Realitybites said:bear2be2 said:Franklins said:
why would any Baylor fan be happy being the ***** in a league we don't belong and can't compete in?
You forget that we lived this from 1996 to 2007. In that eleven year span we played 96 conference games against the other teams in the Big 12 conference, and lost 85 of them.
bear2be2 said:PartyBear said:bear2be2 said:BBWCBear said:bear2be2 said:IowaBear said:
Back to hugging Dave's nuts are we Bear2? Dave once again **** the bed when given a massive opportunity to take the next step as HC at BU. Sugarcoat it all you want. Last night was rather deflating imo. We're in year 6 and the same issues have plagued Dave year and year once again reared there ugly head last night. Believe it or not it's OK as a fan to be upset with yet another L on the big stage
Everyone was disappointed by last night's loss. Some of us are just capable of handling that disappointment in an adult manner.
We lost to a better, more talented team last night. It is what it is. We fought our asses off to stay in the game, but the team that does a better job of running the ball and stopping the run is going to win the vast majority of football games.
I could choose, like you, to extrapolate last night's results into a season of failure. OR ... I could make the pretty easy realization that we'll very likely do a better job of running the ball and stopping the run against everyone else on our schedule than we did against Auburn last night.
If we played an SEC schedule the rest of the way, I could get being depressed. But we don't. And I'm telling everyone here this right now, our team will do things -- particularly on the offensive side -- that will make us a very difficult matchup for most Big 12 teams.
So ... I'm going to choose to take a wait and see approach. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see us beat SMU next week. I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see us lose that one either. Either way, I think this team will compete well against the everyone it plays in the final 10 games of the season this year.
Sooo… 6-6 or 7-5, got it.
8-4 is my expectation. If we don't get there, I'll be disappointed.
I didn't think we were some kind of 11 game winner and contender for the title game with our schedule prior to last night. I was thinking all year anywhere from 7-9 wins though. So far I haven't seen anything definitive that makes me think I was wrong.
I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that this team could compete for a Big 12 title. But it would take a lot of things going right.
I do think our offense is legit, though. We're going to score a ton of points in Big 12 play.
bear2be2 said:Franklins said:
There's no point of arguing speculation, but I'll tell you that I have info from knowledgeable sources that say otherwise. Granted these sources are trying to get my money & would probably tell me whatever I needed to hear to give it, but I believe them.
But in general, I feel really sad for you man. I hope you're not so miserable that you won't be happy to be wrong.
I won't be wrong about this.
But even if I was, why would any Baylor fan be happy being the ***** in a league we don't belong and can't compete in?
Anyone who thinks being Vanderbilt or Northwestern in the SEC or Big Ten is better than competing for conference titles in the Big 12 needs their head checked. You and I won't ever see a penny from any of these TV rights deals. Eagerly sacrificing the ability to compete and my enjoyment of football season for a few extra shekels that won't make it into my pocket would be really odd position for me to take as a fan.
Our place in the college football landscape has been right-sized, if anything, and it's left us in the most competitive, entertaining league in America. I'll choose to enjoy that rather than pine for inclusion in a structure we don't belong in.
Bruiser85 said:Realitybites said:bear2be2 said:Franklins said:
why would any Baylor fan be happy being the ***** in a league we don't belong and can't compete in?
You forget that we lived this from 1996 to 2007. In that eleven year span we played 96 conference games against the other teams in the Big 12 conference, and lost 85 of them.
I think a lot of us still have PTSD from those years when we were so terrible. The Briles years gave us a wonderful taste of success. Wish we could feel that way again.
Porteroso said:
Basically a gross game to watch h if you're a Baylor fan.
My biggest question is, how is it that Aranda's defenses are just so bad? Was the recruiting at LSU really just that good? Did he luck into something special?
And lastly, and right now, least importantly, we have learned our lesson right? Don't be the first dumbass to hire a coordinator as a head coach?
bear2be2 said:Porteroso said:
Basically a gross game to watch h if you're a Baylor fan.
