TXAggie2011 said:

---

SchizoAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

SchizoAg said:

---

TxA&Mhunter said:

---

You realize that he has to be good teams in Omaha to have wins there right? how many times did he beat us to go?
This nonsense about his schedule is rubbish... He gets some scholarship help but at the end of the day acting like he's a bad hire is just flat out ignorant and shows that some people don't know jack about baseball.

---

TCU beat us by razor-thin margins those two years, one of which they were the beneficiary of Eric Hyman being our AD while favoring TCU on the selection committee . Flip those outcomes, and Childress then has more CWS appearances than him. I liked our chances in Omaha both of those years.

There is way too much luck (especially due to the notoriously fickle and arbitrary selection committee) in college baseball to say Schlossnagle is clearly better than Childress.

(However, as I've said, I don't think we can get anyone clearly better than Childress. I expect our program to get worse.)

---

May I ask why?

---

Why what? There aren't any possible candidates who are both (1) clearly better than Childress and (2) available to us. We are rolling the dice, and I don't like the odds.

---

When you're routinely on the winning side of the razor thin margins, its not luck.

---

2 instances does not a routine make. Childress' teams won plenty of important close games, too.

Call it what you want, if not luck -- "factors outside of the coach's control".

powerbelly said:

---

SchizoAg said:

---

TxA&Mhunter said:

---

This is the biggest rubbish I've seen in a while...The reality is that rob hasn't recruited Houston well in almost 5 years... For our program to be super successful we have to have a strong presence in and around Houston metroplex ...

---

$1000 says that our record over the next 5 years will be worse in percentage terms than our record in Childress' last 5.

($1000 five years from now will be worth about 35 cents in today's money, but that's neither here nor there.)

---

This is a weird bet. Teams don't play for best winning percentage.

---

Okay, how about CWS trips? $1000 says we'll have fewer CWS trips in the next 5 years than in Childress' last 5.

SchizoAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

SchizoAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

SchizoAg said:

---

TxA&Mhunter said:

---

You realize that he has to be good teams in Omaha to have wins there right? how many times did he beat us to go?
This nonsense about his schedule is rubbish... He gets some scholarship help but at the end of the day acting like he's a bad hire is just flat out ignorant and shows that some people don't know jack about baseball.

---

TCU beat us by razor-thin margins those two years, one of which they were the beneficiary of Eric Hyman being our AD while favoring TCU on the selection committee . Flip those outcomes, and Childress then has more CWS appearances than him. I liked our chances in Omaha both of those years.

There is way too much luck (especially due to the notoriously fickle and arbitrary selection committee) in college baseball to say Schlossnagle is clearly better than Childress.

(However, as I've said, I don't think we can get anyone clearly better than Childress. I expect our program to get worse.)

---

May I ask why?

---

Why what? There aren't any possible candidates who are both (1) clearly better than Childress and (2) available to us. We are rolling the dice, and I don't like the odds.

---

When you're routinely on the winning side of the razor thin margins, its not luck.

---

2 instances does not a routine make. Childress' teams won plenty of important close games, too.

Call it what you want, if not luck -- "factors outside of the coach's control".

---

TCU eliminated us three years in row, yeah? But as far as Rob winning "plenty of important close games", Rob got fired in large part because he's won only enough important games to make it Omaha twice in 16 years, where he didn't win any games.

I'm not trying to litigate the "no wins in Omaha" crap, but its clear Rob didn't win as many important games as some other certain coaches out there in the world.

12thMan9 said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Remember as well that we have limits on the number of players on baseball scholarship and the total size of the roster for baseball. There's a maximum of 28 players receiving baseball aid and a maximum roster size of 35. You've seen me mention things like kids paying their 58% to play at TCU, that's where that comes from. 11.7/28 is 41.78% which make that the average baseball award. The minimum a player can get from baseball is 25% unless they are a walkon.

---

Vandy lists a roster of 43, kids, tcu 42, & A&M 38. How does that jive with what you said here?

