TheFlyingBoat

He beat Bob Stoops and Lincoln Riley. He's beaten Patterson, Campbell, Gundy, Klieman, and the Wizard. He's beaten well coached teams before. I don't think he'll win here to due to match up reasons and due to coaching transitions, but this an overly reactionary and unjustifiable take that will likely devolve into a no true scotsman fallacy coming from you and a general sense of exasperation from me.

Why? We knew they would make him an offer. It doesn't tell us numbers or anything we wouldn't have assumed to be true.

Saying sexual assault is wrong isn't political, you Art Briles loving dipshit. Just because Jim Jordan covered systemic abuse of students at Ohio State and went into politics way later doesn't make criticizing him, Ohio State, or the actions by both in that context political.

You literally said you don't remember sexual assault of students in a systemic manner. He posted the face of the scandal. Sure he could have chosen a picture of Jim Jordan, known sexual assault cover-upper, that wasn't him in Congress but instead in an Ohio State wrestling singlet, but let's be real no one wants to see that.

Lol at you thinking acceptance rate is one of the most relevant criteria. In a hypothetical, let's say I created the greatest university in the world with the top faculty and greatest students in the world. Let's say my school has such a reputation that only the people that would get in apply. My acceptance rate is 100%. Let's say only those qualified for admittance supply. Let's say that results in admission rates dropping to 50%. Is my school better now despite the faculty, students, and buildings remaining the same? Let's say I invest in marketing and convince a bunch of kids to apply by paying College Board for the data on kids who took the SAT and send mailers to every kid on that list. Now let's say admissions rates drop to 5% as a result of a bunch of people who had no chance of getting in applying. Is my school better now somehow despite none of the factors that matter changing? In short, ceterus paribus, what is the value of the acceptance rate as a metric? Acceptance rate is the total yards given up on defense stat of college football. A stat of little importance that is overly harped on by those that know very little about football to the exclusion of better metrics. Hell acceptance rate is even worse because of how easily gamed it is. Now I'm sure you are going to argue that hypotheticals like that are stupid and that in the real world acceptance rates are a good analogue for sussing out quality. After all if a school is desirable and selective it must be good, right? Not so fast, my friend. Let's look at some real world examples of gaming the USNWR by good schools (don't even want to get into the chicanery weaker schools engage in). Did UChicago suddenly become a stronger school by switching to the CommonApp and driving up applications among those who didn't have a chance while the student body make up stayed roughly the same in terms of talent? Doubtful (some older alumni friends would say that it made the school worse by causing people with good scores who weren't the type of student to do the Uncommon App to get in, but w/e). Despite not improving the quality of the student body or the faculty, it elevated UChicago from a top 25 school in the 90s to a top 5 school today despite their faculty being just as good as it was 30 years ago and little change in the quality of students. But nevertheless, after that decision Chicago flew up the ranks for one main reason. It killed their acceptance rate, which 25 years ago was 50% (because you didn't apply to UChicago back then if you weren't the type of student to get admission and deal with the academic culture of Chicago anyways), but the students were no better than before. The faculty was no better. All that changed was marketing by Nondorf when he became head of admissions and reporting methodology by Zimmer when he became head of the university. If you think a change in marketing and making the school where fun went to die a little less bleak is worth jumping up from where it was to top 5, that's your prerogative. I'd argue the metrics that consistently said they were elite are more valuable. Those same metrics correctly establish UT as a 20-30 school in the country and a 30-40 school in the world. Fundamentally universities are research institutions that aim to teach the next generation of researchers (both in the sciences and the humanities) and changemakers. Unfortunately over time college has become more and more a vocational/pre-professional school (ironic, I know since I studied engineering) by another name, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't still heavily judge universities based on their primary purpose which is research and the generation of future difference makers. That's what CWUR, ARWU, USNWR Global, THE, etc. try to measure and those all go in our favor. If I really wanted to I could cherry pick certain science rankings like Nature's that are purely research based and depending on how I play with the data I could get us into the top 10. An honest reading of Nature's data regarding our research output puts as at around 13 in the country. If you wanted to send UT to the top 30 in USWNR in 4 years it'd be pretty easy. Remove the cap on out of state/international students at the undergrad level (currently 90% of the incoming class must be Texans) and eliminate the top x% rule. That alone would change the international student metric and the SAT metric enough to be there. The student body might be a little bit better for metrics but I don't think it would be much better than in reality (we'd be basically doing the equivalent of taking a class full of Katy RBs if you want a college football analogy), in fact it would likely be worse if we got rid of the top X% rule (the student body may benefit from letting more non Texans in though, but in terms of meeting the needs of the state of Texas, the cap is pretty easily justifiable). This would be the case despite not changing the faculty at all. Gaming rankings is easy and I'm glad we don't do it at the expense of being a real school that serves Texas.

Double post

Tbh I think he can turn it around. I knew plenty of people like him growing up that were very smart, got full of themselves and arrogant which caused them to make stupid mistakes everyone else could see but them. Most of them got back up and killed it after being humiliated. I could see Herman pulling it off if given one more year. Hiring Ash would put a damper on those hopes though.

