Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

He could be off the wall but things are definitely headed in that direction. Hopefully geography will play a roll in realignment.

It will all come down to what ESPN, FOX, B1G and SEC want to do. There is no way to convince me ESPN didn't have a hand in UT and OU sliding away to SEC. I'd love to hear the phone calls between those AD's and Network executives

---

Every broadcaster makes moves to gather valuable properties……but the ADs and broadcasters don't talk directly. Broadcasters definitely consider population trends (helps Baylor) but they are more focused on brand value (hurts Baylor).

People keep focusing on the "complimentary football" nonsense. Baylor's best pathway forward is to play an exciting brand of football, score tons of points, and be a "must watch" style/brand.
We desperately need to be Highlight Real U. We are not going to simply "win" our way to realignment with boring play. For Baylor, How is every bit as important as What.

Bearknuckle said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Bearknuckle said:

---

If Dave put his foot down ...

---

I mean, what are the odds of that. Would be the most demonstrative act I've ever seen out of him.

---

Yeah it's hard to believe that Dave proffered the terrible approach all by himself and Mack & Linda just said "sounds great" without having their own separate rationale for supporting it.

If I believed in the most caricatured version of Linda per this site (I don't), I could see her just going along with it...but Mack as a Big Boy AD should absolutely have known that a competitive labor market required a radically different approach. And I suspect Linda knew that too...

...thus my supposition that regardless of whether Dave truly dreamt it up by himself or not, it was the approach *approved by Leadership* for the reasons given above.

---

He was the idiot that created the person over player motto. He is the idiot that didn't want to pay players. Mack had to finally override him and tell him to get going with NIL. Dave is a complete failure.

Bearwhiz said:

---

Bearknuckle said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Bearknuckle said:

---

If Dave put his foot down ...

---

I mean, what are the odds of that. Would be the most demonstrative act I've ever seen out of him.

---

Yeah it's hard to believe that Dave proffered the terrible approach all by himself and Mack & Linda just said "sounds great" without having their own separate rationale for supporting it.

If I believed in the most caricatured version of Linda per this site (I don't), I could see her just going along with it...but Mack as a Big Boy AD should absolutely have known that a competitive labor market required a radically different approach. And I suspect Linda knew that too...

...thus my supposition that regardless of whether Dave truly dreamt it up by himself or not, it was the approach *approved by Leadership* for the reasons given above.

---

He was the idiot that created the person over player motto. He is the idiot that didn't want to pay players. Mack had to finally override him and tell him to get going with NIL. Dave is a complete failure.

---

if it was all Dave, and it took Mack until after the nadir of 2023 to get Dave on the right path...that is a massive failure of Mack's.

Not being able to secure (idk if it was even attempted tbh) a massive NIL push for '25 when it was commonly assumed to be the last year to spend wildly was in hindsight a huge mistake too. On the premium side back in the Spring, IIRC some of the SE365 staff explained it as a sort of 'keeping your powder dry' situation wherein we weren't going to overspend this year and potentially waste money chasing overpriced talent. womp womp.

Bearknuckle said:

---

Bearwhiz said:

---

Bearknuckle said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Bearknuckle said:

---

If Dave put his foot down ...

---

I mean, what are the odds of that. Would be the most demonstrative act I've ever seen out of him.

---

Yeah it's hard to believe that Dave proffered the terrible approach all by himself and Mack & Linda just said "sounds great" without having their own separate rationale for supporting it.

If I believed in the most caricatured version of Linda per this site (I don't), I could see her just going along with it...but Mack as a Big Boy AD should absolutely have known that a competitive labor market required a radically different approach. And I suspect Linda knew that too...

...thus my supposition that regardless of whether Dave truly dreamt it up by himself or not, it was the approach *approved by Leadership* for the reasons given above.

---

He was the idiot that created the person over player motto. He is the idiot that didn't want to pay players. Mack had to finally override him and tell him to get going with NIL. Dave is a complete failure.

---

if it was all Dave, and it took Mack until after the nadir of 2023 to get Dave on the right path...that is a massive failure of Mack's.

Not being able to secure (idk if it was even attempted tbh) a massive NIL push for '25 when it was commonly assumed to be the last year to spend wildly was in hindsight a huge mistake too. On the premium side back in the Spring, IIRC some of the SE365 staff explained it as a sort of 'keeping your powder dry' situation wherein we weren't going to overspend this year and potentially waste money chasing overpriced talent. womp womp.

---

There is no if, it was 100% Dave.

Bearwhiz said:

---

Bearknuckle said:

---

Bearwhiz said:

---

He was the idiot that created the person over player motto. He is the idiot that didn't want to pay players. Mack had to finally override him and tell him to get going with NIL. Dave is a complete failure.

---

if it was all Dave, and it took Mack until after the nadir of 2023 to get Dave on the right path...that is a massive failure of Mack's.

Not being able to secure (idk if it was even attempted tbh) a massive NIL push for '25 when it was commonly assumed to be the last year to spend wildly was in hindsight a huge mistake too. On the premium side back in the Spring, IIRC some of the SE365 staff explained it as a sort of 'keeping your powder dry' situation wherein we weren't going to overspend this year and potentially waste money chasing overpriced talent. womp womp.

---

There is no if, it was 100% Dave.

---

Dave had a boss, Mack. That boss had a boss, Linda. That boss's boss has bosses, the BoR.

It very literally isn't all Dave's fault. That Leadership group choose to keep employing him after '22 while letting him attempt the exact same NIL approach. Then after '23 completely cratered they still didn't hold him fully accountable for the NIL disaster, which according to you was 100% on him. So yeah, there's a lot of blame to go around.

boognish_bear said:

---

This guy often throws a lot of things out there to see what sticks.

So I don't know how much truth is here…but I can definitely see things heading that direction.

Not a great time for our program to be lost at sea.

Industry forecasters are warning conference leaders that there is only going to be big money for three conferences in the next negotiation window. 60 to 70 teams are going to get tier one TV money. Everyone else is getting scraps.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) December 2, 2025

---

Friends, don't let friends cite MHver3.

Bearknuckle said:

---

PacificBear said:

---

Mack wanted dave gone last year. Linda said no.

---

what is your source on that?

Standing by him after the debacle of the 3-9 '23 season, but then after '24 - going 8-5 with a 6 game win streak - deciding it was finally time? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

---

The time to fire him last year was after the 2-4 start, which was already enough to sink any substantial goals for the season.

