This is who Steve Sarkisian is.

[Valmy77 13626]

1 hour ago, Blotto said:

Strong and Sark weren't shiny objects. They were poorly selected consolation prizes after whiffing on our prime targets. Panic hires. 

 

Well what can you expect when boosters and amatuers, and not the AD, are doing the hiring? The difference in results between football and the rest of the athletic department speaks for itself. 

[David Dennison 19553]

1 minute ago, Red Five said:

Quite possibly the biggest understatement ever on this site. In hindsight, maybe hiring Nick Saban or Dabo Swinney would have been the way to go. 

And that's fair.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10806]

I'd like to accept that no matter his success at times I don't see a HC performing duties of an OC or DC working out in today's game. There is too much going on to not have a full-time HC only on the sidelines managing games.

[LonghornSean 4104]

Assuming we don't win out (lol) and get some help to make it to Arlington, failure to appear in the Big 12 title game next season warrants Sark being fired, IMO. I guess the conference landscape will be different in 2023, so who knows how it will shake out, but not at least making that game once in three seasons just isn't good enough.

If he loses out this year, you pull the plug. 1-3 would get ugly, but I think he'd survive (temporarily) depending on how that stretch plays out.

[ztejas 44233]

Who remembers this video?

I'm gonna go drink some bleach under an overpass. 

[David Dennison 19553]

1 hour ago, Blotto said:

Strong and Sark weren't shiny objects. They were poorly selected consolation prizes after whiffing on our prime targets. Panic hires. 

 

After "whiffing" on Urban Meyer, who wouldn't have been a panic hire to replace Tom Herman? 

[Hank Chinaski 6362]

Granted, I’m getting old and I pay less and less attention to the details (recruiting, in-game decisions, etc) every year, and am pretty resigned to the idea that Texas is just a middling, mediocre program at this point…but I think I am in favor of just keeping Sark for a while and seeing what happens. He seems to be upgrading the talent, the team seems a little better than last year, I like his offense when the qb throws passes with a modicum of accuracy, he seems willing to bring in good coaches, etc. Unless there is a slam dunk situation, just let him keep going. Maybe there’s something to be said for continuity. Maybe Sark fine tunes his approach (I don’t think he’s that far off, he’s not Charlie Strong bad).

Maybe I just want to try something different and give the guy more time and not start over again with a relative unknown. It is our instinct to fire guys quickly, but it’s not like this approach has been working, and maybe it’s worth a try to give him time. Basically it seems like the Texas boosters/decision-makers/athletic department is Costanza, and I want to see this approach:

Edited October 23, 2022 by Hank Chinaski

[Stunns38 3805]

You’re shocked after consecutive 7 loss seasons that some thought the HC should go?

Reading comprehension ….

[Stunns38 3805]

Yea I’m sure that’s why Charlie got fired

Reading comprehension. I swear you idiots take one statement and interpret something else.

[bullet 1630]

3 hours ago, Thatguy said:

  This forum is a microcosm of the Texas fan base and is exactly why we keep wandering in the wilderness. I will admit to apologizing for Strong because I thought he would recruit us out of this, but he turned out to NOT be the recruiter he was elsewhere. Herm I hated from day 1 and it had nothing to do with the asshole. However, college football is about recruiting. Guys who can recruit ultimately end up winning. Simple as that. Mack was a solid recruiter year over year. Once his recruiting fell of he was shit. Charlie recruited shit. Tom hit on a couple classes but his attrition was shit. If this guy can continue recruiting well then he will be ok. Despite all the oopinions we are losing because of our shortcomings. We have some talent but we also have some glaring weaknesses. Line depth/experience. Secondary depth. Pass Rush. Receiver depth. Freshman QB. All the problems we knew we had coming in are showing up on Saturdays. Not sure why people are surprised. 

There are coaches who can lose despite talent.  Sark may be one of them.  We'll see.  All I can say is he's a vastly better recruiter than Strong and not a total complete dumbshit coach like Strong was.  Will he ever get us beyond 8-4?

Jimbo is 3-4 at this point.  He's another of them.  He was about to get fired at FSU after winning a title.

