Briles To Baylor

[Eagle1855]

How the did Baylor compete during the Teaff era? There is no reason Baylor shouldn't be able to compete. If they were doing things right, they should be able pick up good recruits. Someone needs to head into Waco with an attitude and change the mentallity of that program. It comes down to attitude and the expectation of winning. Briles is an exciting character that can bring some major upside to the Bears. Of course, any progress will take some time there. I like the move by the Bears.

Different era of football. Texas was average (certainly not the perennial top-10 team they are now), as was Texas Tech. Plus they didn't have to contend with the likes of OU, emerging Mizzou/Kansas programs, an Ok State program that will spend whatever it costs to become successful. And don't think A&M isn't doing the same. I think it's just different now.

But hey, it's just my opinion. The odds are stacked against Baylor. Of course, this conversation won't matter anyways if the Tech job opens because Briles would undoubtedly go there if given the option.

[NCMeanGreen]

Man...it is no wonder we struggle so mightily to compete. Briles is/was making $900,000 per year to coach at Houston???

How much does TD make???

Seems like there are a LOT more "mid-major" teams that pay their coaches a LOT more than we do.

Heck, Charlie Weatherbie practically works for free compared to that salary...

[UNTSIG]

I think you don't have to look very far to realize that they have a very hopeless situation down in Waco. I mean, look at Mike Singletary's comments. He essentially said, we can't be competitive on a national level. Unfortunately for Baylor, if you aren't a top 25 program every year, you will not be competitive in your own conference. Eagle is exactly right... when Taff was there it was a completely different league to compete in. 4 out of the 9 teams in that league were private schools. Baylor is the only private school now in the Big 12. They won't keep up. Rice and TCU have done well since leaving the SWC. SMU is hard to judge because of the penalty's that were imposed on them. Who knows where they would be if football wouldn't have been dead at that school for so many years and then you have Baylor. Baylor has been the door mat of the Big 12 football season since they joined the Big 12.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Man...it is no wonder we struggle so mightily to compete. Briles is/was making $900,000 per year to coach at Houston???

How much does TD make???

Seems like there are a LOT more "mid-major" teams that pay their coaches a LOT more than we do.

Heck, Charlie Weatherbie practically works for free compared to that salary...

I think our football budget is going to have to increase significantly to remain competitive. If Coach Dodge is able to turn this ship around here, I hope we are going to be able to offer him (and his staff) a substantial (i.e., triple -> quadruple) raise.

[Greenblood94]

I think you don't have to look very far to realize that they have a very hopeless situation down in Waco. I mean, look at Mike Singletary's comments. He essentially said, we can't be competitive on a national level. Unfortunately for Baylor, if you aren't a top 25 program every year, you will not be competitive in your own conference. Eagle is exactly right... when Taff was there it was a completely different league to compete in. 4 out of the 9 teams in that league were private schools. Baylor is the only private school now in the Big 12. They won't keep up. Rice and TCU have done well since leaving the SWC. SMU is hard to judge because of the penalty's that were imposed on them. Who knows where they would be if football wouldn't have been dead at that school for so many years and then you have Baylor. Baylor has been the door mat of the Big 12 football season since they joined the Big 12.

I agree with all of your points, save one...SMU. At the risk of turning this into a bash-SMU thread, even for one post, I am sick and tired of people bringing up the death penalty as the reason for SMU's woes. THAT WAS 20 YEARS AGO. In just the last 10 years, universities have started football programs from scratch that have enjoyed more success than SMU over the same period. I don't doubt that it put a major crimp in SMU's immediate future, post-Death Penalty, but to cite that as SMU's reason for mediocrity (or worse) in the last decade is excusing the bad choices they have made during that time. The only positive I have seen out of that program was that they finally built a nice on-campus football facility. Part of SMU's problem in the last decade is that enough people in positions of authority over there simply do not care for football...and some of the ones who can make a difference have made poor choices.

I'm not saying we're so much better than they are, but give us the resources SMU has had in the last 20 years, and let's see where we would be...I would like to think we would be in a much better situation.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

I agree with all of your points, save one...SMU. At the risk of turning this into a bash-SMU thread, even for one post, I am sick and tired of people bringing up the death penalty as the reason for SMU's woes. THAT WAS 20 YEARS AGO. In just the last 10 years, universities have started football programs from scratch that have enjoyed more success than SMU over the same period. I don't doubt that it put a major crimp in SMU's immediate future, post-Death Penalty, but to cite that as SMU's reason for mediocrity (or worse) in the last decade is excusing the bad choices they have made during that time. The only positive I have seen out of that program was that they finally built a nice on-campus football facility. Part of SMU's problem in the last decade is that enough people in positions of authority over there simply do not care for football...and some of the ones who can make a difference have made poor choices.

I'm not saying we're so much better than they are, but give us the resources SMU has had in the last 20 years, and let's see where we would be...I would like to think we would be in a much better situation.

And, again, SMU doesn't have crap degree programs to shuffle athletes through for four years. That was one of the things Bennett and those that proceeded him fought. And, personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

If a school doesn't want a big education department and p.e. degrees and Hyphenated-American studies programs, that's fine. A school shouldn't change it's overall mission just for it's football program. SMU is an excellent academic school. If it had a good football team again, that would be gravy.

Our family knows Gerald Turner's family, and I've got to say, he's a good president for SMU. We post on a football message board that fewer than 1/1000th of a percent of people read. Turner has to answer for the academic well-being of his university. Whomever they hire will have to deal with it. But, to compare it to big public universities who have crap degree programs for their athletes...give me a break.

Edited November 28, 2007 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[UNTLifer]

If a school doesn't want a big education department and p.e. degrees and Hyphenated-American studies programs, that's fine. A school shouldn't change it's overall mission just for it's football program. SMU is an excellent academic school. If it had a good football team again, that would be gravy.

Glad you hold these degree plans in such high regard.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Glad you hold these degree plans in such high regard.

They're fine for some schools. But if SMU doesn't have them, that's their prerogative. There are tons of schools in Texas offering watered down degrees. SMU's smart to not just jump on board with them for the sake of athletics.

Tulsa is the same way. They do fine without those degrees when they have good coaching. It's absolutely alright to put academic reputation of the school over the athletic department.

[LongJim]

Great hire for Baylor. Trick will be if Briles can land the recruits that Morris couldn't. I don't personally think that Briles recruited all that well considering the hotbed he was in, but he did well at UH.

Sherman's recruiting job just got harder at Aggy, as well.

[JesseMartin]

I agree with all of your points, save one...SMU. At the risk of turning this into a bash-SMU thread, even for one post, I am sick and tired of people bringing up the death penalty as the reason for SMU's woes. THAT WAS 20 YEARS AGO. In just the last 10 years, universities have started football programs from scratch that have enjoyed more success than SMU over the same period. I don't doubt that it put a major crimp in SMU's immediate future, post-Death Penalty, but to cite that as SMU's reason for mediocrity (or worse) in the last decade is excusing the bad choices they have made during that time. The only positive I have seen out of that program was that they finally built a nice on-campus football facility. Part of SMU's problem in the last decade is that enough people in positions of authority over there simply do not care for football...and some of the ones who can make a difference have made poor choices.

I'm not saying we're so much better than they are, but give us the resources SMU has had in the last 20 years, and let's see where we would be...I would like to think we would be in a much better situation.

ESPN's Bottom 10 keeps bringing up the penalties too...??