My biggest question is, how is it that Aranda's defenses are just so bad? Was the recruiting at LSU really just that good? Did he luck into something special?
And lastly, and right now, least importantly, we have learned our lesson right? Don't be the first dumbass to hire a coordinator as a head coach?
Yes, the recruiting at LSU is definitely that good. But it's weird because he was good at Wisconsin, too, and they don't recruit exceptionally well.
But whatever he had through 2021 is gone now. I don't know if his schemes have been figured out by offensive coaches or if he can't get the proper talent to execute them, but either way, I'm ready to see the defense handed over to a proven DC with his own established scheme.
PartyBear said:
I'm not sure about your age, so you may not remember but we played in 85,86 and 94. Those were the most recent times. I believe the two have met another 3 or more times about 3 decades before that time period, which was before my time. I enjoyed those games. I wish we would play again sometimes.
Franklins said:Realitybites said:
Right now the excuse is SECSECSEC.
Let's see what SMU does next week.
Keep in mind that Auburn was unranked, and SMU is something like #15.
Right now a 1-3 start is very possible.
A 1-3 start is not only possible, but probable. So is 2-4.
I think we will probably end up winning 7 or 8 games because of our weak back end of the schedule, but Aranda is not the guy and at least if we melt down the silver lining is we will move on from him sooner.
TrojanMoondoggie said:
I continue to hope he rights the ship to a more consistent level of success.
He seems like a true quality man.
I know that's not always enough though when it comes to big time college football.
We had a nice guy in Clay Helton, but he just didn't get the consistency SC expected either.
BU did turn things around last season though, so maybe it happens again this season. But even a little bit earlier in the game (as in season). Maybe add an additional win during the season or in its bowl game.
I have no horse in the race as I didn't attend BU. I did apply there and was accepted to BU. In addition to Berkeley, USC and (waitlisted at) Stanford, ultimately ending up at SC.
In memory of my daddy's alum status though, I will always root on the Bears. We always talked about how cool a USC/Baylor game would have been though. Nice road trip.
Robert Wilson said:bear2be2 said:Porteroso said:
Basically a gross game to watch h if you're a Baylor fan.
My biggest question is, how is it that Aranda's defenses are just so bad? Was the recruiting at LSU really just that good? Did he luck into something special?
And lastly, and right now, least importantly, we have learned our lesson right? Don't be the first dumbass to hire a coordinator as a head coach?
Yes, the recruiting at LSU is definitely that good. But it's weird because he was good at Wisconsin, too, and they don't recruit exceptionally well.
But whatever he had through 2021 is gone now. I don't know if his schemes have been figured out by offensive coaches or if he can't get the proper talent to execute them, but either way, I'm ready to see the defense handed over to a proven DC with his own established scheme.
I agree. The guy lost his edge as a coordinator. Might just be because he's doing so much other stuff. Maybe he was better off as a coordinator?
And is he really a good enough head coach to justify the position and the money if he does not bring the defense with him?
You don't hire this guy in the first place unless you think he is a defensive Yoda.
PartyBear said:
Oh it wasn't a punch in the face. But to your point about SMU. They had a loss worse than our's on Friday to a SEC team and still went to the play off. Their season want over. Lashlee didn't need to be fired yada yada.
bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:bear2be2 said:Porteroso said:
Basically a gross game to watch h if you're a Baylor fan.
My biggest question is, how is it that Aranda's defenses are just so bad? Was the recruiting at LSU really just that good? Did he luck into something special?
And lastly, and right now, least importantly, we have learned our lesson right? Don't be the first dumbass to hire a coordinator as a head coach?
Yes, the recruiting at LSU is definitely that good. But it's weird because he was good at Wisconsin, too, and they don't recruit exceptionally well.
But whatever he had through 2021 is gone now. I don't know if his schemes have been figured out by offensive coaches or if he can't get the proper talent to execute them, but either way, I'm ready to see the defense handed over to a proven DC with his own established scheme.
I agree. The guy lost his edge as a coordinator. Might just be because he's doing so much other stuff. Maybe he was better off as a coordinator?
