BaylorGuy314

We lost a lot of last year's squad, but, as mentioned, we picked up a hell of a recruiting class. We'll be relatively young (younger than the past two years at least), and I expect there to be some growing pains associated with that.

Great list and great thread. I'm partial to this quote, but I still think it's great. Steve Smith, Baylor's baseball head coach, said it as his opening statement after Baylor beat #1 ranked Tulane in the College World Series in 2005. Trailing 7-0 in the bottom of the 7th, the Bears rallied for 3 runs. They scored two in the 8th to make it a 7-5 deficit, then won it in the bottom of the 9th on a throwing error by the Tulane second baseman who tried to rush a double play ball: "There are 27 outs in a ballgame. You cannot hold the ball. You cannot take a knee. That was good for our team today." Interestingly enough, I was at that press conference and the AP misquoted him, claiming he said: "There are 27 outs in a game. You can't hold the ball and you can't take a knee, which is good for our team." That was incorrect, and although I'm sure no one gave a crap that it was misquoted, I think the original sounded better.

Sketch Up 5 https://www.sketchup.com/ You can download the free trial here: http://www.download.com/SketchUp/3000-6677...tml?tag=lst-0-1

Found a new program and was trying it out. Thoughts?

This is correct, and I'll be honest in that I do not know the requirements. However, I did notice that BU has 17 sports programs and UNT has 12. That's also correct, but that's not my point. Let's use a hypothetical: Texas has 10,000 alums who want to donate $100 mil to the university. Last I checked (about a year ago), Texas reimburses state universities an average of 50% for their expenses. So, let's say Texas wants to build a $75 million science facility. The state will cover roughly half that ($37.5 mil), but the rest has to be done with bonds and donations ($37.5). Assuming that it's done with donations, that $100 million that the donors have has now gone down to $62.5 million to be used for other things. They can put it into a $20 million upgrade for their baseball stadium (they are doing this now, actually) and still have $42.5 million for other athletics. Now take the same thing at BU and assume there are 10,000 alums who want to donate $100 million to the university. If BU wants to build a $75 million science facility, they have to bond out the whole thing or get donations. Assuming that we use donations again, those same donors only have $25 million to be used elsewhere. Now if BU wants to go upgrade their stadium by $20 million (just a hypothetical, remember), then the donors only have $5 mil left for other athletics. It's really not a big deal, I'm just point out the difference. Donors is the key word. It's why UH has struggled. They have tons of people go through, but very few ever give back. I did mean recruiting is harder to sell, not attendance. I would agree that there is some correlation between selling recruits and fans, but I don't think it's the big problem. The big problem is you have to sell UNT to schools instead of UT, A&M, Tech, TCU, SMU, BU, UTEP, OU, OSU, etc, etc. Boise State, on the other hand, had to fight off...Idaho? Maybe Wyoming? True, I did ignore the SWC days and that played a big part of building a fan base. Baylor's been playing football since the 1890s. I don't know when UNT started playing, but I'm assuming it was significantly later than that. That works huge in BU's favor, most definitely. It's also a big reason why SMU, Rice, UH, and numerous others are already in CUSA and UNT is not. Baylor only sold about 12-13k season tix in 2004, which is absolutely pathetic. Of course, it was much higher when we were having winning seasons 10 years ago. But if we can pull 31,000 for Sam Houston or 37,000 for Samford, I have a strong feeling that it wouldn't drop down to the teens just because the conference opponents were different. Even if you cut the season tickets down to 1/4, we would still pull in close to low to mid 20s on average, and that's assuming we are losing games, not winning. The low teens is simply unrealistic.

Ok, this is long, but stay with me here. First of all, Boise State has passed North Texas, not because of their facilities, conference affiliation, or recruiting. It is their location that has allowed them to expand and build better facilities, allow them to negotiate with conferences for affiliations, and increase their recruiting. Why? It’s because there is absolutely nothing in Idaho. Boise State is located in the state’s largest city and therefore has the most media attention and the most dedicated following. The University of Idaho will always play second fiddle to Boise State, even if they have more athletic success. In 1999, Boise State had a breakout season and this attracted the attention of every one of Idaho’s residents. Seemingly overnight, people became a Broncos fan, and given a choice which school to latch onto, they chose BSU. Attendance grew, allowing for the expansion of facilities and better recruiting. Better attendance and recruiting made Boise State football a better sell which has increased fan bases, recruiting, and the like. It became a domino effect. Unfortunately, for North Texas, that same domino effect never happened. Why? Because bigger and more established “dominos” such as Texas, A&M, Tech, etc. were continuing to grow their fan bases and continuing to have success. This severely limited the amount by which NT could grow a following and fan base, whereas Boise St. had little restriction. North Texas would most benefit from having a couple of years of success in a time frame that Texas, A&M, TCU, and even SMU, have poor success. This would garner North Texas more media attention and grow the fan base to an audience that is looking for someone to follow. Unfortunately, that hasn’t happened yet. It’s the same reason why TCU, even when they are 10-1, struggle to get 35,000 fans to a game in a major metropolitan area. They are playing excellent ball in the shadow of Texas and Tech. If Texas and Tech were both 5-6 or 4-7 this year, everything else remaining constant, a lot of casual fans from Texas would support the Horned Frogs. As for the Baylor comments, well, I’ll address them one by one. 1)They get Big XII money every year regardless of their abysmal football performance. Texas is playing in the national title game this year...and Baylor gets a cut. Gee, what kind of facilities could we build with a free 4million dollar check? This is absolutely true. However, it is important to consider the fact that Baylor also spends a lot more money to be a member of that same BCS conference. The amount of cash it takes to run a BCS program is not covered by one, two, or even three checks from some other schools making bowl games. It takes a significant amount of cash to run the 16 other sports programs that usually drain money from the pocketbook of the university. Of course, if Baylor dropped many of those other programs, then we could use that extra money on upgrading facilities, but a question then arises about whether the Big 12 would even want a program that does not participate in many of the athletics that the rest of the conference does. This is kind of like the “It costs money to make money” theory. Baylor makes more, even when they do poorly, but it costs them more to run 17 (it might be 18 now, I don’t remember) other programs compared to UNT’s 12. Of course, UNT could add more if they got the $4 million dollar check, but then they wouldn’t be able to upgrade facilities, would they? This is why almost every improvement done to a Baylor facility in the past 5 or 6 years has been completely funded by donors and not the athletic department. Really, I could make the same argument about state schools. Much of the alumni donations that Baylor receives actually go to support academic programs, not athletic programs. Since this is the schools lifeblood, you have to do this first, leaving a much smaller pool of donors available from which to get athletic monies. Texas, A&M, and even Tech, can build better facilities because they don’t have to ask for many donations from their alumni for academics. If they need new dorms because the enrollment is growing, they can get more money from the state, where Baylor has to plop down a cold couple of million for them. Need a new parking garage? The state has it covered. Baylor has to pay a million for it. 2)Their fan support isn't outstanding, sorry to ruin the party. Who do they play year in and year out? Texas, Texas Tech, Texas aTm, Oklahoma, Ok State. And who brings in the bodies or who are the people there to see? Texas, Texas Tech, Texas aTm, Oklahoma, Ok State. If Baylor played in the glorious WAC their stadium would host 11,000 per game and their budget would take the serious hit that accompanies it. This is flawed in so many ways, I don’t know where to begin. First of all, your ideas that Baylor would only draw 11,000 if they played in the WAC is laughable. Baylor drew an announced 34,000 for the North Texas game in 2004 (although I personally believe the attendance was larger). This year, we drew 37,000 for Div. 1AA Samford. Want some more non-Big 12 opponents? We had 31,000 to watch Tulsa in 2002 and 31,000 at both the SMU and Sam Houston State games in 2003. In fact, the lowest attended game we’ve had in the past 10-15 years was 25,000 in 2004 against Missouri where it poured all day and the game started at 9pm. It was also televised, so many of the season ticket holders in the Dallas and Austin areas probably opted out of coming when they realized they could stay dry and at home instead of driving an hour and half to watch in the rain. The fact that Baylor drew that well, in the midst of a 17-74 record from 1997-2004 tells me that we could, at minimum, maintain attendance levels even if the level of competition dropped. Of course, assuming your incorrect scenario was to occur, our budget would take a serious hit. However, we’d cut the amount of athletic programs we offered back to the minimum and continue to ask donors for upgrades as we have for the past decade. 3)Let's think, which is easier to recruit to? A team that gets to play against Big XII competition or a team that plays the belt? Well, this is just plain self explanatory and really is unrelated to the argument. If you recruit at the same level as your conference opponents, then you should have relatively equal success as them. Baylor hasn’t recruited at the same level as most B12 schools. TCU has, as an example, recruited better than most CUSA and MWC schools. As you upgrade conferences, you upgrade your ability to sell your school to recruits. If Baylor were in the Sun Belt, it would naturally be a much harder sell. I think the recipe for success when switching conference affiliations is that it has to happen when the “joinee” has its highest level of talent. Idaho and New Mexico State, as examples, were not going to walk into a better conference and make noise when they were at arguably their lowest talent level in years. Central Florida, on the other hand, made their move when they were at their highest talent level. You need to jump when you are at your peak if you want to get the most air. If you jump when your in a trough, you ain’t gonna achieve very much. There is no reason North Texas can’t be as good as Boise State. It’s going to be tougher, especially given geography, but it’s doable. It just has to happen at a time when North Texas is at its peak if you want to avoid making a switch only to go 2-9, 3-8, or even 0-12. It would also help if other teams, such as TCU, Texas, A&M, and others were down so the most attention is gained. From there, everything goes on autopilot.

