Jump to content

This is who Steve Sarkisian is.

lilMAC25

By lilMAC25
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

dcar00

dcar00 14,321

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, David Dennison said:

I had forgotten that we fired Mack Brown after going 7-2 in conference play.

We've only matched that once since then.

Wow.

mack brown would have figured out a way to get 8-9 wins a year at Texas.

what a fucking dumpster fire Sarkisian and this staff are.  fucking amateurs.  Kevin Eltife can go fuck right off.  you hire a guy who AVERAGES 7 wins a season as a HC?  idiots the whoe fucking lot of them.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

lilMAC25
lilMAC25

He’s a middling HC. Fantastic OC, middling HC.

C-Man
C-Man

Quite a bit of gold from Page 1. Here's Steve's rebuttal:

lilMAC25
lilMAC25

I won’t have to. He’ll be forced out in 3-5 years.

Posted Images

Randolph Duke

Randolph Duke 4,034

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, dcar00 said:

mack brown would have figured out a way to get 8-9 wins a year at Texas.

what a fucking dumpster fire Sarkisian and this staff are.  fucking amateurs.  Kevin Eltife can go fuck right off.  you hire a guy who AVERAGES 7 wins a season as a HC?  idiots the whoe fucking lot of them.

The best thing for the team, the university, and the student-athletes would be for Eltife, Hartzell, and Del Conte today to admit the hiring of Sarkisian was a colossal mistake. If those three were the right people to be in the positions they occupy, Eltife would recuse himself from all operational aspects of UT athletics and Del Conte would be charged with hiring a new coach. 

Never. Gonna. Happen. 

They will double down on their support of Sarkisian and refuse to admit their mistake. The administrators will support a narrative where the accountability for the failure of the team will be placed squarely upon the athletes. No administrator will be held accountable in any way for this situation. How things actually went wrong will never be discussed

It’s the way dysfunctional organizations operate. 

Edited by Randolph Duke
  • Fuck You 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fastbreak

Fastbreak 3,990

Posted
Posted
On 11/3/2021 at 12:51 PM, Fastbreak said:

Which offense is best?

Offense A (2020)
Points per game: 42
Rush yards per: 195.3
Pass yards per: 280.1
Total yards per: 475.4
Avg per play: 6.6
3rd Down Conversion: 37.4%
TOP avg: 27:48

Offense B (2021 After Baylor Game)
Points per game: 39.4
Rush yards per: 213.9
Pass yards per: 233.5
Total yards per: 447.4
Avg per play: 6.7
3rd Down Conversion: 44.8%
TOP avg: 29:04

Offense C (2019)
Points per game: 35.2
Rush yards per: 176.5
Pass yards per: 289.3
Total yards per: 465.8
Avg per play: 6.5
3rd Down Conversion: 48.9%
TOP avg: 30.47

Offense B (Current) 
Points per game: 36.4 (-3)
Rush yards per: 198.5 (-15.4)
Pass yards per: 230.5 (-3)
Total yards per: 429 (-18.4)
Avg per play: 6.4 (-0.3)
3rd Down Conversion: 43% (-1.8%)
TOP avg: 27:36 (-1:28) 

since Baylor we are going a bit backwards...

I guess we have played murderer's row since then, so we can fall back on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...
927 E. 41st

927 E. 41st 1,124

Posted
Posted
On 10/9/2021 at 3:05 PM, lilMAC25 said:

He’s a middling HC. Fantastic OC, middling HC.

Now that we have a moment of endorphin rush, is it finally visible to all that this logic doesn't hold? If it did then Charlie's  and Tom's past records of winning would have continued unabated because "that's what they are". There's too many moving parts to pick one and say that's the whole picture. This was a great week, but the jury is still out and will be for a while.

It's also possible that a coach can be pretty good, have a generational talent come along and make them look great. I think that's what happened with Charlie and a guy currently living about 90 miles east of Austin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lilMAC25

lilMAC25 3,803

Posted
  • Author
Posted
29 minutes ago, 927 E. 41st said:

Now that we have a moment of endorphin rush, is it finally visible to all that this logic doesn't hold? If it did then Charlie's  and Tom's past records of winning would have continued unabated because "that's what they are". There's too many moving parts to pick one and say that's the whole picture. This was a great week, but the jury is still out and will be for a while.

