Baseball
Sponsored By

tech

3,351 Views | 38 Replies | Last: 4 hrs ago by Mahan1979
BellCountyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm growing a little weary of all the athletic success tech is having of late (basketball, track&field, baseball). So, go OSU! Beat tech!
whitetrash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Raider rash > Poke choke
Mahan1979
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BellCountyBear said:

I'm growing a little weary of all the athletic success tech is having of late (basketball, track&field, baseball). So, go OSU! Beat tech!
And so their success continues, it seems. My brother went there and calls me almost daily about all things T-Tech. I probably know more than most Tech fans. We have quite the rivalry.
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Overall, things have really turned around for that school, athletically speaking. Wasn't that long ago that at best they were mediocre at a couple of things and a joke at everything else. Just hope they don't get it going in football.
txrangers
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They were bottom dwellers in every sport before Tadlock took over the baseball program. Once he took over, basketball took off. Football still is trash.
Aliceinbubbleland
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They remind me of UT in the 1950's -60's when anyone could get in and anything goes. Now UT has upped the entrance requirements so high that they are about to hand over the reins to TT and aggy. OU continues to accept anything not currently serving time.
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aliceinbubbleland said:

They remind me of UT in the 1950's -60's when anyone could get in and anything goes. Now UT has upped the entrance requirements so high that they are about to hand over the reins to TT and aggy. OU continues to accept anything not currently serving time.
Are you kidding? While they might not stoop quite as low as the other schools you mention, UT still allows for plenty of "special admissions" for high end recruits that would otherwise have their applications summarily rejected if they weren't high end athletes (especially for the revenue sports). UT shouldn't be confused with schools like Stanford or Rice in this regard.
william
How long do you want to ignore this user?
they've hired some great coaches - coaches who fit out there.

and they can play up the 'us against them' mentality that exists all across the south plains.

ag-based communities are tight - and stubborn.

and the new fb coach fits the bill perfectly.

kirby has done a great job -

- KKM
'Ficht nicht mich der Arbysmensch!'
TerranceJ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:

Aliceinbubbleland said:

They remind me of UT in the 1950's -60's when anyone could get in and anything goes. Now UT has upped the entrance requirements so high that they are about to hand over the reins to TT and aggy. OU continues to accept anything not currently serving time.
Are you kidding? While they might not stoop quite as low as the other schools you mention, UT still allows for plenty of "special admissions" for high end recruits that would otherwise have their applications summarily rejected if they weren't high end athletes (especially for the revenue sports). UT shouldn't be confused with schools like Stanford or Rice in this regard.

UT doesn't care who they let in, because they are still always ranked higher than all the schools in Texas, except Rice, in most regards. Not saying I agree that their academics are that good, but somebody out there obviously thinks so. One of my friends that went to UT always rubs in my face the fact that I paid much more than he did yet his degree pulls more weight. I don't really have anything to counter, unfortunately, when you look at overall rankings of the schools.
Crash Davis
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aliceinbubbleland said:

They remind me of UT in the 1950's -60's when anyone could get in and anything goes. Now UT has upped the entrance requirements so high that they are about to hand over the reins to TT and aggy. OU continues to accept anything not currently serving time.
I feel God in this Chili’s tonight.

-Pam Beesley
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TerranceJ said:

Johnny Bear said:

Aliceinbubbleland said:

They remind me of UT in the 1950's -60's when anyone could get in and anything goes. Now UT has upped the entrance requirements so high that they are about to hand over the reins to TT and aggy. OU continues to accept anything not currently serving time.
Are you kidding? While they might not stoop quite as low as the other schools you mention, UT still allows for plenty of "special admissions" for high end recruits that would otherwise have their applications summarily rejected if they weren't high end athletes (especially for the revenue sports). UT shouldn't be confused with schools like Stanford or Rice in this regard.

UT doesn't care who they let in, because they are still always ranked higher than all the schools in Texas, except Rice, in most regards. Not saying I agree that their academics are that good, but somebody out there obviously thinks so. One of my friends that went to UT always rubs in my face the fact that I paid much more than he did yet his degree pulls more weight. I don't really have anything to counter, unfortunately, when you look at overall rankings of the schools.

