BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

VaeBear said:

---

I saw this posted on a Baylor sports group on Facebook in regards to firing Aranda....

"I want Dave Aranda to be the coach until he doesn't want the job anymore.

What he teaches those young men is a lot more valuable than W's and L's. They will be better men, citizens, husbands, fathers, employers, and employees because of him.

Winning is fun, sure, but the things I just described are what the world needs.

Okay, everyone can pile on now."

---

That's gotta be trolling. But if it's not, I think people forget winning coaches can teach all of those same things

---

Just curious, you guys really believe that BU is getting someone better and that will "win"?

Next curiosity, where do you think BU is in the College Athletic world? Based on BU's history and the current environment you think BU should be winning? To put in perspective.

Aranda is the 50th highest paid coach. And BU is 49th or so in NIL, 8th in B12.

Final question, how has he underperformed with that level of investment.

---

I absolutely think we can get a better coach. Other schools in our range do it all the time. We just need to get comfortable with being a stepping stone for the good Big10 and SEC jobs. I will be happy if we only hold onto a coach for 2-3 years but consistently compete for the top of the conference.

Baylor is obsessed with the idea of getting a second Grant Teaff, aka 20 years of mediocre football with the occasional exciting season. That's their plan for Dave Aranda (although his teams suck even more)

---

And Grant Teaff's players weren't demanding six or seven figures of conference revenue money in order to be rented for a year

FLBear5630 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

VaeBear said:

---

I saw this posted on a Baylor sports group on Facebook in regards to firing Aranda....

"I want Dave Aranda to be the coach until he doesn't want the job anymore.

What he teaches those young men is a lot more valuable than W's and L's. They will be better men, citizens, husbands, fathers, employers, and employees because of him.

Winning is fun, sure, but the things I just described are what the world needs.

Okay, everyone can pile on now."

---

That's gotta be trolling. But if it's not, I think people forget winning coaches can teach all of those same things

---

Just curious, you guys really believe that BU is getting someone better and that will "win"?

Next curiosity, where do you think BU is in the College Athletic world? Based on BU's history and the current environment you think BU should be winning? To put in perspective.

Aranda is the 50th highest paid coach. And BU is 49th or so in NIL, 8th in B12.

Final question, how has he underperformed with that level of investment.

---

Assuming your stats are correct, Aranda doesn't look any better. Programs want coaches who outperform their salary, not ones who merely perform in line with their pay grade. Fans have every right to complain and want more than a 17-16 loss on opening weekend to a subpar Sec team in year 7.

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

VaeBear said:

---

I saw this posted on a Baylor sports group on Facebook in regards to firing Aranda....

"I want Dave Aranda to be the coach until he doesn't want the job anymore.

What he teaches those young men is a lot more valuable than W's and L's. They will be better men, citizens, husbands, fathers, employers, and employees because of him.

Winning is fun, sure, but the things I just described are what the world needs.

Okay, everyone can pile on now."

---

That's gotta be trolling. But if it's not, I think people forget winning coaches can teach all of those same things

---

Just curious, you guys really believe that BU is getting someone better and that will "win"?

Next curiosity, where do you think BU is in the College Athletic world? Based on BU's history and the current environment you think BU should be winning? To put in perspective.

Aranda is the 50th highest paid coach. And BU is 49th or so in NIL, 8th in B12.

Final question, how has he underperformed with that level of investment.

---

Are these real questions? They are all kind of self-explanatory, but here goes

Yes, I believe that Baylor can find a better coach than Dave. Dave is not a winner, and if the new coach doesn't work out, hey, we tried. Again, we are talking about replacing a coach that lost to Air Force and Texas State after having weeks/an entire off-season to prepare for both. Another way of saying this is how hard is it to replace a coach that doesn't win games? Not that hard

It's more difficult to answer your second question, because you didn't proofread what you wrote, and it's difficult to understand. No one on here expects Baylor to turn into Georgia. Nobody on here expects Baylor to routinely compete for the big 12 championship every year or heck, most years. I DO expect Baylor to make a bowl game every year and compete for the big 12 championship every three or four years. I DO expect not to get blown out. I DO expect us to not lose to clearly inferior programs as stated above. I also expect a coach at Baylor to be a force multiplier and not simply a CEO that blows through coordinators like hotcakes and hopes and prays that this year's iteration of potential scapegoats works out

I would want to see concrete figures posted for all these assertions that he's 49th of this and 50-whatever that. Baylor does not publish those numbers, and I doubt you are privy to that info, no offense.

I think you're really caught up on this idea that winning is purely a function of money. reality is more nuanced than that. Coaches that punch above their weight by coaching their team to be better than the sum of their individual talent is very much a thing. The Navy coach comes to mind, and's that's just one example. Briles was winning with two and three star guys because of his scheme and coaching. The list could go on and on. Frankly, I think this idea that little old Baylor can't do better than Dave is a coping mechanism

---

Damn right they are. You get what you invest. BU invests average money and gets average returns. Some would say we out performed our investment with the B12 Championship, Sugar Bowl win. But, that was long ago under a different system.

You believe you can get a "winner" today. A winning coach that wins year in and year out for the 49th highest salary? Investing #40 level NIL? You invest average, you get average. We are very average, in an average to bad location, at a highly religious school... I am sure the next Sabans are lined up...

---

Ok wow. There's a lot of strawman here. I didn't realize that being in the camp that wants to get rid of Dave somehow means that you are under the impression that your school is going to hire the next Nick Saban.

Unless you're willing to post some sort of reliable source (ie not anESPN article or some supposed premium board insider) for this NIL data, it's worthless for the sake of this argument. The ball is in your court to prove:

1. These NIL numbers you're quoting as fact,

2. The underlying argument that coaching doesn't matter and that winning is merely a function of investment

3. That we couldn't hire a coach that loses lots of games to replace a coach that loses lots of games. If coaching does matter, why wouldn't a new coach bring improvement, and if coaching doesn't matter, why does coaching not matter? How would you explain our program under Art Briles, or programs like Air Force and Texas State that are able to beat bad coaches like Dave Aranda with less talent and resources?

I'll hang up and listen

---

Look it up yourself if you question. If you dont know those percentages sre in the right ball park you have a lot of learning to do to get in the conversation.

Briles again? That was a decade ago, that system is gone several times over. If you want to talk replacing, you have to understand todays structure. Not pine for a decade ago.

Talent wins. Today talent cost money. You spend cheap, you get cheap. We spend at Alamo Bowl level.

Fix the money before firing and hiring. Yes money wins, always has. There is no super HC that wins with the little engine that could. We are right where we should be based on spending.

Real easy to find...

https://nil-ncaa.com/big12/

Brother, I am telling you. Get ready for an expert in mental gymnastics

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

VaeBear said:

---

I saw this posted on a Baylor sports group on Facebook in regards to firing Aranda....

"I want Dave Aranda to be the coach until he doesn't want the job anymore.

What he teaches those young men is a lot more valuable than W's and L's. They will be better men, citizens, husbands, fathers, employers, and employees because of him.

Winning is fun, sure, but the things I just described are what the world needs.

Okay, everyone can pile on now."

---

That's gotta be trolling. But if it's not, I think people forget winning coaches can teach all of those same things

---

Just curious, you guys really believe that BU is getting someone better and that will "win"?

Next curiosity, where do you think BU is in the College Athletic world? Based on BU's history and the current environment you think BU should be winning? To put in perspective.

Aranda is the 50th highest paid coach. And BU is 49th or so in NIL, 8th in B12.

Final question, how has he underperformed with that level of investment.

---

Are these real questions? They are all kind of self-explanatory, but here goes

Yes, I believe that Baylor can find a better coach than Dave. Dave is not a winner, and if the new coach doesn't work out, hey, we tried. Again, we are talking about replacing a coach that lost to Air Force and Texas State after having weeks/an entire off-season to prepare for both. Another way of saying this is how hard is it to replace a coach that doesn't win games? Not that hard

It's more difficult to answer your second question, because you didn't proofread what you wrote, and it's difficult to understand. No one on here expects Baylor to turn into Georgia. Nobody on here expects Baylor to routinely compete for the big 12 championship every year or heck, most years. I DO expect Baylor to make a bowl game every year and compete for the big 12 championship every three or four years. I DO expect not to get blown out. I DO expect us to not lose to clearly inferior programs as stated above. I also expect a coach at Baylor to be a force multiplier and not simply a CEO that blows through coordinators like hotcakes and hopes and prays that this year's iteration of potential scapegoats works out

I would want to see concrete figures posted for all these assertions that he's 49th of this and 50-whatever that. Baylor does not publish those numbers, and I doubt you are privy to that info, no offense.

I think you're really caught up on this idea that winning is purely a function of money. reality is more nuanced than that. Coaches that punch above their weight by coaching their team to be better than the sum of their individual talent is very much a thing. The Navy coach comes to mind, and's that's just one example. Briles was winning with two and three star guys because of his scheme and coaching. The list could go on and on. Frankly, I think this idea that little old Baylor can't do better than Dave is a coping mechanism

---

Damn right they are. You get what you invest. BU invests average money and gets average returns. Some would say we out performed our investment with the B12 Championship, Sugar Bowl win. But, that was long ago under a different system.

You believe you can get a "winner" today. A winning coach that wins year in and year out for the 49th highest salary? Investing #40 level NIL? You invest average, you get average. We are very average, in an average to bad location, at a highly religious school... I am sure the next Sabans are lined up...

---

Ok wow. There's a lot of strawman here. I didn't realize that being in the camp that wants to get rid of Dave somehow means that you are under the impression that your school is going to hire the next Nick Saban.

Unless you're willing to post some sort of reliable source (ie not anESPN article or some supposed premium board insider) for this NIL data, it's worthless for the sake of this argument. The ball is in your court to prove:

1. These NIL numbers you're quoting as fact,

2. The underlying argument that coaching doesn't matter and that winning is merely a function of investment

3. That we couldn't hire a coach that loses lots of games to replace a coach that loses lots of games. If coaching does matter, why wouldn't a new coach bring improvement, and if coaching doesn't matter, why does coaching not matter? How would you explain our program under Art Briles, or programs like Air Force and Texas State that are able to beat bad coaches like Dave Aranda with less talent and resources?

I'll hang up and listen

---

Look it up yourself if you question. If you dont know those percentages sre in the right ball park you have a lot of learning to do to get in the conversation.

Briles again? That was a decade ago, that system is gone several times over. If you want to talk replacing, you have to understand todays structure. Not pine for a decade ago.

Talent wins. Today talent cost money. You spend cheap, you get cheap. We spend at Alamo Bowl level.

Fix the money before firing and hiring. Yes money wins, always has. There is no super HC that wins with the little engine that could. We are right where we should be based on spending.

Real easy to find...

https://nil-ncaa.com/big12/

---

So you basically dodged every question I asked, lol

Have any of y'all noticed a trend with the most fanatical Dave Aranda supporters that they tend to be the kind of people that believe anything they read on the Internet? That website you posted literally admits that they do not have the real numbers. Very few if any schools are giving out those figures.

Again, since you are arguing that coaching doesn't really matter, why don't we get rid of Dave and hire a coach that makes 100K/year and then invest all of that extra money into NIL? Based on your own reasoning, you should be all for that. Also, based on your logic, A&M should've won multiple SEC championships under Jimbo. Oh, but they didn't because….wait for it….coaching matters. Whoada thunk?

Until you can actually answer some of these questions (you've answered none so far), the ball is still very much in your court to prove why Aranda deserves to keep his job.

---

Geez, you guys are ridiculous. What ball? You really think the numbers change that much? A slot higher, maybe a slot lower. We are in the mid-range of investment at best ANY way you cut it.

We pay mediocre prices for coaches, we pay mediocre amounts for NIL and we get mediocre results. Pretty straight forward.

You are expecting top line results for paying mediocre prices. Expectations are not aligned with the investment. Pretty simple concept.

No sweat off my balls, you keep on believing how bad we perform and saying we should be in the Playoff while Tech buys a Defense. We keep driving a Sentra and wondering why the Ferrari keeps beating us in the quarter mile.

If we move on from Aranda I doubt we are putting up money to hire an experienced HC. I doubt we have a NIL package to attract a lot of candidates y'all think e should hire. We may attract a continuation of more .500 era, I'm not saying we are inviting a new Steele era necessarily. The fact that we went back in time 30 years and hired a local guy without hardly any athletic department experience as the AD should probably serve as a good harbinger. Our donors seem to be done with pouring money into being big time. They seem to be in the "just enough to not be embarrassed" game now. Probably because they got their money wasted without any input back in 2016.

We are back to the modern version of our 70s and 80s. While investing more than we were 3 years ago, not really investing on par with play off contenders else but still enough to be getting decent mileage out of it.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

VaeBear said:

---

I saw this posted on a Baylor sports group on Facebook in regards to firing Aranda....

"I want Dave Aranda to be the coach until he doesn't want the job anymore.

