Lance Leipold has been doing impressive work in Lawrence putting together a respectable program after Les Miles got fired after his 0-9 season in 2020.

KU is currently 7-2 and ranked 21st in the CFP. They will be inside the Top 20 after this week's rankings get released. They have been doing this with their starting QB being injured much of the year.

Their 2 losses were to UT and Ok St. They got drilled by UT in Austin and lost by 7 to Ok St in Stillwater. They just beat OU and ISU in Ames in their last 2 games. With TT, KSU, and Cincy left they have a good shot to finish at least 9-3.

I got curious to look at their last 5 years of recruiting and it hasn't been great. I know NIL is an important part of the game now and we all want to see Baylor recruit at a higher level....but with a talented coaching staff you can still win a lot of games with non-elite recruiting classes. We saw CAB do that here.

Team recruiting rankings from 247:

KU
2019 69th
2020 55th
2021 63rd
2022 117th
2023 73rd

BU
2019 35th
2020 49th
2021 41st
2022 37th
2023 35th

it's almost like we've got coaches who don't know what they're doing and aren't effective at coaching...hmmm

Yup everyone wants to blame NIL and recruiting. But the bottom line is this staff has zero ability to develop the players on their roster.

boognish_bear said:

---

Lance Leipold has been doing impressive work in Lawrence putting together a respectable program after Les Miles got fired after his 0-9 season in 2020.

KU is currently 7-2 and ranked 21st in the CFP. They will be inside the Top 20 after this week's rankings get released. They have been doing this with their starting QB being injured much of the year.

Their 2 losses were to UT and Ok St. They got drilled by UT in Austin and lost by 7 to Ok St in Stillwater. They just beat OU and ISU in Ames in their last 2 games. With TT, KSU, and Cincy left they have a good shot to finish at least 9-3.

I got curious to look at their last 5 years of recruiting and it hasn't been great. I know NIL is an important part of the game now and we all want to see Baylor recruit at a higher level....but with a talented coaching staff you can still win a lot of games with non-elite recruiting classes. We saw CAB do that here.

Team recruiting rankings from 247:

KU
2019 69th
2020 55th
2021 63rd
2022 117th
2023 73rd

BU
2019 35th
2020 49th
2021 41st
2022 37th
2023 35th

---

This shoots to **** all the angst here about NIL money.

Good coaches develop well prepared teams and win. Bad coaches don't do those things.

Unfortunately, we have the latter right now. Replace him with the former, and we'll win again. It's really that simple.

Has KU used the portal?

IowaBear said:

---

Yup everyone wants to blame NIL and recruiting. But the bottom line is this staff has zero ability to develop the players on their roster.

---

And now everyone knows it crystal clear so expect a precipitous drop in those baylor recruiting rankings with each year Mack Linda Ave and RVOman hang around cashing checks

ScottS said:

---

Has KU used the portal?

---

That's a good question. Right now, the portal probably is more important than HS recruiting. It gives an opportunity for a quick fix for the most pressing need and allows time to develop those HS recruits without having to rely on them in game time.

ScottS said:

---

Has KU used the portal?

---

Looks like they had 14 leave to the portal and 13 come in via the portal

https://247sports.com/college/kansas/Season/2023-Football/TransferPortal/?institutionkey=24022

Leipold was HC at Beefalo before taking the Kansas job.

Did a good job as HC there.

- KKM

FWIW....KU #16 in latest CFP. They have a chance to move to 8-2 if they beat tech in Lawrence on Saturday.

New @CFBPlayoff Top 25

1 Ohio St
2 UGA
3 Michigan
4 Florida St
5 Washington
6 Oregon
7 Texas
8 Bama
9 Ole Miss
10 Penn St
11 Louisville
12 Oregon St
13 Tennessee
14 Mizzou
15 Okla St
16 Kansas
17 OU
18 Utah
19 LSU
20 NDame
21 Arizona
22 Iowa
23 Tulane
24 UNC
25 Kansas St

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) November 8, 2023

boognish_bea said:

---

I know NIL is an important part of the game now and we all want to see Baylor recruit at a higher level....but with a talented coaching staff you can still win a lot of games with non-elite recruiting classes. We saw CAB do that here.

