This is who Steve Sarkisian is.

[closetohumping 17484]

5 hours ago, Thatguy said:

He left just before the bowl game and his quarterbacks coach was the interim coach. Of course you don't credit him for that win and then simultaneously don't credit him for the win at USC with someone else's recruits. Then you credit Tom Herman, who pretty much exclusively won with someone else's recruits at both places he's been. Typical you. Meanwhile, your boy Tom Herman has been looking for a coaching job for the last 2 years with no success while the guy you've been hating on has stayed employed despite your assertion that he is a bad coach. 

  If Steve Sarkisian turns the corner you will quietly slink into your corner and pretend that you didn't start this thread, angry little man style, 6 games into a head coach's tenure. Then you will lie in wait for him to slip up so you can pop out of your mole hole with a see I told you so. Of course you constantly use the "we all hope he succeeds" bs as a disclaimer, but if you really were hoping for success you wouldn't have made this thread 6 games into his time here in the first place. UGH

  UT fans are some entitled bastards, thinking somehow we are exempt from paying our dues and putting in the work. I was pissed when Herbie blasted our fanbase on national TV, a guy I played basketball with at the Dublin Rec Center. However, the farther removed we are from that, the more I realized he was dead on. 

He was 5-7 his first year and lost to Kansas.  It's not a reach to say he may not be a good coach.  Too soon to judge his tenure here, yes.  But other coaches are doing it better at lesser programs in their first year.

 

 

Entitled to what? We've been packing the stands for a program that has made one BCS bowl in 12 years.  

Edited November 3, 2022 by closetohumping

[TwiceHorn 31587]

On 10/31/2022 at 4:53 PM, Thatguy said:

  Its Quarterback Play

That's a big part of it, absolutely, but the 2019 recruiting class, that should be producing team leaders, vanished, almost completely.

[Knighthawk 284]

I find it maddening that had we simply played inside leverage against tech and osu and forced two shitty passers to hit deep out routes consistently (which they can’t), we would be sitting at 7-1 and top 10 or better in the country.   

[TwiceHorn 31587]

On 11/1/2022 at 1:21 PM, Dbeasy said:

This is a really good point. I complained for the last several years about poor recruiting and depth along the lines. This is definitely one of the challenges, and we all know it takes a few years in a strength and conditioning program to get the size, strength and depth needed. 

Welp, there's one metric where Sark leads Herman.

[Valmy77 13279]

50 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Entitled to what? We've been packing the stands for a program that has made one BCS bowl in 12 years.  

Yeah say what you want about us but we are loyal and our money and support makes this the most lucrative football program in the country. It just so happens it isn't so good at winning at football.

[TwiceHorn 31587]

1 hour ago, Fondren & Main said:

His conclusion is that Ewers goes deep too often, whether by design or instinct.  And, it might appear that the solution to that is to take away the deep ball receiver altogether, even if the playcall/design is to make s short/intermediate throw.  I remember second half play that was a sharp completion (one of very few) when Worthy wasn't even lined up.  I suspect Ewers is too reliant on Worthy, maybe Sark too, although the intention could be to use Worthy as a decoy to spread the D.

He also says "run the damn ball" in the second half.  In more than one game, the opponent has loaded the box and basically dared us to throw.  With OSU it worked because Ewers couldn't seem to hit the broad side of a barn.  Maybe there's some way around that with the run game, counters. OZ, etc., but it kind of seems if Ewers has a pass option he's gonna take it.  I don't think the run game is as sure a thing as people make it out to be, especially with our OL when the QB can't complete a pass.

[Jimbob 424]

18 hours ago, Thatguy said:

  There were also people here chest bumping when we got Herman. Imagine that? A guy who's claim to fame was being the OC for Urban Meyer, running Urban Meyer's offense, and then taking over a program that had just realized their wide receiver was the best QB(Greg Ward Jr) on the team and gone 7-3 down the stretch after the change the year prior to his arrival. A guy who never proved he could recruit because he wasn't there long enough to show any prowess. And finally, a guy who's ball control offense required the QB to be the best athlete on the field and play hero ball in a conference where scoring comes easy. We went all in on a guy like that at the University of Texas. That's like Tom Brady deciding he wants to date Rebel Wilson because she was funny in that one movie. 

You’re a beating.  

You realize there was a fairly large contingent who saw the hiring of a coordinator who won an MNC under Urban, who then parlayed that into a few good years at a G5, and who proceeded to bring their entire G5 staff along for the ride…  a second time in a row thought it was a dumbfuck move?

Hiring Herman on the heels of strong made me want to kick puppies and run over squirrels.  

7 win Steve is a complete what the fuck do you expect hire, hopefully it was orchestrated to turn around a decade of horrible recruiting.  Maybe the next time a good coach looks under the hood he sees something worth taking on.  

[SL Xpress 7518]

1 hour ago, Jimbob said:

You’re a beating.  

You realize there was a fairly large contingent who saw the hiring of a coordinator who won an MNC under Urban, who then parlayed that into a few good years at a G5, and who proceeded to bring their entire G5 staff along for the ride…  a second time in a row thought it was a dumbfuck move?

Hiring Herman on the heels of strong made me want to kick puppies and run over squirrels.  

7 win Steve is a complete what the fuck do you expect hire, hopefully it was orchestrated to turn around a decade of horrible recruiting.  Maybe the next time a good coach looks under the hood he sees something worth taking on.  

 

I couldn't agree with you more.

Maybe Sarkisian works out. I've given up hope, but that doesn't mean I'm right.