That's a very subjective thing. I realize alums of huge diploma mill state universities like UT and A&M make a big deal out of graduating Texas high school students having to be in the top 10% of their class to obtain full admission, but given the wide disparity in the quality of school districts across the state, that isn't as impressive as it sounds on the surface. There are a lot of graduating high school seniors every year that went to one of the academically superior high schools and didn't make the top 10% of their class who are far more prepared for college than many of the top 10% qualifiers at academically inferior schools. Universities like BU realize this and are more free to take this into account for its admissions. A lot of this is just alums boasting about their particular schools and the "rankings" are at best overly generalized subjective measurements of the so-called quality of any given university.
Mahan1979
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:

TerranceJ said:

Johnny Bear said:

Aliceinbubbleland said:

They remind me of UT in the 1950's -60's when anyone could get in and anything goes. Now UT has upped the entrance requirements so high that they are about to hand over the reins to TT and aggy. OU continues to accept anything not currently serving time.
Are you kidding? While they might not stoop quite as low as the other schools you mention, UT still allows for plenty of "special admissions" for high end recruits that would otherwise have their applications summarily rejected if they weren't high end athletes (especially for the revenue sports). UT shouldn't be confused with schools like Stanford or Rice in this regard.

UT doesn't care who they let in, because they are still always ranked higher than all the schools in Texas, except Rice, in most regards. Not saying I agree that their academics are that good, but somebody out there obviously thinks so. One of my friends that went to UT always rubs in my face the fact that I paid much more than he did yet his degree pulls more weight. I don't really have anything to counter, unfortunately, when you look at overall rankings of the schools.

That's a very subjective thing. I realize alums of huge diploma mill state universities like UT and A&M make a big deal out of graduating Texas high school students having to be in the top 10% of their class to obtain full admission, but given the wide disparity in the quality of school districts across the state, that isn't as impressive as it sounds on the surface. There are a lot of graduating high school seniors every year that went to one of the academically superior high schools and didn't make the top 10% of their class who are far more prepared for college than many of the top 10% qualifiers at academically inferior schools. Universities like BU realize this and are more free to take this into account for its admissions. A lot of this is just alums boasting about their particular schools and the "rankings" are at best overly generalized subjective measurements of the so-called quality of any given university.
Regardless of what we think about the arbitrary nature of the rankings, they obviously matter to people doing the hiring. Many top companies only recruit at the top ranked schools, so they matter. Not saying they are fair, but that's the nature of it. I've worked all over the country and even a couple of foreign countries, and I can assure you that Baylor is not as well known as, or sought after, as Texas. A lot of that may also be the sheer size of Texas and their enrollment. They just have more grads out there; same for aggy. Now Rice, on the other hand, is very well known and respected, in spite of the fact that it has a small enrollment. I believe it's the exception to the rule. Either way, it's hard to compete with a school ranked #49 overall (US News) and only charge little over $10K for in-state tuition.
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/best-schools-by-state/bachelors/texas
Mahan1979
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cinque said:

https://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/best-schools-by-state/bachelors/texas
This was exactly my point. The rankings are partially a result of statistics like these. It's just hard to justify the cost of private schools these days. A kid looking at his options sees that he can attend UT, A&M, or Tech, pay a fraction of the price of tuition compared to private school, and statistically would make better money in his/her career. Not surprised to see that Rice is the exception here. Because several members of my family are Baylor grads, my son wants to attend, but I've told him that unless it's paid for by scholarships, it's just not worth it. It's a difficult choice but is definitely the more logical one. What it comes down to is...you are going to pay much more money to attend a private school, but very few actually give you your return on investment (Ivy's, Rice, Stanford, Vandy, Duke, etc), but outside these very few it is not worth the price. I believe Baylor has a strong reputation in this region, but not nationwide, and that makes a big difference.
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mahan1979 said:

cinque said:

