Coaching Changes? Don't Ask Me...
by Peter Bean on Dec 12, 2007 6:01 PM CST
in Texas Longhorns Football
Email
PrintFrom the reader mail. I always try to respond to every email I receive; occasionally, if it merits public discussion, I'll do so on the main page instead of directly to the questioner. I'll never publish a questioner's full name on the board.
For the record: I appreciate every single email y'all send - I can't tell you how many gracious emails I've received over the years. For a full-time gig that generates very little income, those are enormously appreciated. As always, the email inbox is open.
I've got a question, though. How come you aren't posting updates about potential coaching changes for Mack's staff? Is it because there aren't any or you just don't know of any? I know the mgoblog guy does a lot of that. You have any scoops for us?
--Larry W.--
Thanks for the email, Larry. You touched on a lot of things, quite a few of which I wouldn't mind responding to on the main board, so here we go.
First off, just a quick word on your note about all the great blogs out there. To begin with, you're absolutely right. I'm amazed at how much interesting stuff there is to read about college football, and each year, there's more and more. It's more than one reader can keep up with, honestly. And one of the things I love about this particular blog is that the Diaries allow readers to blog within the blog. I learn as much from the readers as I do researching things myself.
Additionally, I think your'e spot on to characterize football bloggers in general as a "supplement" to what the mainstream coverage provides. While it's a substitute for most opinion columnists in mainstream publications, it is a supplement to the actual news gathering that mainstream outlets provide. Beat reports aren't glorious, but they're important. The good reporters use their employer's resources to ask hard questions, dig out facts the public should have, and conduct legitimate investigations. It's good for them, good for the public, and good for bloggers. I'm glad you mentioned it.
As for covering behind the scenes stuff? There are a couple points worth discussing here.
Most importantly, I write as a hobby. For the first two years of this blog's existence, I worked full time. This fall, I went through my first semester of law school. And reporting behind the scenes news requires a more vested time commitment to your trade. Whether you're a full time reporter at Rivals, the Statesman, or a full-time blogger like Brian at MGoBlog, it takes a lot of work to cultivate sources. That's time I don't have.
On top of that, corroborating source material is a daunting, time-consuming task of its own. When credibility is on the line - as it always is with these kinds of stories - it takes ten times as long to build up your reputation as it does to lose it.
With those two points in mind, you shouldn't be surprised to learn that it's not part of what I write about at BON. Though I talk regularly with one well-connected person in the athletic department, it's always, always off the record. If it were my full-time job to write and manage this site, I might put in some time to that side of Longhorn coverage. As is, I rather think of BON as a sports bar for the obsessed, rational Longhorn fan. The level of analysis here - from readers as much as main page content - is truly something to behold. And the discourse is always friendly and courteous; even the occasional pissing contests between intellectual heavyweights tend to end in a handshake and a promise to be more courteous next time.
And finally, I just don't have the personality or patience to lose myself in the speculative reporting side of these things. It's the same as recruiting: every year I promise myself I'm going to get involved in covering the ins and outs of which player might be going where, and every year, I lose interest even before I begin. As much fun as the speculative merry-go-round can be, I really just want to know which kids sign in February.
The coaching search reporting is different because the outcome is, in many ways, determinative on the program's health as a whole. It matters much more which coach(es) your school hires than whether one particular recruit chooses your program or another. (Generally speaking, of course. Once-a-generation players can make all the difference in the world, but it's near-impossible to predict which ones will be transformational when they're only 16.) Even though the coaching hires are more important than an individual recruit, there's another reason I'm wary of the speculative reporting: it's always wrong. Kirk Herbstreit is this offseason's most ignominious story breaker, but he's also one of many in this offseason alone. For whatever reason, football coaching hires produce a hundred more false stories than true ones. Whether that's the product of intentional dissemination campaigns, over-eager sources, or something else - I don't know. All I know is that when the hire is finally made, 19 times out of 20 it's not been scooped beforehand. I guess it makes for fun chatter, but it's not something I have the time, resources, or interest in diving into.
In any case, I wanted to lay all that out; as the site continues to grow, we have a host of new readers each month and I like laying out what we're about from time to time. I love to watch sports, talk about sports, research sports, and analyze sports. I'm not much of a reporter, nor do I have time to be.
The only thing that I know for certain is that we won't hear a peep from the Texas staff about changes (or non-changes) until after the Holiday Bowl. If there are rumors at that time, we'll discuss them.
In the meantime, I hope everyone books their trip to San Diego for the '07 finale and starts getting behind this Texas basketball team. It's going to be a damn fun year.
--PB--
38 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Two further questions
Grand Poobah PB,
- The new ads at the bottom of the posts? Completely necessary? It's one thing when I see them while perusing comments, it's another to get hit in the face first thing in the morning when I log on (and yes, this is the first place I come to on the interwebs in the morning, when I can't even think straight). I understand this stuff doesn't pay for itself, but it's still a bit jarring.
- Now that I've completely erased football from my brain, what are the best non-ESPN/SI college basketball blogs out there? I realized the other day that I only really read CFB specific blogs and need to branch out. Any big ones that you read daily? Obviously, suggestions from AW and others also welcome.