The thing I find the most perplexing is the hiring process at Texas. The last 40 years we've had 10 good seasons in a row of football. 2000-2009. The rest have been mediocrity spiced with a hopeful season or two. During that time we've watched Fred Akers, David McWilliams, John Mackovic, Mack Brown, Charlie Strong, Tom Herman, and Steve Sarkisian patrol the sidelines. Of those, only Mack Brown was obviously the best candidate for the job in the country. It also feels like its the only one where there was a true process involved. They actually interviewed Gary Barnett, a couple of years after taking Northwestern to the Rose Bowl, along with Mack. When have we ever interviewed more than one candidate for the job other than that? Why is that?

Now, admittedly we had the fuck up with Nick Saban, who I will always be convinced was willing to come to Austin until Deloss and Mack purposefully fucked that up. And then we had the Urban Meyer pursuit that didn't end up well. 

In addition, college football has laughingly thrown parity out the window. We're no longer seeing multiple coaches with national titles, and many of the ones who win one are inarguably terrible. If you're not Swinney, Saban, whoever is the head coach at Ohio State, or now Kirby Smart at Georgia, it's tough to know how good you are. USC made the splash hire for Riley, and LSU did the same with Brian Kelly. Not sure how excited I would have been about Kelly. I've never been a big fan. But the fact remains he's more qualified than Sarkisian. 

There just aren't a whole lot of can't miss hires out there. But I sure am tired of just zeroing in on a guy because he's someone's favorite, and not opening the process up a little to see who the potential candidates might be. Maybe do more than one interview. Basically I want a hiring process like what was conducted to bring Mack Brown on board. I had plenty of issues with him as the head coach over his tenure, but one thing I never doubted is that he was a terrific hire done the right way. I've never felt that on any of the other ones, even before their teams took the field. Why does it have to be that way? Let's get the best candidate possible, whoever it might be. 

Truthfully, I want Sarkisian to work out, regardless of my doubts. But if he doesn't, is there any chance we could try to bring in the most qualified head coach in the country willing to change jobs? Is that really too much to ask?

[TwiceHorn 31587]

28 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

 

I couldn't agree with you more.

Maybe Sarkisian works out. I've given up hope, but that doesn't mean I'm right.

The thing I find the most perplexing is the hiring process at Texas. The last 40 years we've had 10 good seasons in a row of football. 2000-2009. The rest have been mediocrity spiced with a hopeful season or two. During that time we've watched Fred Akers, David McWilliams, John Mackovic, Mack Brown, Charlie Strong, Tom Herman, and Steve Sarkisian patrol the sidelines. Of those, only Mack Brown was obviously the best candidate for the job in the country. It also feels like its the only one where there was a true process involved. They actually interviewed Gary Barnett, a couple of years after taking Northwestern to the Rose Bowl, along with Mack. When have we ever interviewed more than one candidate for the job other than that? Why is that?

Now, admittedly we had the fuck up with Nick Saban, who I will always be convinced was willing to come to Austin until Deloss and Mack purposefully fucked that up. And then we had the Urban Meyer pursuit that didn't end up well. 

In addition, college football has laughingly thrown parity out the window. We're no longer seeing multiple coaches with national titles, and many of the ones who win one are inarguably terrible. If you're not Swinney, Saban, whoever is the head coach at Ohio State, or now Kirby Smart at Georgia, it's tough to know how good you are. USC made the splash hire for Riley, and LSU did the same with Brian Kelly. Not sure how excited I would have been about Kelly. I've never been a big fan. But the fact remains he's more qualified than Sarkisian. 

There just aren't a whole lot of can't miss hires out there. But I sure am tired of just zeroing in on a guy because he's someone's favorite, and not opening the process up a little to see who the potential candidates might be. Maybe do more than one interview. Basically I want a hiring process like what was conducted to bring Mack Brown on board. I had plenty of issues with him as the head coach over his tenure, but one thing I never doubted is that he was a terrific hire done the right way. I've never felt that on any of the other ones, even before their teams took the field. Why does it have to be that way? Let's get the best candidate possible, whoever it might be. 

Truthfully, I want Sarkisian to work out, regardless of my doubts. But if he doesn't, is there any chance we could try to bring in the most qualified head coach in the country willing to change jobs? Is that really too much to ask?

Yeah, and the Brown/Barnett competition was apparently run by competing big cigar groups, with Hicks' group for Brown winning the day.  So, while there may have been two candidates, or more, it wasn't some organized search, from all available information.

From available information, the Strong hire was probably the result of the most "organized" process, post-Akers, which was before my time.  But Steve Patterson, so yeah.

I'm a little surprised that you have given up already, but you mitigate that with admitting you don't know you're right.

None of us really knows, obviously, and a lot of us are just pattern-matching prior failures and trying to contrast them to successes.  I think that's a lot like the transitive property in football, i.e. not really a thing.

I think Strong was done, for sure.  I'm a little less certain about whether Herman could have gotten it going if given more time, but asshole, so I guess I'm ok with his firing.  I do have the sense that we are a little quick on the trigger with coaches, though.  So are a lot of others, but it's not helping them out, either.

I harbor hope for Sarkisian.  The second halves are disturbing, but a lot of that is sheer comparison to first halves, which have been often brilliant.  I don't think he gets enough credit for the brilliant part, and too much blame for the disturbing part.

I think PK is a problem, but at least he wasn't some kind of crony hire.  I really hope Sark rectifies that apparent error this off-season.  That alone might really right the ship.

Edited November 3, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Loop 1604 227]

6 hours ago, Knighthawk said:

I find it maddening that had we simply played inside leverage against tech and osu and forced two shitty passers to hit deep out routes consistently (which they can’t), we would be sitting at 7-1 and top 10 or better in the country.   

PK- “inside leverage???”

[victory88 5672]

It’s frustrating bc the players said that they worked on taking away the middle of the field for the osu game and simply didn’t execute their game plan.  Really conflicted bc I want to blame the coaches but it’s frustrating seeing the players in the right positions but failing to execute.  At some point, if players can’t execute after 2 years, it’s the coaches.  Biggest needs this off-season.

