I've always assumed something like that happened with the weird UMass thing we did with MSU that year that we bumped our home game up. All three schools had to have been working together (although I'll still never understand why Tech or MSU would want to travel to UMass to play to begin with).
If we really wanted to lighten the schedule (and play 6 homes games per year) and the money (and Baylor's wishes) weren't the reasons - we should have started the home game of another home-and-away series with a G5 school. It's late in the game, but if that was the priority, you'd do that (or nothing).
I mean, Missouri's not nearly as good as Baylor right now but it's still a road game against an SEC team for your first game. How does that really help much?
So weird.
This is probably a dumb thought, but as I see it, we need to capitalize on recent success from basketball and baseball. What about P5 games being returned with home basketball games and a 3 game series in baseball. There is more money in football, but at this point, I want to see good matchups at home in MBB and baseball.
I still want to know why we are getting only $500K from Mizzou. Please tell me there is something more to this deal, not yet revealed. PLEASE!
HD: We had fewer than 40 players available after a covid outbreak following the hurricane. With electricity knocked out in much of Ruston, players were sleeping on sofas and air mattresses in the apartments of teammates. We also had players sleeping on the floor of the lockerroom and in other parts of the DAC. The outbreak followed.
Tech desperately wanted to play the game, given the fact Baylor was breaking in new schemes on both sides of the ball and a new coaching staff.
A few weeks later we learned Baylor had their own covid issues that week and were short handed. Just not to a point where they would have to cancel. As other have pointed out Tech scheduled both BYU and TCU later in the season. It simply wasn't a covid chicken situation.