If we get blown out by Kansas at home on Oct 5, he may not see A&M come to town the next week.
As far as what message firing him sends an incoming coach, how about "if you lose 24 consecutive Big XII games by an average of 35 points, you will be fired." Do you (1L) think that's unfair? If the incoming coach thinks it raw, he's not the guy for the job.
Our out of conference under the previous coaches included Miami, Notre Dame, Oregon State, Michigan, USC, Fresno State. On Saturday we play Samford, you are excused if you respond, WHO?. Our most recent win was against D-1AA Southern Illinois. We've beaten North Texas twice under Steele, along with New Mexico, Southern Florida and Ark State. Quite a change, huh?
Also, Steele is not making 350m, his base salary is 455 and endorsements bring him over 600. Let's see, at that rate (455 only) we pay 227m per win. Only Stoopes and Steele are in that range. RC would have made 1.8M on that scale last year.
There is no reason that Baylor can't pay someone big bucks to be coach. The money is there, they just increased freshman tuition by 39%!
I'm puzzled why you think Baylor should settle for being at or near the bottom in football. Miami is the same size, should they settle for the bottom of the Big East? Notre Dame, Stanford, Boston College, Syracuse, Purdue and USC are all private schools that do well in football. Why shouldn't Baylor?
Well, we need to look at who does the scheduling, and when. Scheduling is done at the major college level more than 3 or 4 years in advance. For example, A&M has already scheduled a game for 2011, and I think all schedules through at least 2006 or 2007 are set. I can't speak to Baylor's situation, and you may be right, but before you get on Steele about that, double check.
I'm puzzled why you think Baylor should settle for being at or near the bottom in football. Miami is the same size, should they settle for the bottom of the Big East? Notre Dame, Stanford, Boston College, Syracuse, Purdue and USC are all private schools that do well in football.
The situation at Baylor is totally different. Miami built successful teams on, shall we say, less than ethical means. That won't happen at Baylor. Baylor was SWC champion twice, and competed for it about 8 more times, but that isn't much for the time they were in the SWC. However, once Miami got rolling, recruiting picked up, they got a reputation, attracted powerful coaches, and money. Further, while last year Miami was the best college football team of all time (IMO), they don't play in the Big 12 with 4 or 5 consistent top 25 teams, and another 4 with potential to be there. In addition, they aren't, unlike Baylor, the only private school in their conference. Florida and out of state kids want to go to Miami over UF, FSU, and other schools, with Baylor it just isn't the same.
As far as the other schools you mentioned, sorry, but for the most part, Baylor can't compare with them. Notre Dame has revenue sources out of their ears. USC is bigger, almost state school like (which many folks think they are), and have a winning tradition. Stanford, BC, and Purdue all play in weaker conferences than Baylor, and are terribly inconsistent. They also have very competitive hoops programs that take the pressure off of football. They also probably have bigger revenue generation.
Compare how much Baylor pays Steele to how much Miami pays their coach. If Baylor can afford to pay a coach over a million a year, they might get the candidates that can make that program very competitive. They also probably need better facilities and someone that can sell kids on going there vs. A&M, t.u., 0u, and further out of state. Until that happens, I'm sorry to say that Baylor's best hope is to be competitive in the lowest quarter of the Big 12. If you think otherwise, then explain why Oklahoma State can't seem to get out of that same situation.