What he teaches those young men is a lot more valuable than W's and L's. They will be better men, citizens, husbands, fathers, employers, and employees because of him.

Winning is fun, sure, but the things I just described are what the world needs.

Okay, everyone can pile on now."

---

That's gotta be trolling. But if it's not, I think people forget winning coaches can teach all of those same things

---

Just curious, you guys really believe that BU is getting someone better and that will "win"?

Next curiosity, where do you think BU is in the College Athletic world? Based on BU's history and the current environment you think BU should be winning? To put in perspective.

Aranda is the 50th highest paid coach. And BU is 49th or so in NIL, 8th in B12.

Final question, how has he underperformed with that level of investment.

---

Are these real questions? They are all kind of self-explanatory, but here goes

Yes, I believe that Baylor can find a better coach than Dave. Dave is not a winner, and if the new coach doesn't work out, hey, we tried. Again, we are talking about replacing a coach that lost to Air Force and Texas State after having weeks/an entire off-season to prepare for both. Another way of saying this is how hard is it to replace a coach that doesn't win games? Not that hard

It's more difficult to answer your second question, because you didn't proofread what you wrote, and it's difficult to understand. No one on here expects Baylor to turn into Georgia. Nobody on here expects Baylor to routinely compete for the big 12 championship every year or heck, most years. I DO expect Baylor to make a bowl game every year and compete for the big 12 championship every three or four years. I DO expect not to get blown out. I DO expect us to not lose to clearly inferior programs as stated above. I also expect a coach at Baylor to be a force multiplier and not simply a CEO that blows through coordinators like hotcakes and hopes and prays that this year's iteration of potential scapegoats works out

I would want to see concrete figures posted for all these assertions that he's 49th of this and 50-whatever that. Baylor does not publish those numbers, and I doubt you are privy to that info, no offense.

I think you're really caught up on this idea that winning is purely a function of money. reality is more nuanced than that. Coaches that punch above their weight by coaching their team to be better than the sum of their individual talent is very much a thing. The Navy coach comes to mind, and's that's just one example. Briles was winning with two and three star guys because of his scheme and coaching. The list could go on and on. Frankly, I think this idea that little old Baylor can't do better than Dave is a coping mechanism

---

Damn right they are. You get what you invest. BU invests average money and gets average returns. Some would say we out performed our investment with the B12 Championship, Sugar Bowl win. But, that was long ago under a different system.

You believe you can get a "winner" today. A winning coach that wins year in and year out for the 49th highest salary? Investing #40 level NIL? You invest average, you get average. We are very average, in an average to bad location, at a highly religious school... I am sure the next Sabans are lined up...

---

Ok wow. There's a lot of strawman here. I didn't realize that being in the camp that wants to get rid of Dave somehow means that you are under the impression that your school is going to hire the next Nick Saban.

Unless you're willing to post some sort of reliable source (ie not anESPN article or some supposed premium board insider) for this NIL data, it's worthless for the sake of this argument. The ball is in your court to prove:

1. These NIL numbers you're quoting as fact,

2. The underlying argument that coaching doesn't matter and that winning is merely a function of investment

3. That we couldn't hire a coach that loses lots of games to replace a coach that loses lots of games. If coaching does matter, why wouldn't a new coach bring improvement, and if coaching doesn't matter, why does coaching not matter? How would you explain our program under Art Briles, or programs like Air Force and Texas State that are able to beat bad coaches like Dave Aranda with less talent and resources?

I'll hang up and listen

---

Look it up yourself if you question. If you dont know those percentages sre in the right ball park you have a lot of learning to do to get in the conversation.

Briles again? That was a decade ago, that system is gone several times over. If you want to talk replacing, you have to understand todays structure. Not pine for a decade ago.

Talent wins. Today talent cost money. You spend cheap, you get cheap. We spend at Alamo Bowl level.

Fix the money before firing and hiring. Yes money wins, always has. There is no super HC that wins with the little engine that could. We are right where we should be based on spending.

Real easy to find...

https://nil-ncaa.com/big12/

---

How are Boise and Memphis as good as they are? Surely we can outspend them. We need a GM who's entire job it is to research the entire G5 and determine who are the best players on each of those teams at every position and then target and make money offers to those players every year. Thats the new game. See who is the best guy on App state, Coastal Carolina, Tx State, S Alabama, Jax state etc then go get them. Then you look on the bench at P4 places to find guys who want to play.

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

VaeBear said:

---

I saw this posted on a Baylor sports group on Facebook in regards to firing Aranda....

"I want Dave Aranda to be the coach until he doesn't want the job anymore.

What he teaches those young men is a lot more valuable than W's and L's. They will be better men, citizens, husbands, fathers, employers, and employees because of him.

Winning is fun, sure, but the things I just described are what the world needs.

Okay, everyone can pile on now."

---

That's gotta be trolling. But if it's not, I think people forget winning coaches can teach all of those same things

---

Just curious, you guys really believe that BU is getting someone better and that will "win"?

Next curiosity, where do you think BU is in the College Athletic world? Based on BU's history and the current environment you think BU should be winning? To put in perspective.

Aranda is the 50th highest paid coach. And BU is 49th or so in NIL, 8th in B12.

Final question, how has he underperformed with that level of investment.

---

Are these real questions? They are all kind of self-explanatory, but here goes

Yes, I believe that Baylor can find a better coach than Dave. Dave is not a winner, and if the new coach doesn't work out, hey, we tried. Again, we are talking about replacing a coach that lost to Air Force and Texas State after having weeks/an entire off-season to prepare for both. Another way of saying this is how hard is it to replace a coach that doesn't win games? Not that hard

It's more difficult to answer your second question, because you didn't proofread what you wrote, and it's difficult to understand. No one on here expects Baylor to turn into Georgia. Nobody on here expects Baylor to routinely compete for the big 12 championship every year or heck, most years. I DO expect Baylor to make a bowl game every year and compete for the big 12 championship every three or four years. I DO expect not to get blown out. I DO expect us to not lose to clearly inferior programs as stated above. I also expect a coach at Baylor to be a force multiplier and not simply a CEO that blows through coordinators like hotcakes and hopes and prays that this year's iteration of potential scapegoats works out

I would want to see concrete figures posted for all these assertions that he's 49th of this and 50-whatever that. Baylor does not publish those numbers, and I doubt you are privy to that info, no offense.

I think you're really caught up on this idea that winning is purely a function of money. reality is more nuanced than that. Coaches that punch above their weight by coaching their team to be better than the sum of their individual talent is very much a thing. The Navy coach comes to mind, and's that's just one example. Briles was winning with two and three star guys because of his scheme and coaching. The list could go on and on. Frankly, I think this idea that little old Baylor can't do better than Dave is a coping mechanism

---

Damn right they are. You get what you invest. BU invests average money and gets average returns. Some would say we out performed our investment with the B12 Championship, Sugar Bowl win. But, that was long ago under a different system.

You believe you can get a "winner" today. A winning coach that wins year in and year out for the 49th highest salary? Investing #40 level NIL? You invest average, you get average. We are very average, in an average to bad location, at a highly religious school... I am sure the next Sabans are lined up...

---

Ok wow. There's a lot of strawman here. I didn't realize that being in the camp that wants to get rid of Dave somehow means that you are under the impression that your school is going to hire the next Nick Saban.

Unless you're willing to post some sort of reliable source (ie not anESPN article or some supposed premium board insider) for this NIL data, it's worthless for the sake of this argument. The ball is in your court to prove:

1. These NIL numbers you're quoting as fact,

2. The underlying argument that coaching doesn't matter and that winning is merely a function of investment

3. That we couldn't hire a coach that loses lots of games to replace a coach that loses lots of games. If coaching does matter, why wouldn't a new coach bring improvement, and if coaching doesn't matter, why does coaching not matter? How would you explain our program under Art Briles, or programs like Air Force and Texas State that are able to beat bad coaches like Dave Aranda with less talent and resources?

I'll hang up and listen

---

Look it up yourself if you question. If you dont know those percentages sre in the right ball park you have a lot of learning to do to get in the conversation.

Briles again? That was a decade ago, that system is gone several times over. If you want to talk replacing, you have to understand todays structure. Not pine for a decade ago.

Talent wins. Today talent cost money. You spend cheap, you get cheap. We spend at Alamo Bowl level.

Fix the money before firing and hiring. Yes money wins, always has. There is no super HC that wins with the little engine that could. We are right where we should be based on spending.

Real easy to find...

https://nil-ncaa.com/big12/

---

How are Boise and Memphis as good as they are? Surely we can outspend them. We need a GM who's entire job it is to research the entire G5 and determine who are the best players on each of those teams at every position and then target and make money offers to those players every year. Thats the new game. See who is the best guy on App state, Coastal Carolina, Tx State, S Alabama, Jax state etc then go get them. Then you look on the bench at P4 places to find guys who want to play.

---

This is an interesting article on NIL and who is embracing it. It answers the Memphis question (#50 with ties to Fed Ex). Neither Baylor nor Boise made the top 50.

College football's top 50 programs ranked by NIL efforts

For Boise, they were not listed on that list. But, I found this article you may find interesting.

Where Boise State Football's NIL Money is Coming From: Key Contributors and Sources - CollegeNetWorth.com


As for Aranda, this article is the biggest indictment to get rid of him, according to this Dallas article he is the reason BU is so far behind in NIL. THAT gets more pissed than the play against Auburn. That shows he either can't read the tea leaves or worse did and chose not to do it. NIL is the future to winning, period. Whether we like it or not, it is. BU is way behind, I blamed in on Rhodes, but this says it is Aranda. Gonna take a whole lot of marketing to overcome that stigma.

Aranda admits he's reason for Baylor's lack of NIL presence

I am more tolerant of bad teams, because it is cyclical for a school like BU. We may have 2 good years and 3 mediocre. No issues, nature of the beast. But, to not try or worse take a contrary position on the money at a P4 school. Is a problem.

He needs to go to an academy with that attitude. You may have convinced me...

FLBear5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

VaeBear said:

---

I saw this posted on a Baylor sports group on Facebook in regards to firing Aranda....

"I want Dave Aranda to be the coach until he doesn't want the job anymore.

What he teaches those young men is a lot more valuable than W's and L's. They will be better men, citizens, husbands, fathers, employers, and employees because of him.

Winning is fun, sure, but the things I just described are what the world needs.

Okay, everyone can pile on now."

---

That's gotta be trolling. But if it's not, I think people forget winning coaches can teach all of those same things

---

Just curious, you guys really believe that BU is getting someone better and that will "win"?

Next curiosity, where do you think BU is in the College Athletic world? Based on BU's history and the current environment you think BU should be winning? To put in perspective.

Aranda is the 50th highest paid coach. And BU is 49th or so in NIL, 8th in B12.

Final question, how has he underperformed with that level of investment.

---

Are these real questions? They are all kind of self-explanatory, but here goes

Yes, I believe that Baylor can find a better coach than Dave. Dave is not a winner, and if the new coach doesn't work out, hey, we tried. Again, we are talking about replacing a coach that lost to Air Force and Texas State after having weeks/an entire off-season to prepare for both. Another way of saying this is how hard is it to replace a coach that doesn't win games? Not that hard

It's more difficult to answer your second question, because you didn't proofread what you wrote, and it's difficult to understand. No one on here expects Baylor to turn into Georgia. Nobody on here expects Baylor to routinely compete for the big 12 championship every year or heck, most years. I DO expect Baylor to make a bowl game every year and compete for the big 12 championship every three or four years. I DO expect not to get blown out. I DO expect us to not lose to clearly inferior programs as stated above. I also expect a coach at Baylor to be a force multiplier and not simply a CEO that blows through coordinators like hotcakes and hopes and prays that this year's iteration of potential scapegoats works out

I would want to see concrete figures posted for all these assertions that he's 49th of this and 50-whatever that. Baylor does not publish those numbers, and I doubt you are privy to that info, no offense.

I think you're really caught up on this idea that winning is purely a function of money. reality is more nuanced than that. Coaches that punch above their weight by coaching their team to be better than the sum of their individual talent is very much a thing. The Navy coach comes to mind, and's that's just one example. Briles was winning with two and three star guys because of his scheme and coaching. The list could go on and on. Frankly, I think this idea that little old Baylor can't do better than Dave is a coping mechanism

---

Damn right they are. You get what you invest. BU invests average money and gets average returns. Some would say we out performed our investment with the B12 Championship, Sugar Bowl win. But, that was long ago under a different system.

You believe you can get a "winner" today. A winning coach that wins year in and year out for the 49th highest salary? Investing #40 level NIL? You invest average, you get average. We are very average, in an average to bad location, at a highly religious school... I am sure the next Sabans are lined up...

---

Ok wow. There's a lot of strawman here. I didn't realize that being in the camp that wants to get rid of Dave somehow means that you are under the impression that your school is going to hire the next Nick Saban.

