(09-24-2020 07:23 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(09-24-2020 10:47 AM)GoldenFunk Wrote:  I’m not sure the “chicken” argument makes sense Since they scheduled it a few days earlier. Or do you mean after they found out they were below the threshold value, they were being cowardly when they chose not to play?

You said that it was "principled" that Baylor stood by it's suspension and cancelled the game.

While I grant that has more integrity than "lifting" the suspension, which most schools would do, I don't see any sort of real principle in cancelling the game. The suspension didn't cost them anything, there were no real "principles" involved.

A truly principled stand would be to have played the game short-handed. Or to have said, "We don't have enough players to play the game because of this suspension...therefore we forfeit the game." To just back-out of the game and then say "Look, we have principles!" is just BS. Principles only matter when it is difficult and actually costs you something.

That’s fair. Integrity was the better word choice. I Guess the principle is that players are punished when they violate team rules. In this case, it appears the misbehavior of one athlete was the difference that led to a cancellation of a game that I’m sure the players wanted to play. That is probably a painful lesson, but the other players on the team might now realize that rules will be enforced. I don’t see how or why only Baylor should forfeit their game when the other teams have not? It does seem like given the short notice, some reimbursement would be the right thing to do.

(09-24-2020 08:04 PM)GoldenFunk Wrote:  

(09-24-2020 07:23 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(09-24-2020 10:47 AM)GoldenFunk Wrote:  I’m not sure the “chicken” argument makes sense Since they scheduled it a few days earlier. Or do you mean after they found out they were below the threshold value, they were being cowardly when they chose not to play?

You said that it was "principled" that Baylor stood by it's suspension and cancelled the game.

While I grant that has more integrity than "lifting" the suspension, which most schools would do, I don't see any sort of real principle in cancelling the game. The suspension didn't cost them anything, there were no real "principles" involved.

A truly principled stand would be to have played the game short-handed. Or to have said, "We don't have enough players to play the game because of this suspension...therefore we forfeit the game." To just back-out of the game and then say "Look, we have principles!" is just BS. Principles only matter when it is difficult and actually costs you something.

That’s fair. Integrity was the better word choice. I Guess the principle is that players are punished when they violate team rules. In this case, it appears the misbehavior of one athlete was the difference that led to a cancellation of a game that I’m sure the players wanted to play. That is probably a painful lesson, but the other players on the team might now realize that rules will be enforced. I don’t see how or why only Baylor should forfeit their game when the other teams have not? It does seem like given the short notice, some reimbursement would be the right thing to do.

Why should Baylor forfeit? Unlike other teams they didnt have enough players due to suspension, not COVID

(09-24-2020 08:04 PM)GoldenFunk Wrote:  

(09-24-2020 07:23 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(09-24-2020 10:47 AM)GoldenFunk Wrote:  I’m not sure the “chicken” argument makes sense Since they scheduled it a few days earlier. Or do you mean after they found out they were below the threshold value, they were being cowardly when they chose not to play?

You said that it was "principled" that Baylor stood by it's suspension and cancelled the game.

While I grant that has more integrity than "lifting" the suspension, which most schools would do, I don't see any sort of real principle in cancelling the game. The suspension didn't cost them anything, there were no real "principles" involved.

A truly principled stand would be to have played the game short-handed. Or to have said, "We don't have enough players to play the game because of this suspension...therefore we forfeit the game." To just back-out of the game and then say "Look, we have principles!" is just BS. Principles only matter when it is difficult and actually costs you something.

That’s fair. Integrity was the better word choice. I Guess the principle is that players are punished when they violate team rules. In this case, it appears the misbehavior of one athlete was the difference that led to a cancellation of a game that I’m sure the players wanted to play. That is probably a painful lesson, but the other players on the team might now realize that rules will be enforced. I don’t see how or why only Baylor should forfeit their game when the other teams have not? It does seem like given the short notice, some reimbursement would be the right thing to do.

Baylor could have also postpone the suspensions.

(09-23-2020 06:13 AM)GoldenFunk Wrote:  Interesting read on the cancellation. I like the principled decision by Baylor to leave a OL suspended, even though it meant the game had to be cancelled.



https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...n-chirping

Holgorsen, prick that he seems to be, has a good point.

(09-25-2020 05:00 AM)ultraviolet Wrote:  

(09-23-2020 06:13 AM)GoldenFunk Wrote:  Interesting read on the cancellation. I like the principled decision by Baylor to leave a OL suspended, even though it meant the game had to be cancelled.



https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...n-chirping

Holgorsen, prick that he seems to be, has a good point.

So anyone that speaks-up is suddenly a prick now??