https://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/best-schools-by-state/bachelors/texas
This was exactly my point. The rankings are partially a result of statistics like these. It's just hard to justify the cost of private schools these days. A kid looking at his options sees that he can attend UT, A&M, or Tech, pay a fraction of the price of tuition compared to private school, and statistically would make better money in his/her career. Not surprised to see that Rice is the exception here. Because several members of my family are Baylor grads, my son wants to attend, but I've told him that unless it's paid for by scholarships, it's just not worth it. It's a difficult choice but is definitely the more logical one. What it comes down to is...you are going to pay much more money to attend a private school, but very few actually give you your return on investment (Ivy's, Rice, Stanford, Vandy, Duke, etc), but outside these very few it is not worth the price. I believe Baylor has a strong reputation in this region, but not nationwide, and that makes a big difference.
Virtually no good student has to pay the full tuition/fees of Baylor and there are scholarship/grants, etc. in addition to loans that can make it at least competitive enough that the upside of a Baylor education (lower student to teacher ratio, etc.) is well worth it for a lot of students. I speak from experience not just as an alum but as the father of a recent grad who is doing fantastic and is quite happy she didn't attend a diploma mill school - both her and her parents know it was well worth the extra $$s. Bottom line is universities are like many other things in life - there are different choices with different upsides and different downsides and it's impossible make blanket statements about which is the better "one size fits all" choice. And Baylor has a stronger reputation nationwide than this troll is implying.
Mahan1979
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:

Mahan1979 said:

cinque said:

https://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/best-schools-by-state/bachelors/texas
This was exactly my point. The rankings are partially a result of statistics like these. It's just hard to justify the cost of private schools these days. A kid looking at his options sees that he can attend UT, A&M, or Tech, pay a fraction of the price of tuition compared to private school, and statistically would make better money in his/her career. Not surprised to see that Rice is the exception here. Because several members of my family are Baylor grads, my son wants to attend, but I've told him that unless it's paid for by scholarships, it's just not worth it. It's a difficult choice but is definitely the more logical one. What it comes down to is...you are going to pay much more money to attend a private school, but very few actually give you your return on investment (Ivy's, Rice, Stanford, Vandy, Duke, etc), but outside these very few it is not worth the price. I believe Baylor has a strong reputation in this region, but not nationwide, and that makes a big difference.
Virtually no good student has to pay the full tuition/fees of Baylor and there are scholarship/grants, etc. in addition to loans that can make it at least competitive enough that the upside of a Baylor education (lower student to teacher ratio, etc.) is well worth it for a lot of students. I speak from experience not just as an alum but as the father of a recent grad who is doing fantastic and is quite happy she didn't attend a diploma mill school - both her and her parents know it was well worth the extra $$s. Bottom line is universities are like many other things in life - there are different choices with different upsides and different downsides and it's impossible make blanket statements about which is the better "one size fits all" choice. And Baylor has a stronger reputation nationwide than this troll is implying.
I'm not saying Baylor is a bad school, or that it doesn't have upsides compared to public universities, because in some ways it does, but I am questioning whether or not the price you pay is worth those upsides, when you consider that the primary purpose of a college education is to get a job. Small teacher to student ratio is great and all, but does it somehow increase your chances of landing a good job? Statistics show, as posted above by Cinque, that you have a better chance of landing a higher paying job at several of the large "diploma mill schools". Living near Waco, most of my friends here and several of my family members are Baylor alums, but even some of them have said the same thing to their kids. If you can get it paid for then great, but otherwise, there are better options just down the road. And my statement about Baylor's reputation nationwide is in comparison to the other schools I mentioned (Ivy's, Rice, Stanford, Vandy, Duke, etc), and no, Baylor does not have the same nationwide reputation as these schools, or even the same reputation as Texas or A&M for that matter. Not a hit on Baylor, just a fact.
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
While Baylor is pretty generous with good students, it is rare that a student is so good that he or she gets to go to Baylor for even the price of attending one of the major state schools. Even Baylor says it has to up its game to justify its prices. It is wanting badly to be Stanford, Vandy etc. But so far only nibbles around the edges of what it needs to do to accomplish this. The thing is it will take 100s of millions to do that, and a strong rule of law oriented BOR that doesnt shoot from the hip and make things up as they go. Not to mention it will have to be able to be free to royally piss off some of the newer Sloan era elements of the base if it really wants to be Stanford, private UT Austin etc.