Unless you're willing to post some sort of reliable source (ie not anESPN article or some supposed premium board insider) for this NIL data, it's worthless for the sake of this argument. The ball is in your court to prove:

1. These NIL numbers you're quoting as fact,

2. The underlying argument that coaching doesn't matter and that winning is merely a function of investment

3. That we couldn't hire a coach that loses lots of games to replace a coach that loses lots of games. If coaching does matter, why wouldn't a new coach bring improvement, and if coaching doesn't matter, why does coaching not matter? How would you explain our program under Art Briles, or programs like Air Force and Texas State that are able to beat bad coaches like Dave Aranda with less talent and resources?

I'll hang up and listen

---

Look it up yourself if you question. If you dont know those percentages sre in the right ball park you have a lot of learning to do to get in the conversation.

Briles again? That was a decade ago, that system is gone several times over. If you want to talk replacing, you have to understand todays structure. Not pine for a decade ago.

Talent wins. Today talent cost money. You spend cheap, you get cheap. We spend at Alamo Bowl level.

Fix the money before firing and hiring. Yes money wins, always has. There is no super HC that wins with the little engine that could. We are right where we should be based on spending.

Real easy to find...

https://nil-ncaa.com/big12/

---

How are Boise and Memphis as good as they are? Surely we can outspend them. We need a GM who's entire job it is to research the entire G5 and determine who are the best players on each of those teams at every position and then target and make money offers to those players every year. Thats the new game. See who is the best guy on App state, Coastal Carolina, Tx State, S Alabama, Jax state etc then go get them. Then you look on the bench at P4 places to find guys who want to play.

---

This is an interesting article on NIL and who is embracing it. It answers the Memphis question (#50 with ties to Fed Ex). Neither Baylor nor Boise made the top 50.

College football's top 50 programs ranked by NIL efforts

For Boise, they were not listed on that list. But, I found this article you may find interesting.

Where Boise State Football's NIL Money is Coming From: Key Contributors and Sources - CollegeNetWorth.com


As for Aranda, this article is the biggest indictment to get rid of him, according to this Dallas article he is the reason BU is so far behind in NIL. THAT gets more pissed than the play against Auburn. That shows he either can't read the tea leaves or worse did and chose not to do it. NIL is the future to winning, period. Whether we like it or not, it is. BU is way behind, I blamed in on Rhodes, but this says it is Aranda. Gonna take a whole lot of marketing to overcome that stigma.

Aranda admits he's reason for Baylor's lack of NIL presence

I am more tolerant of bad teams, because it is cyclical for a school like BU. We may have 2 good years and 3 mediocre. No issues, nature of the beast. But, to not try or worse take a contrary position on the money at a P4 school. Is a problem.

He needs to go to an academy with that attitude. You may have convinced me...

---

Well, you dont know that at all bc it clearly states in the article : Only public universities were included in the findings.

I could almost guarantee you that we are in the top 50 and probably the top 40. We would be ahead of Memphis for sure.

Guarantee if we were to remove him today and leave the post vacant our chances of winning games this season will increase just because he won't make stupid idiotic ChatGPT decisions.

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

VaeBear said:

---

I saw this posted on a Baylor sports group on Facebook in regards to firing Aranda....

"I want Dave Aranda to be the coach until he doesn't want the job anymore.

What he teaches those young men is a lot more valuable than W's and L's. They will be better men, citizens, husbands, fathers, employers, and employees because of him.

Winning is fun, sure, but the things I just described are what the world needs.

Okay, everyone can pile on now."

---

That's gotta be trolling. But if it's not, I think people forget winning coaches can teach all of those same things

---

Just curious, you guys really believe that BU is getting someone better and that will "win"?

Next curiosity, where do you think BU is in the College Athletic world? Based on BU's history and the current environment you think BU should be winning? To put in perspective.

Aranda is the 50th highest paid coach. And BU is 49th or so in NIL, 8th in B12.

Final question, how has he underperformed with that level of investment.

---

Are these real questions? They are all kind of self-explanatory, but here goes

Yes, I believe that Baylor can find a better coach than Dave. Dave is not a winner, and if the new coach doesn't work out, hey, we tried. Again, we are talking about replacing a coach that lost to Air Force and Texas State after having weeks/an entire off-season to prepare for both. Another way of saying this is how hard is it to replace a coach that doesn't win games? Not that hard

It's more difficult to answer your second question, because you didn't proofread what you wrote, and it's difficult to understand. No one on here expects Baylor to turn into Georgia. Nobody on here expects Baylor to routinely compete for the big 12 championship every year or heck, most years. I DO expect Baylor to make a bowl game every year and compete for the big 12 championship every three or four years. I DO expect not to get blown out. I DO expect us to not lose to clearly inferior programs as stated above. I also expect a coach at Baylor to be a force multiplier and not simply a CEO that blows through coordinators like hotcakes and hopes and prays that this year's iteration of potential scapegoats works out

I would want to see concrete figures posted for all these assertions that he's 49th of this and 50-whatever that. Baylor does not publish those numbers, and I doubt you are privy to that info, no offense.

I think you're really caught up on this idea that winning is purely a function of money. reality is more nuanced than that. Coaches that punch above their weight by coaching their team to be better than the sum of their individual talent is very much a thing. The Navy coach comes to mind, and's that's just one example. Briles was winning with two and three star guys because of his scheme and coaching. The list could go on and on. Frankly, I think this idea that little old Baylor can't do better than Dave is a coping mechanism

---

Damn right they are. You get what you invest. BU invests average money and gets average returns. Some would say we out performed our investment with the B12 Championship, Sugar Bowl win. But, that was long ago under a different system.

You believe you can get a "winner" today. A winning coach that wins year in and year out for the 49th highest salary? Investing #40 level NIL? You invest average, you get average. We are very average, in an average to bad location, at a highly religious school... I am sure the next Sabans are lined up...

---

Ok wow. There's a lot of strawman here. I didn't realize that being in the camp that wants to get rid of Dave somehow means that you are under the impression that your school is going to hire the next Nick Saban.

Unless you're willing to post some sort of reliable source (ie not anESPN article or some supposed premium board insider) for this NIL data, it's worthless for the sake of this argument. The ball is in your court to prove:

1. These NIL numbers you're quoting as fact,

2. The underlying argument that coaching doesn't matter and that winning is merely a function of investment

3. That we couldn't hire a coach that loses lots of games to replace a coach that loses lots of games. If coaching does matter, why wouldn't a new coach bring improvement, and if coaching doesn't matter, why does coaching not matter? How would you explain our program under Art Briles, or programs like Air Force and Texas State that are able to beat bad coaches like Dave Aranda with less talent and resources?

I'll hang up and listen

---

Look it up yourself if you question. If you dont know those percentages sre in the right ball park you have a lot of learning to do to get in the conversation.

Briles again? That was a decade ago, that system is gone several times over. If you want to talk replacing, you have to understand todays structure. Not pine for a decade ago.

Talent wins. Today talent cost money. You spend cheap, you get cheap. We spend at Alamo Bowl level.

Fix the money before firing and hiring. Yes money wins, always has. There is no super HC that wins with the little engine that could. We are right where we should be based on spending.

Real easy to find...

https://nil-ncaa.com/big12/

---

Have any of y'all noticed a trend with the most fanatical Dave Aranda supporters that they tend to be the kind of people that believe anything they read on the Internet? That website you posted literally admits that they do not have the real numbers. Very few if any schools are giving out those figures.

---

Those don't even seem to exist anymore.

At best we have lusterless Aranda supports or halfhearted Dave fans...."Well lets admit year 7 we are seeing improvement from him" types

No one can bring up the fire necessarily to be fanatical about loving Dave Aranda.

What was that line from Mark Twain about reading the Book of Mormon? "It's chloroform in print."

Dave is the chloroform of sidelines/fanbases

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

VaeBear said:

---

I saw this posted on a Baylor sports group on Facebook in regards to firing Aranda....

"I want Dave Aranda to be the coach until he doesn't want the job anymore.

What he teaches those young men is a lot more valuable than W's and L's. They will be better men, citizens, husbands, fathers, employers, and employees because of him.

Winning is fun, sure, but the things I just described are what the world needs.

Okay, everyone can pile on now."

---

That's gotta be trolling. But if it's not, I think people forget winning coaches can teach all of those same things

---

Just curious, you guys really believe that BU is getting someone better and that will "win"?

Next curiosity, where do you think BU is in the College Athletic world? Based on BU's history and the current environment you think BU should be winning? To put in perspective.

Aranda is the 50th highest paid coach. And BU is 49th or so in NIL, 8th in B12.

Final question, how has he underperformed with that level of investment.

---

Are these real questions? They are all kind of self-explanatory, but here goes

Yes, I believe that Baylor can find a better coach than Dave. Dave is not a winner, and if the new coach doesn't work out, hey, we tried. Again, we are talking about replacing a coach that lost to Air Force and Texas State after having weeks/an entire off-season to prepare for both. Another way of saying this is how hard is it to replace a coach that doesn't win games? Not that hard

It's more difficult to answer your second question, because you didn't proofread what you wrote, and it's difficult to understand. No one on here expects Baylor to turn into Georgia. Nobody on here expects Baylor to routinely compete for the big 12 championship every year or heck, most years. I DO expect Baylor to make a bowl game every year and compete for the big 12 championship every three or four years. I DO expect not to get blown out. I DO expect us to not lose to clearly inferior programs as stated above. I also expect a coach at Baylor to be a force multiplier and not simply a CEO that blows through coordinators like hotcakes and hopes and prays that this year's iteration of potential scapegoats works out

I would want to see concrete figures posted for all these assertions that he's 49th of this and 50-whatever that. Baylor does not publish those numbers, and I doubt you are privy to that info, no offense.

I think you're really caught up on this idea that winning is purely a function of money. reality is more nuanced than that. Coaches that punch above their weight by coaching their team to be better than the sum of their individual talent is very much a thing. The Navy coach comes to mind, and's that's just one example. Briles was winning with two and three star guys because of his scheme and coaching. The list could go on and on. Frankly, I think this idea that little old Baylor can't do better than Dave is a coping mechanism

---

Damn right they are. You get what you invest. BU invests average money and gets average returns. Some would say we out performed our investment with the B12 Championship, Sugar Bowl win. But, that was long ago under a different system.

You believe you can get a "winner" today. A winning coach that wins year in and year out for the 49th highest salary? Investing #40 level NIL? You invest average, you get average. We are very average, in an average to bad location, at a highly religious school... I am sure the next Sabans are lined up...

---

Ok wow. There's a lot of strawman here. I didn't realize that being in the camp that wants to get rid of Dave somehow means that you are under the impression that your school is going to hire the next Nick Saban.

Unless you're willing to post some sort of reliable source (ie not anESPN article or some supposed premium board insider) for this NIL data, it's worthless for the sake of this argument. The ball is in your court to prove:

1. These NIL numbers you're quoting as fact,

2. The underlying argument that coaching doesn't matter and that winning is merely a function of investment

3. That we couldn't hire a coach that loses lots of games to replace a coach that loses lots of games. If coaching does matter, why wouldn't a new coach bring improvement, and if coaching doesn't matter, why does coaching not matter? How would you explain our program under Art Briles, or programs like Air Force and Texas State that are able to beat bad coaches like Dave Aranda with less talent and resources?

I'll hang up and listen

---

Look it up yourself if you question. If you dont know those percentages sre in the right ball park you have a lot of learning to do to get in the conversation.

Briles again? That was a decade ago, that system is gone several times over. If you want to talk replacing, you have to understand todays structure. Not pine for a decade ago.

Talent wins. Today talent cost money. You spend cheap, you get cheap. We spend at Alamo Bowl level.

Fix the money before firing and hiring. Yes money wins, always has. There is no super HC that wins with the little engine that could. We are right where we should be based on spending.

Real easy to find...

https://nil-ncaa.com/big12/

---

How are Boise and Memphis as good as they are? Surely we can outspend them. We need a GM who's entire job it is to research the entire G5 and determine who are the best players on each of those teams at every position and then target and make money offers to those players every year. Thats the new game. See who is the best guy on App state, Coastal Carolina, Tx State, S Alabama, Jax state etc then go get them. Then you look on the bench at P4 places to find guys who want to play.

---

This is an interesting article on NIL and who is embracing it. It answers the Memphis question (#50 with ties to Fed Ex). Neither Baylor nor Boise made the top 50.

College football's top 50 programs ranked by NIL efforts

For Boise, they were not listed on that list. But, I found this article you may find interesting.

Where Boise State Football's NIL Money is Coming From: Key Contributors and Sources - CollegeNetWorth.com


As for Aranda, this article is the biggest indictment to get rid of him, according to this Dallas article he is the reason BU is so far behind in NIL. THAT gets more pissed than the play against Auburn. That shows he either can't read the tea leaves or worse did and chose not to do it. NIL is the future to winning, period. Whether we like it or not, it is. BU is way behind, I blamed in on Rhodes, but this says it is Aranda. Gonna take a whole lot of marketing to overcome that stigma.