Thanks,
Kahuna
Not up to me
- This blog is a part of SB Nation, and they've poured in an ungodly amount of money building and hosting all these sites. They gotta make some money somehow; they're experimenting with Google Ads. Unsightly? Yes. Anything I can do about it? Nope. Unfortunate. Es business, I guess.
- Well, the two best ones (Ken Pomeroy's and John Gasaway's Big Ten Wonk) are no longer in operation. That's the bad news; the good news is that they're not running them anymore because the two have teamed to launch Basketball Prospectus, which (at least for the part they cover) is devoted to college hoops analysis.
Beyond that, most of the good stuff is team-specific and not of great interest to general reading. As far as national hoops blogs, Yoco Hoops used to be supreme, but he's now writing for mainstream publications and doesn't blog with as much frequency. The MidMajority is a terrific hoops blog. There are probably others, but, like you, I don't read nearly as many college hoops blogs as I do football.
For individual teams, there are lots and lots of good ones. SB Nation's Kentucky blogger does a terrific job. Ditto our Louisville blogger (he does a great job with the Big East in general, for that matter). I like the writing style of our UNC blogger. As a Georgetown fan, I tend to poke around Hoya Prospectus.
If others have good recommendations, I'd be interested, too.
The Advertisements Thing
I do not, in general, have a problem with advertising and have accepted it as part of the landscape of visual entertainment. However, I had noticed on more than one occasion a week or so past that when I click my bookmark toolbar for BON it has directed me to the BON header with a small Whataburger advertisement and nothing else. Any clue?
This is also my first website visited each morning. You do a great job, PB.
For the adds
if you use firefox, go to tools, click on add ons, then click on get extensions, then under popular extensions click add block plus and install it. Although, if everybody uses this then PB may not get paid:(
Gotta do it ...
Insert obligatory Greg Davis reference here.
I feel better now.
by EddieTheAlbinoSquirrel on Dec 12, 2007 8:19 PM CST reply actions
Top BCS Program Coaching
Most BCS Conference Championships Since 2000:
(TEXAS 1)
USC 6 (Pac 10)
Oklahoma 5 (Big XII)
Ohio State 4 (Big 10)
Florida State 4 (ACC)
Miami 4 (Big East)
LSU 3 (SEC)
Florida 2 (SEC)
Georgia 2 (SEC)
Virginia Tech 2 (ACC)
Michigan 2 (Big 10)
West Virginia 2 (Big East)
LSU, Florida and Miami earned championships with two different coaches in this time span. Miami fired the second one for not being good enough and their third in eight seasons is still struggling to rebuild. Michigan just fired theirs and is still interviewing.
Multiple BCS Bowl Appearances Since 2000:
(TEXAS 2)
Oklahoma 6
USC 6
Ohio State 5
LSU 4
Florida State 4
Miami 4
Georgia 3
Michigan 3
Notre Dame 3
Florida 2
Illinois 2
Virginia Tech 2
West Virginia 2
LSU, Florida, Miami, Notre Dame and Illinois went to BCS bowls with two different coaches in this time span. Miami fired the second one for not being good enough and their third in eight seasons is still struggling to rebuild. Michigan just fired their and is still interviewing. Notre Dame fired their first one after some bad seasons, their second one just completed their worst season ever after taking them to BCS bowls in his first two seasons. ND had a coach between both BCS bowl coaches. Illinois fired the first coach after some bad seasons.
What does this mean for UT and Mack Brown? Firing a coach from a top school is not as desirable as having that coach hired away. LSU's transition was relatively seamless. As was Miami's first coaching transition. Florida kissed a frog after Spurrier was hired away for three years before finding another winner. That frog is now coaching Illinois to its second BCS bowl appearance this decade after replacing a coach who was fired, so both programs ended up okay. Notre Dame also kissed a frog between BCS bowl appearances, though after this season's disaster many say their current coach benefited from the frog's recruiting work his first two seasons.
With 5 of the 13 teams in multiple BCS bowls since 2000 going through 2 or more coaches during the span transition is not automatically a kiss of death for a program. Georgia replaced a coach with 4 season's of 8+ wins and minor bowl games in 2001 and now have 3 BCS appearances. Both Oklahoma and USC went through multiple coaches and disappointing seasons with a few ray of false hope seasons sprinkled along the way in the fifteen years before they hired their current coaches who have been the most dominant of this decade. Ohio State's coach also has been hugely successful since arriving in 2001. His predecessor was a solid coach, but like Lloyd Carr, could not beat his rival consistently.
Mack Brown has been a tremendous coach for UT. But in looking at the top football programs of our time, his record has not earned him canonization at UT. And he cannot beat his rival consistently. He can be replaced and UT can be more successful with a new coach. Ohio State, Georgia, Florida, LSU, Miami, USC, Notre Dame all traded up from coaches most other programs envied. West Virginia, Oklahoma and Illinois traded up from bad coaching.
Florida State and Virginia Tech have long tenured coaches who continue to meet with success, though FSU is on a two year down slide. Miami and Notre Dame's coaches are both under scrutiny after one bad season. Michigan's coach is gone with his solid record after one bad season.
