I don't appreciate your comment . I support Baylor athletics all the time. I was at the Texas Bowl on Tuesday. There is no shame in missing Coach Mulkey. She did more for Baylor athletics than anyone else.BearlyNose said:
Enough about Mulkey - she was difficult to work with; lacked an attitude of gratitude, and dug her own grave. You can either support Baylor's athletic teams or be gone - like Mulkey.
Baylor vs OSU…the orange ones
8,104 Views |
95 Replies |
Last: 24 days ago by bawitdaball
Yesterday was a stinker, but missing layup after layup and then pressing to compensate will do that. No doubt about that. But we have had those before. The men have certainly laid their eggs and we even had some when KM was here. The only difference there was our talent level was much higher overall than today and the opposition was not strong enough to take advantage of it, so it was ignored as a one-off.BaylorTaxman said:BaylorBears_254 said:
I'll eat crow if she becomes a top coach in WBB, but I HIGHLY doubt it.
We hired a coach that wasn't even good in the WNBA lol. She wasn't the best choice, she was the cheapest.
If you're expecting a Drew-like come up from her, it ain't happening.
If Mack was going to take this route in WBB, we should've just got the Molly chick, and let her grow here.
She is much cheaper than our previous coach for sure. But l do think she is one of the highest paid coaches in the Big 12… likely second or third. Baylor's most recent Form 990 on file lists her total compensation at $1.1 million. This is for FYE 5.31.2023. It could have some nonrecurring stuff in it, I suppose.
Perhaps she was the cheapest choice of candidates we had apply for our specific position….that I definitely don't know. But I am skeptical that was the case.
I do hope it works out. The Sweet 16 run last year was fun. I thought we looked great at Kansas. Yesterday's game was really tough to watch. I don't recall getting thrashed like that at home. But plenty of opportunities ahead.
I do think it is pretty rich to talk about the offerings made to potential coaches from the AD when we know none of us were in on those conversations, especially in the light of what is "cheap". Of course any coach hired is going to be cheaper than what we had been paying. At the time there were only 3 coaches that should have received anywhere close to what KM was getting (Tara, Geno and Dawn) and none of them were going anywhere. Certainly anyone else should be cheaper. You would be stupid to pay them more than their worth where none had the kind of track record KM had here.
I might agree with someone that we went the cheapest route, but I would have to see who we contacted, who was interested and what pay levels we were talking about. But I am not going to pretend here that I was in on any conversations or meetings to have any facts to make such a definitive statement. Anyone here who has the facts, lay them out. We can then all come to a better conclusion. Without that, bold general statements have no substance and are only inflammatory.
I assume she gets bonus for every round of the tournament she reaches. Sweet 16 likely meant three end of year bonus - making the tournament, first round win, second round win. She also likely got a bonus for being ranked in the Top 25 at the end of the season. Wouldn't surprise me if her contract is very heavy in regard to the bonuses and low in the base pay department.BaylorTaxman said:BaylorBears_254 said:
I'll eat crow if she becomes a top coach in WBB, but I HIGHLY doubt it.
We hired a coach that wasn't even good in the WNBA lol. She wasn't the best choice, she was the cheapest.
If you're expecting a Drew-like come up from her, it ain't happening.
If Mack was going to take this route in WBB, we should've just got the Molly chick, and let her grow here.
She is much cheaper than our previous coach for sure. But l do think she is one of the highest paid coaches in the Big 12… likely second or third. Baylor's most recent Form 990 on file lists her total compensation at $1.1 million. This is for FYE 5.31.2023. It could have some nonrecurring stuff in it, I suppose.
Perhaps she was the cheapest choice of candidates we had apply for our specific position….that I definitely don't know. But I am skeptical that was the case.
I do hope it works out. The Sweet 16 run last year was fun. I thought we looked great at Kansas. Yesterday's game was really tough to watch. I don't recall getting thrashed like that at home. But plenty of opportunities ahead.
But will she have this team ranked by the end of the season?
Yes, conference is weak. Last Bears will win north of 23 games.
Conference is weak, but also, Oklahoma State is not good. Like, at all. Maybe they will improve over the course of the season, but that was a beating the Lady Bears took at home.IowaBear said:
Yes, conference is weak. Last Bears will win north of 23 games.
A team doesn't have to be great to win at home, especially against a weak opponent.
Then what is your assessment of ISU. Are they also not good?bawitdaball said:Conference is weak, but also, Oklahoma State is not good. Like, at all. Maybe they will improve over the course of the season, but that was a beating the Lady Bears took at home.IowaBear said:
Yes, conference is weak. Last Bears will win north of 23 games.
Oklahoma State is better than I thought. They are tall and shoot the 3 well. Scrappy defense. $10 says they will finish in top 4 of the conference....
Oklahoma State is a very good team! Unless they have major injuries, they will finish high in the conference.
I would give Baylor a bit of leeway if they had lost on the road. I think in this day and age, any game on the road is a difficult challenge. Iowa State's game was on the road. I also think Iowa State is very undisciplined and isn't maximizing the use of their talent. I've always said that Iowa State is good when they are hitting the 3 and able to spread the defense and make room for their inside post, but struggles when the 3 isn't falling. It's also why they tend to underperform over the course of a season.Bear3 said:
Oklahoma State is a very good team! Unless they have major injuries, they will finish high in the conference.
That said, I have thought since the beginning that Iowa State was being given a lot of high praise due to their sophomore center. I'm not sure Finnely knows how to coach and make adjustments for a post player like he does his perimeter. He's always prioritized that.
So, in closing, I don't think Oklahoma State is a great basketball team. I think 5-7 years ago, the sky would be falling if we lost at home by 23 to any conference foe. I also think that if we lost by 23 and were 10 point favorites in any men's basketball game, people would be freaking out. CNC and this team don't deserve a pass. There were/are high hopes for this team. They need to mesh quick or we'll be on the outside looking in, which will only make recruiting all the more difficult.
I agree that OSU is not a great team but I think they are a very good team. I am not sure if the Big 12 has any great teams this year. Time will tell.
You might be right on that. I've watched several teams play and there has been an overall BIG fall off.Bear3 said:
I agree that OSU is not a great team but I think they are a very good team. I am not sure if the Big 12 has any great teams this year. Time will tell.
Is it really a "fall off" or that parity has caused, outside of a relatively very few GREAT teams, most everyone else (not really everyone, but a vast number of teams) to just not look really good because they are not dominating as was the case just a few years ago when there were only about 10 - 15 or so teams that could "beat up" on most others? Their opponent is no longer a push over and someone to just look past.bawitdaball said:You might be right on that. I've watched several teams play and there has been an overall BIG fall off.Bear3 said:
I agree that OSU is not a great team but I think they are a very good team. I am not sure if the Big 12 has any great teams this year. Time will tell.
Two good teams, even very good teams can make the other look not so good on any given day because things are going right for one and not the other and the losing team gets out of its normal mode and tries to do too much resulting in turnovers and generally sloppy play.
I feel confident to say from what I have seen over the last few years of how so many teams have upgraded talent, that our Baylor teams of old would not have been so much better than more of the others to get out of the conference schedule without at least 2 or 3 more losses than what we had in any given season and certainly many more close games that what fans had become accustomed. Then it was only Texas or OU. Now you have more than can certainly trip you up.
I guess others can argue differently but I think the number of very good, but not elite coaches, has increased, the talent pool has raised itself to a higher level in both quality and numbers, talent has not pooled in just a few locations and that has caused much more competitive games and thereby has only allowed a much lower number of teams to really just run over others as they have in the past. And in the process made it much harder to separate from the pack. And because that separation is not there the games end up much closer and gives the appearance of teams not being as good as they might have appeared in years past.
OSU will likely be ranked this week. They have consistently been higher than BU in the "receiving votes" category of the AP. They are 13-1 on the season and have beaten Iowa State. We should have played better, no doubt, but to say OSU is really weak… that's just not true!
The growth of the game and the portal has help there seem to be more "parity". Instead of a pool of 3 top teams there are maybe 8 that have a legit chance to win a title. I still think a Baylor team of old would run the table in this version of the Big 12. Parity doesn't necessarily mean everyone is better, just now the dominant forces are no longer there.