[bullet 1630]

21 minutes ago, Hank Chinaski said:

Granted, I’m getting old and I pay less and less attention to the details (recruiting, in-game decisions, etc) every year, and am pretty resigned to the idea that Texas is just a middling, mediocre program at this point…but I think I am in favor of just keeping Sark for a while and seeing what happens. He seems to be upgrading the talent, the team seems a little better than last year, I like his offense when the qb throws passes with a modicum of accuracy, he seems willing to bring in good coaches, etc. Unless there is a slam dunk situation, just let him keep going. Maybe there’s something to be said for continuity. Maybe Sark fine tunes his approach (I don’t think he’s that far off, he’s not Charlie Strong bad).

Maybe I just want to try something different and give the guy more time and not start over again with a relative unknown. It is our instinct to fire guys quickly, but it’s not like this approach has been working, and maybe it’s worth a try to give him time. Basically it seems like the Texas boosters/decision-makers/athletic department is Costanza, and I want to see this approach:

Oh, I'm not ready to fire him, but he's turning out so far just like he did at his previous stops.  Same for Tom Hermann-won unexpected games, lost unexpected games.  Same for Mackovic, great offensive mind who had good games and bad games and no defense.  Same for Mack-great recruiter, really good teams, but almost always 2nd place in the conference.  7 win Sark looks like a 7 win coach.

Don't know why we expect coaches to perform better than the did elsewhere.

[Loch Ness Monster 3533]

Sark is who he is at this point. Mediocre. Guess he'll get another season then onto the next coach.

[Steelers Roll Left 1299]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

After "whiffing" on Urban Meyer, who wouldn't have been a panic hire to replace Tom Herman? 

No doubt some of the shine on Meyer has been taken off after his disastrous showing in the NFL, but he wouldn’t be the 1st college legend to struggle at that level. Urban Meyer’s results at the college level are, simply put, exemplary and have proven out at multiple destinations.  So while I often agree with your takes, Urban Meyer is not a panic hire….ever.

[Horn80 6361]

The more I think about yesterday’s loss and Sark’s propensity to blow games, I’m 100% surly.

[Steelers Roll Left 1299]

55 minutes ago, Hank Chinaski said:

Granted, I’m getting old and I pay less and less attention to the details (recruiting, in-game decisions, etc) every year, and am pretty resigned to the idea that Texas is just a middling, mediocre program at this point…but I think I am in favor of just keeping Sark for a while and seeing what happens. He seems to be upgrading the talent, the team seems a little better than last year, I like his offense when the qb throws passes with a modicum of accuracy, he seems willing to bring in good coaches, etc. Unless there is a slam dunk situation, just let him keep going. Maybe there’s something to be said for continuity. Maybe Sark fine tunes his approach (I don’t think he’s that far off, he’s not Charlie Strong bad).

Maybe I just want to try something different and give the guy more time and not start over again with a relative unknown. It is our instinct to fire guys quickly, but it’s not like this approach has been working, and maybe it’s worth a try to give him time. Basically it seems like the Texas boosters/decision-makers/athletic department is Costanza, and I want to see this approach:

Largely agree with this take including the “….unless there is a slam dunk situation….” take

[Hank Chinaski 6362]

24 minutes ago, bullet said:

 Don't know why we expect coaches to perform better than the did elsewhere.

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

 

Edited October 23, 2022 by Hank Chinaski

[David Dennison 19553]

2 minutes ago, Steelers Roll Left said:

No doubt some of the shine on Meyer has been taken off after his disastrous showing in the NFL, but he wouldn’t be the 1st college legend to struggle at that level. Urban Meyer’s results at the college level are, simply put, exemplary and have proven out at multiple destinations.  So while I often agree with your takes, Urban Meyer is not a panic hire….ever.

Yeah, poor choice of words on my part. Urban Meyer obviously would't have been a panic hire. Other than Urban Meyer, who were some of the other non-panic hire coaches out there to start 2021?

[lilMAC25 4003]

7 minutes ago, Hank Chinaski said:

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

 

Lincoln Riley walked away from perfect security at OU. 
 

Other coaches would likely do the same given the right $$ and opportunity.

 

Saban is the least likely, IMHO.