BTW I would say TCU, SMU and Miami are also as out of line in terms of academic bang for the buck.
Aliceinbubbleland
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Surprisingly Miami appears to have a pretty solid Academic reputation.
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Miami, SMU and TCU do have an advantage over Baylor in that those schools do not have any elements within their constituency who think you can somehow be both Stanford and Liberty. When you can't.
william
How long do you want to ignore this user?
william said:

they've hired some great coaches - coaches who fit out there.

and they can play up the 'us against them' mentality that exists all across the south plains.

ag-based communities are tight - and stubborn.

and the new fb coach fits the bill perfectly.

kirby has done a great job -

- KKM
https://www.wacotrib.com/sports/columns/chad_conine/chad-conine-year-of-the-matador-amazing-but-explainable/article_c1169796-0edf-5622-99e1-a7a2aec4a685.html
'Ficht nicht mich der Arbysmensch!'
TerranceJ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's hard for any school to maintain that kind of success across the board. Tech won't do it either. But I do think they will have more consistent success if they hold on to the core of coaches they have. (not sure about football coach, yet)
Texasjeremy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TerranceJ said:

It's hard for any school to maintain that kind of success across the board. Tech won't do it either. But I do think they will have more consistent success if they hold on to the core of coaches they have. (not sure about football coach, yet)
Yeah, this is a historic year FOR THEM. This is by far their best season ever, with 4 Big 12 titles (#3 in the conference this season). Even once their CWS baseball season is added in they will finish in the mid-30s in the directors cup standings. By comparison, Baylor will finish in a similar range this year and this has been a slightly below avg year for Baylor in the standings. But for a school that is near the bottom in all-time Big 12 championships won and usually finishes in the 50-60 range in the directors cup, this has to have been a hell of a fun year for them. But lets tap the breaks on Tech all of a sudden being a powerhouse athletic department that is here to stay when they have shown no signs of it in their history.
whitetrash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Congrats to Tceh for their 4th CWS appearance, but their record in Omaha is now 2-7 (0-7 against teams not named Florida).
zebbie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Texasjeremy said:

TerranceJ said:

It's hard for any school to maintain that kind of success across the board. Tech won't do it either. But I do think they will have more consistent success if they hold on to the core of coaches they have. (not sure about football coach, yet)
Yeah, this is a historic year FOR THEM. This is by far their best season ever, with 4 Big 12 titles (#3 in the conference this season). Even once their CWS baseball season is added in they will finish in the mid-30s in the directors cup standings. By comparison, Baylor will finish in a similar range this year and this has been a slightly below avg year for Baylor in the standings. But for a school that is near the bottom in all-time Big 12 championships won and usually finishes in the 50-60 range in the directors cup, this has to have been a hell of a fun year for them. But lets tap the breaks on Tech all of a sudden being a powerhouse athletic department that is here to stay when they have shown no signs of it in their history.

Powerhouse across the board? Probably not. But I do think that as long as we have Beard, Kitley and Tadlock, we can perform at a high level in these sports on a regular basis. Anyway, thanks for all the research you provide us on the other board.
william
How long do you want to ignore this user?
scattershooting whilst pondering if 'by's sales are up across The South Plain </ ronfranklinvoice> during this, el anus del matador??

PA.

- UL

... and, as always, TIA.

BID.

{ sipping coffee }

{ already had donuts }
'Ficht nicht mich der Arbysmensch!'
bubbadog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mahan1979 said:

And my statement about Baylor's reputation nationwide is in comparison to the other schools I mentioned (Ivy's, Rice, Stanford, Vandy, Duke, etc), and no, Baylor does not have the same nationwide reputation as these schools, or even the same reputation as Texas or A&M for that matter. Not a hit on Baylor, just a fact.
I, for one, am proud that Baylor does not have the reputation of Texas A&M.
"Funk is whatever you need it to be at that time to save your life." -- George Clinton
Aliceinbubbleland
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Both schools are weird when it comes to their traditions but only one has a better academic standing. Guess where the technical employers flock to hire prospective employees?
Mahan1979
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aliceinbubbleland said:

Both schools are weird when it comes to their traditions but only one has a better academic standing. Guess where the technical employers flock to hire prospective employees?