I don't necessarily disagree about the bolded statement above. The question I would have however is would Baylor have been able then to accumulate the talent we had if under today's environment. Back then elite players (such as we had) really only had a few choices they could go if they wanted to compete for conference championships. Today the number of teams that could meet that criteria has expanded. Some of our players might have gone to other schools and we might not have been as good. In other words, our roster could have been different had there been more schools they would have viewed as possibilities as there are today.franke said:
The growth of the game and the portal has help there seem to be more "parity". Instead of a pool of 3 top teams there are maybe 8 that have a legit chance to win a title. I still think a Baylor team of old would run the table in this version of the Big 12. Parity doesn't necessarily mean everyone is better, just now the dominant forces are no longer there.
You are also correct that the dominant forces in the XII are no longer there. And I think it is because the talent is more spread about versus being pooled at one or two schools. Here that can somewhat but not fully explained by the absence of a recognized elite coach, but I think a lot of it is just because bottom programs have put in the resources to push themselves up. So, it has contracted from both ends. But I think that would have occurred regardless of the coaching change, although not as pronounced. The game has just changed with basically free agency allowing more teams to draw talent and be more competitive.
(Sorry for the multiple edits. Thoughts just kept popping up.)
I agree with your thinking, thought I think that elite talent still looks at winning as a main driver for where they're going to go to school. NIL has an expanded role now, but not to the extreme that say, football, has with players going places solely for money. Elite coaches/programs with a proven record of winning will still get the talent, as we've seen with the previous few years recruiting classes (LSU and SC leading the way)
IowaBear said:
Vonleh just isn't that impressive. She's incredibly slow footed
Show me a quick nimble big girl & I'll show you a unicorn.
I don't feel tardy
NIL has created a bit more parity. Those at the top remain at the top. But the middle has most definitely gotten more cloudy. And for the Big 12 - yes, I do think there has been a big fall off. Losing Texas and OU, two programs that are currently ranked higher than any Big 12 team, was not great. The conference is a cluster of decent but not great teams that will be exposed in the tournament. Much like last year, when I believe only Baylor and Texas made it to the Sweet 16, I see much of the same this year. Granted, Baylor used to run the floor with the conference until Texas hired Schafer. But claiming that one of Mulkey's teams would have 3-4 loses just doesn't seem realistic. Most of the time her teams lost again inferior talent because they were bored playing. Though maybe we were head and shoulders above everyone else and everyone else was decent but not great. I guess that is possible.blackie said:Is it really a "fall off" or that parity has caused, outside of a relatively very few GREAT teams, most everyone else (not really everyone, but a vast number of teams) to just not look really good because they are not dominating as was the case just a few years ago when there were only about 10 - 15 or so teams that could "beat up" on most others? Their opponent is no longer a push over and someone to just look past.bawitdaball said:You might be right on that. I've watched several teams play and there has been an overall BIG fall off.Bear3 said:
I agree that OSU is not a great team but I think they are a very good team. I am not sure if the Big 12 has any great teams this year. Time will tell.
Two good teams, even very good teams can make the other look not so good on any given day because things are going right for one and not the other and the losing team gets out of its normal mode and tries to do too much resulting in turnovers and generally sloppy play.
I feel confident to say from what I have seen over the last few years of how so many teams have upgraded talent, that our Baylor teams of old would not have been so much better than more of the others to get out of the conference schedule without at least 2 or 3 more losses than what we had in any given season and certainly many more close games that what fans had become accustomed. Then it was only Texas or OU. Now you have more than can certainly trip you up.
I guess others can argue differently but I think the number of very good, but not elite coaches, has increased, the talent pool has raised itself to a higher level in both quality and numbers, talent has not pooled in just a few locations and that has caused much more competitive games and thereby has only allowed a much lower number of teams to really just run over others as they have in the past. And in the process made it much harder to separate from the pack. And because that separation is not there the games end up much closer and gives the appearance of teams not being as good as they might have appeared in years past.
Okie Lite hits only 20% from from 3 land against Kansas a team we beat in Kansas, Ok lite beats us at home and turns around and loses at home against Kansas , bad !! Maybe Okie Lite just had a hot hand against us . ?