Yes, I agree with everything besides USC. USC isn't some glorious school. They game USNWR hard, whoop-de-doo. Ask yourself who are the great alumni or professors there that compare to ours? Berkeley, LA, and SD are all better than Texas with the first being tiers above, the second being a tier above, and the last being better but about on the same tier. Michigan is undeniably a tier above us as well, I agree. I do agree that you can win and be a good school though.

I was talking about Berkeley there, thought I mentioned them by name, but I suppose not. I'll fix that. I think we're probably around 30-40 In the world and USNWR Global Rankings seems to agree (and correctly puts Wisconsin at 37 just behind us at 34 and Berkeley at 4). As does CWUR, which puts us at 31 (Wisconsin at 25! and Cal at 8). ARWU, which is a little more generous to foreign universities, has us at 40, which is good for 27 in the country. EDIT: Too late to fix apparently. For clarification, let me be clear when I was talking about a school being 3rd in Nobel Prizes I was talking about Berkeley as an example to show the private school bias in the USNWR national rankings (which isn't present in its global or program specific rankings)

Yeah. Michigan is undeniably a better school than us. Florida is not. ND is not. USC is not. Wisconsin is probably about the same tier as us (seriously underrated school imo). Stanford is probably the second best school in the world, so yes they blow us out of the water.

USNWR national rankings are for clowns. Their program specific rankings are decent enough and their global rankings are fine, but their national ones are a joke. Also, being a public school with a large enrollment may preclude selectivity, but it sure as hell doesn't preclude excellence. We train great graduates and more importantly pump out elite research. Edsger Djikstra (a former Texas CS professor before he passed away) generated more important research than USC and ND combined over their respective lifetimes (only a slight exaggeration). ND and USC are decent undergrad institutions who have their relative greatness artificially inflated by USNWR's private school bias. Like do you seriously expect me to believe that the school that has accounted for the 3rd most Nobel Prizes in the world and 2nd in the US, only behind Harvard, is somehow a lesser institution than Notre Dame or Vanderbilt?

Dabo Swinney. It's rare but it happens.

I thought that's who he was talking about because I saw Utah mentioned. Now I know he is talking about Burns

Good. No reason to play with spinal stenosis if you can get a great degree. There are many things that matter more than football.

Odom?

He chose us because his head coach basically told him Orlando was the best thing since sliced bread. They knew each other back when Orlando was at Utah State iirc.

Holy shit. Good for him though if he knows he needs to recharge and is willing to take the time off for himself.

Dabo Swinney?

Broughton seems solid at least.

That being said he likes to run heavy out of the air raid which likely makes it more palatable to him.

That's fucking asinine. You give up when you're down 21 in the 4th quarter if you don't want to be there. You don't score 14 and go for the onside kick against a team that's gone into clock running mode if you don't want to be there. The answer is simple. SEC style offense (aka not what LSU does now) is easily countered by Orlando's defense and our offense is incredible when given a month to pick out an opposing defenses on a year's worth of film. Herman is great in bowl games because he's a great Xs & Os type coach. When Orlando doesn't have to account for a mobile QB, his lack of speed and talent in his LB unit here is hidden and his defense creates huge advantages by stopping the run with fewer people, which allows him to drop more into coverage, vary looks, and generate pressure with safety blitzes that the OL isn't ready for. If you have an immobile QB against Orlando, you're done for. We saw that against Mizzou and we saw that against Georgia, both of whom were the best offense in the SEC outside of Alabama in the years we played them. If he goes to a halfway talented SEC team, he's going to dominate everyone besides Alabama and LSU. If he goes to Wisconsin or Michigan he will every game besides Ohio State. If he goes to the Pac-12 he'll probably win every game because the Pac-12 is terrible.

What LSU structure? We were laughing our asses off at them literally this time last year when they lost to aggy and the year before lost to a fucking Sun Belt team. The LSU offensive structure that turned OBJ and a bunch of other elite, future Pro Bowl WRs plus a litany of first round RBs into an offense that couldn't crack the top 50? Jesus Christ due, get a grip on reality. He went into a shithole of offensive mediocrity and turned it into the best offense in the country in an offseason. Yes, he could very well crash and burn if he came here. It's possible LSU's talent plus his mind were perfectly made for each other and he can't succeed with what he have here or his scheme can be found out and he can't respond. I doubt it. I think Harrell is still the better pick but this dude is an offensive wunderkind and we've seen enough, small sample size notwithstanding, to know he is good.

Even worse, Dabo fired his shitty OC heading into his 4th season and his shitty DC heading into his 5th having won nothing of note at that point, showing no promise (7-6,9-5, 6-7) and being a poor Xs&Os coach. At least wait and see the hires before you get mad.

Oh baby if we get my #1 choice I'd be so happy.

I wonder if any consideration will go to Kellen Moore for OC? Love the mind of Boise State guys and he did wonders for the Dallas offense. Not to mention he was the winningest college QB ever which I'm sure some high school kid could be convinced is something very impressive and important.