Team recruiting rankings from 247:

KU
2019 69th
2020 55th
2021 63rd
2022 117th
2023 73rd

BU
2019 35th
2020 49th
2021 41st
2022 37th
2023 35th

---

i feel that this tells us that recruiting rankings are far from accurate and that spotting and developing talent is probably the most important trait for a staff to have

it also weakens the "lack of nil" argument a bit

A lot of talented Texas boys thought Deuce Vaughn's Porsche was cool. Any Baylor football players getting Porsches through NIL?

I am so glad we don't play Kansas this year. We would get smoked.

Killing Floor said:

---

A lot of talented Texas boys thought Deuce Vaughn's Porsche was cool. Any Baylor football players getting Porsches through NIL?

---

He didn't get that deal to go to KSU. This is a case where NIL was done right. Vaughn got that Porsche at the end of his Junior season - just before the Big 12 championship game.

montypython said:

---

Killing Floor said:

---

A lot of talented Texas boys thought Deuce Vaughn's Porsche was cool. Any Baylor football players getting Porsches through NIL?

---

He didn't get that deal to go to KSU. Vaughn got that Porsche at the end of his Junior season - just before the Big 12 championship game.

---

This was the intent of NIL. You don't get anything to sign. You play well, you get famous, and you can capitalize on your name, image and likeness to get endorsement deals and make money.

However, it's turned into just salaries and what size salary pools collectives have. It should not even be called NIL anymore.

Rg6 said:

---

montypython said:

---

Killing Floor said:

---

A lot of talented Texas boys thought Deuce Vaughn's Porsche was cool. Any Baylor football players getting Porsches through NIL?

---

He didn't get that deal to go to KSU. This is a case where NIL was done right. Vaughn got that Porsche at the end of his Junior season - just before the Big 12 championship game.

---

This was the intent of NIL. You don't get anything to sign. You play well, you get famous, and you can capitalize on your name, image and likeness to get endorsement deals and make money.

However, it's turned into just salaries and what size salary pools collectives have. It should not even be called NIL anymore.

---

I agree - a lot of the NIL stuff has turned into pay for play. So basically, business as usual in the SEC.

boognish_bear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Has KU used the portal?

---

Looks like they had 14 leave to the portal and 13 come in via the portal

https://247sports.com/college/kansas/Season/2023-Football/TransferPortal/?institutionkey=24022

---

Majority of there transfers came from p5 teams

Killing Floor said:

---

A lot of talented Texas boys thought Deuce Vaughn's Porsche was cool. Any Baylor football players getting Porsches through NIL?

---

Nope. Our players get a VIP line to checkout when they pick up Chicfila at the student union building. That's a real thing. I wish I was kidding. People wonder why we don't get big time commits when our guys are standing there with their bag of free Chick-fil-A, and other big 12 teams have players driving by in their Porsche

We can have bad coaches and also have an NIL problem. The two are not mutually exclusive & both happen to be true

I've had players that graduated in 21 and 22 straight up tell me that they wouldn't have came to Baylor if NIL was a factor during their recruitment. Two are now playing pro football so don't think I'm talking about bench riders.

No Quarterback said:

---

Killing Floor said:

---

A lot of talented Texas boys thought Deuce Vaughn's Porsche was cool. Any Baylor football players getting Porsches through NIL?

---

People wonder why we don't get big time commits

---

Anyone that wonders that is either oblivious to our history or doesn't understand how a program like us will be successful.
We've had 2 or 3 Five-Start recruits in the modern era.

We didn't get big time commits before NIL and we aren't going to get those guys with NIL. Our success will be on getting 3 star guys or guys not ranked properly to begin with, and build them up into productive juniors and seniors. If we can sustain some success for a number of years, we should start to see more 4 star guys come in. Kind of like the tail of end the Briles era.

I know most of you don't agree, but I believe "recruiting rankings" are overrated.