It's also possible that a coach can be pretty good, have a generational talent come along and make them look great. I think that's what happened with Charlie and a guy currently living about 90 miles east of Austin.

I’d say your logic doesn’t hold. We had around 9 season of Sarkisian data at P5 schools to peruse. Including a stint at a decently talented USC. Not 2 at Houston, or 4 years at Louisville.

 

Having said that, this year (aside from the tech loss) is a step in the right direction so far…. I damn sure HOPE he proves the premise of the Original Post to be wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
burdine

burdine 522

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 10/9/2021 at 3:05 PM, lilMAC25 said:

He’s a middling HC. Fantastic OC, middling HC.

Not a terrible hypothesis.  Maybe stated with more conviction than the data supported.

Middling HC as untreated alcoholic seems more fair.

TBD in recovery with some finishing school time with Saban.

Also, I would say that now more than in the past, starting as a fantastic OC is a pretty good place to start if you want to place bets.  I think the modern game favors offense and the trip from fantastic OC to solid to very good HC is pretty short nowadays.  Not a given for sure but not a huge reach either.

 

Also, I don't think we should read too much into this OU result.  If we beat OSU and TCU that should be a lot more informative.

Also, if the Mannings think he is a good bet maybe you should consider updating your thoughts as well.

Hook'em.

Edited by burdine
  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jiggy-Z

Jiggy-Z 3,435

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, burdine said:

Not a terrible hypothesis.  Maybe stated with more conviction than the data supported.

Middling HC as untreated alcoholic seems more fair.

TBD in recovery with some finishing school time with Saban.

Also, I would say that now more than in the past, starting as a fantastic OC is a pretty good place to start if you want to place bets.  I think the modern game favors offense and the trip from fantastic OC to solid to very good HC is pretty short nowadays.  Not a given for sure but not a huge reach either.

 

Also, I don't think we should read too much into this OU result.  If we beat OSU and TCU that should be a lot more informative.

Also, if the Mannings think he is a good bet maybe you should consider updating your thoughts as well.

Hook'em.

All true except I don't think Steve is anywhere close to being a true alcoholic even though he has admitted to attending regular AA meetings.  I think more of a pretty intense guy in a high stress job with drinking problem that was pretty bad at one time.  True alkies are pretty unique and are greatly distinguished from binge drinkers, hard party types, daily drinkers, mean drunks, and people with drinking problems coupled with high stress/high profile jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13,263

Posted
Posted
On 11/20/2021 at 3:32 PM, David Dennison said:

I had forgotten that we fired Mack Brown after going 7-2 in conference play.

We've only matched that once since then.

Wow.

That number is a bit misleading since we went 1-3 out of conference play and the conference was complete garbage that year. The last few years of Mack were mostly about horrible play, Mack still managed to win games...barely. Including several controversial endings. The refs like Mack, unlike Herman and Strong, so would throw him bones in key moments.

I mean Herman got fired after going 7-3 and only barely lost those three games. Just like with Mack it was still the right thing to do. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13,263

Posted
Posted
On 9/24/2022 at 9:36 PM, satyanash said:

Sark is 2-4 in Big 12 play when going into halftime with a double-digit lead.

When a coach shows you who they are, believe them.

Well I think we should wait until the end of the season. Fucking up early in a coach's tenure is one thing. But it kind of looks like most of those issues have been ironed out.

We'll see. Maybe I will be eating my words come November but I feel good about the rest of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrashMaster G

TrashMaster G 17,583

Posted
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Jiggy-Z said:

All true except I don't think Steve is anywhere close to being a true alcoholic even though he has admitted to attending regular AA meetings.  I think more of a pretty intense guy in a high stress job with drinking problem that was pretty bad at one time.  True alkies are pretty unique and are greatly distinguished from binge drinkers, hard party types, daily drinkers, mean drunks, and people with drinking problems coupled with high stress/high profile jobs.