Aranda admits he's reason for Baylor's lack of NIL presence

I am more tolerant of bad teams, because it is cyclical for a school like BU. We may have 2 good years and 3 mediocre. No issues, nature of the beast. But, to not try or worse take a contrary position on the money at a P4 school. Is a problem.

He needs to go to an academy with that attitude. You may have convinced me...

---

Well, you dont know that at all bc it clearly states in the article : Only public universities were included in the findings.

I could almost guarantee you that we are in the top 50 and probably the top 40. We would be ahead of Memphis for sure.

---

We are 41, I said that earlier in a post. I was using it to answer the Memphis question. My mistake, poorly written. The point of the articles was that those schools are in big on NIL. We have to embrace NIL, if Aranda doesn't he needs to leave a P4 school. Just "doing it" is not enough, you have to sell it. The other article talked about Boise.

His public attitude on NIL pushed me over the line, he needs to go. We cannot compete without it, even with itwe have some limitations to overcome anyway. Thanks for pointing out.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

VaeBear said:

---

I saw this posted on a Baylor sports group on Facebook in regards to firing Aranda....

"I want Dave Aranda to be the coach until he doesn't want the job anymore.

What he teaches those young men is a lot more valuable than W's and L's. They will be better men, citizens, husbands, fathers, employers, and employees because of him.

Winning is fun, sure, but the things I just described are what the world needs.

Okay, everyone can pile on now."

---

That's gotta be trolling. But if it's not, I think people forget winning coaches can teach all of those same things

---

Just curious, you guys really believe that BU is getting someone better and that will "win"?

Next curiosity, where do you think BU is in the College Athletic world? Based on BU's history and the current environment you think BU should be winning? To put in perspective.

Aranda is the 50th highest paid coach. And BU is 49th or so in NIL, 8th in B12.

Final question, how has he underperformed with that level of investment.

---

I absolutely think we can get a better coach. Other schools in our range do it all the time. We just need to get comfortable with being a stepping stone for the good Big10 and SEC jobs. I will be happy if we only hold onto a coach for 2-3 years but consistently compete for the top of the conference.

Baylor is obsessed with the idea of getting a second Grant Teaff, aka 20 years of mediocre football with the occasional exciting season. That's their plan for Dave Aranda (although his teams suck even more)

---

Of course we can get a better coach. I've started a dozen plus threads on CDA and his need to be fired. He's a nice guy but he just doesn't get headcoaching. He doesn't have the knack for it. He's a guy known for being cerebral, but the truth is he's not. He studies stats but doesn't know how to use them or apply them. The guy needs to be gone. It's not even a question. It was obvious early that headcoaching was over his head. In fact it was pretty clear during the championship team as well. He did everything he could to lose games, but our D was just too strong. And that D wasn't exactly all CDAs doing.

Stranger said:

---

I'm still on record for firing Arandas replacing him with anybody but Rhule

---

How about Jim Grobe?

Stranger said:

---

I'm still on record for firing Arandas replacing him with anybody but Rhule

---

We need a HC that embraces the NIL system, that is what the world is today. I like what he stands for, but top players that can win in P4 don't want an equal, all share NIL. They want to be told they are special and pretty...

FLBear5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

VaeBear said:

---

I saw this posted on a Baylor sports group on Facebook in regards to firing Aranda....

"I want Dave Aranda to be the coach until he doesn't want the job anymore.

What he teaches those young men is a lot more valuable than W's and L's. They will be better men, citizens, husbands, fathers, employers, and employees because of him.

Winning is fun, sure, but the things I just described are what the world needs.

Okay, everyone can pile on now."

---

That's gotta be trolling. But if it's not, I think people forget winning coaches can teach all of those same things

---

Just curious, you guys really believe that BU is getting someone better and that will "win"?

Next curiosity, where do you think BU is in the College Athletic world? Based on BU's history and the current environment you think BU should be winning? To put in perspective.

Aranda is the 50th highest paid coach. And BU is 49th or so in NIL, 8th in B12.

Final question, how has he underperformed with that level of investment.

---

Are these real questions? They are all kind of self-explanatory, but here goes

Yes, I believe that Baylor can find a better coach than Dave. Dave is not a winner, and if the new coach doesn't work out, hey, we tried. Again, we are talking about replacing a coach that lost to Air Force and Texas State after having weeks/an entire off-season to prepare for both. Another way of saying this is how hard is it to replace a coach that doesn't win games? Not that hard

It's more difficult to answer your second question, because you didn't proofread what you wrote, and it's difficult to understand. No one on here expects Baylor to turn into Georgia. Nobody on here expects Baylor to routinely compete for the big 12 championship every year or heck, most years. I DO expect Baylor to make a bowl game every year and compete for the big 12 championship every three or four years. I DO expect not to get blown out. I DO expect us to not lose to clearly inferior programs as stated above. I also expect a coach at Baylor to be a force multiplier and not simply a CEO that blows through coordinators like hotcakes and hopes and prays that this year's iteration of potential scapegoats works out

I would want to see concrete figures posted for all these assertions that he's 49th of this and 50-whatever that. Baylor does not publish those numbers, and I doubt you are privy to that info, no offense.

I think you're really caught up on this idea that winning is purely a function of money. reality is more nuanced than that. Coaches that punch above their weight by coaching their team to be better than the sum of their individual talent is very much a thing. The Navy coach comes to mind, and's that's just one example. Briles was winning with two and three star guys because of his scheme and coaching. The list could go on and on. Frankly, I think this idea that little old Baylor can't do better than Dave is a coping mechanism

---

Damn right they are. You get what you invest. BU invests average money and gets average returns. Some would say we out performed our investment with the B12 Championship, Sugar Bowl win. But, that was long ago under a different system.

You believe you can get a "winner" today. A winning coach that wins year in and year out for the 49th highest salary? Investing #40 level NIL? You invest average, you get average. We are very average, in an average to bad location, at a highly religious school... I am sure the next Sabans are lined up...

---

Ok wow. There's a lot of strawman here. I didn't realize that being in the camp that wants to get rid of Dave somehow means that you are under the impression that your school is going to hire the next Nick Saban.

Unless you're willing to post some sort of reliable source (ie not anESPN article or some supposed premium board insider) for this NIL data, it's worthless for the sake of this argument. The ball is in your court to prove:

1. These NIL numbers you're quoting as fact,

2. The underlying argument that coaching doesn't matter and that winning is merely a function of investment

3. That we couldn't hire a coach that loses lots of games to replace a coach that loses lots of games. If coaching does matter, why wouldn't a new coach bring improvement, and if coaching doesn't matter, why does coaching not matter? How would you explain our program under Art Briles, or programs like Air Force and Texas State that are able to beat bad coaches like Dave Aranda with less talent and resources?

I'll hang up and listen

---

Look it up yourself if you question. If you dont know those percentages sre in the right ball park you have a lot of learning to do to get in the conversation.

Briles again? That was a decade ago, that system is gone several times over. If you want to talk replacing, you have to understand todays structure. Not pine for a decade ago.

Talent wins. Today talent cost money. You spend cheap, you get cheap. We spend at Alamo Bowl level.

Fix the money before firing and hiring. Yes money wins, always has. There is no super HC that wins with the little engine that could. We are right where we should be based on spending.

Real easy to find...

https://nil-ncaa.com/big12/

---

How are Boise and Memphis as good as they are? Surely we can outspend them. We need a GM who's entire job it is to research the entire G5 and determine who are the best players on each of those teams at every position and then target and make money offers to those players every year. Thats the new game. See who is the best guy on App state, Coastal Carolina, Tx State, S Alabama, Jax state etc then go get them. Then you look on the bench at P4 places to find guys who want to play.

---

This is an interesting article on NIL and who is embracing it. It answers the Memphis question (#50 with ties to Fed Ex). Neither Baylor nor Boise made the top 50.

College football's top 50 programs ranked by NIL efforts

For Boise, they were not listed on that list. But, I found this article you may find interesting.

Where Boise State Football's NIL Money is Coming From: Key Contributors and Sources - CollegeNetWorth.com


As for Aranda, this article is the biggest indictment to get rid of him, according to this Dallas article he is the reason BU is so far behind in NIL. THAT gets more pissed than the play against Auburn. That shows he either can't read the tea leaves or worse did and chose not to do it. NIL is the future to winning, period. Whether we like it or not, it is. BU is way behind, I blamed in on Rhodes, but this says it is Aranda. Gonna take a whole lot of marketing to overcome that stigma.

Aranda admits he's reason for Baylor's lack of NIL presence

I am more tolerant of bad teams, because it is cyclical for a school like BU. We may have 2 good years and 3 mediocre. No issues, nature of the beast. But, to not try or worse take a contrary position on the money at a P4 school. Is a problem.

He needs to go to an academy with that attitude. You may have convinced me...

---

Well, you dont know that at all bc it clearly states in the article : Only public universities were included in the findings.

I could almost guarantee you that we are in the top 50 and probably the top 40. We would be ahead of Memphis for sure.

---

We are 41, I said that earlier in a post. I was using it to answer the Memphis question. My mistake, poorly written. The point of the articles was that those schools are in big on NIL. We have to embrace NIL, if Aranda doesn't he needs to leave a P4 school. Just "doing it" is not enough, you have to sell it. The other article talked about Boise.

His public attitude on NIL pushed me over the line, he needs to go. We cannot compete without it, even with itwe have some limitations to overcome anyway. Thanks for pointing out.

---

We both want the same thing. Aranda gone. But for me there are multiple issues. For you, it appears to just be his NIL stance, which I agree is bad.

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

I can only read thread titles but there was already a thread that said "if you were out, then stay out"

I had the paid subscription side

---

That's the 365 Staff thumbing noses at you.

Youre a clown said:

---

Stranger said:

---

I'm still on record for firing Arandas replacing him with anybody but Rhule

---

How about Jim Grobe?

---

What rest home has him now?

Guitarbiscuit said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

VaeBear said:

---

I saw this posted on a Baylor sports group on Facebook in regards to firing Aranda....

"I want Dave Aranda to be the coach until he doesn't want the job anymore.

What he teaches those young men is a lot more valuable than W's and L's. They will be better men, citizens, husbands, fathers, employers, and employees because of him.

Winning is fun, sure, but the things I just described are what the world needs.

Okay, everyone can pile on now."

---

That's gotta be trolling. But if it's not, I think people forget winning coaches can teach all of those same things

---

Just curious, you guys really believe that BU is getting someone better and that will "win"?

Next curiosity, where do you think BU is in the College Athletic world? Based on BU's history and the current environment you think BU should be winning? To put in perspective.

Aranda is the 50th highest paid coach. And BU is 49th or so in NIL, 8th in B12.

Final question, how has he underperformed with that level of investment.

---

Are these real questions? They are all kind of self-explanatory, but here goes

Yes, I believe that Baylor can find a better coach than Dave. Dave is not a winner, and if the new coach doesn't work out, hey, we tried. Again, we are talking about replacing a coach that lost to Air Force and Texas State after having weeks/an entire off-season to prepare for both. Another way of saying this is how hard is it to replace a coach that doesn't win games? Not that hard

It's more difficult to answer your second question, because you didn't proofread what you wrote, and it's difficult to understand. No one on here expects Baylor to turn into Georgia. Nobody on here expects Baylor to routinely compete for the big 12 championship every year or heck, most years. I DO expect Baylor to make a bowl game every year and compete for the big 12 championship every three or four years. I DO expect not to get blown out. I DO expect us to not lose to clearly inferior programs as stated above. I also expect a coach at Baylor to be a force multiplier and not simply a CEO that blows through coordinators like hotcakes and hopes and prays that this year's iteration of potential scapegoats works out

I would want to see concrete figures posted for all these assertions that he's 49th of this and 50-whatever that. Baylor does not publish those numbers, and I doubt you are privy to that info, no offense.

I think you're really caught up on this idea that winning is purely a function of money. reality is more nuanced than that. Coaches that punch above their weight by coaching their team to be better than the sum of their individual talent is very much a thing. The Navy coach comes to mind, and's that's just one example. Briles was winning with two and three star guys because of his scheme and coaching. The list could go on and on. Frankly, I think this idea that little old Baylor can't do better than Dave is a coping mechanism

---

Damn right they are. You get what you invest. BU invests average money and gets average returns. Some would say we out performed our investment with the B12 Championship, Sugar Bowl win. But, that was long ago under a different system.

You believe you can get a "winner" today. A winning coach that wins year in and year out for the 49th highest salary? Investing #40 level NIL? You invest average, you get average. We are very average, in an average to bad location, at a highly religious school... I am sure the next Sabans are lined up...

---

Ok wow. There's a lot of strawman here. I didn't realize that being in the camp that wants to get rid of Dave somehow means that you are under the impression that your school is going to hire the next Nick Saban.