 

1.  Motherfucking edge and pass rushers.  This defense doesn’t have a guy that would fucking start at another power 5 school.  Both starters are averaging a combined 0.5 sacks a game.  We need Mond, Burke, and Finkley to take big steps this off-season and produce.

2.  Secondary.  This team needs help at safety and CB.  Watts has actually been decent with the understanding that he gets no help and is asked to normally shutdown the best opposing WR.  Jameson has been a huge disappointment.  Thompson and Cook have been better than I hoped but both guys can’t seem to make plays on the ball.  We need BJ Allen and Terrance Brooks to take a big step next year and need to get an experience CB and safety in the portal.

3.  WR.  X has regressed and we need an experienced guy or two to replace Whittington and to fill in the need for WR3.  Next year they need to hammer to Quinn that if X is doubled, most likely he has an open guy running and needs to get the easy throw and boring play instead of chunking it deep to Worthy 14 times a game.

4.  This staff needs to hire a fucking sports psychologist and figure out why the fuck they can’t win a road game and blow 2nd half leads.  It’s not even a trend anymore, it’s a habit.  
 

We’re not that far from fixing a few issues to allow this program to compete at a high level.  Get that shit fixed Sark.

[BurntOrange&White 40049]

10 hours ago, Jimbob said:

You’re a beating.  

You realize there was a fairly large contingent who saw the hiring of a coordinator who won an MNC under Urban, who then parlayed that into a few good years at a G5, and who proceeded to bring their entire G5 staff along for the ride…  a second time in a row thought it was a dumbfuck move?

Hiring Herman on the heels of strong made me want to kick puppies and run over squirrels.  

7 win Steve is a complete what the fuck do you expect hire, hopefully it was orchestrated to turn around a decade of horrible recruiting.  Maybe the next time a good coach looks under the hood he sees something worth taking on.  

The way Herman was hired annoyed the fuck out of me. He was anointed the job without a search because it appears the Houston BMD was in the ears of the interim AD  from Houston area. They fell in love with him because he beat Oklahoma imo. 

[immamac 43236]

2 hours ago, victory88 said:

It’s frustrating bc the players said that they worked on taking away the middle of the field for the osu game and simply didn’t execute their game plan.  Really conflicted bc I want to blame the coaches but it’s frustrating seeing the players in the right positions but failing to execute.  At some point, if players can’t execute after 2 years, it’s the coaches.  Biggest needs this off-season.

 

1.  Motherfucking edge and pass rushers.  This defense doesn’t have a guy that would fucking start at another power 5 school.  Both starters are averaging a combined 0.5 sacks a game.  We need Mond, Burke, and Finkley to take big steps this off-season and produce.

2.  Secondary.  This team needs help at safety and CB.  Watts has actually been decent with the understanding that he gets no help and is asked to normally shutdown the best opposing WR.  Jameson has been a huge disappointment.  Thompson and Cook have been better than I hoped but both guys can’t seem to make plays on the ball.  We need BJ Allen and Terrance Brooks to take a big step next year and need to get an experience CB and safety in the portal.

3.  WR.  X has regressed and we need an experienced guy or two to replace Whittington and to fill in the need for WR3.  Next year they need to hammer to Quinn that if X is doubled, most likely he has an open guy running and needs to get the easy throw and boring play instead of chunking it deep to Worthy 14 times a game.

4.  This staff needs to hire a fucking sports psychologist and figure out why the fuck they can’t win a road game and blow 2nd half leads.  It’s not even a trend anymore, it’s a habit.  
 

We’re not that far from fixing a few issues to allow this program to compete at a high level.  Get that shit fixed Sark.

Xavier is who Xavier has always been. He hasn't regressed, he had the drops last season too. He's always been a selfish player/person over a team player/person. I hate Geoff Ketchum as much as anyone, but the more I learned about how that whole NIL thing went down the more it's just a case of a guy who has the wrong people around him. 

[TreatyOak 16433]

[Red Five 40917]

16 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

The way Herman was hired annoyed the fuck out of me. He was anointed the job without a search because it appears the Houston BMD was in the ears of the interim AD  from Houston area. They fell in love with him because he beat Oklahoma imo. 

There was also sort of a race with LSU to get him, which probably sped things up. I don't even remember who the other options were if we didn't get Herman. Harsin?

[BurntOrange&White 40049]

10 minutes ago, Red Five said:

There was also sort of a race with LSU to get him, which probably sped things up. I don't even remember who the other options were if we didn't get Herman. Harsin?

There was no other options from what I recall.

[Fondren & Main 6743]

If Sarkisian doesn’t work out DeBoer and Leipold should both be interviewed.  As long as Sarkisian’s recruiting doesn’t fall off a cliff I don’t see how he doesn’t remain coach here.  I can’t imagine going into year 4 that edge will still be trash.  He’s already improved one line tremendously.

[BurntOrange&White 40049]

2 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

If Sarkisian doesn’t work out DeBoer and Leipold should both be interviewed.  As long as Sarkisian’s recruiting doesn’t fall off a cliff I don’t see how he doesn’t remain coach here.  I can’t imagine going into year 4 that edge will still be trash.  He’s already improved one line tremendously.

DeBoer seems like a younger version of Leipold coming from a very successful stint in the lower NCAA ranks and working up. I'd be okay with interviewing Leipold but he's 58 years old currently. Might be 60 by the time this job opens up. 

We definitely shouldn't shy away from poaching big names from other schools just as LSU and USC did this past offseason.

