That is a better question for MilliVanilli. He was there.Thee University said:Was that pic taken at Penland or Kokernot?RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
MilliVanilli said:I respond because it makes you throw a fit without fail, and it's hilarious.Jmhdfw said:
I think the fact you keep responding is clearly a sign you have power over no one. Just go take a walk down at zilker Park and let off some steam cowboy. <horns down>
Dougie.... u blew any chance of legitimacy , when u misspelled "heisman" and rd nailed u on it... and further attempts at self rehabilitation are worthless and frankly embarrassing ......Doug said:X is 100% correct. Art Briles will NEVER be allowed to coach in the NCAA again.xiledinok said:Timbear said:
Are X and Milli the same person? Doesn't matter. The main thing that matters is that they. and Thee, keep pounding and pounding Briles as much as possible and every chance they get. We need those 3 to stay vigilant, and to never let an opportunity pass to keep pounding.
I'll post what I wish to post. It's a Baylor board.
Art isn't going to be allowed to coach NCAA football again. Go create another outlet to spin over the former regime's forever stained legacy. I m sure Art's rich successful friends can help.
Time for him to get an Italian Mistress. It would bolster his reputation.
On another subject.... Will RG3 be the first Hiesmen winner to work at Genie Car Wash?
The people of the POORs should know!
I positively own you, and you are too Caber to know it.Jmhdfw said:MilliVanilli said:I respond because it makes you throw a fit without fail, and it's hilarious.Jmhdfw said:
I think the fact you keep responding is clearly a sign you have power over no one. Just go take a walk down at zilker Park and let off some steam cowboy. <horns down>
Man that short pause must have been hard! Thanks for proving my point my weak lil CABer!
Thee University said:I think their performance, since they started playing in 1933 as a junior college, warrants a mid-30 ranking. Just a few FACTS:PartyBear said:Thee University said:That list loses credibility once out of the top 12. Seriously they have TCU ranked at 31 on the blue blood scale? But that isnt even the most bizarre thing.PartyBear said:
What bizarre thing I referred to?
Boise State being ranked in the mid 30s on the blue blood scale. There is a lot that is just weird once they listed their top 10 or so, who are actual blue bloods. Everything else is just made up crap.
1. 449-167-2 for a .728 winning percentage
2. 12-6 bowl record
3. 19 conference titles
4. 3 Fiesta Bowl appearances - they won all 3 of them with victories over OU, TCU & Arizona
5. 11 Top 25 finishes since 2000
6. 13-0 and 14-0 seasons in 2006 and 2009
7. 6 seasons where they went 11-1 or better
8. 4 Top 10 finishes since 2000
9. They are scheduling into the future like champions - they are playing Michigan State, BYU, Oregon State, Florida State, Oklahoma State, Cincinnati and UH just to name a few.
I admire their competitive spirit, quest to get better and understanding of what it means to EARN respect.
Rankings hurt sometimes don't they?
Probably, but they did produce defensive rookie of the year Leighton Vander Esch, which is impressive.PartyBear said:
I think it is absolutely absurd to think of Boise as almost a blue blood.
Doug said:X is 100% correct. Art Briles will NEVER be allowed to coach in the NCAA again.xiledinok said:Timbear said:
Are X and Milli the same person? Doesn't matter. The main thing that matters is that they. and Thee, keep pounding and pounding Briles as much as possible and every chance they get. We need those 3 to stay vigilant, and to never let an opportunity pass to keep pounding.
I'll post what I wish to post. It's a Baylor board.
Art isn't going to be allowed to coach NCAA football again. Go create another outlet to spin over the former regime's forever stained legacy. I m sure Art's rich successful friends can help.
Time for him to get an Italian Mistress. It would bolster his reputation.
On another subject.... Will RG3 be the first Hiesmen winner to work at Genie Car Wash?
The people of the POORs should know!
No he is not ok.bunation said:Doug said:X is 100% correct. Art Briles will NEVER be allowed to coach in the NCAA again.xiledinok said:Timbear said:
Are X and Milli the same person? Doesn't matter. The main thing that matters is that they. and Thee, keep pounding and pounding Briles as much as possible and every chance they get. We need those 3 to stay vigilant, and to never let an opportunity pass to keep pounding.
I'll post what I wish to post. It's a Baylor board.
Art isn't going to be allowed to coach NCAA football again. Go create another outlet to spin over the former regime's forever stained legacy. I m sure Art's rich successful friends can help.
Time for him to get an Italian Mistress. It would bolster his reputation.
On another subject.... Will RG3 be the first Hiesmen winner to work at Genie Car Wash?
The people of the POORs should know!
Are you okay?
#35 is not almost.PartyBear said:
I think it is absolutely absurd to think of Boise as almost a blue blood.
What does any of that have to do with the subject matter? No P5 conference wants them. They don't draw flies to the TV. Besides, even if they were a blue blood, you couldn't tell it if they spilled some on that field of theirs.Thee University said:I think their performance, since they started playing in 1933 as a junior college, warrants a mid-30 ranking. Just a few FACTS:PartyBear said:Thee University said:That list loses credibility once out of the top 12. Seriously they have TCU ranked at 31 on the blue blood scale? But that isnt even the most bizarre thing.PartyBear said:
What bizarre thing I referred to?
Boise State being ranked in the mid 30s on the blue blood scale. There is a lot that is just weird once they listed their top 10 or so, who are actual blue bloods. Everything else is just made up crap.
1. 449-167-2 for a .728 winning percentage
2. 12-6 bowl record
3. 19 conference titles
4. 3 Fiesta Bowl appearances - they won all 3 of them with victories over OU, TCU & Arizona
5. 11 Top 25 finishes since 2000
6. 13-0 and 14-0 seasons in 2006 and 2009
7. 6 seasons where they went 11-1 or better
8. 4 Top 10 finishes since 2000
9. They are scheduling into the future like champions - they are playing Michigan State, BYU, Oregon State, Florida State, Oklahoma State, Cincinnati and UH just to name a few.
I admire their competitive spirit, quest to get better and understanding of what it means to EARN respect.
Rankings hurt sometimes don't they?
I have refuted your point about Memphis several times, you simply don't care to listen and disagree.BarleyMcDougal said:The logic is nowhere near scattered. It's quite sound, actually. I don't know for a fact that anybody gets cut come the next round of realignment, but I do have a full and lucid understanding of varying school's respective positions. I haven't even really delved into what the future holds for the college landscape, nor is it necessary. I'm telling you that Baylor isn't a national brand and almost certainly never will be. That's just a fact, and the sooner you realize that our place at the table is tenuous the better.TheDom said:No, I have read what you posted. I don't understand bc the logic is all over the place. I'm trying to pin it down.BarleyMcDougal said:You really want to argue this without having truly read what I posted.TheDom said:Awesome. Something to work with. We will use this list as reference point. My thoughts are this...BarleyMcDougal said:There are different ways, but start with tv market, living alumni, national championships, etc.TheDom said:
And how do you define National Brand?