You don't think there is a distinct difference between an active alcoholic and a recovering alcoholic?

I think it's ignorant to intimate that a recovering alcoholic is not a "true" alcoholic.

Edited by TrashMaster G
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jiggy-Z

Jiggy-Z 3,435

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

You don't think there is a distinct difference between an active alcoholic and a recovering alcoholic?

I think it's ignorant to intimate that a recovering alcoholic is not a "true" alcoholic.

Not what I was saying.  I think Steve is/was a guy with a drinking problem or a problem with alcohol, but not an alcoholic, despite his attendance at AA.  Just because he deals with his alcohol problem at AA does not make him an alcoholic.  Just my opinion from the outside, only Steve truly knows.  Otherwise I agree recovering alcoholic is still an alcoholic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Herpa Derpa

Herpa Derpa 6,127

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Jiggy-Z said:

All true except I don't think Steve is anywhere close to being a true alcoholic even though he has admitted to attending regular AA meetings.  I think more of a pretty intense guy in a high stress job with drinking problem that was pretty bad at one time.  True alkies are pretty unique and are greatly distinguished from binge drinkers, hard party types, daily drinkers, mean drunks, and people with drinking problems coupled with high stress/high profile jobs.

All of the above qualify as alcoholics whether you think they do or not. Just the opinion of decades of research by experts in the field. Alcoholism is the inability to control drinking due to both a physical and emotional dependence on alcohol. All of the bold above have an emotional or physical dependence on alcohol. The 18 year old that binges to fit in is an alcoholic. The fella that just likes to have a bourbon every day after work to unwind is an alcoholic. The incredibly nice old lady that everyone loves but gets a little tipsy on too many 'tinis and embarrasses herself at the club is an alcoholic. People that have low stress/low profile jobs and drink beer like water on the weekend are alcoholics. Your belief that alcoholics fit into some neat category of chronic, uncontrollable dependence is just plain ignorance. I'm also not sure why you think attendance at AA meetings has any bearing on the definition. Pretty sure there were alcoholics long before AA.

Sark was regularly drunk on the job. He was drunk during games. His drunkenness directly led to him being fired and almost completely destroyed his career and life. All because of his inability to not drink alcohol. Whatever the reason, genetics or external factors, alcoholism was the cause of his fall. It would appear from your comments that you don't have the affliction which you should be thankful for instead of making ignorant judgments on what is a "true" alcoholic. Maybe just sit this one out.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thatguy

Thatguy 8,786

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, lilMAC25 said:

I’d say your logic doesn’t hold. We had around 9 season of Sarkisian data at P5 schools to peruse. Including a stint at a decently talented USC. Not 2 at Houston, or 4 years at Louisville.

 

Having said that, this year (aside from the tech loss) is a step in the right direction so far…. I damn sure HOPE he proves the premise of the Original Post to be wrong. 

  I don't understand you guys. It's not that difficult. You are as good as your personnel, and it starts with a QB. Look at us and ou. What's the difference? While we have been wallowing in the mud, ou has been getting quality QB play year after year. Why? Because MFers wanna play in Riley's offense. Since 2010 we have had mediocre to bad QB play. The little QB play we did have was hamstrung by the offensive ideology. GG and SB still made it to the league, but they are holding clipboards. Meanwhile OU has put NFL starters in the league, or at the very least guys who have a legit chance at playing. 

  Sark rolls into town and just like that we get two of the best QB prospects we've ever had. One hits the field and don't you know we sure look competent all the sudden. Behind him Murphy. Behind Murphy Manning. Quality QBs are going to want to play for this man, and because of that the skill players will wanna come too. 

