TexasScientist said:

---

Right. I heard it then, and intended to post about it, but just now got around to it. If you listen closely, it's pretty clear Baylor doesn't have the alumni support or financial strength to compete in the upper tier of the Big 12. 3:06 - 8:45 of the interview is particularly interesting. His comments essentially are there has to be a salary cap for schools like Baylor, TCU and SMU to compete. As it is now he says there are 30 or so large state universities with big stadiums that can afford to play at a higher level than smaller schools like Baylor. It's noteworthy that he didn't say, when given the opportunity, that the major donor alumni, like McLane, Hurd family or Fudge family would provide enough money to make sure Baylor would have enough to compete.

---

blackie said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Right. I heard it then, and intended to post about it, but just now got around to it. If you listen closely, it's pretty clear Baylor doesn't have the alumni support or financial strength to compete in the upper tier of the Big 12. 3:06 - 8:45 of the interview is particularly interesting. His comments essentially are there has to be a salary cap for schools like Baylor, TCU and SMU to compete. As it is now he says there are 30 or so large state universities with big stadiums that can afford to play at a higher level than smaller schools like Baylor. It's noteworthy that he didn't say, when given the opportunity, that the major donor alumni, like McLane, Hurd family or Fudge family would provide enough money to make sure Baylor would have enough to compete.

---

Don't think you should include SMU in that list of " schools like Baylor, TCU and SMU to compete". SMU just picked up $50 Million from one donor and the expectation is that another $50 Million and more will come before the year is out. SMU has the donors and they have the will to stay right there with the bigger dogs in this fiasco. This money was expressly targeted to NIL efforts.

---

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

The Briles' debacle then Mack Rhoades have completely alienated most of our donors

---

blackie said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Right. I heard it then, and intended to post about it, but just now got around to it. If you listen closely, it's pretty clear Baylor doesn't have the alumni support or financial strength to compete in the upper tier of the Big 12. 3:06 - 8:45 of the interview is particularly interesting. His comments essentially are there has to be a salary cap for schools like Baylor, TCU and SMU to compete. As it is now he says there are 30 or so large state universities with big stadiums that can afford to play at a higher level than smaller schools like Baylor. It's noteworthy that he didn't say, when given the opportunity, that the major donor alumni, like McLane, Hurd family or Fudge family would provide enough money to make sure Baylor would have enough to compete.

---

Don't think you should include SMU in that list of " schools like Baylor, TCU and SMU to compete". SMU just picked up $50 Million from one donor and the expectation is that another $50 Million and more will come before the year is out. SMU has the donors and they have the will to stay right there with the bigger dogs in this fiasco. This money was expressly targeted to NIL efforts.

---

Big12Fan2024 said:

---

Why is he grouping SMU with us. I recall seeing them in the CFP in 2024 and almost making this past season. They didn't make the NCAA basketball tournament last year but they're going to be in this year.

SMU and Baylor appear to be on two different trajectories with athletic programs and unfortunately we're not on the correct one.

---

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

**** em????? I wish

We need the money, bro. We need donors now more than ever...

---

• state (flagship) schools have both big alumni bases and legislative backing
• so they're likely the only 'guaranteed' survivors of realignment
• other schools could be among that number, they're just not the same level of guarantee
• Baylor BMDs have largely wanted to wait until they know there are contractual protections on their NIL gifts (cf Troy Aikman's angst at UCLA)

T-REX said:

---

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

The Briles' debacle then Mack Rhoades have completely alienated most of our donors

---

**** em. Real fans dont turn their back on their team because their god got dethroned

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

SMU is in a better spot, but they still face an existential crisis. I have a degree from the school, so I'm not knocking it. Just a statement of fact.

Recall, they had to forgo conference revenue go 9 years to get into the ACC. That is not good for their long term prospects on conference realignment. And even SMU doesn't have deep enough pockets for that to continue into perpetuity.

The reality is that Notre Dame and perhaps USC and Miami are the only private schools with the resources to play this game long term. And even USC's finances are under pressure.