Edited October 23, 2022 by lilMAC25

[Valmy77 13626]

This whole theory that coaches only repeat their previous results doesn't seem to hold up under scrutiny. Charlie Strong did not have identical results at Texas that he did at Louisville. Saban did not have identical results at LSU that he had at Michigan State. Coaches regularly exceed previous results or regress. 

 

Sometimes it is the circumstances that influences those results. So Sark taking over a 0-12 Washington influences his record there somewhat. 

Edited October 23, 2022 by Valmy77

[Horn80 6361]

3 minutes ago, lilMAC25 said:

Lincoln Riley walked away from perfect security at OU. 
 

Other coaches would likely do the same given the right $$ and opportunity.

Kelly did it too.

[WhatTheBuck 28931]

3 hours ago, Thatguy said:

Guys who can recruit ultimately end up winning. Simple as that.

Ron Zook would like a word.

[lilMAC25 4003]

8 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

This whole theory that coaches only repeat their previous results doesn't seem to hold up under scrutiny. Charlie Strong did not have identical results at Texas that he did at Louisville. Saban did not have identical results at LSU that he had at Michigan State. Coaches regularly exceed previous results or regress. 

 

Sometimes it is the circumstances that influences those results. So Sark taking over a 0-12 Washington influences his record there somewhat. 

Charlie Strong had 4 years or so of evidence (with Bridgewater at QB), we had around 9 for Sark when this thread was posted.

Edited October 23, 2022 by lilMAC25

[Pam Cummings 9880]

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

Who remembers this video?

I'm gonna go drink some bleach under an overpass. 

This video is really good. If you are feeling like absolute shit it's kinda your own fault. I will believe this team capable of competing for big things if and when i see it with my own 2 eyes and not a second sooner.

[Hank Chinaski 6362]

10 minutes ago, lilMAC25 said:

Lincoln Riley walked away from perfect security at OU. 
 

Other coaches would likely do the same given the right $$ and opportunity.

 

Saban is the least likely, IMHO.

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

[Tex-19 3013]

Sark will get at least one more year, probably 2, no matter what happens. We've seen some real improvement this year on defense (esp against the run) and the offense is insanely young. You have to at least give him year 2 of Ewers and the OL. 

The most concerning thing to me is the 2nd half Offensive disappearing act. 31 points in the first half and 3 in the second?? How does that happen? And that shit's been happening a lot under Sark. For all the blame we give the D, we'd have like 4 extra wins under Sark if the offense could've done anything in the 2nd half (including both OSU games). I still think Sark needs to basically just be an OC on gameday and let the defensive coaches handle their shit.

Edited October 23, 2022 by Tex-19

[BurntOrange&White 41905]

13 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Tennessee was an even bigger dumpster fire than us, for a longer period of time, with a harder schedule in a harder conference and less competitive advantages than us, and they’re a playoff contender in year 2 now that they finally hired a good coach.

We just need to skip ahead to the part where we finally hire a good coach, as soon as possible.  Sark is who he is.  We probably will be better next year, because how couldn’t we with a freshman QB, true freshmen all over the OL, etc.   But his flaws are evident and not going away.

We’ve hired 1 good coach in 40 years. 

[WhatTheBuck 28931]

3 hours ago, lilMAC25 said:

Remember all those championships Ron Zook won?

Ah, beat me to it.  

[lilMAC25 4003]

3 hours ago, Thatguy said:

Reread what I said. We fired him when we did so we could grab Herm before anyone else did. It was a bad plan. We could've waited until the season was over and got someone better. Strong was the new shiny object. Then Herman was the new shiny object. Then Sark was the new shiny object. See where this is going? 

Every bit of this argument is factually incorrect.
 

 

Strong wasn’t a “shiny object”, he simply wasn’t Mack Brown. In fact, Saban was the “shiny object” we were looking at when Mack was forced out.

Charlie Strong was rightfully getting fired after losing to Kansas in year 3 with 3 consecutive 7 loss seasons. Herman or not.
 

Herman was fired because BMDs and admin thought we had a shot at Urban Meyer. Sark was never the “shiny object”. Sark was the fallback plan. 
 

