BUATX2000 said:
guadalupeoso said:
drahthaar said:
Aberzombie1892 said:
drahthaar said:
guadalupeoso said:
drahthaar said:
BigGameBaylorBear said:
Finally investing in our NIL and building a new football facility is giving up?
This is essential in today's football world no matter the competitive levels so all assumptions are on the table until "they" make clear "their" intentions. Micromanaging recruiting via "character assessments" with a low threshold of mistakes/bad choices/indiscretions is an unrealistic method of "going big" in college athletics and perhaps even in the business world. Who knows with all the closed-shop mindsets emanating out of Pat Neff.
Until Hitler made his intentions totally clear by invading Poland, all assumptions were on the table.
I think taking specific action with NIL and new football facilities, even if it is just a necessary action, is still an action that shows we have not "given up" on the football program. Essentially what you are saying is, "Until we actually win, it's fair to assume that we don't want to win." Which just doesn't make any sense.
Not saying that at all. Building facilities is par for any institution's athletic or academic endeavor and isn't clear evidence of commitment to playing on a competitive level with Bama, Texas, Michigan etc. Being openly aggressive in managing a coaching staff, networking with supporters, providing a high-class game day experience including tailgating, not hamstringing coaching staff recruiting with silly rules or untimely decisions on admissions speaks more about intent than taking a donor's wealth for a building, no matter how well intended or how well the university markets themselves through that.
Baylor has not shot at playing at the highest level of college football consistently. If we are benchmarking Baylor against Alabama and Michigan, we are already outside the realm of what is realistically possible.
One of the major challenges for Baylor is that does it make sense to financially leverage the future when by 2030/2031, the big money teams may have moved on and Baylor would be stuck with that leverage despite not having a clear path to pay it off - whatever that may look like. To be clear here, Baylor cannot win its way to the big boys table.
Briles showed it is indeed possible to do just that. We just read history differently. Now the question of the unmanaged NIL and its final paradigm is another matter and likely is what colors a "we can't do that mindset". Or perhaps it is a "we aren't doing that" philosophy that is the real issue? If so, we ought to say that.
I think the interpretation of the Briles years is overstated by many on this board. Briles was a brilliant coach who showed us that it is possible to win and win big at Baylor in football. He did not show that it was possible to place Baylor on a level playing field with Bama, Texas, Michigan year in and year out. Briles had us consistently punching above our weight. But he never had us at the level where in any given year, the expectation was national championship contention. And he never would have gotten us there, because there are only about 10-12 programs who can realistically have that expectation: Bama, Texas, LSU, Michigan, USC, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Miami, Georgia, Florida State, Florida, Oklahoma. That's it. They are the only programs who have the combination of resources, fan support, history, and geography to reasonably expect a national championship level team in any given year.
Sure, maybe a couple other teams might catch lightning in a bottle and win one or two every once in a while, i.e. Clemson, Auburn. Baylor might have even reached the natty game under Briles like TCU did. But Briles did not show that it was possible for Baylor to be included in that list above, because it's not possible. What Briles did was show that Baylor was capable of being competitive and relevant year in an year out. And being competitive and relevant vs. being Alabama are two totally different things.
Florida state was a nursing college, Miami is SMU with better cocaine, Georgia was an afterthought for over a decade, so were Texas and Michigan. You left off Florida and Oregon….
The point is Baylor could have a seat at that table once in a while. It doesn't need to be 5 to 10 years on and then 40 years in the wilderness which seems to be the pattern.
It's like blackjack. Count cards and know when to bet big.
I included Florida and Oregon has never won a national championship and only became relevant in like 2005.
Edit: Also, your post is essentially agreeing with mine. I said that Briles showed we could be consistently competitive, not necessarily national championship competitive, but competitive and relevant. That's a far cry from being in the vein of alabama, texas, Michigan, Ohio state, etc.
