Now you’re mixing arguments. UT went hard for McFarland, and didn’t get him. Doesn’t look like that “eye” was any different in that case, because both schools pursued him.

granger was a 5* and #1 DT in nation, CJ was a 4* DE, Stacey 4*, Taylor 3*, McFarland 5*…

taylor is the only 3* in there that could be used considered as evidence of “OU’s eye for talent, that no one else obviously saw”…

Off-field transgressions for Andre Jones and a medical condition for J. Hump.

Now, this doesn’t completely free all guilt from the coaching staff for the current state of the DT position because there have also been some swings and misses (Higgins, Wilcoxin)

But, to sit here and say that the DT position has been a persistent problem throughout the recent history of Texas football seems a bit silly to me. One would need only to look at the rushing statistics that Texas defenses have allowed to see how effective the DT’s have been.

This year’s DT situation looks shaky, no doubt, but I’m willing to see what happens on the field before I condemn the position and additionally I, for one, think the talent coming in at the position is extremely promising.

They have 6 and we have 1.

The schools don’t receive residuals from their players’ NFL contracts.

They do receive benefit from the players’ success on the field and their ability to bring home the hardware.

I’m not usually one to back up HC on matters relating to CFB, but he’s right: NFL success is irrelevant. This is college football. In college football, Tom Brady was marginally above average, and Tommie Frazier was all-planet.

I recognize that HC isn’t rooting for the Sooners or anything, but rather saying that UT needs to do better and that Mack Brown & Co. are the problem. That’s not being a fan of the other team. I’ve definitely had lots of fellow Chiefs fans telling me I should go cheer for other teams because of how critical I have been of KC since the end of the Schottenheimer era, but my criticism in each case has been fully justified. In HC’s case, I don’t think his criticism is generally justified. He makes some valid points from time to time, and of course there’s some room for improvement in Texas football, but constantly calling for the head of the driver of UT’s most successful stretch of football ever is kind of ridiculous.

….plain ignorant. “BooHoo, someone is criticizing my coach, so I’ll sling names and mud. Then due to my obvious arrogance, I’ll tell him to start cheering for another football team.” No wonder so many CFB fans around the country refer to Texas fans as some of the country’s most arrogant. He’ll do poorly in his job. Problem solving is just too frustrating for the immature.

How frustrating it must be for the apologist to know I was a big Fred Akers fan and continue to keep in contact with Fred.

Thankfully, Muschamp is a hands-on recruiter and is already providing meaningful input into future scheduling and it doesn’t involve 95% patsies.

Where’s Big Game Bob’s “eye” when sitting on the business end of yet another BCS bowl loss?

In fact going back through all the BCS champs (and USC in ‘02) the average number of regular season ranked games (not including conf. championships) was 3.58. The teams averaged .83 ranked out-of-conference opponents and 2.75 ranked in-conference opponents. That 3.58 average is eerily similar to Mack’s 3.36 average of ranked regular season opponents in his time in Austin.

LSU in ‘07 played the ’toughest’ schedule facing 6 opponents (1 OOC) who were ranked at the time they faced them (and they were the only team to play more than 4 ranked opponents during the regular season). USC’s two ‘championships’ only had them face 2 ranked opponents each of those seasons (only 1 of the 4 was OOC). The only two BCS champs to play 2 ranked OOC opponents were FSU in ’99 (4 total ranked teams) and Miami in ’01 (3 total).

So LSU is the only one of the 12 teams here to follow the schedule you would like to see us play and they were a controversial pick with the 2 losses. USC certainly has had no issues claiming its 2004 title (and claims of being the best team ever) even though they played what amounts to a cupcake schedule and they even got the AP to agree that their ‘wimpy’ 2002 schedule warranted them to be voted AP champions.

I’ve always agreed that this year’s OOC schedule stinks (but I don’t think it would be improved by having Ohio State or USC on it in September, I’d have taken the game with Arkansas). But I think we will likely have to face at least 4 ranked teams during the regular season (OU, OSU are certainties but Tech might be ranked and Missouri or Kansas could be ranked when we play them, and Colorado might even be ranked if they beat WV), which would put us above par for the champions that have preceded us.

I don’t remove OU because you don’t remove a team that was scheduled. To claim a new HC couldn’t have removed them from the OOC is just ignorance. It was done all the time around the country.

Pprior to UT going to Columbus in 2005 Mack Brown said, “We (current Texas administration) didn’t schedule this game and we don’t want this game. This was done 10 years ago and if we could get out of it, we would.”