that's assuming no other positive tests, either before those nine or after, either of which would affect the rolling 7-day average. And perhaps the 100 number is high or low.

That's my interpretation. I welcome any corrections.

Looks right. I wonder what is considered the population? I assume it includes all football personnel, staff and coaches...those around the players. If that is the case, the number of positives and the overall number of tests could be much higher.

 

[MplsGopher]

It was this post, sorry I missed it on my phone. It was in direct response to die hard’s post; your wording directly suggests Wisky had a lack of control and you could see them engineering a “false positive” storyline. Not a big deal, it is what it is and many people I’m sure thought that, you don’t need to deny it. I think it’s a possibility that they were not tight enough about who players were in contact with. I do not think that anyone with the university would try to falsify COVID results given the public health implications.

die hard gopher said:

Mplsgopher said:
The rules are the rules. If you can't enforce enough control of your team, those are the consequences.

Somehow ... I just doubt that is going to happen. I foresee the phrase "false positive" leaking into the narrative

You're conflating different posts. In this specific one, I don't allude to institutional control at all. In a later post, I perhaps did (depending on what that phrase means), in a separate context.

It doesn't matter anymore, Mertz's PCR came back positive so he's out for the next 3 weeks. The backup is still waiting for the PCR confirmation, but if Mertz's was positive then probably his will be too.

 

[Urbandale]

Looks right. I wonder what is considered the population? I assume it includes all football personnel, staff and coaches...those around the players. If that is the case, the number of positives and the overall number of tests could be much higher.

There's a chance the B1G protocols are actually really clever. Based on those numbers, there would have to be a lot of players in the protocol to reach the threshold for a shut down. And because it's a rolling average, it might only be shut down for one day. Combine that with the fact that a shut down only occurs when the community at large also rises above a certain percentage, and you have some pretty stout safeguards against game cancellation.

 

[MplsGopher]

https://www.espn.com/college-footba...ers-qb-graham-mertz-positive-covid-19-3-weeks

Wisconsin quarterback Graham Mertz had his COVID-19 positive test confirmed and will be out a minimum of 21 days, a source has confirmed to ESPN.

Mertz, who starred for Wisconsin on Friday in its season-opening win over Illinois, had an antigen test come back positive for the coronavirus over the weekend. He had a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that confirmed the result Monday. Big Ten policy requires any player who tests positive for COVID-19 to miss at least 21 days and undergo cardiac screening before being cleared to return.

CBS Sports first reported the confirmation of Mertz's test.

Wisconsin could be down to its fourth-string quarterback for Saturday's game at Nebraska after third-stringer Chase Wolf also tested positive, per sources, confirmed a Monday night report by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. If Wolf's positive test is confirmed, he also will miss a minimum of 21 days before returning to action.

 

[Plato]

This "season' was started to recover some TV $ for hard hit athletic departments.
The SEC has already had teams out for a couple of weeks.
I know there are some that would have expired if MN did not play but no rational person would see the BIG season as having any meaning when teams like MN lose their entire punting and place kicking players and WI is down to one QB.
WI should cance their next two to three games and MN should cancel if any more players are positive for the virus.

 

[WriterGoph]

This "season' was started to recover some TV $ for hard hit athletic departments.
The SEC has already had teams out for a couple of weeks.
I know there are some that would have expired if MN did not play but no rational person would see the BIG season as having any meaning when teams like MN lose their entire punting and place kicking players and WI is down to one QB.
WI should cance their next two to three games and MN should cancel if any more players are positive for the virus.

No, Wisconsin should play, just like we did this past Saturday

 

[MplsGopher]

They'll play. Frost will put 8 or even 9 men in the box at times, and dare the 4th stringer to throw deep. Probably has a nice package of stunts and blitzes lined up.

If I'm Chryst, I shove it right up his a__. 21 and even 22 personnel all day (6th OL occasionally as well). Power up the middle, power off-tackle, traps, tosses with big TE smashing down on little bitch DBs. Etc. Make their defense physically hurt.

Run it on 3rd and medium. Run it on 3rd and long. Maybe some play-action bootlegs now and then. Screens occasionally.


Granted, that's the offense that I would run all the time, anyway.

 

[Unregistered User]

First bold: well no surprise, you're wrong.

Second bold: thus your cardiology training and covid athlete evaluation experience makes you better able to pronouce when it's not appropriate to "covid shame", than someone who doesn't have those experience? Silly. And you were wrong anyway (see first bold), so clearly you aren't.

Just STFU.