The late resurgence the final five games (while fun) was utterly meaningless in the long run. And Dave should have never been given the chance to save his job ... again ... after following 6-7 and 3-9 with a 2-4 start in a make-or-break season.

boognish_bear said:

---

This guy often throws a lot of things out there to see what sticks.

So I don't know how much truth is here…but I can definitely see things heading that direction.

Not a great time for our program to be lost at sea.

Industry forecasters are warning conference leaders that there is only going to be big money for three conferences in the next negotiation window. 60 to 70 teams are going to get tier one TV money. Everyone else is getting scraps.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) December 2, 2025

---

It's definitely not a great time to be stuck in quicksand, but MHver is pretty much full of *****

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

He could be off the wall but things are definitely headed in that direction. Hopefully geography will play a roll in realignment.

It will all come down to what ESPN, FOX, B1G and SEC want to do. There is no way to convince me ESPN didn't have a hand in UT and OU sliding away to SEC. I'd love to hear the phone calls between those AD's and Network executives

---

Every broadcaster makes moves to gather valuable properties……but the ADs and broadcasters don't talk directly. Broadcasters definitely consider population trends (helps Baylor) but they are more focused on brand value (hurts Baylor).

People keep focusing on the "complimentary football" nonsense. Baylor's best pathway forward is to play an exciting brand of football, score tons of points, and be a "must watch" style/brand.
We desperately need to be Highlight Real U. We are not going to simply "win" our way to realignment with boring play. For Baylor, How is every bit as important as What.

---

The "complementary football nonsense" is how you win football games, and pretty much every coach on the planet (at any level and regardless of preferred playing style) will tell you that. An exciting brand (which is in no way at odds with complementary football, by the way) can help toward the goal of winning games/championships, but there's nothing exciting about losing football. And if you feel inclined to disagree, ask Tech fans about the Kingsbury years.

Frankly, calling complementary football nonsense pretty heavily undermines everything else you say here. It's that silly.

bear2be2 said:

---

Bearknuckle said:

---

PacificBear said:

---

Mack wanted dave gone last year. Linda said no.

---

what is your source on that?

Standing by him after the debacle of the 3-9 '23 season, but then after '24 - going 8-5 with a 6 game win streak - deciding it was finally time? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

---

The time to fire him last year was after the 2-4 start, which was already enough to sink any substantial goals for the season.

The late resurgence the final five games (while meaningless in the long run) was fun. But Dave never should have been given the chance to save his job ... again ... after following 6-7 and 3-9 with a 2-4 start in a make-or-break season.

---

I think he got a pass on the 2-4 start because it was clear that A) Finn had to start originally because of the money involved and B) that was a mistake as Sawyer was a far superior QB.

Sawyer probably beats Utah. Add in that if J. Evans had made the correct read on that hail mary he'd have had an easy sack to end the game, and we'd have been 4-2 instead.

I suspect Mack made some version of that case to the rest of Leadership, and the 6 game win streak 'confirmed' that we'd gotten back on course.

If boosters weren't bought-in on Dave after the streak to end '24, then it was time to move on - as you have to have engaged boosters in this era to succeed. If the boosters were in fact bought back in on Dave, but we just chose not to or were unable to juice NIL to truly competitive heights, then hell if I know...maybe we're actually just a Basketball school now after all.

But I suspect the situation was closer to the former of those scenarios, and we just didn't move on from Dave then. Someone recently claimed on here that Mack wanted to fire him after '24, but Linda overrode him...was the first I'd heard of that and I don't know if they ever sourced it.

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

He could be off the wall but things are definitely headed in that direction. Hopefully geography will play a roll in realignment.

It will all come down to what ESPN, FOX, B1G and SEC want to do. There is no way to convince me ESPN didn't have a hand in UT and OU sliding away to SEC. I'd love to hear the phone calls between those AD's and Network executives

---

Every broadcaster makes moves to gather valuable properties……but the ADs and broadcasters don't talk directly. Broadcasters definitely consider population trends (helps Baylor) but they are more focused on brand value (hurts Baylor).

People keep focusing on the "complimentary football" nonsense. Baylor's best pathway forward is to play an exciting brand of football, score tons of points, and be a "must watch" style/brand.
We desperately need to be Highlight Real U. We are not going to simply "win" our way to realignment with boring play. For Baylor, How is every bit as important as What.

---

The "complementary football nonsense" is how you win football games, and pretty much every coach on the planet (at any level and regardless of preferred playing style) will tell you that. An exciting brand (which is in no way at odds with complementary football, by the way) can help toward the goal of winning games/championships, but there's nothing exciting about losing football.

Frankly, calling complementary football nonsense pretty healily undermines everything else you say here. It's that silly.

---

LMFAO……so Nick Saban is silly?

Saban came out and admitted that his formula at Bama was to build up one side of the ball to get competitive and subsequently the other side to win championships.



Every time you attack someone else you destroy yourself.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

He could be off the wall but things are definitely headed in that direction. Hopefully geography will play a roll in realignment.

It will all come down to what ESPN, FOX, B1G and SEC want to do. There is no way to convince me ESPN didn't have a hand in UT and OU sliding away to SEC. I'd love to hear the phone calls between those AD's and Network executives

---

Every broadcaster makes moves to gather valuable properties……but the ADs and broadcasters don't talk directly. Broadcasters definitely consider population trends (helps Baylor) but they are more focused on brand value (hurts Baylor).

People keep focusing on the "complimentary football" nonsense. Baylor's best pathway forward is to play an exciting brand of football, score tons of points, and be a "must watch" style/brand.
We desperately need to be Highlight Real U. We are not going to simply "win" our way to realignment with boring play. For Baylor, How is every bit as important as What.

---

The "complementary football nonsense" is how you win football games, and pretty much every coach on the planet (at any level and regardless of preferred playing style) will tell you that. An exciting brand (which is in no way at odds with complementary football, by the way) can help toward the goal of winning games/championships, but there's nothing exciting about losing football.

Frankly, calling complementary football nonsense pretty healily undermines everything else you say here. It's that silly.

---

LMFAO……so Nick Saban is silly?

Saban came out and admitted that his formula at Bama was to build up one side of the ball to get competitive and subsequently the other side to win championships.



Every time you attack someone else you destroy yourself.

---

Even after he opened up the offense, Saban's teams still played complementary football. You seem to be struggling with the definition of the term.

You seem to have some unique insights into the business side of sports broadcasting, so I defer to you on that topic. I would encourage you to defer to me on this one as I talk to coaches almost daily.