Lauren Betts of UCLA is 6'7" and very mobile. Lauren Cox and Kalani Brown both moved better and are taller. That said, they are outliers, but you told me to tell you one. And I actually don't think Annette is that slow. I think she has solid footwork but struggles on defense. She reaches a lot and doesn't move her feet. That is more of a discipline problem IMO. I also don't think CNC prioritizes defense to the level that she should You can have an off shooting night, but if you clamp down on defense, it's okay. The other team will struggle to score as well.MrGolfguy said:IowaBear said:
Vonleh just isn't that impressive. She's incredibly slow footed
Show me a quick nimble big girl & I'll show you a unicorn.
There's a difference between a big girl and a tall girl. Kalani was a big girl, Lauren was not.
I don't feel tardy
I concur that. You are correct. I also felt Kalani moved a lot better than Antonette. She might get there - but I still feel her defense instinct is where she lacks. I like her offensive footwork.MrGolfguy said:
There's a difference between a big girl and a tall girl. Kalani was a big girl, Lauren was not.
bawitdaball said:Lauren Betts of UCLA is 6'7" and very mobile. Lauren Cox and Kalani Brown both moved better and are taller. That said, they are outliers, but you told me to tell you one. And I actually don't think Annette is that slow. I think she has solid footwork but struggles on defense. She reaches a lot and doesn't move her feet. That is more of a discipline problem IMO. I also don't think CNC prioritizes defense to the level that she should You can have an off shooting night, but if you clamp down on defense, it's okay. The other team will struggle to score as well.MrGolfguy said:IowaBear said:
Vonleh just isn't that impressive. She's incredibly slow footed
Show me a quick nimble big girl & I'll show you a unicorn.
Quote:
I also don't think CNC prioritizes defense to the level that she should You can have an off shooting night, but if you clamp down on defense, it's okay.
Of course words are words, but listening to her press conferences it doesn't come across that way to me.
Yea, she has been talking about defense for four years now. I feel she is educated on defense. I also feel she knows defense. But her teams reach a ton. And there are numerous breakdowns. Will be interesting to see how they fare as competition gets better. I'll admit I was pleased, for the most part, with how they handled Colorado. I haven't really watched Colorado much this year, so I'm not sure how they usually perform. I thought the peak of last season was how they handled TCU and Prince. I thought they had a great game plan and executed. To my eyes, overall, there isn't enough emphasis on the fundamentals. Late first step to the baseline, offensive drives, etc. They all have to be better to be on the cusp of entering that "great" mark. And that is, I believe, where we all want this team to be.blackie said:bawitdaball said:Lauren Betts of UCLA is 6'7" and very mobile. Lauren Cox and Kalani Brown both moved better and are taller. That said, they are outliers, but you told me to tell you one. And I actually don't think Annette is that slow. I think she has solid footwork but struggles on defense. She reaches a lot and doesn't move her feet. That is more of a discipline problem IMO. I also don't think CNC prioritizes defense to the level that she should You can have an off shooting night, but if you clamp down on defense, it's okay. The other team will struggle to score as well.MrGolfguy said:IowaBear said:
Vonleh just isn't that impressive. She's incredibly slow footed
Show me a quick nimble big girl & I'll show you a unicorn.Quote:
I also don't think CNC prioritizes defense to the level that she should You can have an off shooting night, but if you clamp down on defense, it's okay.
Of course words are words, but listening to her press conferences it doesn't come across that way to me.
Featured Stories
See All
Analyzing the Commitment: Baylor Adds NFL Upside at Cornerback
by Grayson Grundhoefer
35:37
17h ago
1.1k
University Four-Star Wide Receiver London Smith Commits to Baylor
by Grayson Grundhoefer
brent260
University Four-Star Wide Receiver London Smith Commits to Baylor
in SicEm365 Premium Insider
28
Campus-Golf-Pro
University Four-Star Wide Receiver London Smith Commits to Baylor
in SicEm365 Premium Insider
21
bearlove89
University Four-Star Wide Receiver London Smith Commits to Baylor
in SicEm365 Premium Insider
12
datboiquadzilla
University Four-Star Wide Receiver London Smith Commits to Baylor
in SicEm365 Premium Insider
12