I don't believe the %'s are accurate either. I was fortunate enough to know players when I was at A&M as well as some kids who have come through recently. The 11.7 is not spread equally among the roster. I knew 1 kids who was just getting books paid for, another was getting room & board. The 11.7 limit explains, IMO, why the roster is in constant change year to year. I haven't looked at other schools, but you can review our rosters and see the change.

It would be good to see if there are any parents of team members who could chime in, if they desired.

---

On the total roster that's a good question I'll research a bit more.

As to percentages I didn't say the percentages are spread equally I said 25% is the minimum and that 41.78% is the average. The "books" scholarship from baseball doesn't exist anymore and hasn't for about a decade so depending on the timing of your friends playing it may have changed. It's now tied to total cost of attendance, as in 25% of total cost.

I research the exact rules here and share it with the thread.

SchizoAg said:

---

TxA&Mhunter said:

---

This is the biggest rubbish I've seen in a while...The reality is that rob hasn't recruited Houston well in almost 5 years... For our program to be super successful we have to have a strong presence in and around Houston metroplex ...

---

$1000 says that our record over the next 5 years will be worse in percentage terms than our record in Childress' last 5.

($1000 five years from now will be worth about 35 cents in today's money, but that's neither here nor there.)

---

You could be right...it's been known to happen. I don't really want Schloss. Would love Tadlock but that doesn't seem realistic. I lean toward a hire similar to Tech's hiring of Tadlock when he wasn't a proven commodity but had a good pedigree.

LOYAL AG said:

---

12thMan9 said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Remember as well that we have limits on the number of players on baseball scholarship and the total size of the roster for baseball. There's a maximum of 28 players receiving baseball aid and a maximum roster size of 35. You've seen me mention things like kids paying their 58% to play at TCU, that's where that comes from. 11.7/28 is 41.78% which make that the average baseball award. The minimum a player can get from baseball is 25% unless they are a walkon.

---

Vandy lists a roster of 43, kids, tcu 42, & A&M 38. How does that jive with what you said here?

I don't believe the %'s are accurate either. I was fortunate enough to know players when I was at A&M as well as some kids who have come through recently. The 11.7 is not spread equally among the roster. I knew 1 kids who was just getting books paid for, another was getting room & board. The 11.7 limit explains, IMO, why the roster is in constant change year to year. I haven't looked at other schools, but you can review our rosters and see the change.

It would be good to see if there are any parents of team members who could chime in, if they desired.

---

On the total roster that's a good question I'll research a bit more.

As to percentages I didn't say the percentages are spread equally I said 25% is the minimum and that 41.78% is the average. The "books" scholarship from baseball doesn't exist anymore and hasn't for about a decade so depending on the timing of your friends playing it may have changed. It's now tied to total cost of attendance, as in 25% of total cost.

I research the exact rules here and share it with the thread.

---

Here we go. This is a specific and detailed description of how baseball awards are managed. Source is NCAAsports.org which is a site dedicated to helping prospects with information to navigate the recruiting process.

Quote:

---

Under NCAA rules, a Division 1 baseball team's 11.7 scholarships can be divided between a maximum of 27 players on a 35-player roster, with all players on athletic scholarship having to receive a minimum of a 25 percent scholarship. That leaves room for eight walk-ons. These players will initially not be offered an athletic scholarship, but they can earn a scholarship in the future.

---

So my error was that where I said 28 players it's actually 27 as the max that can be on baseball scholarship which makes the average 43.3%. So why do schools including A&M have more than 35 listed? I don't know but if I had to guess I'd say the extras are not active this season for some reason. The online roster isn't official so if a player is hurt or ineligible him showing up there isn't a big deal. I'm sure there's an official reporting mechanism for these things and 12man.com isn't going to be it.

dermdoc said:

---

If we hire Vitello, why do you think his record after a year or two here would be worse than his record at Tennessee is this year?

Does not make sense to me.

---

Vitello has accomplished jack squat so far in his head coaching career. Certainly nothing that Childress hasn't done. He hasn't even made it out of a regional yet.

SchizoAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

If we hire Vitello, why do you think his record after a year or two here would be worse than his record at Tennessee is this year?

Does not make sense to me.

---

Vitello has accomplished jack squat so far in his head coaching career. Certainly nothing that Childress hasn't done. He hasn't even made it out of a regional yet.

---

What is his record this year? In the SEC?

How long has he been a head coach in the SEC?

Would you be upset if this was his third year at A&M rather than Tennessee?

dermdoc said:

---

SchizoAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

If we hire Vitello, why do you think his record after a year or two here would be worse than his record at Tennessee is this year?

Does not make sense to me.

---

Vitello has accomplished jack squat so far in his head coaching career. Certainly nothing that Childress hasn't done. He hasn't even made it out of a regional yet.

---

What is his record this year? In the SEC?

How long has he been a head coach in the SEC?

Would you be upset if this was his third year at A&M rather than Tennessee?

---

Granted, it's a small sample size. Which is why you can't necessarily extrapolate from it. I would be optimistic, but no more optimistic than I would be if we were retaining Childress.

Quote:

---

Would you be upset if this was his third year at A&M rather than Tennessee?

---

We weren't upset in Rob Childress' third year at A&M when he went 19-8, won the Big 12, and made a Super Regional. Rob also went 20-10 in the SEC his 4th year in the SEC, too. (Yes, I realize Vitello has only played 3 SEC schedules due to Covid)

I think Vitello would be a good hire, but I really think its fair to say at the same time that he's not really proven jack**** that he can maintain a program long teerrm

SchizoAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I am confused.

Everybody wanted Rob to be fired and now nobody who is hired as a replacement is better?

Help?

---

I never wanted him to be fired, for precisely that reason.

---

Yep.

The question for all of the "Fire Childress" crowd was always "Who are you going to get?" And they hated that question because at best their answer was "It doesn't matter- you have to try! And if the new coach isn't better you try again!"

Now here we are. Not getting ugly yet, but headed that way.

jah003 said:

---

SchizoAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I am confused.

Everybody wanted Rob to be fired and now nobody who is hired as a replacement is better?

Help?

---

I never wanted him to be fired, for precisely that reason.

---

This doesn't even make any sense... we just accept mediocrity forever because the new coach could be potentially worse? So far A&M has potentially been turned down by one coach. I can think of far more than one option would be better than Childress.

---

Who's "we"?

jkag89 said:

---

Everyone did not want him to be fired. Many hoped and prayed he would be able to get us to that next level. He had amble time to do so and unfortunately the direction of the program has been backwards the last few seasons. It was time for a fresh start even if we don't get a "Jimbo" type hire. I think a fresh start might be exatly what RC needs revive his fortunes as well, He will definitely get a number of inquires about his availability as a pitching coach and I'd be surprised if he were not the head of another program soon.

---

Can't argue with most of this.

Now that he is gone, I hope like Hell we get a good replacement. Baseball is a funny game. Remember Joe Torre before the Yankees? He wasn't great by any means. He takes over New York and went on a 4 of 5 WS run. Great talent, but still.

jah003 said:

---

SchizoAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I am confused.

Everybody wanted Rob to be fired and now nobody who is hired as a replacement is better?

Help?

---

I never wanted him to be fired, for precisely that reason.

---

This doesn't even make any sense... we just accept mediocrity forever because the new coach could be potentially worse? So far A&M has potentially been turned down by one coach. I can think of far more than one option would be better than Childress.

---

I disagree. None that we can get. There are plenty who have the potential, but that and $22.50 will buy you a cup of starbucks. Childress has the potential to go back to the CWS also. He had three CWS-worthy teams in a row just a few years ago.

Aggies2009 said:

---

jah003 said:

---

SchizoAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I am confused.

Everybody wanted Rob to be fired and now nobody who is hired as a replacement is better?

Help?

---

I never wanted him to be fired, for precisely that reason.

---

This doesn't even make any sense... we just accept mediocrity forever because the new coach could be potentially worse? So far A&M has potentially been turned down by one coach. I can think of far more than one option would be better than Childress.

---

Who's "we"?

---

Fans with eyeballs?

SchizoAg said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

SchizoAg said:

---

TxA&Mhunter said:

---

This is the biggest rubbish I've seen in a while...The reality is that rob hasn't recruited Houston well in almost 5 years... For our program to be super successful we have to have a strong presence in and around Houston metroplex ...

---

$1000 says that our record over the next 5 years will be worse in percentage terms than our record in Childress' last 5.

($1000 five years from now will be worth about 35 cents in today's money, but that's neither here nor there.)

---

This is a weird bet. Teams don't play for best winning percentage.

---

Okay, how about CWS trips? $1000 says we'll have fewer CWS trips in the next 5 years than in Childress' last 5.

---

The past vs. the future doesn't matter.

The correct question would be "Who takes us to more CWS trips or farther in those CWS trips over the next 5 years? 10 years?"

Now I get that's impossible to answer but that's what you're trying to answer by (A) extending the Coach you currently have or (B) hire a new Coach to lead you going forward.

If new coach gets us to 1 CWS trip the next 5 years and Childress would have gotten us 0, new coach all else equal was the right move. If new coach gets us 1 CWS trip and Childress would have gotten us 2, new coach all else equal was the wrong move. Extrapolate from there.

Justice Beaver said:

---

Aggies2009 said:

---

SchizoAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I am confused.

Everybody wanted Rob to be fired and now nobody who is hired as a replacement is better?

Help?

---

I never wanted him to be fired, for precisely that reason.

---

Yep.

The question for all of the "Fire Childress" crowd was always "Who are you going to get?" And they hated that question because at best their answer was "It doesn't matter- you have to try! And if the new coach isn't better you try again!"

Now here we are. Not getting ugly yet, but headed that way.

---

Jesus H. What a ****ing pathetic take. Hasn't even been 48hrs since your savior got canned. How about we spare the dramatics and hold off on calling the coaching search "ugly"? /Cry/laugh.

---

My savior, huh?

I guess you missed the part where I said, "it's not ugly yet"? It's pretty easy to read....

So if we take Godwin, how will that play out?

Quote:

---

So if we take Godwin, how will that play out?

---

Serious question because I don't know much about Godwin but tell me about Godwin and why you like him?

Most on this board will admit tadlock was a bit of a Longshot and to be fair it seems we actually did get close. I really really don't think we hire anyone outside Schloss or Vitello. No way we miss on both.

Grown Pear said:

---

SchizoAg said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

SchizoAg said:

---

TxA&Mhunter said:

---

This is the biggest rubbish I've seen in a while...The reality is that rob hasn't recruited Houston well in almost 5 years... For our program to be super successful we have to have a strong presence in and around Houston metroplex ...

---

$1000 says that our record over the next 5 years will be worse in percentage terms than our record in Childress' last 5.

($1000 five years from now will be worth about 35 cents in today's money, but that's neither here nor there.)

---

This is a weird bet. Teams don't play for best winning percentage.

---

Okay, how about CWS trips? $1000 says we'll have fewer CWS trips in the next 5 years than in Childress' last 5.

---

The past vs. the future doesn't matter.

The correct question would be "Who takes us to more CWS trips or farther in those CWS trips over the next 5 years? 10 years?"

Now I get that's impossible to answer but that's what you're trying to answer by (A) extending the Coach you currently have or (B) hire a new Coach to lead you going forward.

If new coach gets us to 1 CWS trip the next 5 years and Childress would have gotten us 0, new coach all else equal was the right move. If new coach gets us 1 CWS trip and Childress would have gotten us 2, new coach all else equal was the wrong move. Extrapolate from there.

---

Thank you, Captain Obvious. I'm saying that no matter who we hire (among the available candidates that we actually can hire), the likelihood is that they'll be no better than Childress during his worst 5-year stretch. Hence I would keep Childress.

$1000 says we'll have fewer CWS trips in the next 5 years than in Childress' last 5.