Many don't. Baylor volleyball shares its facility with basketball, although they are working on fixing that when the indoor tennis courts get built in the next couple of years. A&M and Texas both have volleyball specific facilities however: Texas (capacity: 4,400): A&M (capacity: 7,800): Those are just off the top of my head.

This list is much better: http://www.hoopscooponline.com/members/fal...recruiting.html

8. MISSOURI (26 Points)..........4 Recruits.........6.5 Talent Rating Average Per Recruit..........Big-12 Conference..........(8) Jason Horton, 6'1, PG, Cedar Hill (H.S.) TX; (8) Marshall Brown, 6'8, PF, Austin (Lyndon B. Johnson) TX; (8) Kalen Grimes, 6'8, PF, Florrisant (Hazelwood Central) MO; (4) Glenn Dandridge, 6'6, WF, Durham (Mt. Zion Christian) NC. 8. KENTUCKY (26 Points)..........4 Recruits..........6.5 Talent Rating Average Per Recruit..........Southeastern Conference..........(8) Joe Crawford, 6'3, 2G, Detroit (Renaissance) MI; (8) Ramel Bradley, 6'3, 2G, Bradenton (Pendleton School) FL; (8) Rajon Rondo, 6'2, PG, Mouth of Wilson (Oak Hill) VA; (2) Adam Williams, 6'4, 2G, St. Albans (H.S.) WV. 8. UCLA (26 Points)..........4 Recruits..........6.5 Talent Rating Average Per Recruit..........Pacific-10 Conference..........(8) Arron Afflalo, 6'4, 2G, Compton (Centennial) CA; (8) Jordan Farmar, 6'2, PG, Woodland Hills (Taft) CA; (6) Josh Shipp, 6'5, 2G, Los Angeles (Fairfax) CA; (4) Lorenzo Mata, 6'9, C, Southgate (H.S.) CA. 11. MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE (26 Points)..........5 Recruits..........5.2 Talent Rating Average Per Recruit..........Sun Belt Conference..........(8) Tim Blue, 6'9, PF, Indian River (JC) FL; (6) Jonathan Loe, 6'3, 2G, Northwest Mississippi (JC) MS; (6) Francis Cuyler, 6'0, PG, Cowley County (JC) KS; (4) Marcus Morrison, 6'6, WF, Garden City (JC) KS; (2) Brian Lake, 6'5, PF, Bolivar (Central) TN. 12. LAMAR (26 Points)..........6 Recruits.......... 4.3 Talent Rating Average Per Recruit..........Southland Conference..........(8) Alan Daniels, 6'7, PF, Arkansas-Smith (JC) AR; (6) Jeremy Long, 6'2, 2G, Eastern Arizona (JC) AZ; (4) Thomas Fairley, 6'9, PF, Redlands (JC) OK; (3) Chuck Foster, 6'4, WF, Austin (Lyndon B. Johnson) TX; (3) Durand Murray, 6'6, WF, Stone Mountain (Redan) GA; (2) Larry Handy, 6'7, PF, Sugar Land (Hightower) TX. Obviously, you can see that Lamar, even though they took 6 recruits, is only averaging 4.3 points per recruit. MTSU is a 5.2, and Memphis is #1 with only a 5.2. Texas, at #2 is averaging 7 points per recruit.