You are wrong on this one.

All complementary football means is having schemes and strategies across your phases that complement one another and then executing those in a way where your offense and defense are working in concert rather than against one another. Every team should aspire to it regardless of scheme or style.

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

He could be off the wall but things are definitely headed in that direction. Hopefully geography will play a roll in realignment.

It will all come down to what ESPN, FOX, B1G and SEC want to do. There is no way to convince me ESPN didn't have a hand in UT and OU sliding away to SEC. I'd love to hear the phone calls between those AD's and Network executives

---

Every broadcaster makes moves to gather valuable properties……but the ADs and broadcasters don't talk directly. Broadcasters definitely consider population trends (helps Baylor) but they are more focused on brand value (hurts Baylor).

People keep focusing on the "complimentary football" nonsense. Baylor's best pathway forward is to play an exciting brand of football, score tons of points, and be a "must watch" style/brand.
We desperately need to be Highlight Real U. We are not going to simply "win" our way to realignment with boring play. For Baylor, How is every bit as important as What.

---

The "complementary football nonsense" is how you win football games, and pretty much every coach on the planet (at any level and regardless of preferred playing style) will tell you that. An exciting brand (which is in no way at odds with complementary football, by the way) can help toward the goal of winning games/championships, but there's nothing exciting about losing football.

Frankly, calling complementary football nonsense pretty healily undermines everything else you say here. It's that silly.

---

LMFAO……so Nick Saban is silly?

Saban came out and admitted that his formula at Bama was to build up one side of the ball to get competitive and subsequently the other side to win championships.



Every time you attack someone else you destroy yourself.

---

Even after he opened up the offense, Saban's teams still played complementary football. You seem to be struggling with the definition of the term.

You seem to have some unique insights into the business side of sports broadcasting, so I defer to you on that topic. I would encourage you to defer to me on this one as I talk to coaches almost daily.

You are wrong on this one.

---

Your opinion. I talk to people in many professions routinely, can I claim their knowledge?

Briles is another coach who focused on one side of the ball to build up his program (in his case offense).
Why is it so difficult to understand that solid strategy does not require 50/50 distribution?

Some companies build based on good products, some on good advertising. Maximizing results requires both items but building a brand often doesn't. Commerce has numerous examples on the topic.

You love the talking point…..great.
But it isn't a magic formula.
To quote you, "you are wrong on this topic".

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

He could be off the wall but things are definitely headed in that direction. Hopefully geography will play a roll in realignment.

It will all come down to what ESPN, FOX, B1G and SEC want to do. There is no way to convince me ESPN didn't have a hand in UT and OU sliding away to SEC. I'd love to hear the phone calls between those AD's and Network executives

---

Every broadcaster makes moves to gather valuable properties……but the ADs and broadcasters don't talk directly. Broadcasters definitely consider population trends (helps Baylor) but they are more focused on brand value (hurts Baylor).

People keep focusing on the "complimentary football" nonsense. Baylor's best pathway forward is to play an exciting brand of football, score tons of points, and be a "must watch" style/brand.
We desperately need to be Highlight Real U. We are not going to simply "win" our way to realignment with boring play. For Baylor, How is every bit as important as What.

---

The "complementary football nonsense" is how you win football games, and pretty much every coach on the planet (at any level and regardless of preferred playing style) will tell you that. An exciting brand (which is in no way at odds with complementary football, by the way) can help toward the goal of winning games/championships, but there's nothing exciting about losing football.

Frankly, calling complementary football nonsense pretty healily undermines everything else you say here. It's that silly.

---

LMFAO……so Nick Saban is silly?

Saban came out and admitted that his formula at Bama was to build up one side of the ball to get competitive and subsequently the other side to win championships.



Every time you attack someone else you destroy yourself.

---

Even after he opened up the offense, Saban's teams still played complementary football. You seem to be struggling with the definition of the term.

You seem to have some unique insights into the business side of sports broadcasting, so I defer to you on that topic. I would encourage you to defer to me on this one as I talk to coaches almost daily.

You are wrong on this one.

---

Your opinion. I talk to people in many professions routinely, can I claim their knowledge?

Briles is another coach who focused on one side of the ball to build up his program (in his case offense).
Why is it so difficult to understand that solid strategy does not require 50/50 distribution?

Some companies build based on good products, some on good advertising. Maximizing results requires both items but building a brand often doesn't. Commerce has numerous examples on the topic.

You love the talking point…..great.
But it isn't a magic formula.
To quote you, "you are wrong on this topic".

---

Feel free to be wrong. You seem hellbent on it here. But this whole exchange makes you look silly.

Particularly given that Briles' teams did, in fact, play complementary football. He brought in Bennett, who adopted a hyper aggressive defensive style designed explicitly to complement our fast-paced, high-flying offense.

We blitzed the hell out of teams and employed aggressive man coverage to get off the field quickly (whether by quick stop, turnover or score) and get the ball back to our offense.

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

He could be off the wall but things are definitely headed in that direction. Hopefully geography will play a roll in realignment.

It will all come down to what ESPN, FOX, B1G and SEC want to do. There is no way to convince me ESPN didn't have a hand in UT and OU sliding away to SEC. I'd love to hear the phone calls between those AD's and Network executives

---

Every broadcaster makes moves to gather valuable properties……but the ADs and broadcasters don't talk directly. Broadcasters definitely consider population trends (helps Baylor) but they are more focused on brand value (hurts Baylor).

People keep focusing on the "complimentary football" nonsense. Baylor's best pathway forward is to play an exciting brand of football, score tons of points, and be a "must watch" style/brand.
We desperately need to be Highlight Real U. We are not going to simply "win" our way to realignment with boring play. For Baylor, How is every bit as important as What.

---

The "complementary football nonsense" is how you win football games, and pretty much every coach on the planet (at any level and regardless of preferred playing style) will tell you that. An exciting brand (which is in no way at odds with complementary football, by the way) can help toward the goal of winning games/championships, but there's nothing exciting about losing football.

Frankly, calling complementary football nonsense pretty healily undermines everything else you say here. It's that silly.

---

LMFAO……so Nick Saban is silly?

Saban came out and admitted that his formula at Bama was to build up one side of the ball to get competitive and subsequently the other side to win championships.



Every time you attack someone else you destroy yourself.

---

Even after he opened up the offense, Saban's teams still played complementary football. You seem to be struggling with the definition of the term.