Unless you're willing to post some sort of reliable source (ie not anESPN article or some supposed premium board insider) for this NIL data, it's worthless for the sake of this argument. The ball is in your court to prove:

1. These NIL numbers you're quoting as fact,

2. The underlying argument that coaching doesn't matter and that winning is merely a function of investment

3. That we couldn't hire a coach that loses lots of games to replace a coach that loses lots of games. If coaching does matter, why wouldn't a new coach bring improvement, and if coaching doesn't matter, why does coaching not matter? How would you explain our program under Art Briles, or programs like Air Force and Texas State that are able to beat bad coaches like Dave Aranda with less talent and resources?

I'll hang up and listen

---

Look it up yourself if you question. If you dont know those percentages sre in the right ball park you have a lot of learning to do to get in the conversation.

Briles again? That was a decade ago, that system is gone several times over. If you want to talk replacing, you have to understand todays structure. Not pine for a decade ago.

Talent wins. Today talent cost money. You spend cheap, you get cheap. We spend at Alamo Bowl level.

Fix the money before firing and hiring. Yes money wins, always has. There is no super HC that wins with the little engine that could. We are right where we should be based on spending.

Real easy to find...

https://nil-ncaa.com/big12/

---

How are Boise and Memphis as good as they are? Surely we can outspend them. We need a GM who's entire job it is to research the entire G5 and determine who are the best players on each of those teams at every position and then target and make money offers to those players every year. Thats the new game. See who is the best guy on App state, Coastal Carolina, Tx State, S Alabama, Jax state etc then go get them. Then you look on the bench at P4 places to find guys who want to play.

---

This is an interesting article on NIL and who is embracing it. It answers the Memphis question (#50 with ties to Fed Ex). Neither Baylor nor Boise made the top 50.

College football's top 50 programs ranked by NIL efforts

For Boise, they were not listed on that list. But, I found this article you may find interesting.

Where Boise State Football's NIL Money is Coming From: Key Contributors and Sources - CollegeNetWorth.com


As for Aranda, this article is the biggest indictment to get rid of him, according to this Dallas article he is the reason BU is so far behind in NIL. THAT gets more pissed than the play against Auburn. That shows he either can't read the tea leaves or worse did and chose not to do it. NIL is the future to winning, period. Whether we like it or not, it is. BU is way behind, I blamed in on Rhodes, but this says it is Aranda. Gonna take a whole lot of marketing to overcome that stigma.

Aranda admits he's reason for Baylor's lack of NIL presence

I am more tolerant of bad teams, because it is cyclical for a school like BU. We may have 2 good years and 3 mediocre. No issues, nature of the beast. But, to not try or worse take a contrary position on the money at a P4 school. Is a problem.

He needs to go to an academy with that attitude. You may have convinced me...

---

Well, you dont know that at all bc it clearly states in the article : Only public universities were included in the findings.

I could almost guarantee you that we are in the top 50 and probably the top 40. We would be ahead of Memphis for sure.

---

We are 41, I said that earlier in a post. I was using it to answer the Memphis question. My mistake, poorly written. The point of the articles was that those schools are in big on NIL. We have to embrace NIL, if Aranda doesn't he needs to leave a P4 school. Just "doing it" is not enough, you have to sell it. The other article talked about Boise.

His public attitude on NIL pushed me over the line, he needs to go. We cannot compete without it, even with itwe have some limitations to overcome anyway. Thanks for pointing out.

---

We both want the same thing. Aranda gone. But for me there are multiple issues. For you, it appears to just be his NIL stance, which I agree is bad.

---

Simpler than that. The first thing that has to be in place to win is the NIL to attract the talent that can compete. Or, we will be stuck in this loop of competing with the Auburns and other mid-tier teams. After researching, Aranda has said too much and the stupid "We pay players" shirts send a message that he is NOT on board with it. If I had a kid being courted by schools, I would want to go where they are using the system to the fullest to pay my kid.

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

VaeBear said:

---

I saw this posted on a Baylor sports group on Facebook in regards to firing Aranda....

"I want Dave Aranda to be the coach until he doesn't want the job anymore.

What he teaches those young men is a lot more valuable than W's and L's. They will be better men, citizens, husbands, fathers, employers, and employees because of him.

Winning is fun, sure, but the things I just described are what the world needs.

Okay, everyone can pile on now."

---

That's gotta be trolling. But if it's not, I think people forget winning coaches can teach all of those same things

---

Just curious, you guys really believe that BU is getting someone better and that will "win"?

Next curiosity, where do you think BU is in the College Athletic world? Based on BU's history and the current environment you think BU should be winning? To put in perspective.

Aranda is the 50th highest paid coach. And BU is 49th or so in NIL, 8th in B12.

Final question, how has he underperformed with that level of investment.

---

Are these real questions? They are all kind of self-explanatory, but here goes

Yes, I believe that Baylor can find a better coach than Dave. Dave is not a winner, and if the new coach doesn't work out, hey, we tried. Again, we are talking about replacing a coach that lost to Air Force and Texas State after having weeks/an entire off-season to prepare for both. Another way of saying this is how hard is it to replace a coach that doesn't win games? Not that hard

It's more difficult to answer your second question, because you didn't proofread what you wrote, and it's difficult to understand. No one on here expects Baylor to turn into Georgia. Nobody on here expects Baylor to routinely compete for the big 12 championship every year or heck, most years. I DO expect Baylor to make a bowl game every year and compete for the big 12 championship every three or four years. I DO expect not to get blown out. I DO expect us to not lose to clearly inferior programs as stated above. I also expect a coach at Baylor to be a force multiplier and not simply a CEO that blows through coordinators like hotcakes and hopes and prays that this year's iteration of potential scapegoats works out

I would want to see concrete figures posted for all these assertions that he's 49th of this and 50-whatever that. Baylor does not publish those numbers, and I doubt you are privy to that info, no offense.

I think you're really caught up on this idea that winning is purely a function of money. reality is more nuanced than that. Coaches that punch above their weight by coaching their team to be better than the sum of their individual talent is very much a thing. The Navy coach comes to mind, and's that's just one example. Briles was winning with two and three star guys because of his scheme and coaching. The list could go on and on. Frankly, I think this idea that little old Baylor can't do better than Dave is a coping mechanism

---

Damn right they are. You get what you invest. BU invests average money and gets average returns. Some would say we out performed our investment with the B12 Championship, Sugar Bowl win. But, that was long ago under a different system.

You believe you can get a "winner" today. A winning coach that wins year in and year out for the 49th highest salary? Investing #40 level NIL? You invest average, you get average. We are very average, in an average to bad location, at a highly religious school... I am sure the next Sabans are lined up...

---

Ok wow. There's a lot of strawman here. I didn't realize that being in the camp that wants to get rid of Dave somehow means that you are under the impression that your school is going to hire the next Nick Saban.

Unless you're willing to post some sort of reliable source (ie not anESPN article or some supposed premium board insider) for this NIL data, it's worthless for the sake of this argument. The ball is in your court to prove:

1. These NIL numbers you're quoting as fact,

2. The underlying argument that coaching doesn't matter and that winning is merely a function of investment

3. That we couldn't hire a coach that loses lots of games to replace a coach that loses lots of games. If coaching does matter, why wouldn't a new coach bring improvement, and if coaching doesn't matter, why does coaching not matter? How would you explain our program under Art Briles, or programs like Air Force and Texas State that are able to beat bad coaches like Dave Aranda with less talent and resources?

I'll hang up and listen

---

Still waiting for answers to these questions. I suppose you think Dave would've beaten Oregon today if he was substitute coaching for Oklahoma State.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Guitarbiscuit said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

VaeBear said:

---

I saw this posted on a Baylor sports group on Facebook in regards to firing Aranda....

"I want Dave Aranda to be the coach until he doesn't want the job anymore.

What he teaches those young men is a lot more valuable than W's and L's. They will be better men, citizens, husbands, fathers, employers, and employees because of him.

Winning is fun, sure, but the things I just described are what the world needs.

Okay, everyone can pile on now."

---

That's gotta be trolling. But if it's not, I think people forget winning coaches can teach all of those same things

---

Just curious, you guys really believe that BU is getting someone better and that will "win"?

Next curiosity, where do you think BU is in the College Athletic world? Based on BU's history and the current environment you think BU should be winning? To put in perspective.

Aranda is the 50th highest paid coach. And BU is 49th or so in NIL, 8th in B12.

Final question, how has he underperformed with that level of investment.

---

Are these real questions? They are all kind of self-explanatory, but here goes

Yes, I believe that Baylor can find a better coach than Dave. Dave is not a winner, and if the new coach doesn't work out, hey, we tried. Again, we are talking about replacing a coach that lost to Air Force and Texas State after having weeks/an entire off-season to prepare for both. Another way of saying this is how hard is it to replace a coach that doesn't win games? Not that hard

It's more difficult to answer your second question, because you didn't proofread what you wrote, and it's difficult to understand. No one on here expects Baylor to turn into Georgia. Nobody on here expects Baylor to routinely compete for the big 12 championship every year or heck, most years. I DO expect Baylor to make a bowl game every year and compete for the big 12 championship every three or four years. I DO expect not to get blown out. I DO expect us to not lose to clearly inferior programs as stated above. I also expect a coach at Baylor to be a force multiplier and not simply a CEO that blows through coordinators like hotcakes and hopes and prays that this year's iteration of potential scapegoats works out

I would want to see concrete figures posted for all these assertions that he's 49th of this and 50-whatever that. Baylor does not publish those numbers, and I doubt you are privy to that info, no offense.

I think you're really caught up on this idea that winning is purely a function of money. reality is more nuanced than that. Coaches that punch above their weight by coaching their team to be better than the sum of their individual talent is very much a thing. The Navy coach comes to mind, and's that's just one example. Briles was winning with two and three star guys because of his scheme and coaching. The list could go on and on. Frankly, I think this idea that little old Baylor can't do better than Dave is a coping mechanism

---

Damn right they are. You get what you invest. BU invests average money and gets average returns. Some would say we out performed our investment with the B12 Championship, Sugar Bowl win. But, that was long ago under a different system.

You believe you can get a "winner" today. A winning coach that wins year in and year out for the 49th highest salary? Investing #40 level NIL? You invest average, you get average. We are very average, in an average to bad location, at a highly religious school... I am sure the next Sabans are lined up...

---

Ok wow. There's a lot of strawman here. I didn't realize that being in the camp that wants to get rid of Dave somehow means that you are under the impression that your school is going to hire the next Nick Saban.

Unless you're willing to post some sort of reliable source (ie not anESPN article or some supposed premium board insider) for this NIL data, it's worthless for the sake of this argument. The ball is in your court to prove:

1. These NIL numbers you're quoting as fact,

2. The underlying argument that coaching doesn't matter and that winning is merely a function of investment

3. That we couldn't hire a coach that loses lots of games to replace a coach that loses lots of games. If coaching does matter, why wouldn't a new coach bring improvement, and if coaching doesn't matter, why does coaching not matter? How would you explain our program under Art Briles, or programs like Air Force and Texas State that are able to beat bad coaches like Dave Aranda with less talent and resources?

I'll hang up and listen

---

Look it up yourself if you question. If you dont know those percentages sre in the right ball park you have a lot of learning to do to get in the conversation.

Briles again? That was a decade ago, that system is gone several times over. If you want to talk replacing, you have to understand todays structure. Not pine for a decade ago.

Talent wins. Today talent cost money. You spend cheap, you get cheap. We spend at Alamo Bowl level.

Fix the money before firing and hiring. Yes money wins, always has. There is no super HC that wins with the little engine that could. We are right where we should be based on spending.

Real easy to find...

https://nil-ncaa.com/big12/

---

How are Boise and Memphis as good as they are? Surely we can outspend them. We need a GM who's entire job it is to research the entire G5 and determine who are the best players on each of those teams at every position and then target and make money offers to those players every year. Thats the new game. See who is the best guy on App state, Coastal Carolina, Tx State, S Alabama, Jax state etc then go get them. Then you look on the bench at P4 places to find guys who want to play.

---

This is an interesting article on NIL and who is embracing it. It answers the Memphis question (#50 with ties to Fed Ex). Neither Baylor nor Boise made the top 50.

College football's top 50 programs ranked by NIL efforts

For Boise, they were not listed on that list. But, I found this article you may find interesting.

Where Boise State Football's NIL Money is Coming From: Key Contributors and Sources - CollegeNetWorth.com


As for Aranda, this article is the biggest indictment to get rid of him, according to this Dallas article he is the reason BU is so far behind in NIL. THAT gets more pissed than the play against Auburn. That shows he either can't read the tea leaves or worse did and chose not to do it. NIL is the future to winning, period. Whether we like it or not, it is. BU is way behind, I blamed in on Rhodes, but this says it is Aranda. Gonna take a whole lot of marketing to overcome that stigma.

Aranda admits he's reason for Baylor's lack of NIL presence

I am more tolerant of bad teams, because it is cyclical for a school like BU. We may have 2 good years and 3 mediocre. No issues, nature of the beast. But, to not try or worse take a contrary position on the money at a P4 school. Is a problem.

He needs to go to an academy with that attitude. You may have convinced me...

---

Well, you dont know that at all bc it clearly states in the article : Only public universities were included in the findings.

