Gameday Thread: #11 Baylor (22-8; 11-6) at Texas Tech (21-9; 10-7)

KIA said:

---

Oh no, the sky is falling ... we may only be a 3 seed in the Natl. tournament! This program is in shambles ...

---

we'll be down double digits at half to a 12/13 seed, scratching our a$$, saying wth , we're Baylor..start 5 guys who want to play....

The defensive staff is struggling. He is humble but also loyal to his guys. We clearly need a veteran defensive specialist to help straighten this out. It's hard to pull that trigger as it will reduce some autonomy and ruffle some feathers.

Other issue is a few guys on our defensive side are elite recruiters and I doubt he wants to disrupt that dynamic.

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

BUGWBBear said:

---

Bearsalwayswin said:

---

If you're saying Scott can't coach defenses you have the wrong idea

---

He didn't bother with it today, Skeezix.

---

You're never around when we win. You're always around when we lose. Why is that?

---

Ask yourself that question considering I was here for the UT game.

IvanBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

IvanBear said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

IvanBear said:

---

Drew absolutely has done a horrible job coaching defense since the Natty. I don't know if it's staff changes or he is just taking it for granted, but Baylor hasn't been doing a good job from a coaching development perspective the last 3 seasons.

---

The 2022 team was ranked 13th nationally in defensive efficiency. The last two teams have looked more like Drew's early squads, though, and it's been very frustrating.

---

And that is when you use data to combat uneducated complaining. Comparing any defense to the national championship defense is fruitless. That team spoiled a lot of people on here.

We don't have the defense this year to win it all unless we go on an offensive run like we've never seen before, but to imply Drew doesn't care about defense is stupid.

---

Yeah, and anybody who actually watches this program remembers that defensive clinic we ran against Villanova the year after that championship.

Commentators were literally calling it "terrifying," and it was better than any defensive performance we put up in the Natty year. That was a Final Four Nova team, too.

Injuries murdered that Baylor team's chances, unfortunately.

---

Lack of defense against UNC murdered that team. We don't take off half a game and it's a deferent discussion.

---

That UNC team, as it turned out, was pretty damn good.

That UNC game was a lot like this year's Houston loss. Frustratingly inept start. Elite effort in the second half to get back into it.

---

I don't disagree which is why I think this team screams early round exit. That team like this one also lacked real leadership due to the talent being freshman and the starting guard being a journeyman, and the most tenured players being guys too immature to lead. To their credit that 2022 team managed to win the big 12, something this team probably should have done looking at the talent level and upside.

I think drew is an elite coach, he's easily top 5 active coaches right now, but his greatest strength is the humility he has to adjust. He's done it multiple times with defense. It's time to do it again because his current approach is a hot mess.

---

I can track down his email address if you want to discuss this with him directly. You seem to know everything that needs to be fixed and how to do it.

I believe Jakus is offense primarily. I'm only suggesting a veteran defensive coach to help with scheme, motivation, and fundamentals.

To your other point, it's very hard to say no to top players who want to come. It's a good problem to have but most of the other top defensive teams haven't recruited at our level so they get time to develop guys.

They also don't need to turn guys away because they weren't in the running for those guys in the first place.

No you're right, but I also think you lose out on really solid guys who might stick around 2-3 years. I'm not saying ignore five stars but I am saying I think there's wisdom in finding quality guys you'll have more than one year. Too much of us being elite is dependent on one year players in our system right now.


I would love a coach like you're describing, filling the void of tang will I think continue to be a long term process not a short term one

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

IvanBear said:

---

Smashmouth said:

---

This game looks exactly like how we go out in the 2nd round of the NCAA

---

Do this to a 14 seed in the tournament and it'll be the first round.

---

Unlikely. We'll overwhelm most anyone we'd face in our tournament opener.

---

That's exactly what I thought just before we faced both Yale and Georgia State. Just sayin'…..

---

That happens to every team that consistently makes the tournament. Also you're talking about games that happened nine years ago.

---

Yep....Virginia was the first ever 1 seed to lose to a 16 in 2018. They came back in 2019 and won the whole damn thing.

Quinton said:

---

I believe Jakus is offense primarily. I'm only suggesting a veteran defensive coach to help with scheme, motivation, and fundamentals.

To your other point, it's very hard to say no to top players who want to come. It's a good problem to have but most of the other top defensive teams haven't recruited at our level so they get time to develop guys.

They also don't need to turn guys away because they weren't in the running for those guys in the first place.

---

Is it not possible then that it's not actually better to recruit at our level? We'll see what happens this year. But should disaster strike and we fall in the first weekend for the third straight year, I think it would be time to take a good, hard look at what we're doing and how effective it actually is.

IvanBear said:

---

I agree, but let's be honest we've not been better because of JaKobe Walter, Kendall brown, or keynote George.

Our best one and dones have been clear diamonds in the rough that we thought had obvious pro upside but came in better than expected, Missi and Sochan is the type of one and done I want.

These elite 5 stars don't translate to good defensive players.

I also think this problem solves itself because Jakus and Brooks are clearly good coaches and I'm sure are offered increasingly better jobs each off season.

---

Missi is actually a very poor defender, so it's puzzling you would want him but turn away Walter or the others.

It's possible but targeting lower level recruits that will stick around when you can get better players is largely unprecedented. Same debate here for months now.

I'm not staunchly against it like some here. Open to the idea just easier said then done. If they don't make a substantial run in the tournament this year then maybe it's time to start considering the question.

WA Jim said:

---

Let's face it - we are a decent team - good but definitely not great. We are 3-3 down the season stretch - granted a tough schedule but great teams would be 5-1 down that stretch. We don't play good defense and we don't rebound particularly well. If the shot is not falling we don't have a very good chance against even mediocre teams. We are not set up for a long tournament run. I can see maybe one game in the meaningless B12 tournament and one game in the national tournament. It's unfortunate , but we are who we are.

---

Our championship team was 3-2 down the stretch. Granted it was our only two losses and we were dealing with COVID, but we almost lost to Iowa State and Kansas State during that span, the two worst teams in the conference that year. The year before we lost 2 out of 3 and we're still projected as the 1 seed. So there's no math to "the best teams are great at the end of the season." Most times, yeah, but not always.

There is a mental aspect to this game as well. If these guys knew that if they lost yesterday, they wouldn't get in the NCAA, they would have played differently I'm sure. They played hard, but in the back of their mind, there was no stakes, and I believe that played a part.

We do have a problem starting slow, but it's the end of the season, so we're gonna have to go with what we got.

Quinton said:

---

It's possible but targeting lower level recruits that will stick around when you can get better players is largely unprecedented. Same debate here for months now.

I'm not staunchly against it like some here. Open to the idea just easier said then done. If they don't make a substantial run in the tournament this year then maybe it's time to start considering the question.

---

There seems to be perception that we're stuck between recruiting one-and-done five stars or three-star slugs who won't be ready to contribute for three years. That's a false choice. There are guys all over college basketball who are ready to be impact players as freshmen and sophomores that don't have the specific measurables or skill sets that the NBA is looking for. We recruited dozens of them to our own program -- to great success -- before the national title season.

To me it's not about passing on raw talent. It's about recruiting to and for the college game. We've seen a pattern almost every year for the last 10-15 among the teams winning national titles, and they're not built like we've been the last three years.

I don't want us to recruit poor talent. I want us to recruit guys built to develop and win in college. We did it for more than a decade before we got access to one-and-done talent. There's nothing stopping us from doing it again.

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

It's possible but targeting lower level recruits that will stick around when you can get better players is largely unprecedented. Same debate here for months now.

I'm not staunchly against it like some here. Open to the idea just easier said then done. If they don't make a substantial run in the tournament this year then maybe it's time to start considering the question.

---

There seems to be perception that we're stuck between recruiting one-and-done five stars or three-star slugs who won't be ready to contribute for three years. That's a false choice. There are guys all over college basketball who are ready to be impact players as freshmen and sophomores that don't have the specific measurables or skill sets that the NBA is looking for. We recruited dozens of them to our own program -- to great success -- before the national title season.

To me it's not about passing on raw talent. It's about recruiting to and for the college game. We've seen a pattern almost every year for the last 10-15 among the teams winning national titles, and they're not built like we've been the last three years.

I don't want us to recruit poor talent. I want us to recruit guys built to develop and win in college. We did it for more than a decade before we got access to one-and-done talent. There's nothing stopping us from doing it again.

---

Well, get to scouting these great but not great for the NBA guys. I'm sure they'll appreciate your input.

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

It's possible but targeting lower level recruits that will stick around when you can get better players is largely unprecedented. Same debate here for months now.

I'm not staunchly against it like some here. Open to the idea just easier said then done. If they don't make a substantial run in the tournament this year then maybe it's time to start considering the question.

---

There seems to be perception that we're stuck between recruiting one-and-done five stars or three-star slugs who won't be ready to contribute for three years. That's a false choice. There are guys all over college basketball who are ready to be impact players as freshmen and sophomores that don't have the specific measurables or skill sets that the NBA is looking for. We recruited dozens of them to our own program -- to great success -- before the national title season.

To me it's not about passing on raw talent. It's about recruiting to and for the college game. We've seen a pattern almost every year for the last 10-15 among the teams winning national titles, and they're not built like we've been the last three years.

I don't want us to recruit poor talent. I want us to recruit guys built to develop and win in college. We did it for more than a decade before we got access to one-and-done talent. There's nothing stopping us from doing it again.

---

Well, get to scouting these great but not great for the NBA guys. I'm sure they'll appreciate your input.

---

Stupid response. Every team that's beat us this year has several such players. So, too, will the one that knocks us out of the tournament in the second or third round. They're not hard to find. We're just too busy chasing unicorns.

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

It's possible but targeting lower level recruits that will stick around when you can get better players is largely unprecedented. Same debate here for months now.

I'm not staunchly against it like some here. Open to the idea just easier said then done. If they don't make a substantial run in the tournament this year then maybe it's time to start considering the question.

---

There seems to be perception that we're stuck between recruiting one-and-done five stars or three-star slugs who won't be ready to contribute for three years. That's a false choice. There are guys all over college basketball who are ready to be impact players as freshmen and sophomores that don't have the specific measurables or skill sets that the NBA is looking for. We recruited dozens of them to our own program -- to great success -- before the national title season.

To me it's not about passing on raw talent. It's about recruiting to and for the college game. We've seen a pattern almost every year for the last 10-15 among the teams winning national titles, and they're not built like we've been the last three years.

I don't want us to recruit poor talent. I want us to recruit guys built to develop and win in college. We did it for more than a decade before we got access to one-and-done talent. There's nothing stopping us from doing it again.

---

Well, get to scouting these great but not great for the NBA guys. I'm sure they'll appreciate your input.

---

Do you have anything interesting to say? Or are you here to simp for Baylor to a standard even they wouldn't hold themselves to.

IvanBear said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

It's possible but targeting lower level recruits that will stick around when you can get better players is largely unprecedented. Same debate here for months now.

I'm not staunchly against it like some here. Open to the idea just easier said then done. If they don't make a substantial run in the tournament this year then maybe it's time to start considering the question.

---

There seems to be perception that we're stuck between recruiting one-and-done five stars or three-star slugs who won't be ready to contribute for three years. That's a false choice. There are guys all over college basketball who are ready to be impact players as freshmen and sophomores that don't have the specific measurables or skill sets that the NBA is looking for. We recruited dozens of them to our own program -- to great success -- before the national title season.

To me it's not about passing on raw talent. It's about recruiting to and for the college game. We've seen a pattern almost every year for the last 10-15 among the teams winning national titles, and they're not built like we've been the last three years.

I don't want us to recruit poor talent. I want us to recruit guys built to develop and win in college. We did it for more than a decade before we got access to one-and-done talent. There's nothing stopping us from doing it again.

---

Well, get to scouting these great but not great for the NBA guys. I'm sure they'll appreciate your input.

---

Do you have anything interesting to say? Or are you here to simp for Baylor to a standard even they wouldn't hold themselves to.

---

Just seems like you know exactly what every issue with our team is and how to fix it. If they only listened to you, we'd be undefeated. *****ing and moaning about 18-year old kids who are busting their hump for your entertainment is kind of unbecoming. But you do you.

boognish_bear said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

IvanBear said:

---

Smashmouth said:

---

This game looks exactly like how we go out in the 2nd round of the NCAA

---

Do this to a 14 seed in the tournament and it'll be the first round.

---

Unlikely. We'll overwhelm most anyone we'd face in our tournament opener.

---

That's exactly what I thought just before we faced both Yale and Georgia State. Just sayin'…..

---

That happens to every team that consistently makes the tournament. Also you're talking about games that happened nine years ago.

---

Yep....Virginia was the first ever 1 seed to lose to a 16 in 2018. They came back in 2019 and won the whole damn thing.

---

That was the start of 3 Big 12 teams in a row in the championship game. If Beard hadn't stopped coaching with 3 seconds left they would have won it in regulation. Most won't agree with me, but I would have liked to have seen them bring it home. Getting that far and losing like that would be traumatizing.

IvanBear said:

---

Drew absolutely has done a horrible job coaching defense since the Natty. I don't know if it's staff changes or he is just taking it for granted, but Baylor hasn't been doing a good job from a coaching development perspective the last 3 seasons.

---

The 2022 team was excellent on defense, just suffered the injury curse. So there's that.

Quinton said:

---

The defensive staff is struggling. He is humble but also loyal to his guys. We clearly need a veteran defensive specialist to help straighten this out. It's hard to pull that trigger as it will reduce some autonomy and ruffle some feathers.


Other issue is a few guys on our defensive side are elite recruiters and I doubt he wants to disrupt that dynamic.

---

There's nothing wrong with the defensive coaching. The problem is we have focused on offense in recruiting and have not landed enough instinctual defenders. JTT aside, only Missi has a good concept of how to help on defense.

BUCANDOIT82 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

The defensive staff is struggling. He is humble but also loyal to his guys. We clearly need a veteran defensive specialist to help straighten this out. It's hard to pull that trigger as it will reduce some autonomy and ruffle some feathers.


Other issue is a few guys on our defensive side are elite recruiters and I doubt he wants to disrupt that dynamic.

---

There's nothing wrong with the defensive coaching. The problem is we have focused on offense in recruiting and have not landed enough instinctual defenders. JTT aside, only Missi has a good concept of how to help on defense.

---

It's definitely both. Many of the guys we have don't have great instincts on that end. But we have raw parts to be closer to 50 than 100.

The defensive ratings on this team speak to a deficiency. It's okay to say that. Not calling for guys to be scrapped or anything. Just need a reset and new mind to get it fixed. Yes, and some possible modifications on the recruiting/transfer front. Whiffing on a handful of guys hasn't helped the holes

We have a few potential extremely talented yet multi year guys coming. Chance for development. Only one obvious one and done.

BUGWBBear said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

BUGWBBear said:

---

Bearsalwayswin said:

---

If you're saying Scott can't coach defenses you have the wrong idea

---

He didn't bother with it today, Skeezix.

---

You're never around when we win. You're always around when we lose. Why is that?

---

Ask yourself that question considering I was here for the UT game.

---

Yeah, talking **** until we made a 21-4 run and put it away. Then you were nowhere to be found. Par for the course.

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

It's possible but targeting lower level recruits that will stick around when you can get better players is largely unprecedented. Same debate here for months now.

I'm not staunchly against it like some here. Open to the idea just easier said then done. If they don't make a substantial run in the tournament this year then maybe it's time to start considering the question.

---

There seems to be perception that we're stuck between recruiting one-and-done five stars or three-star slugs who won't be ready to contribute for three years. That's a false choice. There are guys all over college basketball who are ready to be impact players as freshmen and sophomores that don't have the specific measurables or skill sets that the NBA is looking for. We recruited dozens of them to our own program -- to great success -- before the national title season.

To me it's not about passing on raw talent. It's about recruiting to and for the college game. We've seen a pattern almost every year for the last 10-15 among the teams winning national titles, and they're not built like we've been the last three years.

I don't want us to recruit poor talent. I want us to recruit guys built to develop and win in college. We did it for more than a decade before we got access to one-and-done talent. There's nothing stopping us from doing it again.

---

We've got three coming in next year in Rob Wright, Jason Asemota, and Noah Boyed.

Chances are good one of them will surprise to the upside and we'll have the same, tired argument again and again about how we rely too heavily on freshmen, and we'll have posters spending a huge chunk of game threads picking apart VJ Edgecombe's game. I'm trembling with anticipation already!

