oso de esqui said:

---

We are talking about the same Joey that got blown out by WSU and was saved a loss vs Abilene Christian because the ACU coach made a bad call on a 2 pt conversion?

---

We're talking about the Joey whose team has improved significantly since then and now has his team tied atop the Big 12 standings.

bear2be2 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Just more food for thought, Dave Aranda has a .325 win percentage (13-27 record) in his four seasons around 2021.

1) Two of those four seasons followed Big 12 championship game appearances and New Year's bowls.
2) That's .015 better than the win percentage of Guy Morriss, who followed two of the three least successful coaches in our program's history.

I think the 2021 season -- and Dave's general likeability -- have blinded some fans to just how awful he has been for most of his Baylor tenure.

---

I agree with you Aranda is not a HC at the P5 level, I think he would be fantastic in the Ivy or at an Academy.
I just don't think Maguire is or was an upgrade.

---

McGuire would definitely be an upgrade. It's indisputable based on the data. One coach has had one winning season in five years, the other has never had a losing season and there's a 160-point gap in their current win percentages.

You can say you don't think Joey McGuire is a great coach, and that's a fair, defensible position. You can't say he's a bad or mediocre coach or that he wouldn't be an upgrade over Aranda based on any relevant evidence or historical standard.

---

I don't believe that records are transferrable. I do not think Nick Saban or Urban Meyer could win at Baylor (not that Maguire or Aranda are in the same galaxy as Saban or Meyer). We may be 500 or 1 game over 500, but not a contender. As for Maguire and Aranda, IMO they are interchangeable. Put Aranda at Tech, his winning percentage is similar to Maguire. Put Maguire at Baylor, his winning percentage is similar to Aranda.

Baylor's problems are deeper than Aranda. As long as Rhodes and this President is at Baylor, Baylor is an also-ran.

I am truly starting to believe that Rhule caught the residual of the McCaw/Starr reign that helped him recruit a level we have not come close to since. But we are allowed to disagree.

---

Tech is a harder place to win than Baylor is, and he started from a lower platform than Aranda did. Switch their situations and it's likely the gap between the two is even larger.

And both Rhule and Aranda have recruited at roughly the same level Briles did. The difference between Briles and Rhule and Aranda is that the first two are way better at evaluating, fitting and developing talent than the third is.

Our struggles aren't a Baylor problem. They're a Dave Aranda problem.

---

Joey's first two rosters at Tech were the best rosters Tech has had in modern history - in substantial part due to the number of super seniors - and that was due very little to his efforts. Let's not forget that some pundits were even predicting a NY6 game appearance for Tech in his second season.

bear2be2 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Matt Wells was the HC for 29 games at Tech. McGuire in his first 29 games as HC had 4 more wins that Matt Wells in 29 games. Is it better yes but not at the dramatic level some here act, thus far.

---

Matt Wells left Tech with a .433 win percentage. McGuire's is almost 200 points higher currently. That is dramatically better. Any arguments to the contrary are silly.

---

What's silly is using the term dramatically better when pointing to a 4 game difference in over 2 and a half years of football.

4 games in that time span is about 1.5 games per season and neither the 4 games nor the 1.5 game difference per season if averaged, are dramatically better.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Matt Wells was the HC for 29 games at Tech. McGuire in his first 29 games as HC had 4 more wins that Matt Wells in 29 games. Is it better yes but not at the dramatic level some here act, thus far.

---

Matt Wells left Tech with a .433 win percentage. McGuire's is almost 200 points higher currently. That is dramatically better. Any arguments to the contrary are silly.

---

What's silly is using the term dramatically better when pointing to a 4 game difference in over 2 and a half years of football.

4 games in that time span is about 1.5 games per season and neither the 4 games nor the 1.5 game difference per season if averaged, are dramatically better.

---

First of all, it wasn't a four-game difference. It was a five-game difference, which is just under 17 percent of a 30-game sample.

Matt Wells was 13-17 in 30 games at Tech. Joey McGuire was 18-12 in his first 30 games, and has won both of his games since eclipsing that arbitrary "milestone."