Here's a good starting point: http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17336754/alabama-crimson-tide-notre-dame-fighting-irish-ohio-state-buckeyes-oklahoma-sooners-usc-trojans-lead-list-college-football-blue-bloods
1. You say there are 40 National Brands. Baylor is T-59 on that list and TCU 31. So you don't believe Baylor can assend to TCU level? And by your definition TCU is a National Brand. I would not call TCU a national brand.
2. IMO there are not 40 National Brands. There are 10-12 with 3-5 on the verge. People outside Arkansas don't wear Arkansas gear or spend money to be associated with Razorbacks. Same for Michigan State or A&M.
3. Using your term, Regional Brand, would define the rest of the P5 schools. Some slightly larger based on alumni size and state affiliation but basically similiar boat. These schools fight for national draw, attention, and notoriety by several things namely their athletic performance. More notoriety means moving up the food chain. Longevity matters a lot in this category.
4. I think it is reasonable for Baylor to move into the 30-35 range on that list. Not easy but possible. Therefore, unless you are one to believe realignment is going to only 16 or 24 teams, Baylor has a great opportunity to get to be a desirable member that makes a P5 conference.
I wouldn't call TCU a national brand, nor would they be by my definition. They don't have a large tv market and they don't have many living alumni. Arkansas is a good example of a tweener that leans toward national brand because they control their entire state as far as broadcasting. They have no competition. A&M has enough alumni that they are broadcasted in DFW, Austin, Houston and San Antonio. Huge markets. And now that they are in the SEC, they get bumped up.
I don't know what realignment holds, but if networks are looking to cut fat Baylor would be on the list along with TCU, K St., Iowa State, etc...
So basically you are saying the end all be all is living alumni and tv market. All other aspects about a school be damned. And so you say Baylor, TCU, Iowa St, Kstate would be cut. I guess not Kansas bc of basketball?
So who else gets cut in other conferences?...
The point is you believe P5 conferences are going to about half the number of current P5 schools in realignment. That's fine, but it still just an opinion. My biggest argument is you portrayed your ideas as 100% fact and they are simply not.
Aside from the fact that WV is not a national brand and Baylor is not a lucky Memphis, the idea that realignment is going to 2 super conferences or only 36 teams is less likely today than it was in 2010. It is more likey they increase the playoff to 8 teams with all conference winners getting automatic slot, with best G5 team getting automatic slot, and 2 at large bids.
Lots has changed on that front since 2010. Teams like Nebraska & Colorado have fallen on face in new conferences. Even Missouri has been up and down. OU and UT have seen life in Big12 pretty good, particularly OU. Money for all the schools has been good all around. And maybe the biggest factor is broadcasting right and contracts are changing before our eyes. In 2010 ESPN was throwing money around like crazy on contracts like Longhorn Network. Well, we approaching 10 years in and the returns aren't what they thought. ESPN isn't get subscribers like they thought. So back in 2010 when the Big12 was the weakest conference it has changed with that definitely now being the PAC12. PAC12 network sucking pond water. Amazon & Facebook have entered the broadcasting space and we don't know if they will make bids in 2023 when new round of contracts come up for conferences.
You can say nonsense like I'm not smart enough or just interested in saying nice things about Baylor but neither are true. I am well aware of the reality and current landscape of college athletics and within that where Baylor fits in the fold. You are entitled to your opinion, yet I suggest your opinion be based on current and relevant information.
I'd love for Baylor program to be revered and well-known around the country. It's just never going to happen.
And I've laid out why Baylor is a lucky version of Memphis and you've yet to refute my point, which is that Baylor's been in a major conference for 30 years. Memphis never had that luxury of income. Do you think that Baylor would receive a P5 invite if they were in a G5 conference? Of course you don't.
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
At least Mattress Mack and Academy Sporting Goods love us!!!!!
I think Baylor was the correct selection for the Big 12 as well, but let's not pretend that wheelings and dealings didn't play a major part in that decision, which I find completely acceptable. Let's just not pretend that it was a rubber stamp choice. Are you old enough to remember Baylor football from the period of Dave Roberts to Guy Morriss?TheDom said:I have refuted your point about Memphis several times, you simply don't care to listen and disagree.BarleyMcDougal said:The logic is nowhere near scattered. It's quite sound, actually. I don't know for a fact that anybody gets cut come the next round of realignment, but I do have a full and lucid understanding of varying school's respective positions. I haven't even really delved into what the future holds for the college landscape, nor is it necessary. I'm telling you that Baylor isn't a national brand and almost certainly never will be. That's just a fact, and the sooner you realize that our place at the table is tenuous the better.TheDom said:No, I have read what you posted. I don't understand bc the logic is all over the place. I'm trying to pin it down.BarleyMcDougal said:You really want to argue this without having truly read what I posted.TheDom said:Awesome. Something to work with. We will use this list as reference point. My thoughts are this...BarleyMcDougal said:There are different ways, but start with tv market, living alumni, national championships, etc.TheDom said:
And how do you define National Brand?
Here's a good starting point: http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17336754/alabama-crimson-tide-notre-dame-fighting-irish-ohio-state-buckeyes-oklahoma-sooners-usc-trojans-lead-list-college-football-blue-bloods
1. You say there are 40 National Brands. Baylor is T-59 on that list and TCU 31. So you don't believe Baylor can assend to TCU level? And by your definition TCU is a National Brand. I would not call TCU a national brand.
2. IMO there are not 40 National Brands. There are 10-12 with 3-5 on the verge. People outside Arkansas don't wear Arkansas gear or spend money to be associated with Razorbacks. Same for Michigan State or A&M.
3. Using your term, Regional Brand, would define the rest of the P5 schools. Some slightly larger based on alumni size and state affiliation but basically similiar boat. These schools fight for national draw, attention, and notoriety by several things namely their athletic performance. More notoriety means moving up the food chain. Longevity matters a lot in this category.
4. I think it is reasonable for Baylor to move into the 30-35 range on that list. Not easy but possible. Therefore, unless you are one to believe realignment is going to only 16 or 24 teams, Baylor has a great opportunity to get to be a desirable member that makes a P5 conference.
I wouldn't call TCU a national brand, nor would they be by my definition. They don't have a large tv market and they don't have many living alumni. Arkansas is a good example of a tweener that leans toward national brand because they control their entire state as far as broadcasting. They have no competition. A&M has enough alumni that they are broadcasted in DFW, Austin, Houston and San Antonio. Huge markets. And now that they are in the SEC, they get bumped up.
I don't know what realignment holds, but if networks are looking to cut fat Baylor would be on the list along with TCU, K St., Iowa State, etc...
So basically you are saying the end all be all is living alumni and tv market. All other aspects about a school be damned. And so you say Baylor, TCU, Iowa St, Kstate would be cut. I guess not Kansas bc of basketball?
