One foot in the grave

by whills on Jul 7, 2008 10:53 PM CDT

The conventional wisdom took a season-long vacation last year. There's also the conventional wisdom, the status quo, within the Longhorn community.

Here's one:

If you're losing to A&M or Baylor, you have one foot in the grave. If you lose to both of them, you're a goner.

The tell of the tape:

1956 Ed Price (1-9, 0-6 SWC) Lost to Baylor, 10-7; lost to A&M, 34-21.

1976 DKR (5-5-1, 4-4 SWC) Lost to Baylor, 37-21; lost to A&M, 20-10

1986 Fred (5-6-0, 4-4 SWC) Lost to Baylor, 18-13; lost to A&M, 16-3

1991 DMc (5-6-0, 4-4, SWC) Lost to Baylor, 21-11; lost to A&M, 31-14

1997 JMc (4-7-0, 2-6 B12) Lost to Baylor, 23-21; lost to A&M, 27-16

So, with two consecutive loses to A&M, Mack does have one foot in the grave.

Those coaches represent all Texas coaches after Blair Cherry, who left on a 9-2 season. Royal only lost to BU twice and A&M three times and the only time he lost to both in one year was the season he retired.

Fred Akers twice lost to A&M and BU in the same season, '80 and '84 - and lost bowl games to North Carolina (Bluebonnet, 16-7) and Iowa, 55-17. He was skating on thin ice, recovered a little in '85 with an 8-4 record before the '86 finale.

McWilliams didn't take long to step into it, losing to both BU and A&M in '88 and '89 before the bell tolled after the third time in '91.

Mackovic lost to both in his second year, '92, which should have been an omen, and only beat them both in '95 and '96. When '97 came around, there was no doubt it was time to exit.

So, that brings us to Mack. He's beaten Baylor convincingly every year, although last season's 31-10 victory was the closest since the opening 30-20 win. The Aggies have been a tougher nut. They won the year of the Bonfire disaster, 20-16, and then the last two years. Would they 'retire' Mack for the BU-A&M double? Maybe; they want to keep him around, just like DKR.

I don't think that is a threat this year or next; but after that Baylor could be much more dangerous.

Opportunity and Focus

This arcana is just a minor interest in a hot summer. While most of the concerns here are for how well we can do this year - with little or no cheerleading like last summer - there is the possibility that last season''s earthquake could continue this year in college football. Conventional wisdom says it was just an anomaly.

If there was a major change, I personally doubt that the result would be parity, not for a while anyway. The BCS system pumps much more money to the top than to the middle or bottom and that spells dynasty, just like in any other economically slanted system.

However, there could be more tactical strategies designed to attack the weaknesses of those growing dynasties. Just like the DeathStar, they all have weaknesses on any given year. I would contend the UT loses to KSU and A&M were precisely that, very specific attacks against very specific weaknesses - not from the other teams' overall strength.

Indeed, there is a window here for smaller school teams or even ne'er do wells to earn a little more cash if they had a winner clause. I sure Appalachia State wishes it had one. Perhaps it's a get-rich-quick type of scheme but really, just a redeployment of what resources they have. The team builds toward the model it needs for success, perhaps losing games in the process it might have won or had a chance, but aiming for success on the big stage. Sheep may stay meek but football coaches don't. Even if they don't get more cash, upsets mean a lot of exposure and celebrity, which our press manufactures by the boat load. You're seeing it happen right now in the Olympics. All those athletes are working for a future.

So, one of the assets this year is that the Horns will be an unknown quantity for a while. This won't last long, no more than a month or two. But we don't have the big target right now. OU, Mizzou and Kansas do - and now, especially, Tech. Ayyyy, matey, I see the jolly roger. Fire away.

Texas will be emotional targets for UTEP, CU and Arkansas. That will require a mature response, but I feel good about that. Despite a lot of youth, there is a solid core of experience on both sides of the ball. Those upper classmen, individually and as a group, will have to maintain the team emotional equilibrium - when to get the adrenalin up, when to be serious and stay focused.

This season is about controlling the focus. What talk that is coming out through team interviews, particularly Colt's, is that this year's squad is much more of a team than last year's. I'm not sure what that means exactly, but it implies a lot. It's a pretty good backhand to last year. I don't know if this is more about emotional maturity or the physical on-the-field maturity - or both. I don't know if this a statement as a product of their regimen since last November or a qualified observation over time.

Perhaps the sense of importance of the games themselves has changed. The coaches listed in the beginning all had their ups and downs; Mack has been up a long time, so it is possible the last two seasons have been his low spot.

Usually that is due to a number of variables, not just one (aside from the coach). Maybe the team, maybe everyone, just got too big for its breeches, so to speak, and they finally got grounded. One foot in the grave will do that.

All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.

0 recs | Comment 12 comments | Add your comment

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

I think the team unity has to do with the...

FAIR competition this year, as opposed to Mack’s “veterans play first” motto. I heard that Muschamp basically told Mack when he was hired that he was going to play who he wanted to play, and where he wanted them to play on D. And that Mack could chime in from time to time, but at the end of the day, it was Muschamp’s decision. And THANK GOD! I think last year some of the players were upset that even tho they performed better in practice, and even tho they were obviously more talented and more effective when they were in the game, Mack still refused to start them, or play them at all. My biggest complaint on defense was Mack’s decision to red-shirt Ben Wells instead of letting him start for us at safety, where we desperately needed help. It’s hard for a team to wanna go out there and perform for their coach whenever their coach doesn’t reward them for doing great.

But now Muschamp has laid the hammer down and our D will be fantastic!!! If you’re the best player on the field, then the position is yours. Kinda smart, eh?

by texasfan05 on Jul 8, 2008 1:48 AM CDT reply reply 0 recs

I doubt seriously that Muschamp gave Mack an ultimatum.

I’m sure he made his feelings very clear about what he wanted (and expected) his responsibilities to be, but no one goes into Mack Brown’s office and says “you can chime in from time to time.”

Having said that, I completely agree that the decision to start veterans simply because they were veterans was a bad one. I’m sure Mack had his reasons, namely that a lot of the guys who got in trouble during the offseason were young players who had not paid their dues and still felt entitled to go out and commit acts of supreme stupidity that ended up punishing their teammates. And maybe he didn’t trust his defensive assistants that much and felt like the players with experience gave the team a better shot at winning football games. But I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the only time all season (with the possible exception of Texas Tech) that the team played like the Texas Longhorns we know was when Mack took away everyone’s starting jobs and made them earn it.

I’ve heard Muschamp say that “the best 11 will play,” and I don’t believe he’d be saying it if he didn’t have the authority to say it. But I just find it difficult to believe that he told Mack Brown how things were going to go, and Mack said “okay, you got it..”

by bassale47 on Jul 8, 2008 12:55 PM CDT up reply reply 1 recs

Im sure he didn't say it in the words I used

And I’m sure it didn’t sound like an ultimatum, but Muschamp did either TELL or ASK Mack to let him have almost full control over who starts and where they start on defense. I think that kind of straight up honesty is something that Mack would appreciate.

by texasfan05 on Jul 8, 2008 1:45 PM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

I think you need some citations

to get the direct story. I don’t think you slap the boss around (at least not for long) but getting a clear understanding is absolutely necessary.

However, I do like the idea of Muschamp having some autonomy and authority, but Mack is ultimately the responsible party, so there are some natural limits. Mack would be smart to give Muschamp as much authority as he can handle.

One interesting question would be ‘Does Mack give GD that much authority?’ And if he did give Muschamp that level of ‘complete’ authority, would GD bristle and bow up? Mack is essentially the manager of these units and realistically, the easiest and most effective way to manage will probably dictate the decisions about how to bestow power.

In our case, Muschamp is totally rebuilding while GD is refining. So, I would think Muschamp has the bigger job and the greater need for authority at this point.

by whills on Jul 8, 2008 2:06 PM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

I suspect

that Muschamp required a certain amount of autonomy before taking the job. He is here as a stepping stone to a head coaching position (at Texas or elsewhere), and I would doubt that he would jeopardize his reputation as one of the countries premier defensive minds by being handicapped by personnel.