The latter is dramatically better. In fact, it's the difference between being well thought of by your fan base and college football punditry at large and being fired midway through your third season.

bear2be2 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Matt Wells was the HC for 29 games at Tech. McGuire in his first 29 games as HC had 4 more wins that Matt Wells in 29 games. Is it better yes but not at the dramatic level some here act, thus far.

---

Matt Wells left Tech with a .433 win percentage. McGuire's is almost 200 points higher currently. That is dramatically better. Any arguments to the contrary are silly.

---

What's silly is using the term dramatically better when pointing to a 4 game difference in over 2 and a half years of football.

4 games in that time span is about 1.5 games per season and neither the 4 games nor the 1.5 game difference per season if averaged, are dramatically better.

---

First of all, it wasn't a four-game difference. It was a five-game difference,

---

Not only is using the term dramatically better silly, but apparently your reading comprehension is silly too.

The other poster said 29 games, not 30 and he said it 3 times in his post.

In the first 29 games, there was a 4 game difference.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Matt Wells was the HC for 29 games at Tech. McGuire in his first 29 games as HC had 4 more wins that Matt Wells in 29 games. Is it better yes but not at the dramatic level some here act, thus far.

---

Matt Wells left Tech with a .433 win percentage. McGuire's is almost 200 points higher currently. That is dramatically better. Any arguments to the contrary are silly.

---

What's silly is using the term dramatically better when pointing to a 4 game difference in over 2 and a half years of football.

4 games in that time span is about 1.5 games per season and neither the 4 games nor the 1.5 game difference per season if averaged, are dramatically better.

---

First of all, it wasn't a four-game difference. It was a five-game difference,

---

Not only is using the term dramatically better silly, but apparently your reading comprehension is silly too.

The other poster said 29 games, not 30 and he said it 3 times in his post.

In the first 29 games, there was a 4 game difference.

---

The other poster wrongly said that Matt Wells only lasted 29 games at Tech. He lasted 30 -- and was dramatically worse than Joey McGuire in that time, which is why Sonny Cumbie finished his last season as interim and he's an offensive coordinator now.

This is an idiotic argument. There's not a fan on the planet who wouldn't say that an 18-12 record (which is now 20-12) isn't dramatically better than 13-17.

And if you need an illustration, there was only an eight-game difference between Art Briles' first four years at Baylor (25-25) and Guy Morriss' (15-31), which is roughly the same percentage difference we're talking about between Wells and McGuire. Only a clown intent on arguing for argument's sake would suggest Briles wasn't dramatically better in that span.

People really debating whether Joey is better than Matt wells? Come on

I agree. ******ed argument saying Joey isn't much better than Matt wells

Bearfan1998 said:

---

I agree. ******ed argument saying Joey isn't much better than Matt wells

---

It's insane. The current difference in win percentage between McGuire and Wells at Tech is larger than the difference between Briles and Aranda at Baylor, and we have people saying that's not significant.

bear2be2 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Matt Wells was the HC for 29 games at Tech. McGuire in his first 29 games as HC had 4 more wins that Matt Wells in 29 games. Is it better yes but not at the dramatic level some here act, thus far.

---

Matt Wells left Tech with a .433 win percentage. McGuire's is almost 200 points higher currently. That is dramatically better. Any arguments to the contrary are silly.

---

What's silly is using the term dramatically better when pointing to a 4 game difference in over 2 and a half years of football.

4 games in that time span is about 1.5 games per season and neither the 4 games nor the 1.5 game difference per season if averaged, are dramatically better.

---

First of all, it wasn't a four-game difference. It was a five-game difference,

---

Not only is using the term dramatically better silly, but apparently your reading comprehension is silly too.

The other poster said 29 games, not 30 and he said it 3 times in his post.

In the first 29 games, there was a 4 game difference.

---

The other poster wrongly said that Matt Wells only lasted 29 games at Tech. He lasted 30 -- and was dramatically worse than Joey McGuire in that time,

---

Got it. That is correct, Wells only lasted 30 games.

4 games over a 29 game span isn't dramatic. 5 games over a 30 game span isn't dramatic either.

