IowaBear said:

---

The whole point is 6-6 should have never even been discussed as the target (if that was indeed the target Mack set for Dave) in the first place. And he's going to fail miserably… again to meet such low expectations. Allowing him to inevitably reach 7 losses without trying an intern is essentially phoning it in for the season. This team and its players desperately need and deserve a change.
He's not the guy and hasn't been for several years now. Quite honestly he ****ing sucks and will never get another HC opportunity. So there's no need to wait. Can his sorry ass and Mack's too.

---

The challenge is that we really don't know that he's going to fail at reaching 6 yet. 3-4 of Baylor's losses are to currently ranked teams at this point in the season, and there is a decent chance that the 4th one may show its face there at some point in the near future. Given that no one expected Baylor to field a top 25 team, it would be worthwhile to see how Baylor handles the middle and below parts of the Big 12 before throwing in the towel.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

So 6-6 is good!? Why not can him and roll with an intern? These players deserve a chance… a fresh start could do wonders. We see it all the time where teams re set mid season behind interns and win a few games.
This team isn't winning **** with that dip **** as HC

---

There is a disconnect among the fanbase in this forum concerning the target of 6-6 this season. The purpose of that target is to show meaningful improvement over the last season; some posters are using a straw man argument to push back against that, with the straw man argument being that 6-6 should not be the standard - when no one ever here ever said that that should be the case.

---

I don't necessarily disagree with you as I've made this same point in the past, but no one can deny that there has been a massive erosion of our program standards under Aranda and Rhoades. Where we were not long ago talking about our program's ceiling and expecting to reach it with some frequency, we are now publicly aspiring for -- and still failing to reach -- abject mediocrity. That's a problem.

Another problem is that no one has explained -- in our quest for mediocrity -- how this staff gets us over that hump (if/when we reach it) and back to a more reasonable standard for this program. We're so caught up in our Morriss-era "Get Six" campaign that we've lost sight of the fact that that's really pathetic goal. And even if we do achieve it, what's the end game with Dave Aranda, who has only exceeded that most modest of accomplishments once in five years on campus?

Like many of our players on Saturday, we seem to be running in quicksand right now. And we have too many trying to convince us that what we're watching isn't reality. What I'm watching is Morriss-era futility, and I'm damn tired of it.

Changes aren't gonna happen till end of season. I think after next week when they lose to Tech is when things really change. At that point you're 2-5, players are definitely going to start checking out for the season and the fans will be for sure over it at that point. Once we pass that point next week, I think administration is going to seriously start looking at the future.

Like others have mentioned I really think the buyout is the thing giving administration pause. Baylor is on the hook for a TON of money with Dave and his staffers if we let them go. As much as people like to think we have endless cash, I don't believe the majority of donors that support program like where football is headed and want to donate millions just to buy out a failed experiment.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

The whole point is 6-6 should have never even been discussed as the target (if that was indeed the target Mack set for Dave) in the first place. And he's going to fail miserably… again to meet such low expectations. Allowing him to inevitably reach 7 losses without trying an intern is essentially phoning it in for the season. This team and its players desperately need and deserve a change.
He's not the guy and hasn't been for several years now. Quite honestly he ****ing sucks and will never get another HC opportunity. So there's no need to wait. Can his sorry ass and Mack's too.

---

The challenge is that we really don't know that he's going to fail at reaching 6 yet. 3-4 of Baylor's losses are to currently ranked teams at this point in the season, and there is a decent chance that the 4th one may show its face there at some point in the near future. Given that no one expected Baylor to field a top 25 team, it would be worthwhile to see how Baylor handles the middle and below parts of the Big 12 before throwing in the towel.

---

C'mon man. We know that he sucks. This is his make-or-break year, and he's sitting at 2-4 overall and 0-3 in quite literally the weakest Big 12 ever.

It's over. Everyone knows it's over. The guy's just a loser. We've known it for two years now. It's (well past) time to cut bait and move on.

Every week he's kept is another "**** you" to fans who -- quite justifiably -- wanted him gone after last year.

ccgutierrez said:

---

Changes aren't gonna happen till end of season. I think after next week when they lose to Tech is when things really change. At that point you're 2-5, players are definitely going to start checking out for the season and the fans will be for sure over it at that point. Once we pass that point next week, I think administration is going to seriously start looking at the future.

Like others have mentioned I really think the buyout is the thing giving administration pause. Baylor is on the hook for a TON of money with Dave and his staffers if we let them go. As much as people like to think we have endless cash, I don't believe the majority of donors that support program like where football is headed and want to donate millions just to buy out a failed experiment.

---

Which makes it all the more foolish to bring Dave back and go all in with a new offensive coordinator and several high-profile position coaches in 2024. We only increased the buyout figure extending an experiment everyone with a brain knew was likely to fail.

Mack's head should absolutely roll with Aranda's. Those two have set our program back immeasurably.

Bingo!
My other issue is people keep pointing the fact that our losses are to teams at the top of the league. Dave hasn't shown he can beat the bottom teams unless we're expecting miracle wins like last years over UCF and Cincy. There's nothing to support this idea that we're all the sudden going to start winning against teams in the middle of the pack in the B12.

IowaBear said:

---

Bingo!
My other issue is people keep pointing the fact that our losses are to teams at the top of the league. Dave hasn't shown he can beat the bottom teams unless we're expecting miracle wins like last years over UCF and Cincy. There's nothing to support this idea that we're all the sudden going to start winning against teams in the middle of the pack in the B12.

---

Baylor hasn't played the middle/bottom teams this season yet (again, 3/4 opponents are ranked right now with the last one receiving votes), which is the point. As fans, we don't have speculate as to what will/won't happen on the field since we will have the answer soon enough.