1. MEMPHIS (36 Points)..........7 Recruits..........5.2 Talent Rating Average Per Recruit..........Conference USA..........(8) Darius Washington, 6'0, PG, Orlando (Edgewater) FL; (8) Shawne Williams, 6'8, WF, Laurinburg (Charter) NC; (8) Waki Williams, 6'9, WF, Mt. San Jacinto (JC) CA; (3) Richard Dorsey, 6'7, PF, Laurinburg (Institute) NC; (3) Andre Allen, 5'10, PG, Memphis (Hamilton) TN; (3) Kareem Cooper, 7'0, C, Laurinburg (Institute) NC; (2) Tanqueray Beavers, 6'1, PG, Athens (H.S.) AL. 2. TEXAS (35 Points)..........5 Recruits..........7.0 Talent Rating Average Per Recruit..........Big-12 Conference.......... (9) Daniel Gibson, 6'3, 2G, Houston (Jones) TX; (9) Mike Williams, 6'8, PF, Camden (Wilcox Central) AL; (8) LeMarcus Aldridge, 6'11, C, Dallas (Seogoville) TX; (6) Dion Dowell, 6'7, WF, Texas City (H.S.) TX; (3) Conner Atchley, 6'10, C, Clear Lake (H.S.) TX. 2. LOUISVILLE (35 Points)..........5 Recruits.......... 7.0 Talent Rating Average Per Recruit..........Conference USA..........(10) Sebastian Telfair, 6'0, PG, Brooklyn (Lincoln) NY; (8) Donta Smith, 6'7, WF, Southeastern Illinois (JC) IL; (8) Brian Johnson, 6'8, PF, Mouth of Wilson (Oak Hill) VA; (6) Lorenzo Wade, 6'5, 2G, Chatham (Hargrave Military) VA; (3) Terrance Farley, 6'10, C, Louisville (Pleasure Ridge Park) KY. 2. USC (35 Points)..........5 Recruits..........7.0 Talent Rating Average Per Recruit..........Pacific-10 Conference..........(9) Robert Swift, 7'0, C, Bakersfield (H.S.) CA; (8) Dwayne Shackleford, 6'1, PG, Allegany (JC) MD; (8) Gabriel Pruitt, 6'3, 2G, Los Angeles (Westchester) CA; (6) Nick Young, 6'5, WF, Reseda (Cleveland) CA; (4) Emmanuel Willis, 6'8, PF, Chatham (Hargrave Military) VA. 5. ARKANSAS (35 Points)..........6 Recruits..........5.8 Talent Rating Average Per Recruit..........Southeastern Conference..........(10) Al Jefferson, 6'9, C, Prentiss (H.S.) MS; (6) Dontell Jefferson, 6'5, PG, Atlanta Metro (JC) GA; (6) Steve Hill, 6'11, C, Bronson (H.S.) MO; (6) Charles Thomas, 6'7, PF, Jackson (Callaway) MS, (4) Darian Townes, 6'10, C, Chatham (Hargrave Military) VA; (3) Marcus Monk, 6'7, WF, Lapento (East Poinsette) AR. 6. FLORIDA (28 Points)..........4 Recruits..........7.0 Talent Rating Average Per Recruit..........Southeastern Conference..........(8) Corey Brewer, 6'7, WF, Portland (H.S.) TN; (8) Joakim Noah, 6'10, PF, Lawrenceville (Prep) NJ; (6) Al Horford, 6'8, PF, Grand Ledge (H.S.) MI; (6) Taurean Green, 6'0, PG, Ft.Lauderdale (Cardinal GIbbons) FL. 7. INDIANA (28 Points)..........5 Recruits..........6.6 Talent Rating Average Per Recruit..........Big-10 Conference..........(9) D.J. White, 6'9, C, Tuscaloosa (Hillcrest) AL; (8) Robert Vaden, 6'5, WF, North Bridgton (Bridgton Academy) ME; (4) James Hardy, 6'7, WF, Ft. Wayne (Elmhurst) IN; (4) A.J. Ratliff, 6'3, 2G, Indianapolis (North Central) IN; (3) Robert Rothbart, 7'1, C, Cupertino (Monta Vista) CA.

The fault in these rankings are that they go strictly by a points system. For instance, you take 5 new guys, each worth an average of, lets say, 5 points a piece (out of 10), and that gives you 25 points. However, if you only take 2 guys, but they are both unbelievable studs on the court, and they have 8-9 points each, then you still only have 16-18 points. Therefore, the team that took (5) 5 point players is ranked higher than the one that took (2) 8-9 point players. Obviously, the second team has a much better recruiting class, unless of course they need numbers. Hoop Scoop has a million different rankings. The best one is the one that ranks each team's recruiting by the average points per recruit contributes instead of the total number of points each team is able to conjur up.

HoopScoop ranks JUCO players and overseas players. I think it's one of the few sites that do both, if not the only one. I like seeing Baylor at #24. That is an encouraging after we lost Muhammad at the last second to Cincy (he was commited for 6 months and then changed 2 days before he signed his LOI). Plus, we are still in the race with Louisville for 5-star Palacios. It's been mentioned on HoopScoop that if we get him, we can expect a top 5 recruiting class. That would be unbelievable considering all the crap that has gone on down here in Waco in the past year.