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

T-REX said:

---

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

The Briles' debacle then Mack Rhoades have completely alienated most of our donors

---

**** em. Real fans dont turn their back on their team because their god got dethroned

---

It wasn't because our God got dethroned. It was because our Board dethroned our god. To put it another way, if my brother cheats on his wife, that's my brother. If my brother cheats with my wife, forgiveness won't come as easily.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Right. I heard it then, and intended to post about it, but just now got around to it. If you listen closely, it's pretty clear Baylor doesn't have the alumni support or financial strength to compete in the upper tier of the Big 12. 3:06 - 8:45 of the interview is particularly interesting. His comments essentially are there has to be a salary cap for schools like Baylor, TCU and SMU to compete. As it is now he says there are 30 or so large state universities with big stadiums that can afford to play at a higher level than smaller schools like Baylor. It's noteworthy that he didn't say, when given the opportunity, that the major donor alumni, like McLane, Hurd family or Fudge family would provide enough money to make sure Baylor would have enough to compete.

---

guadalupeoso said:

---

The Board may be at fault, but your analogy doesn't work. You can say, "I think the board is bad and should not have fired Briles." But you can't say, "I'm not upset that Briles got fired, but I am upset that specifically the board fired Briles." Because the board is the only one who could fire him. Similar to "I'm not upset that my brother cheated, I'm upset he cheated with my wife." Implies that it would be less bad if he cheated with someone else - the analogy implies then firing of Briles would have been less bad if someone else (not the board) had done it. It just doesn't work.

But again, you're making my point. "I hate the board so I'm not going to support the university" creates a circular problem for folks who take that position. I don't know of a university that can improve without the support of its alumni. To use your marital analogies - I can't expect my marriage to improve if I only support it once my wife takes my position on all disputes. I have to support my marriage in spite of our differences, in hopes that the relationship will strengthen and improve. To do otherwise is self-defeating and I'll never be satisfied with that relationship. In failing to support the university because of the board, you aren't showing disapproval of the board, but rather showing that you actually don't care about the university (and I don't necessarily mean "you", specifically - for all I knows you are an ardent supporter - I just mean those that take that position) .

---

5th&Bagby said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Right. I heard it then, and intended to post about it, but just now got around to it. If you listen closely, it's pretty clear Baylor doesn't have the alumni support or financial strength to compete in the upper tier of the Big 12. 3:06 - 8:45 of the interview is particularly interesting. His comments essentially are there has to be a salary cap for schools like Baylor, TCU and SMU to compete. As it is now he says there are 30 or so large state universities with big stadiums that can afford to play at a higher level than smaller schools like Baylor. It's noteworthy that he didn't say, when given the opportunity, that the major donor alumni, like McLane, Hurd family or Fudge family would provide enough money to make sure Baylor would have enough to compete.

---

This isn't an accurate characterization so far as it regards state Universities. Whether that's Drayton's comment or interpretation is not really the point:

There are many factors at play, it will definitely be a bumpy ride, but the assumption that the evil state schools have infinite funds is incorrect.

---

“We’re going to have multiple rosters over $40 million in college football this season.” Straight cash! Fascinating stuff from @PeteNakos in his deep dive with college football GMs. https://t.co/oZFMP6Pl7Q

— Chris Low (@Clowfb) February 24, 2026

Jacques Strap said:

---

He didn't say the 30 largest schools have infinite funds, he said they have more funds and can pay at a higher level.

You can disagree with him, he is after all offering an opinion, but I tend to agree with him that the donor base of those bigger schools have deeper pockets than the BU donor base.

---

5th&Bagby said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

He didn't say the 30 largest schools have infinite funds, he said they have more funds and can pay at a higher level.

You can disagree with him, he is after all offering an opinion, but I tend to agree with him that the donor base of those bigger schools have deeper pockets than the BU donor base.

---

Name the states. I just gave you two in our conference that ran deficits. And they're making cut backs.

This chicken little s--- is hilarious. You're taking him literally. Quit trying to make it sound like I'm disagreeing with him. He wasn't I'm giving you information that tells you long-term that the trendline is going south. If you think I'm wrong, to talk to the bond financiers that prop up these states.

