Minnesota Provides COVID-19 Update: Dec. 3. Two more more players tested positive.

Donate To GopherHole
GopherLady

GopherLady

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
9,282
Reaction score
823
Points
113
From U of MN:

The University of Minnesota football program announced a pause in all team-related activities on Nov. 24, 2020, as it responded to positive COVID-19 cases.

Today, Minnesota is announcing that an additional two individuals – both student-athletes – have tested positive for COVID-19 since its previous update on Nov. 30.

In a potential return to practice – and under guidance of medical experts – members of the football program started light acclimatization workouts on Wednesday, Dec. 2 and continued those workouts today.

In total, since Nov. 19, Minnesota has had 49 individuals (23 student-athletes and 26 staff members) test positive for COVID-19.

Minnesota is working with MDH on its positive cases and is continuing to follow all CDC and MDH guidelines.

Timeline of Minnesota COVID-19 Updates
Nov. 24: Announced that 15 individuals (nine student-athletes and six staff members) tested positive from Nov. 19-23 for COVID-19.

Nov. 25: Announced that 10 additional individuals (three student-athletes and seven staff members) tested positive for COVID-19.

Nov. 28: Announced that 15 additional individuals (eight student athletes and seven staff members) tested positive for COVID-19.

Nov. 30: Announced that seven additional individuals (1 student athlete and six staff members) tested positive for COVID-19.

Dec. 3: Announced that two individuals (both student-athletes) tested positive for COVID-19.

A staff member is defined as any individual who is not a student-athlete but is part of the daily testing protocol. This can include student workers, coaches, communications, equipment, medical, operations, recruiting, video and more.
 

Seeing it's not getting any better what are the chances we even play another game this year?
 

Chances don’t seem good. If the season was a little bit longer they’d be at 100% of those in the program with unanimous positive tests. They must be near 50% at minimum now.
 


My question is this - they "announced" positive tests on the 24th, 25th, and 28th. But are those the dates of the actual tests, or the dates they were announced?

doing the math, if the tests actually took place on the 24th, etc, then those players will not have sat out the required 21 days by the Nebraska game. But, if they tested positive earlier, then some of them might be eligible to play against Nebraska.

The odds look better for the game on the 19th. Most of the players who tested positive will have passed the 21-day mark by then.
 


nitramnaed said:
Seeing it's not getting any better what are the chances we even play another game this year?
Click to expand...

Positive cases are going down and the team began acclimatization workouts on Wednesday.

They were missing around 8 players against Purdue. They will be eligible for Nebraska.


short ornery norwegian said:
My question is this - they "announced" positive tests on the 24th, 25th, and 28th. But are those the dates of the actual tests, or the dates they were announced?

doing the math, if the tests actually took place on the 24th, etc, then those players will not have sat out the required 21 days by the Nebraska game. But, if they tested positive earlier, then some of them might be eligible to play against Nebraska.

The odds look better for the game on the 19th. Most of the players who tested positive will have passed the 21-day mark by then.
Click to expand...

The release says the first nine positives came between Nov 19-23. That means some of those nine will likely be eligible for Nebraska. Basically anyone who tested positive before Nov 22 would be eligible for Nebraska. Then you add back in the small number of players who missed the Iowa game and you are getting fairly close to being to field a team.

I think they will play at Nebraska.
 
Last edited:


I think they will play @Nebraska as well, then potentially Wisconsin the week after.

I don't think there has been a team that has missed more than two consecutive games this season.
 

tjgopher said:
Positive cases are going down and the team began acclimatization workouts on Wednesday.

They were missing around 8 players against Purdue. They will be eligible for Nebraska.




The release says the first nine positives came between Nov 19-23. That means some of those nine will likely be eligible for Nebraska. Basically anyone who tested positive before Nov 22 would be eligible for Nebraska. Then you add back in the small number of players who missed the Iowa game and you are getting fairly close to being to field a team.

I think they will play at Nebraska.
Click to expand...
I agree with this.

I just hope we aren't short-handed in a way that's going to make the game significantly harder to win than otherwise.

Would think BSJ and Schad would be for sure back.
 



MplsGopher said:
I agree with this.

I just hope we aren't short-handed in a way that's going to make the game significantly harder to win than otherwise.

Would think BSJ and Schad would be for sure back.
Click to expand...
BSF, Schad, Mafe, Cheney, St. Juste are the "impact" guys I can remember not playing against PU. Problem is we don't know who was out with COVID (in which case they'll almost certainly play against Nebraska) and who was out with injury (in which case we don't know whether they've healed or since caught COVID).

We also know the starting OL played against PU, and it's been insinuated that group was hit hard with positives in the ensuing days -- which makes sense considering their coach missed the PU game with COVID. Unless all those positives were on Saturday, it's likely the team will be down some OL. Similar story at other position groups...we just haven't heard rumors.