 

Sark has continued to be Sark. Maybe he grows out of it, but it sure doesn’t appear that will be the case.

Edited October 23, 2022 by lilMAC25

[Liquor and Poker 3659]

I’m wondering if “Seven Win Steve” is aspirational. 

[lilMAC25 4003]

4 minutes ago, Liquor and Poker said:

I’m wondering if “Seven Win Steve” is aspirational. 

[closetohumping 17818]

23 minutes ago, lilMAC25 said:

Every bit of this argument is factually incorrect.
 

 

Strong wasn’t a “shiny object”, he simply wasn’t Mack Brown. In fact, Saban was the “shiny object” we were looking at when Mack was forced out.

Charlie Strong was rightfully getting fired after losing to Kansas in year 3 with 3 consecutive 7 loss seasons. Herman or not.
 

Herman was fired because BMDs and admin thought we had a shot at Urban Meyer. Sark was never the “shiny object”. Sark was the fallback plan. 
 

 

Sark has continued to be Sark. Maybe he grows out of it, but it sure doesn’t appear that will be the case.

Sark is about to be 50 soon. Maybe he is just what he is

[closetohumping 17818]

44 minutes ago, Tex-19 said:

Sark will get at least one more year, probably 2, no matter what happens. We've seen some real improvement this year on defense (esp against the run) and the offense is insanely young. You have to at least give him year 2 of Ewers and the OL. 

The most concerning thing to me is the 2nd half Offensive disappearing act. 31 points in the first half and 3 in the second?? How does that happen? And that shit's been happening a lot under Sark. For all the blame we give the D, we'd have like 4 extra wins under Sark if the offense could've done anything in the 2nd half (including both OSU games). I still think Sark needs to basically just be an OC on gameday and let the defensive coaches handle their shit.

Barring some sort of scandal two years minimum

[tonedeaf 56]

1 hour ago, Loch Ness Monster said:

Sark is who he is at this point. Mediocre. Guess he'll get another season then onto the next coach.

I don't know if surly likes Rhule, but I'm thinking he won't be available next year.  Any other ideas?

[Valmy77 13626]

55 minutes ago, lilMAC25 said:

Charlie Strong had 4 years or so of evidence (with Bridgewater at QB), we had around 9 for Sark when this thread was posted.

Yeah. At Washington with one alcohol fueled washout at USC. 

If somebody is achieving the amount of success we want for 9 years and agree to leave their current job with no signs of trouble well they are a special unicorn. Our chances of ever pulling of a hire like that are incredibly remote.

Though I guess one guy who does have a long track record of success as a head coach is already on our staff...but I don't think he wants to be a head coach anymore.

[Stunns38 3805]

Sark will get at least one more year, probably 2, no matter what happens. We've seen some real improvement this year on defense (esp against the run) and the offense is insanely young. You have to at least give him year 2 of Ewers and the OL. 
The most concerning thing to me is the 2nd half Offensive disappearing act. 31 points in the first half and 3 in the second?? How does that happen? And that shit's been happening a lot under Sark. For all the blame we give the D, we'd have like 4 extra wins under Sark if the offense could've done anything in the 2nd half (including both OSU games). I still think Sark needs to basically just be an OC on gameday and let the defensive coaches handle their shit.

Sark may need to hire an OC/playcaller who has the same philosophy but stay involved in the game planning. Let the OC call plays and make adjustments.

He 100% needs to hire a new DC that can maximize the talent we have in this state. That DC needs to hire his own staff.

He needs to be a CEO not a full time OC. He (and Jimbo) can’t sniff Riley’s jockstrap in doing both.

[Valmy77 13626]

3 minutes ago, tonedeaf said:

I don't know if surly likes Rhule, but I'm thinking he won't be available next year.  Any other ideas?

So his achievements aren't mediocre? Didn't he just fail miserably? Isn't this what we shouldn't do? Hire the guy who showed he was mediocre?

[tonedeaf 56]

1 minute ago, Valmy77 said:

So his achievements aren't mediocre? Didn't he just fail miserably? Isn't this what we shouldn't do? Hire the guy who showed he was mediocre?

Like Saban?  You understand Texas is NCAA, not NFL.  Would you hire Urban?