You seem to have some unique insights into the business side of sports broadcasting, so I defer to you on that topic. I would encourage you to defer to me on this one as I talk to coaches almost daily.

You are wrong on this one.

---

Your opinion. I talk to people in many professions routinely, can I claim their knowledge?

Briles is another coach who focused on one side of the ball to build up his program (in his case offense).
Why is it so difficult to understand that solid strategy does not require 50/50 distribution?

Some companies build based on good products, some on good advertising. Maximizing results requires both items but building a brand often doesn't. Commerce has numerous examples on the topic.

You love the talking point…..great.
But it isn't a magic formula.
To quote you, "you are wrong on this topic".

---

Feel free to be wrong. You seem hellbent on it here. But this whole exchange makes you look silly.

Particularly given that Briles' teams did, in fact, play complementary football. He brought in Bennett, who adopted a hyper aggressive defensive style designed explicitly to complement our fast-paced, high flying offense.

We blitzed the hell out of teams and played aggressive man defense to get off the field quickly (whether by quick stop, turnover or score) and get the ball back to our offense.

---

Stop. Utter nonsense.
Briles did not play complimentary football as that phrase is commonly used.

Briles focused on an overwhelming offense paired with a "good enough" defense.
Anyone who watched the Michigan State game understands your nonsensical argument is laughable.
Briles and Bennett were operating a statistics based approach. If Bennett could stop or limit the opponent 35-45% of the time, that was enough. Briles O could succeed at a higher %.
That isn't complimentary football as the term is commonly used. No matter how you try to spin it.

Complimentary football is "good" on both sides by game control. Briles (and early Saban) focus was great on one side tied to "good enough" on the other.

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Saban came out and admitted that his formula at Bama was to build up one side of the ball to get competitive and subsequently the other side to win championships.

---

---

---

Particularly given that Briles' teams did, in fact, play complementary football. He brought in Bennett, who adopted a hyper aggressive defensive style designed explicitly to complement our fast-paced, high-flying offense.

We blitzed the hell out of teams and employed aggressive man coverage to get off the field quickly (whether by quick stop, turnover or score) and get the ball back to our offense.

---

agree completely about Briles/Bennett: complimentary doesn't mean "just as good as" it means they compliment each other lol.

So it's really an axiomatic truism, a tautology if you will, that all coaches seek to achieve complimentary football. Saban's own formula clearly works that way.

Saban's formula was based on the pre-NIL pre-Portal ecosystem in which plans took 3-4 years to develop. Tech and Indiana have demonstrated that you can now build a team that's solid on both sides of the ball within 2 seasons total. I'm sure you can still benefit from focusing on one side more in a given year, but the world has changed in fundamental ways since he since he established that formula at LSU and then Bama.

We'd actually played complimentary football this season for stretches in every game. Those periods were rendered moot by the long TDs we gave up and all the points and 1st downs we left on the field.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

He could be off the wall but things are definitely headed in that direction. Hopefully geography will play a roll in realignment.

It will all come down to what ESPN, FOX, B1G and SEC want to do. There is no way to convince me ESPN didn't have a hand in UT and OU sliding away to SEC. I'd love to hear the phone calls between those AD's and Network executives

---

Every broadcaster makes moves to gather valuable properties……but the ADs and broadcasters don't talk directly. Broadcasters definitely consider population trends (helps Baylor) but they are more focused on brand value (hurts Baylor).

People keep focusing on the "complimentary football" nonsense. Baylor's best pathway forward is to play an exciting brand of football, score tons of points, and be a "must watch" style/brand.
We desperately need to be Highlight Real U. We are not going to simply "win" our way to realignment with boring play. For Baylor, How is every bit as important as What.

---

The "complementary football nonsense" is how you win football games, and pretty much every coach on the planet (at any level and regardless of preferred playing style) will tell you that. An exciting brand (which is in no way at odds with complementary football, by the way) can help toward the goal of winning games/championships, but there's nothing exciting about losing football.

Frankly, calling complementary football nonsense pretty healily undermines everything else you say here. It's that silly.

---

LMFAO……so Nick Saban is silly?

Saban came out and admitted that his formula at Bama was to build up one side of the ball to get competitive and subsequently the other side to win championships.



Every time you attack someone else you destroy yourself.

---

Even after he opened up the offense, Saban's teams still played complementary football. You seem to be struggling with the definition of the term.

You seem to have some unique insights into the business side of sports broadcasting, so I defer to you on that topic. I would encourage you to defer to me on this one as I talk to coaches almost daily.

You are wrong on this one.

---

Your opinion. I talk to people in many professions routinely, can I claim their knowledge?

Briles is another coach who focused on one side of the ball to build up his program (in his case offense).
Why is it so difficult to understand that solid strategy does not require 50/50 distribution?

Some companies build based on good products, some on good advertising. Maximizing results requires both items but building a brand often doesn't. Commerce has numerous examples on the topic.

You love the talking point…..great.
But it isn't a magic formula.
To quote you, "you are wrong on this topic".

---

Feel free to be wrong. You seem hellbent on it here. But this whole exchange makes you look silly.

Particularly given that Briles' teams did, in fact, play complementary football. He brought in Bennett, who adopted a hyper aggressive defensive style designed explicitly to complement our fast-paced, high flying offense.

We blitzed the hell out of teams and played aggressive man defense to get off the field quickly (whether by quick stop, turnover or score) and get the ball back to our offense.

---

Stop. Utter nonsense.
Briles did not play complimentary football as that phrase is commonly used.

Briles focused on an overwhelming offense paired with a "good enough" defense.
Anyone who watched the Michigan State game understands your nonsensical argument is laughable.
Briles and Bennett were operating a statistics based approach. If Bennett could stop or limit the opponent 35-45% of the time, that was enough. Briles O could succeed at a higher %.
That isn't complimentary football as the term is commonly used. No matter how you try to spin it.

Complimentary football is "good" on both sides by game control. Briles (and early Saban) focus was great on one side tied to "good enough" on the other.

---

Good Lord, man. Just admit for once you were wrong and show some willingness to learn and grow.

https://coachandcoordinator.com/2025/08/complementary-football-explained/

It's not even a big deal because your overall point -- that Baylor is best serve by running an exciting offense -- isn't even a bad one. But calling "complementary football" nonsense is silly. It just is.

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

He could be off the wall but things are definitely headed in that direction. Hopefully geography will play a roll in realignment.