So who else gets cut in other conferences?...
The point is you believe P5 conferences are going to about half the number of current P5 schools in realignment. That's fine, but it still just an opinion. My biggest argument is you portrayed your ideas as 100% fact and they are simply not.
Aside from the fact that WV is not a national brand and Baylor is not a lucky Memphis, the idea that realignment is going to 2 super conferences or only 36 teams is less likely today than it was in 2010. It is more likey they increase the playoff to 8 teams with all conference winners getting automatic slot, with best G5 team getting automatic slot, and 2 at large bids.
Lots has changed on that front since 2010. Teams like Nebraska & Colorado have fallen on face in new conferences. Even Missouri has been up and down. OU and UT have seen life in Big12 pretty good, particularly OU. Money for all the schools has been good all around. And maybe the biggest factor is broadcasting right and contracts are changing before our eyes. In 2010 ESPN was throwing money around like crazy on contracts like Longhorn Network. Well, we approaching 10 years in and the returns aren't what they thought. ESPN isn't get subscribers like they thought. So back in 2010 when the Big12 was the weakest conference it has changed with that definitely now being the PAC12. PAC12 network sucking pond water. Amazon & Facebook have entered the broadcasting space and we don't know if they will make bids in 2023 when new round of contracts come up for conferences.
You can say nonsense like I'm not smart enough or just interested in saying nice things about Baylor but neither are true. I am well aware of the reality and current landscape of college athletics and within that where Baylor fits in the fold. You are entitled to your opinion, yet I suggest your opinion be based on current and relevant information.
I'd love for Baylor program to be revered and well-known around the country. It's just never going to happen.
And I've laid out why Baylor is a lucky version of Memphis and you've yet to refute my point, which is that Baylor's been in a major conference for 30 years. Memphis never had that luxury of income. Do you think that Baylor would receive a P5 invite if they were in a G5 conference? Of course you don't.
In football, Baylor was in the SWC which it won several times. We have 9 conference titles in all. Memphis has an all time losing record in football. Baylor has won at several points in its history. On the academic side, Baylor is also far more advanced academically than Memphis. Much more nationally known and revered. Baylor is also much more politically connected than Memphis, particularly in Texas.
Baylor didn't just end up in Big12 when it formed by chance. The logic is faulty and hypothetical at best. It's like saying, well if the Patriots didn't draft Tom Brady they wouldn't have 5 Super Bowls. Yeah, but they did.
Had Baylor won a National Title in 1930 or whatever year we would be higher on the Blue Bloods list. Yeah but we didn't. If RG3 doesn't throw pass vs OU he doesn't win Heisman. Yeah but he did. We could play the "what if" game until the end of time.
And like my grandfather said, if you put it all in a bag and shook it out again, most of it would end up the same. Baylor made the cut in 1996 for many reasons.
And we were well known in football around the country for several years, in this decade. Never happen? It did happen. We just have to win again.
Grant Teaff football got us in the Big 12. Those early Big 12 coaches were irrelevant to our invitation, they also operated with one hand tied behind their back with poor budgets and facilities.BarleyMcDougal said:I think Baylor was the correct selection for the Big 12 as well, but let's not pretend that wheelings and dealings didn't play a major part in that decision, which I find completely acceptable. Let's just not pretend that it was a rubber stamp choice. Are you old enough to remember Baylor football from the period of Dave Roberts to Guy Morriss?TheDom said:I have refuted your point about Memphis several times, you simply don't care to listen and disagree.BarleyMcDougal said:The logic is nowhere near scattered. It's quite sound, actually. I don't know for a fact that anybody gets cut come the next round of realignment, but I do have a full and lucid understanding of varying school's respective positions. I haven't even really delved into what the future holds for the college landscape, nor is it necessary. I'm telling you that Baylor isn't a national brand and almost certainly never will be. That's just a fact, and the sooner you realize that our place at the table is tenuous the better.TheDom said:No, I have read what you posted. I don't understand bc the logic is all over the place. I'm trying to pin it down.BarleyMcDougal said:You really want to argue this without having truly read what I posted.TheDom said:Awesome. Something to work with. We will use this list as reference point. My thoughts are this...BarleyMcDougal said:There are different ways, but start with tv market, living alumni, national championships, etc.TheDom said:
And how do you define National Brand?
Here's a good starting point: http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17336754/alabama-crimson-tide-notre-dame-fighting-irish-ohio-state-buckeyes-oklahoma-sooners-usc-trojans-lead-list-college-football-blue-bloods
1. You say there are 40 National Brands. Baylor is T-59 on that list and TCU 31. So you don't believe Baylor can assend to TCU level? And by your definition TCU is a National Brand. I would not call TCU a national brand.
2. IMO there are not 40 National Brands. There are 10-12 with 3-5 on the verge. People outside Arkansas don't wear Arkansas gear or spend money to be associated with Razorbacks. Same for Michigan State or A&M.
3. Using your term, Regional Brand, would define the rest of the P5 schools. Some slightly larger based on alumni size and state affiliation but basically similiar boat. These schools fight for national draw, attention, and notoriety by several things namely their athletic performance. More notoriety means moving up the food chain. Longevity matters a lot in this category.
4. I think it is reasonable for Baylor to move into the 30-35 range on that list. Not easy but possible. Therefore, unless you are one to believe realignment is going to only 16 or 24 teams, Baylor has a great opportunity to get to be a desirable member that makes a P5 conference.
I wouldn't call TCU a national brand, nor would they be by my definition. They don't have a large tv market and they don't have many living alumni. Arkansas is a good example of a tweener that leans toward national brand because they control their entire state as far as broadcasting. They have no competition. A&M has enough alumni that they are broadcasted in DFW, Austin, Houston and San Antonio. Huge markets. And now that they are in the SEC, they get bumped up.
I don't know what realignment holds, but if networks are looking to cut fat Baylor would be on the list along with TCU, K St., Iowa State, etc...
So basically you are saying the end all be all is living alumni and tv market. All other aspects about a school be damned. And so you say Baylor, TCU, Iowa St, Kstate would be cut. I guess not Kansas bc of basketball?
So who else gets cut in other conferences?...
The point is you believe P5 conferences are going to about half the number of current P5 schools in realignment. That's fine, but it still just an opinion. My biggest argument is you portrayed your ideas as 100% fact and they are simply not.
Aside from the fact that WV is not a national brand and Baylor is not a lucky Memphis, the idea that realignment is going to 2 super conferences or only 36 teams is less likely today than it was in 2010. It is more likey they increase the playoff to 8 teams with all conference winners getting automatic slot, with best G5 team getting automatic slot, and 2 at large bids.
Lots has changed on that front since 2010. Teams like Nebraska & Colorado have fallen on face in new conferences. Even Missouri has been up and down. OU and UT have seen life in Big12 pretty good, particularly OU. Money for all the schools has been good all around. And maybe the biggest factor is broadcasting right and contracts are changing before our eyes. In 2010 ESPN was throwing money around like crazy on contracts like Longhorn Network. Well, we approaching 10 years in and the returns aren't what they thought. ESPN isn't get subscribers like they thought. So back in 2010 when the Big12 was the weakest conference it has changed with that definitely now being the PAC12. PAC12 network sucking pond water. Amazon & Facebook have entered the broadcasting space and we don't know if they will make bids in 2023 when new round of contracts come up for conferences.
You can say nonsense like I'm not smart enough or just interested in saying nice things about Baylor but neither are true. I am well aware of the reality and current landscape of college athletics and within that where Baylor fits in the fold. You are entitled to your opinion, yet I suggest your opinion be based on current and relevant information.
I'd love for Baylor program to be revered and well-known around the country. It's just never going to happen.
And I've laid out why Baylor is a lucky version of Memphis and you've yet to refute my point, which is that Baylor's been in a major conference for 30 years. Memphis never had that luxury of income. Do you think that Baylor would receive a P5 invite if they were in a G5 conference? Of course you don't.
In football, Baylor was in the SWC which it won several times. We have 9 conference titles in all. Memphis has an all time losing record in football. Baylor has won at several points in its history. On the academic side, Baylor is also far more advanced academically than Memphis. Much more nationally known and revered. Baylor is also much more politically connected than Memphis, particularly in Texas.
Baylor didn't just end up in Big12 when it formed by chance. The logic is faulty and hypothetical at best. It's like saying, well if the Patriots didn't draft Tom Brady they wouldn't have 5 Super Bowls. Yeah, but they did.
Had Baylor won a National Title in 1930 or whatever year we would be higher on the Blue Bloods list. Yeah but we didn't. If RG3 doesn't throw pass vs OU he doesn't win Heisman. Yeah but he did. We could play the "what if" game until the end of time.
And like my grandfather said, if you put it all in a bag and shook it out again, most of it would end up the same. Baylor made the cut in 1996 for many reasons.
And we were well known in football around the country for several years, in this decade. Never happen? It did happen. We just have to win again.
The Memphis comparison is just random. It doesn't have to be Memphis. It's the fact that Baylor had the financial advantages that other schools didn't.
So, I'll ask you again. Do you think that Baylor, was it currently in a G5 conference, would be selected by a P5 conference in a hypothetical realignment scenario? I doubt it. And that applies to numerous other schools around the nation and in our conference.
I know. I'm merely pointing out that the program has had many horrendous runs. Baylor has always been a .500-type program, if not under .500, and never been a national brand in its existence. Baylor would have to win a national title to even get close to be a national brand, something that I said I don't see happening for a variety of reasons. Parity is a facade in college athletics and money rules.MilliVanilli said:Grant Teaff football got us in the Big 12. Those early Big 12 coaches were irrelevant to our invitation, they also operated with one hand tied behind their back with poor budgets and facilities.BarleyMcDougal said:I think Baylor was the correct selection for the Big 12 as well, but let's not pretend that wheelings and dealings didn't play a major part in that decision, which I find completely acceptable. Let's just not pretend that it was a rubber stamp choice. Are you old enough to remember Baylor football from the period of Dave Roberts to Guy Morriss?TheDom said:I have refuted your point about Memphis several times, you simply don't care to listen and disagree.BarleyMcDougal said:The logic is nowhere near scattered. It's quite sound, actually. I don't know for a fact that anybody gets cut come the next round of realignment, but I do have a full and lucid understanding of varying school's respective positions. I haven't even really delved into what the future holds for the college landscape, nor is it necessary. I'm telling you that Baylor isn't a national brand and almost certainly never will be. That's just a fact, and the sooner you realize that our place at the table is tenuous the better.TheDom said:No, I have read what you posted. I don't understand bc the logic is all over the place. I'm trying to pin it down.BarleyMcDougal said:You really want to argue this without having truly read what I posted.TheDom said:Awesome. Something to work with. We will use this list as reference point. My thoughts are this...BarleyMcDougal said:There are different ways, but start with tv market, living alumni, national championships, etc.TheDom said:
And how do you define National Brand?
Here's a good starting point: http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17336754/alabama-crimson-tide-notre-dame-fighting-irish-ohio-state-buckeyes-oklahoma-sooners-usc-trojans-lead-list-college-football-blue-bloods
1. You say there are 40 National Brands. Baylor is T-59 on that list and TCU 31. So you don't believe Baylor can assend to TCU level? And by your definition TCU is a National Brand. I would not call TCU a national brand.
2. IMO there are not 40 National Brands. There are 10-12 with 3-5 on the verge. People outside Arkansas don't wear Arkansas gear or spend money to be associated with Razorbacks. Same for Michigan State or A&M.
3. Using your term, Regional Brand, would define the rest of the P5 schools. Some slightly larger based on alumni size and state affiliation but basically similiar boat. These schools fight for national draw, attention, and notoriety by several things namely their athletic performance. More notoriety means moving up the food chain. Longevity matters a lot in this category.
4. I think it is reasonable for Baylor to move into the 30-35 range on that list. Not easy but possible. Therefore, unless you are one to believe realignment is going to only 16 or 24 teams, Baylor has a great opportunity to get to be a desirable member that makes a P5 conference.
I wouldn't call TCU a national brand, nor would they be by my definition. They don't have a large tv market and they don't have many living alumni. Arkansas is a good example of a tweener that leans toward national brand because they control their entire state as far as broadcasting. They have no competition. A&M has enough alumni that they are broadcasted in DFW, Austin, Houston and San Antonio. Huge markets. And now that they are in the SEC, they get bumped up.
I don't know what realignment holds, but if networks are looking to cut fat Baylor would be on the list along with TCU, K St., Iowa State, etc...
So basically you are saying the end all be all is living alumni and tv market. All other aspects about a school be damned. And so you say Baylor, TCU, Iowa St, Kstate would be cut. I guess not Kansas bc of basketball?
So who else gets cut in other conferences?...
The point is you believe P5 conferences are going to about half the number of current P5 schools in realignment. That's fine, but it still just an opinion. My biggest argument is you portrayed your ideas as 100% fact and they are simply not.
Aside from the fact that WV is not a national brand and Baylor is not a lucky Memphis, the idea that realignment is going to 2 super conferences or only 36 teams is less likely today than it was in 2010. It is more likey they increase the playoff to 8 teams with all conference winners getting automatic slot, with best G5 team getting automatic slot, and 2 at large bids.
Lots has changed on that front since 2010. Teams like Nebraska & Colorado have fallen on face in new conferences. Even Missouri has been up and down. OU and UT have seen life in Big12 pretty good, particularly OU. Money for all the schools has been good all around. And maybe the biggest factor is broadcasting right and contracts are changing before our eyes. In 2010 ESPN was throwing money around like crazy on contracts like Longhorn Network. Well, we approaching 10 years in and the returns aren't what they thought. ESPN isn't get subscribers like they thought. So back in 2010 when the Big12 was the weakest conference it has changed with that definitely now being the PAC12. PAC12 network sucking pond water. Amazon & Facebook have entered the broadcasting space and we don't know if they will make bids in 2023 when new round of contracts come up for conferences.
You can say nonsense like I'm not smart enough or just interested in saying nice things about Baylor but neither are true. I am well aware of the reality and current landscape of college athletics and within that where Baylor fits in the fold. You are entitled to your opinion, yet I suggest your opinion be based on current and relevant information.
I'd love for Baylor program to be revered and well-known around the country. It's just never going to happen.
And I've laid out why Baylor is a lucky version of Memphis and you've yet to refute my point, which is that Baylor's been in a major conference for 30 years. Memphis never had that luxury of income. Do you think that Baylor would receive a P5 invite if they were in a G5 conference? Of course you don't.
In football, Baylor was in the SWC which it won several times. We have 9 conference titles in all. Memphis has an all time losing record in football. Baylor has won at several points in its history. On the academic side, Baylor is also far more advanced academically than Memphis. Much more nationally known and revered. Baylor is also much more politically connected than Memphis, particularly in Texas.
Baylor didn't just end up in Big12 when it formed by chance. The logic is faulty and hypothetical at best. It's like saying, well if the Patriots didn't draft Tom Brady they wouldn't have 5 Super Bowls. Yeah, but they did.
Had Baylor won a National Title in 1930 or whatever year we would be higher on the Blue Bloods list. Yeah but we didn't. If RG3 doesn't throw pass vs OU he doesn't win Heisman. Yeah but he did. We could play the "what if" game until the end of time.
And like my grandfather said, if you put it all in a bag and shook it out again, most of it would end up the same. Baylor made the cut in 1996 for many reasons.
And we were well known in football around the country for several years, in this decade. Never happen? It did happen. We just have to win again.
The Memphis comparison is just random. It doesn't have to be Memphis. It's the fact that Baylor had the financial advantages that other schools didn't.
So, I'll ask you again. Do you think that Baylor, was it currently in a G5 conference, would be selected by a P5 conference in a hypothetical realignment scenario? I doubt it. And that applies to numerous other schools around the nation and in our conference.
Chuck Reedy and Guy Morriss were competent Xs and Os coaches and decent recruiters, one fielded a winning team, the other almost did, despite being severely handicapped with resources.
Roberts and Steele were duds.
I was in undergrad during Steele & Morris. Perhaps that's why I'm more positive on Baylor as it stands today compared to yester-year. It's amazing where we sit today and how many Baylor people are so negative. Briles isn't the only coach that can win at Baylor. Rhule will prove that.BarleyMcDougal said:I know. I'm merely pointing out that the program has had many horrendous runs. Baylor has always been a .500-type program, if not under .500, and never been a national brand in its existence. Baylor would have to win a national title to even get close to be a national brand, something that I said I don't see happening for a variety of reasons. Parity is a facade in college athletics and money rules.MilliVanilli said:Grant Teaff football got us in the Big 12. Those early Big 12 coaches were irrelevant to our invitation, they also operated with one hand tied behind their back with poor budgets and facilities.BarleyMcDougal said:I think Baylor was the correct selection for the Big 12 as well, but let's not pretend that wheelings and dealings didn't play a major part in that decision, which I find completely acceptable. Let's just not pretend that it was a rubber stamp choice. Are you old enough to remember Baylor football from the period of Dave Roberts to Guy Morriss?TheDom said:I have refuted your point about Memphis several times, you simply don't care to listen and disagree.BarleyMcDougal said:The logic is nowhere near scattered. It's quite sound, actually. I don't know for a fact that anybody gets cut come the next round of realignment, but I do have a full and lucid understanding of varying school's respective positions. I haven't even really delved into what the future holds for the college landscape, nor is it necessary. I'm telling you that Baylor isn't a national brand and almost certainly never will be. That's just a fact, and the sooner you realize that our place at the table is tenuous the better.TheDom said:No, I have read what you posted. I don't understand bc the logic is all over the place. I'm trying to pin it down.BarleyMcDougal said:You really want to argue this without having truly read what I posted.TheDom said:Awesome. Something to work with. We will use this list as reference point. My thoughts are this...BarleyMcDougal said:There are different ways, but start with tv market, living alumni, national championships, etc.TheDom said:
And how do you define National Brand?
Here's a good starting point: http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17336754/alabama-crimson-tide-notre-dame-fighting-irish-ohio-state-buckeyes-oklahoma-sooners-usc-trojans-lead-list-college-football-blue-bloods
1. You say there are 40 National Brands. Baylor is T-59 on that list and TCU 31. So you don't believe Baylor can assend to TCU level? And by your definition TCU is a National Brand. I would not call TCU a national brand.
2. IMO there are not 40 National Brands. There are 10-12 with 3-5 on the verge. People outside Arkansas don't wear Arkansas gear or spend money to be associated with Razorbacks. Same for Michigan State or A&M.
3. Using your term, Regional Brand, would define the rest of the P5 schools. Some slightly larger based on alumni size and state affiliation but basically similiar boat. These schools fight for national draw, attention, and notoriety by several things namely their athletic performance. More notoriety means moving up the food chain. Longevity matters a lot in this category.
4. I think it is reasonable for Baylor to move into the 30-35 range on that list. Not easy but possible. Therefore, unless you are one to believe realignment is going to only 16 or 24 teams, Baylor has a great opportunity to get to be a desirable member that makes a P5 conference.
I wouldn't call TCU a national brand, nor would they be by my definition. They don't have a large tv market and they don't have many living alumni. Arkansas is a good example of a tweener that leans toward national brand because they control their entire state as far as broadcasting. They have no competition. A&M has enough alumni that they are broadcasted in DFW, Austin, Houston and San Antonio. Huge markets. And now that they are in the SEC, they get bumped up.
I don't know what realignment holds, but if networks are looking to cut fat Baylor would be on the list along with TCU, K St., Iowa State, etc...
So basically you are saying the end all be all is living alumni and tv market. All other aspects about a school be damned. And so you say Baylor, TCU, Iowa St, Kstate would be cut. I guess not Kansas bc of basketball?
So who else gets cut in other conferences?...
The point is you believe P5 conferences are going to about half the number of current P5 schools in realignment. That's fine, but it still just an opinion. My biggest argument is you portrayed your ideas as 100% fact and they are simply not.
Aside from the fact that WV is not a national brand and Baylor is not a lucky Memphis, the idea that realignment is going to 2 super conferences or only 36 teams is less likely today than it was in 2010. It is more likey they increase the playoff to 8 teams with all conference winners getting automatic slot, with best G5 team getting automatic slot, and 2 at large bids.