[Boogaloo 268]

7 minutes ago, tonedeaf said:

I don't know if surly likes Rhule, but I'm thinking he won't be available next year.  Any other ideas?

 

[lilMAC25 4003]

6 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Yeah. At Washington with one alcohol fueled washout at USC. 

If somebody is achieving the amount of success we want for 9 years and agree to leave their current job with no signs of trouble well they are a special unicorn. Our chances of ever pulling of a hire like that are incredibly remote.

Though I guess one guy who does have a long track record of success as a head coach is already on our staff...but I don't think he wants to be a head coach anymore.

And yet USC and LSU just both pulled it off.

[tonedeaf 56]

1 minute ago, Boogaloo said:

 

No

[Hank Chinaski 6362]

1 minute ago, Boogaloo said:

 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

2 hours ago, ztejas said:

Who remembers this video?

I'm gonna go drink some bleach under an overpass. 

First time seeing it, that was fucking awesome. 

[dcar00 14974]

I'd kick the tires on Gundy after this year.  maybe he wants to coach in the SEC.

[closetojumping 65444]

Predicting the future is hard and we all know that. There are things that each one of us fundamentally knows  will happen in our own lives this week and we will be wrong about a bunch of those internal predictions. 

So I type this with that in mind: I don’t think the sentiment is there to 86 Seven Loss Steve before the end of year 4. People are tired of turnover and turmoil, and that includes every level - the admin, the money, the employees, the players, the recruits. People like the guy. You can see legitimate signs of player development. He’s recruiting well and not doing so naively.  He’s hired a mostly sound staff and folks seem like they think the infrastructure work he is doing is making a difference for the future. He will be here through 2024 barring scandal or utter collapse.

That isn’t me advocating or saying anything absolute. You guys know I am most ardently in the “show me” category with Steve Sarklostagain, but that’s my read being around some of it. 

Beyond that, and due to the positives I alluded to, I find myself in the weird spot personally of feeling like he’s got a shot to figure it out. I think if the dude takes the Patterson role for the offense, where he is really involved in the strategy and planning and then let’s someone else call the plays, it could be a breakthrough. I think he is a wizard strategically on offense but he is prone to ineptitude on the tactical side when the opponent makes adjustments. If someone like Marion were actually calling plays and Sarkisian could watch the defense make it’s adjustments to their plan, it might actually be a strength. 

That’s probably far fetched as it’s part of his identity, I know. I see his personality type being more likely to do something like that than Fisher’s type, however. Whatever the case, if the guy doesn’t figure out how to overcome his clear mediocrity in handling the offense after good defensive staffs make their adjustments with their teams around the half, it will be his undoing. More than the defense or personnel, the offense going from the team strength in the first half to a team weakness in the second half is what is destroying outcomes on the schedule both this year and last. 

[Rimbo 27036]

28 minutes ago, lilMAC25 said:

Every bit of this argument is factually incorrect.
 

 

Strong wasn’t a “shiny object”, he simply wasn’t Mack Brown. In fact, Saban was the “shiny object” we were looking at when Mack was forced out.

Charlie Strong was rightfully getting fired after losing to Kansas in year 3 with 3 consecutive 7 loss seasons. Herman or not.
 

Herman was fired because BMDs and admin thought we had a shot at Urban Meyer. Sark was never the “shiny object”. Sark was the fallback plan. 
 

 

Sark has continued to be Sark. Maybe he grows out of it, but it sure doesn’t appear that will be the case.

Yes. All of this.

Maybe, instead of trying to get some pie in the sky dream candidate fall through only to settle for some mediocre fallback plan, we could get some smart guys who actually know football well to do a real coaching search next time to find the right guy?

Seems like that's how we ended up with Mack Brown, and while he had many flaws, he did a damn sight better than most of our hires.

As for when...

I haven't given up on Sark yet. I'm on record calling out this season as 7 wins as our ceiling, and that's based on the personnel, not the coaches; we have 4 starting freshmen in positions that take the longest to learn and develop (OL and QB), and major holes in talent in our back 7 in defense.