And is he really a good enough head coach to justify the position and the money if he does not bring the defense with him?
You don't hire this guy in the first place unless you think he is a defensive Yoda.
I think Dave Aranda, the head coach, proved with the Spavital hire that he's capable of admitting a weakness and addressing it in a competent, effective way.
He just needs to do the same on the defensive side now.
I don't think we would have hired Aranda originally if we had known he wouldn't bring good defenses with him. But I also think he's been in that chair long enough and done enough good things on the administrative side to earn a little trust when it comes to addressing and fixing problems.
It was believed when he was hired that Dave's strength would be scheme. I think it could actually be argued that has been his weakness. But he's been surprisingly good with the administrative stuff, which is probably more important for a head coach because you can always hire scheme guys and give them control in their areas of expertise.
I think Dave, as a rookie head coach, has made a lot of mistakes. But he's also proven pretty good at admitting and quickly addressing those mistakes. I think the defense will be the biggest test of this because it would require him to relinquish control in an area where he's long been considered an expert. We'll see over the next couple of years if he's willing to do on defense what he's already done twice on the offensive side.
Porteroso said:
Basically a gross game to watch h if you're a Baylor fan.
My biggest question is, how is it that Aranda's defenses are just so bad? Was the recruiting at LSU really just that good? Did he luck into something special?
bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:bear2be2 said:Porteroso said:
Basically a gross game to watch h if you're a Baylor fan.
My biggest question is, how is it that Aranda's defenses are just so bad? Was the recruiting at LSU really just that good? Did he luck into something special?
And lastly, and right now, least importantly, we have learned our lesson right? Don't be the first dumbass to hire a coordinator as a head coach?
Yes, the recruiting at LSU is definitely that good. But it's weird because he was good at Wisconsin, too, and they don't recruit exceptionally well.
But whatever he had through 2021 is gone now. I don't know if his schemes have been figured out by offensive coaches or if he can't get the proper talent to execute them, but either way, I'm ready to see the defense handed over to a proven DC with his own established scheme.
I agree. The guy lost his edge as a coordinator. Might just be because he's doing so much other stuff. Maybe he was better off as a coordinator?
And is he really a good enough head coach to justify the position and the money if he does not bring the defense with him?
You don't hire this guy in the first place unless you think he is a defensive Yoda.
I think Dave Aranda, the head coach, proved with the Spavital hire that he's capable of admitting a weakness and addressing it in a competent, effective way.
He just needs to do the same on the defensive side now.
I don't think we would have hired Aranda originally if we had known he wouldn't bring good defenses with him. But I also think he's been in that chair long enough and done enough good things on the administrative side to earn a little trust when it comes to addressing and fixing problems.
It was believed when he was hired that Dave's strength would be scheme. I think it could actually be argued that has been his weakness. But he's been surprisingly good with the administrative stuff, which is probably more important for a head coach because you can always hire scheme guys and give them control in their areas of expertise.
I think Dave, as a rookie head coach, has made a lot of mistakes. But he's also proven pretty good at admitting and quickly addressing those mistakes. I think the defense will be the biggest test of this because it would require him to relinquish control in an area where he's long been considered an expert. We'll see over the next couple of years if he's willing to do on defense what he's already done twice on the offensive side.
Quinton said:Porteroso said:
Basically a gross game to watch h if you're a Baylor fan.
My biggest question is, how is it that Aranda's defenses are just so bad? Was the recruiting at LSU really just that good? Did he luck into something special?
Its really hard to be as bad as they are. Dave has a close look at hundreds of underfollowed kids in a fb heavy state. Plenty of opportunity to make it work. Patterson (in his prime) fielded great defenses with recruiting classes at or near this level. Dave just he isn't any good at this unfortunately.. still.
Cincy and Houston all fielded decent defenses with, lets face it, borderline G5 quality guys and a much more restricted talent budget than we have. They scouted, developed, filled gaps with under-followed transfers, and were coached up in a year or two. Iowa St and K-State are usually rock solid with again lesser rated classes.
