bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

CaliBear00 said:

---

notned said:

---

Calibear00-

Look at the Tech season results for the 10 years preceding Joey's hiring. I think it will bring his record in his first three years into perspective.

Contrary to an earlier comment made, he did not inherit a talent-laden team nor a culture that knew how to win.

---

I don't know what else to tell you. He's been so mid for five years, only to see an exponential improvement in results once a billionaire started buying players.

Please stop digging for things that aren't there.

---

For five years? This is Joey McGuire's fourth year as Tech's head coach.

---

This is typical SicEm behavior.

So, it totally makes the point null and void because it was 3 years of mediocrity and not 5? The guy's point remains, Maguire was mediocre until Tech paid 7 Million for a defense. That is the point, not whether it is 4 or 5 years, it is a message board. Not a courtroom.

---

It absolutely does. Because five years is a much larger and meaningful sample where coaching football is concerned.

Cali's entire case is that Joey McGuire had established himself as a mediocre head coach -- something that can't even be done in three year's time, particularly when taking over a program that had largely sucked before you arrived.

---

As has been documented elsewhere, Texas Tech was literally loaded with super seniors for his first 2 seasons - both in abstract and relative to the Big 12 teams on Tech's schedule - and that is indisputable fact. Going a step further, the mainstream sports media projected that 2023 Tech - in McGuire's year 2 - was going to do great things (i.e. top 25 preseason FPI*, top 25 preseason coaches poll**, etc.***), however, it sputtered the same way that it did during his year 1 and year 3 (5+ losses per season). McGuire's 2025 season has been objectively special, but the fact that it was achieved by significantly outspending the other teams in this Big 12 dims the glow of such success given that that Tech team could autopilot to 8-9+ wins with its schedule.

At the end of the day, as long as everyone is agreed that:

1. Texas Tech was loaded with super seniors in McGuire's first two seasons,
2. Texas Tech missed its national preseason expectations in 2023,
3. Texas Tech lost at least 5 games per season in McGuire's first three seasons, and
4. Texas Tech only won the Big 12 in his fourth season because Tech significantly outspent the rest of the teams on its regular season schedule plus conference title game on NIL

then no one is really disagreeing here because we are agreed on what is objectively true.

* College football rankings: ESPN updates 2023 preseason FPI Top 25 for kickoff
** College football rankings: 2023 preseason Coaches Poll released
***Texas Tech football: Preseason expectations have rarely been this high

---

As long as we agree that Nick Saban, who had a worse winning percentage after five years as a head coach (.586) than Joey did after three (.605), was a mediocre coach before he gained access to top level Big Ten and SEC talent at Michigan State, LSU and Alabama, no one is disagreeing with what is objectively true.

Does no one else see how ridiculous this is?

Talent makes all coaches' records better. That doesn't mean guys were bad or mediocre coaches before they got access to elite talent. And it certainly doesn't mean that the die on a coaches' career is cast in the first three years of his head coaching career.

---

What does Saban have to do with anything being discussed here? That's not even an apples to apples comparison.

---

It is absolutely an apples to apples comparison. The man who is universally accepted as the greatest coach in college football history posted records a lot like Joey McGuire's until he got access to elite talent. That's how college football coaching works.

And no one says the same things being said about Joey McGuire about Nick Saban ... or Kirby Smart ... or Dan Lanning ... or any number of other "elite" coaches who have led championship seasons at programs that have always had access to the talent that McGuire now has at his disposal at Tech. It's an obvious double standard.

---

The concern is understandable, but it reads as though different groups are saying different things.

The topic of the discussion regarding Tech is that there was a clear and consistent baseline at Tech with McGuire as HC (5+ losses) with a dramatic change once a significant amount of money was introduced. Further, the difference in the case of Tech vs. programs like Oregon or Alabama is that (a) McGuire is still HC at the same Tech program that is playing largely the same teams before and after the NIL change so that the impact of the resources is far more apparent than it would be elsewhere and (b) Oregon and Alabama performed at a high level both pre and post NIL. In regard to the latter, Oregon and Alabama certainly benefited from NIL in various ways, but they didn't transform from 5 loss teams to what they are now because of it.

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

CaliBear00 said:

---

notned said:

---

Calibear00-

Look at the Tech season results for the 10 years preceding Joey's hiring. I think it will bring his record in his first three years into perspective.

Contrary to an earlier comment made, he did not inherit a talent-laden team nor a culture that knew how to win.

---

I don't know what else to tell you. He's been so mid for five years, only to see an exponential improvement in results once a billionaire started buying players.

Please stop digging for things that aren't there.

---

For five years? This is Joey McGuire's fourth year as Tech's head coach.

---

This is typical SicEm behavior.

So, it totally makes the point null and void because it was 3 years of mediocrity and not 5? The guy's point remains, Maguire was mediocre until Tech paid 7 Million for a defense. That is the point, not whether it is 4 or 5 years, it is a message board. Not a courtroom.

---

It absolutely does. Because five years is a much larger and meaningful sample where coaching football is concerned.

Cali's entire case is that Joey McGuire had established himself as a mediocre head coach -- something that can't even be done in three year's time, particularly when taking over a program that had largely sucked before you arrived.

---

As has been documented elsewhere, Texas Tech was literally loaded with super seniors for his first 2 seasons - both in abstract and relative to the Big 12 teams on Tech's schedule - and that is indisputable fact. Going a step further, the mainstream sports media projected that 2023 Tech - in McGuire's year 2 - was going to do great things (i.e. top 25 preseason FPI*, top 25 preseason coaches poll**, etc.***), however, it sputtered the same way that it did during his year 1 and year 3 (5+ losses per season). McGuire's 2025 season has been objectively special, but the fact that it was achieved by significantly outspending the other teams in this Big 12 dims the glow of such success given that that Tech team could autopilot to 8-9+ wins with its schedule.

At the end of the day, as long as everyone is agreed that:

1. Texas Tech was loaded with super seniors in McGuire's first two seasons,
2. Texas Tech missed its national preseason expectations in 2023,
3. Texas Tech lost at least 5 games per season in McGuire's first three seasons, and
4. Texas Tech only won the Big 12 in his fourth season because Tech significantly outspent the rest of the teams on its regular season schedule plus conference title game on NIL

then no one is really disagreeing here because we are agreed on what is objectively true.

* College football rankings: ESPN updates 2023 preseason FPI Top 25 for kickoff
** College football rankings: 2023 preseason Coaches Poll released
***Texas Tech football: Preseason expectations have rarely been this high

---

As long as we agree that Nick Saban, who had a worse winning percentage after five years as a head coach (.586) than Joey did after three (.605), was a mediocre coach before he gained access to top level Big Ten and SEC talent at Michigan State, LSU and Alabama, no one is disagreeing with what is objectively true.

Does no one else see how ridiculous this is?

Talent makes all coaches' records better. That doesn't mean guys were bad or mediocre coaches before they got access to elite talent. And it certainly doesn't mean that the die on a coaches' career is cast in the first three years of his head coaching career.