Coach evaluation is much more important. See Grant Teaff, Art Briles and yes Matt Rule (Pitre, Abram Smith, Ebner, etc.)

jikespingleton said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

Killing Floor said:

---

A lot of talented Texas boys thought Deuce Vaughn's Porsche was cool. Any Baylor football players getting Porsches through NIL?

---

People wonder why we don't get big time commits

---

Anyone that wonders that is either oblivious to our history or doesn't understand how a program like us will be successful.
We've had 2 or 3 Five-Start recruits in the modern era.

We didn't get big time commits before NIL and we aren't going to get those guys with NIL. Our success will be on getting 3 star guys or guys not ranked properly to begin with, and build them up into productive juniors and seniors. If we can sustain some success for a number of years, we should start to see more 4 star guys come in. Kind of like the tail of end the Briles era.

---

I'm actually not referring to four and five stars when I say 'big time recruit'. I'm talking about the upper tier 3 star recruits that have multiple P5 offers. That is the area we need to compete in, and it's starting to slip. We are also not bringing in great athletes or players that have a high ceiling physically. Just my .02

Also, comparing the pre-NIL days to our current situation is apples to oranges. I fear that NIL has created a 'new normal' for us

Winning with weak recruiting classes is the exception, not the rule. And it's not that you can't develop a group of 3 stars into great players, it's that you can't build enough depth over time to consistently field a team that competes at the top of the conference. In that scenario, you are relying on hitting your development cycles every 3-4 years, meaning every 3-4 years your team will be stacked with a group of guys who, if you've played your cards right and it's worked out, are ready to compete. But then you'll inevitably have 2-3 rebuilding years following that cycle.

At best, you're competitive at a championship level every 4 years or so. But if you happen to miss on a class that doesn't turn out like you thought, you might go through a 6 or 7 year drought. In the modern era of college football it is just not sustainable to think, "We'll just have a really good staff that can evaluate and develop three stars into championship caliber players" and expect to be consistently competitive. There are very, very few coaches who could pull that off on a consistent basis.

wgeralds said:

---

it's almost like we've got coaches who don't know what they're doing and aren't effective at coaching...hmmm

---

&ct=g

guadalupeoso said:

---

Winning with weak recruiting classes is the exception, not the rule. And it's not that you can't develop a group of 3 stars into great players, it's that you can't build enough depth over time to consistently field a team that competes at the top of the conference. In that scenario, you are relying on hitting your development cycles every 3-4 years, meaning every 3-4 years your team will be stacked with a group of guys who, if you've played your cards right and it's worked out, are ready to compete. But then you'll inevitably have 2-3 rebuilding years following that cycle.

At best, you're competitive at a championship level every 4 years or so. But if you happen to miss on a class that doesn't turn out like you thought, you might go through a 6 or 7 year drought. In the modern era of college football it is just not sustainable to think, "We'll just have a really good staff that can evaluate and develop three stars into championship caliber players" and expect to be consistently competitive. There are very, very few coaches who could pull that off on a consistent basis.

---

This. If anyone thinks Baylor would be able to establish an 8-9 win floor in the modern environment (NIL, transfer portal, P2 consolidation, recruiting level, perception of Big 12, etc.) - regardless as to who would realistically be coach - is not fully considering all of the variables at play.

guadalupeoso said:

---

And it's not that you can't develop a group of 3 stars into great players, it's that you can't build enough depth over time to consistently field a team that competes at the top of the conference. In that scenario, you are relying on hitting your development cycles every 3-4 years, meaning every 3-4 years your team will be stacked with a group of guys who, if you've played your cards right and it's worked out, are ready to compete. But then you'll inevitably have 2-3 rebuilding years following that cycle.

---

This probably describes 95% of FBS teams and we are part of that 95%

jikespingleton said:

---

guadalupeoso said:

---

And it's not that you can't develop a group of 3 stars into great players, it's that you can't build enough depth over time to consistently field a team that competes at the top of the conference. In that scenario, you are relying on hitting your development cycles every 3-4 years, meaning every 3-4 years your team will be stacked with a group of guys who, if you've played your cards right and it's worked out, are ready to compete. But then you'll inevitably have 2-3 rebuilding years following that cycle.

