S11 said:

---

Compounding said:

---

I don't understand the disagreement. The 17' team was a 3 to 4 win football team at minimum. Not hard to discern that. Doesn't matter now.

---

Completely disagree here.

3-5 MAXIMUM.

---

I don't see the contradiction. I agree around 5 was the max but 3 was the absolute min in my view. I think one of the conference games (not KU) could have been stolen too but Im not saying it was expected. I think running the schedule with that personnel and you get 3 to 4 wins most of the time. I believe Rhule might even win 3 if you run it back under the same circumstances. Fortunately that is all in the past now. It just stung even more for many fans since confidence in the institution itself was basically nil. That's not on Rhule.

I agree on Iowa St being the tell. I though subscribe to the idea that their are pretty clear tells watching the games in detail even against weak competition. I think most have to be pleased with what they see.

Compounding said:

---

S11 said:

---

Compounding said:

---

I don't understand the disagreement. The 17' team was a 3 to 4 win football team at minimum. Not hard to discern that. Doesn't matter now.

---

Completely disagree here.

3-5 MAXIMUM.

---

I don't see the contradiction. I agree around 5 was the max but 3 was the absolute min in my view. I think one of the conference games (not KU) could have been stolen too but Im not saying it was expected. I think running the schedule with that personnel and you get 3 to 4 wins most of the time. I believe Rhule might even win 3 if you run it back under the same circumstances. Fortunately that is all in the past now. It just stung even more for many fans since confidence in the institution itself was basically nil. That's not on Rhule.

I agree on Iowa St being the tell. I though subscribe to the idea that their are pretty clear tells watching the games in detail even against weak competition. I think most have to be pleased with what they see.

---

Who the hell cares if you were 3-9 or 1-11? You're still a rebuilding program.

Bear8084 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Krieg said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Krieg said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

S11 bringing some straight facts again.

Those thinking that he was just stepping in to a fully loaded team from '16 have blinders on. CMR stepped into quite a rebuilding project. Yes, he wants to do things his way, but he didn't purposely tank a season just to rebuild his way. The team was still rocked by the scandal and as S11 mentioned, graduations and injuries. The program needed to be rebuilt physically and emotionally, and CMR seems to be doing that.

Of course there is still a long way to go, and much improvements to made, but I think CMR has this program on the right track and we are lucky to have him. Sic 'Em.

---

At least respond to what I wrote instead of what you imagined I wrote. Nobody said we were "fullt loaded." Everyone says we were better than our record.

I also never said he tanked the season. S11 implied I said it but I didn't. I said he didn't try to maximize wins in his first year but rather in this year and next year. He seemed to feel implementing his own stuff 100% from the start was better long term than a slower transition that would've won more games in year 1. He was ok with losing more up front, if it happened, to win more later. Now we get to see if it worked.

He didn't try to lose games, he just was ok with it for his vision of the future. There's a massive difference between the two. Let's hope it works.

---

That's pretty much implying he tanked the season because he didn't want to change to the magical spread offense (which we have been running btw) and ignoring how bad off the team really was in '17 and really, in '16 as Milli brought up. No coach is happy with losing or ok with it, especially having the season that they did. CMR even said in interviews it was hard on him, the staff, and the already beleaguered players. As S11 has posted over and over again, the program was not in a good place when CMR took over. They weren't going to win much past 3 if they were to steal a few that season.

---

Just so I make sure we're on the same page, you believe Rhule set out in 2017 to win as many games as he possibly could in 2017?

---

What coach doesn't? Just because he didn't, doesn't mean he wasn't trying his best to do so in a in a bad situation.

---

A good high school coaching friend of mine (a guy with nearly 300 wins on his resume) has been going to Baylor and Texas spring practices for years now and he said practices that first year under Rhule were insanely physical. Like unusually so ... and that they've scaled that back dramatically in the years since. That basically confirmed what I believed at the time and told guys here repeatedly: Rhule's top priority that first season was laying the foundation for his program and finding out who really wanted to be a part of it going forward. And in that way, it very closely mirrored Year 1 at Temple.

I, personally, was and am fine with that. That 1-11 season sucked, but it was a temporary setback on the way to a thorough and rapid rebuild. Love him or hate him (I love him), Matt Rhule has his own method of program building, and he's going to do it his way regardless. You either get on board with it or you don't, but that train isn't waiting for anyone. A lot of folks here mistook that philosophical decision for incompetence. The truth, though, is he's always known what he was doing, and the program's in better shape now for having gone through that 2017 season.

---

Good points, I think my issue are those saying wins didn't matter to him and if he just switched to the spread (which we have been running anyways, the B1G offense myth is frustrating) he would've won more because he just had the talent at his fingertips, all failing to take into account that the team lost quite a few key players and were playing with a duct taped o-line. All of those, along with CMR rebuilding led to that what is turning out to be a lost season.

And I agree, this program and team now looks to be stronger because of that season.

---

Nobody is saying any of what you're saying they said. You're arguing with nobody if you agree with that post.

S11 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

S11 said:

---

Let's enjoy the beatdown this finally semi-rebuilt roster is dishing out.

Enough is enough

---

Agreed. Far too many threads on this board devolve into 1-on-1 pissing matches. Get your jabs in and move on. It kills otherwise good discussions when two posters are going back and forth for a full page.

---

At least take the 1 to 1 stuff to PM!

---

Compounding said:

---

I don't understand the disagreement. The 17' team was a 3 to 4 win football team at minimum. Not hard to discern that. Doesn't matter now.

I believe Kreig is kind of right. He wasn't purposely losing but he cared more about process and not deviating than maxing short term wins that season. Nothing sinister but K is right here. Some disagreed with the approach as many great coaches show immediate signs within first few games. But some don't. Again not that controversial.

Was he setting a low baseline so he could trend higher easily. Not my contention there if that's what K is implying but not unprecedented.

The team played their best game in years yesterday. Anyone who understands what they're are watching knows that. Look at the movement. Look at the anticipation. It's smoother and sharper. Angles being taken are crisper. The team is physical. I see some signs.

I like our skill talent a lot. Hopeful but uncertain on o line, defense against real comp. Would like a few of those d lineman back for depth but like the starters ok. Best rbs we've had since I can remember. Our receivers are very solid. Qb is good to very good. Dbs are maybe the most athletic across the board in years. Interested to see how it plays.

---

Thank you. That's exactly what I was saying and for the life of me couldn't figure out how they weren't understanding it at all. All it took was reading my posts and thank you for doing it.

Compounding said:

---

S11 said:

---

Compounding said:

---

I don't understand the disagreement. The 17' team was a 3 to 4 win football team at minimum. Not hard to discern that. Doesn't matter now.

---

Completely disagree here.

3-5 MAXIMUM.

---

I don't see the contradiction. I agree around 5 was the max but 3 was the absolute min in my view. I think one of the conference games (not KU) could have been stolen too but Im not saying it was expected. I think running the schedule with that personnel and you get 3 to 4 wins most of the time. I believe Rhule might even win 3 if you run it back under the same circumstances. Fortunately that is all in the past now. It just stung even more for many fans since confidence in the institution itself was basically nil. That's not on Rhule.

I agree on Iowa St being the tell. I though subscribe to the idea that their are pretty clear tells watching the games in detail even against weak competition. I think most have to be pleased with what they see.

---

There's not one. This is the conversation I had with him, too, and reached this same confusing impasse. I think literally everyone agrees on this point but it was somehow controversial anyway.

Krieg said:

---

Compounding said:

---

I don't understand the disagreement. The 17' team was a 3 to 4 win football team at minimum. Not hard to discern that. Doesn't matter now.

I believe Kreig is kind of right. He wasn't purposely losing but he cared more about process and not deviating than maxing short term wins that season. Nothing sinister but K is right here. Some disagreed with the approach as many great coaches show immediate signs within first few games. But some don't. Again not that controversial.

Was he setting a low baseline so he could trend higher easily. Not my contention there if that's what K is implying but not unprecedented.

The team played their best game in years yesterday. Anyone who understands what they're are watching knows that. Look at the movement. Look at the anticipation. It's smoother and sharper. Angles being taken are crisper. The team is physical. I see some signs.

I like our skill talent a lot. Hopeful but uncertain on o line, defense against real comp. Would like a few of those d lineman back for depth but like the starters ok. Best rbs we've had since I can remember. Our receivers are very solid. Qb is good to very good. Dbs are maybe the most athletic across the board in years. Interested to see how it plays.

---

Thank you. That's exactly what I was saying and for the life of me couldn't figure out how they weren't understanding it at all. All it took was reading my posts and thank you for doing it.

---

Where you two are wrong is that the 2017 team was a 3-4 win team at maximum, not minimum. S11 elucidated all the reasons why. No big deal. Move forward. Sic'em.

This thread has a heavy Man in the High Castle alternate history vibe.

That team had a 1 win ceiling, no it's 3, no it's 5, no it's ___!

Just improve year over year and do not regress. It takes time but hopefully it pays off again.

Jacques Strap said:

---

This thread has a heavy Man in the High Castle alternate history vibe.

That team had a 1 win ceiling, no it's 3, no it's 5, no it's ___!

---

It's interesting to me that people still dwell on that year as though it carries any weight on the present or future of the program. That was a classic Matt Rhule "demo" season. He did the exact same thing at Temple. Now it's time to enjoy the build.

If this year goes the way I suspect it will, it will not be dwelled upon anymore. If we sort of plateau at mediocre this season and then next. The entire years here should be looked at in analyzing the Rhule era.

PartyBear said:

---

If this year goes the way I suspect it will, it will not be dwelled upon anymore. If we sort of plateau at mediocre this season and then next. The entire years here should be looked at in analyzing the Rhule era.

---

It's already irrelevant to the direction of the program and has been for some time. Just a meaningless footnote in Baylor football history.

You cant make that call 2 seasons and 2 games in. Too early.

SATXBear said:

---

Krieg said:

---

Compounding said:

---

I don't understand the disagreement. The 17' team was a 3 to 4 win football team at minimum. Not hard to discern that. Doesn't matter now.

I believe Kreig is kind of right. He wasn't purposely losing but he cared more about process and not deviating than maxing short term wins that season. Nothing sinister but K is right here. Some disagreed with the approach as many great coaches show immediate signs within first few games. But some don't. Again not that controversial.

Was he setting a low baseline so he could trend higher easily. Not my contention there if that's what K is implying but not unprecedented.

The team played their best game in years yesterday. Anyone who understands what they're are watching knows that. Look at the movement. Look at the anticipation. It's smoother and sharper. Angles being taken are crisper. The team is physical. I see some signs.

I like our skill talent a lot. Hopeful but uncertain on o line, defense against real comp. Would like a few of those d lineman back for depth but like the starters ok. Best rbs we've had since I can remember. Our receivers are very solid. Qb is good to very good. Dbs are maybe the most athletic across the board in years. Interested to see how it plays.

---

Thank you. That's exactly what I was saying and for the life of me couldn't figure out how they weren't understanding it at all. All it took was reading my posts and thank you for doing it.

---

Where you two are wrong is that the 2017 team was a 3-4 win team at maximum, not minimum. S11 elucidated all the reasons why. No big deal. Move forward. Sic'em.

---

Ok, thank you. We do disagree on that (you and I) but S11 said 3-5 win team until I agreed with that, so I'm not sure where he stands.

No way I'll ever think we should've lost those first 2 games that would've gotten us to 3 wins minimum, and I don't believe you if you tell me you think we should've lost them, either, but whatever. It doesn't matter and I still don't understand why that was fixated upon. I guess my off-season break made me forget how the board works, or doesn't in this case.

Krieg said:

---

SATXBear said:

---

Krieg said:

---

Compounding said:

---

I don't understand the disagreement. The 17' team was a 3 to 4 win football team at minimum. Not hard to discern that. Doesn't matter now.

I believe Kreig is kind of right. He wasn't purposely losing but he cared more about process and not deviating than maxing short term wins that season. Nothing sinister but K is right here. Some disagreed with the approach as many great coaches show immediate signs within first few games. But some don't. Again not that controversial.

Was he setting a low baseline so he could trend higher easily. Not my contention there if that's what K is implying but not unprecedented.

The team played their best game in years yesterday. Anyone who understands what they're are watching knows that. Look at the movement. Look at the anticipation. It's smoother and sharper. Angles being taken are crisper. The team is physical. I see some signs.

I like our skill talent a lot. Hopeful but uncertain on o line, defense against real comp. Would like a few of those d lineman back for depth but like the starters ok. Best rbs we've had since I can remember. Our receivers are very solid. Qb is good to very good. Dbs are maybe the most athletic across the board in years. Interested to see how it plays.

---

Thank you. That's exactly what I was saying and for the life of me couldn't figure out how they weren't understanding it at all. All it took was reading my posts and thank you for doing it.

---

Where you two are wrong is that the 2017 team was a 3-4 win team at maximum, not minimum. S11 elucidated all the reasons why. No big deal. Move forward. Sic'em.

---

Ok, thank you. We do disagree on that (you and I) but S11 said 3-5 win team until I agreed with that, so I'm not sure where he stands.

No way I'll ever think we should've lost those first 2 games that would've gotten us to 3 wins minimum, and I don't believe you if you tell me you think we should've lost them, either, but whatever. It doesn't matter and I still don't understand why that was fixated upon. I guess my off-season break made me forget how the board works, or doesn't in this case.

---

What does it gain you to obsess over 2017?

It was a raw rebuilding team in extreme transition. Who cares if it was 3-9 or 1-11? It's irrelevant.

PartyBear said:

---

SATXBear said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Well......even if you don't count at all the disasterous year 1, we are 8-6 over the last 14 games. I expect that to improve a lot this season. But right now we should never go back to be thrilled with about a .500 record. Rhule does not seem like a Steele like hire like he did his first year once play on the field began. But before we start saying upper echelon hire, let's see if the program gets back to upper echelon. Btw I think it will but the jury is still out.

---

Thanks for hijacking the thread BTW.

---

It doesnt appear you know the definition of hijack.

---

Hijack (n) [internet usage] to make a valid point that someone else hoped you would not make.

But that's OK, at some sites if you make a valid but unpopular point you get banned (no schools, but Maroon and Burnt Orange, k?).

PartyBear said:

---

You cant make that call 2 seasons and 2 games in. Too early.

---

Why do you even care what happened in 2017 as far as W-L. It has no bearing on the future whatsoever. The main thing is that we salvaged a decent recruiting class.

Y'all should listen to Dave Smoak's most recent interview with Matt Rhule. It will change the tunes of all the naysayers on this site for sure.

Nobody says that by the way. I've said he'll have to make up for it somehow and still believe that but if he wins a conference title or more then that first year is irrelevant. 8 win seasons aren't enough, but that would've been true if he'd won 6 that first season as well so even that isn't dependent on the first year.

This year should go really well so let's see how far we get.

Krieg said:

---

Nobody says that by the way. I've said he'll have to make up for it somehow and still believe that but if he wins a conference title or more then that first year is irrelevant. 8 win seasons aren't enough, but that would've been true if he'd won 6 that first season as well so even that isn't dependent on the first year.

This year should go really well so let's see how far we get.

---

This makes absolutely no sense. Why does Rhule have to win a conference title to be a success? He is already a success at this point considering the mess he inherited. Also, this also does not mean I don't expect a conference title one day. This is silly rationale which I never understand. Listen to the interview. If the players trust the process it will all work out.

SATXBear said:

---

Krieg said:

---

Nobody says that by the way. I've said he'll have to make up for it somehow and still believe that but if he wins a conference title or more then that first year is irrelevant. 8 win seasons aren't enough, but that would've been true if he'd won 6 that first season as well so even that isn't dependent on the first year.

This year should go really well so let's see how far we get.

---

This makes absolutely no sense. Why does Rhule have to win a conference title to be a success? He is already a success at this point considering the mess he inherited. Also, this also does not mean I don't expect a conference title one day. This is silly rationale which I never understand. Listen to the interview. If the players trust the process it will all work out.

---

Lots of emotion in some of these posts.

I still believe most of us have reasonable expectations. We'd all love a conference title, but this year would be too soon. There are extremists on both ends, from people who want to pretend Rhule did not make mistakes his first year here to those who are down on the decisive win over SFA because they are an FCS school.

The Bears are 2-0 and neither game was close. The guys are playing well, staying healthy so far and it looks like the conference still doesn't see how good the Bears are, so some games ahead could be very satisfying indeed. I figure the Bears will end up ranked and win a nice bowl, and whatever happens I will cheer them all the way.

You do you.

Oldbear83 said:

---

SATXBear said:

---

Krieg said:

---

Nobody says that by the way. I've said he'll have to make up for it somehow and still believe that but if he wins a conference title or more then that first year is irrelevant. 8 win seasons aren't enough, but that would've been true if he'd won 6 that first season as well so even that isn't dependent on the first year.

This year should go really well so let's see how far we get.

---

This makes absolutely no sense. Why does Rhule have to win a conference title to be a success? He is already a success at this point considering the mess he inherited. Also, this also does not mean I don't expect a conference title one day. This is silly rationale which I never understand. Listen to the interview. If the players trust the process it will all work out.

---

Lots of emotion in some of these posts.

I still believe most of us have reasonable expectations. We'd all love a conference title, but this year would be too soon. There are extremists on both ends, from people who want to pretend Rhule did not make mistakes his first year here to those who are down on the decisive win over SFA because they are an FCS school.

The Bears are 2-0 and neither game was close. The guys are playing well, staying healthy so far and it looks like the conference still doesn't see how good the Bears are, so some games ahead could be very satisfying indeed. I figure the Bears will end up ranked and win a nice bowl, and whatever happens I will cheer them all the way.

You do you.

---

Most rational post I've seen here in a good while.

Let them play. We'll see how it turns out. The past is the past, the good, the bad and the ugly. The current thing is still a work in progress. Sometimes it's best to forget expectations and take them one game at a time. The current 2-0 is the best looking 2-0 Baylor has experienced in several years, but it's still SFA and UTSA. Baylor isn't going to get a ton of respect until they beat a solid P5 team with some recent winning history. Don't worry about votes in polls before conference even starts. The season is long enough for that.

Put it on paper.

Oldbear83 said:

---

SATXBear said:

---

Krieg said:

---

Nobody says that by the way. I've said he'll have to make up for it somehow and still believe that but if he wins a conference title or more then that first year is irrelevant. 8 win seasons aren't enough, but that would've been true if he'd won 6 that first season as well so even that isn't dependent on the first year.

This year should go really well so let's see how far we get.

---

This makes absolutely no sense. Why does Rhule have to win a conference title to be a success? He is already a success at this point considering the mess he inherited. Also, this also does not mean I don't expect a conference title one day. This is silly rationale which I never understand. Listen to the interview. If the players trust the process it will all work out.

---

Lots of emotion in some of these posts.

I still believe most of us have reasonable expectations. We'd all love a conference title, but this year would be too soon. There are extremists on both ends, from people who want to pretend Rhule did not make mistakes his first year here to those who are down on the decisive win over SFA because they are an FCS school.

The Bears are 2-0 and neither game was close. The guys are playing well, staying healthy so far and it looks like the conference still doesn't see how good the Bears are, so some games ahead could be very satisfying indeed. I figure the Bears will end up ranked and win a nice bowl, and whatever happens I will cheer them all the way.

You do you.

---

I have not heard anyone say one win in 2017 was acceptable. That was underachieving, but to ignore the mess he inherited has been a common theme on the free board with which I disagree.

Krieg said:

---

Nobody says that by the way. I've said he'll have to make up for it somehow and still believe that but if he wins a conference title or more then that first year is irrelevant. 8 win seasons aren't enough, but that would've been true if he'd won 6 that first season as well so even that isn't dependent on the first year.

This year should go really well so let's see how far we get.

---

he already went to the exact same bowl his predecessor did and actually won it. I say he's more than made up for finishing 1-11 with what you allege was a 3-9 juggernaut wasted.