 

 

My current big board would be the following in no particular order:

Current:
Lance Leipold
Kalen DaBoer, now that you mention him.
Luke Fickell
Dave Aranda

Dan Lanning(lets see how he continues at Oregon)

Jamey Chadwell

 

Make Them Say No:

Dabo Swinney

Not Currently Coaching:

Matt Rhule
Urban Meyer

 

[lilMAC25 3824]

14 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

If Sarkisian doesn’t work out DeBoer and Leipold should both be interviewed.  As long as Sarkisian’s recruiting doesn’t fall off a cliff I don’t see how he doesn’t remain coach here.  I can’t imagine going into year 4 that edge will still be trash.  He’s already improved one line tremendously.

It doesn’t matter how well you recruit if you don’t win games. 
 

 

 

 

ETA: assuming we stay above .500, don’t lose to historically bad Kansas teams, and don’t have any unexpected player/coaching/cheating scandals, I fully expect Sarkisian to get 4 seasons minimum at TEXAS

Edited November 3, 2022 by lilMAC25

[Hookem2147 21369]

5 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

DeBoer seems like a younger version of Leipold coming from a very successful stint in the lower NCAA ranks and working up. I'd be okay with interviewing Leipold but he's 58 years old currently. Might be 60 by the time this job opens up. 

We definitely shouldn't shy away from poaching big names from other schools just as LSU and USC did this past offseason.

 

 

My current big board would be the following in no particular order:

Current:
Lance Leipold
Kalen DaBoer, now that you mention him.
Luke Fickell
Dave Aranda

Dan Lanning(lets see how he continues at Oregon)

Jamey Chadwell

 

Make Them Say No:

Dabo Swinney

Not Currently Coaching:

Matt Rhule
Urban Meyer

 

Traylor

[Hank Chinaski 6322]

10 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

Truthfully, I want Sarkisian to work out, regardless of my doubts. But if he doesn't, is there any chance we could try to bring in the most qualified head coach in the country willing to change jobs? Is that really too much to ask?

Yeah, I’ve wondered if this is changing/different than it used to be. We just had an off-season in which the successful coaches at Notre Dame and Oklahoma just voluntarily left - not for the NFL, but for other college jobs. That doesn’t seem like something that would have happened in years past.

With that in mind, maybe it is more realistic to think that Texas could bring in a very successful HC from a top-tier program. I’ve always assumed that the pool is confined to coaches from lower tier/non-blue blood programs or coordinators. That doesn’t seem to be the case anymore.

I still think that Sark could end up being successful, for all the reasons listed here - recruiting (especially QB), offensive scheming (he needs to figure out second half strategy better, but there is enough poor execution that I’m not convinced it’s really on him, at least not completely), bringing in respected coaches, etc. I’m willing to accept the possibility that the results will improve as the QB and young OL gain experience, the players continue to learn the schemes, and more talent is accumulated on D. And I think there is something to be said for continuity. But if not, I wonder if the landscape has changed enough for the next coaching hire to be what you’re describing/hoping for.
 

Edited November 3, 2022 by Hank Chinaski

[gmr548 16617]

If Sarkisian doesn’t work out DeBoer and Leipold should both be interviewed.  As long as Sarkisian’s recruiting doesn’t fall off a cliff I don’t see how he doesn’t remain coach here.  I can’t imagine going into year 4 that edge will still be trash.  He’s already improved one line tremendously.

The one silver lining on the situation Texas is in with Sark is that the timeline lines up nicely for evaluating perspective candidates, including the two you mentioned, as well as guys like Dave Aranda, Dan Lanning, etc. If Sark is out at the end of 2024 or maybe 2025 as I expect, I think there are going to be some actual options with demonstrated P5 success. Not something that was true when Texas was panicking after the Meyer thing fell through.

[BurntOrange&White 40049]

10 minutes ago, Hookem2147 said:

Traylor

Kind of weary on one stop coaches from g5 but yes as pointed out above. We have some evaluation time 

Edited November 3, 2022 by BurntOrange&White

[Stunns38 3560]

Kind of weary on one stop coaches from g5 but yes as pointed out above. We have some evaluation time 

I bet Traylor will be the next UH coach if Holgersen doesn’t work out.

[Fondren & Main 6743]

19 minutes ago, lilMAC25 said:

It doesn’t matter how well you recruit if you don’t win games. 
 

 

 

 

ETA: assuming we stay above .500, don’t lose to historically bad Kansas teams, and don’t have any unexpected player/coaching/cheating scandals, I fully expect Sarkisian to get 4 seasons minimum at TEXAS

Well, I think a BIG reason that Herman is no longer the coach is his SHIT recruiting. 

Barring a total collapse and a steady improvement I don't see how Sark is runoff with pitchforks.  The current team reminds me of the scene from Major League where everyone in the city is saying "these guys ain't so fuckin' bad" until you get back to the grounds crew saying "they're still shitty".  We've definitely gotten better since last year but we are definitely still shitty.  The biggest disappointment is how bad most of our upperclassmen are on defense.  Having to rely on so many young players is not a recipe for success.  I'm gonna try to stay positive and glad I won't be able to watch KSU live.  Hope we win.

[LTtxfan 49378]

2 minutes ago, Stunns38 said:

I bet Traylor will be the next UH coach if Holgersen doesn’t work out.

Not sure Traylor matches up well with cougar high and their overbearing "Frittata"

 

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by LTtxfan

[SL Xpress 7518]

9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, and the Brown/Barnett competition was apparently run by competing big cigar groups, with Hicks' group for Brown winning the day.  So, while there may have been two candidates, or more, it wasn't some organized search, from all available information.

From available information, the Strong hire was probably the result of the most "organized" process, post-Akers, which was before my time.  But Steve Patterson, so yeah.

I'm a little surprised that you have given up already, but you mitigate that with admitting you don't know you're right.

None of us really knows, obviously, and a lot of us are just pattern-matching prior failures and trying to contrast them to successes.  I think that's a lot like the transitive property in football, i.e. not really a thing.