Lots has changed on that front since 2010. Teams like Nebraska & Colorado have fallen on face in new conferences. Even Missouri has been up and down. OU and UT have seen life in Big12 pretty good, particularly OU. Money for all the schools has been good all around. And maybe the biggest factor is broadcasting right and contracts are changing before our eyes. In 2010 ESPN was throwing money around like crazy on contracts like Longhorn Network. Well, we approaching 10 years in and the returns aren't what they thought. ESPN isn't get subscribers like they thought. So back in 2010 when the Big12 was the weakest conference it has changed with that definitely now being the PAC12. PAC12 network sucking pond water. Amazon & Facebook have entered the broadcasting space and we don't know if they will make bids in 2023 when new round of contracts come up for conferences.
You can say nonsense like I'm not smart enough or just interested in saying nice things about Baylor but neither are true. I am well aware of the reality and current landscape of college athletics and within that where Baylor fits in the fold. You are entitled to your opinion, yet I suggest your opinion be based on current and relevant information.
I'd love for Baylor program to be revered and well-known around the country. It's just never going to happen.
And I've laid out why Baylor is a lucky version of Memphis and you've yet to refute my point, which is that Baylor's been in a major conference for 30 years. Memphis never had that luxury of income. Do you think that Baylor would receive a P5 invite if they were in a G5 conference? Of course you don't.
In football, Baylor was in the SWC which it won several times. We have 9 conference titles in all. Memphis has an all time losing record in football. Baylor has won at several points in its history. On the academic side, Baylor is also far more advanced academically than Memphis. Much more nationally known and revered. Baylor is also much more politically connected than Memphis, particularly in Texas.
Baylor didn't just end up in Big12 when it formed by chance. The logic is faulty and hypothetical at best. It's like saying, well if the Patriots didn't draft Tom Brady they wouldn't have 5 Super Bowls. Yeah, but they did.
Had Baylor won a National Title in 1930 or whatever year we would be higher on the Blue Bloods list. Yeah but we didn't. If RG3 doesn't throw pass vs OU he doesn't win Heisman. Yeah but he did. We could play the "what if" game until the end of time.
And like my grandfather said, if you put it all in a bag and shook it out again, most of it would end up the same. Baylor made the cut in 1996 for many reasons.
And we were well known in football around the country for several years, in this decade. Never happen? It did happen. We just have to win again.
The Memphis comparison is just random. It doesn't have to be Memphis. It's the fact that Baylor had the financial advantages that other schools didn't.
So, I'll ask you again. Do you think that Baylor, was it currently in a G5 conference, would be selected by a P5 conference in a hypothetical realignment scenario? I doubt it. And that applies to numerous other schools around the nation and in our conference.
Chuck Reedy and Guy Morriss were competent Xs and Os coaches and decent recruiters, one fielded a winning team, the other almost did, despite being severely handicapped with resources.
Roberts and Steele were duds.
I think we're almost to being on the same page now.TheDom said:I was in undergrad during Steele & Morris. Perhaps that's why I'm more positive on Baylor as it stands today compared to yester-year. It's amazing where we sit today and how many Baylor people are so negative. Briles isn't the only coach that can win at Baylor. Rhule will prove that.BarleyMcDougal said:I know. I'm merely pointing out that the program has had many horrendous runs. Baylor has always been a .500-type program, if not under .500, and never been a national brand in its existence. Baylor would have to win a national title to even get close to be a national brand, something that I said I don't see happening for a variety of reasons. Parity is a facade in college athletics and money rules.MilliVanilli said:Grant Teaff football got us in the Big 12. Those early Big 12 coaches were irrelevant to our invitation, they also operated with one hand tied behind their back with poor budgets and facilities.BarleyMcDougal said:I think Baylor was the correct selection for the Big 12 as well, but let's not pretend that wheelings and dealings didn't play a major part in that decision, which I find completely acceptable. Let's just not pretend that it was a rubber stamp choice. Are you old enough to remember Baylor football from the period of Dave Roberts to Guy Morriss?TheDom said:I have refuted your point about Memphis several times, you simply don't care to listen and disagree.BarleyMcDougal said:The logic is nowhere near scattered. It's quite sound, actually. I don't know for a fact that anybody gets cut come the next round of realignment, but I do have a full and lucid understanding of varying school's respective positions. I haven't even really delved into what the future holds for the college landscape, nor is it necessary. I'm telling you that Baylor isn't a national brand and almost certainly never will be. That's just a fact, and the sooner you realize that our place at the table is tenuous the better.TheDom said:No, I have read what you posted. I don't understand bc the logic is all over the place. I'm trying to pin it down.BarleyMcDougal said:You really want to argue this without having truly read what I posted.TheDom said:Awesome. Something to work with. We will use this list as reference point. My thoughts are this...BarleyMcDougal said:There are different ways, but start with tv market, living alumni, national championships, etc.TheDom said:
And how do you define National Brand?
Here's a good starting point: http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17336754/alabama-crimson-tide-notre-dame-fighting-irish-ohio-state-buckeyes-oklahoma-sooners-usc-trojans-lead-list-college-football-blue-bloods
1. You say there are 40 National Brands. Baylor is T-59 on that list and TCU 31. So you don't believe Baylor can assend to TCU level? And by your definition TCU is a National Brand. I would not call TCU a national brand.
2. IMO there are not 40 National Brands. There are 10-12 with 3-5 on the verge. People outside Arkansas don't wear Arkansas gear or spend money to be associated with Razorbacks. Same for Michigan State or A&M.
3. Using your term, Regional Brand, would define the rest of the P5 schools. Some slightly larger based on alumni size and state affiliation but basically similiar boat. These schools fight for national draw, attention, and notoriety by several things namely their athletic performance. More notoriety means moving up the food chain. Longevity matters a lot in this category.
4. I think it is reasonable for Baylor to move into the 30-35 range on that list. Not easy but possible. Therefore, unless you are one to believe realignment is going to only 16 or 24 teams, Baylor has a great opportunity to get to be a desirable member that makes a P5 conference.
I wouldn't call TCU a national brand, nor would they be by my definition. They don't have a large tv market and they don't have many living alumni. Arkansas is a good example of a tweener that leans toward national brand because they control their entire state as far as broadcasting. They have no competition. A&M has enough alumni that they are broadcasted in DFW, Austin, Houston and San Antonio. Huge markets. And now that they are in the SEC, they get bumped up.
I don't know what realignment holds, but if networks are looking to cut fat Baylor would be on the list along with TCU, K St., Iowa State, etc...
So basically you are saying the end all be all is living alumni and tv market. All other aspects about a school be damned. And so you say Baylor, TCU, Iowa St, Kstate would be cut. I guess not Kansas bc of basketball?
So who else gets cut in other conferences?...
The point is you believe P5 conferences are going to about half the number of current P5 schools in realignment. That's fine, but it still just an opinion. My biggest argument is you portrayed your ideas as 100% fact and they are simply not.
Aside from the fact that WV is not a national brand and Baylor is not a lucky Memphis, the idea that realignment is going to 2 super conferences or only 36 teams is less likely today than it was in 2010. It is more likey they increase the playoff to 8 teams with all conference winners getting automatic slot, with best G5 team getting automatic slot, and 2 at large bids.
Lots has changed on that front since 2010. Teams like Nebraska & Colorado have fallen on face in new conferences. Even Missouri has been up and down. OU and UT have seen life in Big12 pretty good, particularly OU. Money for all the schools has been good all around. And maybe the biggest factor is broadcasting right and contracts are changing before our eyes. In 2010 ESPN was throwing money around like crazy on contracts like Longhorn Network. Well, we approaching 10 years in and the returns aren't what they thought. ESPN isn't get subscribers like they thought. So back in 2010 when the Big12 was the weakest conference it has changed with that definitely now being the PAC12. PAC12 network sucking pond water. Amazon & Facebook have entered the broadcasting space and we don't know if they will make bids in 2023 when new round of contracts come up for conferences.
You can say nonsense like I'm not smart enough or just interested in saying nice things about Baylor but neither are true. I am well aware of the reality and current landscape of college athletics and within that where Baylor fits in the fold. You are entitled to your opinion, yet I suggest your opinion be based on current and relevant information.
I'd love for Baylor program to be revered and well-known around the country. It's just never going to happen.
And I've laid out why Baylor is a lucky version of Memphis and you've yet to refute my point, which is that Baylor's been in a major conference for 30 years. Memphis never had that luxury of income. Do you think that Baylor would receive a P5 invite if they were in a G5 conference? Of course you don't.
In football, Baylor was in the SWC which it won several times. We have 9 conference titles in all. Memphis has an all time losing record in football. Baylor has won at several points in its history. On the academic side, Baylor is also far more advanced academically than Memphis. Much more nationally known and revered. Baylor is also much more politically connected than Memphis, particularly in Texas.
Baylor didn't just end up in Big12 when it formed by chance. The logic is faulty and hypothetical at best. It's like saying, well if the Patriots didn't draft Tom Brady they wouldn't have 5 Super Bowls. Yeah, but they did.
Had Baylor won a National Title in 1930 or whatever year we would be higher on the Blue Bloods list. Yeah but we didn't. If RG3 doesn't throw pass vs OU he doesn't win Heisman. Yeah but he did. We could play the "what if" game until the end of time.
And like my grandfather said, if you put it all in a bag and shook it out again, most of it would end up the same. Baylor made the cut in 1996 for many reasons.
And we were well known in football around the country for several years, in this decade. Never happen? It did happen. We just have to win again.
The Memphis comparison is just random. It doesn't have to be Memphis. It's the fact that Baylor had the financial advantages that other schools didn't.
So, I'll ask you again. Do you think that Baylor, was it currently in a G5 conference, would be selected by a P5 conference in a hypothetical realignment scenario? I doubt it. And that applies to numerous other schools around the nation and in our conference.
Chuck Reedy and Guy Morriss were competent Xs and Os coaches and decent recruiters, one fielded a winning team, the other almost did, despite being severely handicapped with resources.
Roberts and Steele were duds.
And I'm not arguing we are a national brand. I am saying we were a national draw from 2011-2015 and can be so again. And if you do that enough, win and spend money and win and spend money, we can improve our national notoriety and move up the food chain. I think you are downplaying many positive aspects of Baylor and the upside the school does hold.
I don't know if Baylor would be selected if it was reversed roles and they were G5. If Memphis was in and Big12 was looking to add 2 like they were couple years back then yeah, Baylor might have been added. Again, it would depend on how realignment looked. I understand your point, we would not be a shoe in necessarily. However, when you look at ACC taking Boston College and Syracuse or BigTen taking Rutgers in expansion, all fairly comparable schools, then its not some crazy idea Baylor would be desired in a major conference. Obviously Syracuse has some great history but I think you get my point.
As it stands today, basically my answer is if realignment moves to 24-36 schools then no Baylor doesn't make cut. If it 36-48 then it probably not today and this is range Baylor needs to aim for next 7-10 years. If it 48+ we probably make it.
I think we both see "our reality" slight different. Probably many similarities in aspects but seems our biggest difference comes in how we view the future.BarleyMcDougal said:I think we're almost to being on the same page now.TheDom said:I was in undergrad during Steele & Morris. Perhaps that's why I'm more positive on Baylor as it stands today compared to yester-year. It's amazing where we sit today and how many Baylor people are so negative. Briles isn't the only coach that can win at Baylor. Rhule will prove that.BarleyMcDougal said:I know. I'm merely pointing out that the program has had many horrendous runs. Baylor has always been a .500-type program, if not under .500, and never been a national brand in its existence. Baylor would have to win a national title to even get close to be a national brand, something that I said I don't see happening for a variety of reasons. Parity is a facade in college athletics and money rules.MilliVanilli said:Grant Teaff football got us in the Big 12. Those early Big 12 coaches were irrelevant to our invitation, they also operated with one hand tied behind their back with poor budgets and facilities.BarleyMcDougal said:I think Baylor was the correct selection for the Big 12 as well, but let's not pretend that wheelings and dealings didn't play a major part in that decision, which I find completely acceptable. Let's just not pretend that it was a rubber stamp choice. Are you old enough to remember Baylor football from the period of Dave Roberts to Guy Morriss?TheDom said:I have refuted your point about Memphis several times, you simply don't care to listen and disagree.BarleyMcDougal said:The logic is nowhere near scattered. It's quite sound, actually. I don't know for a fact that anybody gets cut come the next round of realignment, but I do have a full and lucid understanding of varying school's respective positions. I haven't even really delved into what the future holds for the college landscape, nor is it necessary. I'm telling you that Baylor isn't a national brand and almost certainly never will be. That's just a fact, and the sooner you realize that our place at the table is tenuous the better.TheDom said:No, I have read what you posted. I don't understand bc the logic is all over the place. I'm trying to pin it down.BarleyMcDougal said:You really want to argue this without having truly read what I posted.TheDom said:Awesome. Something to work with. We will use this list as reference point. My thoughts are this...BarleyMcDougal said:There are different ways, but start with tv market, living alumni, national championships, etc.TheDom said:
And how do you define National Brand?
Here's a good starting point: http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17336754/alabama-crimson-tide-notre-dame-fighting-irish-ohio-state-buckeyes-oklahoma-sooners-usc-trojans-lead-list-college-football-blue-bloods
1. You say there are 40 National Brands. Baylor is T-59 on that list and TCU 31. So you don't believe Baylor can assend to TCU level? And by your definition TCU is a National Brand. I would not call TCU a national brand.