Mitch Henessey said:

---

BUGWBBear said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

BUGWBBear said:

---

Bearsalwayswin said:

---

If you're saying Scott can't coach defenses you have the wrong idea

---

He didn't bother with it today, Skeezix.

---

You're never around when we win. You're always around when we lose. Why is that?

---

Ask yourself that question considering I was here for the UT game.

---

Yeah, talking **** until we made a 21-4 run and put it away. Then you were nowhere to be found. Par for the course.

---

That's easily checkable. Once we went ahead, he took off. Didn't post at all.

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

It's possible but targeting lower level recruits that will stick around when you can get better players is largely unprecedented. Same debate here for months now.

I'm not staunchly against it like some here. Open to the idea just easier said then done. If they don't make a substantial run in the tournament this year then maybe it's time to start considering the question.

---

There seems to be perception that we're stuck between recruiting one-and-done five stars or three-star slugs who won't be ready to contribute for three years. That's a false choice. There are guys all over college basketball who are ready to be impact players as freshmen and sophomores that don't have the specific measurables or skill sets that the NBA is looking for. We recruited dozens of them to our own program -- to great success -- before the national title season.

To me it's not about passing on raw talent. It's about recruiting to and for the college game. We've seen a pattern almost every year for the last 10-15 among the teams winning national titles, and they're not built like we've been the last three years.

I don't want us to recruit poor talent. I want us to recruit guys built to develop and win in college. We did it for more than a decade before we got access to one-and-done talent. There's nothing stopping us from doing it again.

---

We've got three coming in next year in Rob Wright, Jason Asemota, and Noah Boyed.

Chances are good one of them will surprise to the upside and we'll have the same, tired argument again and again about how we rely too heavily on freshmen, and we'll have posters spending a huge chunk of game threads picking apart VJ Edgecombe's game. I'm trembling with anticipation already!

---

If Edgecombe, like George and Walter, leads us in field goal attempts while shooting 38 percent from the field and 33 percent from 3 and can't stay in front of his man defensively, he'll deserve to have his game critiqued. And if we don't do anything in March, our recruiting strategy and continued reliance on freshmen starters should be examined/questioned.

This idea that players or coaches are somehow above fair criticism because our formerly awful program is now good is silly. Everyone gets judged on their performance/results. That's the way the world works. And our potential is much, much higher than first-weekend exits in March.

The problem with that thinking is that now that we have the natty, everyone wants another & too many fans are impatient. They expect it every year and for it to be almost automatic. Also, the coaches want the freshman phenomenon talent because they do so much for the program (image, pr, etc).

We had people critical of Drew last year, some arguing on these boards that Tang was the reason for the natty.

historian said:

---

The problem with that thinking is that now that we have the natty, everyone wants another & too many fans are impatient. They expect it every year and for it to be almost automatic. Also, the coaches want the freshman phenomenon talent because they do so much for the program (image, pr, etc).

We had people critical of Drew last year, some arguing on these boards that Tang was the reason for the natty.

---

It's not about winning another title. First weekend exits for teams seeded 1 and 3 is underachievement, plain and simple.

I've said many, many times my threshold for a successful season is a Sweet 16. That's not an unrealistic expectation for a program that is ranked every year.

bear2be2 said:

---

historian said:

---

The problem with that thinking is that now that we have the natty, everyone wants another & too many fans are impatient. They expect it every year and for it to be almost automatic. Also, the coaches want the freshman phenomenon talent because they do so much for the program (image, pr, etc).

We had people critical of Drew last year, some arguing on these boards that Tang was the reason for the natty.

---

It's not about winning another title. First weekend exits for teams seeded 1 and 3 is underachievement, plain and simple.

I've said many, many times my threshold for a successful season is a Sweet 16. That's not an unrealistic expectation for a program that is ranked every year.

---

I agree with that. Though, I will say that while the 2022 Tournament exit was disappointing, that team wasn't a one-seed by season's end. Losing EJ and Cryer for the season, and playing with a hobbled Akinjo for the stretch run doomed our chances. You are what your results say you are, but chalking up that result to recruiting strategy is really bending reality to fit your narrative.

Last year was an ill-fitting team, but I don't know that recruiting was to blame, unless you're lumping "missing completely on Caleb Lohner" and "failing to foresee Sochan developing into a lottery pick after 10 months on campus" under recruiting.

Our HOF coach clearly has a strategy. Critiquing that strategy is within bounds, obviously, but the way you do it is very narrow in focus, and rejects all outside factors in favor of your new favorite narrative.

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

It's possible but targeting lower level recruits that will stick around when you can get better players is largely unprecedented. Same debate here for months now.

I'm not staunchly against it like some here. Open to the idea just easier said then done. If they don't make a substantial run in the tournament this year then maybe it's time to start considering the question.

---

There seems to be perception that we're stuck between recruiting one-and-done five stars or three-star slugs who won't be ready to contribute for three years. That's a false choice. There are guys all over college basketball who are ready to be impact players as freshmen and sophomores that don't have the specific measurables or skill sets that the NBA is looking for. We recruited dozens of them to our own program -- to great success -- before the national title season.

To me it's not about passing on raw talent. It's about recruiting to and for the college game. We've seen a pattern almost every year for the last 10-15 among the teams winning national titles, and they're not built like we've been the last three years.

I don't want us to recruit poor talent. I want us to recruit guys built to develop and win in college. We did it for more than a decade before we got access to one-and-done talent. There's nothing stopping us from doing it again.

---

We've got three coming in next year in Rob Wright, Jason Asemota, and Noah Boyed.

Chances are good one of them will surprise to the upside and we'll have the same, tired argument again and again about how we rely too heavily on freshmen, and we'll have posters spending a huge chunk of game threads picking apart VJ Edgecombe's game. I'm trembling with anticipation already!

---

If Edgecombe, like George and Walter, leads us in field goal attempts while shooting 38 percent from the field and 33 percent from 3 and can't stay in front of his man defensively, he'll deserve to have his game critiqued. And if we don't do anything in March, our recruiting strategy and continued reliance on freshmen starters should be examined/questioned.

This idea that players or coaches are somehow above fair criticism because our formerly awful program is now good is silly. Everyone gets judged on their performance/results. That's the way the world works. And our potential is much, much higher than first-weekend exits in March.

---

It is called "March Madness" for a reason. There's always a high degree of variance in the tournament. If we stumble and bow out again in the 2nd round, blaming the 2nd round loss on having Missi and Walter as freshman starters is what strikes me is silly. Over a larger sample size of an entire season, those 2 guys have been instrumental in putting us in a position to be a 2 or 3 seed to begin with. As were Keyonte last season and Sochan the season before.

It's all about match ups and if we get the right ones it could be a happy March-April for the Bears.

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

BUGWBBear said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

BUGWBBear said:

---

Bearsalwayswin said:

---

If you're saying Scott can't coach defenses you have the wrong idea

---

He didn't bother with it today, Skeezix.

---

You're never around when we win. You're always around when we lose. Why is that?

---

Ask yourself that question considering I was here for the UT game.

---

Yeah, talking **** until we made a 21-4 run and put it away. Then you were nowhere to be found. Par for the course.

---

That's easily checkable. Once we went ahead, he took off. Didn't post at all.

---

Give him some credit.....he is consistent. Doesn't matter the sport or coach, he is one of the handful of negative Nancys that is always looking for something to criticize regardless of the outcome. Never have quite understood why people want to rip at the team or coaches as if they are not trying to do everything they can to win for themselves and for us here. What purpose does it serve? If your problem is with the AD take that up with him. The coaches don't deserve having that targeted at them.

A lot of us hurt enough when we lose, especially if it is a close game or one it looked like we had. But then we have people coming on the board to tell us that the coaches can't coach and/or don't know how to recruit, the players didn't come to play, the game plans are bad, there is no discipline, the coaches don't have the experience and knowledge of being able to see what fans see in their ultimate wisdom or didn't have the team ready to play, yada, yada, yada. It is just piling on to people, players, and coaches who hurt enough just from the loss or a disappointing season. And I ask again, what is the purpose? What good does the carping produce? What is the good of cutting down the program(s) on a public message board?

We all have questions as to why things were done the way they were, why certain players were in or not in the game, and a hundred other things. And there are ways to ask those questions and have the discussions about the whys and why nots without casting stones on those involved, especially when as fans we don't know jack squat as to the circumstances on the sidelines, in the locker room, or on the recruiting trail upon which those things are decided, and would likely be clueless if we were placed in their situation under fire of non-stop action.