One thing I do know: we almost certainly won't get any specifics from the U. We'll find out if the game is even being played probably next Monday or Tuesday and we'll know which players are available about 60 min prior to kickoff -- and even then only based on warm-ups, not an announcement from the U.
 

MGGopher said:
BSF, Schad, Mafe, Cheney, St. Juste are the "impact" guys I can remember not playing against PU. Problem is we don't know who was out with COVID (in which case they'll almost certainly play against Nebraska) and who was out with injury (in which case we don't know whether they've healed or since caught COVID).

We also know the starting OL played against PU, and it's been insinuated that group was hit hard with positives in the ensuing days -- which makes sense considering their coach missed the PU game with COVID. Unless all those positives were on Saturday, it's likely the team will be down some OL. Similar story at other position groups...we just haven't heard rumors.

One thing I do know: we almost certainly won't get any specifics from the U. We'll find out if the game is even being played probably next Monday or Tuesday and we'll know which players are available about 60 min prior to kickoff -- and even then only based on warm-ups, not an announcement from the U.
Click to expand...
Being significantly down on the OL should be a red alert, if that holds true. We have some talented guys in the depth, but largely unproven. Only guy who has seen the field in any amount, I believe, is Boe, and it was a very short amount. Boe, Beier, Guedet, Cooper ... then the true freshmen. Don't know who can go, and how they'll play. Is it worth risking Tanner getting demolished?
 


tjgopher said:
Boe has played quite a bit. Minnesota has used 6 offensive linemen in formation at the same time a lot this year.
Click to expand...
Lining up as a TE for a "everyone in the stadium knows this a running play" is not at all the same thing as lining up in the regular OL during the game. I'm sure you understand this, and I wasn't saying you were claiming otherwise.

Boe mostly got in when Ruschmeyer's bum left ankle got rolled up on towards the end of the Michigan game. He might've gotten a few reps otherwise, and perhaps like you're saying he lined up as TE. In fact, I know he did on the goal line vs Purdue. I remember that now.
 



MplsGopher said:
Lining up as a TE for a "everyone in the stadium knows this a running play" is not at all the same thing as lining up in the regular OL during the game. I'm sure you understand this, and I wasn't saying you were claiming otherwise.

Boe mostly got in when Ruschmeyer's bum left ankle got rolled up on towards the end of the Michigan game. He might've gotten a few reps otherwise, and perhaps like you're saying he lined up as TE. In fact, I know he did on the goal line vs Purdue. I remember that now.
Click to expand...

He actually finished the 2nd half of the Maryland game (not Michigan).

Correct, he is used as a tackle in the 6 offensive lineman set. It isn't insignificant. It is probably 10-12 times per game. He had a pretty good lead block on one of the goal line TDs against Purdue. Of course, it isn't lining up every down as a guard or center, but playing and getting comfortable is important and he is getting some decent reps for a team that is dominated by 5 sure shot starters up front.

It probably would have been nice to get a few others some reps in garbage time against the Iowa 3rd team defense late, but the coaching staff apparently felt it more important to score a touchdown with the starters. And, hey, they beat Purdue the next week scoring on the opening drive, so it worked.
 

tjgopher said:
He actually finished the 2nd half of the Maryland game (not Michigan).

Correct, he is used as a tackle in the 6 offensive lineman set. It isn't insignificant. It is probably 10-12 times per game. He had a pretty good lead block on one of the goal line TDs against Purdue. Of course, it isn't lining up every down as a guard or center, but playing and getting comfortable is important and he is getting some decent reps for a team that is dominated by 5 sure shot starters up front.
Click to expand...
I know for a fact he finished the Mich game. Rusch had a bad left ankle and then it got rolled up on and he was done. It was only the last two drives I believe. I don't remember if he did the Maryland game as well, if you say he did then I believe you.

Anyway, other than Boe, I don't think any of the other backups have seen the field this year, unless there was a garbage time drive in the Illinois game.
 

MplsGopher said:
I know for a fact he finished the Mich game. Rusch had a bad left ankle and then it got rolled up on and he was done. It was only the last two drives I believe. I don't remember if he did the Maryland game as well, if you say he did then I believe you.

Anyway, other than Boe, I don't think any of the other backups have seen the field this year, unless there was a garbage time drive in the Illinois game.
Click to expand...
yes, he played in the 2nd half of the Michigan game after Rusch went out.
 

MplsGopher said:
I know for a fact he finished the Mich game. Rusch had a bad left ankle and then it got rolled up on and he was done. It was only the last two drives I believe. I don't remember if he did the Maryland game as well, if you say he did then I believe you.

Anyway, other than Boe, I don't think any of the other backups have seen the field this year, unless there was a garbage time drive in the Illinois game.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Boe played by far the most at Maryland, when Ruschmeyer was taken to the locker room in the 3rd quarter with a leg injury, missed the rest of the game and was a gametime decision the next week at Illinois. Boe played most of the 2nd half.

Yep, would have been nice in the Iowa game to get some other guys some reps.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom