Many (most?) on this board believe that Bruce has to achieve dramatically better results this year to justify continuing as Head Coach.
Though not scientific, my assessment of this board is that the most common MINIMUM success threshold that posters feel Bruce has to meet is to "finish in the top half of the Big 12." For many (most?) posters, anything less is "accepting mediocrity" and deserving of termination.
Obviously, most of the season is still left to play and nothing regarding team assessments is very firm.
Still, I think it may prove instructive to put "has to finish in the top half of the Big 12 at a minimum" into context. Using the current AP poll as indicator of strength - and proxy for Big 12 finish - the current top five Big 12 teams are Kansas (2), Baylor (16), West Virginia (19), Texas Tech (22), and TCU (23).
So, in theory, KSU could miss finishing in the top half of the Big 12 and still be ranked in the top 25 nationally. Or put differently, as of today, KSU would need to be ranked #23 in order to meet posters' most common MINIMUM success threshold.
Is that reasonable? Do posters really believe that anything less than what today would require a #23 ranking for a team with 5 juniors and 8 underclassmen is indicative of such a bad coaching job that changes are necessary? Or could what many (most?) claim is a MINIMUM requirement to stay, in fact, be evidence of outstanding progress? And is anything less than outstanding progress automatically deserving of termination?
Though not scientific, my assessment of this board is that the most common MINIMUM success threshold that posters feel Bruce has to meet is to "finish in the top half of the Big 12." For many (most?) posters, anything less is "accepting mediocrity" and deserving of termination.
Obviously, most of the season is still left to play and nothing regarding team assessments is very firm.
Still, I think it may prove instructive to put "has to finish in the top half of the Big 12 at a minimum" into context. Using the current AP poll as indicator of strength - and proxy for Big 12 finish - the current top five Big 12 teams are Kansas (2), Baylor (16), West Virginia (19), Texas Tech (22), and TCU (23).
So, in theory, KSU could miss finishing in the top half of the Big 12 and still be ranked in the top 25 nationally. Or put differently, as of today, KSU would need to be ranked #23 in order to meet posters' most common MINIMUM success threshold.
Is that reasonable? Do posters really believe that anything less than what today would require a #23 ranking for a team with 5 juniors and 8 underclassmen is indicative of such a bad coaching job that changes are necessary? Or could what many (most?) claim is a MINIMUM requirement to stay, in fact, be evidence of outstanding progress? And is anything less than outstanding progress automatically deserving of termination?
