PonyFans.com

Student athletes should always commit to the school and not the coach. But today we are seeing more athlete students and they need the coach and scheme.

The coaches are the ones that are going to be with them over the 4 or 5 years. They switch coaches before signing day and the next coach may not even want them on the team. In fact, the next coach my even try to run them off. June pulled a scholarship in a player that committed to SMU from the Bennett staff. Please generally commit because of relationships with the coaches over anything else. But really it is personal decision and there is not hardcore right answer to be honest.

I wish players would commit to the best looking college campus because then SMU would have all the 5 star recruits.

mrydel wrote:Student athletes should always commit to the school and not the coach. But today we are seeing more athlete students and they need the coach and scheme.

Kids choose schools for all kinds of stupid reasons. Many involve people of the opposite sex. I can't fault a kid for choosing a school because of the coach.

Insane_Pony_Posse wrote:how 'bout Baylor and Houston just swap coaches?

Tom Herman new coach at Baylor for 2017 season
Pay raise
Better conference
Baylor is loaded with great players
Tom Herman fresh face not connected to Briles train-wreck.
(Yes it would be a career risk Herman may not want to take)

Briles goes back home to Houston his alma mater who is also loaded with talent
Houston is a bit of a renegade program...
so Houston could handle media critics...
also a year will have passed and Briles will be less of a hot potato
And it would be "well yes Briles left Baylor in scandal, but he is welcome home"

I don't think even UH would do that; WAY too hot an issue right now....of course I didn't think Baylor would pull the trigger on Briles either...

Herman to either UT or Aggie position, whichever fails first.

Insane_Pony_Posse wrote:how 'bout Baylor and Houston just swap coaches?

Tom Herman new coach at Baylor for 2017 season
Pay raise
Better conference
Baylor is loaded with great players
Tom Herman fresh face not connected to Briles train-wreck.
(Yes it would be a career risk Herman may not want to take)

Briles goes back home to Houston his alma mater who is also loaded with talent
Houston is a bit of a renegade program...
so Houston could handle media critics...
also a year will have passed and Briles will be less of a hot potato
And it would be "well yes Briles left Baylor in scandal, but he is welcome home"

They also could look at the Texas OC next year. He knows how to run that Baylor offense having coached under Montgomery at Tulsa. And if he can get UT's offense rolling he could step right in at Baylor and just keep rolling. Just a thought.

Digetydog wrote:

mrydel wrote:Again, I am not saying hire Singletary. I am saying hire a full time coach with a full time staff rather than this one year deal with lame duck recruiters. They are trying to save their current recruits and by doing so are damaging their future recruiting ability. If you were a high senior recruit, would you want to go to Baylor not knowing who would be head coach or position coach? And yes coaches leave all the time but in this case you know the coach will not be there after this year.

They cannot hire a FT coach and new staff b/c it is June.
1) Almost anyone who they would consider for any coaching position us already employed. Getting good assistants to burn bridges would be very hard.
2) They have no President, no AD, and no Plan. Until all three are in place, coaches with options are going near the place (alums might be an exception).

Look at it this way: if they could have hired a better, permanent coach, they would have. Nobody decent is going to go near that job until the outcome of NCAA investigations and Title 9 stuff has been laid out. On top of that, the heads haven't stopped rolling as far as the staff is concerned... they are going to have to continuously replace coaches over the next couple of months.

Absolutely.

Baylor HAD to fill that job. PB still may not have a job by the end of the week, let alone the rest of the staff. They needed to fill that position ASAP if they were going to have a team in 2016 and, frankly, did about a good a job as they could in that situation.

leopold wrote:Absolutely.

Baylor HAD to fill that job. PB still may not have a job by the end of the week, let alone the rest of the staff. They needed to fill that position ASAP if they were going to have a team in 2016 and, frankly, did about a good a job as they could in that situation.

Agreed. Interim coaching jobs were made for situations like this.

mrydel wrote:Student athletes should always commit to the school and not the coach. But today we are seeing more athlete students and they need the coach and scheme.

Rather surprised to hear you say pick the school not the coaching staff from my experience in the past it was a 50/50 deal maybe even more so for the coaches

I do not think my statement was understood. Back in the earlier days (think dinosaurs) we had student athletes. They went to school for an education and used their athletic ability to pay the way. They would very often select school first for that reason. That is what I did.

Now, athletes are more often than not trying to use their abilities to get beyond school for lucrative sports contracts. For that reason they are selecting coaches, programs, and schemes that can get them where they desire.

I am well aware and do not dispute that the kids today are selecting based on coach and/or program.

It is personal preference and there is no right or wrong answer. And nobody is above or below anybody or holier than thou for the reasons they select a college. Some select schools because of the can get to play early. If students selected schools for strictly education back in the 70's then Rice and Tulane should have been winning national championships back then. But back then in the old days some would select schools because of what they got paid under the table. You usually go to college to get a job when you come out, be it a lucrative job in banking or sports or whatever.

Some like to go to a college with the best looking women (and that's not just athletes). I believe SMU would have the advantage in that area.

Rebel10 wrote:It is personal preference and there is no right or wrong answer. And nobody is above or below anybody or holier than thou for the reasons they select a college. Some select schools because of the can get to play early. If students selected schools for strictly education back in the 70's then Rice and Tulane should have been winning national championships back then. But back then in the old days some would select schools because of what they got paid under the table. You usually go to college to get a job when you come out, be it a lucrative job in banking or sports or whatever.

Some like to go to a college with the best looking women (and that's not just athletes). I believe SMU would have the advantage in that area.

I don't know anyone who would pick SMU for that reason.

On ESPN's "Outside the Lines," Collis Cobbs — father of recruit Parrish Cobb — said "we're just hoping and praying for the day Baylor gives him his release."