Fightin' Texas A&M Fightin' Texas Aggie Fighters - Movin' On Up
So our very own Week 2 viewing guide listed three games on pay-per-view last week. Participating teams included Samford, Southeast Missouri, and Texas A&M. Clearly the move to the SEC has been a good one for little brother. Way to go, ags.
On the plus side, they should be on a channel most viewers can actually receive this week, as #1 Alabama rolls into town (and I use the word "town" very loosely) to smack the farmers around in their own house (and I use the term "house" very loosely; I read somewhere this morning that CBS officials have some concern because of - get this - the height of the press box at KY field). The line has moved up to Alabama -8; I'd be inclined to lay the points.
(And yes, I fully get the ironic nature of poking fun of the aggies for being on pay-per-view as we await our upcoming game on LHN. I still bet more people get to see the 'Horns this week than saw the aggies last week.)
The Mack and Willie Show
How to Root for SEC Teams
Awesome New On-Air Personalities: Name Yours
While researching this article (don't laugh), I came across the following quote on Wikipedia (in reference to coaches not voting the BCS Championship Game winner #1): "It is speculated that the three coaches who broke ranks and violated their contractual obligation - Lou Holtz of South Carolina, Mike Bellotti of Oregon, and Ron Turner of Illinois - did so because they believed that USC was the best team."
It is speculated? Speculated? You mean there are people to whom it's not totally screamingly obvious? Why else would the three coaches violate their contractual obligation to vote for the winner of the BCS championship game if not because they believed another team was the best team? This brief snippet should tell you all you need to know about what's wrong with the current ranking systems. There are too many shady people of nefarious intent with official sanction to participate in the process for it to be anything remotely resembling fair and unbiased.
Finally, in response to the small explosion of "We should offer Saban $10 million!" posts in recent days, I would like to say this: Stop and Think. Many of these posts come from the same people (and sometimes in the same breath) who complain that we aren't getting our money's worth out of Mack and his staff. While I agree with that sentiment, I do not agree that the solution is to throw even more money at the problem. On the contrary, I think we ought to be looking for somebody we can get on the cheap, relatively speaking, and whose pay we can link to their performance. Coaches don't get their pay lowered; ergo, they aren't as worried about performing when they make more money (may I present Mack Brown as exhibit A). Paying Saban $10 million isn't going to make him want to perform better; he has inner demons that make him want to perform better.
As we continue to monitor the long, downward spiral of Mack's coaching career, I'd like to take a moment to disabuse you of the notion that Texas needs to make a big-name hire and fast. What if I told you there's a guy out there with 10 years of head coaching experience, 17 years of FBS-level defensive coaching experience, three conference championships in the last seven seasons, three national championship appearances in the last three years, and two national championship wins in a row?
I'm sure somebody more qualified than me will be doing some in-depth analysis of potential head coach candidates in the very near future, but I think we could do worse than Craig Bohl at North Dakota State. His buyout is peanuts as far as UT would be concerned, and he's proven he can beat both FCS- and FBS-level competition (under his leadership, NDST is 7-3 against FBS schools, including Kansas State two weeks ago). Plus which, we could bring him in at a reasonable salary that is firmly tied to the team's performance, instead of offering him stupid money right off the bat.
What are your thoughts?