---

What does Saban have to do with anything being discussed here? That's not even an apples to apples comparison.

---

It is absolutely an apples to apples comparison. The man who is universally accepted as the greatest coach in college football history posted records a lot like Joey McGuire's until he got access to elite talent. That's how college football coaching works.

And no one says the same things being said about Joey McGuire about Nick Saban ... or Kirby Smart ... or Dan Lanning ... or any number of other "elite" coaches who have led championship seasons at programs that have always had access to the talent that McGuire now has at his disposal at Tech. It's an obvious double standard.

---

The concern is understandable, but it reads as though different groups are saying different things.

The topic of the discussion regarding Tech is that there was a clear and consistent baseline at Tech with McGuire as HC (5+ losses) with a dramatic change once a significant amount of money was introduced. Further, the difference in the case of Tech vs. programs like Oregon or Alabama is that (a) McGuire is still HC at the same Tech program that is playing largely the same teams before and after the NIL change so that the impact of the resources is far more apparent than it would be elsewhere and (b) Oregon and Alabama performed at a high level both pre and post NIL. In regard to the latter, Oregon and Alabama certainly benefited from NIL in various ways, but they didn't transform from 5 loss teams to what they are now because of it.

---

Three years isn't enough time to build "a clear and consistent baseline."

Nick Saban's first four seasons at Michigan State resulted in records of 6-5, 6-6, 7-5 and 6-6. He broke through in Year 5 and the rest is history.

Suggesting that McGuire's teams were never going to improve without the talent infusion they got is silly. They likely would have improved by a win or two in 2025 just by virtue of the upgrades they made to their offensive and defensive coordinator positions.

And Oregon's pre- and post-Phil Knight results would pretty much destroy your point about them. Oregon is Tech with a 30-year head start.

---

We can agree to disagree, but 3 years is plenty of time to establish a baseline, especially if the team in question is loaded with super seniors for years one and two - especially relative to the super seniors contained on its opponents' rosters. In contrast, if years one and two were a true reset, that would of course be different discussion (i.e. Art Briles).

The hypothetical is neat regarding what -could- have happened in Tech's future years had it not invested so much in NIL, but it's a meaningless discussion topic since anything and everything both is and is not possible in hypotheticals. For example, someone could say McGuire would continue to lose 5+ games in 2025 without NIL and subsequently be fired by the end of the season, and, in contrast, someone could say that McGuire would have gone 12-1 with a Big 12 title in 2025 without NIL. Both statements are impossible to evaluate, although, to be entirely fair, virtually everyone would likely agree that one is more likely than the other.

The last bit is perplexing. Is the intent to conflate general resources with NIL? Having more university resources doesn't automatically mean more NIL, and everyone here should know that at this point.

IowaBear said:

---

You're wasting time arguing with the Joey sucks crowd. It's the same crowd who thinks Dave would be good with better NIl.

---

No one ever seriously argued that McGwire is a bad coach. Some of us are just baffled by all this undue praise, however.

canoso said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

CaliBear00 said:

---

notned said:

---

Calibear00-

Look at the Tech season results for the 10 years preceding Joey's hiring. I think it will bring his record in his first three years into perspective.

Contrary to an earlier comment made, he did not inherit a talent-laden team nor a culture that knew how to win.

---

I don't know what else to tell you. He's been so mid for five years, only to see an exponential improvement in results once a billionaire started buying players.

Please stop digging for things that aren't there.

---

For five years? This is Joey McGuire's fourth year as Tech's head coach.

---

This is typical SicEm behavior.

So, it totally makes the point null and void because it was 3 years of mediocrity and not 5? The guy's point remains, Maguire was mediocre until Tech paid 7 Million for a defense. That is the point, not whether it is 4 or 5 years, it is a message board. Not a courtroom.

---

It absolutely does. Because five years is a much larger and meaningful sample where coaching football is concerned.

Cali's entire case is that Joey McGuire had established himself as a mediocre head coach -- something that can't even be done in three year's time, particularly when taking over a program that had largely sucked before you arrived.

---

As has been documented elsewhere, Texas Tech was literally loaded with super seniors for his first 2 seasons - both in abstract and relative to the Big 12 teams on Tech's schedule - and that is indisputable fact. Going a step further, the mainstream sports media projected that 2023 Tech - in McGuire's year 2 - was going to do great things (i.e. top 25 preseason FPI*, top 25 preseason coaches poll**, etc.***), however, it sputtered the same way that it did during his year 1 and year 3 (5+ losses per season). McGuire's 2025 season has been objectively special, but the fact that it was achieved by significantly outspending the other teams in this Big 12 dims the glow of such success given that that Tech team could autopilot to 8-9+ wins with its schedule.

At the end of the day, as long as everyone is agreed that:

1. Texas Tech was loaded with super seniors in McGuire's first two seasons,
2. Texas Tech missed its national preseason expectations in 2023,
3. Texas Tech lost at least 5 games per season in McGuire's first three seasons, and
4. Texas Tech only won the Big 12 in his fourth season because Tech significantly outspent the rest of the teams on its regular season schedule plus conference title game on NIL

then no one is really disagreeing here because we are agreed on what is objectively true.

* College football rankings: ESPN updates 2023 preseason FPI Top 25 for kickoff
** College football rankings: 2023 preseason Coaches Poll released
***Texas Tech football: Preseason expectations have rarely been this high

---

As long as we agree that Nick Saban, who had a worse winning percentage after five years as a head coach (.586) than Joey did after three (.605), was a mediocre coach before he gained access to top level Big Ten and SEC talent at Michigan State, LSU and Alabama, no one is disagreeing with what is objectively true.

Does no one else see how ridiculous this is?

Talent makes all coaches' records better. That doesn't mean guys were bad or mediocre coaches before they got access to elite talent. And it certainly doesn't mean that the die on a coaches' career is cast in the first three years of his head coaching career.

---

What does Saban have to do with anything being discussed here? That's not even an apples to apples comparison.

---

It is absolutely an apples to apples comparison. The man who is universally accepted as the greatest coach in college football history posted records a lot like Joey McGuire's until he got access to elite talent. That's how college football coaching works.

And no one says the same things being said about Joey McGuire about Nick Saban ... or Kirby Smart ... or Dan Lanning ... or any number of other "elite" coaches who have led championship seasons at programs that have always had access to the talent that McGuire now has at his disposal at Tech. It's an obvious double standard.

---

The concern is understandable, but it reads as though different groups are saying different things.

The topic of the discussion regarding Tech is that there was a clear and consistent baseline at Tech with McGuire as HC (5+ losses) with a dramatic change once a significant amount of money was introduced. Further, the difference in the case of Tech vs. programs like Oregon or Alabama is that (a) McGuire is still HC at the same Tech program that is playing largely the same teams before and after the NIL change so that the impact of the resources is far more apparent than it would be elsewhere and (b) Oregon and Alabama performed at a high level both pre and post NIL. In regard to the latter, Oregon and Alabama certainly benefited from NIL in various ways, but they didn't transform from 5 loss teams to what they are now because of it.

