Our two roosters couldn't take the hint. In general, conferences look to cover for scandal because it doesn't promote the league well. The league just let Ian and Art mangle in their rubble at our expense.
Our robe touching mostly evangelical types struggle with tv running college football. It's more about Bubba Gravehauler watching great non conference football action on Labor Day than the gospel according the Lord in why Baylor was shunned. Scheduling against Alabama is more important than a payoff game for Baylor 's version of the London Bridge.


Baylor screwed up royally but not as much as Ian. He was told not to stab the league in the back. A bonehead move not to schedule and act like they had a chance to make the playoff ignoring their own conference.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Baylor screwed up royally but not as much as Ian. He was told not to stab the league in the back. A bonehead move not to schedule and act like they had a chance to make the playoff ignoring their own conference.

---

So you are still whining about "the schedule"? I just thank God that it was only Liberty and UTSA on the schedule and not Alabama and Michigan when the new regime took over.

---

Or Michigan St...

TheDom said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Baylor screwed up royally but not as much as Ian. He was told not to stab the league in the back. A bonehead move not to schedule and act like they had a chance to make the playoff ignoring their own conference.

---

So you are still whining about "the schedule"? I just thank God that it was only Liberty and UTSA on the schedule and not Alabama and Michigan when the new regime took over.

---

Or Michigan St...

---

Yes. Them too.

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

It's like some of you are stuck with old talking points from 1954. What exactly is it about Baylor that is small? It's campus is now about twice the size of Univ of Texas' and its student population is almost half the size of Univ of Texas' undergraduate enrollment.

---

Campus size is absolutely irrelevant. Our enrollment numbers are only recently up and we still have a small alumni base compared to peer institutions (and we're still losing ground - thanks UT/TAMU). Baylor still has little to no cachet outside of Texas. Baylor's market tv market size is small.

And, BTW Dom, I'm pretty sure the DFW area has more BU alumni than Houston.

---

Oh now campus size is irrelevant? Everything is irrelevant to you that doesn't support the "just the way it is" talking point. PartyBear is right, ya'll stuck in the past.

---

I don't think campus acreage plays a role in the next round of realignment, if there is one. Do you?

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

It's like some of you are stuck with old talking points from 1954. What exactly is it about Baylor that is small? It's campus is now about twice the size of Univ of Texas' and its student population is almost half the size of Univ of Texas' undergraduate enrollment.

---

Campus size is absolutely irrelevant. Our enrollment numbers are only recently up and we still have a small alumni base compared to peer institutions (and we're still losing ground - thanks UT/TAMU). Baylor still has little to no cachet outside of Texas. Baylor's market tv market size is small.

And, BTW Dom, I'm pretty sure the DFW area has more BU alumni than Houston.

---

Oh now campus size is irrelevant? Everything is irrelevant to you that doesn't support the "just the way it is" talking point. PartyBear is right, ya'll stuck in the past.

---

I don't think campus acreage plays a role in the next round of realignment, if there is one. Do you?

---

We aren't talking about raw land acreage. PartyBear was referring to size of campus in terms of buildings, programs, enrollment, and academics. Things that assist with school appeal. Stuff that goes into the total picture. Yes, stuff that helps when it time to discuss notoriety of a school and thus attractiveness in realignment.

I curious if you think the $1.1B we sinking in will matter in realignment?

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

It's like some of you are stuck with old talking points from 1954. What exactly is it about Baylor that is small? It's campus is now about twice the size of Univ of Texas' and its student population is almost half the size of Univ of Texas' undergraduate enrollment.

---

Campus size is absolutely irrelevant. Our enrollment numbers are only recently up and we still have a small alumni base compared to peer institutions (and we're still losing ground - thanks UT/TAMU). Baylor still has little to no cachet outside of Texas. Baylor's market tv market size is small.

And, BTW Dom, I'm pretty sure the DFW area has more BU alumni than Houston.

---

Oh now campus size is irrelevant? Everything is irrelevant to you that doesn't support the "just the way it is" talking point. PartyBear is right, ya'll stuck in the past.

---

I don't think campus acreage plays a role in the next round of realignment, if there is one. Do you?

---

We aren't talking about raw land acreage. PartyBear was referring to size of campus in terms of buildings, programs, enrollment, and academics. Things that assist with school appeal. Stuff that goes into the total picture. Yes, stuff that helps when it time to discuss notoriety of a school and thus attractiveness in realignment.

---

Nope.

It's a beauty pageant and we didn't follow the directions of the director.
Thank God UCF isn't a Baptist University. The howling of persecution would be unbearable.


Ian is the Forest Gump of Power 5 athletic directors. The fact Liberty beat Baylor fits the narrative in a humorous and funny but sick way.

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

It's like some of you are stuck with old talking points from 1954. What exactly is it about Baylor that is small? It's campus is now about twice the size of Univ of Texas' and its student population is almost half the size of Univ of Texas' undergraduate enrollment.

---

Campus size is absolutely irrelevant. Our enrollment numbers are only recently up and we still have a small alumni base compared to peer institutions (and we're still losing ground - thanks UT/TAMU). Baylor still has little to no cachet outside of Texas. Baylor's market tv market size is small.

And, BTW Dom, I'm pretty sure the DFW area has more BU alumni than Houston.

---

Oh now campus size is irrelevant? Everything is irrelevant to you that doesn't support the "just the way it is" talking point. PartyBear is right, ya'll stuck in the past.

---

I don't think campus acreage plays a role in the next round of realignment, if there is one. Do you?

---

We aren't talking about raw land acreage. PartyBear was referring to size of campus in terms of buildings, programs, enrollment, and academics. Things that assist with school appeal. Stuff that goes into the total picture. Yes, stuff that helps when it time to discuss notoriety of a school and thus attractiveness in realignment.

---

Nope.

---

Hummm... yes. Curious, you think the $1.1B will help in realignment?

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

It's like some of you are stuck with old talking points from 1954. What exactly is it about Baylor that is small? It's campus is now about twice the size of Univ of Texas' and its student population is almost half the size of Univ of Texas' undergraduate enrollment.

---

Campus size is absolutely irrelevant. Our enrollment numbers are only recently up and we still have a small alumni base compared to peer institutions (and we're still losing ground - thanks UT/TAMU). Baylor still has little to no cachet outside of Texas. Baylor's market tv market size is small.

And, BTW Dom, I'm pretty sure the DFW area has more BU alumni than Houston.

---

Oh now campus size is irrelevant? Everything is irrelevant to you that doesn't support the "just the way it is" talking point. PartyBear is right, ya'll stuck in the past.

---

I don't think campus acreage plays a role in the next round of realignment, if there is one. Do you?

---

We aren't talking about raw land acreage. PartyBear was referring to size of campus in terms of buildings, programs, enrollment, and academics. Things that assist with school appeal. Stuff that goes into the total picture. Yes, stuff that helps when it time to discuss notoriety of a school and thus attractiveness in realignment.

---

Nope.

---

Hummm... yes. Curious, you think the $1.1B will help in realignment?

---

Are you referring to Baylor's endowment? If so,





Nope.

Really, I'm not trying to be abrasive. I just consider my point of view entirely correct. I'm firm there and we're all allowed our opinions. So, I don't want to come off like a jerk.

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

It's like some of you are stuck with old talking points from 1954. What exactly is it about Baylor that is small? It's campus is now about twice the size of Univ of Texas' and its student population is almost half the size of Univ of Texas' undergraduate enrollment.

---

Campus size is absolutely irrelevant. Our enrollment numbers are only recently up and we still have a small alumni base compared to peer institutions (and we're still losing ground - thanks UT/TAMU). Baylor still has little to no cachet outside of Texas. Baylor's market tv market size is small.

And, BTW Dom, I'm pretty sure the DFW area has more BU alumni than Houston.

---

Oh now campus size is irrelevant? Everything is irrelevant to you that doesn't support the "just the way it is" talking point. PartyBear is right, ya'll stuck in the past.

---

I don't think campus acreage plays a role in the next round of realignment, if there is one. Do you?

---

We aren't talking about raw land acreage. PartyBear was referring to size of campus in terms of buildings, programs, enrollment, and academics. Things that assist with school appeal. Stuff that goes into the total picture. Yes, stuff that helps when it time to discuss notoriety of a school and thus attractiveness in realignment.

---

Nope.

---

Hummm... yes. Curious, you think the $1.1B will help in realignment?

---

Are you referring to Baylor's endowment? If so,





Nope.

Really, I'm not trying to be abrasive. I just consider my point of view entirely correct. I'm firm there and we're all allowed our opinions. So, I don't want to come off like a jerk.

---

No, the $1.1B we raising to build new fieldhouse, football only offices and weight room and study hall, repurpose Ferrell Center, etc.

I'm not trying to be a$$ either, really I'm just amazed. I also consider my point of view correct. I'm just amazed how lost you seem to be on whole deal. Honestly it's like you thinking in 1965 terms.

Tv is not going to lose a Texas team in Power 5 realignment and the networks aren't looking to expand.
It's about viewership, traveling to the bowls and scheduling like they tell you to schedule.
Boone Pickens dogged out Nebraska and said it would hurt them leaving more than the league because the state only had 750K households. It is about tv.

I never remember Ian having a leadership role among the conference members.

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

It's like some of you are stuck with old talking points from 1954. What exactly is it about Baylor that is small? It's campus is now about twice the size of Univ of Texas' and its student population is almost half the size of Univ of Texas' undergraduate enrollment.

---

Campus size is absolutely irrelevant. Our enrollment numbers are only recently up and we still have a small alumni base compared to peer institutions (and we're still losing ground - thanks UT/TAMU). Baylor still has little to no cachet outside of Texas. Baylor's market tv market size is small.

And, BTW Dom, I'm pretty sure the DFW area has more BU alumni than Houston.

---

Oh now campus size is irrelevant? Everything is irrelevant to you that doesn't support the "just the way it is" talking point. PartyBear is right, ya'll stuck in the past.

---

I don't think campus acreage plays a role in the next round of realignment, if there is one. Do you?

---

We aren't talking about raw land acreage. PartyBear was referring to size of campus in terms of buildings, programs, enrollment, and academics. Things that assist with school appeal. Stuff that goes into the total picture. Yes, stuff that helps when it time to discuss notoriety of a school and thus attractiveness in realignment.

---

Nope.

---

Hummm... yes. Curious, you think the $1.1B will help in realignment?

---

Are you referring to Baylor's endowment? If so,





Nope.

Really, I'm not trying to be abrasive. I just consider my point of view entirely correct. I'm firm there and we're all allowed our opinions. So, I don't want to come off like a jerk.

---

No, the $1.1B we raising to build new fieldhouse, football only offices and weight room and study hall, repurpose Ferrell Center, etc.

I'm not trying to be a$$ either, really I'm just amazed. I also consider my point of view correct. I'm just amazed how lost you seem to be on whole deal. Honestly it's like you thinking in 1965 terms.

---

Those things are minimal in the long run. Baylor is a regional school with little national appeal. TCU is the same. Whatever we gained during the Briles years in terms of recognition is gone now due to the "scandal." Would a conference, say the ACC, consider improvements and financial commitment to athletics as a positive criterion? Sure. It wouldn't be close to integral, however.

Baylor is Memphis with better luck.

xiledinok said:

---

Tv is not going to lose a Texas team in Power 5 realignment and the networks aren't looking to expand.
It's about viewership, traveling to the bowls and scheduling like they tell you to schedule.
Boone Pickens dogged out Nebraska and said it would hurt them leaving more than the league because the state only had 750K households. It is about tv.

I never remember Ian having a leadership role among the conference members.

---

This we can agree on.

Except for the scheduling. It doesn't matter. Baylor is in control of its destiny like UCF is in control of their destiny. Or Vandy or TCU or BYU or Iowa State.

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

It's like some of you are stuck with old talking points from 1954. What exactly is it about Baylor that is small? It's campus is now about twice the size of Univ of Texas' and its student population is almost half the size of Univ of Texas' undergraduate enrollment.

---

Campus size is absolutely irrelevant. Our enrollment numbers are only recently up and we still have a small alumni base compared to peer institutions (and we're still losing ground - thanks UT/TAMU). Baylor still has little to no cachet outside of Texas. Baylor's market tv market size is small.

And, BTW Dom, I'm pretty sure the DFW area has more BU alumni than Houston.

---

Oh now campus size is irrelevant? Everything is irrelevant to you that doesn't support the "just the way it is" talking point. PartyBear is right, ya'll stuck in the past.

---

I don't think campus acreage plays a role in the next round of realignment, if there is one. Do you?

---

We aren't talking about raw land acreage. PartyBear was referring to size of campus in terms of buildings, programs, enrollment, and academics. Things that assist with school appeal. Stuff that goes into the total picture. Yes, stuff that helps when it time to discuss notoriety of a school and thus attractiveness in realignment.

---

Nope.

---

Hummm... yes. Curious, you think the $1.1B will help in realignment?

---

Are you referring to Baylor's endowment? If so,





Nope.

Really, I'm not trying to be abrasive. I just consider my point of view entirely correct. I'm firm there and we're all allowed our opinions. So, I don't want to come off like a jerk.

---

No, the $1.1B we raising to build new fieldhouse, football only offices and weight room and study hall, repurpose Ferrell Center, etc.

I'm not trying to be a$$ either, really I'm just amazed. I also consider my point of view correct. I'm just amazed how lost you seem to be on whole deal. Honestly it's like you thinking in 1965 terms.

---

Those things are minimal in the long run. Baylor is a regional school with little national appeal. TCU is the same. Whatever we gained during the Briles years in terms of recognition is gone now due to the "scandal." Would a conference, say the ACC, consider improvements and financial commitment to athletics as a positive criterion? Sure. It wouldn't be close to integral, however.

Baylor is Memphis with better luck.

---

I doubt that assessment. You could say it about 8-9 Big 12 schools.
The networks want a tragedy to triumphant story because they didn't care for Art. He looked dumb bumping Bowlsby, the money guy for the conference. The ill will is on Art's chin. The NFL has a vested business interest to keep him off shore. It's about sponsorship money not wanting to be tied to him.

xiledinok said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

It's like some of you are stuck with old talking points from 1954. What exactly is it about Baylor that is small? It's campus is now about twice the size of Univ of Texas' and its student population is almost half the size of Univ of Texas' undergraduate enrollment.

---

Campus size is absolutely irrelevant. Our enrollment numbers are only recently up and we still have a small alumni base compared to peer institutions (and we're still losing ground - thanks UT/TAMU). Baylor still has little to no cachet outside of Texas. Baylor's market tv market size is small.

And, BTW Dom, I'm pretty sure the DFW area has more BU alumni than Houston.

---

Oh now campus size is irrelevant? Everything is irrelevant to you that doesn't support the "just the way it is" talking point. PartyBear is right, ya'll stuck in the past.

---

I don't think campus acreage plays a role in the next round of realignment, if there is one. Do you?

---

We aren't talking about raw land acreage. PartyBear was referring to size of campus in terms of buildings, programs, enrollment, and academics. Things that assist with school appeal. Stuff that goes into the total picture. Yes, stuff that helps when it time to discuss notoriety of a school and thus attractiveness in realignment.

---

Nope.

---

Hummm... yes. Curious, you think the $1.1B will help in realignment?

---

Are you referring to Baylor's endowment? If so,





Nope.

Really, I'm not trying to be abrasive. I just consider my point of view entirely correct. I'm firm there and we're all allowed our opinions. So, I don't want to come off like a jerk.

---

No, the $1.1B we raising to build new fieldhouse, football only offices and weight room and study hall, repurpose Ferrell Center, etc.

I'm not trying to be a$$ either, really I'm just amazed. I also consider my point of view correct. I'm just amazed how lost you seem to be on whole deal. Honestly it's like you thinking in 1965 terms.

---

Those things are minimal in the long run. Baylor is a regional school with little national appeal. TCU is the same. Whatever we gained during the Briles years in terms of recognition is gone now due to the "scandal." Would a conference, say the ACC, consider improvements and financial commitment to athletics as a positive criterion? Sure. It wouldn't be close to integral, however.

Baylor is Memphis with better luck.

---

I doubt that assessment. You could say it about 8-9 Big 12 schools.
The networks want a tragedy to triumphant story because they didn't care for Art. He looked dumb bumping Bowlsby, the money guy for the conference. The ill will is on Art's chin. The NFL has a vested business interest to keep him off shore. It's about sponsorship money not wanting to be tied to him.

---

UT, OU, WVU. Those schools have national recognition as far as football. It's a steep descent after that. Baylor's triumphant story is what ESPN is getting. 6 wins and a bowl.

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

It's like some of you are stuck with old talking points from 1954. What exactly is it about Baylor that is small? It's campus is now about twice the size of Univ of Texas' and its student population is almost half the size of Univ of Texas' undergraduate enrollment.

---

Campus size is absolutely irrelevant. Our enrollment numbers are only recently up and we still have a small alumni base compared to peer institutions (and we're still losing ground - thanks UT/TAMU). Baylor still has little to no cachet outside of Texas. Baylor's market tv market size is small.

And, BTW Dom, I'm pretty sure the DFW area has more BU alumni than Houston.

---

Oh now campus size is irrelevant? Everything is irrelevant to you that doesn't support the "just the way it is" talking point. PartyBear is right, ya'll stuck in the past.

---

I don't think campus acreage plays a role in the next round of realignment, if there is one. Do you?

---

We aren't talking about raw land acreage. PartyBear was referring to size of campus in terms of buildings, programs, enrollment, and academics. Things that assist with school appeal. Stuff that goes into the total picture. Yes, stuff that helps when it time to discuss notoriety of a school and thus attractiveness in realignment.

---

Nope.

---

Hummm... yes. Curious, you think the $1.1B will help in realignment?

---

Are you referring to Baylor's endowment? If so,





Nope.

Really, I'm not trying to be abrasive. I just consider my point of view entirely correct. I'm firm there and we're all allowed our opinions. So, I don't want to come off like a jerk.

---

No, the $1.1B we raising to build new fieldhouse, football only offices and weight room and study hall, repurpose Ferrell Center, etc.

I'm not trying to be a$$ either, really I'm just amazed. I also consider my point of view correct. I'm just amazed how lost you seem to be on whole deal. Honestly it's like you thinking in 1965 terms.

---

Those things are minimal in the long run. Baylor is a regional school with little national appeal. TCU is the same. Whatever we gained during the Briles years in terms of recognition is gone now due to the "scandal." Would a conference, say the ACC, consider improvements and financial commitment to athletics as a positive criterion? Sure. It wouldn't be close to integral, however.

Baylor is Memphis with better luck.

---

I'm sorry, that is just such silly sentiment. Crazy to me you think so poorly of your so called school, especially when facts don't support it. Memphis with better luck?!? Wow. Pretty sure Memphis doesn't have a $100M+ athletic budget. Such an ignorant statement.

For the record, most people outside of Texas I talk with about Baylor know very little about the scandal. As long as we get back to winning quickly, which we have taken first step in doing so by reaching bowl this year it will all be distant memory to outside world soon.

Also, Briles was just another good coach. He took a dormant program and got 2 conference titles. The run helped wake up the fan base and we got a new stadium and some national notoriety out of it. He got paid a lot of money and his son and son in law jobs within the college football industry. Then he got canned for bringing bad light upon the university. Positives and negatives. And now we move forward. Briles was a good starter kit. Now we move on to next step.

That was a "Poster of the Century" award I got for dominating BaylorFans & 365 with truthful posts.

Pencil Neck!

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

It's like some of you are stuck with old talking points from 1954. What exactly is it about Baylor that is small? It's campus is now about twice the size of Univ of Texas' and its student population is almost half the size of Univ of Texas' undergraduate enrollment.

---

Campus size is absolutely irrelevant. Our enrollment numbers are only recently up and we still have a small alumni base compared to peer institutions (and we're still losing ground - thanks UT/TAMU). Baylor still has little to no cachet outside of Texas. Baylor's market tv market size is small.

And, BTW Dom, I'm pretty sure the DFW area has more BU alumni than Houston.

---

Oh now campus size is irrelevant? Everything is irrelevant to you that doesn't support the "just the way it is" talking point. PartyBear is right, ya'll stuck in the past.

---

I don't think campus acreage plays a role in the next round of realignment, if there is one. Do you?

---

We aren't talking about raw land acreage. PartyBear was referring to size of campus in terms of buildings, programs, enrollment, and academics. Things that assist with school appeal. Stuff that goes into the total picture. Yes, stuff that helps when it time to discuss notoriety of a school and thus attractiveness in realignment.

---

Nope.

---

Hummm... yes. Curious, you think the $1.1B will help in realignment?

---

Are you referring to Baylor's endowment? If so,





Nope.

Really, I'm not trying to be abrasive. I just consider my point of view entirely correct. I'm firm there and we're all allowed our opinions. So, I don't want to come off like a jerk.

---

No, the $1.1B we raising to build new fieldhouse, football only offices and weight room and study hall, repurpose Ferrell Center, etc.

I'm not trying to be a$$ either, really I'm just amazed. I also consider my point of view correct. I'm just amazed how lost you seem to be on whole deal. Honestly it's like you thinking in 1965 terms.

---

Those things are minimal in the long run. Baylor is a regional school with little national appeal. TCU is the same. Whatever we gained during the Briles years in terms of recognition is gone now due to the "scandal." Would a conference, say the ACC, consider improvements and financial commitment to athletics as a positive criterion? Sure. It wouldn't be close to integral, however.

Baylor is Memphis with better luck.

---

I'm sorry, that is just such silly sentiment. Crazy to me you think so poorly of your so called school, especially when facts don't support it. Memphis with better luck?!? Wow. Pretty sure Memphis doesn't have a $100M+ athletic budget. Such an ignorant statement.

For the record, most people outside of Texas I talk with about Baylor know very little about the scandal. As long as we get back to winning quickly, which we have taken first step in doing so by reaching bowl this year it will all be distant memory to outside world soon.

Also, Briles was just another good coach. He took a dormant program and got 2 conference titles. The run helped wake up the fan base and we got a new stadium and some national notoriety out of it. He got paid a lot of money and his son and son in law jobs within the college football industry. Then he got canned for bringing bad light upon the university. Positives and negatives. And now we move forward. Briles was a good starter kit. Now we move on to next step.

---

I don't consider that thinking poorly of Baylor. It's just factual. Memphis last year had a 50+ million dollar budget and they are in the AAC. Plus they have the FedEx billionaire willing to shell out all sorts of cash. They're a regional school like Baylor. Baylor has had the fortune of being in a major conference for a long time. If Memphis joined the Big 12 their budget would certainly rise.

I'm not sure what you think the "next step" is for Baylor. I'm not sure people at Baylor know.

WVA is not a national brand. You don't see people anywhere other than West Virginia wearing their gear.
You would get a weird look at an outside the bubble tailgate claiming West Virginia is a national brand.

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

It's like some of you are stuck with old talking points from 1954. What exactly is it about Baylor that is small? It's campus is now about twice the size of Univ of Texas' and its student population is almost half the size of Univ of Texas' undergraduate enrollment.

---

Campus size is absolutely irrelevant. Our enrollment numbers are only recently up and we still have a small alumni base compared to peer institutions (and we're still losing ground - thanks UT/TAMU). Baylor still has little to no cachet outside of Texas. Baylor's market tv market size is small.

And, BTW Dom, I'm pretty sure the DFW area has more BU alumni than Houston.

---

Oh now campus size is irrelevant? Everything is irrelevant to you that doesn't support the "just the way it is" talking point. PartyBear is right, ya'll stuck in the past.

---

I don't think campus acreage plays a role in the next round of realignment, if there is one. Do you?

---

We aren't talking about raw land acreage. PartyBear was referring to size of campus in terms of buildings, programs, enrollment, and academics. Things that assist with school appeal. Stuff that goes into the total picture. Yes, stuff that helps when it time to discuss notoriety of a school and thus attractiveness in realignment.

---

Nope.

---

Hummm... yes. Curious, you think the $1.1B will help in realignment?

---

Are you referring to Baylor's endowment? If so,





Nope.

Really, I'm not trying to be abrasive. I just consider my point of view entirely correct. I'm firm there and we're all allowed our opinions. So, I don't want to come off like a jerk.

---

No, the $1.1B we raising to build new fieldhouse, football only offices and weight room and study hall, repurpose Ferrell Center, etc.

I'm not trying to be a$$ either, really I'm just amazed. I also consider my point of view correct. I'm just amazed how lost you seem to be on whole deal. Honestly it's like you thinking in 1965 terms.

---

Those things are minimal in the long run. Baylor is a regional school with little national appeal. TCU is the same. Whatever we gained during the Briles years in terms of recognition is gone now due to the "scandal." Would a conference, say the ACC, consider improvements and financial commitment to athletics as a positive criterion? Sure. It wouldn't be close to integral, however.

Baylor is Memphis with better luck.

---

I'm sorry, that is just such silly sentiment. Crazy to me you think so poorly of your so called school, especially when facts don't support it. Memphis with better luck?!? Wow. Pretty sure Memphis doesn't have a $100M+ athletic budget. Such an ignorant statement.

For the record, most people outside of Texas I talk with about Baylor know very little about the scandal. As long as we get back to winning quickly, which we have taken first step in doing so by reaching bowl this year it will all be distant memory to outside world soon.

Also, Briles was just another good coach. He took a dormant program and got 2 conference titles. The run helped wake up the fan base and we got a new stadium and some national notoriety out of it. He got paid a lot of money and his son and son in law jobs within the college football industry. Then he got canned for bringing bad light upon the university. Positives and negatives. And now we move forward. Briles was a good starter kit. Now we move on to next step.

---

I don't consider that thinking poorly of Baylor. It's just factual. Memphis last year had a 50+ million dollar budget and they are in the AAC. Plus they have the FedEx billionaire willing to shell out all sorts of cash. They're a regional school like Baylor. Baylor has had the fortune of being in a major conference for a long time. If Memphis joined the Big 12 their budget would certainly rise.

I'm not sure what you think the "next step" is for Baylor. I'm not sure people at Baylor know.

---

Memphis was told "no" several years ago. Tv didn't want them or Houston. Memphis doesn't travel anywhere and is a community college.

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

It's like some of you are stuck with old talking points from 1954. What exactly is it about Baylor that is small? It's campus is now about twice the size of Univ of Texas' and its student population is almost half the size of Univ of Texas' undergraduate enrollment.

---

Campus size is absolutely irrelevant. Our enrollment numbers are only recently up and we still have a small alumni base compared to peer institutions (and we're still losing ground - thanks UT/TAMU). Baylor still has little to no cachet outside of Texas. Baylor's market tv market size is small.

And, BTW Dom, I'm pretty sure the DFW area has more BU alumni than Houston.

---

Oh now campus size is irrelevant? Everything is irrelevant to you that doesn't support the "just the way it is" talking point. PartyBear is right, ya'll stuck in the past.

---

I don't think campus acreage plays a role in the next round of realignment, if there is one. Do you?

---

We aren't talking about raw land acreage. PartyBear was referring to size of campus in terms of buildings, programs, enrollment, and academics. Things that assist with school appeal. Stuff that goes into the total picture. Yes, stuff that helps when it time to discuss notoriety of a school and thus attractiveness in realignment.

---

Nope.

---

Hummm... yes. Curious, you think the $1.1B will help in realignment?

---

Are you referring to Baylor's endowment? If so,





Nope.

Really, I'm not trying to be abrasive. I just consider my point of view entirely correct. I'm firm there and we're all allowed our opinions. So, I don't want to come off like a jerk.

---

No, the $1.1B we raising to build new fieldhouse, football only offices and weight room and study hall, repurpose Ferrell Center, etc.

I'm not trying to be a$$ either, really I'm just amazed. I also consider my point of view correct. I'm just amazed how lost you seem to be on whole deal. Honestly it's like you thinking in 1965 terms.

---

Those things are minimal in the long run. Baylor is a regional school with little national appeal. TCU is the same. Whatever we gained during the Briles years in terms of recognition is gone now due to the "scandal." Would a conference, say the ACC, consider improvements and financial commitment to athletics as a positive criterion? Sure. It wouldn't be close to integral, however.

Baylor is Memphis with better luck.

---

I'm sorry, that is just such silly sentiment. Crazy to me you think so poorly of your so called school, especially when facts don't support it. Memphis with better luck?!? Wow. Pretty sure Memphis doesn't have a $100M+ athletic budget. Such an ignorant statement.

For the record, most people outside of Texas I talk with about Baylor know very little about the scandal. As long as we get back to winning quickly, which we have taken first step in doing so by reaching bowl this year it will all be distant memory to outside world soon.

Also, Briles was just another good coach. He took a dormant program and got 2 conference titles. The run helped wake up the fan base and we got a new stadium and some national notoriety out of it. He got paid a lot of money and his son and son in law jobs within the college football industry. Then he got canned for bringing bad light upon the university. Positives and negatives. And now we move forward. Briles was a good starter kit. Now we move on to next step.

---

I don't consider that thinking poorly of Baylor. It's just factual. Memphis last year had a 50+ million dollar budget and they are in the AAC. Plus they have the FedEx billionaire willing to shell out all sorts of cash. They're a regional school like Baylor. Baylor has had the fortune of being in a major conference for a long time. If Memphis joined the Big 12 their budget would certainly rise.

I'm not sure what you think the "next step" is for Baylor. I'm not sure people at Baylor know.

---

You talk out of both sides of your mouth. The FedEx billionaire is good for Memphis but it negative that a individual booster is picking up tab at Baylor for the football coach.

It's all good man. Memphis is a mid major. Baylor is in a P5 conference. That fact isn't just by some mistake or luck. Sorry you think so poorly of Baylor. You should have gone to UT.

xiledinok said:

---

WVA is not a national brand. You don't see people anywhere other than West Virginia wearing their gear.
You would get a weird look at an outside the bubble tailgate claiming West Virginia is a national brand.

---

No kidding. What a goofy argument. By that standard, outside of 10 schools - UT, OU, tOSU, Michigan, PSU, USC, Florida St, Miami, Alabama, LSU - everyone else is a "regional school". It goes on long enough and they not even sure what to think anymore.

xiledinok said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

It's like some of you are stuck with old talking points from 1954. What exactly is it about Baylor that is small? It's campus is now about twice the size of Univ of Texas' and its student population is almost half the size of Univ of Texas' undergraduate enrollment.

---

Campus size is absolutely irrelevant. Our enrollment numbers are only recently up and we still have a small alumni base compared to peer institutions (and we're still losing ground - thanks UT/TAMU). Baylor still has little to no cachet outside of Texas. Baylor's market tv market size is small.

And, BTW Dom, I'm pretty sure the DFW area has more BU alumni than Houston.

---

Oh now campus size is irrelevant? Everything is irrelevant to you that doesn't support the "just the way it is" talking point. PartyBear is right, ya'll stuck in the past.

---

I don't think campus acreage plays a role in the next round of realignment, if there is one. Do you?

---

We aren't talking about raw land acreage. PartyBear was referring to size of campus in terms of buildings, programs, enrollment, and academics. Things that assist with school appeal. Stuff that goes into the total picture. Yes, stuff that helps when it time to discuss notoriety of a school and thus attractiveness in realignment.

---

Nope.

---

Hummm... yes. Curious, you think the $1.1B will help in realignment?

---

Are you referring to Baylor's endowment? If so,





Nope.

Really, I'm not trying to be abrasive. I just consider my point of view entirely correct. I'm firm there and we're all allowed our opinions. So, I don't want to come off like a jerk.

---

No, the $1.1B we raising to build new fieldhouse, football only offices and weight room and study hall, repurpose Ferrell Center, etc.

I'm not trying to be a$$ either, really I'm just amazed. I also consider my point of view correct. I'm just amazed how lost you seem to be on whole deal. Honestly it's like you thinking in 1965 terms.

---

Those things are minimal in the long run. Baylor is a regional school with little national appeal. TCU is the same. Whatever we gained during the Briles years in terms of recognition is gone now due to the "scandal." Would a conference, say the ACC, consider improvements and financial commitment to athletics as a positive criterion? Sure. It wouldn't be close to integral, however.

Baylor is Memphis with better luck.

---

I'm sorry, that is just such silly sentiment. Crazy to me you think so poorly of your so called school, especially when facts don't support it. Memphis with better luck?!? Wow. Pretty sure Memphis doesn't have a $100M+ athletic budget. Such an ignorant statement.

For the record, most people outside of Texas I talk with about Baylor know very little about the scandal. As long as we get back to winning quickly, which we have taken first step in doing so by reaching bowl this year it will all be distant memory to outside world soon.

Also, Briles was just another good coach. He took a dormant program and got 2 conference titles. The run helped wake up the fan base and we got a new stadium and some national notoriety out of it. He got paid a lot of money and his son and son in law jobs within the college football industry. Then he got canned for bringing bad light upon the university. Positives and negatives. And now we move forward. Briles was a good starter kit. Now we move on to next step.

---

I don't consider that thinking poorly of Baylor. It's just factual. Memphis last year had a 50+ million dollar budget and they are in the AAC. Plus they have the FedEx billionaire willing to shell out all sorts of cash. They're a regional school like Baylor. Baylor has had the fortune of being in a major conference for a long time. If Memphis joined the Big 12 their budget would certainly rise.

I'm not sure what you think the "next step" is for Baylor. I'm not sure people at Baylor know.

---

Memphis was told "no" several years ago. Tv didn't want them or Houston. Memphis doesn't travel anywhere and is a community college.

---

I'm not sure what your point is......

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

It's like some of you are stuck with old talking points from 1954. What exactly is it about Baylor that is small? It's campus is now about twice the size of Univ of Texas' and its student population is almost half the size of Univ of Texas' undergraduate enrollment.

---

Campus size is absolutely irrelevant. Our enrollment numbers are only recently up and we still have a small alumni base compared to peer institutions (and we're still losing ground - thanks UT/TAMU). Baylor still has little to no cachet outside of Texas. Baylor's market tv market size is small.

And, BTW Dom, I'm pretty sure the DFW area has more BU alumni than Houston.

---

Oh now campus size is irrelevant? Everything is irrelevant to you that doesn't support the "just the way it is" talking point. PartyBear is right, ya'll stuck in the past.

---

I don't think campus acreage plays a role in the next round of realignment, if there is one. Do you?

---

We aren't talking about raw land acreage. PartyBear was referring to size of campus in terms of buildings, programs, enrollment, and academics. Things that assist with school appeal. Stuff that goes into the total picture. Yes, stuff that helps when it time to discuss notoriety of a school and thus attractiveness in realignment.

---

Nope.

---

Hummm... yes. Curious, you think the $1.1B will help in realignment?

---

Are you referring to Baylor's endowment? If so,





Nope.

Really, I'm not trying to be abrasive. I just consider my point of view entirely correct. I'm firm there and we're all allowed our opinions. So, I don't want to come off like a jerk.

---

No, the $1.1B we raising to build new fieldhouse, football only offices and weight room and study hall, repurpose Ferrell Center, etc.

I'm not trying to be a$$ either, really I'm just amazed. I also consider my point of view correct. I'm just amazed how lost you seem to be on whole deal. Honestly it's like you thinking in 1965 terms.

---

Those things are minimal in the long run. Baylor is a regional school with little national appeal. TCU is the same. Whatever we gained during the Briles years in terms of recognition is gone now due to the "scandal." Would a conference, say the ACC, consider improvements and financial commitment to athletics as a positive criterion? Sure. It wouldn't be close to integral, however.

Baylor is Memphis with better luck.

---

I'm sorry, that is just such silly sentiment. Crazy to me you think so poorly of your so called school, especially when facts don't support it. Memphis with better luck?!? Wow. Pretty sure Memphis doesn't have a $100M+ athletic budget. Such an ignorant statement.

For the record, most people outside of Texas I talk with about Baylor know very little about the scandal. As long as we get back to winning quickly, which we have taken first step in doing so by reaching bowl this year it will all be distant memory to outside world soon.

Also, Briles was just another good coach. He took a dormant program and got 2 conference titles. The run helped wake up the fan base and we got a new stadium and some national notoriety out of it. He got paid a lot of money and his son and son in law jobs within the college football industry. Then he got canned for bringing bad light upon the university. Positives and negatives. And now we move forward. Briles was a good starter kit. Now we move on to next step.

---

I don't consider that thinking poorly of Baylor. It's just factual. Memphis last year had a 50+ million dollar budget and they are in the AAC. Plus they have the FedEx billionaire willing to shell out all sorts of cash. They're a regional school like Baylor. Baylor has had the fortune of being in a major conference for a long time. If Memphis joined the Big 12 their budget would certainly rise.

I'm not sure what you think the "next step" is for Baylor. I'm not sure people at Baylor know.

---

You talk out of both sides of your mouth. The FedEx billionaire is good for Memphis but it negative that a individual booster is picking up tab at Baylor for the football coach.

It's all good man. Memphis is a mid major. Baylor is in a P5 conference. That fact isn't just by some mistake or luck. Sorry you think so poorly of Baylor. You should have gone to UT.

---

I'm sorry. You misunderstood. I'm saying that they have someone who can afford to give the program a lot of money, but that still doesn't help them develop a case for being added to a major conference. Memphis is a mid-major because they don't offer anything in terms of audience for tv sets.

You seem upset that I'm being honest. It's a known that Baylor faces the realignment chopping block like plenty of other schools. This upsets you, I guess. Even our most powerful boosters/regents have said as much. So you can be upset or bitter or whatever. It doesn't change the facts.

TheDom said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

WVA is not a national brand. You don't see people anywhere other than West Virginia wearing their gear.
You would get a weird look at an outside the bubble tailgate claiming West Virginia is a national brand.

---

No kidding. What a goofy argument. By that standard, outside of 10 schools - UT, OU, tOSU, Michigan, PSU, USC, Florida St, Miami, Alabama, LSU - everyone else is a "regional school". It goes on long enough and they not even sure what to think anymore.

---

What was the argument? What was the standard? And yes, WVU is a national football brand.

Looks like the knee pad clan will have to start looking elsewhere...

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/25476184/former-ole-miss-coach-hugh-freeze-agrees-deal-liberty-head-coach

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

It's like some of you are stuck with old talking points from 1954. What exactly is it about Baylor that is small? It's campus is now about twice the size of Univ of Texas' and its student population is almost half the size of Univ of Texas' undergraduate enrollment.

---

Campus size is absolutely irrelevant. Our enrollment numbers are only recently up and we still have a small alumni base compared to peer institutions (and we're still losing ground - thanks UT/TAMU). Baylor still has little to no cachet outside of Texas. Baylor's market tv market size is small.

And, BTW Dom, I'm pretty sure the DFW area has more BU alumni than Houston.

---

Oh now campus size is irrelevant? Everything is irrelevant to you that doesn't support the "just the way it is" talking point. PartyBear is right, ya'll stuck in the past.

---

I don't think campus acreage plays a role in the next round of realignment, if there is one. Do you?

---

We aren't talking about raw land acreage. PartyBear was referring to size of campus in terms of buildings, programs, enrollment, and academics. Things that assist with school appeal. Stuff that goes into the total picture. Yes, stuff that helps when it time to discuss notoriety of a school and thus attractiveness in realignment.

---

Nope.

---

Hummm... yes. Curious, you think the $1.1B will help in realignment?

---

Are you referring to Baylor's endowment? If so,





Nope.

Really, I'm not trying to be abrasive. I just consider my point of view entirely correct. I'm firm there and we're all allowed our opinions. So, I don't want to come off like a jerk.

---

No, the $1.1B we raising to build new fieldhouse, football only offices and weight room and study hall, repurpose Ferrell Center, etc.

I'm not trying to be a$$ either, really I'm just amazed. I also consider my point of view correct. I'm just amazed how lost you seem to be on whole deal. Honestly it's like you thinking in 1965 terms.

---

Those things are minimal in the long run. Baylor is a regional school with little national appeal. TCU is the same. Whatever we gained during the Briles years in terms of recognition is gone now due to the "scandal." Would a conference, say the ACC, consider improvements and financial commitment to athletics as a positive criterion? Sure. It wouldn't be close to integral, however.

Baylor is Memphis with better luck.

---

I'm sorry, that is just such silly sentiment. Crazy to me you think so poorly of your so called school, especially when facts don't support it. Memphis with better luck?!? Wow. Pretty sure Memphis doesn't have a $100M+ athletic budget. Such an ignorant statement.

For the record, most people outside of Texas I talk with about Baylor know very little about the scandal. As long as we get back to winning quickly, which we have taken first step in doing so by reaching bowl this year it will all be distant memory to outside world soon.

Also, Briles was just another good coach. He took a dormant program and got 2 conference titles. The run helped wake up the fan base and we got a new stadium and some national notoriety out of it. He got paid a lot of money and his son and son in law jobs within the college football industry. Then he got canned for bringing bad light upon the university. Positives and negatives. And now we move forward. Briles was a good starter kit. Now we move on to next step.

---

I don't consider that thinking poorly of Baylor. It's just factual. Memphis last year had a 50+ million dollar budget and they are in the AAC. Plus they have the FedEx billionaire willing to shell out all sorts of cash. They're a regional school like Baylor. Baylor has had the fortune of being in a major conference for a long time. If Memphis joined the Big 12 their budget would certainly rise.

I'm not sure what you think the "next step" is for Baylor. I'm not sure people at Baylor know.

---

Memphis was told "no" several years ago. Tv didn't want them or Houston. Memphis doesn't travel anywhere and is a community college.

---

I'm not sure what your point is......

---

Tv is not planning to eliminate Power 5 programs. They don't want Memphis and are aware Memphis' efforts to get in Power 5. They don't want Houston. Those commuters aren't attractive.

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

WVA is not a national brand. You don't see people anywhere other than West Virginia wearing their gear.
You would get a weird look at an outside the bubble tailgate claiming West Virginia is a national brand.

---

No kidding. What a goofy argument. By that standard, outside of 10 schools - UT, OU, tOSU, Michigan, PSU, USC, Florida St, Miami, Alabama, LSU - everyone else is a "regional school". It goes on long enough and they not even sure what to think anymore.

---

What was the argument? What was the standard? And yes, WVU is a national football brand.

---

No, WV is not a national football brand any more than Baylor is... I'm not upset about talk of realignment at all, outside of you ignorance to the entire discussion. I didn't misunderstand your take at all, I just don't think you know much about what you speak of. You mentioned FedEX and compared Memphis to Baylor and that is nuts in so many ways, particularly when you backtracked and used big booster as positive for Memphis but a negative for Baylor. I am very well aware of the situation.

Through all this you have basically said if an institution is not a 40k student enrollment state school you have no shot at realignment. I guess that is your standard? It seems to be a moving target outside of Baylor sucks and has not shot for anything unless we cut corners. You make all these statements even though none of us even know what realignment will look like if it comes. If the college playoff goes to 8 which is most likely there probably not any realignment. Your logic is pretty faulty and severely bias and includes huge gaps that you either don't know and are assuming or you taken some info twisted it to fit your narrative and filling in with 1964 talking points.

There's some serious stupidity believing West Virginia is a national brand. Head over to the college apparel store in your area and ask the guy or girl for their West Virginia gear.
You will get a response.
"Sir, we don't carry West Virginia gear. Let me get my manager and see if we can order it."

DioNoZeus said:

---

Looks like the knee pad clan will have to start looking elsewhere...

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/25476184/former-ole-miss-coach-hugh-freeze-agrees-deal-liberty-head-coach

---

He'll likely have success at Liberty.

xiledinok said:

---

There's some serious stupidity believing West Virginia is a national brand. Head over to the college apparel store in your area and ask the guy or girl for their West Virginia gear.
You will get a response.
"Sir, we don't carry West Virginia gear. Let me get my manager and see if we can order it."

---

National may include states that are north and east of Oklahoma my little buddy

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Baylor is not a target.
Art Briles was a moron post firing and upset the entire college football business world and is too dumb to figure out that after taking the money it was time to go away for a minute.

This ain't TAPPS, no one cares if you worship Satan or St. Peter, it's about making all the parties money. Notre Dame seemed to figure it out decades ago. Art and Ian were two lower level college football business minds. Those two were arrogant enough to believe their schedule was a good idea.
Look at them, Liberty and the Pizza League.

---

Absolutely incorrect.

Christianity is a giant target today. And Baylor is as well. That's an incontrovertible fact. You need to wise up to who operates the sports industry.

---

It's a fantasy when it comes to college football. Unless you are sheltered, no one sits around and discusses screwing Baylor because they are Christian.
Look who sponsors college football. You really believe the Chicken chain that is closed on Sundays hates Christians?

---

The only two comparable institutions to Baylor are BYU and Notre Dame. Both are independent schools. They also have natural protections from the sporting world since they are insulated in certain manners. These two schools make a boatload of money and have religious connections that vastly outweigh Baylor's ties to Baptist theology.

That said, both are still routinely attacked by outside forces, but they carry on without the routine and petty infighting of Baylor because Mormons and Catholics are good at constricting information and controlling narratives. Simply put, they lock it down. Baylor needs to figure it out.

And yes, money is the driving factor, but there are other forces at play.

---

Do you all sit around and discuss such nonsense at your tailgate?
No one cares in college sports whether or not a school is religious or not. They only care about making money.
Our brand's biggest issue was the fact we created zero bowl money for 15 years and didn't bother to realize it when we won conference, we became the flagship and carried the conference banner.

---

Our bowl profits mean nothing. Scheduling means nothing. Do you sit around at home and discuss this with yourself?

"Stealing" what traditional powers consider as their own and disrupting those money trains is far more important. UT and OU are Pharma. They're Walmart. They're Google. You wanna disrupt the money from them, you gotta pay a price.

---

You are off target on this one. It wasn't the fact we won conference over OU & UT it was our athletic department acted like jackwagons while doing it. We acted like a bunch of new money lottery winners. CABers want to tell the "it's bc we disrupted the applecart" narrative because LIKE ALWAYS it deflects the blame off him, Ian, Starr.

The truth is we sucked as a "business partner" with Starr, Ian, Briles leading the ship. Like X said, you can't not add to the pot for 15 years then win conference and stand on a stage and attempt to embarrass the commissioner and conference. Bad for business.

And if you think not making bowls and not scheduling games that reflect well for the conference matter then you really are lost and don't understand how this D1 P5 deal works.

---

Baylor is NEVER making the playoff with a single loss. Never. You wanna say it with me? NEVER.

Going undefeated with a soft schedule is the only way. TCU scheduled Minnesota the same year that Ohio St jumped both Big 12 teams into the playoff. Their schedule could have gotten them in. You don't want to agree about all this? Fine. You're wrong and I'm not changing my mind. That you can't see how the whole college scheme plays out is insulting to your Baylor degree.

Bad business. LOL. Baylor made 5 straight bowl games before "embarrassing" Bowlsby. The anti-Baylor/indifference toward Baylor sentiment existed long before ANYBODY in any fashion gave them cause to go after the school/program. Are this many Baylor fans that naive?

---

Sorry, this is the thinking of a G5 member not a P5 member. Exactly the reason the college football world teased Ian/Briles about their scheduling.

I see this interesting dichotomy of self image among the Baylor fan base. I think it is what makes the Briles gulf deeper and worst. The reality is if you want to be treated like a big time D1 P5 program then you gotta act like a big time D1 P5 program. We built a nice stadium and couple other nice buildings but that's about it previously. Think we finally learning what that really means and headed in right direction now.

---

We were headed in the right direction under Starr. I just hope we're not back to business as usual.

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

TheDom said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

It's like some of you are stuck with old talking points from 1954. What exactly is it about Baylor that is small? It's campus is now about twice the size of Univ of Texas' and its student population is almost half the size of Univ of Texas' undergraduate enrollment.

---

Campus size is absolutely irrelevant. Our enrollment numbers are only recently up and we still have a small alumni base compared to peer institutions (and we're still losing ground - thanks UT/TAMU). Baylor still has little to no cachet outside of Texas. Baylor's market tv market size is small.

And, BTW Dom, I'm pretty sure the DFW area has more BU alumni than Houston.

---

Oh now campus size is irrelevant? Everything is irrelevant to you that doesn't support the "just the way it is" talking point. PartyBear is right, ya'll stuck in the past.

---

I don't think campus acreage plays a role in the next round of realignment, if there is one. Do you?

---

We aren't talking about raw land acreage. PartyBear was referring to size of campus in terms of buildings, programs, enrollment, and academics. Things that assist with school appeal. Stuff that goes into the total picture. Yes, stuff that helps when it time to discuss notoriety of a school and thus attractiveness in realignment.

---

Nope.

---

Hummm... yes. Curious, you think the $1.1B will help in realignment?

---

Are you referring to Baylor's endowment? If so,





Nope.

Really, I'm not trying to be abrasive. I just consider my point of view entirely correct. I'm firm there and we're all allowed our opinions. So, I don't want to come off like a jerk.

---

No, the $1.1B we raising to build new fieldhouse, football only offices and weight room and study hall, repurpose Ferrell Center, etc.

I'm not trying to be a$$ either, really I'm just amazed. I also consider my point of view correct. I'm just amazed how lost you seem to be on whole deal. Honestly it's like you thinking in 1965 terms.

---

Those things are minimal in the long run. Baylor is a regional school with little national appeal. TCU is the same. Whatever we gained during the Briles years in terms of recognition is gone now due to the "scandal." Would a conference, say the ACC, consider improvements and financial commitment to athletics as a positive criterion? Sure. It wouldn't be close to integral, however.

Baylor is Memphis with better luck.

---

I'm sorry, that is just such silly sentiment. Crazy to me you think so poorly of your so called school, especially when facts don't support it. Memphis with better luck?!? Wow. Pretty sure Memphis doesn't have a $100M+ athletic budget. Such an ignorant statement.

For the record, most people outside of Texas I talk with about Baylor know very little about the scandal. As long as we get back to winning quickly, which we have taken first step in doing so by reaching bowl this year it will all be distant memory to outside world soon.

Also, Briles was just another good coach. He took a dormant program and got 2 conference titles. The run helped wake up the fan base and we got a new stadium and some national notoriety out of it. He got paid a lot of money and his son and son in law jobs within the college football industry. Then he got canned for bringing bad light upon the university. Positives and negatives. And now we move forward. Briles was a good starter kit. Now we move on to next step.

---

I don't consider that thinking poorly of Baylor. It's just factual. Memphis last year had a 50+ million dollar budget and they are in the AAC. Plus they have the FedEx billionaire willing to shell out all sorts of cash. They're a regional school like Baylor. Baylor has had the fortune of being in a major conference for a long time. If Memphis joined the Big 12 their budget would certainly rise.

I'm not sure what you think the "next step" is for Baylor. I'm not sure people at Baylor know.

---

You talk out of both sides of your mouth. The FedEx billionaire is good for Memphis but it negative that a individual booster is picking up tab at Baylor for the football coach.

It's all good man. Memphis is a mid major. Baylor is in a P5 conference. That fact isn't just by some mistake or luck. Sorry you think so poorly of Baylor. You should have gone to UT.

---

I'm sorry. You misunderstood. I'm saying that they have someone who can afford to give the program a lot of money, but that still doesn't help them develop a case for being added to a major conference. Memphis is a mid-major because they don't offer anything in terms of audience for tv sets.

You seem upset that I'm being honest. It's a known that Baylor faces the realignment chopping block like plenty of other schools. This upsets you, I guess. Even our most powerful boosters/regents have said as much. So you can be upset or bitter or whatever. It doesn't change the facts.

---

I'm curious to see how many fans we bring to the Texas bowl. That will be a good indicator if we even have a regional following at this point. When I went to Madison Square Garden to watch us in the sweet 16 a couple of years ago, we had almost no fans in the arena. It was really disappointing. The arena was packed . . . with other schools' fans.

In football, we were developing a statewide and national brand just 3 years ago and basically derailed it ourselves. It takes time, and contrary to all the revisionist history naysayers, we were headed in the right direction for the first time in my decades of following Baylor. I just hope we can regain the momentum. Living outside of Texas, it seems self evident to me that we are not on the national radar anymore.