I think Strong was done, for sure.  I'm a little less certain about whether Herman could have gotten it going if given more time, but asshole, so I guess I'm ok with his firing.  I do have the sense that we are a little quick on the trigger with coaches, though.  So are a lot of others, but it's not helping them out, either.

I harbor hope for Sarkisian.  The second halves are disturbing, but a lot of that is sheer comparison to first halves, which have been often brilliant.  I don't think he gets enough credit for the brilliant part, and too much blame for the disturbing part.

I think PK is a problem, but at least he wasn't some kind of crony hire.  I really hope Sark rectifies that apparent error this off-season.  That alone might really right the ship.

 

I don't know about competing big donors. Tom Hicks and Don Evans were on the board of regents. Hicks was the chairman. They were going to be the most important decision makers regarding that hire. There wasn't any real competition on that front.

Barnett had inside scoop on how dysfunctional the athletic department was in terms of how football was run, so he insisted on a separation of football from a lot of the decision making within the AD for him to take the job. Mack Brown, on the other hand, talked in his interview about what a privilege it would be to be the next head coach at Texas and how excited he would be for the opportunity. I'm boiling down hours long interviews into a short sentence, but that was a big part of the dichotomy of the two. 

Brown wasn't exactly the slam dunk we think of him as. After receiving the offer to coach at Texas, he went back to UNC AD Dick Baddour to ask for North Carolina to match UT's offer. Baddour told him he was getting paid as much as he was going to. Sally Brown was earning over $1m per year as a luxury home developer, which she obviously wasn't going to be able to maintain in Austin. UNC was in the midst of finishing a Taj Mahal of football facilities that was going to help transform the program, built on money Mack Brown was instrumental in raising. He'd built a top 5 program after starting with two consecutive 1-10 seasons. If UNC had simply matched UT's offer, he wasn't going anywhere. 

I don't know about the Strong hire being organized. Basically the message came down to hire the best African American coach available, and that's what Patterson did. That is not going out and hiring the best available candidate. 

The Akers hire was mostly about freezing Darrel Royal out of the football program, never mind that he was still the AD. That hire was orchestrated primarily by Allan Shivers and Lorene Rogers, who wanted to lessen the power and influence they perceived Royal having. 

As far as Sarkisian, I'm not exactly shouting out, "Fire him now!" I firmly believe you give a coach 3 to 4 years to do their thing. If it's an unmitigated disaster in year 3, then yeah, he should be gone. But if there are significant signs of progress throughout the program, then that's enough for me, personally. My doubts about Sarkisian lie in the old Darrell Royal line when talking about freshmen ballplayers, "If they're going to bite, they're going to bite as a pup." I'm not seeing the kind of wholesale improvement I think the greatest coaches would already be imparting on the program. And if we're not going to have one of the greatest coaches at Texas, what are we doing? We need another legend as head coach. Not someone who does pretty well. The enemy of great is good, and all that. 

I'm seeing signs of a guy who has never won that much in his previous tenures. Who seems like a nice enough guy, but maybe not as much of a hardass as he needs to be, who is a very good playcaller when he has the right pieces, but when he doesn't the offense can look pedestrian, who doesn't have a good feel for what it takes to field a standout defense, and mostly, whose teams don't know how to win. Of all the coaches we've had since David McWilliams, who was always my personal favorite as a person, I like Steve Sarkisian personally the most. I like the way he comes across. He seems like someone I would enjoy having dinner with. But I have never professed to having a need to like the head coach. If they're complete assholes and they win at an extremely high rate, I'm good. If John Mackovic and Tom Herman, both of whom I despised, had won a whole lot more, I would have very easily come to peace with that. I never liked Mack Brown all that much. He drove me a bit crazy. But until he acted like he had figured out college football and quit working on the recruiting trail, I could have lived with his 2000-2009 results for a long time. We all could have. 

I'm just not sure I see a guy who gives us regular 10+ win seasons with conference championships and regularly competing for titles when I look at Steve Sarkisian. Hell on earth for me would be settling for a coach who gives us 9 wins every year so that he wins enough not to get fired, with no hope of anything better. This might sound counter intuitive, but I'd honestly prefer a series of coaches who flame out right away so we can go look for the next one. 

To me future legendary coaches come in and make a dramatic impact right away, even if it doesn't equal winning at the highest levels. I'm not seeing that in Sarkisian. Are you?

[TreatyOak 16433]

5 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

 

I don't know about competing big donors. Tom Hicks and Don Evans were on the board of regents. Hicks was the chairman. They were going to be the most important decision makers regarding that hire. There wasn't any real competition on that front.

Barnett had inside scoop on how dysfunctional the athletic department was in terms of how football was run, so he insisted on a separation of football from a lot of the decision making within the AD for him to take the job. Mack Brown, on the other hand, talked in his interview about what a privilege it would be to be the next head coach at Texas and how excited he would be for the opportunity. I'm boiling down hours long interviews into a short sentence, but that was a big part of the dichotomy of the two. 

Brown wasn't exactly the slam dunk we think of him as. After receiving the offer to coach at Texas, he went back to UNC AD Dick Baddour to ask for North Carolina to match UT's offer. Baddour told him he was getting paid as much as he was going to. Sally Brown was earning over $1m per year as a luxury home developer, which she obviously wasn't going to be able to maintain in Austin. UNC was in the midst of finishing a Taj Mahal of football facilities that was going to help transform the program, built on money Mack Brown was instrumental in raising. He'd built a top 5 program after starting with two consecutive 1-10 seasons. If UNC had simply matched UT's offer, he wasn't going anywhere. 

I don't know about the Strong hire being organized. Basically the message came down to hire the best African American coach available, and that's what Patterson did. That is not going out and hiring the best available candidate. 

The Akers hire was mostly about freezing Darrel Royal out of the football program, never mind that he was still the AD. That hire was orchestrated primarily by Allan Shivers and Lorene Rogers, who wanted to lessen the power and influence they perceived Royal having. 

As far as Sarkisian, I'm not exactly shouting out, "Fire him now!" I firmly believe you give a coach 3 to 4 years to do their thing. If it's an unmitigated disaster in year 3, then yeah, he should be gone. But if there are significant signs of progress throughout the program, then that's enough for me, personally. My doubts about Sarkisian lie in the old Darrell Royal line when talking about freshmen ballplayers, "If they're going to bite, they're going to bite as a pup." I'm not seeing the kind of wholesale improvement I think the greatest coaches would already be imparting on the program. And if we're not going to have one of the greatest coaches at Texas, what are we doing? We need another legend as head coach. Not someone who does pretty well. The enemy of great is good, and all that. 

I'm seeing signs of a guy who has never won that much in his previous tenures. Who seems like a nice enough guy, but maybe not as much of a hardass as he needs to be, who is a very good playcaller when he has the right pieces, but when he doesn't the offense can look pedestrian, who doesn't have a good feel for what it takes to field a standout defense, and mostly, whose teams don't know how to win. Of all the coaches we've had since David McWilliams, who was always my personal favorite as a person, I like Steve Sarkisian personally the most. I like the way he comes across. He seems like someone I would enjoy having dinner with. But I have never professed to having a need to like the head coach. If they're complete assholes and they win at an extremely high rate, I'm good. If John Mackovic and Tom Herman, both of whom I despised, had won a whole lot more, I would have very easily come to peace with that. I never liked Mack Brown all that much. He drove me a bit crazy. But until he acted like he had figured out college football and quit working on the recruiting trail, I could have lived with his 2000-2009 results for a long time. We all could have. 

I'm just not sure I see a guy who gives us regular 10+ win seasons with conference championships and regularly competing for titles when I look at Steve Sarkisian. Hell on earth for me would be settling for a coach who gives us 9 wins every year so that he wins enough not to get fired, with no hope of anything better. This might sound counter intuitive, but I'd honestly prefer a series of coaches who flame out right away so we can go look for the next one. 

To me future legendary coaches come in and make a dramatic impact right away, even if it doesn't equal winning at the highest levels. I'm not seeing that in Sarkisian. Are you?

[Hookem2147 21369]

1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Kind of weary on one stop coaches from g5.  

You mentioned last week that we just need to do "whatever Ohio State does". Or whatever OU does (prior to Venables cuz the jury is out there). They looked for traits over flash or whoever the hottest coach is in the market (and also had the luxury of handing over well built programs to the guys later them). Jim Tressel had never been a head coach at the FBS level when he was hired. They could have easily brought back Fickell after Urban left but they handed the reins to Day. Stoops had never been a head coach, Riley had never been a head coach, Switzer had never been a head coach.

Whatever that process looks like for Texas is what needs to happen whenever the next hire needs to be made. It doesn't mean go hire a first time HC but there are different ways to go about it. It doesn't have to be a cookie cutter process you copy from another school. It's funny to see people say well Heupel is doing this and that in year 2. For every Josh Heupel in year 2, there are 15 other coaches in year 2 who don't do jack and are fired a few years later. Just because another school did it doesn't mean we have to try to replicate it.

 

[BurntOrange&White 40049]

10 minutes ago, Hookem2147 said:

You mentioned last week that we just need to do "whatever Ohio State does". Or whatever OU does (prior to Venables cuz the jury is out there). They looked for traits over flash or whoever the hottest coach is in the market (and also had the luxury of handing over well built programs to the guys later them). Jim Tressel had never been a head coach at the FBS level when he was hired. They could have easily brought back Fickell after Urban left but they handed the reins to Day. Stoops had never been a head coach, Riley had never been a head coach, Switzer had never been a head coach.

Whatever that process looks like for Texas is what needs to happen whenever the next hire needs to be made. It doesn't mean go hire a first time HC but there are different ways to go about it. It doesn't have to be a cookie cutter process you copy from another school. It's funny to see people say well Heupel is doing this and that in year 2. For every Josh Heupel in year 2, there are 15 other coaches in year 2 who don't do jack and are fired a few years later. Just because another school did it doesn't mean we have to try to replicate it.

 

But he had highly sucessful tenure at Youngstown St

 

 

Clearly year two is a large indicator of how well a coach generally will do over the course of their tenure. Just about every great coach dating back to the 90s, which I broke down on IT, had a good to great year 2.

 

 

My point last week that whatever Texas has done for the last 40 years doesn't work and has produced shit hires outside of one, and even that was a clusterfuck of a hire. 

Not saying carbon copy what OHio State does but run a real fucking process, get football minded peoples opinions, hire multiple search firms, do whatever it takes. Run a real process, don't get fixated on the shiny object.

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by BurntOrange&White

[Hookem2147 21369]

4 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

But he had highly sucessful tenure at Youngstown St

 

 

Clearly year two is a large indicator of how well a coach generally will do over the course of their tenure. Just about every great coach dating back to the 90s, which I broke down on IT, had a great year 2.

Man, I would love to see your reaction on this board if we hired an FCS coach, regardless of how successful they were.

Yes, he was very successful at Youngstown State. Just like Traylor is about to take a UTSA program had never won more than 7 games in their FBS existence to back-to-back 10+ win seasons.

[BurntOrange&White 40049]

10 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

In addition, college football has laughingly thrown parity out the window.

Honestly parity has never existed.

[SL Xpress 7518]

1 minute ago, Hookem2147 said:

You mentioned last week that we just need to do "whatever Ohio State does". Or whatever OU does (prior to Venables cuz the jury is out there). They looked for traits over flash or whoever the hottest coach is in the market (and also had the luxury of handing over well built programs to the guys later them). Jim Tressel had never been a head coach at the FBS level when he was hired. They could have easily brought back Fickell after Urban left but they handed the reins to Day. Stoops had never been a head coach, Riley had never been a head coach, Switzer had never been a head coach.

