bear2be2 said:boognish_bear said:FLBear5630 said:bear2be2 said:Dia del DougO said:
I'm only skeptical about Tech and Joey because they haven't really moved the needle that much in the past three years. They get a ton of preseason buzz, a lot of hype this year, but have yet to put the lofty expectations on paper.
I think he's a very good coach. We're about to find out of he's a good coach, or maybe better, in the coming weeks.
They're gonna need a Big 12 title and a playoff bid, maybe a win in there.
Short of that, there are still questions about their return on investment.
I don't really care either way. I'm neither bullish or bearish on them, and have very little interest outside of what Baylor does in the conference picture.
They've passed both of their real tests this season with flying colors. And they've only got two more coming -- and one of those requires a healthy Sam Leavitt to be a test, and that's a big if at the moment.
If Tech slips up and loses one they shouldn't, I'll adjust my view of the job Joey is doing.
But thus far, they've been every bit as good as advertised, and I've got to give them credit for that.
They made a good Utah team and a very solid Kansas team look very bad for large stretches of those games. If they do the same to Arizona State and BYU, they'll likely be headed to the Big 12 title game at 12-0.
Well, for Baylor to be competitive in today's game, you got to come up with the same level of money Tech is using. The talent the AD brought in at Tech there are a hundred college coaches that would be getting the same results. Give Aranda that level talent, he will win the B12 and beat an SEC team, he actually did it. It is the talent the AD and boosters can bring in, it is not the coach. Most all these guys at this level can coach or they wouldn't get the shot.
Buying your way to the top definitely seems like the way to go these days… but we have seen a few exceptions.
I saw something the other day where Indiana's player composite rating put them somewhere in the mid 70s... yet they are looking like a top 10 team right now.
The problem with that path is we don't currently have a "Cignetti" and they are damn hard to find.
The thing about Indiana is that they've gone super heavy on portal guys under Cignetti, so their players' high school rankings are kind of irrelevant. They've brought in a ton of proven guys with successful college track records.
We're kind of going to the opposite route and recommitting ourselves to high school recruiting and development, which I think is a more sustainable path for us. Build a homegrown nucleus with Texas high school talent and use the portal to fill in gaps. But our plan takes time.
We're only really two years in on this strategy, and we're going to have to wait for those guys to become redshirt sophomores, juniors and seniors to show their value.
Good points.
The other thing that Cignetti does is he brings in pieces that fit his system, not just great athletes that he tries to mold later. He doesn't get caught up on the "Coach Killers" that are freakish athletes but can't fit.
Another Coach to watch in 2 or 3 years is Rodriquez at WVU, he will bring in guys that fit his system and win (maybe not playoff, but enough). He has a history of doing it at multiple places. Both bring in guys that were not given a shot at the "top programs" and are loyal to them so they will get 2 or 3 years. I am all for this system, but it seems to be more of a Briles system that will have risk. In another world, I could see Briles excelling under this NIL system. I am not sure Baylor has the stomach for more risk.
So, I believe the Texas HS path is what the AD is pushing and I agree with you that is a good path for Baylor with our history.