I'm not calling for Mack's head after this season. I'm simply pointing out that it is more the exception among top programs to be patient when championships and BCS bowls are not achieved than the rule. And when they make a move outcomes like Nebraska or Texas A&M falling off the map are also more the exception than the rule.
With a daunting schedule in 2008 compared to 2007 (trade three non-bowl bound teams in the Big XII North for three bowl-bound teams, add a Petino-coached Arkansas for Central Florida and a Sun Belt conference champion Florida Atlantic for a 5th place Arkansas State) Mack & Co will need to bring performance up dramatically. They need more than small tweaks this off-season for UT to win a championship and/or go to a BCS bowl game.
Excellent post
Your post contained lots of good info relevant to the discussion.
If we look at the top schools on your list of BCS conference championships, the following can be said about the hires at those schools:
USC: had a pretty mediocre pro career, not an obvious choice at all. His success has been a surprise. Great hire by the AD going out on a limb.
OU: Stoops had never been a head coach before! Was smart enough to grab Bill Snyder's staff en masse. Great hire by the AD going out on a limb.
tOSU: Tressel had been a coach at a small college before assuming the reins at tOSU. Great hire by the AD going out on a limb.
Florida State and Miami are currently not doing that great. The hires at USC, OU, and tOSU were all counter intuitive, brilliant hires. Is Deloss Dodds capable of making those hires?
Deloss Dodds, the UT AD, has been in the job for 27 years. UT has plenty of experience with Deloss's hires (Mack is the best football coach that Deloss hired in 27 years). Deloss graduated from college in 1959 so he is probably around 70 years old (i.e. getting near retirement and probably not real eager to rock the boat).
Since Mack won a national championship two years ago, he is probably bullet proof for a while (as long as Deloss remains AD is my guess).
As far as Mack improving, like most coaches, he is pretty much as good as the talent he coaches. He had two pretty good recruiting classes the last two years, so those guys should help some next year. Unfortunately the schedule is also tougher, so the record will probably not improve.
Is there anybody in particular that you think UT can hire who will improve UT's football team? Do you know if it is true that mack has an agreement with UT that, when Mack retires as head coach, his staff is guaranteed one year of job security after mack leaves? I am pretty sure that any new head coach would be really frustrated by such a provision.
D Dodds ...
Great AD ... UT will be sad when he leaves and he MUST have a say in the next football coach. Check out who else he's hired:
Eddie Reese - men's swimming
Coach G - women's hoops (hired Conradt, too, I think)
Rick Barnes - men's hoops
Augie Garrido - baseball
Connie Clark - softball
Volleyball, Soccer ... he's been hitting pretty high lately. Mack was a great hire back then. Deloss should definitely help choose the next ... or at least be a part of the interview process
Dodds is a wooden
puppet and for anyone over the age of 30, they know for a fact he sucks.
People forget the body count. How many duds did he hire during his 25+ year era?
In most recent hires he does not make decisions without Jamail, McCombs, Hicks and other heavy weights. Case in point, Dodds was going to hire Barnett -- but they put the brakes on and forced the issue with Mack.
I think the donors watched Dodds hire and fire 3 football coaches and said, "wait a sec their hoss".
Dodds was the reason Texas wandered through the wilderness for so many years. Big donors saved the program.
Plus he's a K-State grad.
And you wonder why we keep getting punked by them. Dodds is secretly laughing up in his office with the doors closed.
And you're exactly right about the football coaches he hired, especially considering what was out there.
Deloss is about 14 years older than Mack
so he probably won't be super involved in the selection of Mack's replacement(because it is most likely that he will retire before Mack).
If Deloss is not retired when Mack retires, then I'm sure that Deloss will be involved in the Mack replacement decision. Mack was a pretty safe choice and has turned out pretty well (but not as well as Tressel, Carroll, or Stoops). My point is that Deloss is very unlikely to identify that upcoming genius (such as an Urban Meyer, Tressel, Stoops, etc) when they can still be hired.
My main point is not that Deloss is terrible but that replacing a top 10 coach is not an easy thing to do and that it is unlikely that Deloss will come up with someone as good as Stoops (which is what we all really want).
For the purposes of this discussion (recruiting a replacement for Mack) I don't care how Deloss recruits in sports other than men's football.
What Does A Program See Itself As
In sports, as in life, you usually become what you see yourself as. If you see yourself as a 9-5 cubicle worker, odds are you are one. If you see yourself as a corporate manager, odds are you are one. And if you see yourself as an elite college football program you end up becoming one.
No offense to the Hawaii's and Boise State's, but only teams in BCS conferences can become elite college football programs. Non-BCS conferences just don't have the depth during an entire season of opponents to make a legitimate claim. But the programs I've listed in the OP are the elite programs in college football. Most of them have been up there for many decades, not just the 2000's. They are there because they see themselves as elite programs and hold their coaches accountable - they must deliver.
An elite program does not necessarily win National Championships every year. But it does win its Conference Championships, defeat its top rival school and occasionally pulls a NC out of its hat. To win a NC so many things must come together that a team doesn't necessarily control so they are difficult to win with regularity. But rivalry games and conference championships are a different story. They are completely in the control of each team.
