Online Now 431

BearsTruth Board

The place for discussion on Baylor athletics

On this Board 75
Record: 1181 (12/30/2012)

Online now 132
Record: 2298 (3/1/2012)

Reply

Shocked to be saying this...

  • In some ways, I see us as similar to ATM in basketball. The potential is there and we've experienced some success, but we're also on tenuous ground. ATM was solid under Gillespie, showed some very real potential as a program under Turgeon, but since Turgeon left for Maryland, ATM's attendance has plummeted (in fact it was bad under Turgeon even when they were winning) and Kennedy has missed any post-season at all (even NIT) both of his years there. Kennedy probably gets one more year to show something, but he's hanging on by a thread...

    Drew could be like Gillespie was at ATM (just talking on-court success here). If he were to leave, we could get a Turgeon, or we may be looking at a Kennedy type hire. Of course, I think McCaw would be able to pull off a solid search process, so I have some confidence there, but you never quite know.

    grinnin bear

  • landsharkbear said...

    I'd first like to state that even discussing firing Scott Drew at this point in time is beyond ridiculous, but since the discussion is being had...

    I agree with those of y'all saying that we have the ability to make a good a hire...partly because of our recently found commitment to athletics and partly because Scott Drew has made Baylor basketball a more attractive job. That being said, just because we have the ability to make a good or even great hire, doesn't guarantee that we will. How many coaches have seemed like homerun hires at the time but they just didn't work out for whatever reason?

    I understand sometimes you have to take risks in order to get a program reach it's potential, but here is the problem: We are one bad hire away from starting from scratch. If we fired Scott Drew and the next hire drove the program into the ground, the coach after that would not get to build off of what Scott Drew had established...he would be starting over. I'm stating the obvious here, but It is a lot easier for Carolina and Kentucky to pull the trigger on firing a coach that is not meeting expectations. A bad coaching hire can only do so much damage to a blueblood program. North Carolina made a bad hire with Matt Doeherty and two years after firing him they are cutting down the nets. Kentucky makes a bad hire with Billy Clyde and they go 35-3 the year after they fire him. At the end of the day, Carolina is still Carolina and Kentucky is still Kentucky. Bad coaching hires can't drive bluebloods to the depths of basketball hell. It would only take one bad hire for a program of Baylor's stature to destroy any and all momentum we've created over the last several years. Art Briles didn't get the luxury of building off of what Grant Teaff did, he had to build his own program. By the time Briles got to Baylor, everything Teaff did for the program had been burned to the ground.

    Another thing to consider is that even if we were to make a good/great coaching hire, how many up and coming coaches do you think are out there that are really going to view Baylor as a destination job? I don't know if Scott views Baylor as a destination job, but I get the impression he does. It may just be my perception, but I feel like after a couple coaches bolt from your school, other coaches start thinking of your school as a stepping stone job. Over a 7 year period, Tulsa had 4 coaches (Tubby Smith, Steve Robinson, Bill Self, and Buzz Peterson) that left for greener pastures. Yes, I know it is Tulsa, but Mark Few has stuck it out at Gonzaga when most people thought he would be gone years ago. There is something to be said for having a great coach that isn't looking to get out of town the first chance he gets. It is hard to establish a program when you're head coaching position is a revolving door.

    Great post.

    Knight Bear

  • This post is for members of BearsTruth only. Join now! 30-Day Free Trial

    twitter.com/Bearstruth247

    Ashley Hodge

  • This post is for members of BearsTruth only. Join now! 30-Day Free Trial

    boxster

  • NoBSU said...

    I know what you mean. The tired old line that lancebu is using that we can't hire anybody is over-used. I know he means well but it has been used so much that people keep repeating it believing it more each time. Hopefully people will read Ashley post and see that understanding that we have options doesn't mean we want to excercise the options. I just want guys first with motor and usable skils in our system. If they have great upside beyond that then great.

    Let me try to articulate my point better. If Drew left at some point in time, whether of his own choosing or someone else's, obviously he'd be replaced as coach at Baylor. Certainly, they could have some success at Baylor as the program is in the best shape it's EVER been in. What bugs me about this topic is the sentiment that there are a number of high quality coaches that would a) want to come to Baylor and b) take the program to the "next level." I just honestly don't believe that to be the case.

    We hit a HOME RUN with Scott Drew 10 years ago. I don't think there has been anyone in modern history of college basketball who's inherited a worse situation than he did when he got here. Murder, scandal, losing half a season, probation, etc. He held try-outs his first year just to field a complete team! Here we are 10 years later, 3 trips to the NCAA's, 2 Elite Eights and putting guys in the NBA every year.

    I know all of us who love Baylor want us to succeed at the highest levels. We've had some success there, but we've also fallen short at times. The list is short and filled with Elite coaches who have taken teams to 2 Elite Eights in three years. It's much shorter when you look at the years since guys started going pro after 1 year. I'm not claiming that Drew is Coach K or Boeheim or Williams or Self even, but he's had an awful lot of success for someone who some on here claim is a terrible coach. I want us to be more consistent just like everyone else does, but 5 years ago we made the big dance for the second time in 50 years. I remember when I was in school we made the NIT and thought that was the best thing ever. Our program is continuing to improve every year. Hell, we've reached the point where when we miss the tourney we have people who want to get rid of the coach.

    Baylor is a very unique school, as we all know, unlike almost any other major institution in the country. As a Baptist University, our pool of coaches is already smaller than everyone else's out. It's always possible that there is someone out there who could come in and take the program higher than it's currently at, but I'm of the opinion that that guy is already in Waco and I hope he's there for a long time.

    lancebu

  • landsharkbear said...

    I'd first like to state that even discussing firing Scott Drew at this point in time is beyond ridiculous, but since the discussion is being had...

    I agree with those of y'all saying that we have the ability to make a good a hire...partly because of our recently found commitment to athletics and partly because Scott Drew has made Baylor basketball a more attractive job. That being said, just because we have the ability to make a good or even great hire, doesn't guarantee that we will. How many coaches have seemed like homerun hires at the time but they just didn't work out for whatever reason?

    I understand sometimes you have to take risks in order to get a program reach it's potential, but here is the problem: We are one bad hire away from starting from scratch. If we fired Scott Drew and the next hire drove the program into the ground, the coach after that would not get to build off of what Scott Drew had established...he would be starting over. I'm stating the obvious here, but It is a lot easier for Carolina and Kentucky to pull the trigger on firing a coach that is not meeting expectations. A bad coaching hire can only do so much damage to a blueblood program. North Carolina made a bad hire with Matt Doeherty and two years after firing him they are cutting down the nets. Kentucky makes a bad hire with Billy Clyde and they go 35-3 the year after they fire him. At the end of the day, Carolina is still Carolina and Kentucky is still Kentucky. Bad coaching hires can't drive bluebloods to the depths of basketball hell. It would only take one bad hire for a program of Baylor's stature to destroy any and all momentum we've created over the last several years. Art Briles didn't get the luxury of building off of what Grant Teaff did, he had to build his own program. By the time Briles got to Baylor, everything Teaff did for the program had been burned to the ground.

    Another thing to consider is that even if we were to make a good/great coaching hire, how many up and coming coaches do you think are out there that are really going to view Baylor as a destination job? I don't know if Scott views Baylor as a destination job, but I get the impression he does. It may just be my perception, but I feel like after a couple coaches bolt from your school, other coaches start thinking of your school as a stepping stone job. Over a 7 year period, Tulsa had 4 coaches (Tubby Smith, Steve Robinson, Bill Self, and Buzz Peterson) that left for greener pastures. Yes, I know it is Tulsa, but Mark Few has stuck it out at Gonzaga when most people thought he would be gone years ago. There is something to be said for having a great coach that isn't looking to get out of town the first chance he gets. It is hard to establish a program when you're head coaching position is a revolving door.

    Excellent post sir.

    lancebu

  • landshark makes a great point...we have the ABILITY and the RESOURCES to hire someone equal or better than Drew, but doing that is an entirely different matter. It takes intuition by those doing the hiring...and luck.

    There are plenty of programs that have far richer history, facilities and resources than we do to hire basketball coaches. But, they continue to struggle in getting the right one. Georgia, Bama, NC State (they may have found him, finally), Virginia, LSU, Iowa, etc.

    In other words, a lot of things go into a coach having success at a school. IMO, it's very scary to imagine us without Drew.

    Clavine

  • This post is for members of BearsTruth only. Join now! 30-Day Free Trial

    The X Factor898

  • lancebu said...

    As a Baptist University, our pool of coaches is already smaller than everyone else's out.

    I hate this point. I think it is completely irrelevant.

    Look at all the small private religious schools that have success each and every year.

    The X Factor898

  • The X Factor89868 said...

    I hate this point. I think it is completely irrelevant.

    Look at all the small private religious schools that have success each and every year.