If that's the case then the "technical employers" are paying pretty good because A&M grads average much more than Baylor grads....along with 6 other Texas schools that are ahead of Baylor in that regard. (as posted in the article by Cinque) Probably has something to do with the number of grads they have. Either way, better paying jobs are better paying jobs. It's the primary reason to attend college.
Crash Davis
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Maybe we can start a sub forum for people that want to suck off all of our in state rivals. Seems like it would be very active.
I feel God in this Chili’s tonight.

-Pam Beesley
Mahan1979
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Crash Davis said:

Maybe we can start a sub forum for people that want to suck off all of our in state rivals. Seems like it would be very active.


"Criticism strikes a nerve most when it's true."
- Some Anonymous Insightful Dude
Crash Davis
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mahan1979 said:

Crash Davis said:

Maybe we can start a sub forum for people that want to suck off all of our in state rivals. Seems like it would be very active.


"Criticism strikes a nerve most when it's true."
- Some Anonymous Insightful Dude
"Only losers hang out on a Baylor message board to suck off Baylor's rivals and bash Baylor."

-Crash
I feel God in this Chili’s tonight.

-Pam Beesley
Mahan1979
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Crash Davis said:

Mahan1979 said:

Crash Davis said:

Maybe we can start a sub forum for people that want to suck off all of our in state rivals. Seems like it would be very active.


"Criticism strikes a nerve most when it's true."
- Some Anonymous Insightful Dude
"Only losers hang out on a Baylor message board to suck off Baylor's rivals and bash Baylor."

-Crash

LOL. Only losers root for Bayern.
Aliceinbubbleland
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mahan1979 said:

Aliceinbubbleland said:

Both schools are weird when it comes to their traditions but only one has a better academic standing. Guess where the technical employers flock to hire prospective employees?


If that's the case then the "technical employers" are paying pretty good because A&M grads average much more than Baylor grads....along with 6 other Texas schools that are ahead of Baylor in that regard. (as posted in the article by Cinque) Probably has something to do with the number of grads they have. Either way, better paying jobs are better paying jobs. It's the primary reason to attend college.
That was what I implied.
Amarillobear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Texasjeremy said:

TerranceJ said:

It's hard for any school to maintain that kind of success across the board. Tech won't do it either. But I do think they will have more consistent success if they hold on to the core of coaches they have. (not sure about football coach, yet)
Yeah, this is a historic year FOR THEM. This is by far their best season ever, with 4 Big 12 titles (#3 in the conference this season). Even once their CWS baseball season is added in they will finish in the mid-30s in the directors cup standings. By comparison, Baylor will finish in a similar range this year and this has been a slightly below avg year for Baylor in the standings. But for a school that is near the bottom in all-time Big 12 championships won and usually finishes in the 50-60 range in the directors cup, this has to have been a hell of a fun year for them. But lets tap the breaks on Tech all of a sudden being a powerhouse athletic department that is here to stay when they have shown no signs of it in their history.
Ursus Americanus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mahan1979 said:

Aliceinbubbleland said:

Both schools are weird when it comes to their traditions but only one has a better academic standing. Guess where the technical employers flock to hire prospective employees?


If that's the case then the "technical employers" are paying pretty good because A&M grads average much more than Baylor grads....along with 6 other Texas schools that are ahead of Baylor in that regard. (as posted in the article by Cinque) Probably has something to do with the number of grads they have. Either way, better paying jobs are better paying jobs. It's the primary reason to attend college.
An Aggy is on a Baylor forum trying to talk salary smack, that's adorable.

This is what you're reduced to these days?
Page 1 of 2
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.