David hasn't even reached that level yet (2021 was a total abberation).. which again for any decent defensive coach is extremely difficult to do. Fielding a top 40 D at minimum is pretty fair goal for a good defensive coach within 3 years.
I like the hire of Gonzalez, I liked the transfers, but apparently the D-line was still weak and they didn't get it fixed. Dave is always scrambling to find answers, always plugging holes.. these are very real red flags. He's been given a ton of leash to learn and figure it out. It needs to happen this season. You can not afford to waste an offense that might be top 10 nationally by mid season.
FLBear5630 said:Quinton said:Porteroso said:
Basically a gross game to watch h if you're a Baylor fan.
My biggest question is, how is it that Aranda's defenses are just so bad? Was the recruiting at LSU really just that good? Did he luck into something special?
Its really hard to be as bad as they are. Dave has a close look at hundreds of underfollowed kids in a fb heavy state. Plenty of opportunity to make it work. Patterson (in his prime) fielded great defenses with recruiting classes at or near this level. Dave just he isn't any good at this unfortunately.. still.
Cincy and Houston all fielded decent defenses with, lets face it, borderline G5 quality guys and a much more restricted talent budget than we have. They scouted, developed, filled gaps with under-followed transfers, and were coached up in a year or two. Iowa St and K-State are usually rock solid with again lesser rated classes.
David hasn't even reached that level yet (2021 was a total abberation).. which again for any decent defensive coach is extremely difficult to do. Fielding a top 40 D at minimum is pretty fair goal for a good defensive coach within 3 years.
I like the hire of Gonzalez, I liked the transfers, but apparently the D-line was still weak and they didn't get it fixed. Dave is always scrambling to find answers, always plugging holes.. these are very real red flags. He's been given a ton of leash to learn and figure it out. It needs to happen this season. You can not afford to waste an offense that might be top 10 nationally by mid season.
Dline is the toughest to get. DL and CB, if you have ANY talent the big boys come knocking. And DL can rotate 8 deep in CFB and still get drafted, as LSU showed in the past. It is no surprise we are weak at DL. Let's see how next week goes.
Quinton said:FLBear5630 said:Quinton said:Porteroso said:
Basically a gross game to watch h if you're a Baylor fan.
My biggest question is, how is it that Aranda's defenses are just so bad? Was the recruiting at LSU really just that good? Did he luck into something special?
Its really hard to be as bad as they are. Dave has a close look at hundreds of underfollowed kids in a fb heavy state. Plenty of opportunity to make it work. Patterson (in his prime) fielded great defenses with recruiting classes at or near this level. Dave just he isn't any good at this unfortunately.. still.
Cincy and Houston all fielded decent defenses with, lets face it, borderline G5 quality guys and a much more restricted talent budget than we have. They scouted, developed, filled gaps with under-followed transfers, and were coached up in a year or two. Iowa St and K-State are usually rock solid with again lesser rated classes.
David hasn't even reached that level yet (2021 was a total abberation).. which again for any decent defensive coach is extremely difficult to do. Fielding a top 40 D at minimum is pretty fair goal for a good defensive coach within 3 years.
I like the hire of Gonzalez, I liked the transfers, but apparently the D-line was still weak and they didn't get it fixed. Dave is always scrambling to find answers, always plugging holes.. these are very real red flags. He's been given a ton of leash to learn and figure it out. It needs to happen this season. You can not afford to waste an offense that might be top 10 nationally by mid season.
Dline is the toughest to get. DL and CB, if you have ANY talent the big boys come knocking. And DL can rotate 8 deep in CFB and still get drafted, as LSU showed in the past. It is no surprise we are weak at DL. Let's see how next week goes.
I agree.. and losing the D lineman late to Florida was obviously killer in hindsight.