  Unlike the guys before them, this staff appears to be pretty good at evaluating talent. Guys look like they are getting developed. As long as we keep on stacking quality players we should be good. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lilMAC25

lilMAC25 3,803

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

  I don't understand you guys. It's not that difficult. You are as good as your personnel, and it starts with a QB. Look at us and ou. What's the difference? While we have been wallowing in the mud, ou has been getting quality QB play year after year. Why? Because MFers wanna play in Riley's offense. Since 2010 we have had mediocre to bad QB play. The little QB play we did have was hamstrung by the offensive ideology. GG and SB still made it to the league, but they are holding clipboards. Meanwhile OU has put NFL starters in the league, or at the very least guys who have a legit chance at playing. 

  Sark rolls into town and just like that we get two of the best QB prospects we've ever had. One hits the field and don't you know we sure look competent all the sudden. Behind him Murphy. Behind Murphy Manning. Quality QBs are going to want to play for this man, and because of that the skill players will wanna come too. 

  Unlike the guys before them, this staff appears to be pretty good at evaluating talent. Guys look like they are getting developed. As long as we keep on stacking quality players we should be good. 

Great players make coaches look better?

No Way Wow GIF

Edited by lilMAC25
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,519

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Jiggy-Z said:

All true except I don't think Steve is anywhere close to being a true alcoholic even though he has admitted to attending regular AA meetings.  I think more of a pretty intense guy in a high stress job with drinking problem that was pretty bad at one time.  True alkies are pretty unique and are greatly distinguished from binge drinkers, hard party types, daily drinkers, mean drunks, and people with drinking problems coupled with high stress/high profile jobs.

What is your basis for this?  It's hard enough for an alcoholic to decide he's a "true alcoholic," but showing up shitfaced for football practices  and alumni dinners, when that is a core part of your job is a pretty good sign that alcohol is impacting your life and livelihood in a very negative way and that maybe you have completely lost control of your drinking, which is pretty much sign numero uno that you are a 'true alcoholic."

Chapter 2 of Alcoholics Anonymous:

Quote
Here is a fellow who has been puzzling you, especially in his lack of control. He does absurd, incredible, tragic things while drinking. He is a real Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. He is seldom mildly intoxicated. He is always more or less insanely drunk. His disposition while drinking resembles his normal nature but little. He may be one of the finest fellows in the world. Yet let him drink for a day, and he frequently becomes disgustingly, and even dangerously anti-social. He has a positive genius for getting tight at exactly the wrong moment, particularly when some important decision must be made or engagement kept. He is often perfectly sensible and well balanced concerning everything except liquor, but in that respect he is incredibly dishonest and selfish. He often possesses special abilities, skills, and aptitudes, and has a promising career ahead of him. He uses his gifts to build up a bright outlook for his family and himself, and then pulls the structure down on his head by a senseless series of sprees. 

That said, it is true that there are "problem" or problematic drinkers that are not true alcoholics.  The public data on Sarkisian seems to confirm something pretty close to a true alcoholic.  Tom Herman was reported to have a bit of a drinking/drug/partying problem, but he never got busted being fuckfaced at practice or at an alumni/award dinner.

You know if it got public, it probably wasn't the first time it happened or was suspected and that it was pretty bad/obvious.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46,028

Posted
Posted (edited)

Sark took over an 0-12 UDub team and led them to 4 winning seasons in 5 years (34-29 net).  He was 12-6 at USC when he got fired for being an alcoholic, or drunk, or both, whatever you want to call it.

I don't think the jury has decided whether or not he's hit his ceiling as a head coach in college.  It's not like he's been an abject failure, and there have been some pretty significant extenuating circumstances, including jumping on board at UT where what should have been a stellar junior class (RS soph?  can't remember) was essentially AWOL via injury, attrition, and transfer.

Edited by jimmyjazz
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,519

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Herpa Derpa said:

All of the above qualify as alcoholics whether you think they do or not. Just the opinion of decades of research by experts in the field. Alcoholism is the inability to control drinking due to both a physical and emotional dependence on alcohol. All of the bold above have an emotional or physical dependence on alcohol. The 18 year old that binges to fit in is an alcoholic. The fella that just likes to have a bourbon every day after work to unwind is an alcoholic. The incredibly nice old lady that everyone loves but gets a little tipsy on too many 'tinis and embarrasses herself at the club is an alcoholic. People that have low stress/low profile jobs and drink beer like water on the weekend are alcoholics. Your belief that alcoholics fit into some neat category of chronic, uncontrollable dependence is just plain ignorance. I'm also not sure why you think attendance at AA meetings has any bearing on the definition. Pretty sure there were alcoholics long before AA.