---

Three years isn't enough time to build "a clear and consistent baseline."

Nick Saban's first four seasons at Michigan State resulted in records of 6-5, 6-6, 7-5 and 6-6. He broke through in Year 5 and the rest is history.

Suggesting that McGuire's teams were never going to improve without the talent infusion they got is silly. They likely would have improved by a win or two in 2025 just by virtue of the upgrades they made to their offensive and defensive coordinator positions.

And Oregon's pre- and post-Phil Knight results would pretty much destroy your point about them. Oregon is Tech with a 30-year head start.

---

"Three years isn't enough time to build "a clear and consistent baseline."

Inarguable truth. Art Briles, who led BU to football to regular wins vs powerful traditional rivals (though everyone "knew" BU would never beat them, let alone like rented mules), went 4-8, 4-8, 7-5 in his first three seasons at BU. We need to hear about all the players he bought as he took BU football to a level of success it had never reached before and may never again.

But we digress from the purpose of the McGuire naysayers, which is to divert attention from the present darkness of BU football and the fact that most of the damage was self-inflicted even as infallibility was claimed.

---

Yeah, no. This ain't that. Nice try though.

canoso said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

CaliBear00 said:

---

notned said:

---

Calibear00-

Look at the Tech season results for the 10 years preceding Joey's hiring. I think it will bring his record in his first three years into perspective.

Contrary to an earlier comment made, he did not inherit a talent-laden team nor a culture that knew how to win.

---

I don't know what else to tell you. He's been so mid for five years, only to see an exponential improvement in results once a billionaire started buying players.

Please stop digging for things that aren't there.

---

For five years? This is Joey McGuire's fourth year as Tech's head coach.

---

This is typical SicEm behavior.

So, it totally makes the point null and void because it was 3 years of mediocrity and not 5? The guy's point remains, Maguire was mediocre until Tech paid 7 Million for a defense. That is the point, not whether it is 4 or 5 years, it is a message board. Not a courtroom.

---

It absolutely does. Because five years is a much larger and meaningful sample where coaching football is concerned.

Cali's entire case is that Joey McGuire had established himself as a mediocre head coach -- something that can't even be done in three year's time, particularly when taking over a program that had largely sucked before you arrived.

---

As has been documented elsewhere, Texas Tech was literally loaded with super seniors for his first 2 seasons - both in abstract and relative to the Big 12 teams on Tech's schedule - and that is indisputable fact. Going a step further, the mainstream sports media projected that 2023 Tech - in McGuire's year 2 - was going to do great things (i.e. top 25 preseason FPI*, top 25 preseason coaches poll**, etc.***), however, it sputtered the same way that it did during his year 1 and year 3 (5+ losses per season). McGuire's 2025 season has been objectively special, but the fact that it was achieved by significantly outspending the other teams in this Big 12 dims the glow of such success given that that Tech team could autopilot to 8-9+ wins with its schedule.

At the end of the day, as long as everyone is agreed that:

1. Texas Tech was loaded with super seniors in McGuire's first two seasons,
2. Texas Tech missed its national preseason expectations in 2023,
3. Texas Tech lost at least 5 games per season in McGuire's first three seasons, and
4. Texas Tech only won the Big 12 in his fourth season because Tech significantly outspent the rest of the teams on its regular season schedule plus conference title game on NIL

then no one is really disagreeing here because we are agreed on what is objectively true.

* College football rankings: ESPN updates 2023 preseason FPI Top 25 for kickoff
** College football rankings: 2023 preseason Coaches Poll released
***Texas Tech football: Preseason expectations have rarely been this high

---

As long as we agree that Nick Saban, who had a worse winning percentage after five years as a head coach (.586) than Joey did after three (.605), was a mediocre coach before he gained access to top level Big Ten and SEC talent at Michigan State, LSU and Alabama, no one is disagreeing with what is objectively true.

Does no one else see how ridiculous this is?

Talent makes all coaches' records better. That doesn't mean guys were bad or mediocre coaches before they got access to elite talent. And it certainly doesn't mean that the die on a coaches' career is cast in the first three years of his head coaching career.

---

What does Saban have to do with anything being discussed here? That's not even an apples to apples comparison.

---

It is absolutely an apples to apples comparison. The man who is universally accepted as the greatest coach in college football history posted records a lot like Joey McGuire's until he got access to elite talent. That's how college football coaching works.

And no one says the same things being said about Joey McGuire about Nick Saban ... or Kirby Smart ... or Dan Lanning ... or any number of other "elite" coaches who have led championship seasons at programs that have always had access to the talent that McGuire now has at his disposal at Tech. It's an obvious double standard.

---

The concern is understandable, but it reads as though different groups are saying different things.

The topic of the discussion regarding Tech is that there was a clear and consistent baseline at Tech with McGuire as HC (5+ losses) with a dramatic change once a significant amount of money was introduced. Further, the difference in the case of Tech vs. programs like Oregon or Alabama is that (a) McGuire is still HC at the same Tech program that is playing largely the same teams before and after the NIL change so that the impact of the resources is far more apparent than it would be elsewhere and (b) Oregon and Alabama performed at a high level both pre and post NIL. In regard to the latter, Oregon and Alabama certainly benefited from NIL in various ways, but they didn't transform from 5 loss teams to what they are now because of it.

---

Three years isn't enough time to build "a clear and consistent baseline."

Nick Saban's first four seasons at Michigan State resulted in records of 6-5, 6-6, 7-5 and 6-6. He broke through in Year 5 and the rest is history.

Suggesting that McGuire's teams were never going to improve without the talent infusion they got is silly. They likely would have improved by a win or two in 2025 just by virtue of the upgrades they made to their offensive and defensive coordinator positions.

And Oregon's pre- and post-Phil Knight results would pretty much destroy your point about them. Oregon is Tech with a 30-year head start.

---

"Three years isn't enough time to build "a clear and consistent baseline."

Inarguable truth. Art Briles, who led BU to football to regular wins vs powerful traditional rivals (though everyone "knew" BU would never beat them, let alone like rented mules), went 4-8, 4-8, 7-5 in his first three seasons at BU. We need to hear about all the players he bought as he took BU football to a level of success it had never reached before and may never again.

But we digress from the purpose of the McGuire naysayers, which is to divert attention from the present darkness of BU football and the fact that most of the damage was self-inflicted even as infallibility was claimed.

---

eehT
eehT
eehT

I hope this did the trick

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

CaliBear00 said:

---

notned said:

---

Calibear00-

Look at the Tech season results for the 10 years preceding Joey's hiring. I think it will bring his record in his first three years into perspective.

Contrary to an earlier comment made, he did not inherit a talent-laden team nor a culture that knew how to win.

---

I don't know what else to tell you. He's been so mid for five years, only to see an exponential improvement in results once a billionaire started buying players.

Please stop digging for things that aren't there.