Whatever that process looks like for Texas is what needs to happen whenever the next hire needs to be made. It doesn't mean go hire a first time HC but there are different ways to go about it. It doesn't have to be a cookie cutter process you copy from another school. It's funny to see people say well Heupel is doing this and that in year 2. For every Josh Heupel in year 2, there are 15 other coaches in year 2 who don't do jack and are fired a few years later. Just because another school did it doesn't mean we have to try to replicate it.

 

 

Ohio State is a fucking unicorn. Saying "do what Ohio State does" doesn't make any sense, because literally no one does what Ohio State does when it comes to hiring football coaches. No one. Even Earl Bruce and Jim Cooper did well there. 

OU historically has never hired head coaches. Since WWII they've hired two. The first one was Jim Tatum, who was the head coach at North Carolina in 1942. The second one was Howard Schnellenberger. Both men lasted one year.

Outside of that they've hired 10 different head coaches with no previous head coaching experience, including legends Bud Wilkinson, Barry Switzer, and Bob Stoops. And, of course, Lincoln Riley. Most of them were assistants on the previous staff, but not all of them. 

There's no such thing as a sure thing in hiring a new head football coach. In any hiring, really, but we're talking about this profession specifically. Plenty of coaches I felt were slam dunk hires that did nothing. Plenty of coaches I thought were laughable hail mary's ended up being amazing. Pete Carroll being exhibit A. Every now and then you get a hire like Nick Saban to Alabama from the Dolphins. Or Urban Meyer by Ohio State. But mostly they're rolls of the dice.

Having said that, I sure would like to see Texas swing for the fences. Heck, to be honest I hope that Sarkisian gets this mess turned around and becomes that guy himself. But if he doesn't I would really like to see Texas money whip someone into coming here. Especially with the NIL and the portal, Texas has every advantage necessary to win at the highest levels. EVERY advantage. Pay the kind of money USC and LSU did to pull Riley and Kelly. Identify who could be bought to come here who has already won at a significant clip, and let's see what they can do. 

[lilMAC25 3824]

25 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

Well, I think a BIG reason that Herman is no longer the coach is his SHIT recruiting. 

Barring a total collapse and a steady improvement I don't see how Sark is runoff with pitchforks.  The current team reminds me of the scene from Major League where everyone in the city is saying "these guys ain't so fuckin' bad" until you get back to the grounds crew saying "they're still shitty".  We've definitely gotten better since last year but we are definitely still shitty.  The biggest disappointment is how bad most of our upperclassmen are on defense.  Having to rely on so many young players is not a recipe for success.  I'm gonna try to stay positive and glad I won't be able to watch KSU live.  Hope we win.

I’d say it was a part of the equation.

 

the MAIN reason Herman was fired was because Texas admin/power brokers thought they had a real shot at Urban Meyer.

[Fondren & Main 6743]

1 minute ago, lilMAC25 said:

I’d say it was a part of the equation.

 

the MAIN reason Herman was fired was because Texas admin/power brokers thought they had a real shot at Urban Meyer.

Sure, but at the same time we had just fucked away the game to OU and lost Ewers if I remember correctly.  Recruiting took a nosedive.

[SL Xpress 7518]

1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Honestly parity has never existed.

Sure. But there's never been a time when so many national championships were centered around so few active coaches. Guys like Saban, Meyer, and Swinney sucked the oxygen out of the room.

[Hookem2147 21369]

2 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

 

Ohio State is a fucking unicorn. Saying "do what Ohio State does" doesn't make any sense, because literally no one does what Ohio State does when it comes to hiring football coaches. No one. Even Earl Bruce and Jim Cooper did well there. 

OU historically has never hired head coaches. Since WWII they've hired two. The first one was Jim Tatum, who was the head coach at North Carolina in 1942. The second one was Howard Schnellenberger. Both men lasted one year.

Outside of that they've hired 10 different head coaches with no previous head coaching experience, including legends Bud Wilkinson, Barry Switzer, and Bob Stoops. And, of course, Lincoln Riley. Most of them were assistants on the previous staff, but not all of them. 

There's no such thing as a sure thing in hiring a new head football coach. In any hiring, really, but we're talking about this profession specifically. Plenty of coaches I felt were slam dunk hires that did nothing. Plenty of coaches I thought were laughable hail mary's ended up being amazing. Pete Carroll being exhibit A. Every now and then you get a hire like Nick Saban to Alabama from the Dolphins. Or Urban Meyer by Ohio State. But mostly they're rolls of the dice.

Having said that, I sure would like to see Texas swing for the fences. Heck, to be honest I hope that Sarkisian gets this mess turned around and becomes that guy himself. But if he doesn't I would really like to see Texas money whip someone into coming here. Especially with the NIL and the portal, Texas has every advantage necessary to win at the highest levels. EVERY advantage. Pay the kind of money USC and LSU did to pull Riley and Kelly. Identify who could be bought to come here who has already won at a significant clip, and let's see what they can do. 

Don't disagree with any of that.

Speaking of guys coming from the NFL, I've always wanted us to keep tabs on Kyle Shanahan if he ever ends up flaming out at that level. 

[Hookem2147 21369]

2 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

Sure, but at the same time we had just fucked away the game to OU and lost Ewers if I remember correctly.  Recruiting took a nosedive.

Recruiting took a nosedive long before that. Ewers was originally in the 2022 class and our 2021 class was hot garbage. We had whiffed on the Brockermeyers prior to the season and a bunch of other priority targets. Our OL takes were Hayden Conner and Max Merril. Our WR takes were Casey Cain and Jaden Alexis.

[BurntOrange&White 40049]

Hopefully the process next time is more than this - Deciding the coach before interviewing after the Meyer thing dissolved. 

