This has been brewing for a while. Not sure Baylor makes the cut to make it to the final table. Better get football improved soon or else we are going to need to find another team to care about.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10137681-cfb-super-league-proposal-revealed-csfl-plan-features-2-conferences-20-divisions

I saw a report with the proposed divisions. Baylor was in this proposed set up. In fact Baylor's division look d a lot like the SWC. Actually most divisions did look like the old school regional conferences. In a way it looks like everything is woukd be headed back to the past but called something different.

This proposal largely won't go anywhere as there is no incentive for the P2 to participate.

The fundamental issue is that being good in football just isn't that important to Baylor. We shall see how that works out.

Robert Wilson said:

---

The fundamental issue is that being good in football just isn't that important to Baylor. We shall see how that works out.

---

That is a fundamental issue created entirely on this board. Dont listen to the loudest voices here.

PartyBear said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

The fundamental issue is that being good in football just isn't that important to Baylor. We shall see how that works out.

---

That is a fundamental issue created entirely on this board. Dont listen to the loudest voices here.

---

I think we can objectively say that given the aggregate numbers related to on the field performance, Baylor cares about football about as much as half the teams out there with an all-time winning % of 51%

Generally speaking, teams that are around the all time .500 mark are considered in the lower tier of programs all time. This winning % puts us in the #70-80 range out of an active ~130 teams.

Even over the last 15 years, which is absolutely the best run in Baylors football history, we are only slightly better with a winning % of 58%, but trending down under Aranda. We were 61% winners under Briles and Rhule. Aranda's all time winning % is 44.6%, well below the average and almost 15% worse than the previous 2 coaches.

Baylor probably does care about football but resources, instate relevance and bias as well as a series of colossal missteps by an administration chronically out of tune with the state and trajectory of the world around them have doomed the program to a longstanding level of mediocrity with some pockets of abject failure and a few bright spots along the way, mostly in the modern era.

College football is changing more quickly than the folks in Pat Neff seem to realize. Their answer to NIL was to go before Congress to try to kill it rather than adapt. I fear that they have shown a tendency to be caught flat footed on most issues. They were slow to engage in the facilities race in the 1990s and 2000s, they missed the boat on NIL and the Portal and are now playing catch up, and they will probably get left out in the cold when college football consolidates around a new and more stable format in the not too distant future.

I've seen enough examples of failure to assess, adapt and overcome to recognize that pattern. I see it here clear as day. We need changes from the top down if we are going to compete in this new landscape. Otherwise, let's just stop claiming to care about football.

BUATX2000 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

The fundamental issue is that being good in football just isn't that important to Baylor. We shall see how that works out.

---

That is a fundamental issue created entirely on this board. Dont listen to the loudest voices here.

---

I think we can objectively say that given the aggregate numbers related to on the field performance, Baylor cares about football about as much as half the teams out there with an all-time winning % of 51%

Generally speaking, teams that are around the all time .500 mark are considered in the lower tier of programs all time. This winning % puts us in the #70-80 range out of an active ~130 teams.

Even over the last 15 years, which is absolutely the best run in Baylors football history, we are only slightly better with a winning % of 58%, but trending down under Aranda. We were 61% winners under Briles and Rhule. Aranda's all time winning % is 44.6%, well below the average and almost 15% worse than the previous 2 coaches.

Baylor probably does care about football but resources, instate relevance and bias as well as a series of colossal missteps by an administration chronically out of tune with the state and trajectory of the world around them have doomed the program to a longstanding level of mediocrity with some pockets of abject failure and a few bright spots along the way, mostly in the modern era.

College football is changing more quickly than the folks in Pat Neff seem to realize. Their answer to NIL was to go before Congress to try to kill it rather than adapt. I fear that they have shown a tendency to be caught flat footed on most issues. They were slow to engage in the facilities race in the 1990s and 2000s, they missed the boat on NIL and the Portal and are now playing catch up, and they will probably get left out in the cold when college football consolidates around a new and more stable format in the not too distant future.

I've seen enough examples of failure to assess, adapt and overcome to recognize that pattern. I see it here clear as day. We need changes from the top down if we are going to compete in this new landscape. Otherwise, let's just stop claiming to care about football.

---

This is great, but it's not possible to gauge whether or not a program cares about football by looking at its W/L percentage because that's just not how that works.

BUATX2000 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

The fundamental issue is that being good in football just isn't that important to Baylor. We shall see how that works out.

---

That is a fundamental issue created entirely on this board. Dont listen to the loudest voices here.

---

I think we can objectively say that given the aggregate numbers related to on the field performance, Baylor cares about football about as much as half the teams out there with an all-time winning % of 51%

Generally speaking, teams that are around the all time .500 mark are considered in the lower tier of programs all time. This winning % puts us in the #70-80 range out of an active ~130 teams.

Even over the last 15 years, which is absolutely the best run in Baylors football history, we are only slightly better with a winning % of 58%, but trending down under Aranda. We were 61% winners under Briles and Rhule. Aranda's all time winning % is 44.6%, well below the average and almost 15% worse than the previous 2 coaches.

Baylor probably does care about football but resources, instate relevance and bias as well as a series of colossal missteps by an administration chronically out of tune with the state and trajectory of the world around them have doomed the program to a longstanding level of mediocrity with some pockets of abject failure and a few bright spots along the way, mostly in the modern era.

College football is changing more quickly than the folks in Pat Neff seem to realize. Their answer to NIL was to go before Congress to try to kill it rather than adapt. I fear that they have shown a tendency to be caught flat footed on most issues. They were slow to engage in the facilities race in the 1990s and 2000s, they missed the boat on NIL and the Portal and are now playing catch up, and they will probably get left out in the cold when college football consolidates around a new and more stable format in the not too distant future.

I've seen enough examples of failure to assess, adapt and overcome to recognize that pattern. I see it here clear as day. We need changes from the top down if we are going to compete in this new landscape. Otherwise, let's just stop claiming to care about football.

---

If anything, I think you're being generous.

In the post-Teaff era, which now covers parts of 4 decades, Baylor football is 170-206, winning at a 45% rate. If you back out us catching lightning in a bottle with Briles/Griffin, Baylor football is 105-169 throughout that period. That's a winning about 38% of your games. Abysmal.

The only other post-Teaff coaches to have a winning record were Reedy (by 1 game coasting off Teaff) and Grobe in the Briles hangover year.

All this, despite Baylor's great location for football recruiting, Baylor's solid academic reputation, and enough BMDs to step up when needed.

I agree with you completely on the series of missteps. We are always behind. Then we inevitably show up to the party late, which costs us dearly each time. That ignores how badly we botched the Briles mess. First, we didn't have the people/infrastructure in place to support big time football. Then, we reacted to a media storm by publicly acting out our preexisting internal divisions/strife rather than just handling the issue. And we ultimately chose to sacrifice football to try and mitigate the stink for the rest of the university or the BOR itself. If that same #metoo attack had happened at OU, for example, or any SEC school, there's no way it goes down like it did here.

When I say football isn't that important to Baylor, I don't mean that Baylor doesn't care about it at all. Some people care a lot. Lots of people care some. I just mean that Baylor, as an institution, has repeatedly shown that football is not enough of a priority to get things right.

And ... my investment of time and dollars into something that (i) I have no control over and (ii) other people can completely screw up based on just whim or bad luck, is going to continue to decrease.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

BUATX2000 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

The fundamental issue is that being good in football just isn't that important to Baylor. We shall see how that works out.

---

That is a fundamental issue created entirely on this board. Dont listen to the loudest voices here.

---

I think we can objectively say that given the aggregate numbers related to on the field performance, Baylor cares about football about as much as half the teams out there with an all-time winning % of 51%

Generally speaking, teams that are around the all time .500 mark are considered in the lower tier of programs all time. This winning % puts us in the #70-80 range out of an active ~130 teams.

Even over the last 15 years, which is absolutely the best run in Baylors football history, we are only slightly better with a winning % of 58%, but trending down under Aranda. We were 61% winners under Briles and Rhule. Aranda's all time winning % is 44.6%, well below the average and almost 15% worse than the previous 2 coaches.

Baylor probably does care about football but resources, instate relevance and bias as well as a series of colossal missteps by an administration chronically out of tune with the state and trajectory of the world around them have doomed the program to a longstanding level of mediocrity with some pockets of abject failure and a few bright spots along the way, mostly in the modern era.

College football is changing more quickly than the folks in Pat Neff seem to realize. Their answer to NIL was to go before Congress to try to kill it rather than adapt. I fear that they have shown a tendency to be caught flat footed on most issues. They were slow to engage in the facilities race in the 1990s and 2000s, they missed the boat on NIL and the Portal and are now playing catch up, and they will probably get left out in the cold when college football consolidates around a new and more stable format in the not too distant future.

I've seen enough examples of failure to assess, adapt and overcome to recognize that pattern. I see it here clear as day. We need changes from the top down if we are going to compete in this new landscape. Otherwise, let's just stop claiming to care about football.

---

This is great, but it's not possible to gauge whether or not a program cares about football by looking at its W/L percentage because that's just not how that works.

---

Over a long period of time, that's the best measurement that exists. You are who your record says you are, certainly over a large enough sample size.

I thought Robert Wilson was talking about the administration. Not generally Baylor's attitude from 1899-mid 2000s. Which even in that time period I'm not sure it was that Baylor didnt care about it, just that Baylor has been historically clueless during that time period about how to express it cares about it. Like not knowing some how that it takes money during that time period from late 19th century to early 21st century.

Robert Wilson said:

---

BUATX2000 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

The fundamental issue is that being good in football just isn't that important to Baylor. We shall see how that works out.

---

That is a fundamental issue created entirely on this board. Dont listen to the loudest voices here.

---

I think we can objectively say that given the aggregate numbers related to on the field performance, Baylor cares about football about as much as half the teams out there with an all-time winning % of 51%

Generally speaking, teams that are around the all time .500 mark are considered in the lower tier of programs all time. This winning % puts us in the #70-80 range out of an active ~130 teams.

Even over the last 15 years, which is absolutely the best run in Baylors football history, we are only slightly better with a winning % of 58%, but trending down under Aranda. We were 61% winners under Briles and Rhule. Aranda's all time winning % is 44.6%, well below the average and almost 15% worse than the previous 2 coaches.

Baylor probably does care about football but resources, instate relevance and bias as well as a series of colossal missteps by an administration chronically out of tune with the state and trajectory of the world around them have doomed the program to a longstanding level of mediocrity with some pockets of abject failure and a few bright spots along the way, mostly in the modern era.

College football is changing more quickly than the folks in Pat Neff seem to realize. Their answer to NIL was to go before Congress to try to kill it rather than adapt. I fear that they have shown a tendency to be caught flat footed on most issues. They were slow to engage in the facilities race in the 1990s and 2000s, they missed the boat on NIL and the Portal and are now playing catch up, and they will probably get left out in the cold when college football consolidates around a new and more stable format in the not too distant future.

I've seen enough examples of failure to assess, adapt and overcome to recognize that pattern. I see it here clear as day. We need changes from the top down if we are going to compete in this new landscape. Otherwise, let's just stop claiming to care about football.

---

If anything, I think you're being generous.

In the post-Teaff era, which now covers parts of 4 decades, Baylor football is 170-206, winning at a 45% rate. If you back out us catching lightning in a bottle with Briles/Griffin, Baylor football is 105-169 throughout that period. That's a winning about 38% of your games. Abysmal.

The only other post-Teaff coaches to have a winning record were Reedy (by 1 game coasting off Teaff) and Grobe in the Briles hangover year.

All this, despite Baylor's great location for football recruiting, Baylor's solid academic reputation, and enough BMDs to step up when needed.

I agree with you completely on the series of missteps. We are always behind. Then we inevitably show up to the party late, which costs us dearly each time. That ignores how badly we botched the Briles mess. First, we didn't have the people/infrastructure in place to support big time football. Then, we reacted to a media storm by publicly acting out our preexisting internal divisions/strife rather than just handling the issue. And we ultimately chose to sacrifice football to try and mitigate the stink for the rest of the university or the BOR itself. If that same #metoo attack had happened at OU, for example, or any SEC school, there's no way it goes down like it did here.

When I say football isn't that important to Baylor, I don't mean that Baylor doesn't care about it at all. Some people care a lot. Lots of people care some. I just mean that Baylor, as an institution, has repeatedly shown that football is not enough of a priority to get things right.

And ... my investment of time and dollars into something that (i) I have no control over and (ii) other people can completely screw up based on just whim or bad luck, is going to continue to decrease.

---

Smack dab dead on the money. Thanks for speaking the truth.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

BUATX2000 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

The fundamental issue is that being good in football just isn't that important to Baylor. We shall see how that works out.

---

That is a fundamental issue created entirely on this board. Dont listen to the loudest voices here.

---

I think we can objectively say that given the aggregate numbers related to on the field performance, Baylor cares about football about as much as half the teams out there with an all-time winning % of 51%

Generally speaking, teams that are around the all time .500 mark are considered in the lower tier of programs all time. This winning % puts us in the #70-80 range out of an active ~130 teams.

Even over the last 15 years, which is absolutely the best run in Baylors football history, we are only slightly better with a winning % of 58%, but trending down under Aranda. We were 61% winners under Briles and Rhule. Aranda's all time winning % is 44.6%, well below the average and almost 15% worse than the previous 2 coaches.

Baylor probably does care about football but resources, instate relevance and bias as well as a series of colossal missteps by an administration chronically out of tune with the state and trajectory of the world around them have doomed the program to a longstanding level of mediocrity with some pockets of abject failure and a few bright spots along the way, mostly in the modern era.

College football is changing more quickly than the folks in Pat Neff seem to realize. Their answer to NIL was to go before Congress to try to kill it rather than adapt. I fear that they have shown a tendency to be caught flat footed on most issues. They were slow to engage in the facilities race in the 1990s and 2000s, they missed the boat on NIL and the Portal and are now playing catch up, and they will probably get left out in the cold when college football consolidates around a new and more stable format in the not too distant future.

I've seen enough examples of failure to assess, adapt and overcome to recognize that pattern. I see it here clear as day. We need changes from the top down if we are going to compete in this new landscape. Otherwise, let's just stop claiming to care about football.

---

This is great, but it's not possible to gauge whether or not a program cares about football by looking at its W/L percentage because that's just not how that works.

---

Over a long period of time, that's the best measurement that exists. You are who your record says you are, certainly over a large enough sample size.

---

Sure, but that's still not a gauge of how much you care about football.

Robert Wilson said:

---

BUATX2000 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

The fundamental issue is that being good in football just isn't that important to Baylor. We shall see how that works out.

---

That is a fundamental issue created entirely on this board. Dont listen to the loudest voices here.

---

I think we can objectively say that given the aggregate numbers related to on the field performance, Baylor cares about football about as much as half the teams out there with an all-time winning % of 51%

Generally speaking, teams that are around the all time .500 mark are considered in the lower tier of programs all time. This winning % puts us in the #70-80 range out of an active ~130 teams.

Even over the last 15 years, which is absolutely the best run in Baylors football history, we are only slightly better with a winning % of 58%, but trending down under Aranda. We were 61% winners under Briles and Rhule. Aranda's all time winning % is 44.6%, well below the average and almost 15% worse than the previous 2 coaches.

Baylor probably does care about football but resources, instate relevance and bias as well as a series of colossal missteps by an administration chronically out of tune with the state and trajectory of the world around them have doomed the program to a longstanding level of mediocrity with some pockets of abject failure and a few bright spots along the way, mostly in the modern era.

College football is changing more quickly than the folks in Pat Neff seem to realize. Their answer to NIL was to go before Congress to try to kill it rather than adapt. I fear that they have shown a tendency to be caught flat footed on most issues. They were slow to engage in the facilities race in the 1990s and 2000s, they missed the boat on NIL and the Portal and are now playing catch up, and they will probably get left out in the cold when college football consolidates around a new and more stable format in the not too distant future.

I've seen enough examples of failure to assess, adapt and overcome to recognize that pattern. I see it here clear as day. We need changes from the top down if we are going to compete in this new landscape. Otherwise, let's just stop claiming to care about football.

---

If anything, I think you're being generous.

In the post-Teaff era, which now covers parts of 4 decades, Baylor football is 170-206, winning at a 45% rate. If you back out us catching lightning in a bottle with Briles/Griffin, Baylor football is 105-169 throughout that period. That's a winning about 38% of your games. Abysmal.

The only other post-Teaff coaches to have a winning record were Reedy (by 1 game coasting off Teaff) and Grobe in the Briles hangover year.

All this, despite Baylor's great location for football recruiting, Baylor's solid academic reputation, and enough BMDs to step up when needed.

I agree with you completely on the series of missteps. We are always behind. Then we inevitably show up to the party late, which costs us dearly each time. That ignores how badly we botched the Briles mess. First, we didn't have the people/infrastructure in place to support big time football. Then, we reacted to a media storm by publicly acting out our preexisting internal divisions/strife rather than just handling the issue. And we ultimately chose to sacrifice football to try and mitigate the stink for the rest of the university or the BOR itself. If that same #metoo attack had happened at OU, for example, or any SEC school, there's no way it goes down like it did here.

When I say football isn't that important to Baylor, I don't mean that Baylor doesn't care about it at all. Some people care a lot. Lots of people care some. I just mean that Baylor, as an institution, has repeatedly shown that football is not enough of a priority to get things right.

And ... my investment of time and dollars into something that (i) I have no control over and (ii) other people can completely screw up based on just whim or bad luck, is going to continue to decrease.

---

You are combining two distinct eras. The results are what they are, but in terms of resources/commitment, Baylor's position underwent a massive transition between Steele and Morriss.

Morriss was the first football coach we paid a competitive salary, and his tenure kicked off our first real commitment to modernizing our facilities.

Morriss didn't win enough and he got fired, but that was the first time we ran our program like a Big 12/Power 5 member, and we've largely continued to since.

I don't think our commitment to competing/winning has changed. I think what we're seeing with Aranda is we don't have the resources to miss on a coaching hire and/or hand out a bad extension. We're forced to ride that failure out a little longer than schools with deeper-pocketed/more ruthless donors.

That makes it really important to be prudent with those decisions. But I don't think we're any less committed than we were when we hired Briles, Rhule or Aranda and extended each with really competitive salaries. We just went all in on the wrong guy.

That's fair. We've certainly shown a general progression towards doing more to support the program to be competitive. We got competitive on HC salary, then eventually staff salaries. Then we finally got competitive on training and on-campus facilities, and on the stadium. Feels like we are generally a day late and a dollar short, but we have at least been getting there at some point. I think soft Baylor factors led to Mack making some bad decisions with Aranda, and I think that if there was sufficient leadership/vision in the athletic department, they could work the donors and find the money to move on from Aranda (even last year). We just ... can't quite get there. And I don't blame the BMDs for not ponying up a big chunk for Mack to run another search. I wouldn't. I'd give money to the basketball program until somebody gave me a reason to get optimistic about football. That's what I do with my modest donations, even though I prefer football as a sport. Less of a hill for us to climb to be competitive in basketball, and we struck gold with Drew.

I'm so sick of reading this silliness on this board that Mack and Linda don't care about football..

Throw Rhule out of the equation...do we not remember there were discussions on whether to kick us out of the Big 12?

And discussions at the highest level of the federal government to investigate us?

Were it not for Mack and Linda and the guardrails and changes they instituted we may have been watching at best conference games versus UTSA and at worst Tarleton State.

BUATX2000 said:

---

This has been brewing for a while. Not sure Baylor makes the cut to make it to the final table. Better get football improved soon or else we are going to need to find another team to care about.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10137681-cfb-super-league-proposal-revealed-csfl-plan-features-2-conferences-20-divisions

---

Baylor "leadership" made it very clear years ago that "we are not an institution of football".

Baylor Big Boy Football is more than likely a part of the past.

Robert Wilson said:

---

That's fair. We've certainly shown a general progression towards doing more to support the program to be competitive. We got competitive on HC salary, then eventually staff salaries. Then we finally got competitive on training and on-campus facilities, and on the stadium. Feels like we are generally a day late and a dollar short, but we have at least been getting there at some point. I think soft Baylor factors led to Mack making some bad decisions with Aranda, and I think that if there was sufficient leadership/vision in the athletic department, they could work the donors and find the money to move on from Aranda (even last year). We just ... can't quite get there. And I don't blame the BMDs for not ponying up a big chunk for Mack to run another search. I wouldn't. I'd give money to the basketball program until somebody gave me a reason to get optimistic about football. That's what I do with my modest donations, even though I prefer football as a sport. Less of a hill for us to climb to be competitive in basketball, and we struck gold with Drew.

---

Somebody said it on this board before, and it makes a lot of sense: Baylor puts out accountants and attorneys. Good solid incomes, but not rich-rich. We don't turn out oil barons, and in fact didn't even offer engineering degrees until about 20 years ago. So it takes a lot of nickels and dimes from most of us, and with alumni classes half or a third the size of those in atx or cstat it just doesn't add up enough.

PaperBear89 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

That's fair. We've certainly shown a general progression towards doing more to support the program to be competitive. We got competitive on HC salary, then eventually staff salaries. Then we finally got competitive on training and on-campus facilities, and on the stadium. Feels like we are generally a day late and a dollar short, but we have at least been getting there at some point. I think soft Baylor factors led to Mack making some bad decisions with Aranda, and I think that if there was sufficient leadership/vision in the athletic department, they could work the donors and find the money to move on from Aranda (even last year). We just ... can't quite get there. And I don't blame the BMDs for not ponying up a big chunk for Mack to run another search. I wouldn't. I'd give money to the basketball program until somebody gave me a reason to get optimistic about football. That's what I do with my modest donations, even though I prefer football as a sport. Less of a hill for us to climb to be competitive in basketball, and we struck gold with Drew.

---

Somebody said it on this board before, and it makes a lot of sense: Baylor puts out accountants and attorneys. Good solid incomes, but not rich-rich. We don't turn out oil barons, and in fact didn't even offer engineering degrees until about 20 years ago. So it takes a lot of nickels and dimes from most of us, and with alumni classes half or a third the size of those in atx or cstat it just doesn't add up enough.

---

I've actually been thinking a lot about how to overcome some of the economic challenges that Baylor faces under this new Wild West climate of NIL and unrestricted free agency. To your point, Baylor needs to rub a lot of nickels together if they want to compete with the big boys.

I think it's unrealistic to think we can be a perennial power under the present format. There is just not enough booster money to deliver a competitive team with depth year in and year out. Most of our big 10+ win season have all had 2 things in common. Lots of upperclassmen and minimal injuries. We need a Leicester City like run of right place at the right time, immunity from the injury bug while other traditional dynasty teams suffer from critical injuries at critical times.

In order to become a consistently top tier team, we have to solve the money issue.

I proposed a Baylor credit card that would round up, or add a $1, $5 or $10 to every purchase. Something small that a large number of alumni and supporters could use to help drive NIL funds.

I'm not sure why the AD hasn't embraced this opportunity to play bigger. Instead they continue to only focus on how to squeeze the BMDs. There just aren't enough of them to your point to make this thing work.

We need new leadership and new direction in Waco.

I think Baylor has more BMD potential than y'all are giving it credit for. Problem is we keep throwing cold water on them or running them off. There is a bit of a chicken and an egg problem there, but if we had a vision to get people excited about, I think we'd find the money.

BUATX2000 said:

---

PaperBear89 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

That's fair. We've certainly shown a general progression towards doing more to support the program to be competitive. We got competitive on HC salary, then eventually staff salaries. Then we finally got competitive on training and on-campus facilities, and on the stadium. Feels like we are generally a day late and a dollar short, but we have at least been getting there at some point. I think soft Baylor factors led to Mack making some bad decisions with Aranda, and I think that if there was sufficient leadership/vision in the athletic department, they could work the donors and find the money to move on from Aranda (even last year). We just ... can't quite get there. And I don't blame the BMDs for not ponying up a big chunk for Mack to run another search. I wouldn't. I'd give money to the basketball program until somebody gave me a reason to get optimistic about football. That's what I do with my modest donations, even though I prefer football as a sport. Less of a hill for us to climb to be competitive in basketball, and we struck gold with Drew.

---

Somebody said it on this board before, and it makes a lot of sense: Baylor puts out accountants and attorneys. Good solid incomes, but not rich-rich. We don't turn out oil barons, and in fact didn't even offer engineering degrees until about 20 years ago. So it takes a lot of nickels and dimes from most of us, and with alumni classes half or a third the size of those in atx or cstat it just doesn't add up enough.

---

We need a Leicester City like run of right place at the right time, immunity from the injury bug while other traditional dynasty teams suffer from critical injuries at critical times.

In order to become a consistently top tier team, we have to solve the money issue.

---

Great comparison! Their rise and peak was roughly the same timeline as ours. Worth noting they went from that to relegation 7 years later (although back this year)
Also an appropriate comparison, given that the only other sports division that may be more top heavy than the SEC/BIG is English Premier League. The marquee teams spend LOTs more than others ... although Chelsea has been yielding far less from its money burning recently.

money at Baylor has never been an issue. We have a lot of potential BMDs, we just need the athletic department and the rich people to be aligned and work out some sort of plan.. you cant tell me that the university of alabama, lsu, ohio state, penn state, have more big money donors or just more money than we do. Baylors got the money and the resources- we just need to be proactive instead of reactive, which has been our MO since the dawn of time)

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

BUATX2000 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

The fundamental issue is that being good in football just isn't that important to Baylor. We shall see how that works out.

---

That is a fundamental issue created entirely on this board. Dont listen to the loudest voices here.

---

I think we can objectively say that given the aggregate numbers related to on the field performance, Baylor cares about football about as much as half the teams out there with an all-time winning % of 51%

Generally speaking, teams that are around the all time .500 mark are considered in the lower tier of programs all time. This winning % puts us in the #70-80 range out of an active ~130 teams.

Even over the last 15 years, which is absolutely the best run in Baylors football history, we are only slightly better with a winning % of 58%, but trending down under Aranda. We were 61% winners under Briles and Rhule. Aranda's all time winning % is 44.6%, well below the average and almost 15% worse than the previous 2 coaches.

Baylor probably does care about football but resources, instate relevance and bias as well as a series of colossal missteps by an administration chronically out of tune with the state and trajectory of the world around them have doomed the program to a longstanding level of mediocrity with some pockets of abject failure and a few bright spots along the way, mostly in the modern era.

College football is changing more quickly than the folks in Pat Neff seem to realize. Their answer to NIL was to go before Congress to try to kill it rather than adapt. I fear that they have shown a tendency to be caught flat footed on most issues. They were slow to engage in the facilities race in the 1990s and 2000s, they missed the boat on NIL and the Portal and are now playing catch up, and they will probably get left out in the cold when college football consolidates around a new and more stable format in the not too distant future.

I've seen enough examples of failure to assess, adapt and overcome to recognize that pattern. I see it here clear as day. We need changes from the top down if we are going to compete in this new landscape. Otherwise, let's just stop claiming to care about football.

---

If anything, I think you're being generous.

In the post-Teaff era, which now covers parts of 4 decades, Baylor football is 170-206, winning at a 45% rate. If you back out us catching lightning in a bottle with Briles/Griffin, Baylor football is 105-169 throughout that period. That's a winning about 38% of your games. Abysmal.

The only other post-Teaff coaches to have a winning record were Reedy (by 1 game coasting off Teaff) and Grobe in the Briles hangover year.

All this, despite Baylor's great location for football recruiting, Baylor's solid academic reputation, and enough BMDs to step up when needed.

I agree with you completely on the series of missteps. We are always behind. Then we inevitably show up to the party late, which costs us dearly each time. That ignores how badly we botched the Briles mess. First, we didn't have the people/infrastructure in place to support big time football. Then, we reacted to a media storm by publicly acting out our preexisting internal divisions/strife rather than just handling the issue. And we ultimately chose to sacrifice football to try and mitigate the stink for the rest of the university or the BOR itself. If that same #metoo attack had happened at OU, for example, or any SEC school, there's no way it goes down like it did here.

When I say football isn't that important to Baylor, I don't mean that Baylor doesn't care about it at all. Some people care a lot. Lots of people care some. I just mean that Baylor, as an institution, has repeatedly shown that football is not enough of a priority to get things right.

And ... my investment of time and dollars into something that (i) I have no control over and (ii) other people can completely screw up based on just whim or bad luck, is going to continue to decrease.

---

You are combining two distinct eras. The results are what they are, but in terms of resources/commitment, Baylor's position underwent a massive transition between Steele and Morriss.

Morriss was the first football coach we paid a competitive salary, and his tenure kicked off our first real commitment to modernizing our facilities.

Morriss didn't win enough and he got fired, but that was the first time we ran our program like a Big 12/Power 5 member, and we've largely continued to since.

---

I feel like Baylor started to take it more seriously after Morris...and not before. But maybe you are right.

It was not until '08 and the Simpson Center being built that I could finally tell Baylor was serious about trying to compete in Football at a high level.

Before that we had the worst Football facilities in the Big 12.

All we had were beat up practice fields right next to Floyd Casey...and Floyd Casey needed serious upgrades itself.

[Baylor University's Simpson Athletics and Academic Center opened in November 2008. The 96,300-square-foot building is the centerpiece of the Highers Athletics Complex ]

Redbrickbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

BUATX2000 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

The fundamental issue is that being good in football just isn't that important to Baylor. We shall see how that works out.

---

That is a fundamental issue created entirely on this board. Dont listen to the loudest voices here.

---

I think we can objectively say that given the aggregate numbers related to on the field performance, Baylor cares about football about as much as half the teams out there with an all-time winning % of 51%

Generally speaking, teams that are around the all time .500 mark are considered in the lower tier of programs all time. This winning % puts us in the #70-80 range out of an active ~130 teams.

Even over the last 15 years, which is absolutely the best run in Baylors football history, we are only slightly better with a winning % of 58%, but trending down under Aranda. We were 61% winners under Briles and Rhule. Aranda's all time winning % is 44.6%, well below the average and almost 15% worse than the previous 2 coaches.

Baylor probably does care about football but resources, instate relevance and bias as well as a series of colossal missteps by an administration chronically out of tune with the state and trajectory of the world around them have doomed the program to a longstanding level of mediocrity with some pockets of abject failure and a few bright spots along the way, mostly in the modern era.

College football is changing more quickly than the folks in Pat Neff seem to realize. Their answer to NIL was to go before Congress to try to kill it rather than adapt. I fear that they have shown a tendency to be caught flat footed on most issues. They were slow to engage in the facilities race in the 1990s and 2000s, they missed the boat on NIL and the Portal and are now playing catch up, and they will probably get left out in the cold when college football consolidates around a new and more stable format in the not too distant future.

I've seen enough examples of failure to assess, adapt and overcome to recognize that pattern. I see it here clear as day. We need changes from the top down if we are going to compete in this new landscape. Otherwise, let's just stop claiming to care about football.

---

If anything, I think you're being generous.

In the post-Teaff era, which now covers parts of 4 decades, Baylor football is 170-206, winning at a 45% rate. If you back out us catching lightning in a bottle with Briles/Griffin, Baylor football is 105-169 throughout that period. That's a winning about 38% of your games. Abysmal.

The only other post-Teaff coaches to have a winning record were Reedy (by 1 game coasting off Teaff) and Grobe in the Briles hangover year.

All this, despite Baylor's great location for football recruiting, Baylor's solid academic reputation, and enough BMDs to step up when needed.

I agree with you completely on the series of missteps. We are always behind. Then we inevitably show up to the party late, which costs us dearly each time. That ignores how badly we botched the Briles mess. First, we didn't have the people/infrastructure in place to support big time football. Then, we reacted to a media storm by publicly acting out our preexisting internal divisions/strife rather than just handling the issue. And we ultimately chose to sacrifice football to try and mitigate the stink for the rest of the university or the BOR itself. If that same #metoo attack had happened at OU, for example, or any SEC school, there's no way it goes down like it did here.

When I say football isn't that important to Baylor, I don't mean that Baylor doesn't care about it at all. Some people care a lot. Lots of people care some. I just mean that Baylor, as an institution, has repeatedly shown that football is not enough of a priority to get things right.

And ... my investment of time and dollars into something that (i) I have no control over and (ii) other people can completely screw up based on just whim or bad luck, is going to continue to decrease.

---

You are combining two distinct eras. The results are what they are, but in terms of resources/commitment, Baylor's position underwent a massive transition between Steele and Morriss.

Morriss was the first football coach we paid a competitive salary, and his tenure kicked off our first real commitment to modernizing our facilities.

Morriss didn't win enough and he got fired, but that was the first time we ran our program like a Big 12/Power 5 member, and we've largely continued to since.

---

I feel like Baylor started to take it more seriously after Morris...and not before. But maybe your are right.

It was not until '08 and the Simpson Center being built that I could finally tell Baylor was serious about trying to compete in Football at a high level.

Before that we had the worst Football facilities in the Big 12.

All we had were beat up practice fields right next to Floyd Casey...and Floyd Casey needed serious upgrades itself.

[Baylor University's Simpson Athletics and Academic Center opened in November 2008. The 96,300-square-foot building is the centerpiece of the Highers Athletics Complex ]

---

Morriss was the first time we paid a head football coach more than $1 million a year, which was a lot of money at that time. Before that, Steele made like a quarter of that.

And while we were slow to come around and Morriss did much of the fundraising himself, that's also the first time we committed to building an on-campus/indoor practice facility. He was the catalyst for that.

We would get more serious from the Briles era on, but Morriss got the ball rolling in the right direction.

bear2be2 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

BUATX2000 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

The fundamental issue is that being good in football just isn't that important to Baylor. We shall see how that works out.

---

That is a fundamental issue created entirely on this board. Dont listen to the loudest voices here.

---

I think we can objectively say that given the aggregate numbers related to on the field performance, Baylor cares about football about as much as half the teams out there with an all-time winning % of 51%

Generally speaking, teams that are around the all time .500 mark are considered in the lower tier of programs all time. This winning % puts us in the #70-80 range out of an active ~130 teams.

Even over the last 15 years, which is absolutely the best run in Baylors football history, we are only slightly better with a winning % of 58%, but trending down under Aranda. We were 61% winners under Briles and Rhule. Aranda's all time winning % is 44.6%, well below the average and almost 15% worse than the previous 2 coaches.

Baylor probably does care about football but resources, instate relevance and bias as well as a series of colossal missteps by an administration chronically out of tune with the state and trajectory of the world around them have doomed the program to a longstanding level of mediocrity with some pockets of abject failure and a few bright spots along the way, mostly in the modern era.

College football is changing more quickly than the folks in Pat Neff seem to realize. Their answer to NIL was to go before Congress to try to kill it rather than adapt. I fear that they have shown a tendency to be caught flat footed on most issues. They were slow to engage in the facilities race in the 1990s and 2000s, they missed the boat on NIL and the Portal and are now playing catch up, and they will probably get left out in the cold when college football consolidates around a new and more stable format in the not too distant future.

I've seen enough examples of failure to assess, adapt and overcome to recognize that pattern. I see it here clear as day. We need changes from the top down if we are going to compete in this new landscape. Otherwise, let's just stop claiming to care about football.

---

If anything, I think you're being generous.

In the post-Teaff era, which now covers parts of 4 decades, Baylor football is 170-206, winning at a 45% rate. If you back out us catching lightning in a bottle with Briles/Griffin, Baylor football is 105-169 throughout that period. That's a winning about 38% of your games. Abysmal.

The only other post-Teaff coaches to have a winning record were Reedy (by 1 game coasting off Teaff) and Grobe in the Briles hangover year.

All this, despite Baylor's great location for football recruiting, Baylor's solid academic reputation, and enough BMDs to step up when needed.

I agree with you completely on the series of missteps. We are always behind. Then we inevitably show up to the party late, which costs us dearly each time. That ignores how badly we botched the Briles mess. First, we didn't have the people/infrastructure in place to support big time football. Then, we reacted to a media storm by publicly acting out our preexisting internal divisions/strife rather than just handling the issue. And we ultimately chose to sacrifice football to try and mitigate the stink for the rest of the university or the BOR itself. If that same #metoo attack had happened at OU, for example, or any SEC school, there's no way it goes down like it did here.

When I say football isn't that important to Baylor, I don't mean that Baylor doesn't care about it at all. Some people care a lot. Lots of people care some. I just mean that Baylor, as an institution, has repeatedly shown that football is not enough of a priority to get things right.

And ... my investment of time and dollars into something that (i) I have no control over and (ii) other people can completely screw up based on just whim or bad luck, is going to continue to decrease.

---

You are combining two distinct eras. The results are what they are, but in terms of resources/commitment, Baylor's position underwent a massive transition between Steele and Morriss.

Morriss was the first football coach we paid a competitive salary, and his tenure kicked off our first real commitment to modernizing our facilities.

Morriss didn't win enough and he got fired, but that was the first time we ran our program like a Big 12/Power 5 member, and we've largely continued to since.

---

I feel like Baylor started to take it more seriously after Morris...and not before. But maybe your are right.

It was not until '08 and the Simpson Center being built that I could finally tell Baylor was serious about trying to compete in Football at a high level.

Before that we had the worst Football facilities in the Big 12.

All we had were beat up practice fields right next to Floyd Casey...and Floyd Casey needed serious upgrades itself.

[Baylor University's Simpson Athletics and Academic Center opened in November 2008. The 96,300-square-foot building is the centerpiece of the Highers Athletics Complex ]

---

Morriss was the first time we paid a head football coach more than $1 million a year, which was a lot of money at that time. Before that, Steele made like a quarter of that.

And while we were slow to come around and Morriss did much of the fundraising himself, that's also the first time we committed to building an on-campus/indoor practice facility. He was the catalyst for that.

We would get more serious from the Briles era on, but Morriss got the ball rolling in the right direction.

---

Thanks

I honestly did not know that

bear2be2 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

BUATX2000 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

The fundamental issue is that being good in football just isn't that important to Baylor. We shall see how that works out.

---

That is a fundamental issue created entirely on this board. Dont listen to the loudest voices here.

---

I think we can objectively say that given the aggregate numbers related to on the field performance, Baylor cares about football about as much as half the teams out there with an all-time winning % of 51%

Generally speaking, teams that are around the all time .500 mark are considered in the lower tier of programs all time. This winning % puts us in the #70-80 range out of an active ~130 teams.

Even over the last 15 years, which is absolutely the best run in Baylors football history, we are only slightly better with a winning % of 58%, but trending down under Aranda. We were 61% winners under Briles and Rhule. Aranda's all time winning % is 44.6%, well below the average and almost 15% worse than the previous 2 coaches.

Baylor probably does care about football but resources, instate relevance and bias as well as a series of colossal missteps by an administration chronically out of tune with the state and trajectory of the world around them have doomed the program to a longstanding level of mediocrity with some pockets of abject failure and a few bright spots along the way, mostly in the modern era.

College football is changing more quickly than the folks in Pat Neff seem to realize. Their answer to NIL was to go before Congress to try to kill it rather than adapt. I fear that they have shown a tendency to be caught flat footed on most issues. They were slow to engage in the facilities race in the 1990s and 2000s, they missed the boat on NIL and the Portal and are now playing catch up, and they will probably get left out in the cold when college football consolidates around a new and more stable format in the not too distant future.

I've seen enough examples of failure to assess, adapt and overcome to recognize that pattern. I see it here clear as day. We need changes from the top down if we are going to compete in this new landscape. Otherwise, let's just stop claiming to care about football.

---

If anything, I think you're being generous.

In the post-Teaff era, which now covers parts of 4 decades, Baylor football is 170-206, winning at a 45% rate. If you back out us catching lightning in a bottle with Briles/Griffin, Baylor football is 105-169 throughout that period. That's a winning about 38% of your games. Abysmal.

The only other post-Teaff coaches to have a winning record were Reedy (by 1 game coasting off Teaff) and Grobe in the Briles hangover year.

All this, despite Baylor's great location for football recruiting, Baylor's solid academic reputation, and enough BMDs to step up when needed.

I agree with you completely on the series of missteps. We are always behind. Then we inevitably show up to the party late, which costs us dearly each time. That ignores how badly we botched the Briles mess. First, we didn't have the people/infrastructure in place to support big time football. Then, we reacted to a media storm by publicly acting out our preexisting internal divisions/strife rather than just handling the issue. And we ultimately chose to sacrifice football to try and mitigate the stink for the rest of the university or the BOR itself. If that same #metoo attack had happened at OU, for example, or any SEC school, there's no way it goes down like it did here.

When I say football isn't that important to Baylor, I don't mean that Baylor doesn't care about it at all. Some people care a lot. Lots of people care some. I just mean that Baylor, as an institution, has repeatedly shown that football is not enough of a priority to get things right.

And ... my investment of time and dollars into something that (i) I have no control over and (ii) other people can completely screw up based on just whim or bad luck, is going to continue to decrease.

---

You are combining two distinct eras. The results are what they are, but in terms of resources/commitment, Baylor's position underwent a massive transition between Steele and Morriss.

Morriss was the first football coach we paid a competitive salary, and his tenure kicked off our first real commitment to modernizing our facilities.

Morriss didn't win enough and he got fired, but that was the first time we ran our program like a Big 12/Power 5 member, and we've largely continued to since.

---

I feel like Baylor started to take it more seriously after Morris...and not before. But maybe your are right.

It was not until '08 and the Simpson Center being built that I could finally tell Baylor was serious about trying to compete in Football at a high level.

Before that we had the worst Football facilities in the Big 12.

All we had were beat up practice fields right next to Floyd Casey...and Floyd Casey needed serious upgrades itself.

[Baylor University's Simpson Athletics and Academic Center opened in November 2008. The 96,300-square-foot building is the centerpiece of the Highers Athletics Complex ]

---

Morriss was the first time we paid a head football coach more than $1 million a year, which was a lot of money at that time. Before that, Steele made like a quarter of that.

And while we were slow to come around and Morriss did much of the fundraising himself, that's also the first time we committed to building an on-campus/indoor practice facility. He was the catalyst for that.

We would get more serious from the Briles era on, but Morriss got the ball rolling in the right direction.

---

Morriss raised the tide in a lot of ways. If he and his NFL buddies would've bothered to recruit, that era could have really been interesting.

BUATX2000 said:

---

PaperBear89 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

That's fair. We've certainly shown a general progression towards doing more to support the program to be competitive. We got competitive on HC salary, then eventually staff salaries. Then we finally got competitive on training and on-campus facilities, and on the stadium. Feels like we are generally a day late and a dollar short, but we have at least been getting there at some point. I think soft Baylor factors led to Mack making some bad decisions with Aranda, and I think that if there was sufficient leadership/vision in the athletic department, they could work the donors and find the money to move on from Aranda (even last year). We just ... can't quite get there. And I don't blame the BMDs for not ponying up a big chunk for Mack to run another search. I wouldn't. I'd give money to the basketball program until somebody gave me a reason to get optimistic about football. That's what I do with my modest donations, even though I prefer football as a sport. Less of a hill for us to climb to be competitive in basketball, and we struck gold with Drew.

---

Somebody said it on this board before, and it makes a lot of sense: Baylor puts out accountants and attorneys. Good solid incomes, but not rich-rich. We don't turn out oil barons, and in fact didn't even offer engineering degrees until about 20 years ago. So it takes a lot of nickels and dimes from most of us, and with alumni classes half or a third the size of those in atx or cstat it just doesn't add up enough.

---

I've actually been thinking a lot about how to overcome some of the economic challenges that Baylor faces under this new Wild West climate of NIL and unrestricted free agency. To your point, Baylor needs to rub a lot of nickels together if they want to compete with the big boys.

I think it's unrealistic to think we can be a perennial power under the present format. There is just not enough booster money to deliver a competitive team with depth year in and year out. Most of our big 10+ win season have all had 2 things in common. Lots of upperclassmen and minimal injuries. We need a Leicester City like run of right place at the right time, immunity from the injury bug while other traditional dynasty teams suffer from critical injuries at critical times.

In order to become a consistently top tier team, we have to solve the money issue.

I proposed a Baylor credit card that would round up, or add a $1, $5 or $10 to every purchase. Something small that a large number of alumni and supporters could use to help drive NIL funds.

I'm not sure why the AD hasn't embraced this opportunity to play bigger. Instead they continue to only focus on how to squeeze the BMDs. There just aren't enough of them to your point to make this thing work.

We need new leadership and new direction in Waco.

---

Do we need an AD paid $3M annually to do their job? I understand the economics of scale for Baylor to overcome but we also do a piss poor job with salary allocations...

To be fair, you need more than a All-In Administration to move the needle in college athletics. We have two other strikes against us besides the leadership in Pat Neff:
1. Location. Being located in Waco is a stumbling block. Only real economic engine outside of the University is Chip & JoAnne and not sure how many recruits care about HGTV. No real airport and only limited service. No college nightlife (George's doesn't count in the modern era!). Virtually no population growth in the past 50 years for obvious reasons. Marginal local support for any sports program (maybe WBB is the exception?). You graduate from BU and the first thing you do is move out of Waco. Not saying its not a great town (I actually have a place there), but I'm not in the 18-38 age bracket anymore either. I could go on...
2. Money. A small private Christian school will never have the alumni base of the larger state schools to really get to a level we would all desire. We just don't have the alumni depth to get things done financially and politically. If you look at the sports revenue of the Top 50 college sports programs, you will have only three private schools included (Notre Dame, USC, UofMiami).

We are within three hours of an absurd amount of football talent. And Waco stacks up just fine with mini towns that host major college football teams.

Our problem is execution.

BU82EX said:

---

To be fair, you need more than a All-In Administration to move the needle in college athletics. We have two other strikes against us besides the leadership in Pat Neff:
1. Location. Being located in Waco is a stumbling block. Only real economic engine outside of the University is Chip & JoAnne and not sure how many recruits care about HGTV. No real airport and only limited service. No college nightlife (George's doesn't count in the modern era!). Virtually no population growth in the past 50 years for obvious reasons. Marginal local support for any sports program (maybe WBB is the exception?). You graduate from BU and the first thing you do is move out of Waco. Not saying its not a great town (I actually have a place there), but I'm not in the 18-38 age bracket anymore either. I could go on...
2. Money. A small private Christian school will never have the alumni base of the larger state schools to really get to a level we would all desire. We just don't have the alumni depth to get things done financially and politically. If you look at the sports revenue of the Top 50 college sports programs, you will have only three private schools included (Notre Dame, USC, UofMiami).

---

Waco is a great town. It's only 90 min from Austin, 90 min from Dallas and 2 hours from Houston.

BUATX2000 said:

---

BU82EX said:

---

To be fair, you need more than a All-In Administration to move the needle in college athletics. We have two other strikes against us besides the leadership in Pat Neff:
1. Location. Being located in Waco is a stumbling block. Only real economic engine outside of the University is Chip & JoAnne and not sure how many recruits care about HGTV. No real airport and only limited service. No college nightlife (George's doesn't count in the modern era!). Virtually no population growth in the past 50 years for obvious reasons. Marginal local support for any sports program (maybe WBB is the exception?). You graduate from BU and the first thing you do is move out of Waco. Not saying its not a great town (I actually have a place there), but I'm not in the 18-38 age bracket anymore either. I could go on...
2. Money. A small private Christian school will never have the alumni base of the larger state schools to really get to a level we would all desire. We just don't have the alumni depth to get things done financially and politically. If you look at the sports revenue of the Top 50 college sports programs, you will have only three private schools included (Notre Dame, USC, UofMiami).

---

Waco is a great town. It's only 90 min from Austin, 90 min from Dallas and 2 hours from Houston.

---

90 to Austin sounds right. 90 to south Dallas, possibly. 2 hours to Houston!!!!???? Either you are going nearly double the speed limit, or you count the Buc E's in Waller as Greater Houston.

PaperBear89 said:

---

BUATX2000 said:

---

BU82EX said:

---

To be fair, you need more than a All-In Administration to move the needle in college athletics. We have two other strikes against us besides the leadership in Pat Neff:
1. Location. Being located in Waco is a stumbling block. Only real economic engine outside of the University is Chip & JoAnne and not sure how many recruits care about HGTV. No real airport and only limited service. No college nightlife (George's doesn't count in the modern era!). Virtually no population growth in the past 50 years for obvious reasons. Marginal local support for any sports program (maybe WBB is the exception?). You graduate from BU and the first thing you do is move out of Waco. Not saying its not a great town (I actually have a place there), but I'm not in the 18-38 age bracket anymore either. I could go on...
2. Money. A small private Christian school will never have the alumni base of the larger state schools to really get to a level we would all desire. We just don't have the alumni depth to get things done financially and politically. If you look at the sports revenue of the Top 50 college sports programs, you will have only three private schools included (Notre Dame, USC, UofMiami).

---

Waco is a great town. It's only 90 min from Austin, 90 min from Dallas and 2 hours from Houston.

---

90 to Austin sounds right. 90 to south Dallas, possibly. 2 hours to Houston!!!!???? Either you are going nearly double the speed limit, or you count the Buc E's in Waller as Greater Houston.

---

I have a tenuous relationship with the law