4-8 is 33% improvement YOY.
Let's be objective about what improvement means when you're last place.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Bingo!
My other issue is people keep pointing the fact that our losses are to teams at the top of the league. Dave hasn't shown he can beat the bottom teams unless we're expecting miracle wins like last years over UCF and Cincy. There's nothing to support this idea that we're all the sudden going to start winning against teams in the middle of the pack in the B12.

---

Baylor hasn't played the middle/bottom teams this season yet (again, 3/4 opponents are ranked right now with the last one receiving votes), which is the point. As fans, we don't have speculate as to what will/won't happen on the field since we will have the answer soon enough.

---

We've been getting the answer for three years now. This isn't Dave's first test. It's his third. When you score a 65 and a 35 on your first two, you need a 100 on the third to even get in the neighborhood of passing. I don't know if you've been paying attention this year, but Dave slept through his alarm and missed the first half of his final exam.

Why the **** are some of you guys so insistent on giving this guy so many unearned chances? He's told us what he is. Over and over and over again.

bear2be2 said:

---

ccgutierrez said:

---

Changes aren't gonna happen till end of season. I think after next week when they lose to Tech is when things really change. At that point you're 2-5, players are definitely going to start checking out for the season and the fans will be for sure over it at that point. Once we pass that point next week, I think administration is going to seriously start looking at the future.

Like others have mentioned I really think the buyout is the thing giving administration pause. Baylor is on the hook for a TON of money with Dave and his staffers if we let them go. As much as people like to think we have endless cash, I don't believe the majority of donors that support program like where football is headed and want to donate millions just to buy out a failed experiment.

---

Which makes it all the more foolish to bring Dave back and go all in with a new offensive coordinator and several high-profile position coaches in 2024. We only increased the buyout figure extending an experiment everyone with a brain knew was likely to fail.

Mack's head should absolutely roll with Aranda's. Those two have set our program back immeasurably.

---

So you would prefer no AD hire the successor. Some Regents and the President? If you don't want Rhoades making anymore football decisions, he has to go and a replacement needs to be named, which for ADs doesn't take a short time like hiring new HCs. This would mean Aranda gets another year regardless of how this year goes which is the opposite of what you want in him being fired regardless as to how things play out..

Additionally you are doing exactly what Abercrombie said people here are doing by using the straw man that we aspire for mediocrity rather than using 6-6 being a standard showing improvement for just this season.

Btw I have no idea what was discussed as the standard at the meeting last Dec. I would venture a good guess no one else here does either.

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.

PartyBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

ccgutierrez said:

---

Changes aren't gonna happen till end of season. I think after next week when they lose to Tech is when things really change. At that point you're 2-5, players are definitely going to start checking out for the season and the fans will be for sure over it at that point. Once we pass that point next week, I think administration is going to seriously start looking at the future.

Like others have mentioned I really think the buyout is the thing giving administration pause. Baylor is on the hook for a TON of money with Dave and his staffers if we let them go. As much as people like to think we have endless cash, I don't believe the majority of donors that support program like where football is headed and want to donate millions just to buy out a failed experiment.

---

Which makes it all the more foolish to bring Dave back and go all in with a new offensive coordinator and several high-profile position coaches in 2024. We only increased the buyout figure extending an experiment everyone with a brain knew was likely to fail.

Mack's head should absolutely roll with Aranda's. Those two have set our program back immeasurably.

---

So you would prefer no AD hire the successor. Some Regents and the President? If you don't want Rhoades making anymore football decisions, he has to go and a replacement needs to be named, which for ADs doesn't take a short time like hiring new HCs. This would mean Aranda gets another year regardless of how this year goes which is the opposite of what you want in him being fired regardless as to how things play out..

---

I'm not going to get in the logistical weeds of timetables and processes.

My point is and remains that Mack should be held accountable for doubling down on his abject failure of a hire, and costing us even more money and recovery time in the process.

10,000 seats $1M

Adds up fast.

Empty stadium will turn into reduction of ad revenue too.

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.

---

there 0% chance Traylor would say no, lmao

I'm not sure Traylor would be a top candidate after how this season appears to be going.

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

BearBall said:

---

STOP GOING TO GAMES

---

This

Chris, you suck as a fan just like most of the Baylor “Fan base”. Y’all complain about bull shit and think you’re entitled to the school listening to y’all trash and unimportant opinions.

What Trex does for the players is give them hope unlike you. Fan support leads to W’s. https://t.co/GuJlvKHz4v

— ✊🏿✊🏼✊🏾✊🏽 (@_bigmo__) October 7, 2024

It also leads to recruits wanting to commit! They feed off that environment and energy! You think a player wants to play in a stadium filled with opposing teams fans? Instead of using your voice to tear the program apart, use your voice to BUILD the program!

— ✊🏿✊🏼✊🏾✊🏽 (@_bigmo__) October 7, 2024

T-Rex got openly flamed by Jeremy Sochan a few years ago for openly trashing players. So big mo better get his facts straight before rambling

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.

Bingo… that play also pretty much summed up his coaching career. He just finds new ways to lose games.

I do not believe Aranda will go for any reason until Rhoades is gone.
Happy to be wrong about this.
But even if a donor buys out Dave's contract that doesn't mean Dave is fired.

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.

---

I said it at the time. The air left the balloon with that play/loss. We've just been in a sad suck swirl ever since.

End this charade. It's been over for over a year, but the Colorado loss was the official time of death.

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.

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.

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 for BYU, a ton of hopeful fans and a team that thought it was good. Instead, we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and it was "Here we go again" for everyone.

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.

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 booth.

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.

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.

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.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

We aren't canning him mid season.

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

---

We cannot be in worse shape regardless. Anything is better than today/s program