Art Briles is headed to Italy to work with the Guelfi Firenze football team based in Florence, Italy.
Link to Fox Sports article on it, but Baylor found their new coach to replace Art Briles, who was fired for being a terrible person in regards to several Title IX issues within the program.
Rhule led Temple to two of their best seasons ever, capping it off with a 10-3 season this year and an AAC conference championship with a 34-10 win over Navy in their CCG.
Good hire for Baylor. Hopefully he doesn't generate too much hype that some of the Texas guys we're in on (Filiaga) start giving them more looks.
Also, I'd imagine the Temple job would be a decent opening for several Big Ten assistant coaches, perhaps like someone from OSU (Fickell?). Could draw some conference assistants out.
The Wallstreet Journal has a story with a few details provided by Baylor Board of Regent Members. It's unreal the attitude taken by some of the Baylor donors and boosters:
Drayton McLane, a billionaire businessman whose name is on the Baylor football stadium, and other large donors asked the board for a private briefing on why the regents took such drastic action. Mr. Murff, chairman of the regents, declined to give them details of the investigation.
“They were very cold,” Mr. McLane said in an interview, adding that the controversy won’t affect his giving to Baylor and that he “just wants to understand the decisions that were made.”
Mr. Murff said other wealthy alumni suggested they would withhold millions of dollars if Baylor didn’t bring Mr. Briles back.
Interim Baylor President David Garland released a statement to the press today in which he says there will be no release of the full Pepper Hamilton report because the report wasn't a written one; it was delivered orally:
In recent days, various voices have called for the release of the “full report.” Pepper Hamilton’s report was delivered in the form of an oral presentation that fully and comprehensively presented the individual and aggregated findings and the evidence supporting the findings.
How convenient. Garland then refers people to the already released, vague written summary that names no names. This should put interim Head Football Coach Jim Grobe in an interesting position to defend his decision to keep the entire coaching staff intact. He said his decision was based on reading part of the Pepper Hamilton report. If all that is available is what has already been released, there really could be no way to know what involvement other coaches had in covering up sexual abuse. Did he do his own internal review (seems doubtful he could have thoroughly investigated anything on his own in the little time he had)? Did he depend on the Board of Regents to tell him if any of the coaching staff was implicated in the report? Are the members of the Board of Regents now the only ones at Baylor who will ever know the entire contents of the report. Why in the world should anyone believe anything they say at this point?
To make matters worse, President Garland then goes on to say no further details will be released to protect the privacy of the victims that were raped and sexually assaulted by Baylor athletes and students:
We respect survivors’ freedom to choose whether, when and how to share their experiences and will support survivors who choose to share their experiences publicly. The details of these individuals’ experiences will not be discussed publicly by the University.
As Tom Ley of Deadspin put it:
We still don’t know who specifically turned a blind eye to sexual assault allegations, who allowed the football program to run its own improper disciplinary apparatus, or how exactly at least one victim was retaliated against. Without names, dates, and correspondences on the table, all of this has a much better chance at being completely forgotten. That’s exactly what the university wants, because Baylor is full of shit and David Garland is a disingenuous coward.
I couldn't agree more.
Looking at this dude's record... yikes. His Wake Forest teams got worse every year, before he randomly won the ACC (how) and then following that his teams kept on deteriorating again. I guess he has a rep of being a good guy with no scandals, but it seems to me like Baylor just basically hired Brady Hoke if Brady Hoke was at Michigan for like 14 years.
This shit just drives me up the wall. I get that the NCAA's goal truly is to level the playing field and give everyone a good experience (while making an asston of money) but this is insane.
Figured I'd split the three Bowl games into seperate threads to avoid large masses of posts all over the place and seeing how one can get lost in a thread approaching 300 posts.
This is your official 2nd Half Cotton Bowl Open Thread.
I'm sure that most of us read Smart Football, but in case anyone missed it, Chris Brown (=Smart Football) has a great article on the Baylor offense and its architect, Art Briles:
There's some really interesting stuff here. For me, this was the big eye-opener:
Superficially, Baylor is yet another shotgun spread that pushes the tempo and rarely huddles. But when you watch the Bears, it's evident that this is an offense unlike the others. While more and more college and NFL teams are adopting the same up-tempo spread philosophy Briles used at Stephenville, Baylor has stayed one step ahead by taking these ideas — from formations to play-calling aggressiveness to pace — to their extremes.
The first thing to notice when watching Baylor is the splits of the wide receivers. While most teams put their wide receivers on the numbers, the Bears line theirs up well outside, sometimes directly on the sideline. By doing this, they force defenses to account for the entire width of the field.
The fascinating advantage of Baylor's splits is the effect they have on pass coverage. Defenses now use lots of complex, hybrid pass coverages, but most still reduce to a basic distinction: Is it man-to-man or zone? By taking such wide splits, Baylor puts every pass defender on an island, transforming most zone defenses into a type of de facto one-on-one man coverage.
And this play (play-action inverted veer, with the inside receiver running a slant-and-go) is just plain nasty:
I was just curious if anyone knew the answer to this question. Josh Gordon was just waiting for that Michigan offer up until signing day of 2009, almost begging for it. He ended up going to Baylor and is having a pretty solid rookie campaign after going in the supplemental draft. He wasn't the original Sad Josh, was he?
I'm sure you're all as excited as I am about the Sugar Bowl. But I'm sure you've all been pestered by friend/family/co-workers about how M is only there because it's all about the money. Or they have various other gripes. I've decided to classify these gripes, and share my unsolicited opinion with you on the internet. I'll approach this as a conversation with each of the various butthurt partisans.
