bear2be2 said:IowaBear said:
You've been pushing the narrative this entire thread that the Briles LOS were weak. Your basis is that they struggled against Mich St. never mind the fact that MSU had a damm good defense that season. The reality is Briles for his faults produced ridiculously good OL play. You keep bringing up MSU and UCF. Why is it you ignore his big conference wins? Or are those irrelevant? You do a lot of *****ing about Brikes teams while simultaneously defending Arandas teams. I find that interesting from a guy like you.
Art Briles was 4-19 against top-25 opponents.
His teams were great. They weren't consistently beating great teams as people here would have you believe.
We had a top-15 program when he was here, which is incredible. But this idea that we were on the cusp of multiple national championships is absolute fantasy.
IowaBear said:
Where are you getting your 4 top 25 wins? I can name at least 8-10 off the top of my head. That's without even double checking for more.
OU in Waco 2011
KSU in Waco 2012
UCLA Holidays Bowl 2012
TCU Waco 2014
UNC RA Bowl 2015.
That alone surpasses your 4, shall I keep going
bear2be2 said:IowaBear said:
Where are you getting your 4 top 25 wins? I can name at least 8-10 off the top of my head. That's without even double checking for more.
OU in Waco 2011
KSU in Waco 2012
UCLA Holidays Bowl 2012
TCU Waco 2014
UNC RA Bowl 2015.
That alone surpasses your 4, shall I keep going
It was a mistake on my part; I got that from an old article. That was only through the 2013 season. For his entire career, he was 9-22 against ranked opponents.
BBWCBear said:
All I can say is the BRILES' ERA was absolutely without a doubt the most exciting, CONFIDENT, thrilling, entertaining football period in Baylor history. I'm just glad I could enjoy it because nothing like that will ever be in Baylor's future. Haters can tear it down, Baylor foes can demean it, but it's a fact. Head and shoulders above the Teaff years and no disrespect to him.
Yoda will be etched in Baylor history just above Steele and Beale. I can see possible SIX losses ahead on this year's schedule.
Youre a clown said:bear2be2 said:IowaBear said:
Where are you getting your 4 top 25 wins? I can name at least 8-10 off the top of my head. That's without even double checking for more.
OU in Waco 2011
KSU in Waco 2012
UCLA Holidays Bowl 2012
TCU Waco 2014
UNC RA Bowl 2015.
That alone surpasses your 4, shall I keep going
It was a mistake on my part; I got that from an old article. That was only through the 2013 season. For his entire career, he was 9-22 against ranked opponents.
People that don't do their research aught not to post as authoritatively as you do
MarcelloSwisher said:
Let's break it down by year:
2008:
vs #23 Wake Forest - L 41-13
vs #1 Oklahoma - L 49-17
@ #10 Oklahoma State - L 34-6
vs #14 Missouri - L 31-28
@ #7 Texas - L 45-21
@ #7 Texas Tech - L 35-28
0-6
2009:
@ #21 Oklahoma - L 33-7
vs #12 Oklahoma State - L 34-7
vs #3 Texas - L 47-14
0-3
2010:
@ #4 TCU - L 45-10
@ #19 Oklahoma State - L 55-28
vs #23 Texas A&M - L 42-30
vs #16 Oklahoma - L 53-24
0-4
At this point CAB is 0-13 in ranked games but hold on. It's about to get good.
2011:
vs #14 TCU - W 50-48
@ #21 Texas A&M - L 55-28
@ #3 Oklahoma State - L 59-24
vs #5 Oklahoma - W 45-38 (in my mind this is where the program shifted)
vs #22 Texas - W 48-24
3-2
2012:
@ #9 West Virginia - L 70-63 (Phil Bennett masterclass)
@ #25 Texas - L 56-50
@ #12 Oklahoma - L 42-34
vs #1 Kansas State - W 52-24
vs #21 Oklahoma State - W 41-34
vs #17 UCLA - W 49-19 (we all saw that wasn't a TD on the last play and the bowl game rings indicate the correct final score)
3-3
2013:
vs #12 Oklahoma - W 41-12
@ #11 Oklahoma State - L 49-17
vs #23 Texas - W 30-10 (closing the Case)
vs #15 UCF - L 52-42
2-2
2014:
vs #9 TCU - W (I think we all remember this score)
@ #15 Oklahoma - W 48-14
vs #9 Kansas State - W 38-27
vs #8 Michigan State - L 42-41
3-1
2015:
vs #12 Oklahoma - L 44-34 (backup QB)
@ #19 TCU - L 28-21 (doubt OT with 3rd string QB)
vs #10 North Carolina - W 49-38 (literally no QB available to play)
1-2
12-23 all time in ranked games. I must have miscounted earlier when I said 14 but it's definitely not 4-19 or 9-22 either.
MarcelloSwisher said:
To be fair we'll never know what we were on the cusp of achieving because we fired the guy right after he landed his first great recruiting class. But the fact that he was winning the Big 12 (which included Texas and OU at the time) with 2 and 3 star players leads me to believe that he would be doing even more with 4 and 5 star players. It's all speculation at the end of the day but you have to admit to yourself that we would have at least found our way into the playoff by now.
bear2be2 said:
My point, which was unfortunately obscured by incorrect information hastily posted on my part, is that our program under Briles was really, really good, but we weren't national championship good. And I stand by that.
I would compare Art Briles' Baylor tenure to that of Frank Beamer at Virginia Tech or Bill Snyder at Kansas State. Both of those guys are hall of famers -- coaching legends even -- but neither of them ever won a national title either.
Robert Wilson said:bear2be2 said:
My point, which was unfortunately obscured by incorrect information hastily posted on my part, is that our program under Briles was really, really good, but we weren't national championship good. And I stand by that.
I would compare Art Briles' Baylor tenure to that of Frank Beamer at Virginia Tech or Bill Snyder at Kansas State. Both of those guys are hall of famers -- coaching legends even -- but neither of them ever won a national title either.
Yeah, but they each sniffed around near one a couple times. And we were in that rarified air of the top half dozen teams in the country that were in the conversation, and our recruiting was improving fast.
Under the current conference alignment, I'm not even sure that's possible. But I don't think it matters because I don't think we'll get that good again anyway.
PartyBear said:
The now old Aranda is just above Beale and Steele attack is just some of the most ignorant attempts at gas lighting I have ever seen. It is as if some of these folks don't realize some of us actually went to the games in those eras and actually remember those eras and go to the games now. In my case personally it was just the Steele era. But I'm educated enough about program history to know the Beale era was similar.
There is nothing remotely in the same galaxy similar between the Steele/Beale eras and our current era.
bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:bear2be2 said:
My point, which was unfortunately obscured by incorrect information hastily posted on my part, is that our program under Briles was really, really good, but we weren't national championship good. And I stand by that.
I would compare Art Briles' Baylor tenure to that of Frank Beamer at Virginia Tech or Bill Snyder at Kansas State. Both of those guys are hall of famers -- coaching legends even -- but neither of them ever won a national title either.
Yeah, but they each sniffed around near one a couple times. And we were in that rarified air of the top half dozen teams in the country that were in the conversation, and our recruiting was improving fast.
Under the current conference alignment, I'm not even sure that's possible. But I don't think it matters because I don't think we'll get that good again anyway.
I think we can have one-off seasons in that stratosphere. We already have with both of our non-interim post-Briles head coaches.
But I agree that it's unlikely that we'll ever sustain the level of success we were beginning to achieve under Briles.
But there are lots of reasons for that, only a handful of which pertain to who's sitting in our head coach chair.
I think it would have become difficult for Briles to sustain that level of success at Baylor, too, once OUT bolted for the SEC and made the Big 12 a second-tier league and NIL further separated those with big donor dollars from those without.
Robert Wilson said:bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:bear2be2 said:
My point, which was unfortunately obscured by incorrect information hastily posted on my part, is that our program under Briles was really, really good, but we weren't national championship good. And I stand by that.
I would compare Art Briles' Baylor tenure to that of Frank Beamer at Virginia Tech or Bill Snyder at Kansas State. Both of those guys are hall of famers -- coaching legends even -- but neither of them ever won a national title either.
Yeah, but they each sniffed around near one a couple times. And we were in that rarified air of the top half dozen teams in the country that were in the conversation, and our recruiting was improving fast.
Under the current conference alignment, I'm not even sure that's possible. But I don't think it matters because I don't think we'll get that good again anyway.
I think we can have one-off seasons in that stratosphere. We already have with both of our non-interim post-Briles head coaches.
But I agree that it's unlikely that we'll ever sustain the level of success we were beginning to achieve under Briles.
But there are lots of reasons for that, only a handful of which pertain to who's sitting in our head coach chair.