---

This probably describes 95% of FBS teams and we are part of that 95%

---

Exactly, which is why I can't stand these threads acting like recruiting isn't a problem and that we should just wave a magic wand and hire a coach who can "win with the players he has, regardless of stars." That's just not realistic.

guadalupeoso said:

---

jikespingleton said:

---

guadalupeoso said:

---

And it's not that you can't develop a group of 3 stars into great players, it's that you can't build enough depth over time to consistently field a team that competes at the top of the conference. In that scenario, you are relying on hitting your development cycles every 3-4 years, meaning every 3-4 years your team will be stacked with a group of guys who, if you've played your cards right and it's worked out, are ready to compete. But then you'll inevitably have 2-3 rebuilding years following that cycle.

---

This probably describes 95% of FBS teams and we are part of that 95%

---

Exactly, which is why I can't stand these threads acting like recruiting isn't a problem and that we should just wave a magic wand and hire a coach who can "win with the players he has, regardless of stars." That's just not realistic.

---

I see it as a situation where two things are true at the same time. Recruiting does need to improve. On paper, our recruiting really isn't that bad compared to the last few years (this current class low-key sucks though despite what the sunshine pumpers say), but I've noticed that we no longer recruit with a focus on athleticism, and we don't recruit big lanky guys like we did with Rhule. Honestly, I think Aranda took the head coaching job hoping to utilize his coaches as project managers for developing a recruiting strategy, and it hasn't worked. I think we're also missing James Blanchard

On the other hand, I simply don't believe that actual program building coaches eg the two Kansas coaches, Bill Snyder, Jeff traylor, Chadwell dude at liberty, Willie Fritz, GJ Kinne etc. wouldn't squeeze more production out of the talent we have.

No Quarterback said:

---

guadalupeoso said:

---

jikespingleton said:

---

guadalupeoso said:

---

And it's not that you can't develop a group of 3 stars into great players, it's that you can't build enough depth over time to consistently field a team that competes at the top of the conference. In that scenario, you are relying on hitting your development cycles every 3-4 years, meaning every 3-4 years your team will be stacked with a group of guys who, if you've played your cards right and it's worked out, are ready to compete. But then you'll inevitably have 2-3 rebuilding years following that cycle.

---

This probably describes 95% of FBS teams and we are part of that 95%

---

Exactly, which is why I can't stand these threads acting like recruiting isn't a problem and that we should just wave a magic wand and hire a coach who can "win with the players he has, regardless of stars." That's just not realistic.

---

I see it as a situation where two things are true at the same time. Recruiting does need to improve. On paper, our recruiting really isn't that bad compared to the last few years (this current class low-key sucks though despite what the sunshine pumpers say), but I've noticed that we no longer recruit with a focus on athleticism, and we don't recruit big lanky guys like we did with Rhule. Honestly, I think Aranda took the head coaching job hoping to utilize his coaches as project managers for developing a recruiting strategy, and it hasn't worked. I think we're also missing James Blanchard

On the other hand, I simply don't believe that actual program building coaches eg the two Kansas coaches, Bill Snyder, Jeff traylor, Chadwell dude at liberty, Willie Fritz, GJ Kinne etc. wouldn't squeeze more production out of the talent we have.

---

I'm not denying that there are coaches out there that could get better results out of our players than we are currently getting. But what I'm saying is that there are not very many coaches out there that can do that consistently. So if the whole argument is "Look what Leipold is doing with Kansas roster, therefore, recruiting doesn't matter, it's all about coaching" then that is a losing strategy. Because even a lot of good coaches would not be able to do that consistently.

If we want to build a consistently competitive program then we can't bank on "having a program that gets the most out of 3 star guys." Because building a program that does that is the exception, not the rule.

guadalupeoso said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

guadalupeoso said:

---

jikespingleton said:

---

guadalupeoso said:

---

And it's not that you can't develop a group of 3 stars into great players, it's that you can't build enough depth over time to consistently field a team that competes at the top of the conference. In that scenario, you are relying on hitting your development cycles every 3-4 years, meaning every 3-4 years your team will be stacked with a group of guys who, if you've played your cards right and it's worked out, are ready to compete. But then you'll inevitably have 2-3 rebuilding years following that cycle.

