TexasScientist said:

---

Baylor's problem will be in recruiting top recruits in the face of the attraction of playing in a super conference with big time NIL $$.

---

Baylor already recruits the blue bloods' leftovers. What's going to change?

You just find your niche, prove your value and bring in kids who fit your schemes, culture and mission. Teams have been doing this with success in lesser conferences forever.

TexasScientist said:

---

Baylor's problem will be in recruiting top recruits in the face of the attraction of playing in a super conference with big time NIL $$.

---

That will be the problem. But ... scholarship limits are still in place, and the talent pool is still bigger than the top 30 schools can absorb.

Got to find a coach who is smart enough to win with what he can get. (I mean, of course, we have to do that again, which may be quite a challenge.)

Robert Wilson said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Baylor's problem will be in recruiting top recruits in the face of the attraction of playing in a super conference with big time NIL $$.

---

That will be the problem. But ... scholarship limits are still in place, and the talent pool is still bigger than the top 30 schools can absorb.

Got to find a coach who is smart enough to win with what he can get. (I mean, of course, we have to do that again, which may be quite a challenge.)

---

We've done it twice in recent years. Both Briles and Rhule did it -- Briles through identifying the perfect players for his scheme and Rhule developing them. It can be done.

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Baylor's problem will be in recruiting top recruits in the face of the attraction of playing in a super conference with big time NIL $$.

---

That will be the problem. But ... scholarship limits are still in place, and the talent pool is still bigger than the top 30 schools can absorb.

Got to find a coach who is smart enough to win with what he can get. (I mean, of course, we have to do that again, which may be quite a challenge.)

---

We've done it twice in recent years. Both Briles and Rhule did it -- Briles through identifying the perfect players for his scheme and Rhule developing them. It can be done.

---

I think it can be done. Finding one is tough. Keeping one is going to be really tough.

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Baylor's problem will be in recruiting top recruits in the face of the attraction of playing in a super conference with big time NIL $$.

---

That will be the problem. But ... scholarship limits are still in place, and the talent pool is still bigger than the top 30 schools can absorb.

Got to find a coach who is smart enough to win with what he can get. (I mean, of course, we have to do that again, which may be quite a challenge.)

---

We've done it twice in recent years. Both Briles and Rhule did it -- Briles through identifying the perfect players for his scheme and Rhule developing them. It can be done.

---

I think it can be done. Finding one is tough. Keeping one is going to be really tough.

---

That's probably true.

It likely depends on playoff expansion. If we can get to the playoffs out of whatever conference we end up in, it will be easier to keep a coach. If we can't, it will be considerably harder.

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Baylor's problem will be in recruiting top recruits in the face of the attraction of playing in a super conference with big time NIL $$.

---

That will be the problem. But ... scholarship limits are still in place, and the talent pool is still bigger than the top 30 schools can absorb.

Got to find a coach who is smart enough to win with what he can get. (I mean, of course, we have to do that again, which may be quite a challenge.)

---

We've done it twice in recent years. Both Briles and Rhule did it -- Briles through identifying the perfect players for his scheme and Rhule developing them. It can be done.

---

I think it can be done. Finding one is tough. Keeping one is going to be really tough.

---

That's probably true.

It likely depends on playoff expansion. If we can get to the playoffs out of whatever conference we end up in, it will be easier to keep a coach. If we can't, it will be considerably harder.

---

Agree. And it will be a bit like finding a Gary Patterson (who our people love to hate) - someone cantankerous enough to stay with an underdog, or a Scott Drew - someone who is such a great cultural fit that it is just kismet.

Thee University said:

---

GruntTuff said:

---

Thee:

In the past decade plus a couple of years, TCU has played the following powerhouses:

Arkansas-Pine Bluff
Southern
Jackson State
South Dakota State
Samford (not Stanford)
Southeastern Louisiana
Grambling State
Louisiana-Monroe
Portland St.
Tennessee Tech
Stephen F. Austin

Most years TCU played one patsy, normally the first game of the year. Makes sense. Has TCU played a tougher non-conference schedule than Baylor? Yes. But let's not overlook the fact that TCU and almost all P5 schools, schedule cupcakes.

I don't think Art or Ian scheduled those games for Patterson. He called the shots.

---

They have played the following during that time:

Purdue
Ohio State
Arkansas (twice)
Minnesota (twice)
LSU
Virginia
Air Force
Oregon State

Show me a season where we had schedules with these types of non-conference opponents.

We were patsy kings!

---

Our schedule for the rest of this decade. I'm not sure if Auburn is on par with LSU & Ohio State, but Auburn, BYU, Utah, & Oregon certainly are comparable to the rest of that list. And we recently added Air Force. We have home & home agreements with all of these opponents. It's a decent slate.

Thee University said:

---

GruntTuff said:

---

I acknowledged in my reply that TCU played a tougher non-conference schedule than Baylor, but I also noticed that TCU, like all Power 5 schools, plays patsies.

I'm curious (and don't know the answer) about which administration scheduled Baylor's terrible non-conference schedule for this season. Thee, do you know? If it was Art and Ian, I'm disappointed. I can understand playing one easy game a year and when Art arrived and Baylor's football was in the tank, I can understand him wanting more than one easy game for a few years. But to schedule the ridiculous non-conference Baylor has this season long after Baylor righted the ship is absurd.

---

Grunt,

You did acknowledge. My bad. Sorry.

To find out who drilled us on this season we'd have to pull old press releases or media guides. They are all negotiated several years in advance. I say it smells like Ian & Art.

---

Thee: I did a little research which didn't tell me which administration was responsible for the scheduling, but I did see that as of a couple of years ago, the schedule for 2021 was Texas State, Louisiana Tech and BYU. Somehow Louisiana Tech fell away and Southern (ugh) took its place. So, I don't think we can blame Art on Southern since long after he and Ian left, the schedule had Louisiana Tech which somehow changed to Southern. Maybe somebody can explain how that happened.

One other issue: Why are we playing AT Texas State (and in the future, AT North Texas). I thought Baylor would be WAY beyond having to play at places like that.

We play patsies in Sept, just like almost every other P5 team in the country. The main difference is that Aggies, Bama, & some other SEC teams play them in November when we are playing some of the toughest teams in our schedule.

BC 188,122.

It was a different time, before the CFP and superconferences. Those lessons may not have much meaning in today's world. In another decade we may see the ACC, Big 10, Pac 10, and SEC form a separate athletic association apart from the NCAA leaving NCAA schools in an NAIA predicament.

Robert Wilson said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Baylor's problem will be in recruiting top recruits in the face of the attraction of playing in a super conference with big time NIL $$.

---

That will be the problem. But ... scholarship limits are still in place, and the talent pool is still bigger than the top 30 schools can absorb.

Got to find a coach who is smart enough to win with what he can get. (I mean, of course, we have to do that again, which may be quite a challenge.)

---

What do scholarships matter, when you can be a "walk-on" and make more from "NIL" than you would have if you are on scholarship. Consider the following: A 3-star "rising dual threat QB" is being courted by Ole Miss. In an effort to stave off Ole Miss' recruitment of a competitive QB, the player is offered a spot on Alabama's team. He is not offered a scholarship and is instead a walk-on. However, as an incentive to sign with Alabama, a local car dealer will sponsor him for an amount more than what he would have received on scholarship. At that point, do scholarship limits matter.

Baylorbears111 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Baylor's problem will be in recruiting top recruits in the face of the attraction of playing in a super conference with big time NIL $$.

---

That will be the problem. But ... scholarship limits are still in place, and the talent pool is still bigger than the top 30 schools can absorb.

Got to find a coach who is smart enough to win with what he can get. (I mean, of course, we have to do that again, which may be quite a challenge.)

---

What do scholarships matter, when you can be a "walk-on" and make more from "NIL" than you would have if you are on scholarship. Consider the following: A 3-star "rising dual threat QB" is being courted by Ole Miss. In an effort to stave off Ole Miss' recruitment of a competitive QB, the player is offered a spot on Alabama's team. He is not offered a scholarship and is instead a walk-on. However, as an incentive to sign with Alabama, a local car dealer will sponsor him for an amount more than what he would have received on scholarship. At that point, do scholarship limits matter.

---

Good point. Will be fascinating to see how deep down the roster the NIL money goes.

historian said:

---

We play patsies in Sept, just like almost every other P5 team in the country. The main difference is that Aggies, Bama, & some other SEC teams play them in November when we are playing some of the toughest teams in our schedule.

---

What does it matter when we play our sacrificial lambs????? We play women in September. They play them in November.

They have "earned" the right to beat up on a weak sister. We should be drilling someone that means something. We are not and never have been blueblood. We just never did get over that final hurdle. We should have been hell bent to impress by beating someone of importance (like TCU did) instead of padding our stats with the pansy-@$$e$ we teed up.

Thee University said:

---

historian said:

---

We play patsies in Sept, just like almost every other P5 team in the country. The main difference is that Aggies, Bama, & some other SEC teams play them in November when we are playing some of the toughest teams in our schedule.

---

What does it matter when we play our sacrificial lambs????? We play women in September. They play them in November.

They have "earned" the right to beat up on a weak sister. We should be drilling someone that means something. We are not and never have been blueblood. We just never did get over that final hurdle. We should have been hell bent to impress by beating someone of importance (like TCU did) instead of padding our stats with the pansy-@$$e$ we teed up.

---

They haven't earned anything. Each year is a new season & each team must prove themselves again. Playing a patsy in November is a cop out. They are the ones padding their stats in November. Bama does earn it almost every year by winning the conference & getting into the playoffs. As for the Aggies, it helps them pretend they are relevant.

No Baylor is not a blue blood in football. But we are in basketball. Mulkey brought us there in WBB & hopefully Colleen can keep us there. Drew brought us there in MBB, without a doubt.

historian said:

---

They haven't earned anything. Each year is a new season & each team must prove themselves again. Playing a patsy in November is a cop out. They are the ones padding their stats in November. Bama does earn it almost every year by winning the conference & getting into the playoffs. As for the Aggies, it helps them pretend they are relevant.

No Baylor is not a blue blood in football. But we are in basketball. Mulkey brought us there in WBB & hopefully Colleen can keep us there. Drew brought us there in MBB, without a doubt.

---

The bluebloods have earned the right to play a patsy every year. These are most of the true blueblood programs that have earned their respect. Sure, a few of them have experienced tough times lately but their traditions and track record are admired by anybody that truly understands college football.

Michigan has won 964 games for a .727 winning percentage lifetime.
Ohio State .730
Alabama .729
Texas .724
Notre Dame .729
Oklahoma .726
Nebraska .688
Penn State .688

Why does it matter when you play a patsy?

Our basketball program is on a great trajectory but we are not blueblood. Sorry. We are a .500 program and we are headed up but .500 is nowhere near blueblood status. We are new money. If we can win another title next year or at least make the Final Four a few times I would then entertain blood status for MBB.

Kentucky
UNC
Duke
KU
UCLA (maybe)

Those are blueblood programs who all carry winning percentages north of .700 except UCLA.

I concur concerning our women's program even though we are a .661 program which is #17 amongst all women's programs. MULTIPLE National Championships settle the #17 winning percentage.

The blue bloods deserve no special privileges or consideration. That kind of elitist thinking I'd one of the biggest problems with college sports. And it's a big lie!

Every team should earn whatever accolades or rewards they get every single year & on the gridiron, Basketball Court, etc. To be honest, that is the kind of thinking that has plagued UT for years: they are Texas, do they should be champs. Problem is, their arrogance is a joke. They have not earned it the football field since 2005. Alabama is in a similar situation except they do earn it most years. Thankfully, others do as well such as LSU, Clemson, of someone else. Personally, I'm glad when it's someone else because Bama is so dominant. But they have to earn it each time.

If it's not earned, then why play the game? I know it's easy to say it's all about the money. For too many that's true. But not for everyone. Many of us don't care how much money ESPN, Bama, the SEC, the NCAA, or anyone else gets from it.

historian said:

---

The blue bloods deserve no special privileges or consideration. That kind of elitist thinking I'd one of the biggest problems with college sports. And it's a big lie!

Every team should earn whatever accolades or rewards they get every single year & on the gridiron, Basketball Court, etc. To be honest, that is the kind of thinking that has plagued UT for years: they are Texas, do they should be champs. Problem is, their arrogance is a joke. They have not earned it the football field since 2005. Alabama is in a similar situation except they do earn it most years. Thankfully, others do as well such as LSU, Clemson, of someone else. Personally, I'm glad when it's someone else because Bama is so dominant. But they have to earn it each time.

If it's not earned, then why play the game? I know it's easy to say it's all about the money. For too many that's true. But not for everyone. Many of us don't care how much money ESPN, Bama, the SEC, the NCAA, or anyone else gets from it.

---

Let me help you out. You are obviously confused. I said they have earned the right to schedule a patsy a year.

Bluebloods have tradition, rabid followers nationwide and worldwide, huge marketability.

I know you are a bit jealous because we are not there. We were lambasted for our weak non-conference over the past 10-15 years and rightfully so. Instead of padding stats we should have been turning heads and kicking @$$#$ all season long. Raising eyebrows! Impressing people nationwide instead of in parts of Texas only.

Arrogance is a joke but look who is being courted by the SEC.

The teams I mentioned went 80-25 in 2019 (a full season unscathed by covid) for an average of a 10-3 record. If you take out Nebraska it goes up to 10.71 wins per team and 2.57 losses. Pull out Texas and it goes up to 11-2

We are seeing blueblood special treatment playing out right now. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend it is not having an impact but the vast majority of the nation understand that you EARNED your standing and marketability YEARS ago and it remains strong and valuable even today.

Historian, I challenge you to embrace history. Learn from it. It tells you a lot.

I'm not jealous I just don't like elitists getting special breaks not available to everyone else. If they have a right to schedule patsies, so does Baylor. Personally, I'd rather us have a tougher schedule but I also understand the purpose of those easier games, especially early in the season.

I hate the double standard. Let everyone play on a level playing field & the winner be determined on the field. And if that means A&M or Bama loses to a team they look down on, so much the better. It was beautiful when Texas lost to Kansas & it would be just as beautiful for the Aggies or blue bloods like Bama or Ohio State to lose to an underdog.

You're talking about marketability & past glory (yes, I understand the importance of history) & I'm talking about the game of football! Who cares what Knute Rockne did 80 years ago? Or Bear Bryant? That is irrelevant today. If ND, Bama, or Texas can win the games & EARN a spot in the playoffs this year, then they should be in & may the best team win. Too often it will be blue bloods but every once in awhile it won't & that's when it will be really fun.

By the way, with an expanded playoff, that may give Baylor the best chance of making a deep playoff run & maybe even winning a natty.

If we are forced into a G5 division the pay cuts will make it impossible to hire coaches that are winners. We better stock up on recruiting while we have the money and the advantage otherwise we may become Tulsa or Tulane.

The biggest problem always facing G5 was finally finding a great coach only to lose them to P5 teams.

Timbear said:

---

Art beat Texas 4 out of his last 5 years, and he beat OU 3 out of his last 4 years. This discussion about patsies is ridiculous. Who cares? Did TCU win like that? ESPN is showing themselves to be the snakes we thought they were. They are doing to the Big 12 what they did to Baylor when we were turning over the Blueblood apple cart with Art.

---

Yes. TCU did win like that. Not counting the 4 years prior to joining the Big 12 when TCU went 11-2, 12-1, 13-0 and 11-2 TCU and Baylor have nearly identical 8 year records. Just 2 total wins separate Briles & Patterson 8 year Big 12 results. 65-37 for Briles and 63-40 for Patterson. Big 12 records of 39-30 for Briles and 39-33 for Patterson.

3 of Patterson's losses were to perennial patsies LSU, Arkansas and Ohio State.

ESPN is the anti-Christ. I concur.

Art turned over the apple cart himself. It did not have to go down like that. You could see it coming a mile away. Ian shares a large piece of that implosion too.

historian said:

---

I'm not jealous I just don't like elitists getting special breaks not available to everyone else. If they have a right to schedule patsies, so does Baylor. Personally, I'd rather us have a tougher schedule but I also understand the purpose of those easier games, especially early in the season.

I hate the double standard. Let everyone play on a level playing field & the winner be determined on the field. And if that means A&M or Bama loses to a team they look down on, so much the better. It was beautiful when Texas lost to Kansas & it would be just as beautiful for the Aggies or blue bloods like Bama or Ohio State to lose to an underdog.

You're talking about marketability & past glory (yes, I understand the importance of history) & I'm talking about the game of football! Who cares what Knute Rockne did 80 years ago? Or Bear Bryant? That is irrelevant today. If ND, Bama, or Texas can win the games & EARN a spot in the playoffs this year, then they should be in & may the best team win. Too often it will be blue bloods but every once in awhile it won't & that's when it will be really fun.

By the way, with an expanded playoff, that may give Baylor the best chance of making a deep playoff run & maybe even winning a natty.

---

Using your way of thinking you need to change your posting name.

Who cares what George Washington or Abe Lincoln did years ago? Or Martin Luther King? Or Ben Franklin? Is that also irrelevant today?

Surely Thee is not seriously comparing our Founding Fathers to some stupid football teams. Surely not.

Thee University said:

---

historian said:

---

I'm not jealous I just don't like elitists getting special breaks not available to everyone else. If they have a right to schedule patsies, so does Baylor. Personally, I'd rather us have a tougher schedule but I also understand the purpose of those easier games, especially early in the season.

I hate the double standard. Let everyone play on a level playing field & the winner be determined on the field. And if that means A&M or Bama loses to a team they look down on, so much the better. It was beautiful when Texas lost to Kansas & it would be just as beautiful for the Aggies or blue bloods like Bama or Ohio State to lose to an underdog.

You're talking about marketability & past glory (yes, I understand the importance of history) & I'm talking about the game of football! Who cares what Knute Rockne did 80 years ago? Or Bear Bryant? That is irrelevant today. If ND, Bama, or Texas can win the games & EARN a spot in the playoffs this year, then they should be in & may the best team win. Too often it will be blue bloods but every once in awhile it won't & that's when it will be really fun.

By the way, with an expanded playoff, that may give Baylor the best chance of making a deep playoff run & maybe even winning a natty.

---

Using your way of thinking you need to change your posting name.

Who cares what George Washington or Abe Lincoln did years ago? Or Martin Luther King? Or Ben Franklin? Is that also irrelevant today?

---

Sorry, but that is moronic. You cannot compare a game in which a new champion is proclaimed every year to the founding of this country, winning the civil war & freeing the slaves, or the great leader of the civil rights movement. Those are once in a lifetime events for the entire nation. No football game ever is.

Time for a reality check.

Look boys....I know you are still curled up in fetal positions 1,900 days later. It hurts doesn't it when you just can't let go of the robe and face football reality.

My analogy was in line with your initial, stupid comment. I knew somebody would act butt hurt or fake being appalled. Weak! My list of leaders were all blue bloods.

Hide and watch how this all plays out. Bluebloods rule and get kitchen passes. They earned them. FACTS show that Baylor just is not in that strata. Tradition matters. Records matter. Size matters. Alumni headcounts matter. Marketability matters. Reputation matters. Old money trumps new money.

My point remains as it has ever since we started trying to find Kevin Steele someone he could beat which was way back around 2001. Arkansas State? Samford? Morriss inherited the Steele patsy lineup and then tried to schedule a bit tougher. Briles inherited Morriss' tougher schedule but soon got Sam Houston, Buffalo, ULM and Lamar lined up to lay down.

Football royalty matters.

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

If we are forced into a G5 division the pay cuts will make it impossible to hire coaches that are winners. We better stock up on recruiting while we have the money and the advantage otherwise we may become Tulsa or Tulane.

The biggest problem always facing G5 was finally finding a great coach only to lose them to P5 teams.

---

The same concern with players and NIL.

historian said:

---

I'm not jealous I just don't like elitists getting special breaks not available to everyone else. If they have a right to schedule patsies, so does Baylor. Personally, I'd rather us have a tougher schedule but I also understand the purpose of those easier games, especially early in the season.

I hate the double standard. Let everyone play on a level playing field & the winner be determined on the field. And if that means A&M or Bama loses to a team they look down on, so much the better. It was beautiful when Texas lost to Kansas & it would be just as beautiful for the Aggies or blue bloods like Bama or Ohio State to lose to an underdog.

You're talking about marketability & past glory (yes, I understand the importance of history) & I'm talking about the game of football! Who cares what Knute Rockne did 80 years ago? Or Bear Bryant? That is irrelevant today. If ND, Bama, or Texas can win the games & EARN a spot in the playoffs this year, then they should be in & may the best team win. Too often it will be blue bloods but every once in awhile it won't & that's when it will be really fun.

By the way, with an expanded playoff, that may give Baylor the best chance of making a deep playoff run & maybe even winning a natty.

---

Baylor's chances of a natty were distanced by NIL, and as a G5 type team will be nonexistent This doesn't bode well for BU.

Stop talking like a Longhorn flunky. It's unbecoming.

Football "royalty" might matter for the money, it doesn't matter for the game itself.

With the expanded playoff, the G5 would have at least one team in.

historian said:

---

Stop talking like a Longhorn flunky. It's unbecoming.

Football "royalty" might matter for the money, it doesn't matter for the game itself.

---

Sorry if it came across as a Longhorn flunky. I am the farthest thing from it. UT has stupid, spoiled and entitled alumni who deep down realize they are still the laughing stock of college football. You can dress her up but you still can't take her out.

I'm afraid that now, more than ever before, money & royalty (even if they have fallen down & can't get up) will rule and destroy the college football I loved.

Now we are in agreement!! Maybe we were just looking at the issue from opposite angles.