But no way in the world, any of the 4 teams I named above would have given up 300+ rushing yards and 35+ points to Auburn in week 1. All 4 of their D-lines were considerably better than BU's with even more constraints.
bear2be2 said:Pecos 45 said:
I may be going out on a limb here, but I thought that going for it on fourth and goal very early in the game and coming away with nothing was a major turning point. Auburn got the ball at their four yard line and went 96 yards for a TD. We trailed the entire game after that. It is very similar to when Tom Herman went for it on fourth and goal twice against LSU and got stuffed both times. That was also in the first quarter. You can't win the game in the first quarter but you can lose it. I think that was a major momentum shift that left us behind the entire game.
I agree. I think you should always take points early in the game because the longer you stay in a game like last night's the better.
Aranda is consistently over-aggressive for my tastes. He leaves points on the field seemingly every game.
Robert Wilson said:bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:bear2be2 said:Porteroso said:
Basically a gross game to watch h if you're a Baylor fan.
My biggest question is, how is it that Aranda's defenses are just so bad? Was the recruiting at LSU really just that good? Did he luck into something special?
And lastly, and right now, least importantly, we have learned our lesson right? Don't be the first dumbass to hire a coordinator as a head coach?
Yes, the recruiting at LSU is definitely that good. But it's weird because he was good at Wisconsin, too, and they don't recruit exceptionally well.
But whatever he had through 2021 is gone now. I don't know if his schemes have been figured out by offensive coaches or if he can't get the proper talent to execute them, but either way, I'm ready to see the defense handed over to a proven DC with his own established scheme.
I agree. The guy lost his edge as a coordinator. Might just be because he's doing so much other stuff. Maybe he was better off as a coordinator?
And is he really a good enough head coach to justify the position and the money if he does not bring the defense with him?
You don't hire this guy in the first place unless you think he is a defensive Yoda.
I think Dave Aranda, the head coach, proved with the Spavital hire that he's capable of admitting a weakness and addressing it in a competent, effective way.
He just needs to do the same on the defensive side now.
I don't think we would have hired Aranda originally if we had known he wouldn't bring good defenses with him. But I also think he's been in that chair long enough and done enough good things on the administrative side to earn a little trust when it comes to addressing and fixing problems.
It was believed when he was hired that Dave's strength would be scheme. I think it could actually be argued that has been his weakness. But he's been surprisingly good with the administrative stuff, which is probably more important for a head coach because you can always hire scheme guys and give them control in their areas of expertise.
I think Dave, as a rookie head coach, has made a lot of mistakes. But he's also proven pretty good at admitting and quickly addressing those mistakes. I think the defense will be the biggest test of this because it would require him to relinquish control in an area where he's long been considered an expert. We'll see over the next couple of years if he's willing to do on defense what he's already done twice on the offensive side.
I agree with all of that. We hired him to be a defensive guru. He hasn't been. Our only great defense was with a bunch of future NFL guys that Rhule put together.
What we have is a pretty good administrator who is a little weird and extremely likable (at least IMO - I like the guy).
He has shown a willingness to change things up when it has to be done - some similarities to Drew there; good coaches get better over time.
That said, he's been here a pretty good while at this point, and he's 31-31. I am not for running him off. He may be a good fit at Baylor for a long time. I think the reality of that also is we're going to have lots of 5 to 8 win seasons. That's also probably just fine. I think Baylor is good with that.
I haven't seen anything that tells me he has an approach / talent / skill / plan that's going to be disruptive and ever take us to the next level. A vice grip defense is the kind of thing that might do that on the right year (e.g. when we've got an offense like we have this year), kind of like Patterson's peaks at TCU. But that just doesn't appear to be in the offing from where we sit now.
Porteroso said:bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:bear2be2 said:Porteroso said:
Basically a gross game to watch h if you're a Baylor fan.
My biggest question is, how is it that Aranda's defenses are just so bad? Was the recruiting at LSU really just that good? Did he luck into something special?
And lastly, and right now, least importantly, we have learned our lesson right? Don't be the first dumbass to hire a coordinator as a head coach?
Yes, the recruiting at LSU is definitely that good. But it's weird because he was good at Wisconsin, too, and they don't recruit exceptionally well.
