Jump to content

Don Johnson

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2,846
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Johnson

  1. FWIW, the line is MSU +140, Vandy -160 which seems crazy. Edit, dropped to +110/-130
  2. Don't see how MSU doesn't win. If Bednar can give them 5 quality, Sims can finish. Vandy's offense has been terrible for weeks. Their IF is an error machine. And Rocker can be hit by good teams. Zona put up 5 (3 ER) on him in Omaha. Arkansas put up 5 ER in 3.1 in Hoover.
  3. I don't disagree. Its all hands on deck at this point. The only person who seems to have rage about "dudes starting on short rest" is you. You do what you have to do. Just like Texas starting Stevens on Saturday on 3 days rest. Must win game, so you do what you have to do. They have as much time to rest as they want in a few days.
  4. I know what Fletch said because he responded to a different question than you did. I edited my post. He responded before. You responded after. You can see in the quotes. And I absolutely agree 4 days is better than 3. But both are short rest (by 2-3 days for these guys) so to act like MSU is desperate for “having to send all your dudes out on short rest” when Texas 1) just did the same thing and 2) would do it again, is silly.
  5. Fletch was saying Hansen for game 1. He started Thursday. That's 3 days rest. So pretty much what MSU is doing with one extra day rest. Game 1 starter - full rest. Game 2 and Game 3 starters on short rest. Not exactly a huge difference.
  6. That's what I would assume as well. And that would be off 3 days rest.
  7. Its not a whole lot different than starting Madden on 4 days rest on Friday and Stevens on 3 days rest on Saturday. You do what you have to do at this stage. Who do you think would've started these three games for Texas?
  8. That's tough with Harding also being on 3 days rest tonight. Wonder how long he can go?
  9. Time for MSU to implement the NCST Game 1 vs Arkansas strategy. Save all decent pitchers for another day.
  10. I'm still confused about one thing. They had two positives by Thursday. Then two more tested positive on Friday morning, bringing the total to four, which lead to the NCAA pulling all unvaccinated players from the game and allowing only vaccinated players to play. All the unvaccinated players tested during the game were negative. Then, after the game, they determined that the four positives classified it as "outbreak status" and all the vaccinated players would need to get tested. Thus the four more positives from vaccinated players that played that day. What changed from before the game to after the game? Same four players were positive. Why wasn't it "outbreak status" before the game?
  11. Kendall had a good story on everything that happened with NCST https://d1baseball.com/analysis/nc-states-cws-removal-the-timeline-of-events/
  12. Ha. Trust me, I am the furthest thing from an NCST fan there is. Also not remotely anti-vax, as I did so in February I am, however, a fan of common sense. And believe that all players that tested negative and certainly all fully vaccinated players should be allowed to play. I’m all about health and safety. As we’ve seen, this wasn’t about that.
  13. Everyone says they knew the rules. I’m not sure anyone knew the rules yesterday. Nor does anyone show a full understanding today. Also not sure what triggered testing all the vaccinated players. Maybe 2 positives is “significant transmission in the community”. I wouldn’t interpret it that way, but do I know? I would imagine that everyone that “knew the rules going in”, never imagined fully vaccinated players would be ruled out. I’m sure they thought the worst case scenario would be what happened in yesterday’s game.
  14. No way to verify right now, but supposedly per one of the players, they knew about the two positives before the game (was all over social media), and right before the game decided to pull all unvaccinated players from the game and test them. All came back negative. Then after the game, they decided to test all vaccinated players and got the four positives. if true, there’s a lot of explaining that needs to be made for allowing those players to play yesterday. And as to why they decided to test them after the game.
  15. Maybe fucked them over. There’s no reason to believe NCST wasn’t going to be the tougher opponent (had none of this happened).
  16. If we weren’t worried about protecting the unvaccinated, the players would be allowed to play. Which made total sense for about 12 months. But not now.
  17. At what point can we limit personal responsibility to the person? We are well past the point where everyone has had the opportunity to get the vaccine. Time to stop having silly rules to protect those who have chosen not to.
  18. I don’t define risk as a vaccinated person testing positive for Covid. We all know the odds of that having a serious outcome is near zero. That’s why they aren’t even bothering to test fully vaccinated teams. Because it’s not even worth knowing about.
  19. No. I think in the scenario we are discussing, the fully vaccinated players were not tested and allowed to play as they were yesterday. It’s only a comment in response to the “they would’ve lost anyway” posts.
×
×
  • Create New...