That said, Mack doesn’t hire a guy like Muschamp without realizing who he has on his hands. I doubt there was much discussion whatsoever about ceding authority, if Mack wasn’t willing to do so he would have hired someone else.

I’d agree that Muschamp probably doesn’t have complete authority (and seriously doubt any confrontation). But I’d be surprised if either he or Mack is concerned about this becoming an issue.

by learned hand on Jul 8, 2008 2:14 PM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

The renewed emphasis on "team"

indicates that you’re probably correct in your assessment. They both need success. Any confrontation probably would be about performance, not authority. And I’m sure Mack will be smoothing the way for Muschamp. He needs time to get the pieces into place.

A rebuilt defense will have some early problems, no doubt, but defenses tend to gel before offenses, so the first few games are more critical in this regard.

by whills on Jul 8, 2008 2:33 PM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

I realize I went way long on this

and should have broken it down into two different posts. Knowing PB had other things on his ah mind, I thought this would fill the waiting time a little bit. Others seem to have had that thought, too. Hope PB has enough strength left to remember where he was.

Quite frankly, I’ve think we need the occasional open thread for general conversation, especially on long holiday weekends.

by whills on Jul 8, 2008 2:13 PM CDT reply reply 0 recs

Guys!

Lol, I never said anything about a confrontation in the sense that yall are thinking of. I’m just telling you what I know. And my citations cannot be cited because this is word of mouth. All I was trying to get across is that Muschamp brought what Texas needed. End of story. Yall need to chill.

by texasfan05 on Jul 8, 2008 5:01 PM CDT reply reply 0 recs

No offense, texasfan05

but those of us who come from journalism (and certainly the legal eagles) understand that word-of-mouth is hearsay, it’s not evidence. I know you expressed these things with the best of intent. However, you need to phrase statements such as the interaction between Mack and Muschamp for what it is – a word-of-mouth reference that you put x amount of trust in. That way we, the audience, can assess it for what it is. There are always those that will run with the presumption and that can lead to trouble, the literal equivalent to rumor mongering.

The strength of this site is the validity of its information. Everything is subject to correction, none of us are immune to errors, and, of course, subjective opinions are a dogfight, which is just fine.

I’m just stating that the responsible position, which is that your source ought to have some degree of validation for whatever it is. Sometimes you will know things are true and accurate but can’t validate it – you have to take the time to phrase just right and hopefully your credibility will be enough so we understand. It’s your credibility that I’m encouraging you to sustain in such a manner, nothing more or less.

by whills on Jul 8, 2008 7:38 PM CDT up reply reply 1 recs

Understood

but it’s not like I said that I read that in a respectable newspaper, or that I heard it from Mushchamp himself. I said it in all honesty that that is what I “heard”. Now if you think that by me repeating things that I heard from my sources makes this a less valid site then I differ with you. I’m not making Fanposts saying what I heard, I’m just leaving comments about it. I would understand your intent of wanting me to be more factual and have all the information that spews out of my mouth ( and a lot of stuff spews out of my mouth) to have solid evidence to support it. But I’m making no claim that what I hear is the absolute truth. And I’m also not just coming onto this board and saying whatever my mind conjures up. If you choose not to believe me then go ahead. But just because someone’s profession is a journalist, that does not always make their sources better ones. And no, I do not believe that I have release my sources.

I thought this site was for fans wanting to talk about the Texas Longhorns. Not only journalists, like yourself.

by texasfan05 on Jul 8, 2008 8:54 PM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

It is a site for talking about the Longhorns.

Didn’t mean to beat you about the ears.

And I’m retired.

Yours was a strong statement and basically the rule is: the stronger the claim, the stronger the evidence required. And you were challenged and it was parsed out. The everyday readers of the board will understand (to some degree, anyway) but the widespread visitors who come here may not. The question I raised was ethical, not personal. The concern was long term, not short.

And, damn right, fun is the one of the key element most of the time. Can’t be popular without it.

by whills on Jul 8, 2008 9:15 PM CDT up reply reply 0 recs