Sark was regularly drunk on the job. He was drunk during games. His drunkenness directly led to him being fired and almost completely destroyed his career and life. All because of his inability to not drink alcohol. Whatever the reason, genetics or external factors, alcoholism was the cause of his fall. It would appear from your comments that you don't have the affliction which you should be thankful for instead of making ignorant judgments on what is a "true" alcoholic. Maybe just sit this one out.

For the record, among alcoholics, you are really only an alcoholic, or a "true alcoholic" if you sincerely decide you want to stop, or even moderate, your drinking and cannot.  As soon as you resume drinking, you are shortly face down in the gutter as you were when you thought you'd stop or moderate.  Many times, some of the people you describe are "in training" to be true alcoholics.  Other times, those people grow up in one form or another and stop or moderate their drinking.

Just about everyone I knew at UT binged to fit in and/or drank beer like water on the weekends.  Very few of us wound up having a long-term problem with it.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrashMaster G

TrashMaster G 17,583

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

For the record, among alcoholics, you are really only an alcoholic, or a "true alcoholic" if you sincerely decide you want to stop, or even moderate, your drinking and cannot.  As soon as you resume drinking, you are shortly face down in the gutter as you were when you thought you'd stop or moderate.  Many times, some of the people you describe are "in training" to be true alcoholics.  Other times, those people grow up in one form or another and stop or moderate their drinking.

Just about everyone I knew at UT binged to fit in and/or drank beer like water on the weekends.  Very few of us wound up having a long-term problem with it.

If you cannot decide to not drink at times that are inappropriate professionally, you are an alcoholic  whether you have tried to stop or not.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
UTEE97

UTEE97 3,522

Posted
Posted

Kiffin is probably a good example of a head coach who started out poorly as a young coach but became much better with age. Saban also was an average coach early on. So I guess it's not out of the realm of possibilities for a smart guy like Sark to become better head coach with age and a talented roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,519

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TrashMaster G said:

If you cannot decide to not drink at times that are inappropriate professionally, you are an alcoholic  whether you have tried to stop or not.

Those (drinking inappropriately and being unable to stop) are pretty closely correlated.  If you can't stop drinking long enough to sober up for something important, or because you have fatty liver or some other life-threatening ailment, or your wife wants to leave you, or to avoid your probation being revoked, you probably have a pretty tough time stopping at all.

But yeah, there are a shit-ton of true alcoholics that haven't yet attempted to stop and found it difficult to impossible without serious help.  Some never do and drink themselves right into an early grave.  But if you're questioning your drinking, one real good way to find out is to try to stop or moderate and see if you can for more than a few days or weeks.  Lots of people on this forum stop drinking or cut it way down successfully.  Some others failed miserably and talk about it on a particular thread.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexArcher

TexArcher 38,000

Posted
Posted (edited)

I went to my first AA meeting 11.5 years ago and got sober for good 9.5 years ago.  So I feel qualified to say that there isn't one textbook definition of an alcoholic or pattern of behavior that makes someone identifiable as an alcoholic to others.  And it's not a binary thing; there are degrees involved.  I was an alcoholic at 21 and still at 35, but they were very different stages.

Also, people don't generally come to AA meetings out of curiosity.  It's ridiculously hard to go into that room for the first time.  People tend to come because either a) someone made them (a judge or a spouse), or b) they know they're going to die an alcoholic's death and they're so desperate that they'll even go to an AA meeting.

And the people who keep coming back are almost never the ones who came in because someone told them to.

Take that for what it's worth.  I don't know how far down the slippery slope Sark was.  I just hope he continues to take good care of himself now.

 

Edited by TexArcher
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...