It will all come down to what ESPN, FOX, B1G and SEC want to do. There is no way to convince me ESPN didn't have a hand in UT and OU sliding away to SEC. I'd love to hear the phone calls between those AD's and Network executives

---

Every broadcaster makes moves to gather valuable properties……but the ADs and broadcasters don't talk directly. Broadcasters definitely consider population trends (helps Baylor) but they are more focused on brand value (hurts Baylor).

People keep focusing on the "complimentary football" nonsense. Baylor's best pathway forward is to play an exciting brand of football, score tons of points, and be a "must watch" style/brand.
We desperately need to be Highlight Real U. We are not going to simply "win" our way to realignment with boring play. For Baylor, How is every bit as important as What.

---

The "complementary football nonsense" is how you win football games, and pretty much every coach on the planet (at any level and regardless of preferred playing style) will tell you that. An exciting brand (which is in no way at odds with complementary football, by the way) can help toward the goal of winning games/championships, but there's nothing exciting about losing football.

Frankly, calling complementary football nonsense pretty healily undermines everything else you say here. It's that silly.

---

LMFAO……so Nick Saban is silly?

Saban came out and admitted that his formula at Bama was to build up one side of the ball to get competitive and subsequently the other side to win championships.



Every time you attack someone else you destroy yourself.

---

Even after he opened up the offense, Saban's teams still played complementary football. You seem to be struggling with the definition of the term.

You seem to have some unique insights into the business side of sports broadcasting, so I defer to you on that topic. I would encourage you to defer to me on this one as I talk to coaches almost daily.

You are wrong on this one.

---

Your opinion. I talk to people in many professions routinely, can I claim their knowledge?

Briles is another coach who focused on one side of the ball to build up his program (in his case offense).
Why is it so difficult to understand that solid strategy does not require 50/50 distribution?

Some companies build based on good products, some on good advertising. Maximizing results requires both items but building a brand often doesn't. Commerce has numerous examples on the topic.

You love the talking point…..great.
But it isn't a magic formula.
To quote you, "you are wrong on this topic".

---

Feel free to be wrong. You seem hellbent on it here. But this whole exchange makes you look silly.

Particularly given that Briles' teams did, in fact, play complementary football. He brought in Bennett, who adopted a hyper aggressive defensive style designed explicitly to complement our fast-paced, high flying offense.

We blitzed the hell out of teams and played aggressive man defense to get off the field quickly (whether by quick stop, turnover or score) and get the ball back to our offense.

---

Stop. Utter nonsense.
Briles did not play complimentary football as that phrase is commonly used.

Briles focused on an overwhelming offense paired with a "good enough" defense.
Anyone who watched the Michigan State game understands your nonsensical argument is laughable.
Briles and Bennett were operating a statistics based approach. If Bennett could stop or limit the opponent 35-45% of the time, that was enough. Briles O could succeed at a higher %.
That isn't complimentary football as the term is commonly used. No matter how you try to spin it.

Complimentary football is "good" on both sides by game control. Briles (and early Saban) focus was great on one side tied to "good enough" on the other.

---

Good Lord, man. Just admit for once you were wrong and show some willingness to learn and grow.

https://coachandcoordinator.com/2025/08/complementary-football-explained/

---

Jesus doesn't care about it.
Your attached example proves your nonsense.



Briles operated under an outscore the other team approach. His offense wasn't changing to fit the defensive game plan of the week.

You can't seem to understand the difference between cohesive (unified) and complementary (mutually enhancing). Briles operated a cohesive scheme not a complementary scheme. In no way did Briles O enhance Bennett D. But they were cohesive.

Hint: buy a dictionary, read it.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

He could be off the wall but things are definitely headed in that direction. Hopefully geography will play a roll in realignment.

It will all come down to what ESPN, FOX, B1G and SEC want to do. There is no way to convince me ESPN didn't have a hand in UT and OU sliding away to SEC. I'd love to hear the phone calls between those AD's and Network executives

---

Every broadcaster makes moves to gather valuable properties……but the ADs and broadcasters don't talk directly. Broadcasters definitely consider population trends (helps Baylor) but they are more focused on brand value (hurts Baylor).

People keep focusing on the "complimentary football" nonsense. Baylor's best pathway forward is to play an exciting brand of football, score tons of points, and be a "must watch" style/brand.
We desperately need to be Highlight Real U. We are not going to simply "win" our way to realignment with boring play. For Baylor, How is every bit as important as What.

---

The "complementary football nonsense" is how you win football games, and pretty much every coach on the planet (at any level and regardless of preferred playing style) will tell you that. An exciting brand (which is in no way at odds with complementary football, by the way) can help toward the goal of winning games/championships, but there's nothing exciting about losing football.

Frankly, calling complementary football nonsense pretty healily undermines everything else you say here. It's that silly.

---

LMFAO……so Nick Saban is silly?

Saban came out and admitted that his formula at Bama was to build up one side of the ball to get competitive and subsequently the other side to win championships.



Every time you attack someone else you destroy yourself.

---

Even after he opened up the offense, Saban's teams still played complementary football. You seem to be struggling with the definition of the term.

You seem to have some unique insights into the business side of sports broadcasting, so I defer to you on that topic. I would encourage you to defer to me on this one as I talk to coaches almost daily.

You are wrong on this one.

---

Your opinion. I talk to people in many professions routinely, can I claim their knowledge?

Briles is another coach who focused on one side of the ball to build up his program (in his case offense).
Why is it so difficult to understand that solid strategy does not require 50/50 distribution?

Some companies build based on good products, some on good advertising. Maximizing results requires both items but building a brand often doesn't. Commerce has numerous examples on the topic.

You love the talking point…..great.
But it isn't a magic formula.
To quote you, "you are wrong on this topic".

---

Feel free to be wrong. You seem hellbent on it here. But this whole exchange makes you look silly.

Particularly given that Briles' teams did, in fact, play complementary football. He brought in Bennett, who adopted a hyper aggressive defensive style designed explicitly to complement our fast-paced, high flying offense.

We blitzed the hell out of teams and played aggressive man defense to get off the field quickly (whether by quick stop, turnover or score) and get the ball back to our offense.

---

Stop. Utter nonsense.
Briles did not play complimentary football as that phrase is commonly used.

Briles focused on an overwhelming offense paired with a "good enough" defense.
Anyone who watched the Michigan State game understands your nonsensical argument is laughable.
Briles and Bennett were operating a statistics based approach. If Bennett could stop or limit the opponent 35-45% of the time, that was enough. Briles O could succeed at a higher %.
That isn't complimentary football as the term is commonly used. No matter how you try to spin it.