Mack Brown has a very good program. It is far better than the one he took over. But it is not an elite program. He has one conference championship and four wins against his top rival in ten tries (only two out of the last eight). If the University of Texas football program sees itself as a very good program, it has achieved that goal without a doubt. But if it sees itself as an elite program it is a failure thus far under Mack Brown's leadership. The question is, does Mack want to be seen as a very good coach of a very good program, or does he aspire to being an elite coach of an elite program.
As ordinary fans there is very little we have to say about this. But if the major donors are content with UT being a very good program, Mack will be here indefinitely. If the major donors have higher aspirations and believe UT should be one of the elite programs Mack has probably only 2-3 more years left here.
The information in the top of this thread was provided to show that elite programs make changes pretty frequently to stay an elite program. Yes, it is a bit of a gamble each time they change coaches. But, like a game show contestant they always try for that $1,000,000 door, rather than simply go home with $100,000. Sometimes they end up with the blender, but then they try again...and again...until they pick the winner.
Ohio State's Tressel came in because John Cooper couldn't defeat Michigan and win Big 10 Championships regularly, even though he had several 10-11 win seasons and some championships under his belt. Now Michigan's Carr is out because he couldn't defeat Ohio State and win Big 10 Championships regularly, despite several 10-11 win seasons and some championships (including NC). Florida State, Miami, LSU, USC, Georgia, Oklahoma, Notre Dame all see themselves as elite programs. FSU is the only one with continuity. And despite being the top program in the nation with Miami for two decades, and making a BCS bowl in 2005 Bowden is under constant fire from fans because he's not won his conference championship the last two years and has a poor record against his top two rivals this decade.
And this story repeats itself across all the elite programs, because they see themselves as elite and do whatever it takes to stay an elite program. If the major boosters see UT as an elite program I'm sure they are communicating to Mack & Co that he needs to make sure the next few seasons he delivers an elite program outcome. If the major boosters have only very good expectations and are content to have Oklahoma hold the elite program title in the Big XII then that's what Mack will deliver. He'll get us one out of four championships, one out of four wins over our biggest rival, and have solid 9-10-11 wins seasons every year.
If that is the case, though, I would appreciate Deloss Dodds and Mack Brown coming out and acknowledging to fans that they're okay with being the second best team in the conference because Oklahoma is the elite program in the conference and there is little they can or are willing to do about it. They should just tell us that we should not have any expectations of anything more. Hawaii and Boise State fans understand they are what they are and they're pretty much okay with that. If that is what UT football is all about, let me know as a fan. I'll lower my expectations and not have much disappointment at the end of the year since I'll know that is all the UT program is committed to achieving. But don't tell me that this is as good as it gets, or that making a coaching change from Mack would necessarily land UT in football purgatory like Nebraska or A&M.
Well, Kinda Yes
In the immortal words of Ty Webb, "Be the ball, Billy, be the ball, nananananana, see your future, nananananana, be your future, nanananananana."
But, seriously, UT had several SWC championships in that stretch and beat their top rivals about half the time. As I stated, a NC is still rare even among elite programs, but they win their conferences and beat their rivals with regularity.
UT's record v. rivals (break is Brown's 1st season):
v. OU v. A&M
1971-1997: 11-13-3 12-15
1998-2007: 4-6 7-3
UT Conference Championships:
1971-1997: 8 (7 SWC, 1 Big XII)
1998-2007: 1 (Big XII)
UT National Championships:
1971-1997: 0
1998-2007: 1
OU's record v. rivals (break is Stoops' 1st season):
v. NU v. UT
1971-1998: 14-14 13-10-3
1999-2007: 4-1 6-3
OU Conference Championships:
1971-1998: 11 (Big 8)
1999-2007: 5 (Big XII)
OU National Championships:
1971-1998: 3
1999-2007: 1
I'm sure the Ohio State, Michigan, Florida State, Miami, USC, Georgia and Notre Dame have similar numbers to OU's. These are all elite programs, both historically and currently. LSU is a recent phenomenon, as is Florida beginning in the early 1990's under Spurrier. Neither program was much to speak of before then.
The question remains, is UT a very good program, as its history and current performance indicates, or does it aspire to be an elite program. Given that OU is in our conference, is the elite program of the conference and it recruits players from Texas, I believe that UT SHOULD be an elite program as the flagship program of the most football talent-rich state in the country. Instead, it is OU, because they see themselves as an elite program and don't suffer anything less than being elite very long. Nor do any of the elite programs. Very good programs like UT are comfortable and content with second best in their conference the majority of the time, and stay there. Nanananananannana
basically agree, but....
Florida State, Miami, and Florida are all relatively recent phenomena. Same with Georgia and LSU. By almost any measure, these are the ten traditional powers in college football:
· Michigan
· Notre Dame
· Texas
· Nebraska
· Alabama
· Ohio State
· Penn State
· Oklahoma
· Tennessee
· USC
Programs rise and fall somewhat from year to year and decade to decade, but alumni at these schools will not long endure mediocrity.
Texas has a strong built-in advantage being able to recruit in-state (almost exclusively, if desired). The other schools mentioned above (with the possible exception of Ohio State and USC) must get players out-of-state. Texas's number one priority should be to keep the cream of the high school football crop coming to Austin. RkyMtnHorn correctly identifies our rivals (specifically Oklahoma, and to a somewhat lesser extent A&M) as being the major impediment to accomplishing this objective....
Very Good versus Elite
Georgia has been a solid program for many, many years. Dooley went back to the early 1960's and had several championships and a couple NC's along the way. They've got a .650 all-time winning % and are #11 all time wins. Florida State has been a solid program since the 1970's and elite since the 1980's. LSU and Florida are much more recent additions to the club, with less than twenty years in the upper mix.
Alumni of elite schools do not endure 'very good' programs very long, too. tOSU dumped Cooper. Michigan dumped Carr. Nebraska dumped Solich. Notre Dame dumped Davie and Willingham. Alabama dumped Stallings. Miami dumped Coker. Bowden is on a short leash at FSU. Weiss at Notre Dame. Both are only 1-2 years removed from BCS bowls. Alumni of elite programs don't endure mediocrity at all.
I reiterate, I'm not saying dump Mack Brown - yet. But he needs to take a page from OU's notebook and figure out what they are doing better than we are. We are in the same conference. We recruit the same talent. We play basically the same schedule. The same number of our players go on to the NFL. We graduate the same number of players. Both programs have had law-breakers in their ranks. But in the coaching match up, Stoops has gotten more results from his team than Brown has.
This off-season Mack has to ask himself and his coaches how they can make UT the team to beat in the conference ahead of OU. And do it with regularity, rather just catching OU one out of four years when they are down. The rise and fall in this rivalry is pretty lopsided between Stoops and Brown. Just to even the score, Brown would have to beat Stoops six out of the next eight years. I don't see that happening unless something changes dramatically.
There is this: 819-316-33
Sorta hard to explain purgatory when you're the third best overall in football history. Somebody has been winning out behind the woodpile.
Good short-term rant but a clear case of apoxia.
If Overall Wins are your Yard Stick
Then UT and UT under Mack are clearly among the elites of all time and during his tenure. But if you count conference championships and national championships they are a very good team, but no where near an elite one.
I suppose there are those who consider the Buffalo Bills of the 1990's and the Minnesota Vikings of the 1970's elite teams because they had a lot of wins and went to four Super Bowls. But they didn't win one of them, so most people just think of them as very good teams. That's not even a good example in that both the Vikings and Bills at least won their conference championships all those years, but I hope you see the point I'm getting to. Having one of the winningest records, with so few championships of any kind is not the mark of an elite team.
So, the question remains, are UT fans and the UT football administration and boosters content to be a very good program year in and year out. Or do they see themselves as an elite program year in and year out? This is a distinction with a difference with respect to what we expect from the UT coach and how long a tenure he has. If being the second best team in the conference 75% of the time over the course of this "best decade in UT history since the 1960's" is okay with you, just say so, I won't be angry with you. But don't be angry with me for having higher expectations then simply being better than we were in the 1970's-1990's. Remember, We're Texas!
Yes we are. And we're going to stay that way.
Change three games - aTm, OU, aTm - and your comment is not nearly as relevant. This is less about the direction of the program than the stinging losses the last two years, a bone we've just about chewed clean of any real meat.
Long term, we are elite. Try this:
NCAA All-Time Bowl Appearances
Team Total Record
- Alabama 54 30-21-3
- Texas 46 23-21-2
Tennessee 46 24-22
- USC 45 29-16
- Nebraska 44 22-22
- Georgia 42 23-16-3
- Oklahoma 40 24-15-1
- Penn St. 39 25-12-2
- Micigan 38 18-20
LSU 38 19-18-1
Ohio St. 38 18-20
Texas attended their first bowl in 1943, so in 64 years they've gone bowling 46 times, 71%, about the same as our overall winning percentage.
Basically, you're asking if Mack can keep up with OU, whether the Texas coaching staff can perform to OU levels and if not, are we - not really we but rather the actual powers that be - are going to do something definitive to "regain our elite status."
As basically a non-elite entity in that conversation, I can definitely say: fuck if I know. As a long-time interested party, I can wonder how hard-eyed the elites gonna be in looking at this elite business.
From one of those real elites, I know they are seriously unhappy with the staff, offensive (yes, GD, too) and defensive, but happy with Mack as the face of the program.
In a certain sense, in pulling out of the debacle after the Fred years (both '77 and '83 had real title shots), Mack has improved the overall foundation of the program and they, the elites, will be extremely careful about the next step. They saw with McWilliams and Mackovic that the program won't run itself; that you must have a talented staff up and down the ladder as well as at the head spot. That there is also a certain self-image which must be fulfilled, as diffuse as that may seem. The step with Mack Brown was important but the next one will be even more so.
And I will point this out, too, as counter-intuitive as it may seem: Having Stoops ambushing us every so often pushes the Texas program higher and higher. And this, too, isn't new: since OU made the institutional decision to go after post-WWII students like gang busters and signed Bud Wilkinson, the two institutions have been pushing each other higher and higher (in sports terms).
So, if we were kicking Stoops ass, they'd go get someone better. And so will we.
Perhaps you should ask this question early on Dec. 28th, because you will probably have your answer before the day is done.
Good Points
I do think both programs push each other, as every rivalry does. OU's strongest rival for most of that 1971-1999 period was Nebraska, but UT was always there to give them an additional push. Now that NU is down, and they only play 2 out of 4 years we're the bigger rival. For UT, both OU and A&M have been tough rivals since 1971.
And I understand the public face value Mack brings. But I will take issue with the characterization of Stoops "ambushing us every so often". Winning 6 of 8 (including two 50-point margin slaughters over us) is hardly every so often. Stoops is dominating Brown about as one-sidedly as we've seen in the history of the rivalry. And I don't see Brown putting together the program that goes 6 of the next 8 against Stoops. I just don't see it happening. Brown's wins will come every four years when OU has high turnover in starters and assistants. Or if/when Stoops goes to the NFL Brown will probably do fine against OU. He just can't best the man but 1 out of 4 tries. I like Mack, I just wish he had more of Stoops' desire to be THE best, not just one of the best.
Ambush
Specifically the 2000 game (63-14), which came after two wins by Mack, one before Stoops was there, and 2003 (65-13), which nearly blew Mack out of the water and probably put him on double-secret probation.
The rest of the losses were relatively close games which either team could have won with a few breaks.
2001 14-3, Texas dominated until three Simms INTs late in the game
2002 35-24, Texas led 17-11 late in third; O couldn't move and D couldn't stop Qwentin Griffin late in game; then he came up with fumble to nail it.
2004 12-0, Peterson led OU but this was a 6-0 game until Kejuan Jones scored with 8:07 left. The Rose Bowl win over Michigan would vindicate the season despite the bad taste over five straight losses.
2007 28-21 Tight game; key play: JC fumbles on go-ahead touchdown.
So, Mack's record vs. OU is 4-6 and 3-6 against Stoops. That is, Stoops has won 6 of 9; you wanna forget the first loss, but it counts like the rest. Only two of those were blow outs and each had a detrimental impact on Mack.
You throw those two big OU wins (by 49, 52) out and Stoops has won by 11 (14-3), 11 (35-24), 12 (12-0) and 7 (28-21). Wins, yes, but not devastating losses, certainly not domination; these were close games between highly ranked teams every time. Mack has won by (excluding the 31-pt win over Blake) by 10 (38-28), 33 (45-12) and 18 (28-10).
This series has been streaky through out it's history, regardless of the coaches.
And if you want to see real domination, look at DKR's victories over OU: 58-65 (8), 67-70 (4); that's 12 out of 13 - and the only reason they lost in 1967 was that QB Bill Bradley injured his knee the game before and Andy White, who had no experience at all, just couldn't operate the offense whatsoever. I saw that game and it was one of the most pitiful Texas game I've ever seen. Of those 12 games, OU only scored in double figures four times (14, 12, 20, 17) and there were two shut outs. As a matter of fact, from 1960 to 65, OU only scored 27 points in six games.
So, historically, Stoops is a long way from setting any standards for domination. It may feel like it emotionally, but the hard facts just don't back it up.
Mack should be against the wall, but OU is only a part of it.
record against OU
I truly have no issue with our recent record against OU. Certainly it would have been nice to win a few more of those games, but most of them have been close affairs -- against one of the elite teams in the nation. The effort has clearly been there. Despite losing this year 21-28, I thought the OU game was our best performance of 2007.
The problem I have is the team's obvious lack of preparation and motivation against inferior competition. Why can't we take care of business against the likes of Arkansas State and Central Florida or even A&M? OK, you can make the argument that we're every other team's Super Bowl or something, but that still doesn't excuse the lack of preparation, excessively conservative playcalling, and apparent lack of effort. Overall, we seem to rise or sink to the level of competition. I have to pin these shortcomings on the coaching staff.
I agree about those allegations to some degree.
I don't argue that we're others super bowl at all. What the discussion was about is how abjectly stoops has been whipping up on mack and particularly how emotionally colored these projections are.
The better speculation is what are they going to do with the bowl game? They're not gonna have to play down to anyone; they're going to have to play up to a serious opponent in the type of game where mistakes usually tell the tale. For those problems you mentioned, people will probably be doing their damndest to cover their asses and save their jobs - and even that may not be possible.
In these kinds of situation, Mack is playing a closed hand until game time.
I look at this last year
and Mack Brown actually won more games that he was favored in than Stoops did (not including the head to head games), so this is not a Mac Brown phenomena. The numbers might have changed slightly after this year, but I bet they are still higher. Some of this can probably be explained by scheduling, but the main difference between what Stoops has done and what Mac has done is the fact that Stoops has won the RRS a higher percentage of the time.
So did Florida International
FIU was not favored in any game and they won one, so they are a good team? That is faulty logic. If you are a great team you are expected to win all your games. If you are a very good team you are expected to win most of your games. If you are a mediocre team you aren't expected to win many, if any games.
My original point was it is not just winning the RRS, it is winning the entire conference with regularity. Mack has 1 conference championship in 10 years of coaching Big XII. Stoops has 5 championships in 9 years. That's a big difference. That is why OU is an elite national program and UT is a very good national program. The RRS is a part of that, but not all (i.e. 2006).
If you are comparing
Florida International and UT I should stop responding.
Both Texas and OU are favored in about the same amount of games per year.
Was Making Logic Point, NOT Comparing
UT and FIU. The key in what you wrote, though is "in about the same amount of games per year."
OU was favored to win all their games - even against Mizzou and Texas. UT was favored to win most all their games - excepting OU. OU lost two games they were favorites in, UT lost two games they were favorites in. The distinction between great teams and very good teams is that 1-2-3 games a year that great teams win and very good teams lose. The logic of yours remains faulty.
And it is not only the RRS, it is the championships. Lucky breaks, ball bouncing the wrong way does not account for a 5-1 disparity. OU and UT have not been peers, OU has been a cut above under Stoops. Elite programs are that cut above. If they were in different conferences like Miami/FSU when they were at the top of their games in the 80's-90's then UT would still be an elite team because they'd pull out winning their conference championships like FSU did during the stretch where FSU couldn't get over the hump of Miami. Jimmy Johnson and Dennis Erickson owned Bobby Bowden. It wasn't until they moved on that Bowden got his wins. Second best in a conference 75% of the time is not an elite program. Excuses be damned, elite programs are THE BEST in a conference 75% of the time. That is not UT under Brown versus Stoops.
I may be reading you wrong, but you sound like the fan I describe who is content for UT to be merely a very good team and will take the 1 out of 4 seasons they can pull one over on OU and 1 out of 10 seasons they can win a conference championship as long as they win 10+ games a season. That's fine for you, obviously. I just haven't settled or accepted that UT is only that good while OU holds onto marquee status in the conference. But, who am I. If there are more wealthy alumni like you UT will continue to lose 6 of the next 8 games to OU and win their next conference championship in 2015 unless Stoops leaves before then. If there are more wealthy alumni like me they'll give Mack another season or two to stand out and then not be afraid to roll the dice on a coach committed to winning conference championships not just contending for them. The proof is in the coaching changes I listed to start the OP, the elite programs aren't afraid of changing from a very good coach to get their elite coach.
Close Game Wins v. Losses
are the mark of a great team. Great teams figure out how to win the close ones. They make and take advantage of their breaks. Very good teams keep it close and are usually in the game against great teams, but they just don't "get the breaks". This speaks to the main point I started with this thread. UT has a very good program, an enviable program to 90% of colleges out there. But it is not an elite program when compared to about 10-12 programs that win their rivalry games and their championships with regularity. Even the close ones. Especially the close ones!
The blowouts came when Mack's teams just quit on him, flat out quit. OU doesn't beat UT by 49 one game and then beat Kansas State by 10 the very next one because KSU is 39 points better than UT. OU doesn't beat UT by 52 one game and then beat Missouri by 22 the next because Mizzou is 30 points better than UT. Mack's teams stopped playing those games at halftime. Mack has shown he has the personality and perceived softness by his players that they will quit on him during a game without fear of repercussion.
UT has two 50+ delta points allowed game since 1997, and more as a program overall than any of the elite teams we're trying to become. tOSU has none since the 1940's. Florida State has none ever. Michigan has none since the 1880's. OU had two under John Blake. USC had one in the 1960's. Miami had one in 1998. LSU had one in 1993. Georgia has none since the 1930's. Alabama has none since the 1900's. Virginia Tech has none since the 1970's. West Virginia has none since the 1900's. Notre Dame had one in 1985. Okay, that was a rant but it's meant to show that UT has not been a true elite team since the DKR days, and even with Mack's high win totals the overall performance is a step below what elite programs do.
Look, if Mack can win 6 of the next 8 Big XII championships and defeat OU and A&M as many times along the way with his current coaching staff, God bless 'em, he'll have made UT an elite program. But I think there's a better chance of that happening with a brand new coach pulled from a smaller school or the NFL coordinator ranks. The current make up of the coaching staff is a poor bet.
If Mack can win 6 of the next 8 Big XII championships and defeate OU and A&M as many times along the way with some new coordinators, God bless 'em, he'll have made UT an elite program. I do think that's the best bet at this point in time. He has a lot of the pieces assembled, so if he can figure out what piece is holding the program back that's the simplest solution with the lowest downside risk.
But, if next season is a 4-5+ loss season UT should be seriously looking at what else is available. And if there is no conference championship in the next 2-3 years, even with 10-11 wins, UT should be seriously looking at what else is available - IF UT ASPIRES TO BE AN ELITE PROGRAM.
The crux of the OP as relates to the "Coaching Changes?" topic is that elite programs do not suffer average seasons, or even very good seasons very long. Then make coaching changes, and do so with surprising frequency, even from coaches with enviable overall win records. If more alumni, particularly influential alumni are content to be a very good team with many wins but few conference championships or wins over rival opponents to show for it, that is the tier that UT will remain in. And apparently there are many fans who are okay with that. I'm from the camp that thinks UT should be winning the championships and rivalry games more often than we don't. And 1 out of 10 seasons is pretty far from the mark of excellence I desire UT to be.
The elite programs have fans and alumni who share the desires that I have. I'm not even talking about National Championships here, simply winning conference championships and rivalry games. And elite programs are willing to roll the dice on new coaches without prolonged hesitation. They'll risk the $100,000 guaranteed game show prize to try for the $1M grand prize. If they end up with blender they'll try again. And pretty soon they end up with the $1M again. Some alumni are so risk averse they will take the $100,000 guarantee every time. Programs that operate with that level of risk avoidance end up with very good, but not elite programs. If what we have is considered UT's standard of excellence and it covets nothing more, so be it, I'm just one fan who'll have to adjust his thinking and expectations. And if that's the case I just wish the administration would just come out and tell me that's all they expect, too - so none of us even entertain the fanciful dreams we have of possible improvements.
To Answer Your Question
No, I don't have a name of anyone to throw out to you. But, who would've named Stoops, Tressel, Miles or Carroll before they were hired? That's up to people who follow coaches much more closely than I do, but just hiring a big name like Alabama did with Saban doesn't always work, at least not right out of the gate.
How bad is DUKE football? Take a look ...
Apparently the school posted the Head Coaching job on its HR site - just above nursing assistant ... As this very funny AP story points out, the job description says nothing about winning. It's quite amusing.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/s...
I dont know about Duke
but Texas public schools have to do this as well, per state law. I will admit it's funnier when Duke does it though.
by the other Andrew on Dec 12, 2007 11:34 PM CST up reply actions
Quote of the Year:
...even the occasional pissing contests between intellectual heavyweights tend to end in a handshake and a promise to be more courteous next time.
If that doesn't sum up this sites banter, I don't know what does. I hope they washed their hands after pissing and before the obligatory handshake.
Re:
PB's right: A Sea of Blue is a really good source for Kentucky hoops discussion, and Orange and Blue Hue does a great job with its Florida hoops as well. They're both linked up on the right frame on the BON homepage.
By the way, while we're talking about coaching changes:
Houston Cougars has hired Oklahoma Sooners co-offensive coordinator Kevin Sumlin as its head coach, a person told of the decision said Thursday morning.
Sumlin would replace Art Briles, who resigned Nov. 28 to take the top job at Baylor.
Sumlin has been Oklahoma's co-offensive coordinator and wide receivers coach for the past two seasons, after three seasons as specials teams and tight ends coach.
Seems like a much better option than the crazy Jack Pardee/David Klingler combo they wanted to throw out there. Isn't this also the uber-recruiter that Beergut wanted to mosey on down to A&M? If so, I guess we can thank Houston for killing two birds with one stone. Knowing Stoops, though, he's gonna get someone harder, better, faster, stronger, while we're stuck with good ol' GD.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/s...
Stoops ...
Always seems to get it done regardless the O-coordinator or the QB
Blogs have replaced normal coverage, IMO
I cant watch College Gameday anymore. I ignore College Football Live. They barely scratch the surface of why a team is good, or bad, or inconsistant. If I want to know about Florida or any SEC team, I go to EDSBS. If I want to know about any of USC's problems on offense, I go to Conquest Chronicles. Maybe blogs dont have the resources to develope insiders like ESPN does, but the analysis and discusion far outweighs anything the worldwide leader can do.
The other brilliant thing about blogs is how they have democratized sports op/ed. When I was in Austin I could put on the AM radio stations to hear about UT sports, but the DJ's had the power to shape the discussion and mold the agenda. They dont have to take callers and they can yak for as long as they want about the angle they want. It's worse with TV and newspaper. Just look at the linebacker situation this year. How many tv, newspaper, or radio people pointed out KBD vs KMN issue? Zero as far as I know. But on BON and Barking Carnival, we knew exactly what was up with that issue, we knew how badly it hurt the team, and we could rail against it on a daily basis. Democracy!
All you have to watch on tv now is the sporting event itself. You can skip all the other junk and just go straight to the blog when you need more information. So for hard core people like me, blogs are a substitute.
RkyMtnHorn.....
If that is the case, though, I would appreciate Deloss Dodds and Mack Brown coming out and acknowledging to fans that they're okay with being the second best team in the conference because Oklahoma is the elite program in the conference and there is little they can or are willing to do about it. They should just tell us that we should not have any expectations of anything more. Hawaii and Boise State fans understand they are what they are and they're pretty much okay with that. If that is what UT football is all about, let me know as a fan. I'll lower my expectations and not have much disappointment at the end of the year since I'll know that is all the UT program is committed to achieving. But don't tell me that this is as good as it gets, or that making a coaching change from Mack would necessarily land UT in football purgatory like Nebraska or A&M.
that is truely some great work! We are all about winning Championships. That doesn't require some meaningless lip service. It requires hard work, dedication, discipline and a strong sense of urgency. Our HC seems to have become complacent and lethargic. Our fans deserve more than consecutive losses to both Franchione and 2nd-year HC Ron Prince.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Burnt Orange Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