(Since we are the lowest ranked BCS team in, I'll compare everyone's resume to ours)
QUIT YOUR WHINING
Sparty - I'd almost feel bad for you if you were passed over for a BCS game by us. But you weren't - you were outside of the top 14 and therefore ineligible. Why were you outside the top 14, when we both had the same number of losses and you won the head-to-head? And won the division over us? No, not the polls - we were ranked within a spot of each other in all of them. It was the computers. Why? You see, while you beat us by 14, you lost to Nebraska by 21, who lost to us by 28. Triangle of doom. Shall we look at the other loss? Ours was an ugly one in the division to Iowa - by 8 points. Which gave you the edge in the B1G West. Yours was an even uglier thumping at the hands of Notre Dame. Yes, yes, you beat Wiscy on a Hail Mary at home. And then lost to them by 3 at a neutral site. Want to count it as a tie against a top ten team? Doesn't change the fact that If you had shown up at all in that ND game, you may have had a legitimate gripe. You didn't, so you don't. Enjoy Florida. I hear it's nice this time of year.
Oklahoma - Yes, your TT loss doesn't look that much worse than our Iowa loss. And your Baylor loss looks better than our Sparty loss. But the way you got absolutely stomped in the biggest game of your season is way uglier than anything that happened to us. Also, you're 9-3 after that one. You don't deserve anything more than the Copper Bowl.
South Carolina and Arkansas - Nobody wants to hear it. No, the limit on only two teams from a conference isn't holding you back - it keeps you from playing each other. Look, even in your good years nobody wants to see two teams from the same conference play in a bowl game against each other. And the SEC didn't have a good year - Arkansas, your best win is against the Cocks, and your escape against A&M is not as pretty as our escape against Notre Dame. And you got throttled in your two losses - you got beat worse by Bama than Penn State did. Gamecocks, your best win was against Clemson - and your losses against Arkansas and Auburn are comparable to our losses against Sparty and Iowa. But we pretty much thumped everyone else on our schedule except our rivals. Your wins were...uninspiring. The system isn't holding you back at all - your own failures on the field are keeping you out of the party. And no SEC partisans are ever allowed to complain about the BCS again, unless it's talking about how biased pollsters are towards their own.
Boise State - I usually defend you guys, but I'm not going to this time. Yes, you've got only 1 loss, and it was a close one to TCU - better looking than either of our losses alone, and certainly prettier than both put together. And your win over Georgia is comparable to our win over Nebraska. But here's the thing - your next best win was either Tulsa, Wyoming, or SDSU. SDSU was at the bottom of our resume for wins. In fact, it's so far down there we don't even think about where it is. Your second best win is our 7th or 8th best? I've got to go with our resume on this, even with the uglier losses.
Southern Miss - When both of your losses are to teams without winning records, then you have not proven you belong in the BCS. That interview gave me a good laugh though.
YOU MAYBE HAVE A POINT
TCU - I love how you guys do what you do, and you had an amazing season. Beating Boise on the blue turf and winning the Mountain West is nothing to smirk at. And while your win @Boise may be better than ours against Nebraska, and your losses are comparable to ours, I've got to go with the same argument I had against Boise - the meat of your schedule is the dregs of ours. What's that you say? Why is West Virginia ahead of you? That's a good point, but you guys know how it is in the Mountain West. That's why you're leaving next year. Good luck in the B12.
Baylor - I've had a lot of fun watching you guys, and I'm rooting for RG3 for the Heisman. And your resume isn't bad - beating three ranked teams is far better than us, and getting blown out by OK St is not so bad. Losing to K St by one isn't bad at all either. Getting blown out by A&M is way worse than anything that happened to us though. So yea, your resume is close to ours. But there's a couple of other guys in your conference who belong more, so I don't feel so bad that we're in over you.
I FEEL FOR YOU GUYS BUT YOUR CONSOLATION ISN'T SO BAD
Kansas State - You guys should be in a BCS game. Yes, your blowout at home by OU is bad, but your second loss was by seven @the #2 team in the country. You totally have an argument that "it's all about the money." But hey now, don't look at US like that - we weren't the last ones in. That would be the Hokies you have beef with - and truth be told, I think you'd probably travel to NOLA better than them anyway.
But really, getting a chance to play an overrated #6 SEC team in the Cotton Bowl - a game that was "major" back in the Bowl Coalition days - that's a major opportunity for respect, and pretty much a BCS game anyway. I mean, without the massive payout. But that would've gone to Texas as blood money anyway, right?
DEATH TO THE BCS
Oklahoma State - What can anybody say, guys. You got hosed by Alabama. They have two wins over the top 25, you have four. They lost to the #1 team at home, and you lost to an unranked team on the road - your loss is a little worse, your wins are better. No, just cause they blew out a weak schedule doesn't mean anything - you should have gotten the nod from resume alone.
What makes it ridiculous and insufferable is the obvious - this is a rematch, they didn't win their division, they're playing a team from their conference. I know you've been over it a hundred times over in your own heads. I hope you guys beat Stanford and win the Grantland Rice and the Macarthur trophies. I hope Alabama gets crushed.
But really, your gripe is way more legitimate than K-State's. It's probably the most legitimate gripe I've ever heard with regards to the BCS - yes, more legit than Oregon, Auburn, and USC have had in the past. While I've never loved the BCS, I never thought it was so broken as to screw you over for a less deserving team because they came in second in a conference that was good the last couple of years. The system is broken and you've been royally screwed by it, and will watch them play a regional scrimmage.
I'm way more excited for your matchup against Stanford in the Fiesta Bowl than I am for the event that precedes LSU's deserved coronation. Good luck, and prove to the nation that you deserve a shot.