Is MacGyver better than wells? I'm sure he is, but don't really care because neither are our coach.

Bearfan1998 said:

---

People really debating whether Joey is better than Matt wells? Come on

---

I don't see anyone doing that but admittedly have not read every post.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Matt Wells was the HC for 29 games at Tech. McGuire in his first 29 games as HC had 4 more wins that Matt Wells in 29 games. Is it better yes but not at the dramatic level some here act, thus far.

---

Matt Wells left Tech with a .433 win percentage. McGuire's is almost 200 points higher currently. That is dramatically better. Any arguments to the contrary are silly.

---

What's silly is using the term dramatically better when pointing to a 4 game difference in over 2 and a half years of football.

4 games in that time span is about 1.5 games per season and neither the 4 games nor the 1.5 game difference per season if averaged, are dramatically better.

---

First of all, it wasn't a four-game difference. It was a five-game difference,

---

Not only is using the term dramatically better silly, but apparently your reading comprehension is silly too.

The other poster said 29 games, not 30 and he said it 3 times in his post.

In the first 29 games, there was a 4 game difference.

---

The other poster wrongly said that Matt Wells only lasted 29 games at Tech. He lasted 30 -- and was dramatically worse than Joey McGuire in that time,

---

Got it. That is correct, Wells only lasted 30 games.

4 games over a 29 game span isn't dramatic. 5 games over a 30 game span isn't dramatic either.

Is MacGyver better than wells? I'm sure he is, but don't really care because neither are our coach.

---

A difference in win percentage of .167 is dramatic. And if you compare the entirety of the two coaches' Tech tenures that difference (.182) is even moreso.

If you don't care about or like either coach, that's fine. But that's a significant gap in terms of coaching success. One will hold his job for a long time winning at the clip he currently is. The other couldn't make it through three seasons.

bear2be2 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Matt Wells was the HC for 29 games at Tech. McGuire in his first 29 games as HC had 4 more wins that Matt Wells in 29 games. Is it better yes but not at the dramatic level some here act, thus far.

---

Matt Wells left Tech with a .433 win percentage. McGuire's is almost 200 points higher currently. That is dramatically better. Any arguments to the contrary are silly.

---

What's silly is using the term dramatically better when pointing to a 4 game difference in over 2 and a half years of football.

4 games in that time span is about 1.5 games per season and neither the 4 games nor the 1.5 game difference per season if averaged, are dramatically better.

---

First of all, it wasn't a four-game difference. It was a five-game difference,

---

Not only is using the term dramatically better silly, but apparently your reading comprehension is silly too.

The other poster said 29 games, not 30 and he said it 3 times in his post.

In the first 29 games, there was a 4 game difference.

---

The other poster wrongly said that Matt Wells only lasted 29 games at Tech. He lasted 30 -- and was dramatically worse than Joey McGuire in that time,

---

Got it. That is correct, Wells only lasted 30 games.

4 games over a 29 game span isn't dramatic. 5 games over a 30 game span isn't dramatic either.

Is MacGyver better than wells? I'm sure he is, but don't really care because neither are our coach.

---

A difference in win percentage of .167 is dramatic. And if you compare the entirety of the two coaches' Tech tenures that difference (.182) is even moreso.

If you don't care about or like either coach, that's fine. But that's a significant gap in terms of coaching success. One will hold his job for a long time winning at the clip he currently is. The other couldn't make it through three seasons.

---

Let's be honest here. The only reason we are nitpicking at these types of mundane details is because our program sucks and we are unhappy about it.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Matt Wells was the HC for 29 games at Tech. McGuire in his first 29 games as HC had 4 more wins that Matt Wells in 29 games. Is it better yes but not at the dramatic level some here act, thus far.

---

Matt Wells left Tech with a .433 win percentage. McGuire's is almost 200 points higher currently. That is dramatically better. Any arguments to the contrary are silly.

---

What's silly is using the term dramatically better when pointing to a 4 game difference in over 2 and a half years of football.

4 games in that time span is about 1.5 games per season and neither the 4 games nor the 1.5 game difference per season if averaged, are dramatically better.