We are talking about state governments. They have trouble funding roads, schools, capital projects few are consistently successful. In the short run? Yeah, a few can write $40 million checks. But the signs of distress are there for the taking and with the exception of only a few states, most are looking to cap their spending.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/big12/2025/12/02/colorado-athletics-budget-deficit-deion-sanders-colorado-football-contract-nil/87560914007/

https://www.si.com/college/arizona/desiree-reed-francois-wildcats-football-brent-brennan

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

guadalupeoso said:

---

The Board may be at fault, but your analogy doesn't work. You can say, "I think the board is bad and should not have fired Briles." But you can't say, "I'm not upset that Briles got fired, but I am upset that specifically the board fired Briles." Because the board is the only one who could fire him. Similar to "I'm not upset that my brother cheated, I'm upset he cheated with my wife." Implies that it would be less bad if he cheated with someone else - the analogy implies then firing of Briles would have been less bad if someone else (not the board) had done it. It just doesn't work.

But again, you're making my point. "I hate the board so I'm not going to support the university" creates a circular problem for folks who take that position. I don't know of a university that can improve without the support of its alumni. To use your marital analogies - I can't expect my marriage to improve if I only support it once my wife takes my position on all disputes. I have to support my marriage in spite of our differences, in hopes that the relationship will strengthen and improve. To do otherwise is self-defeating and I'll never be satisfied with that relationship. In failing to support the university because of the board, you aren't showing disapproval of the board, but rather showing that you actually don't care about the university (and I don't necessarily mean "you", specifically - for all I knows you are an ardent supporter - I just mean those that take that position) .

---

It's a straight forward question. Had the board done proper governance would the Briles situation have happened?

You don't seem to grasp governance. Its purpose is not to stop bad things from happened. Life isn't predictable. It's to set up guidelines on how you deal with bad things when they happen.

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

From a substance perspective, much if not most of the $40 million that such schools spend is not coming from taxpayers, so it's similarly unclear what the point was with referring to state government budgets. If there has been a report that a state government is fronting all or virtually all of the $40M, please share so that we can all be brought up to speed.

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

From a substance perspective, much if not most of the $40 million that such schools spend is not coming from taxpayers, so it's similarly unclear what the point was with referring to state government budgets. If there has been a report that a state government is fronting all or virtually all of the $40M, please share so that we can all be brought up to speed.

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

guadalupeoso said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

T-REX said:

---

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

The Briles' debacle then Mack Rhoades have completely alienated most of our donors

---

**** em. Real fans dont turn their back on their team because their god got dethroned

---

It wasn't because our God got dethroned. It was because our Board dethroned our god. To put it another way, if my brother cheats on his wife, that's my brother. If my brother cheats with my wife, forgiveness won't come as easily.

---

This is a fallacy because it implies that there is a way outside of the Board that the "god" could have been dethroned. Only the board could fire him - which they did. Your brother (depending on how much money he makes or good looking he is) has a whole ocean of people he can cheat with. Not the same thing at all.

I attended Baylor University, not Briles University. Regardless of what my feelings are or aren't about Briles or the way that situation was handled, cutting off your nose to spite your face is just stupid.

---

2. Our Board failed us by hiring Ken Starr who didn't have the proper qualifications to be president of a university.

---

5th&Bagby said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Right. I heard it then, and intended to post about it, but just now got around to it. If you listen closely, it's pretty clear Baylor doesn't have the alumni support or financial strength to compete in the upper tier of the Big 12. 3:06 - 8:45 of the interview is particularly interesting. His comments essentially are there has to be a salary cap for schools like Baylor, TCU and SMU to compete. As it is now he says there are 30 or so large state universities with big stadiums that can afford to play at a higher level than smaller schools like Baylor. It's noteworthy that he didn't say, when given the opportunity, that the major donor alumni, like McLane, Hurd family or Fudge family would provide enough money to make sure Baylor would have enough to compete.

---

This isn't an accurate characterization so far as it regards state Universities. Whether that's Drayton's comment or interpretation is not really the point:

There are many factors at play, it will definitely be a bumpy ride, but the assumption that the evil state schools have infinite funds is incorrect.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

5th&Bagby said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Right. I heard it then, and intended to post about it, but just now got around to it. If you listen closely, it's pretty clear Baylor doesn't have the alumni support or financial strength to compete in the upper tier of the Big 12. 3:06 - 8:45 of the interview is particularly interesting. His comments essentially are there has to be a salary cap for schools like Baylor, TCU and SMU to compete. As it is now he says there are 30 or so large state universities with big stadiums that can afford to play at a higher level than smaller schools like Baylor. It's noteworthy that he didn't say, when given the opportunity, that the major donor alumni, like McLane, Hurd family or Fudge family would provide enough money to make sure Baylor would have enough to compete.