I think it would have become difficult for Briles to sustain that level of success at Baylor, too, once OUT bolted for the SEC and made the Big 12 a second-tier league and NIL further separated those with big donor dollars from those without.
I think we are pretty close to agreement on this, just splitting a few hairs.
It's all speculation, but it's really hard to say. If we had the kind of run that I think we were about to have, we would no longer be viewed the same way. That might affect conference realignment, or it might simply affect perception going forward, which is huge for both recruiting and perceived legitimacy at the national level. Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and even a Va Tech are not in the SEC or the B1G, but they still live in a different world than we do. If we had kept winning the way we were, and based on our trajectory gotten better, and maintained it for several years, who knows. And that is not an opportunity we are likely to ever have again.
I agree with you that we can have the occasional off year that gets us into a playoff, especially now that it's expanded. Maybe even win a game.
I just don't see Aranda as having any unique talent or skill set that positions us for any more than that, including the ability to sustain it. That's not a dig. That's true of almost all head coaches, especially ones that we could hire much less retain. One of the things that made the Briles situation unique is that he was not going to leave the state of Texas, he and UT / Tech had sniffed each other's butts and moved on, and he talked too much **** about ATM for him to go there. So at his age he was probably stuck here with us for a while as long as we kept paying him.
If we ever snag somebody else like that, almost certain they are up and out by year 4-5.
Ewalker80 said:
People speculating about that "what ifs" of a long Briles tenure illustrate an important point --- at a non-Blue Blood like Baylor, the only way to really elevate the program is for an unusually talented coach to want to stick around for a long time at least in part for reason that are not purely money and fame based (Briles almost fled for money but his desire for complete autonomy he could have at Baylor plus money kept him from Texas). Wittingham at Utah is a great example, and of course Drew in basketball (though it's much easier to break into the top of basketball).
Mack made the key decision to keep Aranda after 2023. He made it clear he did so based on betting that Aranda can once again capture the defensive coordinator mojo that made him the highest paid defensive coordinator in the country (and in 2021 he gave Baylor the best defense it had in decades, which Rhoades has said influenced his decision as well). I think if we don't show that we are on the path to returning to that standard (something probably like top-30 type defense) by the end of this season, Rhoades' theory will have been disproved and he will likely move on. (it also made no financial sense to buy dave out when we needed every $$ on players).
But it was absolutely worth the risk in my view because Baylor is never going to reach new heights without a coach that sticks around for a long time, and if Dave pans out in the long run the down years to teach him will have been worth it (especially during the most turbulent years in CF history). This season should in all likelihood give Mack enough information one way or another to test his theory.
In short, I'm about as big of a Dave fan as anyone on this free board, but in my view we have got to see a much improved defense by the end of 2025 or Dave will be gone. I'm still optimistic though, that he'll get there, which probably distinguishes me from most of the people that post on the free side.
bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:bear2be2 said:
My point, which was unfortunately obscured by incorrect information hastily posted on my part, is that our program under Briles was really, really good, but we weren't national championship good. And I stand by that.
I would compare Art Briles' Baylor tenure to that of Frank Beamer at Virginia Tech or Bill Snyder at Kansas State. Both of those guys are hall of famers -- coaching legends even -- but neither of them ever won a national title either.
Yeah, but they each sniffed around near one a couple times. And we were in that rarified air of the top half dozen teams in the country that were in the conversation, and our recruiting was improving fast.
Under the current conference alignment, I'm not even sure that's possible. But I don't think it matters because I don't think we'll get that good again anyway.
I think we can have one-off seasons in that stratosphere. We already have with both of our non-interim post-Briles head coaches.
But I agree that it's unlikely that we'll ever sustain the level of success we were beginning to achieve under Briles.
But there are lots of reasons for that, only a handful of which pertain to who's sitting in our head coach chair.
I think it would have become difficult for Briles to sustain that level of success at Baylor, too, once OUT bolted for the SEC and made the Big 12 a second-tier league and NIL further separated those with big donor dollars from those without.
I think we are pretty close to agreement on this, just splitting a few hairs.
It's all speculation, but it's really hard to say. If we had the kind of run that I think we were about to have, we would no longer be viewed the same way. That might affect conference realignment, or it might simply affect perception going forward, which is huge for both recruiting and perceived legitimacy at the national level. Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and even a Va Tech are not in the SEC or the B1G, but they still live in a different world than we do. If we had kept winning the way we were, and based on our trajectory gotten better, and maintained it for several years, who knows. And that is not an opportunity we are likely to ever have again.
I agree with you that we can have the occasional off year that gets us into a playoff, especially now that it's expanded. Maybe even win a game.
I just don't see Aranda as having any unique talent or skill set that positions us for any more than that, including the ability to sustain it. That's not a dig. That's true of almost all head coaches, especially ones that we could hire much less retain. One of the things that made the Briles situation unique is that he was not going to leave the state of Texas, he and UT / Tech had sniffed each other's butts and moved on, and he talked too much **** about ATM for him to go there. So at his age he was probably stuck here with us for a while as long as we kept paying him.
If we ever snag somebody else like that, almost certain they are up and out by year 4-5.
I think Aranda's best bet at this point is surrounding himself with great assistants -- especially coordinators -- and using his unique culture-building skills to get quality kids on campus and keep our best players in the program.
Dave doesn't have a silver bullet scheme like Briles did or a proven player- and program-development process like Rhule had. As a result, it's been much more of a feeling out process -- marked by trial, error and frequent course correction. But I do think he's learned a lot and our program is on stronger footing now than it has ever been under Aranda. Will that mean much in the long run? Only if he continues to grow in that chair and slowly turn weaknesses into strengths -- as he has with our offense and NIL apparatus.
I don't think Aranda is super dynamic. But I think he's more willing than most coaches to learn and improve. We'll see over the next few years if that's enough.
Robert Wilson said:bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:bear2be2 said:
My point, which was unfortunately obscured by incorrect information hastily posted on my part, is that our program under Briles was really, really good, but we weren't national championship good. And I stand by that.
I would compare Art Briles' Baylor tenure to that of Frank Beamer at Virginia Tech or Bill Snyder at Kansas State. Both of those guys are hall of famers -- coaching legends even -- but neither of them ever won a national title either.
Yeah, but they each sniffed around near one a couple times. And we were in that rarified air of the top half dozen teams in the country that were in the conversation, and our recruiting was improving fast.
Under the current conference alignment, I'm not even sure that's possible. But I don't think it matters because I don't think we'll get that good again anyway.
I think we can have one-off seasons in that stratosphere. We already have with both of our non-interim post-Briles head coaches.
But I agree that it's unlikely that we'll ever sustain the level of success we were beginning to achieve under Briles.
But there are lots of reasons for that, only a handful of which pertain to who's sitting in our head coach chair.
I think it would have become difficult for Briles to sustain that level of success at Baylor, too, once OUT bolted for the SEC and made the Big 12 a second-tier league and NIL further separated those with big donor dollars from those without.
I think we are pretty close to agreement on this, just splitting a few hairs.
It's all speculation, but it's really hard to say. If we had the kind of run that I think we were about to have, we would no longer be viewed the same way. That might affect conference realignment, or it might simply affect perception going forward, which is huge for both recruiting and perceived legitimacy at the national level. Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and even a Va Tech are not in the SEC or the B1G, but they still live in a different world than we do. If we had kept winning the way we were, and based on our trajectory gotten better, and maintained it for several years, who knows. And that is not an opportunity we are likely to ever have again.
I agree with you that we can have the occasional off year that gets us into a playoff, especially now that it's expanded. Maybe even win a game.
I just don't see Aranda as having any unique talent or skill set that positions us for any more than that, including the ability to sustain it. That's not a dig. That's true of almost all head coaches, especially ones that we could hire much less retain. One of the things that made the Briles situation unique is that he was not going to leave the state of Texas, he and UT / Tech had sniffed each other's butts and moved on, and he talked too much **** about ATM for him to go there. So at his age he was probably stuck here with us for a while as long as we kept paying him.
If we ever snag somebody else like that, almost certain they are up and out by year 4-5.
I think Aranda's best bet at this point is surrounding himself with great assistants -- especially coordinators -- and using his unique culture-building skills to get quality kids on campus and keep our best players in the program.
Dave doesn't have a silver bullet scheme like Briles did or a proven player- and program-development process like Rhule had. As a result, it's been much more of a feeling out process -- marked by trial, error and frequent course correction. But I do think he's learned a lot and our program is on stronger footing now than it has ever been under Aranda. Will that mean much in the long run? Only if he continues to grow in that chair and slowly turn weaknesses into strengths -- as he has with our offense and NIL apparatus.
I don't think Aranda is super dynamic. But I think he's more willing than most coaches to learn and improve. We'll see over the next few years if that's enough.
I agree with that. I think Aranda will keep getting better. And he is peculiar enough that even if he does improve significantly, he might stay around here.
His history is inconsistent with that, but he may see the value in having a head job at a pretty big platform that is also quite patient and forgiving as long as you fit the culture.
bear2be2 said:IowaBear said:
One of Briles OLs had 4 all conference guys. The narrative that BU had subpar OL play under Briles is patently false. I question the IQ of those trying to push that narrative.
Please quote anywhere where I -- or anyone else, for that matter -- has said we had subpar OL play.
Our O-lines were very good. They just weren't good enough to win a national championship. We saw that in 2014, when we couldn't run the ball at all against Michigan State -- a fact that allowed them to come back and beat us in a game we should have won by two scores.
And having four all-conference O-linemen is great. But that was in a league that never won a playoff game until after Texas and OU left and hasn't won a national title in many current college players' lifetime.
As I've said about five times now, Briles' teams were really good. They just weren't as good as many Baylor fans remember them. We had a top-15 program, which is really damn good. But we weren't going to be winning national titles as many want to delude themselves into believing.
Neither of our lines were good enough to contend with the three or four teams in those years that were actually capable of winning championships -- and that's especially true on defense, where we weren't even particularly good against soft schedules.
bear2be2 said:IowaBear said:
Where are you getting your 4 top 25 wins? I can name at least 8-10 off the top of my head. That's without even double checking for more.
OU in Waco 2011
KSU in Waco 2012
UCLA Holidays Bowl 2012
TCU Waco 2014
UNC RA Bowl 2015.
That alone surpasses your 4, shall I keep going
It was a mistake on my part; I got that from an old article. That was only through the 2013 season -- and it appears to be missing a couple of ranked wins even then. For his entire Baylor career, he was 11-22 against ranked opponents, including 7-5 over his last (and best) three seasons.
The article: https://www.teamspeedkills.com/2014/8/21/6052897/college-football-coaches-records-against-ranked-teams
hodedofome said:bear2be2 said:IowaBear said:
Where are you getting your 4 top 25 wins? I can name at least 8-10 off the top of my head. That's without even double checking for more.
OU in Waco 2011
KSU in Waco 2012
UCLA Holidays Bowl 2012
TCU Waco 2014
UNC RA Bowl 2015.
That alone surpasses your 4, shall I keep going
It was a mistake on my part; I got that from an old article. That was only through the 2013 season -- and it appears to be missing a couple of ranked wins even then. For his entire Baylor career, he was 11-22 against ranked opponents, including 7-5 over his last (and best) three seasons.
The article: https://www.teamspeedkills.com/2014/8/21/6052897/college-football-coaches-records-against-ranked-teams
You're starting to act like someone who didn't live through those years and watched the team closely. That explains a lot.
BBWCBear said:bear2be2 said:IowaBear said:
The amount of posters who complain about the Briles years is so damm weird to me. Dude won tons of big games
We didn't win a single big out-of-conference game under Briles. Nobody outside of the teams playing in them cares about the Alamo, Holliday or Russell Athletic Bowls.
We were afraid to play anyone with a pulse before conference and lost the only two big bowl games we ever played.
Briles was a great football coach and did a lot of impressive things at Baylor. But this idea that he had us on the precipice of national relevance and championship seasons is Baylor fan fiction. It's mythology.
The only response I can give to this is two years Briles had us in the National picture plus we literally had a chance to make Final Four (ranked 5or6), but there was NO way CFP/ESPN would allow that. I take solace in that because I will never see anything better from BU football.
One thing is for sure now with the set up of the Two Big Conferences, ESPN, Corporate Sponsors-schools, etc Baylor will Never, Ever, Ever have a chance PERIOD! Everyone can argue the point about the universities commitment / $$$$$$, etc. Baylor NEVER showed any real interest until they almost got kicked to the curb, ie. (PAC12) when aggy told TX to f' off and move to the SEC.
In seventy+ years Baylor has ALWAYS been reactive never proactive. It's just a mega Baptist Church with inexperienced deacons. ND, Miami, and USC went a different path in history and Baylor never even drove to the train station. Hence, here we are same song Seventieth Plus verse. Hope for the occasional weakest conference championship and a lower tier Bowl until realignment and we slide to a Sunbelt or CUSA.
Doc Holliday said:
Also there's no point in playing football if your goal isn't to win the national championship.