---

For five years? This is Joey McGuire's fourth year as Tech's head coach.

---

This is typical SicEm behavior.

So, it totally makes the point null and void because it was 3 years of mediocrity and not 5? The guy's point remains, Maguire was mediocre until Tech paid 7 Million for a defense. That is the point, not whether it is 4 or 5 years, it is a message board. Not a courtroom.

---

It absolutely does. Because five years is a much larger and meaningful sample where coaching football is concerned.

Cali's entire case is that Joey McGuire had established himself as a mediocre head coach -- something that can't even be done in three year's time, particularly when taking over a program that had largely sucked before you arrived.

---

As has been documented elsewhere, Texas Tech was literally loaded with super seniors for his first 2 seasons - both in abstract and relative to the Big 12 teams on Tech's schedule - and that is indisputable fact. Going a step further, the mainstream sports media projected that 2023 Tech - in McGuire's year 2 - was going to do great things (i.e. top 25 preseason FPI*, top 25 preseason coaches poll**, etc.***), however, it sputtered the same way that it did during his year 1 and year 3 (5+ losses per season). McGuire's 2025 season has been objectively special, but the fact that it was achieved by significantly outspending the other teams in this Big 12 dims the glow of such success given that that Tech team could autopilot to 8-9+ wins with its schedule.

At the end of the day, as long as everyone is agreed that:

1. Texas Tech was loaded with super seniors in McGuire's first two seasons,
2. Texas Tech missed its national preseason expectations in 2023,
3. Texas Tech lost at least 5 games per season in McGuire's first three seasons, and
4. Texas Tech only won the Big 12 in his fourth season because Tech significantly outspent the rest of the teams on its regular season schedule plus conference title game on NIL

then no one is really disagreeing here because we are agreed on what is objectively true.

* College football rankings: ESPN updates 2023 preseason FPI Top 25 for kickoff
** College football rankings: 2023 preseason Coaches Poll released
***Texas Tech football: Preseason expectations have rarely been this high

---

As long as we agree that Nick Saban, who had a worse winning percentage after five years as a head coach (.586) than Joey did after three (.605), was a mediocre coach before he gained access to top level Big Ten and SEC talent at Michigan State, LSU and Alabama, no one is disagreeing with what is objectively true.

Does no one else see how ridiculous this is?

Talent makes all coaches' records better. That doesn't mean guys were bad or mediocre coaches before they got access to elite talent. And it certainly doesn't mean that the die on a coaches' career is cast in the first three years of his head coaching career.

---

What does Saban have to do with anything being discussed here? That's not even an apples to apples comparison.

---

It is absolutely an apples to apples comparison. The man who is universally accepted as the greatest coach in college football history posted records a lot like Joey McGuire's until he got access to elite talent. That's how college football coaching works.

And no one says the same things being said about Joey McGuire about Nick Saban ... or Kirby Smart ... or Dan Lanning ... or any number of other "elite" coaches who have led championship seasons at programs that have always had access to the talent that McGuire now has at his disposal at Tech. It's an obvious double standard.

---

The concern is understandable, but it reads as though different groups are saying different things.

The topic of the discussion regarding Tech is that there was a clear and consistent baseline at Tech with McGuire as HC (5+ losses) with a dramatic change once a significant amount of money was introduced. Further, the difference in the case of Tech vs. programs like Oregon or Alabama is that (a) McGuire is still HC at the same Tech program that is playing largely the same teams before and after the NIL change so that the impact of the resources is far more apparent than it would be elsewhere and (b) Oregon and Alabama performed at a high level both pre and post NIL. In regard to the latter, Oregon and Alabama certainly benefited from NIL in various ways, but they didn't transform from 5 loss teams to what they are now because of it.

---

Three years isn't enough time to build "a clear and consistent baseline."

Nick Saban's first four seasons at Michigan State resulted in records of 6-5, 6-6, 7-5 and 6-6. He broke through in Year 5 and the rest is history.

Suggesting that McGuire's teams were never going to improve without the talent infusion they got is silly. They likely would have improved by a win or two in 2025 just by virtue of the upgrades they made to their offensive and defensive coordinator positions.

And Oregon's pre- and post-Phil Knight results would pretty much destroy your point about them. Oregon is Tech with a 30-year head start.

---

We can agree to disagree, but 3 years is plenty of time to establish a baseline, especially if the team in question is loaded with super seniors for years one and two - especially relative to the super seniors contained on its opponents' rosters. In contrast, if years one and two were a true reset, that would of course be different discussion (i.e. Art Briles).

The hypothetical is neat regarding what -could- have happened in Tech's future years had it not invested so much in NIL, but it's a meaningless discussion topic since anything and everything both is and is not possible in hypotheticals. For example, someone could say McGuire would continue to lose 5+ games in 2025 without NIL and subsequently be fired by the end of the season, and, in contrast, someone could say that McGuire would have gone 12-1 with a Big 12 title in 2025 without NIL. Both statements are impossible to evaluate, although, to be entirely fair, virtually everyone would likely agree that one is more likely than the other.

The last bit is perplexing. Is the intent to conflate general resources with NIL? Having more university resources doesn't automatically mean more NIL, and everyone here should know that at this point.

---

College football has always been a resource game. NIL has just brought it more out into the open, and democratized it to an extent.

But Oregon didn't get good because of any historical, geographic or cultural advantages it possessed. It got good because Phil Knight decided to pump a fortune into the program in the 90s and hasn't stopped since.

CaliBear00 said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

You're wasting time arguing with the Joey sucks crowd. It's the same crowd who thinks Dave would be good with better NIl.

---

No one ever seriously argued that McGwire is a bad coach. Some of us are just baffled by all this undue praise, however.

---

I think the undue praise in hindsight is because our guy stinks and we wonder "what if we had?"

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

CaliBear00 said:

---

notned said:

---

Calibear00-

Look at the Tech season results for the 10 years preceding Joey's hiring. I think it will bring his record in his first three years into perspective.

Contrary to an earlier comment made, he did not inherit a talent-laden team nor a culture that knew how to win.

---

I don't know what else to tell you. He's been so mid for five years, only to see an exponential improvement in results once a billionaire started buying players.

Please stop digging for things that aren't there.

---

For five years? This is Joey McGuire's fourth year as Tech's head coach.

---

This is typical SicEm behavior.

So, it totally makes the point null and void because it was 3 years of mediocrity and not 5? The guy's point remains, Maguire was mediocre until Tech paid 7 Million for a defense. That is the point, not whether it is 4 or 5 years, it is a message board. Not a courtroom.

---

It absolutely does. Because five years is a much larger and meaningful sample where coaching football is concerned.

Cali's entire case is that Joey McGuire had established himself as a mediocre head coach -- something that can't even be done in three year's time, particularly when taking over a program that had largely sucked before you arrived.

