As previously posted, think the program is Lost in the Weeds from a strategic standpoint.
Folks asked how that plays out…..
Example: thirty plus years ago Coach Snyder at KSU did a masterful radio interview describing his strategy.
He talked how his first 4-5 years the staff tried to simply out recruit and out coach the opponents and it yielded minimal results. He knew big change was required because KSU simply lacked the history and facilities to compete straight up. So he determined what really mattered…..age, experience and ability.
KSU reduced annual high school scholarships to about ten players. They bumped up the annual number of juco and transfers accordingly. Previously KSU (like many programs) averaged about 22 high school recruits per year. With redshirting and annual attrition, most programs had about 55-60 scholarship players each season who were physically ready to play at a high level. Snyder's goal was to get that number to 72 plus 3 walk-ons.
The thought process was that the opponents starters might still be better, but that KSU's second and third stringers would be superior. Snyder knew that it would reduce continuity and that schemes would need to be simplified. Done. The focus was to play the game at a pace that the number of plays by second and third stringers would be maximized. Also, the greater numbers allowed top players to fill every special team unit. Snyder thought he could steal points every game on special teams with that change.
It worked. KSU went from joke to conference champion.
Why? Winning strategy combined with alignment in every part of the program to that strategy.
Baylor WBB lacks a visible winning strategy. The actions look like a drowning person flailing to stay above the waterline. Tons of stuff going on, little real progress.
Baylor has fantastic facilities. Baylor is in a good but not great conference. Baylor has a great history. Baylor has good but not great NIL. Baylor is in a recruiting basin that is annually very good and occasionally fantastic. Baylor is an attractive educational product. Baylor is attractive to players and parents as being close but not too close to DFW, Houston, SA/Austin, East Texas. CenTex has players. Zero reason not to land talent.
But Baylor isn't likely to outspend UT and LSU. Even OU is throwing money……don't expect that item to continue, OU had a serious financial Come to Jesus speech with (non-FB) coaches recently.
UT and LSU focus on athletic players. They aim to be an elite D with sufficient O.
Baylor should take the UConn approach, focus on elite O with sufficient D.
Differentiate. Minimize some direct recruiting competition.
Focus on athleticism at PG and post. get two high quality PGs. Get some posts that are rebounders, shot blockers, rimrunners.
And fill the wings with heady shooters. The Rockies and the upper Midwest seems to produce an abundance of these types. Cast your net where the fish are in abundance.
Stop recruiting undersized players. How many games turn on 3-4 possessions? How many possessions turn on O and D rebounding due to size?
We have an abundance of happy players. We seem to have zero "fire in the eyes" intense players. We need a couple of dogs to lead the pack.
Zero reason we should have numbers issues every year. 15 scholarships. Use them. If you have 9 "sure thing" players and use the final 6 scholarships on "maybes" that have 1 in 3 success, that is 11 quality players. We need some Value Buy types to make the NIL budget work. Stop trying to hit a home run with every swing and get some singles and doubles.
Maybe the strategy is something totally different.
But if every coach, player, athletic admin, serious fan, etc. can't quickly describe the strategy that is a problem. The strategy should be obvious and everything tied to it.
Folks asked how that plays out…..
Example: thirty plus years ago Coach Snyder at KSU did a masterful radio interview describing his strategy.
He talked how his first 4-5 years the staff tried to simply out recruit and out coach the opponents and it yielded minimal results. He knew big change was required because KSU simply lacked the history and facilities to compete straight up. So he determined what really mattered…..age, experience and ability.
KSU reduced annual high school scholarships to about ten players. They bumped up the annual number of juco and transfers accordingly. Previously KSU (like many programs) averaged about 22 high school recruits per year. With redshirting and annual attrition, most programs had about 55-60 scholarship players each season who were physically ready to play at a high level. Snyder's goal was to get that number to 72 plus 3 walk-ons.
The thought process was that the opponents starters might still be better, but that KSU's second and third stringers would be superior. Snyder knew that it would reduce continuity and that schemes would need to be simplified. Done. The focus was to play the game at a pace that the number of plays by second and third stringers would be maximized. Also, the greater numbers allowed top players to fill every special team unit. Snyder thought he could steal points every game on special teams with that change.
It worked. KSU went from joke to conference champion.
Why? Winning strategy combined with alignment in every part of the program to that strategy.
Baylor WBB lacks a visible winning strategy. The actions look like a drowning person flailing to stay above the waterline. Tons of stuff going on, little real progress.
Baylor has fantastic facilities. Baylor is in a good but not great conference. Baylor has a great history. Baylor has good but not great NIL. Baylor is in a recruiting basin that is annually very good and occasionally fantastic. Baylor is an attractive educational product. Baylor is attractive to players and parents as being close but not too close to DFW, Houston, SA/Austin, East Texas. CenTex has players. Zero reason not to land talent.
But Baylor isn't likely to outspend UT and LSU. Even OU is throwing money……don't expect that item to continue, OU had a serious financial Come to Jesus speech with (non-FB) coaches recently.
UT and LSU focus on athletic players. They aim to be an elite D with sufficient O.
Baylor should take the UConn approach, focus on elite O with sufficient D.
Differentiate. Minimize some direct recruiting competition.
Focus on athleticism at PG and post. get two high quality PGs. Get some posts that are rebounders, shot blockers, rimrunners.
And fill the wings with heady shooters. The Rockies and the upper Midwest seems to produce an abundance of these types. Cast your net where the fish are in abundance.
Stop recruiting undersized players. How many games turn on 3-4 possessions? How many possessions turn on O and D rebounding due to size?
We have an abundance of happy players. We seem to have zero "fire in the eyes" intense players. We need a couple of dogs to lead the pack.
Zero reason we should have numbers issues every year. 15 scholarships. Use them. If you have 9 "sure thing" players and use the final 6 scholarships on "maybes" that have 1 in 3 success, that is 11 quality players. We need some Value Buy types to make the NIL budget work. Stop trying to hit a home run with every swing and get some singles and doubles.
Maybe the strategy is something totally different.
But if every coach, player, athletic admin, serious fan, etc. can't quickly describe the strategy that is a problem. The strategy should be obvious and everything tied to it.