Complimentary football is "good" on both sides by game control. Briles (and early Saban) focus was great on one side tied to "good enough" on the other.

---

Good Lord, man. Just admit for once you were wrong and show some willingness to learn and grow.

https://coachandcoordinator.com/2025/08/complementary-football-explained/

---

Jesus doesn't care about it.
Your attached example proves your nonsense.



Briles operated under an outscore the other team approach. His offense wasn't changing to fit the defensive game plan of the week.

You can't seem to understand the difference between cohesive (unified) and complementary (mutually enhancing). Briles operated a cohesive scheme not a complementary scheme. In no way did Briles O enhance Bennett D. But they were cohesive.

Hint: buy a dictionary, read it.

---

Briles' offense wasn't doing the bending. The defense was -- to COMPLEMENT the offense, which was the strength of those teams. And until we built a defense that complemented our offense, which didn't happen until midseason 2012, we got our ass beat somewhere between three and five times every year. You're too smart not to be able to understand this.

But you're also clearly too proud and stubborn to just admit you were wrong. So peace be with you.

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

He could be off the wall but things are definitely headed in that direction. Hopefully geography will play a roll in realignment.

It will all come down to what ESPN, FOX, B1G and SEC want to do. There is no way to convince me ESPN didn't have a hand in UT and OU sliding away to SEC. I'd love to hear the phone calls between those AD's and Network executives

---

Every broadcaster makes moves to gather valuable properties……but the ADs and broadcasters don't talk directly. Broadcasters definitely consider population trends (helps Baylor) but they are more focused on brand value (hurts Baylor).

People keep focusing on the "complimentary football" nonsense. Baylor's best pathway forward is to play an exciting brand of football, score tons of points, and be a "must watch" style/brand.
We desperately need to be Highlight Real U. We are not going to simply "win" our way to realignment with boring play. For Baylor, How is every bit as important as What.

---

The "complementary football nonsense" is how you win football games, and pretty much every coach on the planet (at any level and regardless of preferred playing style) will tell you that. An exciting brand (which is in no way at odds with complementary football, by the way) can help toward the goal of winning games/championships, but there's nothing exciting about losing football.

Frankly, calling complementary football nonsense pretty healily undermines everything else you say here. It's that silly.

---

LMFAO……so Nick Saban is silly?

Saban came out and admitted that his formula at Bama was to build up one side of the ball to get competitive and subsequently the other side to win championships.



Every time you attack someone else you destroy yourself.

---

Even after he opened up the offense, Saban's teams still played complementary football. You seem to be struggling with the definition of the term.

You seem to have some unique insights into the business side of sports broadcasting, so I defer to you on that topic. I would encourage you to defer to me on this one as I talk to coaches almost daily.

You are wrong on this one.

---

Your opinion. I talk to people in many professions routinely, can I claim their knowledge?

Briles is another coach who focused on one side of the ball to build up his program (in his case offense).
Why is it so difficult to understand that solid strategy does not require 50/50 distribution?

Some companies build based on good products, some on good advertising. Maximizing results requires both items but building a brand often doesn't. Commerce has numerous examples on the topic.

You love the talking point…..great.
But it isn't a magic formula.
To quote you, "you are wrong on this topic".

---

Feel free to be wrong. You seem hellbent on it here. But this whole exchange makes you look silly.

Particularly given that Briles' teams did, in fact, play complementary football. He brought in Bennett, who adopted a hyper aggressive defensive style designed explicitly to complement our fast-paced, high flying offense.

We blitzed the hell out of teams and played aggressive man defense to get off the field quickly (whether by quick stop, turnover or score) and get the ball back to our offense.

---

Stop. Utter nonsense.
Briles did not play complimentary football as that phrase is commonly used.

Briles focused on an overwhelming offense paired with a "good enough" defense.
Anyone who watched the Michigan State game understands your nonsensical argument is laughable.
Briles and Bennett were operating a statistics based approach. If Bennett could stop or limit the opponent 35-45% of the time, that was enough. Briles O could succeed at a higher %.
That isn't complimentary football as the term is commonly used. No matter how you try to spin it.

Complimentary football is "good" on both sides by game control. Briles (and early Saban) focus was great on one side tied to "good enough" on the other.

---

Good Lord, man. Just admit for once you were wrong and show some willingness to learn and grow.

https://coachandcoordinator.com/2025/08/complementary-football-explained/

---

Jesus doesn't care about it.
Your attached example proves your nonsense.



Briles operated under an outscore the other team approach. His offense wasn't changing to fit the defensive game plan of the week.

You can't seem to understand the difference between cohesive (unified) and complementary (mutually enhancing). Briles operated a cohesive scheme not a complementary scheme. In no way did Briles O enhance Bennett D. But they were cohesive.

Hint: buy a dictionary, read it.

---

Briles' offense wasn't doing the bending. The defense was -- to COMPLEMENT the offense, which was the strength of those teams. And until we built a defense that complemented our offense, which didn't happen until midseason 2012, we got our ass beat somewhere between three and five times every year. You're too smart not to be able to understand this.

But you're also clearly too proud and stubborn to just admit you were wrong. So peace be with you.

---

One last time (maybe you might try a dictionary)……

I make 5 units per hour, you make 5 units per hour.

Complementary:
we work together sharing tools and each make 6 units per hour.

Cohesive:
you give me your best tools and people and work by hand. You make 1 unit per hour, I make 18 units per hour.
we share the 19 units.

Go read a dictionary…….really.

I applaud the guy for recognizing that he had personal problems that interfered in his ability to do the job, resigned and saved us millions. He had the same buy- out clause that Aranda does. That is a selfless act.

Aranda knows he's a perpetual blame-it-on-the-otherguy failure - on many levels. Baylor made him a wealthy man -and he's going to get all the can from us. Worst of all, he's not even man enough to stand up for his players by getting out of his introvert and complaining about those two horrible calls that quite possibly kept his players from going to the ball game that they deserved. He was as quiet as a mouse.

WestUBears88 said:

---

Worst of all, he's not even man enough to stand up for his players by getting out of his introvert and complaining about those two horrible calls that quite possibly kept his players from going to the ball game that they deserved. He was as quiet as a mouse.

---

That was embarrassing.

Here's what was even worse. I didn't see a single staff member lose their mind over that. If Aranda is going to be quiet as a church mouse no matter what, there should be someone on staff (O and D) assigned to absolutely blow their lid and run up the ref's ass after a call that is that bad. If you do that on the first one, the second one might get called. Failing to manage / work the refs is failing to do your entire job. What do you think Saban would've done in that circumstance? Or Kirby Smart? It would have been nuclear.

Bearknuckle said:

---

Bearwhiz said:

---

Bearknuckle said:

---

Bearwhiz said:

---

He was the idiot that created the person over player motto. He is the idiot that didn't want to pay players. Mack had to finally override him and tell him to get going with NIL. Dave is a complete failure.

---

if it was all Dave, and it took Mack until after the nadir of 2023 to get Dave on the right path...that is a massive failure of Mack's.

Not being able to secure (idk if it was even attempted tbh) a massive NIL push for '25 when it was commonly assumed to be the last year to spend wildly was in hindsight a huge mistake too. On the premium side back in the Spring, IIRC some of the SE365 staff explained it as a sort of 'keeping your powder dry' situation wherein we weren't going to overspend this year and potentially waste money chasing overpriced talent. womp womp.

---

There is no if, it was 100% Dave.

---

Dave had a boss, Mack. That boss had a boss, Linda. That boss's boss has bosses, the BoR.

It very literally isn't all Dave's fault. That Leadership group choose to keep employing him after '22 while letting him attempt the exact same NIL approach. Then after '23 completely cratered they still didn't hold him fully accountable for the NIL disaster, which according to you was 100% on him. So yeah, there's a lot of blame to go around.

---

we know Dave, nothing is your fault

WestUBears88 said:

---

Worst of all, he's not even man enough to stand up for his players by getting out of his introvert and complaining about those two horrible calls that quite possibly kept his players from going to the ball game that they deserved. He was as quiet as a mouse.

---

This is why he fundamentally hasn't been and probably can't be a successful head football coach here. I think the cerebral type can work (unfortunately Dave doesn't have that fully either).

But you have to be able to step out and lead vocally. You have to show the team you will fight (arguing terrible calls just one example). You have to translate enthusiasm to your team. You have to be able to communicate in a way players can understand and act on.

It's obvious Dave isn't capable of this..these are prerequisites to head coach. Whether it be personality quirks or different ways of thinking.. he doesn't have it.

WestUBears88 said:

---

I applaud the guy for recognizing that he had personal problems that interfered in his ability to do the job, resigned and saved us millions. He had the same buy- out clause that Aranda does. That is a selfless act.

---

LOL. Or not recognizing it at all, having it come out in the most public way and worst time possible, resigning ahead of getting fired, and taking a (maybe) reduced payout on his way out instead of fired for cause with no payout. That is a selfish act.

Quinton said:

---

WestUBears88 said:

---

Worst of all, he's not even man enough to stand up for his players by getting out of his introvert and complaining about those two horrible calls that quite possibly kept his players from going to the ball game that they deserved. He was as quiet as a mouse.

---

This is why he fundamentally hasn't been and probably can't be a successful head football coach here. I think the cerebral type can work (unfortunately Dave doesn't have that fully either).

But you have to be able to step out and lead vocally. You have to show the team you will fight (arguing terrible calls just one example). You have to translate enthusiasm to your team. You have to be able to communicate in a way players can understand and act on.

It's obvious Dave isn't capable of this..these are prerequisites to head coach. Whether it be personality quirks or different ways of thinking.. he doesn't have it.

---

Concur.

He just doesn't have the EQ for the head job. That's why he's had to churn assistants. That's why his teams so routinely come out flat, and he appears to be perpetually befuddled by it. That's why the refs feel free to job us twice in a row at the end of that game. And on and on and on.

Bearwhiz said:

---

Bearknuckle said:

---

Bearwhiz said:

---

Bearknuckle said:

---

Bearwhiz said:

---

He was the idiot that created the person over player motto. He is the idiot that didn't want to pay players. Mack had to finally override him and tell him to get going with NIL. Dave is a complete failure.

---

if it was all Dave, and it took Mack until after the nadir of 2023 to get Dave on the right path...that is a massive failure of Mack's.

Not being able to secure (idk if it was even attempted tbh) a massive NIL push for '25 when it was commonly assumed to be the last year to spend wildly was in hindsight a huge mistake too. On the premium side back in the Spring, IIRC some of the SE365 staff explained it as a sort of 'keeping your powder dry' situation wherein we weren't going to overspend this year and potentially waste money chasing overpriced talent. womp womp.

---

There is no if, it was 100% Dave.

---

Dave had a boss, Mack. That boss had a boss, Linda. That boss's boss has bosses, the BoR.

It very literally isn't all Dave's fault. That Leadership group choose to keep employing him after '22 while letting him attempt the exact same NIL approach. Then after '23 completely cratered they still didn't hold him fully accountable for the NIL disaster, which according to you was 100% on him. So yeah, there's a lot of blame to go around.

---

we know Dave, nothing is your fault

---

lol trolling or just dumb?

Bearknuckle said:

---

Bearwhiz said:

---

Bearknuckle said:

---

Bearwhiz said:

---

Bearknuckle said:

---

Bearwhiz said:

---

He was the idiot that created the person over player motto. He is the idiot that didn't want to pay players. Mack had to finally override him and tell him to get going with NIL. Dave is a complete failure.

---

if it was all Dave, and it took Mack until after the nadir of 2023 to get Dave on the right path...that is a massive failure of Mack's.

Not being able to secure (idk if it was even attempted tbh) a massive NIL push for '25 when it was commonly assumed to be the last year to spend wildly was in hindsight a huge mistake too. On the premium side back in the Spring, IIRC some of the SE365 staff explained it as a sort of 'keeping your powder dry' situation wherein we weren't going to overspend this year and potentially waste money chasing overpriced talent. womp womp.

---

There is no if, it was 100% Dave.

---

Dave had a boss, Mack. That boss had a boss, Linda. That boss's boss has bosses, the BoR.

It very literally isn't all Dave's fault. That Leadership group choose to keep employing him after '22 while letting him attempt the exact same NIL approach. Then after '23 completely cratered they still didn't hold him fully accountable for the NIL disaster, which according to you was 100% on him. So yeah, there's a lot of blame to go around.

---

we know Dave, nothing is your fault

---

lol trolling or just dumb?

---

just having some fun. There is plenty of blame to go around. You seem to go out of your way to excuse Dave of much blame.