---

As has been documented elsewhere, Texas Tech was literally loaded with super seniors for his first 2 seasons - both in abstract and relative to the Big 12 teams on Tech's schedule - and that is indisputable fact. Going a step further, the mainstream sports media projected that 2023 Tech - in McGuire's year 2 - was going to do great things (i.e. top 25 preseason FPI*, top 25 preseason coaches poll**, etc.***), however, it sputtered the same way that it did during his year 1 and year 3 (5+ losses per season). McGuire's 2025 season has been objectively special, but the fact that it was achieved by significantly outspending the other teams in this Big 12 dims the glow of such success given that that Tech team could autopilot to 8-9+ wins with its schedule.

At the end of the day, as long as everyone is agreed that:

1. Texas Tech was loaded with super seniors in McGuire's first two seasons,
2. Texas Tech missed its national preseason expectations in 2023,
3. Texas Tech lost at least 5 games per season in McGuire's first three seasons, and
4. Texas Tech only won the Big 12 in his fourth season because Tech significantly outspent the rest of the teams on its regular season schedule plus conference title game on NIL

then no one is really disagreeing here because we are agreed on what is objectively true.

* College football rankings: ESPN updates 2023 preseason FPI Top 25 for kickoff
** College football rankings: 2023 preseason Coaches Poll released
***Texas Tech football: Preseason expectations have rarely been this high

---

As long as we agree that Nick Saban, who had a worse winning percentage after five years as a head coach (.586) than Joey did after three (.605), was a mediocre coach before he gained access to top level Big Ten and SEC talent at Michigan State, LSU and Alabama, no one is disagreeing with what is objectively true.

Does no one else see how ridiculous this is?

Talent makes all coaches' records better. That doesn't mean guys were bad or mediocre coaches before they got access to elite talent. And it certainly doesn't mean that the die on a coaches' career is cast in the first three years of his head coaching career.

---

What does Saban have to do with anything being discussed here? That's not even an apples to apples comparison.

---

It is absolutely an apples to apples comparison. The man who is universally accepted as the greatest coach in college football history posted records a lot like Joey McGuire's until he got access to elite talent. That's how college football coaching works.

And no one says the same things being said about Joey McGuire about Nick Saban ... or Kirby Smart ... or Dan Lanning ... or any number of other "elite" coaches who have led championship seasons at programs that have always had access to the talent that McGuire now has at his disposal at Tech. It's an obvious double standard.

---

The concern is understandable, but it reads as though different groups are saying different things.

The topic of the discussion regarding Tech is that there was a clear and consistent baseline at Tech with McGuire as HC (5+ losses) with a dramatic change once a significant amount of money was introduced. Further, the difference in the case of Tech vs. programs like Oregon or Alabama is that (a) McGuire is still HC at the same Tech program that is playing largely the same teams before and after the NIL change so that the impact of the resources is far more apparent than it would be elsewhere and (b) Oregon and Alabama performed at a high level both pre and post NIL. In regard to the latter, Oregon and Alabama certainly benefited from NIL in various ways, but they didn't transform from 5 loss teams to what they are now because of it.

---

Three years isn't enough time to build "a clear and consistent baseline."

Nick Saban's first four seasons at Michigan State resulted in records of 6-5, 6-6, 7-5 and 6-6. He broke through in Year 5 and the rest is history.

Suggesting that McGuire's teams were never going to improve without the talent infusion they got is silly. They likely would have improved by a win or two in 2025 just by virtue of the upgrades they made to their offensive and defensive coordinator positions.

And Oregon's pre- and post-Phil Knight results would pretty much destroy your point about them. Oregon is Tech with a 30-year head start.

---

We can agree to disagree, but 3 years is plenty of time to establish a baseline, especially if the team in question is loaded with super seniors for years one and two - especially relative to the super seniors contained on its opponents' rosters. In contrast, if years one and two were a true reset, that would of course be different discussion (i.e. Art Briles).

The hypothetical is neat regarding what -could- have happened in Tech's future years had it not invested so much in NIL, but it's a meaningless discussion topic since anything and everything both is and is not possible in hypotheticals. For example, someone could say McGuire would continue to lose 5+ games in 2025 without NIL and subsequently be fired by the end of the season, and, in contrast, someone could say that McGuire would have gone 12-1 with a Big 12 title in 2025 without NIL. Both statements are impossible to evaluate, although, to be entirely fair, virtually everyone would likely agree that one is more likely than the other.

The last bit is perplexing. Is the intent to conflate general resources with NIL? Having more university resources doesn't automatically mean more NIL, and everyone here should know that at this point.

---

College football has always been a resource game. NIL has just brought it more out into the open, and democratized it to an extent.

But Oregon didn't get good because of any historical, geographic or cultural advantages it possessed. It got good because Phil Knight decided to pump a fortune into the program in the 90s and hasn't stopped since.

---

No one here has argued against that in the case of Oregon, however, the discussion here is regarding NIL and not general university resources. To that end, no one is going to argue that Tech's general program is as resourced as Oregon's because it's not and the data supports this (Tech's 23-24 football expenses were $34.4M while Oregon's was $53.9M). Instead, Tech's performance before and after NIL with the same coach and largely the same schedule is dramatic and therefore inseparable from any reasonable analysis of McGuire.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

CaliBear00 said:

---

SailorBear13 said:

---

Watching the Big 12 championship game it's hard to think…. is this what could have been at Baylor Football if we kept him as HC?

With him and James Blanchard there is an argument to be had our team would have been much better. I guess we'll never know.

---

It'd still be mediocre here. McGwire turned out to be pretty mid as a head coach. It took buying a team to finally get him beyond an eight win season. He always was mostly a rah-rah guy.

---

That rah-rah guy ALWAYS pushed "TAKE3" for three takeaways each game. Today TTU had 4 in the championship game.

How did Baylor do with takeaways this year?

If Joey is a cheerleader, he's a damn hot one.

---

Joey may have his "Take 3" but Arandaball has its "Take 5"…and everyone knows 5 is more than 3. Winning!

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

CaliBear00 said:

---

notned said:

---

Calibear00-

Look at the Tech season results for the 10 years preceding Joey's hiring. I think it will bring his record in his first three years into perspective.

Contrary to an earlier comment made, he did not inherit a talent-laden team nor a culture that knew how to win.

---

I don't know what else to tell you. He's been so mid for five years, only to see an exponential improvement in results once a billionaire started buying players.

Please stop digging for things that aren't there.

---

For five years? This is Joey McGuire's fourth year as Tech's head coach.

---

This is typical SicEm behavior.

So, it totally makes the point null and void because it was 3 years of mediocrity and not 5? The guy's point remains, Maguire was mediocre until Tech paid 7 Million for a defense. That is the point, not whether it is 4 or 5 years, it is a message board. Not a courtroom.

---

It absolutely does. Because five years is a much larger and meaningful sample where coaching football is concerned.

Cali's entire case is that Joey McGuire had established himself as a mediocre head coach -- something that can't even be done in three year's time, particularly when taking over a program that had largely sucked before you arrived.