---

First of all, it wasn't a four-game difference. It was a five-game difference,

---

Not only is using the term dramatically better silly, but apparently your reading comprehension is silly too.

The other poster said 29 games, not 30 and he said it 3 times in his post.

In the first 29 games, there was a 4 game difference.

---

The other poster wrongly said that Matt Wells only lasted 29 games at Tech. He lasted 30 -- and was dramatically worse than Joey McGuire in that time,

---

Got it. That is correct, Wells only lasted 30 games.

4 games over a 29 game span isn't dramatic. 5 games over a 30 game span isn't dramatic either.

Is MacGyver better than wells? I'm sure he is, but don't really care because neither are our coach.

---

A difference in win percentage of .167 is dramatic. And if you compare the entirety of the two coaches' Tech tenures that difference (.182) is even moreso.

If you don't care about or like either coach, that's fine. But that's a significant gap in terms of coaching success. One will hold his job for a long time winning at the clip he currently is. The other couldn't make it through three seasons.

---

Let's be honest here. The only reason we are nitpicking at these types of mundane details is because our program sucks and we are unhappy about it.

---

This is definitely true.

But the fact of the matter is, the coaching tenures of Dave Aranda and Joey McGuire will be inextricably linked because we passed on the former to hire the latter. That makes the fact that we suck -- and the juxtaposition of our current position and Tech's -- all the more painful.

bear2be2 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Matt Wells was the HC for 29 games at Tech. McGuire in his first 29 games as HC had 4 more wins that Matt Wells in 29 games. Is it better yes but not at the dramatic level some here act, thus far.

---

Matt Wells left Tech with a .433 win percentage. McGuire's is almost 200 points higher currently. That is dramatically better. Any arguments to the contrary are silly.

---

What's silly is using the term dramatically better when pointing to a 4 game difference in over 2 and a half years of football.

4 games in that time span is about 1.5 games per season and neither the 4 games nor the 1.5 game difference per season if averaged, are dramatically better.

---

First of all, it wasn't a four-game difference. It was a five-game difference,

---

Not only is using the term dramatically better silly, but apparently your reading comprehension is silly too.

The other poster said 29 games, not 30 and he said it 3 times in his post.

In the first 29 games, there was a 4 game difference.

---

The other poster wrongly said that Matt Wells only lasted 29 games at Tech. He lasted 30 -- and was dramatically worse than Joey McGuire in that time,

---

Got it. That is correct, Wells only lasted 30 games.

4 games over a 29 game span isn't dramatic. 5 games over a 30 game span isn't dramatic either.

Is MacGyver better than wells? I'm sure he is, but don't really care because neither are our coach.

---

A difference in win percentage of .167 is dramatic. And if you compare the entirety of the two coaches' Tech tenures that difference (.182) is even moreso.

If you don't care about or like either coach, that's fine. But that's a significant gap in terms of coaching success. One will hold his job for a long time winning at the clip he currently is. The other couldn't make it through three seasons.

---

Let's be honest here. The only reason we are nitpicking at these types of mundane details is because our program sucks and we are unhappy about it.

---

This is definitely true.

But the fact of the matter is, the coaching tenures of Dave Aranda and Joey McGuire will be inextricably linked because we passed on the former to hire the latter. That makes the fact that we suck -- and the juxtaposition of our current position and Tech's -- all the more painful.

---

You are definitely mired in fan misery. I say that because once we get caught up in the would have/could have / should haves with past moves, that usually means one thing: our team sucks.

If its any consolation, you can look at it from the very simplistic viewpoint before dave was hired.

Candidate A: The DC for National Title football team. DC for 9-10 years in college. Never been a college head coach

Candidate B: Assistant head coach/ TE / DE coach at school B for 2 years. Never been a college head coach.

If that was how we wrote their resumes, candidate B is never getting hired over candidate A.

I want to add - I did not want to hire either guy. So my list would have been entirely different.

joey will hang 40+ on us....with no mercy shown....

If Joey hangs 40 on us .it's not because he hates us..it's because we suck ..

Joey has nothing but good memories of his time here and harbors no ill will to the administration.