Dear Baylor
- Thread starter screetch
- Start date
sous vide
Member
QUOTE(Purple Heart @ Jun 10 2010, 01:07 AM) [snapback]573220[/snapback]
...and I do not recall any other schools's fans gloating about it. Sure, all the schools who left us behind were looking out for their own interests, but they did not smear it in TCU's face,...
Yes, each man does reap what they sow - it is referring to a man, not a group of people who are labeled or stereotyped. Only God knows each man's heart.
...
Possibly true for some, but if you've read their or our own board since 1995, you'll find hundreds and hundreds--probably thousands in all--of such "smears". So we know what many Baylor fans have stated on many occasions is in their hearts. If they were lying, well they're dirty liars. If they were telling the truth, the verse fits well.
...and I do not recall any other schools's fans gloating about it. Sure, all the schools who left us behind were looking out for their own interests, but they did not smear it in TCU's face,...
Yes, each man does reap what they sow - it is referring to a man, not a group of people who are labeled or stereotyped. Only God knows each man's heart.
...
Possibly true for some, but if you've read their or our own board since 1995, you'll find hundreds and hundreds--probably thousands in all--of such "smears". So we know what many Baylor fans have stated on many occasions is in their hearts. If they were lying, well they're dirty liars. If they were telling the truth, the verse fits well.
jack the frog
Full Member
QUOTE(Young and Horned @ Jun 9 2010, 10:00 PM) [snapback]573092[/snapback]
I don't agree. They would likely be the best basketball team or Top 2 at least. They would be top 3 in baseball. Think they would be at the very least middle for football.
I do not like Baylor, but over all, they wouldn't be a terrible addition. Like Iowa Stat would. Hell, I would take Baylor over Colorado.
Just another opinion, but I would take Colorado, and not just for my dislike of Baylor.
When Colorado was winning under Nueheisel, from 95-98 and late 80's-90 under Barnett, their home field became a place no one wanted to visit. There fans were rabid, to the point of being obnoxious, and it was a big time football deal.
I have never seen that at Baylor, even when they actually won with Teaff. Mix the potential for big time football atmosphere with Denver TV sets and it is no contest to me.
I don't agree. They would likely be the best basketball team or Top 2 at least. They would be top 3 in baseball. Think they would be at the very least middle for football.
I do not like Baylor, but over all, they wouldn't be a terrible addition. Like Iowa Stat would. Hell, I would take Baylor over Colorado.
Just another opinion, but I would take Colorado, and not just for my dislike of Baylor.
When Colorado was winning under Nueheisel, from 95-98 and late 80's-90 under Barnett, their home field became a place no one wanted to visit. There fans were rabid, to the point of being obnoxious, and it was a big time football deal.
I have never seen that at Baylor, even when they actually won with Teaff. Mix the potential for big time football atmosphere with Denver TV sets and it is no contest to me.
jack the frog
Full Member
QUOTE(NewfoundlandFrog @ Jun 10 2010, 04:48 AM) [snapback]573267[/snapback]
Possibly true for some, but if you've read their or our own board since 1995, you'll find hundreds and hundreds--probably thousands in all--of such "smears". So we know what many Baylor fans have stated on many occasions is in their hearts. If they were lying, well they're dirty liars. If they were telling the truth, the verse fits well.
Those Baylor guys are in for a surprise. They have appeared relevant the past few days because of this legislature bluster, but are quick to learn what irrelevant means, like we had to many years ago.
ESPN now speaking in terms of the "B 12 South moving to the Pac", and things like that, but no mention of Baylor being left out; no mention at all. Story coverage from all angles, but nada on the Bears. They have really stopped existing now as far as this story goes, and it is going to get worse, much worse.
A new breed of humble Bears to be born, like the SMEW folks of today, who came after the SMEW knuckleheads of my 82-86 TCU years....
Possibly true for some, but if you've read their or our own board since 1995, you'll find hundreds and hundreds--probably thousands in all--of such "smears". So we know what many Baylor fans have stated on many occasions is in their hearts. If they were lying, well they're dirty liars. If they were telling the truth, the verse fits well.
Those Baylor guys are in for a surprise. They have appeared relevant the past few days because of this legislature bluster, but are quick to learn what irrelevant means, like we had to many years ago.
ESPN now speaking in terms of the "B 12 South moving to the Pac", and things like that, but no mention of Baylor being left out; no mention at all. Story coverage from all angles, but nada on the Bears. They have really stopped existing now as far as this story goes, and it is going to get worse, much worse.
A new breed of humble Bears to be born, like the SMEW folks of today, who came after the SMEW knuckleheads of my 82-86 TCU years....
Purple Heart
New Member
QUOTE(crunch @ Jun 10 2010, 04:46 AM) [snapback]573226[/snapback]
LOL. It's still Waco.
Have you ever actually lived there (and if you have, I'm not just talking about on campus)? I would take Waco in a heartbeat over alot of places. There are some really nice neighborhoods, parks, lake, Brazos River, its closer to all the major Texas cities than any other city it's size. And yes, I used to live there, and there are some great folks there. Think about it as you sit on I-35W and breathe in all that ozone. Waco, like Baylor, gets an unfair bum rap. It doesn't take much longer to drive from Waco to Dallas or Fort Worth (or Austin, for that matter) than it does to drive from Fort Worth to Dallas or from Plano to Fort Worth, etc. Thanks alot for causing me to be the unpopular guy on this board who supports not only Baylor but Waco. Its easy to follow the herd in what you think and say. Its more difficult to put some thought based on experience into it and be more open minded, even if it is unpopular.
LOL. It's still Waco.
Have you ever actually lived there (and if you have, I'm not just talking about on campus)? I would take Waco in a heartbeat over alot of places. There are some really nice neighborhoods, parks, lake, Brazos River, its closer to all the major Texas cities than any other city it's size. And yes, I used to live there, and there are some great folks there. Think about it as you sit on I-35W and breathe in all that ozone. Waco, like Baylor, gets an unfair bum rap. It doesn't take much longer to drive from Waco to Dallas or Fort Worth (or Austin, for that matter) than it does to drive from Fort Worth to Dallas or from Plano to Fort Worth, etc. Thanks alot for causing me to be the unpopular guy on this board who supports not only Baylor but Waco. Its easy to follow the herd in what you think and say. Its more difficult to put some thought based on experience into it and be more open minded, even if it is unpopular.
Delmonico
Semi-Omnipotent Being
QUOTE(FriskyFrog @ Jun 9 2010, 10:27 PM) [snapback]573141[/snapback]
So you think the BCS will be "locked" into giving the MWC a BCS bid even without meeting the criteria, and that the MWC would be smart to proceed with that assumption?
Unless the BCS starts messing with the criteria (always a possibility, but legal fireworks would ensue), the published criteria is Top 6 in each of the 3 categories. If the Big 12 disappears, there is then only 5.
So you think the BCS will be "locked" into giving the MWC a BCS bid even without meeting the criteria, and that the MWC would be smart to proceed with that assumption?
Unless the BCS starts messing with the criteria (always a possibility, but legal fireworks would ensue), the published criteria is Top 6 in each of the 3 categories. If the Big 12 disappears, there is then only 5.
froginaustin
Active Member
QUOTE(FriskyFrog @ Jun 9 2010, 10:10 PM) [snapback]573110[/snapback]
Last time I checked, the three criteria for earning an autobid did not consider sports not named football.
UNLV has scoreboard on Baylor. :mellow:
Last time I checked, the three criteria for earning an autobid did not consider sports not named football.
UNLV has scoreboard on Baylor. :mellow:
froginaustin
Active Member
QUOTE(RSF @ Jun 10 2010, 08:14 AM) [snapback]573314[/snapback]
Nope. MWC - those in charge - not interested in Baylor.
I hope you know this for a fact. What should be obvious isn't always so in this realignment stuff.
The conference shouldn't be interested in Iowa State, either, or K-State, for the same reasons. But I certainly have no credible information, that such enlightened disinterest is the case.
Nope. MWC - those in charge - not interested in Baylor.
I hope you know this for a fact. What should be obvious isn't always so in this realignment stuff.
The conference shouldn't be interested in Iowa State, either, or K-State, for the same reasons. But I certainly have no credible information, that such enlightened disinterest is the case.
JimSwinkLives!
Active Member
QUOTE(froginaustin @ Jun 10 2010, 08:30 AM) [snapback]573321[/snapback]
I hope you know this for a fact. What should be obvious isn't always so in this realignment stuff.
The conference shouldn't be interested in Iowa State, either, or K-State, for the same reasons. But I certainly have no credible information, that such enlightened disinterest is the case.
MWC isn't interested in Iowa State either.
I hope you know this for a fact. What should be obvious isn't always so in this realignment stuff.
The conference shouldn't be interested in Iowa State, either, or K-State, for the same reasons. But I certainly have no credible information, that such enlightened disinterest is the case.
MWC isn't interested in Iowa State either.
Frognosticator
Tier 1
QUOTE(Purple Heart @ Jun 10 2010, 09:10 AM) [snapback]573310[/snapback]
Have you ever actually lived there (and if you have, I'm not just talking about on campus)? I would take Waco in a heartbeat over alot of places. There are some really nice neighborhoods, parks, lake, Brazos River, its closer to all the major Texas cities than any other city it's size. And yes, I used to live there, and there are some great folks there. Think about it as you sit on I-35W and breathe in all that ozone. Waco, like Baylor, gets an unfair bum rap. It doesn't take much longer to drive from Waco to Dallas or Fort Worth (or Austin, for that matter) than it does to drive from Fort Worth to Dallas or from Plano to Fort Worth, etc. Thanks alot for causing me to be the unpopular guy on this board who supports not only Baylor but Waco. Its easy to follow the herd in what you think and say. Its more difficult to put some thought based on experience into it and be more open minded, even if it is unpopular.
Purple Heart, I appreciate your concern over Baylor. It is hard to make a rational decision concerning one's school. Heck, just look at anything Goo posts.
But the point is, Baylor will significantly hurt the MWC chances for an autobid by bringing the overall team average down. This is the one criteria for autobid status in which the MWC is weakest. We need to shore up this category by bringing in schools that have been good the past couple of years, like Kansas, KSU and Boise, or have the potential to be good, like Colorado. Baylor is neither of these. I don't know how else to interpret 15 years of futility other than a lack of commitment to football. Baylor was able to compete in all the other sports, why not football? Because they were not willing to show commitment to it.
The MWC does not need or want Baylor, who has failed repeatedly and consistently. They could doom the MWC to non-autobid status. The MWC is in no position to show compassion to a school that failed to show compassion to 4 other schools - schools that had been partners with Baylor for nearly 100 years. Baylor needs their 40 years in the desert, to repent, contemplate, and find out exactly what kind of university they want to be.
Have you ever actually lived there (and if you have, I'm not just talking about on campus)? I would take Waco in a heartbeat over alot of places. There are some really nice neighborhoods, parks, lake, Brazos River, its closer to all the major Texas cities than any other city it's size. And yes, I used to live there, and there are some great folks there. Think about it as you sit on I-35W and breathe in all that ozone. Waco, like Baylor, gets an unfair bum rap. It doesn't take much longer to drive from Waco to Dallas or Fort Worth (or Austin, for that matter) than it does to drive from Fort Worth to Dallas or from Plano to Fort Worth, etc. Thanks alot for causing me to be the unpopular guy on this board who supports not only Baylor but Waco. Its easy to follow the herd in what you think and say. Its more difficult to put some thought based on experience into it and be more open minded, even if it is unpopular.
Purple Heart, I appreciate your concern over Baylor. It is hard to make a rational decision concerning one's school. Heck, just look at anything Goo posts.
But the point is, Baylor will significantly hurt the MWC chances for an autobid by bringing the overall team average down. This is the one criteria for autobid status in which the MWC is weakest. We need to shore up this category by bringing in schools that have been good the past couple of years, like Kansas, KSU and Boise, or have the potential to be good, like Colorado. Baylor is neither of these. I don't know how else to interpret 15 years of futility other than a lack of commitment to football. Baylor was able to compete in all the other sports, why not football? Because they were not willing to show commitment to it.
The MWC does not need or want Baylor, who has failed repeatedly and consistently. They could doom the MWC to non-autobid status. The MWC is in no position to show compassion to a school that failed to show compassion to 4 other schools - schools that had been partners with Baylor for nearly 100 years. Baylor needs their 40 years in the desert, to repent, contemplate, and find out exactly what kind of university they want to be.
ftwfrog
Active Member
Supposedly, CU will be heading to the PAC 16. So, the next person on the MWC list should be:
1- Anybody but Baylor.
They bring NOTHING to the table. Sorry, but "college sports" means "college football". Our SOS suffers now because of our game against Baylor. I don't care if they are good in track. I don't care if they are good in women's basketball. It's about football. Please do not compare KSU football vs. Baylor football. I understand our hatred for KSU, but they have some skins on the wall in football. Baylor adds nothing!!
1- Anybody but Baylor.
They bring NOTHING to the table. Sorry, but "college sports" means "college football". Our SOS suffers now because of our game against Baylor. I don't care if they are good in track. I don't care if they are good in women's basketball. It's about football. Please do not compare KSU football vs. Baylor football. I understand our hatred for KSU, but they have some skins on the wall in football. Baylor adds nothing!!
D
Daniel Plainview
Guest
Baylor can suck my Richard Justice
And to say they never rubbed it in when the old SWC broke up is a buch of bull fecal matter. Day in and Day out Baylor fans along with the rest of the world continually tried to write off any success TCU has had as a product of our "2nd tier" conference and terribly weak strength of schedule.
Well Baylor, welcome to the "second tier" (even though I believe were going to move up)
Baylor can have fun trying to win in the Wac, sunbelt, or Conf. USA. But it aint gonna happen and they will wallow in self pity and misery as their coaching staff leaves and they have to start from the ground up.
ef Baylor and ef anyone who cares about them
And to say they never rubbed it in when the old SWC broke up is a buch of bull fecal matter. Day in and Day out Baylor fans along with the rest of the world continually tried to write off any success TCU has had as a product of our "2nd tier" conference and terribly weak strength of schedule.
Well Baylor, welcome to the "second tier" (even though I believe were going to move up)
Baylor can have fun trying to win in the Wac, sunbelt, or Conf. USA. But it aint gonna happen and they will wallow in self pity and misery as their coaching staff leaves and they have to start from the ground up.
ef Baylor and ef anyone who cares about them
froginaustin
Active Member
QUOTE(ftwfrog @ Jun 10 2010, 08:44 AM) [snapback]573329[/snapback]
Supposedly, CU will be heading to the PAC 16. So, the next person on the MWC list should be:
1- Anybody but Baylor.
They bring NOTHING to the table. Sorry, but "college sports" means "college football". Our SOS suffers now because of our game against Baylor. I don't care if they are good in track. I don't care if they are good in women's basketball. It's about football. Please do not compare KSU football vs. Baylor football. I understand our hatred for KSU, but they have some skins on the wall in football. Baylor adds nothing!!
KSU has skins in football? Not lately.
The last 2 years of the first Bill Snyder term were ugly. The Ron Prince years, suckage. Ole Man Snyder hasn't gotten them back on their feet in his second term. Not yet anyway. What has K-State done, football-wise, in the last 4 years?
At least Mangino took KU to the Orange Bowl a few years ago. Then had a season bad enough to get himself fired, but KU has played successful football within the last 4 years.
Supposedly, CU will be heading to the PAC 16. So, the next person on the MWC list should be:
1- Anybody but Baylor.
They bring NOTHING to the table. Sorry, but "college sports" means "college football". Our SOS suffers now because of our game against Baylor. I don't care if they are good in track. I don't care if they are good in women's basketball. It's about football. Please do not compare KSU football vs. Baylor football. I understand our hatred for KSU, but they have some skins on the wall in football. Baylor adds nothing!!
KSU has skins in football? Not lately.
The last 2 years of the first Bill Snyder term were ugly. The Ron Prince years, suckage. Ole Man Snyder hasn't gotten them back on their feet in his second term. Not yet anyway. What has K-State done, football-wise, in the last 4 years?
At least Mangino took KU to the Orange Bowl a few years ago. Then had a season bad enough to get himself fired, but KU has played successful football within the last 4 years.
Frogenstein
Full Member
Sure Baylor has some very good athletic programs in the non-revenue sports. Good for them. Now try and keep them going without all that Big 12 money - I doubt they can do it.
froginaustin
Active Member
JimSwinkLives!
Active Member
QUOTE(froginaustin @ Jun 10 2010, 08:53 AM) [snapback]573340[/snapback]
KSU has skins in football? Not lately.
The last 2 years of the first Bill Snyder term were ugly. The Ron Prince years, suckage. Ole Man Snyder hasn't gotten them back on their feet in his second term. Not yet anyway. What has K-State done, football-wise, in the last 4 years?
At least Mangino took KU to the Orange Bowl a few years ago. Then had a season bad enough to get himself fired, but KU has played successful football within the last 4 years.
Don't be surprised if the MWC takes a long, hard look at both Missouri and the Kansas schools.
KSU has skins in football? Not lately.
The last 2 years of the first Bill Snyder term were ugly. The Ron Prince years, suckage. Ole Man Snyder hasn't gotten them back on their feet in his second term. Not yet anyway. What has K-State done, football-wise, in the last 4 years?
At least Mangino took KU to the Orange Bowl a few years ago. Then had a season bad enough to get himself fired, but KU has played successful football within the last 4 years.
Don't be surprised if the MWC takes a long, hard look at both Missouri and the Kansas schools.
D
Daniel Plainview
Guest
QUOTE(froginaustin @ Jun 10 2010, 08:56 AM) [snapback]573348[/snapback]
As their coaching staff leaves?
This year, Baylor will quite likely enjoy yet another Art Briles-led season with 4 wins or fewer. I suppose he will leave, unless lightning strikes and Baylor at least gets to .500 and the opportunity to lose a bowl game to a C-USA team.
True, Briles hasn't really produced.
I was more or less talking about their mens and womens basketball coaches with whom baylor places all of their pride. So not only will their football be bad, but their basketball program will be flushed down the toilet as well because of all of this.
As their coaching staff leaves?
This year, Baylor will quite likely enjoy yet another Art Briles-led season with 4 wins or fewer. I suppose he will leave, unless lightning strikes and Baylor at least gets to .500 and the opportunity to lose a bowl game to a C-USA team.
True, Briles hasn't really produced.
I was more or less talking about their mens and womens basketball coaches with whom baylor places all of their pride. So not only will their football be bad, but their basketball program will be flushed down the toilet as well because of all of this.
macaroni
Member
QUOTE(RSF @ Jun 10 2010, 07:16 AM) [snapback]573315[/snapback]
Unless the BCS starts messing with the criteria (always a possibility, but legal fireworks would ensue), the published criteria is Top 6 in each of the 3 categories. If the Big 12 disappears, there is then only 5.
I realize this, but I still don't think it makes any sense at all to bring in a team that actually hurts our numbers in any of those categories - and Baylor does. And perhaps the Kansas schools would, too, (I don't know, haven't run the numbers) but they offer some other things that Baylor doesn't.
Unless the BCS starts messing with the criteria (always a possibility, but legal fireworks would ensue), the published criteria is Top 6 in each of the 3 categories. If the Big 12 disappears, there is then only 5.
I realize this, but I still don't think it makes any sense at all to bring in a team that actually hurts our numbers in any of those categories - and Baylor does. And perhaps the Kansas schools would, too, (I don't know, haven't run the numbers) but they offer some other things that Baylor doesn't.