---

As has been documented elsewhere, Texas Tech was literally loaded with super seniors for his first 2 seasons - both in abstract and relative to the Big 12 teams on Tech's schedule - and that is indisputable fact. Going a step further, the mainstream sports media projected that 2023 Tech - in McGuire's year 2 - was going to do great things (i.e. top 25 preseason FPI*, top 25 preseason coaches poll**, etc.***), however, it sputtered the same way that it did during his year 1 and year 3 (5+ losses per season). McGuire's 2025 season has been objectively special, but the fact that it was achieved by significantly outspending the other teams in this Big 12 dims the glow of such success given that that Tech team could autopilot to 8-9+ wins with its schedule.

At the end of the day, as long as everyone is agreed that:

1. Texas Tech was loaded with super seniors in McGuire's first two seasons,
2. Texas Tech missed its national preseason expectations in 2023,
3. Texas Tech lost at least 5 games per season in McGuire's first three seasons, and
4. Texas Tech only won the Big 12 in his fourth season because Tech significantly outspent the rest of the teams on its regular season schedule plus conference title game on NIL

then no one is really disagreeing here because we are agreed on what is objectively true.

* College football rankings: ESPN updates 2023 preseason FPI Top 25 for kickoff
** College football rankings: 2023 preseason Coaches Poll released
***Texas Tech football: Preseason expectations have rarely been this high

---

As long as we agree that Nick Saban, who had a worse winning percentage after five years as a head coach (.586) than Joey did after three (.605), was a mediocre coach before he gained access to top level Big Ten and SEC talent at Michigan State, LSU and Alabama, no one is disagreeing with what is objectively true.

Does no one else see how ridiculous this is?

Talent makes all coaches' records better. That doesn't mean guys were bad or mediocre coaches before they got access to elite talent. And it certainly doesn't mean that the die on a coaches' career is cast in the first three years of his head coaching career.

---

What does Saban have to do with anything being discussed here? That's not even an apples to apples comparison.

---

It is absolutely an apples to apples comparison. The man who is universally accepted as the greatest coach in college football history posted records a lot like Joey McGuire's until he got access to elite talent. That's how college football coaching works.

And no one says the same things being said about Joey McGuire about Nick Saban ... or Kirby Smart ... or Dan Lanning ... or any number of other "elite" coaches who have led championship seasons at programs that have always had access to the talent that McGuire now has at his disposal at Tech. It's an obvious double standard.

---

The concern is understandable, but it reads as though different groups are saying different things.

The topic of the discussion regarding Tech is that there was a clear and consistent baseline at Tech with McGuire as HC (5+ losses) with a dramatic change once a significant amount of money was introduced. Further, the difference in the case of Tech vs. programs like Oregon or Alabama is that (a) McGuire is still HC at the same Tech program that is playing largely the same teams before and after the NIL change so that the impact of the resources is far more apparent than it would be elsewhere and (b) Oregon and Alabama performed at a high level both pre and post NIL. In regard to the latter, Oregon and Alabama certainly benefited from NIL in various ways, but they didn't transform from 5 loss teams to what they are now because of it.

---

Three years isn't enough time to build "a clear and consistent baseline."

Nick Saban's first four seasons at Michigan State resulted in records of 6-5, 6-6, 7-5 and 6-6. He broke through in Year 5 and the rest is history.

Suggesting that McGuire's teams were never going to improve without the talent infusion they got is silly. They likely would have improved by a win or two in 2025 just by virtue of the upgrades they made to their offensive and defensive coordinator positions.

And Oregon's pre- and post-Phil Knight results would pretty much destroy your point about them. Oregon is Tech with a 30-year head start.

---

We can agree to disagree, but 3 years is plenty of time to establish a baseline, especially if the team in question is loaded with super seniors for years one and two - especially relative to the super seniors contained on its opponents' rosters. In contrast, if years one and two were a true reset, that would of course be different discussion (i.e. Art Briles).

The hypothetical is neat regarding what -could- have happened in Tech's future years had it not invested so much in NIL, but it's a meaningless discussion topic since anything and everything both is and is not possible in hypotheticals. For example, someone could say McGuire would continue to lose 5+ games in 2025 without NIL and subsequently be fired by the end of the season, and, in contrast, someone could say that McGuire would have gone 12-1 with a Big 12 title in 2025 without NIL. Both statements are impossible to evaluate, although, to be entirely fair, virtually everyone would likely agree that one is more likely than the other.

The last bit is perplexing. Is the intent to conflate general resources with NIL? Having more university resources doesn't automatically mean more NIL, and everyone here should know that at this point.

---

College football has always been a resource game. NIL has just brought it more out into the open, and democratized it to an extent.

But Oregon didn't get good because of any historical, geographic or cultural advantages it possessed. It got good because Phil Knight decided to pump a fortune into the program in the 90s and hasn't stopped since.

---

No one here has argued against that in the case of Oregon, however, the discussion here is regarding NIL and not general university resources. To that end, no one is going to argue that Tech's general program is as resourced as Oregon's because it's not and the data supports this (Tech's 23-24 football expenses were $34.4M while Oregon's was $53.9M). Instead, Tech's performance before and after NIL with the same coach and largely the same schedule is dramatic and therefore inseparable from any reasonable analysis of McGuire.

---

McGuire, like every other coach in the history of sports, looks smarter with elite talent.

The issue is with the obvious double standard. Go put Kirby Smart or Dan Lanning at Iowa State or pre-NIL infusion Texas Tech and see how elite they are then.

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

CaliBear00 said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

You're wasting time arguing with the Joey sucks crowd. It's the same crowd who thinks Dave would be good with better NIl.

---

No one ever seriously argued that McGwire is a bad coach. Some of us are just baffled by all this undue praise, however.

---

I think the undue praise in hindsight is because our guy stinks and we wonder "what if we had?"

---

Ok, and my point remains. We'd go from bad, to respectable, but unremarkable.

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

CaliBear00 said:

---

notned said:

---

Calibear00-

Look at the Tech season results for the 10 years preceding Joey's hiring. I think it will bring his record in his first three years into perspective.

Contrary to an earlier comment made, he did not inherit a talent-laden team nor a culture that knew how to win.

---

I don't know what else to tell you. He's been so mid for five years, only to see an exponential improvement in results once a billionaire started buying players.

Please stop digging for things that aren't there.

---

For five years? This is Joey McGuire's fourth year as Tech's head coach.

---

This is typical SicEm behavior.

So, it totally makes the point null and void because it was 3 years of mediocrity and not 5? The guy's point remains, Maguire was mediocre until Tech paid 7 Million for a defense. That is the point, not whether it is 4 or 5 years, it is a message board. Not a courtroom.

---

It absolutely does. Because five years is a much larger and meaningful sample where coaching football is concerned.

Cali's entire case is that Joey McGuire had established himself as a mediocre head coach -- something that can't even be done in three year's time, particularly when taking over a program that had largely sucked before you arrived.

---

As has been documented elsewhere, Texas Tech was literally loaded with super seniors for his first 2 seasons - both in abstract and relative to the Big 12 teams on Tech's schedule - and that is indisputable fact. Going a step further, the mainstream sports media projected that 2023 Tech - in McGuire's year 2 - was going to do great things (i.e. top 25 preseason FPI*, top 25 preseason coaches poll**, etc.***), however, it sputtered the same way that it did during his year 1 and year 3 (5+ losses per season). McGuire's 2025 season has been objectively special, but the fact that it was achieved by significantly outspending the other teams in this Big 12 dims the glow of such success given that that Tech team could autopilot to 8-9+ wins with its schedule.

At the end of the day, as long as everyone is agreed that:

1. Texas Tech was loaded with super seniors in McGuire's first two seasons,
2. Texas Tech missed its national preseason expectations in 2023,
3. Texas Tech lost at least 5 games per season in McGuire's first three seasons, and
4. Texas Tech only won the Big 12 in his fourth season because Tech significantly outspent the rest of the teams on its regular season schedule plus conference title game on NIL

then no one is really disagreeing here because we are agreed on what is objectively true.

* College football rankings: ESPN updates 2023 preseason FPI Top 25 for kickoff
** College football rankings: 2023 preseason Coaches Poll released
***Texas Tech football: Preseason expectations have rarely been this high

---

As long as we agree that Nick Saban, who had a worse winning percentage after five years as a head coach (.586) than Joey did after three (.605), was a mediocre coach before he gained access to top level Big Ten and SEC talent at Michigan State, LSU and Alabama, no one is disagreeing with what is objectively true.

Does no one else see how ridiculous this is?

Talent makes all coaches' records better. That doesn't mean guys were bad or mediocre coaches before they got access to elite talent. And it certainly doesn't mean that the die on a coaches' career is cast in the first three years of his head coaching career.

---

What does Saban have to do with anything being discussed here? That's not even an apples to apples comparison.

---

It is absolutely an apples to apples comparison. The man who is universally accepted as the greatest coach in college football history posted records a lot like Joey McGuire's until he got access to elite talent. That's how college football coaching works.

And no one says the same things being said about Joey McGuire about Nick Saban ... or Kirby Smart ... or Dan Lanning ... or any number of other "elite" coaches who have led championship seasons at programs that have always had access to the talent that McGuire now has at his disposal at Tech. It's an obvious double standard.

---

The concern is understandable, but it reads as though different groups are saying different things.

The topic of the discussion regarding Tech is that there was a clear and consistent baseline at Tech with McGuire as HC (5+ losses) with a dramatic change once a significant amount of money was introduced. Further, the difference in the case of Tech vs. programs like Oregon or Alabama is that (a) McGuire is still HC at the same Tech program that is playing largely the same teams before and after the NIL change so that the impact of the resources is far more apparent than it would be elsewhere and (b) Oregon and Alabama performed at a high level both pre and post NIL. In regard to the latter, Oregon and Alabama certainly benefited from NIL in various ways, but they didn't transform from 5 loss teams to what they are now because of it.

---

Three years isn't enough time to build "a clear and consistent baseline."

Nick Saban's first four seasons at Michigan State resulted in records of 6-5, 6-6, 7-5 and 6-6. He broke through in Year 5 and the rest is history.

Suggesting that McGuire's teams were never going to improve without the talent infusion they got is silly. They likely would have improved by a win or two in 2025 just by virtue of the upgrades they made to their offensive and defensive coordinator positions.

And Oregon's pre- and post-Phil Knight results would pretty much destroy your point about them. Oregon is Tech with a 30-year head start.

---

We can agree to disagree, but 3 years is plenty of time to establish a baseline, especially if the team in question is loaded with super seniors for years one and two - especially relative to the super seniors contained on its opponents' rosters. In contrast, if years one and two were a true reset, that would of course be different discussion (i.e. Art Briles).

The hypothetical is neat regarding what -could- have happened in Tech's future years had it not invested so much in NIL, but it's a meaningless discussion topic since anything and everything both is and is not possible in hypotheticals. For example, someone could say McGuire would continue to lose 5+ games in 2025 without NIL and subsequently be fired by the end of the season, and, in contrast, someone could say that McGuire would have gone 12-1 with a Big 12 title in 2025 without NIL. Both statements are impossible to evaluate, although, to be entirely fair, virtually everyone would likely agree that one is more likely than the other.

The last bit is perplexing. Is the intent to conflate general resources with NIL? Having more university resources doesn't automatically mean more NIL, and everyone here should know that at this point.

---

College football has always been a resource game. NIL has just brought it more out into the open, and democratized it to an extent.

But Oregon didn't get good because of any historical, geographic or cultural advantages it possessed. It got good because Phil Knight decided to pump a fortune into the program in the 90s and hasn't stopped since.

---

No one here has argued against that in the case of Oregon, however, the discussion here is regarding NIL and not general university resources. To that end, no one is going to argue that Tech's general program is as resourced as Oregon's because it's not and the data supports this (Tech's 23-24 football expenses were $34.4M while Oregon's was $53.9M). Instead, Tech's performance before and after NIL with the same coach and largely the same schedule is dramatic and therefore inseparable from any reasonable analysis of McGuire.

---

McGuire, like every other coach in the history of sports, looks smarter with elite talent.

The issue is with the obvious double standard. Go put Kirby Smart or Dan Lanning at Iowa State or pre-NIL infusion Texas Tech and see how elite they are then.

---

You are now making my argument. It is not so much the Coach, but the organizational infrastructure. There are a lot of Coaches that can get the same results with a 7 million dollar defense. Same with Smart at UGA, Saban at Bama. Franklin at PSU (let's see how elite he is at VaTech

Now, there are mediocre coaches who just can't seem to win it all EVEN with all the benefits. See the guy in Austin...

A lot of people are bummed that we can no longer look down on Tech for never having won a conference championship, at least in a major sport. It could be even more than that. Would Baylor have beaten Tech to a football national championship opportunity if the program hadn't been needlessly dynamited several years ago? High probability the answer is yes. Bummer.

Stefano DiMera said:

---

There's some arguments on this board I just don't get.. and this is one .

What is it about McGuire that people wanna piss on his record? Best seasons since Leach. First time to beat OU and Texas in same year in school history.

Why this double standard? I don't see anyone criticizing Ryan Day or Kirby Smart for having huge NIL war chests.

It's ok for a blue blood to spend but one of "own" (conference mate) does it and it's like it doesn't count.

---

Because we see McGwire for what he really is, a solid, yet unspectacular coach who just happened into a highly advantageous situation that makes him look better than he actually is.

canoso said:

---

A lot of people are bummed that we can no longer look down on Tech for never having won a conference championship, at least in a major sport. It could be even more than that. Would Baylor have beaten Tech to a football national championship opportunity if the program hadn't been needlessly dynamited several years ago? High probability the answer is yes. Bummer.

---

Until Baylor finds themselves a billionaire who can buy championships, the Texas Bowl will be our likely ceiling now that we're contending against the Oregon of Texas.

Many many coaches have 'lucked' into this situation at schools a lot better than Tech and failed.. sometimes miserably..

Do I need to go down the list of coaches in Austin and College Station who had the same advantages and failed?

Florida or Tennessee? The list is long.

Stefano DiMera said:

---

Many many coaches have 'lucked' into this situation at schools a lot better than Tech and failed.. sometimes miserably..

Do I need to go down the list of coaches in Austin and College Station who had the same advantages and failed?

Florida or Tennessee? The list is long.

---

I agree a lot of coaches can mess it up. But, a lot of coaches can get the same results. Hell, Aranda can win with the right players.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Stefano DiMera said:

---

Many many coaches have 'lucked' into this situation at schools a lot better than Tech and failed.. sometimes miserably..

Do I need to go down the list of coaches in Austin and College Station who had the same advantages and failed?

Florida or Tennessee? The list is long.

---

I agree a lot of coaches can mess it up. But, a lot of coaches can get the same results. Hell, Aranda can win with the right players.

---

no sorry man '21 was a 1-of-1 situation that can't be repeated and that occurred in spite of Dave. Many people have said this with great conviction so it's clearly true!

Bearknuckle said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Stefano DiMera said:

---

Many many coaches have 'lucked' into this situation at schools a lot better than Tech and failed.. sometimes miserably..

Do I need to go down the list of coaches in Austin and College Station who had the same advantages and failed?

Florida or Tennessee? The list is long.

---

I agree a lot of coaches can mess it up. But, a lot of coaches can get the same results. Hell, Aranda can win with the right players.

---

no sorry man '21 was a 1-of-1 situation that can't be repeated and that occurred in spite of Dave. Many people have said this with great conviction so it's clearly true!

---

Seems to be the Baylor way.

If we like the person, they can do no wrong and anything bad really didn't happen.

If we don't like them, they can do no right and anything good is someone else's achievement.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Bearknuckle said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Stefano DiMera said:

---

Many many coaches have 'lucked' into this situation at schools a lot better than Tech and failed.. sometimes miserably..

Do I need to go down the list of coaches in Austin and College Station who had the same advantages and failed?

Florida or Tennessee? The list is long.

---

I agree a lot of coaches can mess it up. But, a lot of coaches can get the same results. Hell, Aranda can win with the right players.

---

no sorry man '21 was a 1-of-1 situation that can't be repeated and that occurred in spite of Dave. Many people have said this with great conviction so it's clearly true!

---

Seems to be the Baylor way.

If we like the person, they can do no wrong and anything bad really didn't happen.

If we don't like them, they can do no right and anything good is someone else's achievement.

---

i don't know man, seems like we'd have thousands of posts doing just that if that was the case.

Stefano DiMera said:

---

Many many coaches have 'lucked' into this situation at schools a lot better than Tech and failed.. sometimes miserably..

Do I need to go down the list of coaches in Austin and College Station who had the same advantages and failed?

Florida or Tennessee? The list is long.

---

Michigan had a massive list before Harbaugh (who cheated horribly for his success) and is starting a new one after him, too.

Stefano DiMera said:

---

Many many coaches have 'lucked' into this situation at schools a lot better than Tech and failed.. sometimes miserably..

Do I need to go down the list of coaches in Austin and College Station who had the same advantages and failed?

Florida or Tennessee? The list is long.

---

and USC and OU and Nebraska

Bearknuckle said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Stefano DiMera said:

---

Many many coaches have 'lucked' into this situation at schools a lot better than Tech and failed.. sometimes miserably..

Do I need to go down the list of coaches in Austin and College Station who had the same advantages and failed?

Florida or Tennessee? The list is long.

---

I agree a lot of coaches can mess it up. But, a lot of coaches can get the same results. Hell, Aranda can win with the right players.

---

no sorry man '21 was a 1-of-1 situation that can't be repeated and that occurred in spite of Dave. Many people have said this with great conviction so it's clearly true!

---

It pretty much was a perfect storm of a season with a school-record number of NFL draft picks (none of which he recruited) and has proven completely unrepeatable by him or his ever-changing staff.

Both of the coordinators from that season were fired within two years of that run, and the momentum was killed in less than 10 months -- probably less than three months because it died with the decision to go with Shapen over Bohanon.

I'll give Dave Aranda credit for the record that team achieved, but he has given no reason whatsoever since to believe that that success was representative of his abilities as a head coach or that he has any hope whatsoever of getting us back to that level with his own program in place.

Bearknuckle said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Bearknuckle said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Stefano DiMera said:

---

Many many coaches have 'lucked' into this situation at schools a lot better than Tech and failed.. sometimes miserably..

Do I need to go down the list of coaches in Austin and College Station who had the same advantages and failed?

Florida or Tennessee? The list is long.

---

I agree a lot of coaches can mess it up. But, a lot of coaches can get the same results. Hell, Aranda can win with the right players.

---

no sorry man '21 was a 1-of-1 situation that can't be repeated and that occurred in spite of Dave. Many people have said this with great conviction so it's clearly true!

---

Seems to be the Baylor way.

If we like the person, they can do no wrong and anything bad really didn't happen.

If we don't like them, they can do no right and anything good is someone else's achievement.

---

i don't know man, seems like we'd have thousands of posts doing just that if that was the case.

---

put out something positive about Aranda and see what happens.

Say anything positive about Matt Rhule or something negative about Art Briles and see what happens.

CaliBear00 said:

---

Say anything positive about Matt Rhule or something negative about Art Briles and see what happens.

---

Point taken...

It is who we are.

Depends if McGuire was involved af all in closing the massive donor or not. If he did close Campbell then that's just as valuable as good coaching. If she was going to donate regardless of Joey then it's just meh

Do you think he is donating to his alma mater or McGuire? Seriously. He wouldn't purchase this team for McgGuire if McGuire was at SMU.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Bearknuckle said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Stefano DiMera said:

---

Many many coaches have 'lucked' into this situation at schools a lot better than Tech and failed.. sometimes miserably..

Do I need to go down the list of coaches in Austin and College Station who had the same advantages and failed?

Florida or Tennessee? The list is long.

---

I agree a lot of coaches can mess it up. But, a lot of coaches can get the same results. Hell, Aranda can win with the right players.

---

no sorry man '21 was a 1-of-1 situation that can't be repeated and that occurred in spite of Dave. Many people have said this with great conviction so it's clearly true!

---

Seems to be the Baylor way.

If we like the person, they can do no wrong and anything bad really didn't happen.

If we don't like them, they can do no right and anything good is someone else's achievement.

---

Take it to the R&P board.

No wait. You're saying it on football rather than someone saying it to you.

In the words of Emily Litella, "never mind."

Keeping the band together!! Let’s goooo!! https://t.co/7DFzmMM4vR

— Cody Campbell (@CodyC64) December 17, 2025

Would have beaten every team but Texas to a modern title, I think you're right.

But it's okay, Tech fumbled a national title in basketball and we know what happened next. This program has big potential, unfortunately we have a bottleneck named David.