Hank Chinaski

I loved this, where nobody responded to QBCade the way he hoped they would, so he goes ahead and quotes himself and assures everyone that he was 100% serious about something that nobody cared about.

As always, it depends on who we could replace him with.

I’ve always thought that a well-done film documentary on Texas AM would be hugely successful. It would be hilarious, mystifying, stunning, terrifying. And it wouldn’t be difficult - it writes itself. I am 45 and grew up 70 miles from college station and I am still surprised, amused, astounded and horrified by the bizarre shit that they do and the pride they take in it.

“Serious portal action” made me smile this morning. It’s a fun thing to say and could take on lots of meanings.

Yeah. He’s obviously got some shit to clean up. But the ‘21 team had zero upper class talent and shitty QBs, and neither of those things were on Sark. I’m not sure how much you can do with that. This year we’re rolling with a freshman QB and 2 freshmen starting on the OL. They’re inconsistent, which is to be expected. I’m not saying I’m sold on Sark, but I’m not convinced that he can’t be good. And mostly, I’m not into firing him for the sake of firing him. Seems we did that a couple years ago (which doesn’t upset me because I do like Sark more than Herman).

Counterpoint:

This fucking guy…he definitely likes to tell everyone about the exercises he did today at CrossFit and what his favorite bourbons are, spends an inordinate amount of time opining on “alphas” and “betas”, and generally takes himself waaaaaay too seriously. “Our enemies?” Jesus man.

Also it’s year 2 for the coach there, not year 1. As another poster mentioned, they have an experienced QB. This is hopefully what Texas looks like in ‘23 with a more experienced Ewers.

Hmmm. If it is a choice between singing T Turner and Judge…what would you rather have, @Sbbruin? I’d guess that Turner will cost less, thereby allowing for more payroll flexibility. You’ve probably got to prioritize extending Smith soon, and maybe some of the young pitchers. Maybe the Dodgers don’t care and it wouldn’t make a big difference, but are they really going to keep paying more and more of those luxury taxes and dramatically exceeding the soft cap every year? assuming they keep payroll around where it is, what makes more sense - Judge or Turner (at, presumably, something like 60-75% of the cost)?

Well haha yeah, no shit…that’s kind of what happens when you give a guy $90 million completely guaranteed and he dares you to fire him.

That makes me think of the ‘93 Phillies.

Yeah, he’s a 2-time MVP who is as good a hitter as there is in the sport when he’s locked in. He appears to be locked in.

We are all be about the same age (I was 9 in ‘86). That Mets series was absolutely my first (and still the worst) sports heartbreak. That season was awesome. I went to the game where Deshaies struck out the first 8 Dodgers and Lasorda pinch hit for his pitcher in the 3rd haha. But yeah, that Craig Reynolds call, Dykstra HR, extra inning game 6 with Scott ready to go for game 7…it was brutal. Really hoping the boys can pull this one off.

Yeah, they struggled during the season; should have said that they were good in the brief spurts I watched during the NLCS, haha.

Yeah, I don’t see a cakewalk either. Philly’s got two great starters and a nasty bullpen. And they can hit, obviously. Short series in baseball, no outcome would be particularly surprising. Go Stros.

Altuve actually had the highest wRC+ of his career (164) in 2022 at age 32, topping his 2017 MVP season. But yes, he did slump for the first 5 games of the playoffs. Glad he appears to have pulled out of that.

I don’t know anything about the “culture” of the team, or what that really even means. I do know that Texas has always (for as long as I can recall) been said to have “culture” issues, even when we were good. I mean hell, in Mack’s best era there was still a perception that Texas had a “soft” and “entitled” culture while winning 90% of its games. So, culture, intangibles, whatever - mostly seems like bullshit to me, and less important than the QB making fucking accurate throws.

Ok, fair point…I guess that’s the “serendipity” I’m talking about. If one of those guys indicates he’d like to go to Texas, via his agent or back channels or whatever, do it. Until it’s a sure thing, don’t fire Sark because you hope that another unproven guy can become one of the 5 best coaches in the sport.

Agree, and coaches who have accomplished elsewhere what we hope they accomplish here are extremely rare. Like, who would that even be? Saban, Dabo, Day, Smart…maybe Riley? We’re not getting any of those guys. anyone else you get is as much of an unknown as Sark. So fuck it, let’s keep Sark for a while, assuming there is some amount of improvement year over year and the bottom doesn’t completely fall out. If/when serendipity strikes and we’re positioned to clearly make an upgrade, do it.

I don’t know. It feels like beating TCU and losing to Kansas is just about as likely as beating Kansas and losing to TCU. I don’t think any of these teams are that good or that bad. Including Texas.

Granted, I’m getting old and I pay less and less attention to the details (recruiting, in-game decisions, etc) every year, and am pretty resigned to the idea that Texas is just a middling, mediocre program at this point…but I think I am in favor of just keeping Sark for a while and seeing what happens. He seems to be upgrading the talent, the team seems a little better than last year, I like his offense when the qb throws passes with a modicum of accuracy, he seems willing to bring in good coaches, etc. Unless there is a slam dunk situation, just let him keep going. Maybe there’s something to be said for continuity. Maybe Sark fine tunes his approach (I don’t think he’s that far off, he’s not Charlie Strong bad). Maybe I just want to try something different and give the guy more time and not start over again with a relative unknown. It is our instinct to fire guys quickly, but it’s not like this approach has been working, and maybe it’s worth a try to give him time. Basically it seems like the Texas boosters/decision-makers/athletic department is Costanza, and I want to see this approach:

Yeah, I have no clue either way, but it doesn’t really make sense. It says that they’re worried about concussions and the future implications of sustaining concussions, but they draw the line at “one more”? There’s a pretty decent likelihood of sustaining that next concussion while playing major college football, so why wouldn’t they just pull the plug now?