Bearwhiz said:

---

Bearknuckle said:

---

Bearwhiz said:

---

Bearknuckle said:

---

Bearwhiz said:

---

Bearknuckle said:

---

Bearwhiz said:

---

He was the idiot that created the person over player motto. He is the idiot that didn't want to pay players. Mack had to finally override him and tell him to get going with NIL. Dave is a complete failure.

---

if it was all Dave, and it took Mack until after the nadir of 2023 to get Dave on the right path...that is a massive failure of Mack's.

Not being able to secure (idk if it was even attempted tbh) a massive NIL push for '25 when it was commonly assumed to be the last year to spend wildly was in hindsight a huge mistake too. On the premium side back in the Spring, IIRC some of the SE365 staff explained it as a sort of 'keeping your powder dry' situation wherein we weren't going to overspend this year and potentially waste money chasing overpriced talent. womp womp.

---

There is no if, it was 100% Dave.

---

Dave had a boss, Mack. That boss had a boss, Linda. That boss's boss has bosses, the BoR.

It very literally isn't all Dave's fault. That Leadership group choose to keep employing him after '22 while letting him attempt the exact same NIL approach. Then after '23 completely cratered they still didn't hold him fully accountable for the NIL disaster, which according to you was 100% on him. So yeah, there's a lot of blame to go around.

---

we know Dave, nothing is your fault

---

lol trolling or just dumb?

---

just having some fun. There is plenty of blame to go around. You seem to go out of your way to excuse Dave of much blame.

---

lol then "out of your way" applies to about 80% of all posts on this board, free and premium.
(but that's pretty typical for sports boards)

GoodOleBaylorLine said:

---

WestUBears88 said:

---

I applaud the guy for recognizing that he had personal problems that interfered in his ability to do the job, resigned and saved us millions. He had the same buy- out clause that Aranda does. That is a selfless act.

---

LOL. Or not recognizing it at all, having it come out in the most public way and worst time possible, resigning ahead of getting fired, and taking a (maybe) reduced payout on his way out instead of fired for cause with no payout. That is a selfish act.

---

My problem with Mac is the Aranda contract, but it's a bit Puritanical to think having an adult affair is grounds for termination with no payout or void a contract. But reminiscent of the naive, bible thumping, brain dead BOR who fired everyone for something the secular schools deal with sans suicide.

Then again, you said a few weeks ago that with all the vacancies someone else may want Coach Mouse. Geez, hope you're right on that one.

WestUBears88 said:

---

GoodOleBaylorLine said:

---

WestUBears88 said:

---

I applaud the guy for recognizing that he had personal problems that interfered in his ability to do the job, resigned and saved us millions. He had the same buy- out clause that Aranda does. That is a selfless act.

---

LOL. Or not recognizing it at all, having it come out in the most public way and worst time possible, resigning ahead of getting fired, and taking a (maybe) reduced payout on his way out instead of fired for cause with no payout. That is a selfish act.

---

My problem with Mac is the Aranda contract, but it's a bit Puritanical to think having an adult affair is grounds for termination with no payout or void a contract. But reminiscent of the naive, bible thumping, brain dead BOR who fired everyone for something the secular schools deal with sans suicide.

Then again, you said a few weeks ago that with all the vacancies someone else may want Coach Mouse. Geez, hope you're right on that one.

---

I am sure we will never hear all the details... but I am guessing him being let go is more than just the affair. I think he was developing a pattern of erratic behaviors that altogether cost him his job.

WestUBears88 said:

---

My problem with Mac is the Aranda contract, but it's a bit Puritanical to think having an adult affair is grounds for termination with no payout or void a contract. But reminiscent of the naive, bible thumping, brain dead BOR who fired everyone for something the secular schools deal with sans suicide.

---

Yeah, you can't go around firing people for personal moral failings that are completely not job related. I mean ... you really enforcing that all around the school? We all know you aren't. Unless it was a subordinate employee or the like, that's just a smokescreen in this case. If we're getting ready to play in the CFP and Mack isn't having an obvious substance abuse problem, nobody knows or truly gives a damn about an adult affair.

Grumpy said:

---

The university is currently bleeding money and currently forcing academic units and departments to cut 10 to 12% of their budgets (although the school is run by a former accounting professor). So if Baylor actually paid Rhoades an extra $2M to leave quietly, after behavior that rose to the level of termination for cause, that is especially rich and ridiculous.

---

yep

Squatch Hunter said:

---

Grumpy said:

---

The university is currently bleeding money and currently forcing academic units and departments to cut 10 to 12% of their budgets (although the school is run by a former accounting professor). So if Baylor actually paid Rhoades an extra $2M to leave quietly, after behavior that rose to the level of termination for cause, that is especially rich and ridiculous.

---

yep

---

From what i've been told, there's also a similar sentiment amongst a lot of Uni faculty & staff regarding paying a big buyout to Aranda - basically: if solid performers are being let go due to shrinking budgets, then why would we pay severance at the equivalent of a few hundred annual salaries of average staff to just one underperforming guy?

So a buyout (or the great majority thereof at least) would have to be booster funded to not cause a major issue with staff and faculty. It seems like if there was a clear appetite for that amongst our BMDs, it would already have happened.

Bearknuckle said:

---

Squatch Hunter said:

---

Grumpy said:

---

The university is currently bleeding money and currently forcing academic units and departments to cut 10 to 12% of their budgets (although the school is run by a former accounting professor). So if Baylor actually paid Rhoades an extra $2M to leave quietly, after behavior that rose to the level of termination for cause, that is especially rich and ridiculous.

---

yep

---

From what i've been told, there's also a similar sentiment amongst a lot of Uni faculty & staff regarding paying a big buyout to Aranda - basically: if solid performers are being let go due to shrinking budgets, then why would we pay severance at the equivalent of a few hundred annual salaries of average staff to just one underperforming guy?

So a buyout (or the great majority thereof at least) would have to be booster funded to not cause a major issue with staff and faculty. It seems like if there was a clear appetite for that amongst our BMDs, it would already have happened.

---

That makes sense if accurate. There is possibly some decision paralysis as well - if the BMDs redirect funds from other endeavors (i.e. NIL) to fund Aranda's removal and Baylor brings in the flavor of the week to replace him, what's the best case and most likely scenarios if Baylor doesn't also have the resources to significantly overspend on NIL*?

*Overspend is in reference to Tech reportedly having to pay 30% above market for its best players.