I could almost guarantee you that we are in the top 50 and probably the top 40. We would be ahead of Memphis for sure.

---

We are 41, I said that earlier in a post. I was using it to answer the Memphis question. My mistake, poorly written. The point of the articles was that those schools are in big on NIL. We have to embrace NIL, if Aranda doesn't he needs to leave a P4 school. Just "doing it" is not enough, you have to sell it. The other article talked about Boise.

His public attitude on NIL pushed me over the line, he needs to go. We cannot compete without it, even with itwe have some limitations to overcome anyway. Thanks for pointing out.

---

We both want the same thing. Aranda gone. But for me there are multiple issues. For you, it appears to just be his NIL stance, which I agree is bad.

---

Simpler than that. The first thing that has to be in place to win is the NIL to attract the talent that can compete. Or, we will be stuck in this loop of competing with the Auburns and other mid-tier teams. After researching, Aranda has said too much and the stupid "We pay players" shirts send a message that he is NOT on board with it. If I had a kid being courted by schools, I would want to go where they are using the system to the fullest to pay my kid.

---

Oklahoma State had more money than Oregon according to your chart, right? Or are you admitting that this chart is made up? It's gotta be one or the other

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Guitarbiscuit said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

VaeBear said:

---

I saw this posted on a Baylor sports group on Facebook in regards to firing Aranda....

"I want Dave Aranda to be the coach until he doesn't want the job anymore.

What he teaches those young men is a lot more valuable than W's and L's. They will be better men, citizens, husbands, fathers, employers, and employees because of him.

Winning is fun, sure, but the things I just described are what the world needs.

Okay, everyone can pile on now."

---

That's gotta be trolling. But if it's not, I think people forget winning coaches can teach all of those same things

---

Just curious, you guys really believe that BU is getting someone better and that will "win"?

Next curiosity, where do you think BU is in the College Athletic world? Based on BU's history and the current environment you think BU should be winning? To put in perspective.

Aranda is the 50th highest paid coach. And BU is 49th or so in NIL, 8th in B12.

Final question, how has he underperformed with that level of investment.

---

Are these real questions? They are all kind of self-explanatory, but here goes

Yes, I believe that Baylor can find a better coach than Dave. Dave is not a winner, and if the new coach doesn't work out, hey, we tried. Again, we are talking about replacing a coach that lost to Air Force and Texas State after having weeks/an entire off-season to prepare for both. Another way of saying this is how hard is it to replace a coach that doesn't win games? Not that hard

It's more difficult to answer your second question, because you didn't proofread what you wrote, and it's difficult to understand. No one on here expects Baylor to turn into Georgia. Nobody on here expects Baylor to routinely compete for the big 12 championship every year or heck, most years. I DO expect Baylor to make a bowl game every year and compete for the big 12 championship every three or four years. I DO expect not to get blown out. I DO expect us to not lose to clearly inferior programs as stated above. I also expect a coach at Baylor to be a force multiplier and not simply a CEO that blows through coordinators like hotcakes and hopes and prays that this year's iteration of potential scapegoats works out

I would want to see concrete figures posted for all these assertions that he's 49th of this and 50-whatever that. Baylor does not publish those numbers, and I doubt you are privy to that info, no offense.

I think you're really caught up on this idea that winning is purely a function of money. reality is more nuanced than that. Coaches that punch above their weight by coaching their team to be better than the sum of their individual talent is very much a thing. The Navy coach comes to mind, and's that's just one example. Briles was winning with two and three star guys because of his scheme and coaching. The list could go on and on. Frankly, I think this idea that little old Baylor can't do better than Dave is a coping mechanism

---

Damn right they are. You get what you invest. BU invests average money and gets average returns. Some would say we out performed our investment with the B12 Championship, Sugar Bowl win. But, that was long ago under a different system.

You believe you can get a "winner" today. A winning coach that wins year in and year out for the 49th highest salary? Investing #40 level NIL? You invest average, you get average. We are very average, in an average to bad location, at a highly religious school... I am sure the next Sabans are lined up...

---

Ok wow. There's a lot of strawman here. I didn't realize that being in the camp that wants to get rid of Dave somehow means that you are under the impression that your school is going to hire the next Nick Saban.

Unless you're willing to post some sort of reliable source (ie not anESPN article or some supposed premium board insider) for this NIL data, it's worthless for the sake of this argument. The ball is in your court to prove:

1. These NIL numbers you're quoting as fact,

2. The underlying argument that coaching doesn't matter and that winning is merely a function of investment

3. That we couldn't hire a coach that loses lots of games to replace a coach that loses lots of games. If coaching does matter, why wouldn't a new coach bring improvement, and if coaching doesn't matter, why does coaching not matter? How would you explain our program under Art Briles, or programs like Air Force and Texas State that are able to beat bad coaches like Dave Aranda with less talent and resources?

I'll hang up and listen

---

Look it up yourself if you question. If you dont know those percentages sre in the right ball park you have a lot of learning to do to get in the conversation.

Briles again? That was a decade ago, that system is gone several times over. If you want to talk replacing, you have to understand todays structure. Not pine for a decade ago.

Talent wins. Today talent cost money. You spend cheap, you get cheap. We spend at Alamo Bowl level.

Fix the money before firing and hiring. Yes money wins, always has. There is no super HC that wins with the little engine that could. We are right where we should be based on spending.

Real easy to find...

https://nil-ncaa.com/big12/

---

How are Boise and Memphis as good as they are? Surely we can outspend them. We need a GM who's entire job it is to research the entire G5 and determine who are the best players on each of those teams at every position and then target and make money offers to those players every year. Thats the new game. See who is the best guy on App state, Coastal Carolina, Tx State, S Alabama, Jax state etc then go get them. Then you look on the bench at P4 places to find guys who want to play.

---

This is an interesting article on NIL and who is embracing it. It answers the Memphis question (#50 with ties to Fed Ex). Neither Baylor nor Boise made the top 50.

College football's top 50 programs ranked by NIL efforts

For Boise, they were not listed on that list. But, I found this article you may find interesting.

Where Boise State Football's NIL Money is Coming From: Key Contributors and Sources - CollegeNetWorth.com


As for Aranda, this article is the biggest indictment to get rid of him, according to this Dallas article he is the reason BU is so far behind in NIL. THAT gets more pissed than the play against Auburn. That shows he either can't read the tea leaves or worse did and chose not to do it. NIL is the future to winning, period. Whether we like it or not, it is. BU is way behind, I blamed in on Rhodes, but this says it is Aranda. Gonna take a whole lot of marketing to overcome that stigma.

Aranda admits he's reason for Baylor's lack of NIL presence

I am more tolerant of bad teams, because it is cyclical for a school like BU. We may have 2 good years and 3 mediocre. No issues, nature of the beast. But, to not try or worse take a contrary position on the money at a P4 school. Is a problem.

He needs to go to an academy with that attitude. You may have convinced me...

---

Well, you dont know that at all bc it clearly states in the article : Only public universities were included in the findings.

I could almost guarantee you that we are in the top 50 and probably the top 40. We would be ahead of Memphis for sure.

---

We are 41, I said that earlier in a post. I was using it to answer the Memphis question. My mistake, poorly written. The point of the articles was that those schools are in big on NIL. We have to embrace NIL, if Aranda doesn't he needs to leave a P4 school. Just "doing it" is not enough, you have to sell it. The other article talked about Boise.

His public attitude on NIL pushed me over the line, he needs to go. We cannot compete without it, even with itwe have some limitations to overcome anyway. Thanks for pointing out.

---

We both want the same thing. Aranda gone. But for me there are multiple issues. For you, it appears to just be his NIL stance, which I agree is bad.

---

Simpler than that. The first thing that has to be in place to win is the NIL to attract the talent that can compete. Or, we will be stuck in this loop of competing with the Auburns and other mid-tier teams. After researching, Aranda has said too much and the stupid "We pay players" shirts send a message that he is NOT on board with it. If I had a kid being courted by schools, I would want to go where they are using the system to the fullest to pay my kid.

---

Oklahoma State had more money than Oregon according to your chart, right? Or are you admitting that this chart is made up? It's gotta be one or the other

---

Don't be an idiot. On any given day... Look at who goes to the playoff, who wins the NC and the amounts of money being spent. Then tell me your "real coach" can win with Texas State's roster. You want to discuss a real subject, great. Let's go. You want to be an idiot, welcome to ignore.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Guitarbiscuit said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

VaeBear said:

---

I saw this posted on a Baylor sports group on Facebook in regards to firing Aranda....

"I want Dave Aranda to be the coach until he doesn't want the job anymore.

What he teaches those young men is a lot more valuable than W's and L's. They will be better men, citizens, husbands, fathers, employers, and employees because of him.

Winning is fun, sure, but the things I just described are what the world needs.

Okay, everyone can pile on now."

---

That's gotta be trolling. But if it's not, I think people forget winning coaches can teach all of those same things

---

Just curious, you guys really believe that BU is getting someone better and that will "win"?

Next curiosity, where do you think BU is in the College Athletic world? Based on BU's history and the current environment you think BU should be winning? To put in perspective.

Aranda is the 50th highest paid coach. And BU is 49th or so in NIL, 8th in B12.

Final question, how has he underperformed with that level of investment.

---

Are these real questions? They are all kind of self-explanatory, but here goes

Yes, I believe that Baylor can find a better coach than Dave. Dave is not a winner, and if the new coach doesn't work out, hey, we tried. Again, we are talking about replacing a coach that lost to Air Force and Texas State after having weeks/an entire off-season to prepare for both. Another way of saying this is how hard is it to replace a coach that doesn't win games? Not that hard

It's more difficult to answer your second question, because you didn't proofread what you wrote, and it's difficult to understand. No one on here expects Baylor to turn into Georgia. Nobody on here expects Baylor to routinely compete for the big 12 championship every year or heck, most years. I DO expect Baylor to make a bowl game every year and compete for the big 12 championship every three or four years. I DO expect not to get blown out. I DO expect us to not lose to clearly inferior programs as stated above. I also expect a coach at Baylor to be a force multiplier and not simply a CEO that blows through coordinators like hotcakes and hopes and prays that this year's iteration of potential scapegoats works out

I would want to see concrete figures posted for all these assertions that he's 49th of this and 50-whatever that. Baylor does not publish those numbers, and I doubt you are privy to that info, no offense.

I think you're really caught up on this idea that winning is purely a function of money. reality is more nuanced than that. Coaches that punch above their weight by coaching their team to be better than the sum of their individual talent is very much a thing. The Navy coach comes to mind, and's that's just one example. Briles was winning with two and three star guys because of his scheme and coaching. The list could go on and on. Frankly, I think this idea that little old Baylor can't do better than Dave is a coping mechanism

---

Damn right they are. You get what you invest. BU invests average money and gets average returns. Some would say we out performed our investment with the B12 Championship, Sugar Bowl win. But, that was long ago under a different system.

You believe you can get a "winner" today. A winning coach that wins year in and year out for the 49th highest salary? Investing #40 level NIL? You invest average, you get average. We are very average, in an average to bad location, at a highly religious school... I am sure the next Sabans are lined up...

---

Ok wow. There's a lot of strawman here. I didn't realize that being in the camp that wants to get rid of Dave somehow means that you are under the impression that your school is going to hire the next Nick Saban.

Unless you're willing to post some sort of reliable source (ie not anESPN article or some supposed premium board insider) for this NIL data, it's worthless for the sake of this argument. The ball is in your court to prove:

1. These NIL numbers you're quoting as fact,

2. The underlying argument that coaching doesn't matter and that winning is merely a function of investment

3. That we couldn't hire a coach that loses lots of games to replace a coach that loses lots of games. If coaching does matter, why wouldn't a new coach bring improvement, and if coaching doesn't matter, why does coaching not matter? How would you explain our program under Art Briles, or programs like Air Force and Texas State that are able to beat bad coaches like Dave Aranda with less talent and resources?

I'll hang up and listen

---

Look it up yourself if you question. If you dont know those percentages sre in the right ball park you have a lot of learning to do to get in the conversation.

Briles again? That was a decade ago, that system is gone several times over. If you want to talk replacing, you have to understand todays structure. Not pine for a decade ago.

Talent wins. Today talent cost money. You spend cheap, you get cheap. We spend at Alamo Bowl level.

Fix the money before firing and hiring. Yes money wins, always has. There is no super HC that wins with the little engine that could. We are right where we should be based on spending.

Real easy to find...

https://nil-ncaa.com/big12/

---

How are Boise and Memphis as good as they are? Surely we can outspend them. We need a GM who's entire job it is to research the entire G5 and determine who are the best players on each of those teams at every position and then target and make money offers to those players every year. Thats the new game. See who is the best guy on App state, Coastal Carolina, Tx State, S Alabama, Jax state etc then go get them. Then you look on the bench at P4 places to find guys who want to play.

---

This is an interesting article on NIL and who is embracing it. It answers the Memphis question (#50 with ties to Fed Ex). Neither Baylor nor Boise made the top 50.

College football's top 50 programs ranked by NIL efforts

For Boise, they were not listed on that list. But, I found this article you may find interesting.

Where Boise State Football's NIL Money is Coming From: Key Contributors and Sources - CollegeNetWorth.com


As for Aranda, this article is the biggest indictment to get rid of him, according to this Dallas article he is the reason BU is so far behind in NIL. THAT gets more pissed than the play against Auburn. That shows he either can't read the tea leaves or worse did and chose not to do it. NIL is the future to winning, period. Whether we like it or not, it is. BU is way behind, I blamed in on Rhodes, but this says it is Aranda. Gonna take a whole lot of marketing to overcome that stigma.

Aranda admits he's reason for Baylor's lack of NIL presence

I am more tolerant of bad teams, because it is cyclical for a school like BU. We may have 2 good years and 3 mediocre. No issues, nature of the beast. But, to not try or worse take a contrary position on the money at a P4 school. Is a problem.

He needs to go to an academy with that attitude. You may have convinced me...

---

Well, you dont know that at all bc it clearly states in the article : Only public universities were included in the findings.

I could almost guarantee you that we are in the top 50 and probably the top 40. We would be ahead of Memphis for sure.

---

We are 41, I said that earlier in a post. I was using it to answer the Memphis question. My mistake, poorly written. The point of the articles was that those schools are in big on NIL. We have to embrace NIL, if Aranda doesn't he needs to leave a P4 school. Just "doing it" is not enough, you have to sell it. The other article talked about Boise.

His public attitude on NIL pushed me over the line, he needs to go. We cannot compete without it, even with itwe have some limitations to overcome anyway. Thanks for pointing out.

---

We both want the same thing. Aranda gone. But for me there are multiple issues. For you, it appears to just be his NIL stance, which I agree is bad.

---

Simpler than that. The first thing that has to be in place to win is the NIL to attract the talent that can compete. Or, we will be stuck in this loop of competing with the Auburns and other mid-tier teams. After researching, Aranda has said too much and the stupid "We pay players" shirts send a message that he is NOT on board with it. If I had a kid being courted by schools, I would want to go where they are using the system to the fullest to pay my kid.

---

Oklahoma State had more money than Oregon according to your chart, right? Or are you admitting that this chart is made up? It's gotta be one or the other

---

Don't be an idiot. On any given day... Look at who goes to the playoff, who wins the NC and the amounts of money being spent. Then tell me your "real coach" can win with Texas State's roster. You want to discuss a real subject, great. Let's go. You want to be an idiot, welcome to ignore.

---

If I'm an idiot, you're the kind of person that has to set an alarm every 5 seconds so that they remember to breathe. Everything about you on this message board exudes "beta man" energy. Just admit that you had a terrible take dude. You can't write it off by saying "any given Saturday"'

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Guitarbiscuit said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

VaeBear said:

---

I saw this posted on a Baylor sports group on Facebook in regards to firing Aranda....

"I want Dave Aranda to be the coach until he doesn't want the job anymore.

What he teaches those young men is a lot more valuable than W's and L's. They will be better men, citizens, husbands, fathers, employers, and employees because of him.

Winning is fun, sure, but the things I just described are what the world needs.

Okay, everyone can pile on now."

---

That's gotta be trolling. But if it's not, I think people forget winning coaches can teach all of those same things

---

Just curious, you guys really believe that BU is getting someone better and that will "win"?

Next curiosity, where do you think BU is in the College Athletic world? Based on BU's history and the current environment you think BU should be winning? To put in perspective.

Aranda is the 50th highest paid coach. And BU is 49th or so in NIL, 8th in B12.

Final question, how has he underperformed with that level of investment.

---

Are these real questions? They are all kind of self-explanatory, but here goes

Yes, I believe that Baylor can find a better coach than Dave. Dave is not a winner, and if the new coach doesn't work out, hey, we tried. Again, we are talking about replacing a coach that lost to Air Force and Texas State after having weeks/an entire off-season to prepare for both. Another way of saying this is how hard is it to replace a coach that doesn't win games? Not that hard

It's more difficult to answer your second question, because you didn't proofread what you wrote, and it's difficult to understand. No one on here expects Baylor to turn into Georgia. Nobody on here expects Baylor to routinely compete for the big 12 championship every year or heck, most years. I DO expect Baylor to make a bowl game every year and compete for the big 12 championship every three or four years. I DO expect not to get blown out. I DO expect us to not lose to clearly inferior programs as stated above. I also expect a coach at Baylor to be a force multiplier and not simply a CEO that blows through coordinators like hotcakes and hopes and prays that this year's iteration of potential scapegoats works out

I would want to see concrete figures posted for all these assertions that he's 49th of this and 50-whatever that. Baylor does not publish those numbers, and I doubt you are privy to that info, no offense.

I think you're really caught up on this idea that winning is purely a function of money. reality is more nuanced than that. Coaches that punch above their weight by coaching their team to be better than the sum of their individual talent is very much a thing. The Navy coach comes to mind, and's that's just one example. Briles was winning with two and three star guys because of his scheme and coaching. The list could go on and on. Frankly, I think this idea that little old Baylor can't do better than Dave is a coping mechanism

---

Damn right they are. You get what you invest. BU invests average money and gets average returns. Some would say we out performed our investment with the B12 Championship, Sugar Bowl win. But, that was long ago under a different system.

You believe you can get a "winner" today. A winning coach that wins year in and year out for the 49th highest salary? Investing #40 level NIL? You invest average, you get average. We are very average, in an average to bad location, at a highly religious school... I am sure the next Sabans are lined up...

---

Ok wow. There's a lot of strawman here. I didn't realize that being in the camp that wants to get rid of Dave somehow means that you are under the impression that your school is going to hire the next Nick Saban.

Unless you're willing to post some sort of reliable source (ie not anESPN article or some supposed premium board insider) for this NIL data, it's worthless for the sake of this argument. The ball is in your court to prove:

1. These NIL numbers you're quoting as fact,

2. The underlying argument that coaching doesn't matter and that winning is merely a function of investment

3. That we couldn't hire a coach that loses lots of games to replace a coach that loses lots of games. If coaching does matter, why wouldn't a new coach bring improvement, and if coaching doesn't matter, why does coaching not matter? How would you explain our program under Art Briles, or programs like Air Force and Texas State that are able to beat bad coaches like Dave Aranda with less talent and resources?

I'll hang up and listen

---

Look it up yourself if you question. If you dont know those percentages sre in the right ball park you have a lot of learning to do to get in the conversation.

Briles again? That was a decade ago, that system is gone several times over. If you want to talk replacing, you have to understand todays structure. Not pine for a decade ago.

Talent wins. Today talent cost money. You spend cheap, you get cheap. We spend at Alamo Bowl level.

Fix the money before firing and hiring. Yes money wins, always has. There is no super HC that wins with the little engine that could. We are right where we should be based on spending.

Real easy to find...

https://nil-ncaa.com/big12/

---

How are Boise and Memphis as good as they are? Surely we can outspend them. We need a GM who's entire job it is to research the entire G5 and determine who are the best players on each of those teams at every position and then target and make money offers to those players every year. Thats the new game. See who is the best guy on App state, Coastal Carolina, Tx State, S Alabama, Jax state etc then go get them. Then you look on the bench at P4 places to find guys who want to play.

---

This is an interesting article on NIL and who is embracing it. It answers the Memphis question (#50 with ties to Fed Ex). Neither Baylor nor Boise made the top 50.

College football's top 50 programs ranked by NIL efforts

For Boise, they were not listed on that list. But, I found this article you may find interesting.

Where Boise State Football's NIL Money is Coming From: Key Contributors and Sources - CollegeNetWorth.com


As for Aranda, this article is the biggest indictment to get rid of him, according to this Dallas article he is the reason BU is so far behind in NIL. THAT gets more pissed than the play against Auburn. That shows he either can't read the tea leaves or worse did and chose not to do it. NIL is the future to winning, period. Whether we like it or not, it is. BU is way behind, I blamed in on Rhodes, but this says it is Aranda. Gonna take a whole lot of marketing to overcome that stigma.

Aranda admits he's reason for Baylor's lack of NIL presence

I am more tolerant of bad teams, because it is cyclical for a school like BU. We may have 2 good years and 3 mediocre. No issues, nature of the beast. But, to not try or worse take a contrary position on the money at a P4 school. Is a problem.

He needs to go to an academy with that attitude. You may have convinced me...

---

Well, you dont know that at all bc it clearly states in the article : Only public universities were included in the findings.

I could almost guarantee you that we are in the top 50 and probably the top 40. We would be ahead of Memphis for sure.

---

We are 41, I said that earlier in a post. I was using it to answer the Memphis question. My mistake, poorly written. The point of the articles was that those schools are in big on NIL. We have to embrace NIL, if Aranda doesn't he needs to leave a P4 school. Just "doing it" is not enough, you have to sell it. The other article talked about Boise.

His public attitude on NIL pushed me over the line, he needs to go. We cannot compete without it, even with itwe have some limitations to overcome anyway. Thanks for pointing out.

---

We both want the same thing. Aranda gone. But for me there are multiple issues. For you, it appears to just be his NIL stance, which I agree is bad.

---

Simpler than that. The first thing that has to be in place to win is the NIL to attract the talent that can compete. Or, we will be stuck in this loop of competing with the Auburns and other mid-tier teams. After researching, Aranda has said too much and the stupid "We pay players" shirts send a message that he is NOT on board with it. If I had a kid being courted by schools, I would want to go where they are using the system to the fullest to pay my kid.

---

Oklahoma State had more money than Oregon according to your chart, right? Or are you admitting that this chart is made up? It's gotta be one or the other

---

Don't be an idiot. On any given day... Look at who goes to the playoff, who wins the NC and the amounts of money being spent. Then tell me your "real coach" can win with Texas State's roster. You want to discuss a real subject, great. Let's go. You want to be an idiot, welcome to ignore.

---

If I'm an idiot, you're the kind of person that has to set an alarm every 5 seconds so that they remember to breathe. Everything about you on this message board exudes "beta man" energy. Just admit that you had a terrible take dude. You can't write it off by saying "any given Saturday"'

---

I said NIL is the most important thing to being successful. You said "No" it is a coach. A good coach can win. Who is this idiot??? You have no idea what you are talking about. In today's CFB, the MOST IMPORTANT person is the NIL Manager. Coaches are leaving the profession because of it. Player development, HS recruiting pales compared to NIL and the Portal. You don't pay, you are not competing.

But keep looking for those one offs where a team loses to an underdog and base your program on that. Let's see how successful you will be. Oh, wait. It is what Baylor HAS done up to this year.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Guitarbiscuit said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

VaeBear said:

---

I saw this posted on a Baylor sports group on Facebook in regards to firing Aranda....

"I want Dave Aranda to be the coach until he doesn't want the job anymore.

What he teaches those young men is a lot more valuable than W's and L's. They will be better men, citizens, husbands, fathers, employers, and employees because of him.

Winning is fun, sure, but the things I just described are what the world needs.

Okay, everyone can pile on now."

---

That's gotta be trolling. But if it's not, I think people forget winning coaches can teach all of those same things

---

Just curious, you guys really believe that BU is getting someone better and that will "win"?

Next curiosity, where do you think BU is in the College Athletic world? Based on BU's history and the current environment you think BU should be winning? To put in perspective.

Aranda is the 50th highest paid coach. And BU is 49th or so in NIL, 8th in B12.

Final question, how has he underperformed with that level of investment.

---

Are these real questions? They are all kind of self-explanatory, but here goes

Yes, I believe that Baylor can find a better coach than Dave. Dave is not a winner, and if the new coach doesn't work out, hey, we tried. Again, we are talking about replacing a coach that lost to Air Force and Texas State after having weeks/an entire off-season to prepare for both. Another way of saying this is how hard is it to replace a coach that doesn't win games? Not that hard

It's more difficult to answer your second question, because you didn't proofread what you wrote, and it's difficult to understand. No one on here expects Baylor to turn into Georgia. Nobody on here expects Baylor to routinely compete for the big 12 championship every year or heck, most years. I DO expect Baylor to make a bowl game every year and compete for the big 12 championship every three or four years. I DO expect not to get blown out. I DO expect us to not lose to clearly inferior programs as stated above. I also expect a coach at Baylor to be a force multiplier and not simply a CEO that blows through coordinators like hotcakes and hopes and prays that this year's iteration of potential scapegoats works out

I would want to see concrete figures posted for all these assertions that he's 49th of this and 50-whatever that. Baylor does not publish those numbers, and I doubt you are privy to that info, no offense.

I think you're really caught up on this idea that winning is purely a function of money. reality is more nuanced than that. Coaches that punch above their weight by coaching their team to be better than the sum of their individual talent is very much a thing. The Navy coach comes to mind, and's that's just one example. Briles was winning with two and three star guys because of his scheme and coaching. The list could go on and on. Frankly, I think this idea that little old Baylor can't do better than Dave is a coping mechanism

---

Damn right they are. You get what you invest. BU invests average money and gets average returns. Some would say we out performed our investment with the B12 Championship, Sugar Bowl win. But, that was long ago under a different system.