---

This probably describes 95% of FBS teams and we are part of that 95%

---

Exactly, which is why I can't stand these threads acting like recruiting isn't a problem and that we should just wave a magic wand and hire a coach who can "win with the players he has, regardless of stars." That's just not realistic.

---

I see it as a situation where two things are true at the same time. Recruiting does need to improve. On paper, our recruiting really isn't that bad compared to the last few years (this current class low-key sucks though despite what the sunshine pumpers say), but I've noticed that we no longer recruit with a focus on athleticism, and we don't recruit big lanky guys like we did with Rhule. Honestly, I think Aranda took the head coaching job hoping to utilize his coaches as project managers for developing a recruiting strategy, and it hasn't worked. I think we're also missing James Blanchard

On the other hand, I simply don't believe that actual program building coaches eg the two Kansas coaches, Bill Snyder, Jeff traylor, Chadwell dude at liberty, Willie Fritz, GJ Kinne etc. wouldn't squeeze more production out of the talent we have.

---

I'm not denying that there are coaches out there that could get better results out of our players than we are currently getting. But what I'm saying is that there are not very many coaches out there that can do that consistently. So if the whole argument is "Look what Leipold is doing with Kansas roster, therefore, recruiting doesn't matter, it's all about coaching" then that is a losing strategy. Because even a lot of good coaches would not be able to do that consistently.

If we want to build a consistently competitive program then we can't bank on "having a program that gets the most out of 3 star guys." Because building a program that does that is the exception, not the rule.

---

A lot of coaches with good resumes have tried to win at Kansas - and ISU for that matter - and have failed spectacularly, so anyone arguing that at a coach who has been a one in a million success for them as evidence that any reasonably competent coach could do that same either there or at Baylor is making a bad faith argument.

To expand on Baylor specifically, neither Briles nor Rhule were average (or below) coaches, and no one here should bother to realistically argue otherwise; Aranda, despite not appearing to be a good fit for Baylor, achieved heights that neither Briles nor Rhule ever did (Big 12 title game win, NY6 win, and top 5 final AP) which is probably a meaningful part of the reason that he's still Baylor's coach. That being said, Baylor's top tier run of luck with head coaches isn't going to last forever (it may have already ended as of 2022) and Baylor's going to eventually not hit on its hires in the same way. It's simply odds and no coaching resume coming into the job will guarantee success, especially now with the transfer portal, NIL, and the consolidation of the P2.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

guadalupeoso said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

guadalupeoso said:

---

jikespingleton said:

---

guadalupeoso said:

---

And it's not that you can't develop a group of 3 stars into great players, it's that you can't build enough depth over time to consistently field a team that competes at the top of the conference. In that scenario, you are relying on hitting your development cycles every 3-4 years, meaning every 3-4 years your team will be stacked with a group of guys who, if you've played your cards right and it's worked out, are ready to compete. But then you'll inevitably have 2-3 rebuilding years following that cycle.

---

This probably describes 95% of FBS teams and we are part of that 95%

---

Exactly, which is why I can't stand these threads acting like recruiting isn't a problem and that we should just wave a magic wand and hire a coach who can "win with the players he has, regardless of stars." That's just not realistic.

---

I see it as a situation where two things are true at the same time. Recruiting does need to improve. On paper, our recruiting really isn't that bad compared to the last few years (this current class low-key sucks though despite what the sunshine pumpers say), but I've noticed that we no longer recruit with a focus on athleticism, and we don't recruit big lanky guys like we did with Rhule. Honestly, I think Aranda took the head coaching job hoping to utilize his coaches as project managers for developing a recruiting strategy, and it hasn't worked. I think we're also missing James Blanchard

On the other hand, I simply don't believe that actual program building coaches eg the two Kansas coaches, Bill Snyder, Jeff traylor, Chadwell dude at liberty, Willie Fritz, GJ Kinne etc. wouldn't squeeze more production out of the talent we have.