I mean... we barely beat ISU at home and y'all were predicting we win out; we lose to Okie Lite in Stillwater, and y'all can't imagine us winning another game. Look at the personnel on the field and where they are developmentally (more or less maxed out in the defensive back 7, and a long way to go on the offense); when you understand what we have on the field well enough, it should temper your emotions.

The offensive coaching staff we have right now is as good as any staff we will ever see on that side of the ball. I really can't find any flaws there, really, especially now that we have Marion there. We won't always have the best gameplan or play calls, but man, when the players are executing at the level we expect them to, we're going to see a lot more games like OU than OSU.

I've abandoned hope on our defensive staff; that entire side of the ball needs to be reconsidered, Bo Davis possibly excepted. PK is a glorified position coach who needs a Duane Akina level DB coach or better to succeed. Maybe there's a guy working as an analyst or something on that side who could help us figure out the staffing...

[Valmy77 13626]

3 minutes ago, lilMAC25 said:

And yet USC and LSU just both pulled it off.

I said it was remote. We have tried it three times and failed. Maybe next time we succeed. But it's mostly just luck and timing.

But I don't know if either of those hires is necessarily on the track surefire success even so.

[bschoolprof 6343]

7 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

Predicting the future is hard and we all know that. There are things that each one of us fundamentally knows  will happen in our own lives this week and we will be wrong about a bunch of those internal predictions. 

So I type this with that in mind: I don’t think the sentiment is there to 86 Seven Loss Steve before the end of year 4. People are tired of turnover and turmoil, and that includes every level - the admin, the money, the employees, the players, the recruits. People like the guy. You can see legitimate signs of player development. He’s recruiting well and not doing so naively.  He’s hired a mostly sound staff and folks seem like they think the infrastructure work he is doing is making a difference for the future. He will be here through 2024 barring scandal or utter collapse.

That isn’t me advocating or saying anything absolute. You guys know I am most ardently in the “show me” category with Steve Sarklostagain, but that’s my read being around some of it. 

Beyond that, and due to the positives I alluded to, I find myself in the weird spot personally of feeling like he’s got a shot to figure it out. I think if the dude takes the Patterson role for the offense, where he is really involved in the strategy and planning and then let’s someone else call the plays, it could be a breakthrough. I think he is a wizard strategically on offense but he is prone to ineptitude on the tactical side when the opponent makes adjustments. If someone like Marion were actually calling plays and Sarkisian could watch the defense make it’s adjustments to their plan, it might actually be a strength. 

That’s probably far fetched as it’s part of his identity, I know. I see his personality type being more likely to do something like that than Fisher’s type, however. Whatever the case, if the guy doesn’t figure out how to overcome his clear mediocrity in handling the offense after good defensive staffs make their adjustments with their teams around the half, it will be his undoing. More than the defense or personnel, the offense going from the team strength in the first half to a team weakness in the second half is what is destroying outcomes on the schedule both this year and last. 

I agree he likely isn't going anywhere for a few years barring utter collapse.

But the bolded part sounds eerily similar to the Strong apologists and recruitniks who argued that Strong might work out if we could just hire someone to coach for him.   

 

[closetojumping 65444]

1 minute ago, bschoolprof said:

I agree he likely isn't going anywhere for a few years barring utter collapse.

But the bolded part sounds eerily similar to the Strong apologists and recruitniks who argued that Strong might work out if we could just hire someone to coach for him.   

 

Development, strategy, recruiting, personnel management - none of those are less important in coaching than calling plays. I didn’t say he should be separated from the team and working in a lab with smoking beakers. Your take is a lazy red herring and you should try harder before responding again. Nothing I said resembles vaguely the bullshit associated to the Strong equivocating.

[ALexusTexus7 114]

If we asked Red McCombs what he thought about Sarkisian, he’d say "I don't have any doubt that Steve is a fine coach. I think he would make a great position coach, maybe a coordinator. But I don't believe he belongs at what should be one of the three most powerful university programs in the world right now at UT-Austin. I don't think it adds up."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Red Five 41749]

I'm sure this has been pointed out in one of these threads, but he's coached 20 games here. We've lost five games where we held double digit second half leads. 25% of the time he's blown 10+ point second half leads. That is actually impressive.