Yeah. We wanted baylor to give us the win we should do the same. No need to be hypocrites only when it’s of convenience to us.
1 Like
OK, had to delete a couple posts as it’s starting to get political. Allowing this thread because it directly impacts UH Football, but if it goes political it will be locked.
2 Likes
Baylor cancelled less than 24 hours over supposedly Covid issues, but played the very next week. If it was Covid, then the following game would have been in jeopardy of being played also. Our issue is a combo of injuries and a few Covid cases, not 30-40 Covid positives.
2 Likes
Baylor was because of contact tracing, wasn’t it? If enough of the players in the contact tracing protocol were cleared, they would’ve had enough to play the next week without issue.
1 Like
What happens in a play off game or bowl game?
They actually had enough to play UH.
Baylor’s problem was they didn’t want to lose.
Only if they unsuspended a player. That’s not something a first year coach should be expected to do.
They actually didn’t need to unsuspend a player. They had enough to play us.
1 Like
That’s interesting. Any more information?
1 Like
My player has a good friend that plays for Baylor, they could have played us, they had enough but were depleted at key positions. Big 12 apparently has rule explaining that situation and the school can choose.
5 Likes
The Baylor situation was ambiguous for a reason. Remember they never said positive cases where the issue…they said “contact tracing”. Anyone could pull that card suggesting they don’t know who is positive. That’s exactly how they played Kansas the next week because positive tests were never the issue. They pleaded the 5th.
1 Like
Should a program forfeit a game? Yes, especially if the program is Baylor.
2 Likes
I’m not for forfeits in a crazy year like this.
But the Baylor thing was explained in several articles. Baylor was depleted at OL, but it was Baylor’s decision; Baylor had absolute discretion to play. Baylor chose not to play.
Also discussed was that Baylor had a player who had been suspended for the first game of the season. The talk was that Aranda did not think it was fair to lift the suspension–sends the wrong message.
I see that, but OTOH, you forced the other 60 or more kids to miss a game because of your choices. And, more importantly, why would you count a cancelled game towards a kid’s suspension? That clearly sends the wrong message.
At least that’s how I remember it.
I think this article talks about it, but, of course, it’s subscription. So if somebody wants to summarize it . . . ?
this mentions Aranda and the suspension: