Guitarbiscuit said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Guitarbiscuit said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Guitarbiscuit said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Guitarbiscuit said:

---

True Grit said:

---

The Hail Mary pass did Aranda in. I am not sure why he was allowed on the plane from Boulder. That one play killed the rest of the season.

---

You may be right, but it's impossible to really say. Because we have so many talent deficencies in key areas, I wonder if we would have won that Colorado game, would we just be sitting here with 1 more win than we have today.

---

We had a chance to build some real momentum with a win in Boulder.

Look around college football. Teams that think they're good play better and win more games. Teams that get used to losing play worse and lose more games.

Tech isn't talented, and they're 5-1 right now. BYU isn't talented, and they haven't lost a game.

If we had been 3-1 and coming off a big road win, McLane would have been absolutely electric for BYU. There would have been nothing at all keeping us from winning that game at home. Hell, if we hadn't forgotten it was an early start, we might have won that one as is.

This program had a chance to escape the suck vortex with a win at Colorado. Instead, it cemented its place in it.

When we lost at Colorado, everyone lost hope. If we had won that game, we'd have had a sellout at BYU and a ton of hopeful fans.

---

Understood and see your point. But in the end, I think that severe talent deficiences in key areas (secondary. OL) would have done us in. So we'll disagree to an extent on what value that CO win would have had.

If we had at least average talent in those key areas, I think the Colorado win would have propelled us to more success. But we don't.

---

I think those that think we have severe talent deficiencies need to watch more Big 12 football. We have severe talent deficiencies compared to the best teams in the country. But pretty much everyone is the Big 12 is mid talent-wise. It's a stock car race. With the exception of Colorado, which has a couple of elite talents, the teams that are better than others are so because they're coached well, not because they're exceptionally talented.

We have plenty of talent on this roster to win Big 12 games. Where we're lacking in talent is on the sideline and in the coaches box.

---

Ok, but I have watched a lot of other Big 12 games, and I see secondaries with more size and speed than we have. So there's that. And by no means am I trying to defend the coaching, which is abysmal. Better coaching would be able to make up for some of the talent issues, on that I'm sure you are correct. But we don't have that.

---

We'll just agree to disagree then. Go watch the Tech-ACU game and tell me that they're substantially more talented than we are. Or watch any game involving Oklahoma State, Kansas, TCU, Arizona State, Arizona, etc., etc.

These teams may not be weak in the exact same areas as we are, but they're no more talented than we are. We're just really poorly coached compared to most of our peers.

Give this roster to 12 of the 16 coaches in the Big 12, and we're bowling comfortably this year. I firmly believe that.

---

Here's the thing. We agree broadly that both recruiting and coaching are concerns. It's just a difference of what we attribute to what. I'm 60 percent recruiting issues, 40 percent coaching. You're probably the other way.

---

I think this is fair. And I readily admit that our offensive line, in particular, is a limiting factor for this team. We're just not good enough up front to be really efficient offensively. But I attribute more of our secondary woes to coaching. Our technique is brutal back there.

IowaBear said:

---

Nope! Mack is a gutless coward too! Easy to see why him and Aranda are such big pals

---

Since you were on the field Saturday, I disappointed you did not take Dave's headset and clipboard and coach. The atmosphere was electric, like Baylor of yesteryear.

Environment was definitely electric. Best ISU has had in a few years.

IowaBear said:

---

We have plenty of data to support what will happen… I'm starting to believe you're Dave or Mack. You defend this garbage to no end. As a fan I can't understand why.

---

Who has defended what exactly? Let's try to avoid the straw man arguments if we can.

Quinton said:

---

The issue is Dave caused it to bottom out. Dave failed to develop a competent secondary. Dave failed to develop an even mediocre o line. Dave drove out all the energy from the team. Dave has historically bumbled qb decisions for his entire tenure. Now he gets the most mulligans in modern cfb to fix what he messed up?

I believe hundreds of coaches could get 6 wins with so many opportunities, an admin bending over for you, unlimited staff hiring mulligans, and new budget to buy enough players to cover their terrible development, against an extremely weak schedule. It isn't success when I could bring in nearly anyone and they would win games.

---

No one in these forums is defending Aranda over the last few weeks that I've seen. It's just that there is no benefit to firing him now vs after regular season loss 7 and there is a least some hope at avoiding loss 7 based on how the schedule has developed to this point in time; if posters believe that that loss 7 is inevitable - which is very well may be - then it's only a matter of time.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

We aren't canning him mid season.

I would also think about this - you don't want to fire a guy just to fire him and not have a capable guy ready.

If our administration fires him and targets a guy like Traylor and Traylor says no, where are we then?

We could be in even worse shape due to having to take a high risk chance on plan b, c or d.

---

How can we be in worse shape? Because of out-of-conference scheduling, we should be guaranteed at least 2 wins a season.... You have to think that this team could beat Tarleton and Air Force with any one of our coordinators as head coach.

I see no downside in firing Aranda. Not even the buy out is downside. It's sunk cost. Problems, like sour milk, only get worse the longer they linger.

ParadeOfBears said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

We aren't canning him mid season.

I would also think about this - you don't want to fire a guy just to fire him and not have a capable guy ready.

If our administration fires him and targets a guy like Traylor and Traylor says no, where are we then?

We could be in even worse shape due to having to take a high risk chance on plan b, c or d.

---

How can we be in worse shape? Because of out-of-conference scheduling, we should be guaranteed at least 2 wins a season.... You have to think that this team could beat Tarleton and Air Force with any one of our coordinators as head coach.

I see no downside in firing Aranda. Not even the buy out is downside. It's sunk cost. Problems, like sour milk, only get worse the longer they linger.

---

RIP Frank Potts...........

- KKM

100%. The safeties while deficient would be semi competent under the majority of current coaches in the conference.

The only question for me is o line which is almost completely devoid of ability, but Fritz turned a terrible bunch into serviceable in about two weeks so you're probably right there too.

2 of the best safetys in NFL were coached at Baylor during Dave's tenure. Not that he recruited them and he wasn't their position group coach. But he recognized enough to not bench them for watching TV after 10 or whatever he does to starters now.

IowaBear said:

---

Chadwell should be the top candidate. He's the best G5 coach in the game.
I'm sure BU will find a lame excuse to not interview him

---

Would be ironic if Ian was the one who found out next coach.

Chadwell survives a scare tonight to beat FIU in OT

I'll take him, bring Ian with ya.

william said:

---

ParadeOfBears said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

We aren't canning him mid season.

I would also think about this - you don't want to fire a guy just to fire him and not have a capable guy ready.

If our administration fires him and targets a guy like Traylor and Traylor says no, where are we then?

We could be in even worse shape due to having to take a high risk chance on plan b, c or d.

---

How can we be in worse shape? Because of out-of-conference scheduling, we should be guaranteed at least 2 wins a season.... You have to think that this team could beat Tarleton and Air Force with any one of our coordinators as head coach.

I see no downside in firing Aranda. Not even the buy out is downside. It's sunk cost. Problems, like sour milk, only get worse the longer they linger.

---

RIP Frank Potts...........

- KKM

---

Met my wife in Frank Potts class! (well, we actually met @ Scruffs, but we were in Dr. Potts class together when we met!

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

ParadeOfBears said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

We aren't canning him mid season.

I would also think about this - you don't want to fire a guy just to fire him and not have a capable guy ready.

If our administration fires him and targets a guy like Traylor and Traylor says no, where are we then?

We could be in even worse shape due to having to take a high risk chance on plan b, c or d.

---

How can we be in worse shape?

---

In short - limited supply of qualified candidates, but high demand.

In long:

We cannot assume we can get who we want and we cannot assume that everyone on the list is a grade A qualified candidate.

I view a coaching list like this - preferred targets at the top and then the further you go down, the less proven the guys are and the higher the risk you take. Depending on the available candidates in a given offseason, there could be a huge gap between your 2nd choice and #3...

We also have to factor in how many schools are looking to make a change that year. UF, Cincinnati, Auburn, Purdue, Miss St, UCLA and even TCU may all be looking to replace their HC's this year.

The G5 has already been plundered the past 2-3 years, so it's going to be a thin pool of available guys with potentially a lot of demand.

---

You should post more.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

ParadeOfBears said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

We aren't canning him mid season.

I would also think about this - you don't want to fire a guy just to fire him and not have a capable guy ready.

If our administration fires him and targets a guy like Traylor and Traylor says no, where are we then?

We could be in even worse shape due to having to take a high risk chance on plan b, c or d.

---

How can we be in worse shape?

---

In short - limited supply of qualified candidates, but high demand.

In long:

We cannot assume we can get who we want and we cannot assume that everyone on the list is a grade A qualified candidate.

I view a coaching list like this - preferred targets at the top and then the further you go down, the less proven the guys are and the higher the risk you take. Depending on the available candidates in a given offseason, there could be a huge gap between your 2nd choice and #3...

We also have to factor in how many schools are looking to make a change that year. UF, Cincinnati, Auburn, Purdue, Miss St, UCLA and even TCU may all be looking to replace their HC's this year.

The G5 has already been plundered the past 2-3 years, so it's going to be a thin pool of available guys with potentially a lot of demand.

---

do you think we give dave the ax

I'm getting tired of reading the same thread but by a different poster every day..

Any one who follows college football knows these things happen in November... there's even a saying called Black Monday when coaches get canned..

thales said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

ParadeOfBears said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

We aren't canning him mid season.

I would also think about this - you don't want to fire a guy just to fire him and not have a capable guy ready.

If our administration fires him and targets a guy like Traylor and Traylor says no, where are we then?

We could be in even worse shape due to having to take a high risk chance on plan b, c or d.

---

How can we be in worse shape?

---

In short - limited supply of qualified candidates, but high demand.

In long:

We cannot assume we can get who we want and we cannot assume that everyone on the list is a grade A qualified candidate.

I view a coaching list like this - preferred targets at the top and then the further you go down, the less proven the guys are and the higher the risk you take. Depending on the available candidates in a given offseason, there could be a huge gap between your 2nd choice and #3...

We also have to factor in how many schools are looking to make a change that year. UF, Cincinnati, Auburn, Purdue, Miss St, UCLA and even TCU may all be looking to replace their HC's this year.

The G5 has already been plundered the past 2-3 years, so it's going to be a thin pool of available guys with potentially a lot of demand.

---

do you think we give dave the ax

---

He should have been fired last year.

We should fire him this year, too.

I do not know what our financial picture looks like as related to his buyout. Are we rolling with Dave in 2025 because we cannot pay his buyout? Without that info I don't see how anyone can answer.

I do see the possibility that several schools go with coordinator hires as the candidate pool is looking rather thin.

If we fire dave and hire another coordinator who has never been a HC I am going to pull a milton from office space and light the building on fire

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

thales said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

ParadeOfBears said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

We aren't canning him mid season.

I would also think about this - you don't want to fire a guy just to fire him and not have a capable guy ready.

If our administration fires him and targets a guy like Traylor and Traylor says no, where are we then?

We could be in even worse shape due to having to take a high risk chance on plan b, c or d.

---

How can we be in worse shape?

---

In short - limited supply of qualified candidates, but high demand.

In long:

We cannot assume we can get who we want and we cannot assume that everyone on the list is a grade A qualified candidate.

I view a coaching list like this - preferred targets at the top and then the further you go down, the less proven the guys are and the higher the risk you take. Depending on the available candidates in a given offseason, there could be a huge gap between your 2nd choice and #3...

We also have to factor in how many schools are looking to make a change that year. UF, Cincinnati, Auburn, Purdue, Miss St, UCLA and even TCU may all be looking to replace their HC's this year.

The G5 has already been plundered the past 2-3 years, so it's going to be a thin pool of available guys with potentially a lot of demand.

---

do you think we give dave the ax

---

He should have been fired last year.

We should fire him this year, too.

I do not know what our financial picture looks like as related to his buyout. Are we rolling with Dave in 2025 because we cannot pay his buyout? Without that info I don't see how anyone can answer.

I do see the possibility that several schools go with coordinator hires as the candidate pool is looking rather thin.

If we fire dave and hire another coordinator who has never been a HC I am going to pull a milton from office space and light the building on fire

---

I said no salt.

Good points. Everyone on here wants an experienced head coach but Cignetti and Fritz got hired last year. Florida is likely on the market and they'll pick before us and from a wider pool. Mack Brown will probably "retire" at the end of this year. Do the Pokes part with Gundy? Sonny Dykes could possibly be gone.

Traylor? UTSA is really struggling this year without Frank Harris under center. Jon Sumrall after one year at Tulane? Give Barry Odom another P5 shot? FCS ranks like SDSU? I'm not saying keep the status quo just pointing out there isn't a lock of a dude waiting for us to call. Plenty of coordinators we could go after but the fan base may try their best to pull a Tennessee/Schiano… not that it would work.

Guitarbiscuit said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

thales said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

ParadeOfBears said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

We aren't canning him mid season.

I would also think about this - you don't want to fire a guy just to fire him and not have a capable guy ready.

If our administration fires him and targets a guy like Traylor and Traylor says no, where are we then?

We could be in even worse shape due to having to take a high risk chance on plan b, c or d.

---

How can we be in worse shape?

---

In short - limited supply of qualified candidates, but high demand.

In long:

We cannot assume we can get who we want and we cannot assume that everyone on the list is a grade A qualified candidate.

I view a coaching list like this - preferred targets at the top and then the further you go down, the less proven the guys are and the higher the risk you take. Depending on the available candidates in a given offseason, there could be a huge gap between your 2nd choice and #3...

We also have to factor in how many schools are looking to make a change that year. UF, Cincinnati, Auburn, Purdue, Miss St, UCLA and even TCU may all be looking to replace their HC's this year.

The G5 has already been plundered the past 2-3 years, so it's going to be a thin pool of available guys with potentially a lot of demand.

---

do you think we give dave the ax

---

He should have been fired last year.

We should fire him this year, too.

I do not know what our financial picture looks like as related to his buyout. Are we rolling with Dave in 2025 because we cannot pay his buyout? Without that info I don't see how anyone can answer.

I do see the possibility that several schools go with coordinator hires as the candidate pool is looking rather thin.

If we fire dave and hire another coordinator who has never been a HC I am going to pull a milton from office space and light the building on fire

---

I said no salt.

---

"No salt!"

"Well, OK, but ..."

Mack would like an idiot if he fired DA now and then we finished the soft part of the schedule 7-4, 8-4, or even 9-4 with a bowl win. Will that happen? Probably not, but football is unpredictable.

The issue with DA is that he is a knowledge guru but a teaching/coaching/motivation dud. He knows what to do but he can't convey it to players or hold them accountable to perform. If he can figure out how to delegate motivation to a new member of the staff, he will have replaced Joey McGuire and we can win those close games again.

You know the old adage about "still waters run deep"?
It's an adage. It's not an axiom.
Just because Aranda is deliberate in his conversation doesn't explicitly mean he is a genius.

The man is a straight up dolt. It's getting ridiculous, bordering on the obscene to keep defending his bungles with "he's just so smart the players don't get it".

We have a coach who is a dummy who behaves like a dummy and pronounces words correctly and slowly and we, the fans and alumni, and the BoR and the administrators waive all the mistakes because he speaks clearly.

Forrest Gump.

The man has 1 task, he's compensated $millions to do it. He is not competent to do it. Hard Stop.

monsterbear61 said:

---

Mack would like an idiot if he fired DA now and then we finished the soft part of the schedule 7-4, 8-4, or even 9-4 with a bowl win. Will that happen? Probably not, but football is unpredictable.

The issue with DA is that he is a knowledge guru but a teaching/coaching/motivation dud. He knows what to do but he can't convey it to players or hold them accountable to perform. If he can figure out how to delegate motivation to a new member of the staff, he will have replaced Joey McGuire and we can win those close games again.

---

Your post highlights one of the biggest problems we have with Dave Aranda: We keep asking others to do key parts of his job as a head coach because he doesn't possess those skills.

Why are we bending over backwards to try to make this square block a round peg? The fact of the matter is he's a defensive coordinator cosplaying as a head coach. The sooner we accept that and move on, the better.

I'll take a junkyard dog any day over a brainiac like this guy. Give me someone with extra high blood pressure at practice and on game day.

monsterbear61 said:

---

Mack would like an idiot if he fired DA now and then we finished the soft part of the schedule 7-4, 8-4, or even 9-4 with a bowl win. Will that happen? Probably not, but football is unpredictable.

The issue with DA is that he is a knowledge guru but a teaching/coaching/motivation dud. He knows what to do but he can't convey it to players or hold them accountable to perform. If he can figure out how to delegate motivation to a new member of the staff, he will have replaced Joey McGuire and we can win those close games again.

---

Your first paragraph makes a good point and make it extremely difficult to get a replacement had we fired Aranda for and during a 7 or more win season with a potential bowl win. That is why many posters and Baylor folks in general are saying we need to see how the season plays out.

bear2be2 said:

---

monsterbear61 said:

---

Mack would like an idiot if he fired DA now and then we finished the soft part of the schedule 7-4, 8-4, or even 9-4 with a bowl win. Will that happen? Probably not, but football is unpredictable.

The issue with DA is that he is a knowledge guru but a teaching/coaching/motivation dud. He knows what to do but he can't convey it to players or hold them accountable to perform. If he can figure out how to delegate motivation to a new member of the staff, he will have replaced Joey McGuire and we can win those close games again.

---

Your post highlights one of the biggest problems we have with Dave Aranda: We keep asking others to do key parts of his job as a head coach because he doesn't possess those skills.

Why are we bending over backwards to try to make this square block a round peg? The fact of the matter is he's a defensive coordinator cosplaying as a head coach. The sooner we accept that and move on, the better.

---

I 100% agree with this reply!

I said Aranda had to go during halftime at the AF bowl game. The entire team and staff were not prepared for that game. He let a G5 team with a running-only game dominate an A4 team at the line, and did not anticipate the effects of 0 degree wind chills on a passing game, much less just having coats and heaters for the bench.

He is an autistic football mind. He over-thinks 80% of the time on irrelevant items and refuses to acknowledge that 'mind over matter' philosophies do not win against matter presented in the form of a 340 lbs angry lineman.

PartyBear said:

---

monsterbear61 said:

---

Mack would like an idiot if he fired DA now and then we finished the soft part of the schedule 7-4, 8-4, or even 9-4 with a bowl win. Will that happen? Probably not, but football is unpredictable.

The issue with DA is that he is a knowledge guru but a teaching/coaching/motivation dud. He knows what to do but he can't convey it to players or hold them accountable to perform. If he can figure out how to delegate motivation to a new member of the staff, he will have replaced Joey McGuire and we can win those close games again.

---

Your first paragraph makes a good point and make it extremely difficult to get a replacement had we fired Aranda for and during a 7 or more win season with a potential bowl win. That is why many posters and Baylor folks in general are saying we need to see how the season plays out.

---

Given the incredible resources at his disposal he should have BU on top already. It would have been better to fire him last year when it was expected. I think Mack and Linda took part of the blame onto themselves for not embracing NIL early enough. There is probably truth in that. Now, that is behind them.

We are still stuck with a football whisperer in lieu of a football coach. Can you imagine Mulkey droning on and on about hats and Paddington Bears? No! Winning coaches are relentlessly demanding and tough. Can you see Saban talking about hats and Greek philosophers? No! How about Rhule or Briles? No!

Three more losses with zero chance at a bowl and he gone.

Right now, Mack should have initial coach replacement interviews behind him, agents discussing probable terms, and our big boosters should already be getting calls about the need to raise NIL and pay $ to keep our best players at home.

I thought you said Mack would look like an idiot if he fires Aranda now or last week or this Monday and Baylor goes on to win 7 including a bowl win and I agreed thinking that is what you were saying. Nevertheless even if you didn't mean that. It is still why the season has to play out.

PartyBear said:

---

I thought you said Mack would look like an idiot if he fires Aranda now or last week or this Monday and Baylor goes on to win 7 including a bowl win and I agreed thinking that is what you were saying. Nevertheless even if you didn't mean that. It is still why the season has to play out.

---

This assumes that Dave isn't actively contributing to our losing results/culture, which is at this point an assumption most of us don't accept. I don't think that success under a potential interim means that we would have been successful under Aranda or that failure under Aranda these next four or five games means someone else couldn't get more out of these same players.

If he requires a Flava Flav on staff he's had a couple years to find that guy. I do agree he has strong football knowledge (as unpopular as that is to say here) but he's had since 2020 to find out how to dispense this knowledge to 18-25 year olds. At some point your car that keeps making funny noises is better off being sold and another car bought. If we beat or look competent losing to Tech let's see what happens against OSU and TCU but this car has been making noises for a couple years now and it's only gotten louder. The only other Big12 coach potentially parting ways this year is Gundy and I'd say that's unlikely so we don't have to rush. Maybe the car fixes itself in the next few weeks.

Guitarbiscuit said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

thales said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

ParadeOfBears said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

We aren't canning him mid season.

I would also think about this - you don't want to fire a guy just to fire him and not have a capable guy ready.

If our administration fires him and targets a guy like Traylor and Traylor says no, where are we then?

We could be in even worse shape due to having to take a high risk chance on plan b, c or d.

---

How can we be in worse shape?

---

In short - limited supply of qualified candidates, but high demand.

In long:

We cannot assume we can get who we want and we cannot assume that everyone on the list is a grade A qualified candidate.

I view a coaching list like this - preferred targets at the top and then the further you go down, the less proven the guys are and the higher the risk you take. Depending on the available candidates in a given offseason, there could be a huge gap between your 2nd choice and #3...

We also have to factor in how many schools are looking to make a change that year. UF, Cincinnati, Auburn, Purdue, Miss St, UCLA and even TCU may all be looking to replace their HC's this year.

The G5 has already been plundered the past 2-3 years, so it's going to be a thin pool of available guys with potentially a lot of demand.

---

do you think we give dave the ax

---

He should have been fired last year.

We should fire him this year, too.

I do not know what our financial picture looks like as related to his buyout. Are we rolling with Dave in 2025 because we cannot pay his buyout? Without that info I don't see how anyone can answer.

I do see the possibility that several schools go with coordinator hires as the candidate pool is looking rather thin.

If we fire dave and hire another coordinator who has never been a HC I am going to pull a milton from office space and light the building on fire

---

I said no salt.

---

I was told that I could listen to the radio at a reasonable volume from nine to eleven

bear2be2 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

I thought you said Mack would look like an idiot if he fires Aranda now or last week or this Monday and Baylor goes on to win 7 including a bowl win and I agreed thinking that is what you were saying. Nevertheless even if you didn't mean that. It is still why the season has to play out.

---

This assumes that Dave isn't actively contributing to our losing results/culture, which is at this point an assumption most of us don't accept. I don't think that success under a potential interim means that we would have been successful under Aranda or that failure under Aranda these next four or five games means someone else couldn't get more out of these same players.

---

That's what I meant. Once the season starts you have to get to an unsalvageable loss record to justify a change. I don't think Mack can do it unless we are at 7 losses. The question is, what is the publicly acceptable WL ratio for Baylor versus an internal number? Given the resources provided to Aranda, and the paychecks and NIL, would Mack accept a 6-win or 7-win season? More? Less?

I think the publicly acceptable number is higher than the internally acceptable number…and the firing announcement is purely based on the publicly acceptable number… but once you see continued lower-than-expected performance for an employee (versus their paycheck/resource investment) then you need to internally decide to fire them. This happens every day in industry. Aranda will notice that he is no longer invited to a few key meetings/events while people are also unusually polite to him. When Mack's assistant/secretary looks super happy to see Dave and yet not give him access to Mack, it's over.