I for one think we're several years overdue a coaching change. But I don't trust this president or BOR to make a solid hire. Say what you will about Starr but at least the guy saw the importance of a competitive football program.
Do you trust the University leadership to make a solid hire...
2,489 Views |
35 Replies |
Last: 14 min ago by PartyBear
You have to try. Not bringing in a new coach only solidifies the thought that the admin doesn't give a **** about football
I don't trust this group to leave a solid dump.
I wouldn't trust the BOR or lib linda to pick the vice president of my sons jr high student council. Any decisions they make will be for their own personal gain and image
I personally know a BOR member and the guy is there purely because he made some $ in financial services and is a complete opportunist. Loves to talk about being "a Regent" and name dropping. Total
schmoozer. He knows less about football than most on this board. And I'd wager that's true of 90% of the BOR.
schmoozer. He knows less about football than most on this board. And I'd wager that's true of 90% of the BOR.
As far as I'm concerned, our BOI lost total credibility over 10 years ago when they needlessly nuked what was for the first time in our history a consistently nationally relevant football program because UT and the sports media told them to.
Bandito said:
I for one think we're several years overdue a coaching change. But I don't trust this president or BOR to make a solid hire. Say what you will about Starr but at least the guy saw the importance of a competitive football program.
Lilley was President when Briles was hired.
Johnny Bear said:
nuked... football program because UT and the sports media told them to.
I've never understood that angle. This played out like a classic Baptist fight that spilled out into the media.
Instead of damage control, it was throwing mud.
It was one or more people in the BOR, or upper Baylor Administration, that fed the damaging report to the WSJ. Not UT, not outside media. An insider.
It was Starr that hired Pepper. Not UT, not sports media. Starr.
Texas Monthly got it started (a UT rag for all intents and purposes), the media then piled on, and our BOI cowardly allowed themselves to be intimidated accordingly. The WSJ report you're referring to certainly hurt, but that came later. Yes, Starr foolishly engaged Pepper Hamilton to basically build a prosecutorial case against ourselves (and I'll never understand why) which also hurt, but I still believe UT was involved or at least fully took advantage of the situation and again with rare exception, our leaders became intimidated and refused to push back as they should have.
Fair enough. Texas Monthly got it started.
And Baylor poured gasoline on it.
And Baylor poured gasoline on it.
jikespingleton said:Johnny Bear said:
nuked... football program because UT and the sports media told them to.
I've never understood that angle. This played out like a classic Southern Baptist fight that spilled out into the media.
It was one or more people in the BOR, or upper Baylor Administration, that fed the damaging report to the WSJ. Not UT, not outside media. An insider.
It was Starr that hired Pepper. Not UT, not sports media. Starr.
I know what you mean…but technically Baylor never had a relationship with the SBC.
But the BGCT.
And that was itself changed in 1990…"After negotiations, Baylor revised the agreement so that the BGCT could directly elect only 25% of the Board of Regents"
Thought a lot of BGCT churches do partner with the SBC.
And modern Baylor is even having increased strained relations with the BGCT… and is more CBF in mentality these days.
But your point stands
Not really, but it still needs to be done
You have made good points and the nuances are important.
I don't think I have a choice
Not really
If they hire a guy that can talk BMDs into buying a ro$ter that makes the playoffs then I'd consider that a huge success. But that's easier said than done.
Jacques Strap said:
If they hire a guy that can talk BMDs into buying a ro$ter that makes the playoffs then I'd consider that a huge success. But that's easier said than done.
They need to be heavily involved. Ordinarily I would want them to stay out, but the sport has changed a lot.
I'm probably in the minority, but yes, I do. Baylor always attracts good job candidates. We just got into a habit under Rhoades of trying to outthink the room and go against conventional wisdom in virtually every case. It worked with Rhule and failed with virtually every other high-profile hire Mack made.
If we just go the obvious route, we'll end up with a good football coach. This isn't rocket science and there will be a fair number of good candidates. Pick one and win.
And why the hell is there so much talk about the board of regents on this thread? The regents don't hire football coaches. This process, like all others, will be led by a search committee and our AD, who hasn't built a track record worthy of praise or criticism yet. We can't judge his hiring ability one way or the other until he actually makes an important hire.
If we just go the obvious route, we'll end up with a good football coach. This isn't rocket science and there will be a fair number of good candidates. Pick one and win.
And why the hell is there so much talk about the board of regents on this thread? The regents don't hire football coaches. This process, like all others, will be led by a search committee and our AD, who hasn't built a track record worthy of praise or criticism yet. We can't judge his hiring ability one way or the other until he actually makes an important hire.
