Could college football teams cook their coronavirus stats if it helps them avoid taking the field without their best players?
This is a question that randomly popped into my head, and I’m failing to see how coaches haven’t already thought about this behind closed doors. (RELATED: David Hookstead Is The True King In The North When It Comes To College Football)
Stick with me here for a second. Right now, a college football team can play a game even if players are out with coronavirus and through contact tracing as long as they meet a minimum threshold of active guys.
View this post on Instagram
When the threshold isn’t met or there are too many unknowns, the game is postponed or canceled. However, what’s to stop a team from lying if they have enough active players but their best players are out with coronavirus?
Imagine a situation where Alabama is without multiple starters on offensive, including QB Mac Jones, but still has enough guys to be above the threshold.
View this post on Instagram
What’s stopping Nick Saban from just saying an additional 12 guys are out through contact tracing and the game must be postponed instead of played?
If the choice is between playing the game significantly shorthanded and losing, or waiting until your starters return, why the hell would you choose the latter?
I’m obviously not encouraging lying, but I fail to see how anyone would really ever know. If a team loses its starting QB, multiple members of the OL, the starting RB and a couple starters on defensive, then they’d be stupid to not try to get the game postponed as opposed to getting crushed.
Trust me, if the Badgers are down many star players, you better believe I’ll encourage them to make sure the game isn’t played at all costs. If that means lying about contact tracing, then so be it.
At the end of the day, you have to do whatever is necessary to win.