2. IMO there are not 40 National Brands. There are 10-12 with 3-5 on the verge. People outside Arkansas don't wear Arkansas gear or spend money to be associated with Razorbacks. Same for Michigan State or A&M.
3. Using your term, Regional Brand, would define the rest of the P5 schools. Some slightly larger based on alumni size and state affiliation but basically similiar boat. These schools fight for national draw, attention, and notoriety by several things namely their athletic performance. More notoriety means moving up the food chain. Longevity matters a lot in this category.
4. I think it is reasonable for Baylor to move into the 30-35 range on that list. Not easy but possible. Therefore, unless you are one to believe realignment is going to only 16 or 24 teams, Baylor has a great opportunity to get to be a desirable member that makes a P5 conference.
I wouldn't call TCU a national brand, nor would they be by my definition. They don't have a large tv market and they don't have many living alumni. Arkansas is a good example of a tweener that leans toward national brand because they control their entire state as far as broadcasting. They have no competition. A&M has enough alumni that they are broadcasted in DFW, Austin, Houston and San Antonio. Huge markets. And now that they are in the SEC, they get bumped up.
I don't know what realignment holds, but if networks are looking to cut fat Baylor would be on the list along with TCU, K St., Iowa State, etc...
So basically you are saying the end all be all is living alumni and tv market. All other aspects about a school be damned. And so you say Baylor, TCU, Iowa St, Kstate would be cut. I guess not Kansas bc of basketball?
So who else gets cut in other conferences?...
The point is you believe P5 conferences are going to about half the number of current P5 schools in realignment. That's fine, but it still just an opinion. My biggest argument is you portrayed your ideas as 100% fact and they are simply not.
Aside from the fact that WV is not a national brand and Baylor is not a lucky Memphis, the idea that realignment is going to 2 super conferences or only 36 teams is less likely today than it was in 2010. It is more likey they increase the playoff to 8 teams with all conference winners getting automatic slot, with best G5 team getting automatic slot, and 2 at large bids.
Lots has changed on that front since 2010. Teams like Nebraska & Colorado have fallen on face in new conferences. Even Missouri has been up and down. OU and UT have seen life in Big12 pretty good, particularly OU. Money for all the schools has been good all around. And maybe the biggest factor is broadcasting right and contracts are changing before our eyes. In 2010 ESPN was throwing money around like crazy on contracts like Longhorn Network. Well, we approaching 10 years in and the returns aren't what they thought. ESPN isn't get subscribers like they thought. So back in 2010 when the Big12 was the weakest conference it has changed with that definitely now being the PAC12. PAC12 network sucking pond water. Amazon & Facebook have entered the broadcasting space and we don't know if they will make bids in 2023 when new round of contracts come up for conferences.
You can say nonsense like I'm not smart enough or just interested in saying nice things about Baylor but neither are true. I am well aware of the reality and current landscape of college athletics and within that where Baylor fits in the fold. You are entitled to your opinion, yet I suggest your opinion be based on current and relevant information.
I'd love for Baylor program to be revered and well-known around the country. It's just never going to happen.
And I've laid out why Baylor is a lucky version of Memphis and you've yet to refute my point, which is that Baylor's been in a major conference for 30 years. Memphis never had that luxury of income. Do you think that Baylor would receive a P5 invite if they were in a G5 conference? Of course you don't.
In football, Baylor was in the SWC which it won several times. We have 9 conference titles in all. Memphis has an all time losing record in football. Baylor has won at several points in its history. On the academic side, Baylor is also far more advanced academically than Memphis. Much more nationally known and revered. Baylor is also much more politically connected than Memphis, particularly in Texas.
Baylor didn't just end up in Big12 when it formed by chance. The logic is faulty and hypothetical at best. It's like saying, well if the Patriots didn't draft Tom Brady they wouldn't have 5 Super Bowls. Yeah, but they did.
Had Baylor won a National Title in 1930 or whatever year we would be higher on the Blue Bloods list. Yeah but we didn't. If RG3 doesn't throw pass vs OU he doesn't win Heisman. Yeah but he did. We could play the "what if" game until the end of time.
And like my grandfather said, if you put it all in a bag and shook it out again, most of it would end up the same. Baylor made the cut in 1996 for many reasons.
And we were well known in football around the country for several years, in this decade. Never happen? It did happen. We just have to win again.
The Memphis comparison is just random. It doesn't have to be Memphis. It's the fact that Baylor had the financial advantages that other schools didn't.
So, I'll ask you again. Do you think that Baylor, was it currently in a G5 conference, would be selected by a P5 conference in a hypothetical realignment scenario? I doubt it. And that applies to numerous other schools around the nation and in our conference.
Chuck Reedy and Guy Morriss were competent Xs and Os coaches and decent recruiters, one fielded a winning team, the other almost did, despite being severely handicapped with resources.
Roberts and Steele were duds.
And I'm not arguing we are a national brand. I am saying we were a national draw from 2011-2015 and can be so again. And if you do that enough, win and spend money and win and spend money, we can improve our national notoriety and move up the food chain. I think you are downplaying many positive aspects of Baylor and the upside the school does hold.
I don't know if Baylor would be selected if it was reversed roles and they were G5. If Memphis was in and Big12 was looking to add 2 like they were couple years back then yeah, Baylor might have been added. Again, it would depend on how realignment looked. I understand your point, we would not be a shoe in necessarily. However, when you look at ACC taking Boston College and Syracuse or BigTen taking Rutgers in expansion, all fairly comparable schools, then its not some crazy idea Baylor would be desired in a major conference. Obviously Syracuse has some great history but I think you get my point.
As it stands today, basically my answer is if realignment moves to 24-36 schools then no Baylor doesn't make cut. If it 36-48 then it probably not today and this is range Baylor needs to aim for next 7-10 years. If it 48+ we probably make it.
We graduated close in time. But, the reason you're positive is the reason I'm "negative" in your eyes, though I'd refer to it as accepting reality. Again, this isn't a Rhule vs Briles discussion. The three schools you mentioned all bring in some type of tv market. Syracuse is akin to Kansas. Their value lies in basketball.
I'm not sure how it shakes out in the long run. I'm hopeful that the network execs and advertisers realize that cutting current teams out would reduce college football's watchability to the point that they'd have to reverse course in short time. But let me be blunt, the people in charge don't care at all about the pageantry of yesteryear. They don't care about parity. They don't care about fairness on and off the field.
They want to make money. And they only do that if the most marketable brands win. Tack on every business that feeds at the teat of those cash cow state schools.
It truly seems as if OU and UT might leave once the GOR expires. I'm still in shock A&M left for the SEC. Never thought that would happen. You can insert an aggy joke, but given the history they disregarded, it's not really funny. "It's only sports!" (college sports at that) would be the response from the 80 percent of this population that doesn't even watch sports. Except it's not. It's big business. I've come to accept that. Baylor doesn't fit the mold of a money machine, so I always keep that in the back of my mind when these topics pop up.