The president and board of regents don't make football hires. This whole thread is a just silly opportunism on the part of those wanting to air old personal/political grievances with administrators who won't play any meaningful role in the process we're actually talking about here.PartyBear said:Bandito said:
I for one think we're several years overdue a coaching change. But I don't trust this president or BOR to make a solid hire. Say what you will about Starr but at least the guy saw the importance of a competitive football program.
Lilley was President when Briles was hired.
The OP was implying the success of the Briles era was on Starr. Starr inherited that staff. That is all I was saying.
No Baylor president had anything to do with Briles. That was Ian McCaw's hire.PartyBear said:
The OP was implying the success of the Briles era was on Starr. Start inherited that staff.
And I wasn't disagreeing with your point but expanding upon it. For the purpose of this conversation, our president at the time might as well have been Alf. They were just a rubber stamp, whether it was Underwood, Lilley or Starr.
The title of the post requires something to happen first. Until you have a vacancy no one gets hired. That is the question you should be asking as to whether they will create a vacancy.
Starr hired Pepper Hamilton.
The Regents executive committee took control of the Pepper Hamilton relationship; away from Starr and "disinvited" anyone affiliated with athletics to be a part of the Pepper Hamilton process.
The Regents wrote the "Finding of Facts" and probably the "Wall Street Journal article"
Don't forget the entire Briles/Pepper Hamilton situation was preceded by the findings of the 2014 Margolis-Healy Report which found approximately 400 instances of potential Title IX non-compliance (only 10 involving athletes).
From a CBS interview with BU's compliance officer: You were not hired until November of 2014. How many women came into your office during that two-year period and alleged some form of sexual assault or sexual violence that were students at Baylor. PATTY CRAWFORD: Hundreds. Hundreds.
Even though Baylor acknowledged the university "failed at every measure," somehow Arthur Ray Briles received the entirety of the blame! So sad.
The Regents executive committee took control of the Pepper Hamilton relationship; away from Starr and "disinvited" anyone affiliated with athletics to be a part of the Pepper Hamilton process.
The Regents wrote the "Finding of Facts" and probably the "Wall Street Journal article"
Don't forget the entire Briles/Pepper Hamilton situation was preceded by the findings of the 2014 Margolis-Healy Report which found approximately 400 instances of potential Title IX non-compliance (only 10 involving athletes).
From a CBS interview with BU's compliance officer: You were not hired until November of 2014. How many women came into your office during that two-year period and alleged some form of sexual assault or sexual violence that were students at Baylor. PATTY CRAWFORD: Hundreds. Hundreds.
Even though Baylor acknowledged the university "failed at every measure," somehow Arthur Ray Briles received the entirety of the blame! So sad.
No, because the issues with Baylor football are institutional. And it begins and ends with Linda Livingstone and her Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Like most women in power, she meddles in everything believing that she's the smartest person in the room and surrounds herself with weak kneed, non-threatening yes men to validate her.
Firing Aranda alone won't change anything until Livingstone gets a no confidence vote.
Firing Aranda alone won't change anything until Livingstone gets a no confidence vote.
I'm really confident they will. They were going to fire him last year if Mack didn't bang every teacher in Waco
bear2be2 said:PartyBear said:
The OP was implying the success of the Briles era was on Starr. Start inherited that staff.
No Baylor president had anything to do with Briles. That was Ian McCaw's hire.
And I wasn't disagreeing with your point but expanding upon it. For the purpose of this conversation, our president at the time might as well have been Alf. They were just a rubber stamp, whether it was Underwood, Lilley or Starr.
Two out of three is Hall-of-Fame batting, but Underwood doesn't belong on this list. That is the reason he was not a candidate for permanent Pres of Baylor.
Youre a clown said:Jacques Strap said:
If they hire a guy that can talk BMDs into buying a ro$ter that makes the playoffs then I'd consider that a huge success. But that's easier said than done.
They need to be heavily involved. Ordinarily I would want them to stay out, but the sport has changed a lot.
Like having a Regent on the search committee, having a BMD might be a good idea that pays dividends. But it has to be the "right" BMD.
bear2be2 said:No Baylor president had anything to do with Briles. That was Ian McCaw's hire.PartyBear said:
The OP was implying the success of the Briles era was on Starr. Start inherited that staff.
And I wasn't disagreeing with your point but expanding upon it. For the purpose of this conversation, our president at the time might as well have been Alf. They were just a rubber stamp, whether it was Underwood, Lilley or Starr.
I understand. I did write that Briles was hired "when" Lilly was president and used the word "when" intentionally. Hence I agree with your point as well.
Hell no
drahthaar said:bear2be2 said:PartyBear said:
The OP was implying the success of the Briles era was on Starr. Start inherited that staff.
No Baylor president had anything to do with Briles. That was Ian McCaw's hire.
And I wasn't disagreeing with your point but expanding upon it. For the purpose of this conversation, our president at the time might as well have been Alf. They were just a rubber stamp, whether it was Underwood, Lilley or Starr.
Two out of three is Hall-of-Fame batting, but Underwood doesn't belong on this list. That is the reason he was not a candidate for permanent Pres of Baylor.
The only reason Underwood doesn't belong on this list is because no coaching hire was required during his tenure. Had there been a vacancy, he'd have had exactly as much say in the coaching hire as his two permanent successors. That's my point.
People are trying to insert/project their disdain for our president and regents into a conversation they're not even a material part of. Doug and his consultants will make the next coaching hire. And he's given us no reason to have confidence in or be skeptical of his abilities yet. His next hire will be the entirety of his track record. We can judge then.
But I have no doubt that he'll have a strong pool of candidates because the Baylor football job is a really good one. You can win at a high level and be paid well without the pressure of a place with a more rabid fan base/booster group. There are few jobs in the current Big 12 better.
I wish I did but I don't think they know what a good hire is.
No
bear2be2 said:drahthaar said:bear2be2 said:PartyBear said:
The OP was implying the success of the Briles era was on Starr. Start inherited that staff.
No Baylor president had anything to do with Briles. That was Ian McCaw's hire.
And I wasn't disagreeing with your point but expanding upon it. For the purpose of this conversation, our president at the time might as well have been Alf. They were just a rubber stamp, whether it was Underwood, Lilley or Starr.
Two out of three is Hall-of-Fame batting, but Underwood doesn't belong on this list. That is the reason he was not a candidate for permanent Pres of Baylor.
The only reason Underwood doesn't belong on this list is because no coaching hire was required during his tenure. Had there been a vacancy, he'd have had exactly as much say in the coaching hire as his two permanent successors. That's my point.
People are trying to insert/project their disdain for our president and regents into a conversation they're not even a material part of. Doug and his consultants will make the next coaching hire. And he's given us no reason to have confidence in or be skeptical of his abilities yet. His next hire will be the entirety of his track record. We can judge then.
But I have no doubt that he'll have a strong pool of candidates because the Baylor football job is a really good one. You can win at a high level and be paid well without the pressure of a place with a more rabid fan base/booster group. There are few jobs in the current Big 12 better.
Underwood was no rubber stamp. Nothing to do with coaching hires or lack thereof.
I get what you're saying now.drahthaar said:bear2be2 said:drahthaar said:bear2be2 said:PartyBear said:
The OP was implying the success of the Briles era was on Starr. Start inherited that staff.
No Baylor president had anything to do with Briles. That was Ian McCaw's hire.
And I wasn't disagreeing with your point but expanding upon it. For the purpose of this conversation, our president at the time might as well have been Alf. They were just a rubber stamp, whether it was Underwood, Lilley or Starr.
Two out of three is Hall-of-Fame batting, but Underwood doesn't belong on this list. That is the reason he was not a candidate for permanent Pres of Baylor.
The only reason Underwood doesn't belong on this list is because no coaching hire was required during his tenure. Had there been a vacancy, he'd have had exactly as much say in the coaching hire as his two permanent successors. That's my point.
People are trying to insert/project their disdain for our president and regents into a conversation they're not even a material part of. Doug and his consultants will make the next coaching hire. And he's given us no reason to have confidence in or be skeptical of his abilities yet. His next hire will be the entirety of his track record. We can judge then.
But I have no doubt that he'll have a strong pool of candidates because the Baylor football job is a really good one. You can win at a high level and be paid well without the pressure of a place with a more rabid fan base/booster group. There are few jobs in the current Big 12 better.
Underwood was no rubber stamp. Nothing to do with coaching hires or lack thereof.
bear2be2 said:
We just got into a habit under Rhoades of trying to outthink the room and go against conventional wisdom in virtually every case. It worked with Rhule and failed with virtually every other high-profile hire Mack made.
Choades was a terrible AD. He had no idea how to evaluate talent.
His one good hire, Rhule, was only made possible because he hired Eastman & Beaudine to find and help hire Rhule. Choades was apparently not smart enough to even know who Rhule was.
When Choades didn't use a search firm, he failed. He spearheaded the hiring of Aranda (Fail) and Collens (Fail). That was done in house.
He also let Mulkey walk. Fail.
It's pretty clear he has no idea how to hire coaches, without the help of a firm.
He was a terrible AD as far as I am concerned.
Featured Stories
See All