You believe you can get a "winner" today. A winning coach that wins year in and year out for the 49th highest salary? Investing #40 level NIL? You invest average, you get average. We are very average, in an average to bad location, at a highly religious school... I am sure the next Sabans are lined up...

---

Ok wow. There's a lot of strawman here. I didn't realize that being in the camp that wants to get rid of Dave somehow means that you are under the impression that your school is going to hire the next Nick Saban.

Unless you're willing to post some sort of reliable source (ie not anESPN article or some supposed premium board insider) for this NIL data, it's worthless for the sake of this argument. The ball is in your court to prove:

1. These NIL numbers you're quoting as fact,

2. The underlying argument that coaching doesn't matter and that winning is merely a function of investment

3. That we couldn't hire a coach that loses lots of games to replace a coach that loses lots of games. If coaching does matter, why wouldn't a new coach bring improvement, and if coaching doesn't matter, why does coaching not matter? How would you explain our program under Art Briles, or programs like Air Force and Texas State that are able to beat bad coaches like Dave Aranda with less talent and resources?

I'll hang up and listen

---

Look it up yourself if you question. If you dont know those percentages sre in the right ball park you have a lot of learning to do to get in the conversation.

Briles again? That was a decade ago, that system is gone several times over. If you want to talk replacing, you have to understand todays structure. Not pine for a decade ago.

Talent wins. Today talent cost money. You spend cheap, you get cheap. We spend at Alamo Bowl level.

Fix the money before firing and hiring. Yes money wins, always has. There is no super HC that wins with the little engine that could. We are right where we should be based on spending.

Real easy to find...

https://nil-ncaa.com/big12/

---

How are Boise and Memphis as good as they are? Surely we can outspend them. We need a GM who's entire job it is to research the entire G5 and determine who are the best players on each of those teams at every position and then target and make money offers to those players every year. Thats the new game. See who is the best guy on App state, Coastal Carolina, Tx State, S Alabama, Jax state etc then go get them. Then you look on the bench at P4 places to find guys who want to play.

---

This is an interesting article on NIL and who is embracing it. It answers the Memphis question (#50 with ties to Fed Ex). Neither Baylor nor Boise made the top 50.

College football's top 50 programs ranked by NIL efforts

For Boise, they were not listed on that list. But, I found this article you may find interesting.

Where Boise State Football's NIL Money is Coming From: Key Contributors and Sources - CollegeNetWorth.com


As for Aranda, this article is the biggest indictment to get rid of him, according to this Dallas article he is the reason BU is so far behind in NIL. THAT gets more pissed than the play against Auburn. That shows he either can't read the tea leaves or worse did and chose not to do it. NIL is the future to winning, period. Whether we like it or not, it is. BU is way behind, I blamed in on Rhodes, but this says it is Aranda. Gonna take a whole lot of marketing to overcome that stigma.

Aranda admits he's reason for Baylor's lack of NIL presence

I am more tolerant of bad teams, because it is cyclical for a school like BU. We may have 2 good years and 3 mediocre. No issues, nature of the beast. But, to not try or worse take a contrary position on the money at a P4 school. Is a problem.

He needs to go to an academy with that attitude. You may have convinced me...

---

Well, you dont know that at all bc it clearly states in the article : Only public universities were included in the findings.

I could almost guarantee you that we are in the top 50 and probably the top 40. We would be ahead of Memphis for sure.

---

We are 41, I said that earlier in a post. I was using it to answer the Memphis question. My mistake, poorly written. The point of the articles was that those schools are in big on NIL. We have to embrace NIL, if Aranda doesn't he needs to leave a P4 school. Just "doing it" is not enough, you have to sell it. The other article talked about Boise.

His public attitude on NIL pushed me over the line, he needs to go. We cannot compete without it, even with itwe have some limitations to overcome anyway. Thanks for pointing out.

---

We both want the same thing. Aranda gone. But for me there are multiple issues. For you, it appears to just be his NIL stance, which I agree is bad.

---

Simpler than that. The first thing that has to be in place to win is the NIL to attract the talent that can compete. Or, we will be stuck in this loop of competing with the Auburns and other mid-tier teams. After researching, Aranda has said too much and the stupid "We pay players" shirts send a message that he is NOT on board with it. If I had a kid being courted by schools, I would want to go where they are using the system to the fullest to pay my kid.

---

Oklahoma State had more money than Oregon according to your chart, right? Or are you admitting that this chart is made up? It's gotta be one or the other

---

Don't be an idiot. On any given day... Look at who goes to the playoff, who wins the NC and the amounts of money being spent. Then tell me your "real coach" can win with Texas State's roster. You want to discuss a real subject, great. Let's go. You want to be an idiot, welcome to ignore.

---

If the team with the most money always won then aggy wouldve won anything by now but they only have 3 10 wins season in 30 years.

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Guitarbiscuit said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Youre a clown said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

VaeBear said:

---

I saw this posted on a Baylor sports group on Facebook in regards to firing Aranda....

"I want Dave Aranda to be the coach until he doesn't want the job anymore.

What he teaches those young men is a lot more valuable than W's and L's. They will be better men, citizens, husbands, fathers, employers, and employees because of him.

Winning is fun, sure, but the things I just described are what the world needs.

Okay, everyone can pile on now."

---

That's gotta be trolling. But if it's not, I think people forget winning coaches can teach all of those same things

---

Just curious, you guys really believe that BU is getting someone better and that will "win"?

Next curiosity, where do you think BU is in the College Athletic world? Based on BU's history and the current environment you think BU should be winning? To put in perspective.

Aranda is the 50th highest paid coach. And BU is 49th or so in NIL, 8th in B12.

Final question, how has he underperformed with that level of investment.

---

Are these real questions? They are all kind of self-explanatory, but here goes

Yes, I believe that Baylor can find a better coach than Dave. Dave is not a winner, and if the new coach doesn't work out, hey, we tried. Again, we are talking about replacing a coach that lost to Air Force and Texas State after having weeks/an entire off-season to prepare for both. Another way of saying this is how hard is it to replace a coach that doesn't win games? Not that hard

It's more difficult to answer your second question, because you didn't proofread what you wrote, and it's difficult to understand. No one on here expects Baylor to turn into Georgia. Nobody on here expects Baylor to routinely compete for the big 12 championship every year or heck, most years. I DO expect Baylor to make a bowl game every year and compete for the big 12 championship every three or four years. I DO expect not to get blown out. I DO expect us to not lose to clearly inferior programs as stated above. I also expect a coach at Baylor to be a force multiplier and not simply a CEO that blows through coordinators like hotcakes and hopes and prays that this year's iteration of potential scapegoats works out

I would want to see concrete figures posted for all these assertions that he's 49th of this and 50-whatever that. Baylor does not publish those numbers, and I doubt you are privy to that info, no offense.

I think you're really caught up on this idea that winning is purely a function of money. reality is more nuanced than that. Coaches that punch above their weight by coaching their team to be better than the sum of their individual talent is very much a thing. The Navy coach comes to mind, and's that's just one example. Briles was winning with two and three star guys because of his scheme and coaching. The list could go on and on. Frankly, I think this idea that little old Baylor can't do better than Dave is a coping mechanism

---

Damn right they are. You get what you invest. BU invests average money and gets average returns. Some would say we out performed our investment with the B12 Championship, Sugar Bowl win. But, that was long ago under a different system.

You believe you can get a "winner" today. A winning coach that wins year in and year out for the 49th highest salary? Investing #40 level NIL? You invest average, you get average. We are very average, in an average to bad location, at a highly religious school... I am sure the next Sabans are lined up...

---

Ok wow. There's a lot of strawman here. I didn't realize that being in the camp that wants to get rid of Dave somehow means that you are under the impression that your school is going to hire the next Nick Saban.

Unless you're willing to post some sort of reliable source (ie not anESPN article or some supposed premium board insider) for this NIL data, it's worthless for the sake of this argument. The ball is in your court to prove:

1. These NIL numbers you're quoting as fact,

2. The underlying argument that coaching doesn't matter and that winning is merely a function of investment

3. That we couldn't hire a coach that loses lots of games to replace a coach that loses lots of games. If coaching does matter, why wouldn't a new coach bring improvement, and if coaching doesn't matter, why does coaching not matter? How would you explain our program under Art Briles, or programs like Air Force and Texas State that are able to beat bad coaches like Dave Aranda with less talent and resources?

I'll hang up and listen

---

Look it up yourself if you question. If you dont know those percentages sre in the right ball park you have a lot of learning to do to get in the conversation.

Briles again? That was a decade ago, that system is gone several times over. If you want to talk replacing, you have to understand todays structure. Not pine for a decade ago.

Talent wins. Today talent cost money. You spend cheap, you get cheap. We spend at Alamo Bowl level.

Fix the money before firing and hiring. Yes money wins, always has. There is no super HC that wins with the little engine that could. We are right where we should be based on spending.

Real easy to find...

https://nil-ncaa.com/big12/

---

How are Boise and Memphis as good as they are? Surely we can outspend them. We need a GM who's entire job it is to research the entire G5 and determine who are the best players on each of those teams at every position and then target and make money offers to those players every year. Thats the new game. See who is the best guy on App state, Coastal Carolina, Tx State, S Alabama, Jax state etc then go get them. Then you look on the bench at P4 places to find guys who want to play.

---

This is an interesting article on NIL and who is embracing it. It answers the Memphis question (#50 with ties to Fed Ex). Neither Baylor nor Boise made the top 50.

College football's top 50 programs ranked by NIL efforts

For Boise, they were not listed on that list. But, I found this article you may find interesting.

Where Boise State Football's NIL Money is Coming From: Key Contributors and Sources - CollegeNetWorth.com


As for Aranda, this article is the biggest indictment to get rid of him, according to this Dallas article he is the reason BU is so far behind in NIL. THAT gets more pissed than the play against Auburn. That shows he either can't read the tea leaves or worse did and chose not to do it. NIL is the future to winning, period. Whether we like it or not, it is. BU is way behind, I blamed in on Rhodes, but this says it is Aranda. Gonna take a whole lot of marketing to overcome that stigma.

Aranda admits he's reason for Baylor's lack of NIL presence

I am more tolerant of bad teams, because it is cyclical for a school like BU. We may have 2 good years and 3 mediocre. No issues, nature of the beast. But, to not try or worse take a contrary position on the money at a P4 school. Is a problem.

He needs to go to an academy with that attitude. You may have convinced me...

---

Well, you dont know that at all bc it clearly states in the article : Only public universities were included in the findings.

I could almost guarantee you that we are in the top 50 and probably the top 40. We would be ahead of Memphis for sure.

---

We are 41, I said that earlier in a post. I was using it to answer the Memphis question. My mistake, poorly written. The point of the articles was that those schools are in big on NIL. We have to embrace NIL, if Aranda doesn't he needs to leave a P4 school. Just "doing it" is not enough, you have to sell it. The other article talked about Boise.

His public attitude on NIL pushed me over the line, he needs to go. We cannot compete without it, even with itwe have some limitations to overcome anyway. Thanks for pointing out.

---

We both want the same thing. Aranda gone. But for me there are multiple issues. For you, it appears to just be his NIL stance, which I agree is bad.

---

Simpler than that. The first thing that has to be in place to win is the NIL to attract the talent that can compete. Or, we will be stuck in this loop of competing with the Auburns and other mid-tier teams. After researching, Aranda has said too much and the stupid "We pay players" shirts send a message that he is NOT on board with it. If I had a kid being courted by schools, I would want to go where they are using the system to the fullest to pay my kid.

---

Oklahoma State had more money than Oregon according to your chart, right? Or are you admitting that this chart is made up? It's gotta be one or the other

---

Don't be an idiot. On any given day... Look at who goes to the playoff, who wins the NC and the amounts of money being spent. Then tell me your "real coach" can win with Texas State's roster. You want to discuss a real subject, great. Let's go. You want to be an idiot, welcome to ignore.

---

If the team with the most money always won then aggy wouldve won anything by now but they only have 3 10 wins season in 30 years.

---

It is the 80-20 rule. Do you want to be the 20% and hope to win or the 80%? The data supports, strongly, NIL makes the difference.

The one thing I learned is that odds are you, me, we, BU are not the exception. Follow the formula. Aranda is not the formula and all it did was piss everyone off. Briles and Rhule followed the formula and won. Briles knew that he needed the players and didn't have NIL, so he had to roll the dice on character. But he knew who he needed to punch UT and Bama in the mouth. Bad dudes. Rhule knew what he needed. Aranda is playing a philosophical game, better men. Camelot... That is not what will beat Tech with their NIL program. It took Joey to the playoff... Think about that Maguire...

Does it work always? No. Does it give you a better chance to go to the Playoff? Yes...