---

I'm not denying that there are coaches out there that could get better results out of our players than we are currently getting. But what I'm saying is that there are not very many coaches out there that can do that consistently. So if the whole argument is "Look what Leipold is doing with Kansas roster, therefore, recruiting doesn't matter, it's all about coaching" then that is a losing strategy. Because even a lot of good coaches would not be able to do that consistently.

If we want to build a consistently competitive program then we can't bank on "having a program that gets the most out of 3 star guys." Because building a program that does that is the exception, not the rule.

---

A lot of coaches with good resumes have tried to win at Kansas - and ISU for that matter - and have failed spectacularly, so anyone arguing that at a coach who has been a one in a million success for them as evidence that any reasonably competent coach could do that same either there or at Baylor is making a bad faith argument.

To expand on Baylor specifically, neither Briles nor Rhule were average (or below) coaches, and no one here should bother to realistically argue otherwise; Aranda, despite not appearing to be a good fit for Baylor, achieved heights that neither Briles nor Rhule ever did (Big 12 title game win, NY6 win, and top 5 final AP) which is probably a meaningful part of the reason that he's still Baylor's coach. That being said, Baylor's top tier run of luck with head coaches isn't going to last forever (it may have already ended as of 2022) and Baylor's going to eventually not hit on its hires in the same way. It's simply odds and no coaching resume coming into the job will guarantee success, especially now with the transfer portal, NIL, and the consolidation of the P2.

---

I still think that you work for the athletic department. you constantly deflect blame from aranda. Every post you make. your new method is to simply say "Woe is us, what's the use, no one will ever have success again here at little old Baylor because of NIL and the transfer portal." Again, it's like it's impossible for some of you guys to see nuance. Recruiting is an issue. Not just because of a lack of money, it's also because our coaches suck at recruiting: they can't evaluate talent, and they have no scheme to evaluate towards. That can be changed. Recruiting rankings are also irrelevant on Saturday when you're actually playing the game. I don't think that Bill Snyder could win a national championship with the current Baylor squad. But I know that he wouldn't lose to Texas State, UH, or Air Force, and he probably could've coached us up enough such that we win against Utah and Iowa State. We win those games, and the mood around here is completely different

Leipold with words even I needed to hear today: Can't start having success and think too far ahead. Can't go from A-D without going from A to B, to C, to D. #KUfball pic.twitter.com/RZkJtaUZjy

— Lainey Gerber (@laigerber) November 11, 2023

No Quarterback said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

guadalupeoso said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

guadalupeoso said:

---

jikespingleton said:

---

guadalupeoso said:

---

And it's not that you can't develop a group of 3 stars into great players, it's that you can't build enough depth over time to consistently field a team that competes at the top of the conference. In that scenario, you are relying on hitting your development cycles every 3-4 years, meaning every 3-4 years your team will be stacked with a group of guys who, if you've played your cards right and it's worked out, are ready to compete. But then you'll inevitably have 2-3 rebuilding years following that cycle.

---

This probably describes 95% of FBS teams and we are part of that 95%

---

Exactly, which is why I can't stand these threads acting like recruiting isn't a problem and that we should just wave a magic wand and hire a coach who can "win with the players he has, regardless of stars." That's just not realistic.

---

I see it as a situation where two things are true at the same time. Recruiting does need to improve. On paper, our recruiting really isn't that bad compared to the last few years (this current class low-key sucks though despite what the sunshine pumpers say), but I've noticed that we no longer recruit with a focus on athleticism, and we don't recruit big lanky guys like we did with Rhule. Honestly, I think Aranda took the head coaching job hoping to utilize his coaches as project managers for developing a recruiting strategy, and it hasn't worked. I think we're also missing James Blanchard

On the other hand, I simply don't believe that actual program building coaches eg the two Kansas coaches, Bill Snyder, Jeff traylor, Chadwell dude at liberty, Willie Fritz, GJ Kinne etc. wouldn't squeeze more production out of the talent we have.

---

I'm not denying that there are coaches out there that could get better results out of our players than we are currently getting. But what I'm saying is that there are not very many coaches out there that can do that consistently. So if the whole argument is "Look what Leipold is doing with Kansas roster, therefore, recruiting doesn't matter, it's all about coaching" then that is a losing strategy. Because even a lot of good coaches would not be able to do that consistently.