 

"Del Conte asked Kevin Eltife, the Chairman of the Board of Regents, to be involved with the decision making to move on from Herman and find the next head coach along with Jay Hartzell, the university’s new president.

All three rowing the boat together in the same direction, a rare moment of alignment at a university often defined by dysfunction at its highest levels of leadership.

According to Del Conte, Eltife was the first to throw out the name of Sarkisian, then serving as the Alabama offensive coordinator. “I like him, too,” Del Conte responded. “He’s the guy,” Hartzell added.

Leaving the meeting, Del Conte marveled at the level of agreement between the three largest stakeholders in a decision that has huge long-term financial ramifications for the university. “Holy cow, we all agree,” Del Conte thought to himself."

Edited November 3, 2022 by BurntOrange&White

[Hookem2147 21369]

2 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Hopefully the process next time is more than this - Deciding the coach before interviewing after the Meyer thing dissolved. 

 

"Del Conte asked Kevin Eltife, the Chairman of the Board of Regents, to be involved with the decision making to move on from Herman and find the next head coach along with Jay Hartzell, the university’s new president.

All three rowing the boat together in the same direction, a rare moment of alignment at a university often defined by dysfunction at its highest levels of leadership.

According to Del Conte, Eltife was the first to throw out the name of Sarkisian, then serving as the Alabama offensive coordinator. “I like him, too,” Del Conte responded. “He’s the guy,” Hartzell added.

Leaving the meeting, Del Conte marveled at the level of agreement between the three largest stakeholders in a decision that has huge long-term financial ramifications for the university. “Holy cow, we all agree,” Del Conte thought to himself."

They still had to interview him and go through the process at that point. You don't think they would have pivoted if he interviewed poorly, didn't show interest or something popped up that prevented his hire?

And wasn't the whole idea that CDC wanted Sonny Dykes?

[BurntOrange&White 40049]

14 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

But if he doesn't I would really like to see Texas money whip someone into coming here. Especially with the NIL and the portal, Texas has every advantage necessary to win at the highest levels. EVERY advantage. Pay the kind of money USC and LSU did to pull Riley and Kelly. Identify who could be bought to come here who has already won at a significant clip, and let's see what they can do.

You've mentioned the guy and I've mentioned a guy who both fit this criteria. If we want to do the absolute best we should just list these 3 guys to try and do that with:
 

Urban Meyer

Dabo Swinney

Kirby Smart

 

Those IMO are the only three that fit that criteria, obviously Saban but he's much older than those three guys and likely at his last job.

[BurntOrange&White 40049]

4 minutes ago, Hookem2147 said:

They still had to interview him and go through the process at that point. You don't think they would have pivoted if he interviewed poorly, didn't show interest or something popped up that prevented his hire?

And wasn't the whole idea that CDC wanted Sonny Dykes?

Why didn't we interview other candidates? Sark was pre-chosen after the Meyer debacle. How well do interviews go when you already know the guy you want to hire? They're pretty damn easy. Joe Brady and Eric Bienemy may be the only two who could fuck it up.

Edited November 3, 2022 by BurntOrange&White

[BurntOrange&White 40049]

53 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

Sure. But there's never been a time when so many national championships were centered around so few active coaches. Guys like Saban, Meyer, and Swinney sucked the oxygen out of the room.

We could go back to split titles as that produced a little more parity. 

20s - Saban Kirby
10s - Saban Meyer Dabo
00s - Saban, Meyer, Carroll, Tressel 
90s -  Bowden, Spurrier, Fulmer, Osbourne

80s - Shembechler, Switzer, Johnson, Osbourne, Paterno

70s - Switzer, Bryant, Robinson, Hayes

60s - DKR, Bryant, Hayes, Parseghian

50s - Wilkinson, Daugherty, Hayes, 

40s - Blaik, Leahy, Bierman, Butts

 

Basically it's just a handfull of coaches/programs a decade.

 

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by BurntOrange&White

[6th Street 6508]

We will likely take another shot at Urban after 2024 and before heading into the SEC. Will take one of those big 10 year/$100M contracts like Kelly and Riley got but I could see him being interested in one final run after failing miserably in Jacksonville.

[torre 1286]

1 hour ago, SL Xpress said:

 

 

I don't know about the Strong hire being organized. Basically the message came down to hire the best African American coach available, and that's what Patterson did. That is not going out and hiring the best available candidate. 

 

Good comments in the OP.

Certainly not an insider or BMD,  but heard from key people in the know  that Bill Powers was very key in the Strong hire,  very key.

[Hookem2147 21369]

4 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

We will likely take another shot at Urban after 2024 and before heading into the SEC. Will take one of those big 10 year/$100M contracts like Kelly and Riley got but I could see him being interested in one final run after failing miserably in Jacksonville.

Have your posts always been this bad or have I just noticed it more the last few weeks?

[UTEE97 3524]

My concern is that if Sark only shows moderate improvement next year, does it do more harm than good to the program? If the coach only has two years left on the contract, other coaches are going to use it against us in recruiting. Do you then extend his contract and get trapped if the progress doesn't continue into year 4 and 5? 

[Hookem2147 21369]

2 minutes ago, UTEE97 said:

If the coach only has two years left on the contract, other coaches are going to use it against us in recruiting. Do you then extend his contract and get trapped if the progress doesn't continue into year 4 and 5? 

He signed a 6 year contract.

[BurntOrange&White 40049]

Just now, Hookem2147 said:

He signed a 6 year contract.

Yup. Imo we have year 3 then year 4 a small extension will need to be done if we think he’s the guy, if he makes it to year 4. 

[UTEE97 3524]

2 minutes ago, Hookem2147 said:

He signed a 6 year contract.

Thanks for the correction. It probably buys us another year. I sincerely hope we don't extend him next year regardless of how well the team does.