But whatever he had through 2021 is gone now. I don't know if his schemes have been figured out by offensive coaches or if he can't get the proper talent to execute them, but either way, I'm ready to see the defense handed over to a proven DC with his own established scheme.
I agree. The guy lost his edge as a coordinator. Might just be because he's doing so much other stuff. Maybe he was better off as a coordinator?
And is he really a good enough head coach to justify the position and the money if he does not bring the defense with him?
You don't hire this guy in the first place unless you think he is a defensive Yoda.
I think Dave Aranda, the head coach, proved with the Spavital hire that he's capable of admitting a weakness and addressing it in a competent, effective way.
He just needs to do the same on the defensive side now.
I don't think we would have hired Aranda originally if we had known he wouldn't bring good defenses with him. But I also think he's been in that chair long enough and done enough good things on the administrative side to earn a little trust when it comes to addressing and fixing problems.
It was believed when he was hired that Dave's strength would be scheme. I think it could actually be argued that has been his weakness. But he's been surprisingly good with the administrative stuff, which is probably more important for a head coach because you can always hire scheme guys and give them control in their areas of expertise.
I think Dave, as a rookie head coach, has made a lot of mistakes. But he's also proven pretty good at admitting and quickly addressing those mistakes. I think the defense will be the biggest test of this because it would require him to relinquish control in an area where he's long been considered an expert. We'll see over the next couple of years if he's willing to do on defense what he's already done twice on the offensive side.
You are giving more credit to him than I do for admitting mistakes. Look it's a dumb game, and he is getting millions. Admitting you messed up is great and all, but even in a close family relationship, not enough. You keep doing the same things, and it becomes apparent you just make those mistakes often, and can't/won't fix them. But this isn't a close family relationship.
This is a game he is making millions to coach. I dont really care if he admits to the mistakes, I care if he fixes them. I dont have to live in the same house as him, I just have to watch my TV and hopefully not be miserable a few Saturdays out of the year.
And I am absolutely convinced that as long as he is the head coach, watching his teams will be absolutely miserable, over the course of any given season. Some nice wins maybe, and I might be pleasantly surprised, but certainly more likely to be dreadfully surprised.
bear2be2 said:Pecos 45 said:
I may be going out on a limb here, but I thought that going for it on fourth and goal very early in the game and coming away with nothing was a major turning point. Auburn got the ball at their four yard line and went 96 yards for a TD. We trailed the entire game after that. It is very similar to when Tom Herman went for it on fourth and goal twice against LSU and got stuffed both times. That was also in the first quarter. You can't win the game in the first quarter but you can lose it. I think that was a major momentum shift that left us behind the entire game.
I agree. I think you should always take points early in the game because the longer you stay in a game like last night's the better.
Aranda is consistently over-aggressive for my tastes. He leaves points on the field seemingly every game.
Squatch Hunter said:bear2be2 said:Pecos 45 said:
I may be going out on a limb here, but I thought that going for it on fourth and goal very early in the game and coming away with nothing was a major turning point. Auburn got the ball at their four yard line and went 96 yards for a TD. We trailed the entire game after that. It is very similar to when Tom Herman went for it on fourth and goal twice against LSU and got stuffed both times. That was also in the first quarter. You can't win the game in the first quarter but you can lose it. I think that was a major momentum shift that left us behind the entire game.
I agree. I think you should always take points early in the game because the longer you stay in a game like last night's the better.
Aranda is consistently over-aggressive for my tastes. He leaves points on the field seemingly every game.
and puts an overmatched defense in terrible field position
bear2be2 said:Franklins said:
That's far from true.
If you really think schools like Missouri and Northwestern are locks while we have no chance then you don't have a clue. We are definitely the underdog, but there's a path.
Good thing for SMU their alums are more optimistic than you are. You better believe they think they're getting in and we were ahead of them by a mile a few years ago. Results talk. Most importantly, money talks.
There is no path. SMU has no path either.
Both Baylor and SMU have hit their conference prestige ceilings, and that's OK.
It's time to water the grass where we're at because we're never hopping that fence. To think that the SEC or Big Ten would have any use for a private school with a small regional following is not only delusional, it's keeping you from appreciating and enjoying the things we do have and have accomplished.
BUATX2000 said:bear2be2 said:Franklins said:
That's far from true.
If you really think schools like Missouri and Northwestern are locks while we have no chance then you don't have a clue. We are definitely the underdog, but there's a path.
Good thing for SMU their alums are more optimistic than you are. You better believe they think they're getting in and we were ahead of them by a mile a few years ago. Results talk. Most importantly, money talks.
There is no path. SMU has no path either.
Both Baylor and SMU have hit their conference prestige ceilings, and that's OK.
It's time to water the grass where we're at because we're never hopping that fence. To think that the SEC or Big Ten would have any use for a private school with a small regional following is not only delusional, it's keeping you from appreciating and enjoying the things we do have and have accomplished.
Here is what you don't understand. It's not about the SEC or the Big10. It's about ESPN and Fox and neither of them want two 18 team leagues. What they want is to maximize the value of their product. In order to do so, they will need at least 64 possibly 80 teams to compete for slots in an eventual 16 team playoff.
The big 12 will likely continue to expand to absorb some of the more established G5 teams and the SEC and Big 10 will carve up the ACC.
Some ACC schools will end up in the bi12 as well… think NC state, Georgia Tech, Va tech.
We won't be with the power 2 but we will still have a seat at the table.
BUATX2000 said:bear2be2 said:Franklins said:
That's far from true.
If you really think schools like Missouri and Northwestern are locks while we have no chance then you don't have a clue. We are definitely the underdog, but there's a path.
Good thing for SMU their alums are more optimistic than you are. You better believe they think they're getting in and we were ahead of them by a mile a few years ago. Results talk. Most importantly, money talks.
There is no path. SMU has no path either.
Both Baylor and SMU have hit their conference prestige ceilings, and that's OK.
It's time to water the grass where we're at because we're never hopping that fence. To think that the SEC or Big Ten would have any use for a private school with a small regional following is not only delusional, it's keeping you from appreciating and enjoying the things we do have and have accomplished.
Here is what you don't understand. It's not about the SEC or the Big10. It's about ESPN and Fox and neither of them want two 18 team leagues. What they want is to maximize the value of their product. In order to do so, they will need at least 64 possibly 80 teams to compete for slots in an eventual 16 team playoff.
The big 12 will likely continue to expand to absorb some of the more established G5 teams and the SEC and Big 10 will carve up the ACC.
Some ACC schools will end up in the bi12 as well… think NC state, Georgia Tech, Va tech.
We won't be with the power 2 but we will still have a seat at the table.
BUATX2000 said:bear2be2 said:Franklins said:
That's far from true.
If you really think schools like Missouri and Northwestern are locks while we have no chance then you don't have a clue. We are definitely the underdog, but there's a path.
Good thing for SMU their alums are more optimistic than you are. You better believe they think they're getting in and we were ahead of them by a mile a few years ago. Results talk. Most importantly, money talks.
There is no path. SMU has no path either.
Both Baylor and SMU have hit their conference prestige ceilings, and that's OK.
It's time to water the grass where we're at because we're never hopping that fence. To think that the SEC or Big Ten would have any use for a private school with a small regional following is not only delusional, it's keeping you from appreciating and enjoying the things we do have and have accomplished.
Here is what you don't understand. It's not about the SEC or the Big10. It's about ESPN and Fox and neither of them want two 18 team leagues. What they want is to maximize the value of their product. In order to do so, they will need at least 64 possibly 80 teams to compete for slots in an eventual 16 team playoff.
The big 12 will likely continue to expand to absorb some of the more established G5 teams and the SEC and Big 10 will carve up the ACC.
Some ACC schools will end up in the bi12 as well… think NC state, Georgia Tech, Va tech.
We won't be with the power 2 but we will still have a seat at the table.