If we want to build a consistently competitive program then we can't bank on "having a program that gets the most out of 3 star guys." Because building a program that does that is the exception, not the rule.

---

A lot of coaches with good resumes have tried to win at Kansas - and ISU for that matter - and have failed spectacularly, so anyone arguing that at a coach who has been a one in a million success for them as evidence that any reasonably competent coach could do that same either there or at Baylor is making a bad faith argument.

To expand on Baylor specifically, neither Briles nor Rhule were average (or below) coaches, and no one here should bother to realistically argue otherwise; Aranda, despite not appearing to be a good fit for Baylor, achieved heights that neither Briles nor Rhule ever did (Big 12 title game win, NY6 win, and top 5 final AP) which is probably a meaningful part of the reason that he's still Baylor's coach. That being said, Baylor's top tier run of luck with head coaches isn't going to last forever (it may have already ended as of 2022) and Baylor's going to eventually not hit on its hires in the same way. It's simply odds and no coaching resume coming into the job will guarantee success, especially now with the transfer portal, NIL, and the consolidation of the P2.

---

I still think that you work for the athletic department. you constantly deflect blame from aranda. Every post you make. your new method is to simply say "Woe is us, what's the use, no one will ever have success again here at little old Baylor because of NIL and the transfer portal." Again, it's like it's impossible for some of you guys to see nuance. Recruiting is an issue. Not just because of a lack of money, it's also because our coaches suck at recruiting: they can't evaluate talent, and they have no scheme to evaluate towards. That can be changed. Recruiting rankings are also irrelevant on Saturday when you're actually playing the game. I don't think that Bill Snyder could win a national championship with the current Baylor squad. But I know that he wouldn't lose to Texas State, UH, or Air Force, and he probably could've coached us up enough such that we win against Utah and Iowa State. We win those games, and the mood around here is completely different

---

I also think you fail to see the nuance in recognizing that Bill Snyder's don't grow on trees. You can't just say, "Well Bill Snyder or Art Briles would have been able to do better." No sh**. Those two coaches could coach a pewee program to bowl eligibility. But to just assume that we should try to hire someone that can *do that* is not realistic. I believe we should fire Aranda because of the same reasons you state. This staff can't evaluate and is terrible at recruiting. But I also think it is completely unrealistic in the modern era of college football to think that we our "goal" should be to hire a coach who can consistently compete at the top of the conference with average or slightly below average talent. Because we are very, very, very unlikely to find a coach that can do that because there are not that many coaches that can.

guadalupeoso said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

guadalupeoso said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

guadalupeoso said:

---

jikespingleton said:

---

guadalupeoso said:

---

And it's not that you can't develop a group of 3 stars into great players, it's that you can't build enough depth over time to consistently field a team that competes at the top of the conference. In that scenario, you are relying on hitting your development cycles every 3-4 years, meaning every 3-4 years your team will be stacked with a group of guys who, if you've played your cards right and it's worked out, are ready to compete. But then you'll inevitably have 2-3 rebuilding years following that cycle.

---

This probably describes 95% of FBS teams and we are part of that 95%

---

Exactly, which is why I can't stand these threads acting like recruiting isn't a problem and that we should just wave a magic wand and hire a coach who can "win with the players he has, regardless of stars." That's just not realistic.

---

I see it as a situation where two things are true at the same time. Recruiting does need to improve. On paper, our recruiting really isn't that bad compared to the last few years (this current class low-key sucks though despite what the sunshine pumpers say), but I've noticed that we no longer recruit with a focus on athleticism, and we don't recruit big lanky guys like we did with Rhule. Honestly, I think Aranda took the head coaching job hoping to utilize his coaches as project managers for developing a recruiting strategy, and it hasn't worked. I think we're also missing James Blanchard

On the other hand, I simply don't believe that actual program building coaches eg the two Kansas coaches, Bill Snyder, Jeff traylor, Chadwell dude at liberty, Willie Fritz, GJ Kinne etc. wouldn't squeeze more production out of the talent we have.