---

This isn't an accurate characterization so far as it regards state Universities. Whether that's Drayton's comment or interpretation is not really the point:

There are many factors at play, it will definitely be a bumpy ride, but the assumption that the evil state schools have infinite funds is incorrect.

---

When he says there are 30 or so large state universities with big stadiums that can afford to play at a higher level than smaller schools like Baylor, I don't think he is saying they have infinite funds. I think what he is saying is that their size, being 30 or so large state universities, in scope of budget, stadiums, and alumni donor base provides an very large access to funding gap that smaller schools like Baylor can't bridge.

---

5th&Bagby said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

5th&Bagby said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Right. I heard it then, and intended to post about it, but just now got around to it. If you listen closely, it's pretty clear Baylor doesn't have the alumni support or financial strength to compete in the upper tier of the Big 12. 3:06 - 8:45 of the interview is particularly interesting. His comments essentially are there has to be a salary cap for schools like Baylor, TCU and SMU to compete. As it is now he says there are 30 or so large state universities with big stadiums that can afford to play at a higher level than smaller schools like Baylor. It's noteworthy that he didn't say, when given the opportunity, that the major donor alumni, like McLane, Hurd family or Fudge family would provide enough money to make sure Baylor would have enough to compete.

---

This isn't an accurate characterization so far as it regards state Universities. Whether that's Drayton's comment or interpretation is not really the point:

There are many factors at play, it will definitely be a bumpy ride, but the assumption that the evil state schools have infinite funds is incorrect.

---

When he says there are 30 or so large state universities with big stadiums that can afford to play at a higher level than smaller schools like Baylor, I don't think he is saying they have infinite funds. I think what he is saying is that their size, being 30 or so large state universities, in scope of budget, stadiums, and alumni donor base provides an very large access to funding gap that smaller schools like Baylor can't bridge.

---

Like I said, if that were true, schools like Kansas wouldn't show a deficit. I hate the evil state school as much as anyone but state schools have constituents that will cut their athletic programs if it means a fight for survival. And right now, there are schools facing serious shortfalls that won't be made up. More to the point, the sport won't survive without some measure of parity. Fans won't watch rigged, pay-for-play games and shell out big bucks.

https://www.kcur.org/sports/2026-03-03/ku-pay-athletes-general-fund-faculty-union-pay-negotiation-girod-kansas

It should be easy to name these 30 schools, but no one seems to be able to do it.

---

5th&Bagby said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

5th&Bagby said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Right. I heard it then, and intended to post about it, but just now got around to it. If you listen closely, it's pretty clear Baylor doesn't have the alumni support or financial strength to compete in the upper tier of the Big 12. 3:06 - 8:45 of the interview is particularly interesting. His comments essentially are there has to be a salary cap for schools like Baylor, TCU and SMU to compete. As it is now he says there are 30 or so large state universities with big stadiums that can afford to play at a higher level than smaller schools like Baylor. It's noteworthy that he didn't say, when given the opportunity, that the major donor alumni, like McLane, Hurd family or Fudge family would provide enough money to make sure Baylor would have enough to compete.

---

This isn't an accurate characterization so far as it regards state Universities. Whether that's Drayton's comment or interpretation is not really the point:

There are many factors at play, it will definitely be a bumpy ride, but the assumption that the evil state schools have infinite funds is incorrect.

---

When he says there are 30 or so large state universities with big stadiums that can afford to play at a higher level than smaller schools like Baylor, I don't think he is saying they have infinite funds. I think what he is saying is that their size, being 30 or so large state universities, in scope of budget, stadiums, and alumni donor base provides an very large access to funding gap that smaller schools like Baylor can't bridge.

---

Like I said, if that were true, schools like Kansas wouldn't show a deficit. I hate the evil state school as much as anyone but state schools have constituents that will cut their athletic programs if it means a fight for survival. And right now, there are schools facing serious shortfalls that won't be made up. More to the point, the sport won't survive without some measure of parity. Fans won't watch rigged, pay-for-play games and shell out big bucks.

https://www.kcur.org/sports/2026-03-03/ku-pay-athletes-general-fund-faculty-union-pay-negotiation-girod-kansas

It should be easy to name these 30 schools, but no one seems to be able to do it.

---