Dear Baylor

[tcudoc]

QUOTE(Frognosticator @ Jun 10 2010, 08:39 AM) [snapback]573325[/snapback]
Baylor was able to compete in all the other sports, why not football? Because they were not willing to show commitment to it.


I think it is more of a factor of living in the shadow of UT and OU. No matter how much commitment they showed, they would be unlikely to surpass these gorillas with unlimited resources. Basketball and baseball are somewhat different. A few key recruits in these sports can lead to instant success that can be maintained across a season of greater than 30 games with only a few of them against the so called big boys. Therefore, they can build a track record of success and occasionally knock off the big name and build a strong program. In football, they have 12 games. Two are almost guaranteed losses (UT and OU) and several others are probable losses (Tech/TAMU/OSU etc). One or two key recruits will have less impact in football where you really need key players on offense, defense, and special teams to all play to a high level. Without surrounding the key recruits with other highly talented players, they are unlikely to have a major impact. I don't think Baylor has been able to get over that hurdle in the Big XII with regards to football. Basketball, with only 5 on the court at a time, can be turned around quickly with a couple of key recruits. Considering the history of the Baylor BB program, I think we have seen an excellent example of that over the last couple of years.

 

[Bob]

Why complain about Baylor when we seem to be stuck playing SMU each year?

 

[Delmonico]

QUOTE(FriskyFrog @ Jun 10 2010, 09:26 AM) [snapback]573383[/snapback]
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.



I'd argue with you, but I wasn't disagreeing with any of that. :biggrin:

FWIW, Kansas, Kansas State and Baylor all generally fall in about the middle of the MWC in the computer rankings. behind TCU/Utah/BYU/AFA, ahead of the others.

And any move for the Kansas schools would almost assuredly be paired with Boise, so we come out ahead. And with the Big 12 dead......

 

[geno]

QUOTE(Purple Heart @ Jun 9 2010, 10:37 PM) [snapback]573220[/snapback]
I can understand how there is animosity based on some Baylor fans comments in the past and the way they were included in the Big 12, same with Tech, frankly. However, I am one long time and proud Frog supporter, alum, fan, season ticket holder, Frog Club member etc who is proud to also be a Baylor alum, fan and supporter. And I don't think I'm the only TCU fan who feels that way (maybe the only one on this board). I think it would be great to have them in our conference if that works out and I would support it. Just as I would for TCU, I will stand up for Baylor anytime (except I will cheer for the Frogs when Baylor plays TCU), and I do believe Baylor will be just fine. I remember well this same rotten feeling when TCU was left out of the Big 12, 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, or SMU's or UH's or Rice's.

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.

Matt.7
[1] "Judge not, that you be not judged.
[2] For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.
[3] Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
[4] Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye?
[5] You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

Looking back, being left out of the Big 12 ironically led to some pretty great things for TCU - at the time, who would have ever "thunk" it. It rallied the troops in a big way. I could see this happening with Baylor, too. Baylor has alot of alums (if you have the time, research it) and a pretty large student body - they could emerge from the woodwork with a little success in football again, going to bowl games again, and it looks like starting in 2012 that will be more doable for them wherever they land. Their recruiting has picked up, they have a new indoor practice facility, and if they build a new stadium on campus, really watch out.


Glad you like Baylor, tremendous, admirable, etc, great guy. BUT, if you don't remember Baylor folk "gloating" over TCU being left out of the Big 12, you are either about 15 years old, or you have a very bad memory. It was all we heard from Waco for a year or two, finally diminishing a bit when they went year after year without winning a single Big 12 football game. They gloated, believe you me, and still do, if you read the posts on their site. So thanks for the scripture lessons, but work on your memory.

 

[macaroni]

QUOTE(geno @ Jun 10 2010, 08:45 AM) [snapback]573412[/snapback]
Glad you like Baylor, tremendous, admirable, etc, great guy. BUT, if you don't remember Baylor folk "gloating" over TCU being left out of the Big 12, you are either about 15 years old, or you have a very bad memory. It was all we heard from Waco for a year or two, finally diminishing a bit when they went year after year without winning a single Big 12 football game. They gloated, believe you me, and still do, if you read the posts on their site. So thanks for the scripture lessons, but work on your memory.


If you read Baylor Fans this week, you would know that it never diminished at all.

 

[Duquesne Frog]

QUOTE(tcudoc @ Jun 10 2010, 10:29 AM) [snapback]573390[/snapback]
I think it is more of a factor of living in the shadow of UT and OU. No matter how much commitment they showed, they would be unlikely to surpass these gorillas with unlimited resources.

Disagree. Tech is a stronger program now (well, I guess we'll see what happens in the post-Pirate era) than it was when it left the SWC, all under UT and OU's shadows. They are now regularly in the top-25 (5 times since 2004, twice in the 30 years before) and they've done it with arguably no better resources than Baylor.

This is the corollary to the same argument Baylor makes WRT to us ... we were only able to become successful because we were in an inferior conference. Whatever advantage we had in an easier conference was more than offset by our disadvantages that came with the reputation and bias associated with being in those conferences. It makes it much harder to recruit and it makes it much harder to survive on athletic revenues alone. If we set the same priorities Baylor did, we'd be Florida International right now. If it were easy to become a national power in a non-elite conference, it wouldn't have taken SMU 15 years to go to their first bowl.

Baylor took the philosophy of letting her big brothers do all the work in the arms race and take those revenues to support their other sports. Which is fine ... as long as the conference stayed intact it wasn't a bad course to take. However, it left their athletic program in relatively poor shape financially and extremely vulnerable if their conference fell apart. That lack of commitment and willingness to be parasites on UT and OU's football success is now about to, ironically, bite them in the arse.

 

[Frog89]

QUOTE(Duquesne Frog @ Jun 10 2010, 09:52 AM) [snapback]573425[/snapback]
Disagree. Tech is a stronger program now (well, I guess we'll see what happens in the post-Pirate era) than it was when it left the SWC, all under UT and OU's shadows. They are now regularly in the top-25 (5 times since 2004, twice in the 30 years before) and they've done it with arguably no better resources than Baylor.

This is the corollary to the same argument Baylor makes WRT to us ... we were only able to become successful because we were in an inferior conference. Whatever advantage we had in an easier conference was more than offset by our disadvantages that came with the reputation and bias associated with being in those conferences. It makes it much harder to recruit and it makes it much harder to survive on athletic revenues alone. If we set the same priorities Baylor did, we'd be Florida International right now. If it were easy to become a national power in a non-elite conference, it wouldn't have taken SMU 15 years to go to their first bowl.

Baylor took the philosophy of letting her big brothers do all the work in the arms race and take those revenues to support their other sports. Which is fine ... as long as the conference stayed intact it wasn't a bad course to take. However, it left their athletic program in relatively poor shape financially and extremely vulnerable if their conference fell apart. That lack of commitment and willingness to be parasites on UT and OU's football success is now about to, ironically, bite them in the arse.


Amen to this post....

 

[Annoying Group of 20]

QUOTE(Frog89 @ Jun 10 2010, 09:54 AM) [snapback]573434[/snapback]
Amen to this post....


+1 - That should be framed, signed and pinned on the board as a prerequisite before Baylor fans or anyone under the age of 21 that cannot remember 1994 is able to post here.

 

[Dogfrog]

QUOTE(Duquesne Frog @ Jun 10 2010, 09:52 AM) [snapback]573425[/snapback]
Disagree. Tech is a stronger program now (well, I guess we'll see what happens in the post-Pirate era) than it was when it left the SWC, all under UT and OU's shadows. They are now regularly in the top-25 (5 times since 2004, twice in the 30 years before) and they've done it with arguably no better resources than Baylor.

This is the corollary to the same argument Baylor makes WRT to us ... we were only able to become successful because we were in an inferior conference. Whatever advantage we had in an easier conference was more than offset by our disadvantages that came with the reputation and bias associated with being in those conferences. It makes it much harder to recruit and it makes it much harder to survive on athletic revenues alone. If we set the same priorities Baylor did, we'd be Florida International right now. If it were easy to become a national power in a non-elite conference, it wouldn't have taken SMU 15 years to go to their first bowl.

Baylor took the philosophy of letting her big brothers do all the work in the arms race and take those revenues to support their other sports. Which is fine ... as long as the conference stayed intact it wasn't a bad course to take. However, it left their athletic program in relatively poor shape financially and extremely vulnerable if their conference fell apart. That lack of commitment and willingness to be parasites on UT and OU's football success is now about to, ironically, bite them in the arse.


The fact that Baylor laughed at our plight back in 94 says it all. They never seemed to say "there but for the grace of God go I".... and instead of gaining humility and understanding that they better get their .... together, they rather took satisfaction in their lofty associations, and apparently that was more important to them than actually proving they deserved their fate. They believed they really did deserve it. They are getting what they deserve. Ironically, it's kind of a biblical type story, isn't it?

 

[jack the frog]

QUOTE(Purple Heart @ Jun 9 2010, 11:37 PM) [snapback]573220[/snapback]
I can understand how there is animosity based on some Baylor fans comments in the past and the way they were included in the Big 12, same with Tech, frankly. However, I am one long time and proud Frog supporter, alum, fan, season ticket holder, Frog Club member etc who is proud to also be a Baylor alum, fan and supporter. And I don't think I'm the only TCU fan who feels that way (maybe the only one on this board). I think it would be great to have them in our conference if that works out and I would support it. Just as I would for TCU, I will stand up for Baylor anytime (except I will cheer for the Frogs when Baylor plays TCU), and I do believe Baylor will be just fine. I remember well this same rotten feeling when TCU was left out of the Big 12, 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, or SMU's or UH's or Rice's.

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.

Matt.7
[1] "Judge not, that you be not judged.
[2] For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.
[3] Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
[4] Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye?
[5] You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

Looking back, being left out of the Big 12 ironically led to some pretty great things for TCU - at the time, who would have ever "thunk" it. It rallied the troops in a big way. I could see this happening with Baylor, too. Baylor has alot of alums (if you have the time, research it) and a pretty large student body - they could emerge from the woodwork with a little success in football again, going to bowl games again, and it looks like starting in 2012 that will be more doable for them wherever they land. Their recruiting has picked up, they have a new indoor practice facility, and if they build a new stadium on campus, really watch out.


You are being more gracious than I on this deal, but I am on the TCU board here, not at their house, rubbing salt into wounds. I am not to worried about a little football venom.

 

[HFrog1999]

The big 12 is breaking up because it was artificially created with dirty politics.

 

[Dogfrog]

QUOTE(HFrog1999 @ Jun 10 2010, 10:12 AM) [snapback]573467[/snapback]
The big 12 is breaking up because it was artificially created with dirty politics.


In many ways the SWC break up was the day tradition, loyalty, fairness and friendship in college athletics died. The carcass is still rotting.

 

[Mike Brooks]

QUOTE(HFrog1999 @ Jun 10 2010, 07:43 AM) [snapback]573328[/snapback]
<br />Baylor adds nothing to the MWC. Also, the only recruiting tool baylor even pretended to have was their inclusion in the big 12. With that gone, any recruits of value will jump ship. That's just the reality of the situation.<br />


Exactly. I wonder how that BU strength and conditioning program is looking to the DL prospect we missed on. I have a feeling he is reviewing his options.

 

[TEUFELI]

QUOTE(Young and Horned @ Jun 9 2010, 09:48 PM) [snapback]573074[/snapback]
I imagine if MWC does start inviting people, Baylor will be in there. Add another Texas 'market' and they would be middle to top in basketball and baseball and would be good in the olympic sports as well.


FWIW - I dont really listen to Newy all that much, and I am not sure how rock solid his contact is...but about 30 min ago he was saying that he spoke to someone higher up in FW and that TCU has absolutely NO interest in having Baylor join us. That the feelings left over from the SWC split still resonate within the university and that we will not be doing Baylor any favors...in fact, we may actively participate in keeping them out

I hope this is true

 

[Mike Brooks]

QUOTE(Daniel Plainview @ Jun 10 2010, 08:02 AM) [snapback]573355[/snapback]
<br />True, Briles hasn't really produced. <br /><br />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.<br />


Baylor enjoys getting flushed. It happens to them so often they think it is a water slide.

 

[Mike Brooks]

QUOTE(Dogfrog @ Jun 10 2010, 09:15 AM) [snapback]573477[/snapback]
<br />In many ways the SWC break up was the day tradition, loyalty, fairness and friendship in college athletics died. The carcass is still rotting.<br />


UT is like Arsenic. You don't notice the poison at first. But, after years of buildup you begin to know something is wrong but it is too late and you are headed for a dirtnap. SWC found out and now the Big 8/12. In 10 years The PAC is going to be wondering why they have constant indigestion and it will be too late.

 

[ftwfrog]

QUOTE(froginaustin @ Jun 10 2010, 07:53 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.

My goodness. I hate sticking up for KSU, but compared to Baylor, KSU is the New York Yankees. Although their "history" on the college football spectrum was shortlived, it outweighs Baylor ten-fold. KSU has 2 fiesta bowl appearances, a cotton bowl appearance, and other decent seasons. Please, please, please don't make me defend KSU again :biggrin:


Just saying, adding KSU and KU would do a lot for me than adding Baylor. I repeat, BAYLOR BRINGS NOTHING to the table.

 

[LVfrog]

Even though I have several relatives who are BU grads, I can't stand the Bears. Those folks are very delusional and I never want them in a conference with us.