I think their single biggest problem is that their program was extremely successful for almost a quarter of a century, and one of its pillars was that they would say and do what was needed to recruit well, and once those players were enrolled, the program was extremely demanding of them. Schmitty, Stoops, Venables, all those extreme hardasses could be as tough as they wanted or needed to be, because there were barriers to player movement. They could make a guy swallow the vomit from an over exertion. They could have a culture where a player was considered a pussy if he sought treatment for an injury rather than play through it in a big game. That all made the football better at OU.
Their success in developing players was enviable, and the ones that made it to the NFL weren’t going to claim, but the process was brutal. Do you think Mancini, fired at KU for being abusive to players, was softer at OU? Hell, no.
So, that worked for over 20 years, but now the barriers to player movement are gone. All of us in the regular workforce know that Gen Z has a limit to how much bullshit they will put up with (to their credit), and that’s a problem for Venables.
Venables made his bones in a system where the solution to performance problems was to grind harder and demand more. His player management toolset has one tool: a ratchet set to tighten only, and not loosen.
Yes, NIL is a problem. What are they going to do when the key players that they want to build on explore opportunities elsewhere? Is Venables ready to develop soft skills? Is that program?
I’ve read that, in the NFL, players won’t put up with abusive, hardass coaches (see Urban Meyer). They say the best NFL coaches are firm, but good communicators, that players will respond to demands from a coach that is honest with them, lets them know where they stand and where they are going. That sounds like Sark. Does that sound like Venables, or any others off the Stoops tree?