---

I'm not denying that there are coaches out there that could get better results out of our players than we are currently getting. But what I'm saying is that there are not very many coaches out there that can do that consistently. So if the whole argument is "Look what Leipold is doing with Kansas roster, therefore, recruiting doesn't matter, it's all about coaching" then that is a losing strategy. Because even a lot of good coaches would not be able to do that consistently.

If we want to build a consistently competitive program then we can't bank on "having a program that gets the most out of 3 star guys." Because building a program that does that is the exception, not the rule.

---

A lot of coaches with good resumes have tried to win at Kansas - and ISU for that matter - and have failed spectacularly, so anyone arguing that at a coach who has been a one in a million success for them as evidence that any reasonably competent coach could do that same either there or at Baylor is making a bad faith argument.

To expand on Baylor specifically, neither Briles nor Rhule were average (or below) coaches, and no one here should bother to realistically argue otherwise; Aranda, despite not appearing to be a good fit for Baylor, achieved heights that neither Briles nor Rhule ever did (Big 12 title game win, NY6 win, and top 5 final AP) which is probably a meaningful part of the reason that he's still Baylor's coach. That being said, Baylor's top tier run of luck with head coaches isn't going to last forever (it may have already ended as of 2022) and Baylor's going to eventually not hit on its hires in the same way. It's simply odds and no coaching resume coming into the job will guarantee success, especially now with the transfer portal, NIL, and the consolidation of the P2.

---

I still think that you work for the athletic department. you constantly deflect blame from aranda. Every post you make. your new method is to simply say "Woe is us, what's the use, no one will ever have success again here at little old Baylor because of NIL and the transfer portal." Again, it's like it's impossible for some of you guys to see nuance. Recruiting is an issue. Not just because of a lack of money, it's also because our coaches suck at recruiting: they can't evaluate talent, and they have no scheme to evaluate towards. That can be changed. Recruiting rankings are also irrelevant on Saturday when you're actually playing the game. I don't think that Bill Snyder could win a national championship with the current Baylor squad. But I know that he wouldn't lose to Texas State, UH, or Air Force, and he probably could've coached us up enough such that we win against Utah and Iowa State. We win those games, and the mood around here is completely different

---

I also think you fail to see the nuance in recognizing that Bill Snyder's don't grow on trees. You can't just say, "Well Bill Snyder or Art Briles would have been able to do better." No sh**. Those two coaches could coach a pewee program to bowl eligibility. But to just assume that we should try to hire someone that can *do that* is not realistic. I believe we should fire Aranda because of the same reasons you state. This staff can't evaluate and is terrible at recruiting. But I also think it is completely unrealistic in the modern era of college football to think that we our "goal" should be to hire a coach who can consistently compete at the top of the conference with average or slightly below average talent. Because we are very, very, very unlikely to find a coach that can do that because there are not that many coaches that can.

---

Well, my point wasn't to simply say, "Here's a solution, why don't we go out and hire the next Bill Snyder??? Cmon Mack make it happen, why come you can't think of this stuff????"

I am responding to a poster that constantly posts variations of the idea that "Firing Aranda won't solve our problems, no coach is ever going to have success at Baylor unless we are willing to buy that coach a bunch of four and five star recruits." I have seen a couple other posters on here post iterations of this idea. To me, it comes across as grasping at straws to defend Aranda, especially when those posters constantly post variations of that idea in different threads. And here's the thing: firing Aranda and hiring a great coach is a viable solution for us. Expecting some sort of secret Scrooge McDuck money vault to open up and Baylor suddenly being able to money whip CJ Stroud and Marvin Harrison Jr. into coming here to save Dave's career is not a viable solution. So I'm just trying to be realistic. For the record, I think our NIL program needs to improve, but these posts along the lines of "poor little old Baylor is doomed to being a doormat unless we can get all four and five star recruits on our team that Dave can use, because he's really really smart and he can coach them up like he did in 2021" is missing the mark

good coaches can take average talent and make them look much better than they are. Bill Snyder is a great example of that. There are many other examples I can think of.