    Agree with this.

    Clavine

  • This post is for members of BearsTruth only. Join now! 30-Day Free Trial

    toughbear

  • The X Factor89868 said...

    I hate this point. I think it is completely irrelevant.

    Look at all the small private religious schools that have success each and every year.

    I love this point. It's why Baylor is unique from just about all the other 500 colleges and universities across the country. We do not hold winning in sports above our highest calling, and if that means we must say no to non-Christian hot-shot coaches who are out there, so be it.

    boxster

  • boxster said...

    I love this point. It's why Baylor is unique from just about all the other 500 colleges and universities across the country. We do not hold winning in sports above our highest calling, and if that means we must say no to non-Christian hot-shot coaches who are out there, so be it.

    Funny that our last 2 coaches, including our current one, have both been busted for cheating. I've seen Baylor's name scroll across ESPN in a negative light more times under Drew than any of our conference mates.

    The X Factor898

  • boxster said...

    I love this point. It's why Baylor is unique from just about all the other 500 colleges and universities across the country. We do not hold winning in sports above our highest calling, and if that means we must say no to non-Christian hot-shot coaches who are out there, so be it.

    Being Baptist is not what makes us unique. Nor does us being a Christian university make us unique. There are plenty of those. What makes us unique is holding to our Christian heritage and ideals while still having a voice in academia and competing in elite college athletics. There are not many institutions of higher education attempting such a thing.

    And I've never gotten this litmus test thing with coaches as if just checking the box that you're Christian means you're a fit and going to be successful. The vast majority of coaches in America are Christian. It's almost a given therefore you look at what he actually brings to the table and what his vision is. Remember that Bliss is a Christian and he nearly destroyed us. Chances are good that just about every coach you interview in this country is going to be Christian. You better be looking for more than that because your ability to quote Scripture is not going to tell me a thing about whether you will succeed or not.

    This post was edited by bugramps on 3/18/2013 at 11:21 AM

    Pro Ecclesia, Pro Mundus

    bugramps

  • The X Factor89868 said...

    I hate this point. I think it is completely irrelevant.

    Look at all the small private religious schools that have success each and every year.

    It's not irrelevant. There are certain coaches who we would not hire based upon reputation, beliefs, etc. and also certain coaches who would not want to come here because of all of those things. Public universities wouldn't have the same kinds of issues. It might not be a wide-spread thing, but our pool is definitely smaller whether you agree or not. It obviously doesn't mean you can't have success at a private religious school, but your candidate pool is by some percentage smaller.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by lancebu on 3/18/2013 at 11:31 AM

    lancebu

  • It's funny because the coach that I can think of that publicly doesn't project the Christian "Baylor" is Mulkey. Granted, I don't follow chick hoops much, but it seems to me she doesn't give a darn about our heritage...yet she is the best coach we've ever had in any sport.

    Briles may or may not incorporate our Christian heritage into his program. I follow football VERY closely and cannot honestly recall one single time that he's referenced or leveraged our Christian heritage.

    Our heritage may or may not be what creates a good fit...depends on the coach. It works for Drew and Smith, but not really used by Mulkey and Briles.

    Clavine

  • The X Factor89868 said...

    Funny that our last 2 coaches, including our current one, have both been busted for cheating. I've seen Baylor's name scroll across ESPN in a negative light more times under Drew than any of our conference mates.

    So give up, and hire the devil himself, regardless of if his beliefs align with Baylor's? Not interested.

    And for balance, feel free to look for what our former players say about Coach Drew, how their lives have been changed, how their faith has grown, how they became men. There's plenty of them out there.

    boxster

  • bugramps said...

    Being Baptist is not what makes us unique. Nor does us being a Christian university make us unique. There are plenty of those. What makes us unique is holding to our Christian heritage and ideals while still having a voice in academia and competing in elite college athletics. There are not many institutions of higher education attempting such a thing.

    And I've never gotten this litmus test thing with coaches as if just checking the box that you're Christian means you're a fit and going to be successful. The vast majority of coaches in America are Christian. It's almost a given therefore you look at what he actually brings to the table and what his vision is. Remember that Bliss is a Christian and he nearly destroyed us. Chances are good that just about every coach you interview in this country is going to be Christian. You better be looking for more than that because your ability to quote Scripture is not going to tell me a thing about whether you will succeed or not.

    Your response came right on cue, any time the word "Baptist" is mentioned. You can deny it as many times as you want, but being a Baptist university still matters.

    And forgive me for trying to be brief when describing the kind of coach we want. I used "Christian", implying "committed Christian", or a "committed Christ-follower", or a "man who has a relationship with Christ and seeks to honor Him with his life"...but I thought that was a little wordy and that everyone could figure out what I meant by "Christian". My bad.

    boxster

  • This post is for members of BearsTruth only. Join now! 30-Day Free Trial

    Volunteer

  • This post is for members of BearsTruth only. Join now! 30-Day Free Trial

    landsharkbear

  • lancebu said...

    It's not irrelevant. There are certain coaches who we would not hire based upon reputation, beliefs, etc. and also certain coaches who would not want to come here because of all of those things. Public universities wouldn't have the same kinds of issues. It might not be a wide-spread thing, but our pool is definitely smaller whether you agree or not. It obviously doesn't mean you can't have success at a private religious school, but your candidate pool is by some percentage smaller.

    I agree with what you're saying here, but that pool of coaches that wouldn't qualify due to belief and/or reputation is very very small. The vast majority of coaches are Christian. And I don't think being a Christian is even a major issue because we've got academic staff members that practice Islam, Judaism and Mormonism. Our pool of available coaches would be huge and include just about every qualified coach in America.

    Volunteer

  • boxster said...

    So give up, and hire the devil himself, regardless of if his beliefs align with Baylor's? Not interested.

    And for balance, feel free to look for what our former players say about Coach Drew, how their lives have been changed, how their faith has grown, how they became men. There's plenty of them out there.

    Don't be overly dramatic.

    To add to what Clavine said, I think "how Christian a coach is" has no place in deciding who we hire to lead our sports teams.

    It's great if we have a coach that wants to be openly Christian about his/her faith. But it should not be a pre-requiste. And to take it a step further, I know that it turns a lot of people off when we have a coach who professes his faith at every chance he gets, but is leading a program that is on probation for cheating.

    The choir boy act has worn thin. And don't kid yourself if you don't think there are several out there who believe it is indeed an act. So in that regard, I think it almost hurts our perception more than it helps us to have someone "as Christian as Drew" to be leading one of our school's most high profile faces.

    The X Factor898

  • boxster said...

    Your response came right on cue, any time the word "Baptist" is mentioned. You can deny it as many times as you want, but being a Baptist university still matters.

    And forgive me for trying to be brief when describing the kind of coach we want. I used "Christian", implying "committed Christian", or a "committed Christ-follower", or a "man who has a relationship with Christ and seeks to honor Him with his life"...but I thought that was a little wordy and that everyone could figure out what I meant by "Christian". My bad.

    I appreciate and respect your position. I don't think anyone wants to hire "the devil himself" or some sort of low life scum.

    It's OK for the academic department to hire non-Christians, but it's not OK for athletics? And we've certainly got plenty of non-Baptists on staff. I don't want a bum, but I'll take any God believing, honest and ethical coach.

    Volunteer

  • Volunteer said...

    I appreciate and respect your position. I don't think anyone wants to hire "the devil himself" or some sort of low life scum.

    It's OK for the academic department to hire non-Christians, but it's not OK for athletics? And we've certainly got plenty of non-Baptists on staff. I don't want a bum, but I'll take any God believing, honest and ethical coach.

    The difference is that a geology professor isn't on TV, radio and print whereas your coaches in major sports are. So, yes, I would guess there's a difference in hiring faculty and hiring coaches. I don't have any inside knowledge about what we would require from our coaches so maybe all this is way off base, but I would guess their belief system would play into on some level.

    lancebu

  • lancebu said...

    The difference is that a geology professor isn't on TV, radio and print whereas your coaches in major sports are. So, yes, I would guess there's a difference in hiring faculty and hiring coaches. I don't have any inside knowledge about what we would require from our coaches so maybe all this is way off base, but I would guess their belief system would play into on some level.

    Lance, I see what you're saying, but they're all still employees of Baylor. If we require only those that are on TV, radio, or in print to be Christian and tend to look the other way when it's a non-public type job, what does that say about us? That we are primarily interested in our public image? If the best available biology professor to hire is Jewish, do we hire him only because it's a non-public type position?

    I don't know, it seems kinda slippery to me.

    In my opinion (and it's just my opinion) Baylor is a Christian school and I like it that way. However, I'm OK with hiring those of other faiths. It doesn't affect my belief or commitment to Christianity. By the way I'm not suggesting such a hire would affect yours either.

    Volunteer

Baylor
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports