This is who Steve Sarkisian is.

[Doc Daneeka 6793]

 

Calmly pointing out facts is a tantrum?

Confusing opinion with facts is.

“Sarkisian has done X, Y, A and Z so far in his career.” Fact.

“Sarkisian is trash.” Opinion.

Happy to help.

[Tex Pete 21488]

4 hours ago, Thatguy said:

  Look around Pete. We just hung 50 on a bowl bound team. Does it feel like it? It's like the usual suspects just want us to lose for the sake of being right about their middle of the season of his first year prediction. 

This is the root of the problem. We did what we should do. Nothing more, nothing less. I’m glad we didn’t lose. I’d love for this to be a trend. That’s all I will declare.

The hire was completely unjustifiable, but I still hope it will work out. I’ve seen nothing that makes me positive that it will. 

[lilMAC25 3993]

2 minutes ago, Doc Daneeka said:

Confusing opinion with facts is.

“Sarkisian has done X, Y, A and Z so far in his career.” Fact.

“Sarkisian is trash.” Opinion.

Happy to help.

Pointing to a head coach’s mediocre record and calling it a mediocre record produced by a mediocre head coach isn’t an opinion. It’s pointing out a fact.

 

It is illuminating that you have to lie about what I said in order to try to paint my OP as pitching a tantrum. 

Edited November 23, 2022 by lilMAC25

[Doc Daneeka 6793]

Pointing to a head coach’s mediocre record and calling it a mediocre record produced by a mediocre head coach isn’t an opinion. It’s pointing out a fact.
 
It is illuminating that you have to lie about what I said in order to try to paint my OP as pitching a tantrum. 

“Mediocre” is a characterization and doesn’t mean the same to everyone. Hence, it’s opinion. His record is X-Y. That’s fact.

It’s illuminating that you lie when you claim I said anything about anything in particular that you said. This thread is full of the “Sarkisian is trash” take. I didn’t attribute anything to you, in particular. I said “thread” not “OP.” Nice try, though.

[Orange&White 5573]

No matter which way this turns out over the next couple of years, this may end up being one of the most quoted and linked threads on this site.

[lilMAC25 3993]

1 minute ago, Doc Daneeka said:

“Mediocre” is a characterization and doesn’t mean the same to everyone. Hence, it’s opinion. His record is X-Y. That’s fact.

It’s illuminating that you lie when you claim I said anything about anything in particular that you said. This thread is full of the “Sarkisian is trash” take. I didn’t attribute anything to you, in particular. I said “thread” not “OP.” Nice try, though.

I directed you to the OP. You implied that my OP called Sark “trash”.

 

11 minutes ago, Doc Daneeka said:

Confusing opinion with facts is.

“Sarkisian has done X, Y, A and Z so far in his career.” Fact.

“Sarkisian is trash.” Opinion.

Happy to help.

You can try to claim otherwise, but we both know it’s false. You can try to dig yourself out by lying more, but we all know that only makes you look more foolish.

 

 

ETA: I believe the exact word I used was “middlin”. 

Just now, Orange&White said:

No matter which way this turns out over the next couple of years, this may end up being one of the most quoted and linked threads on this site.

Be a lot cooler if Sark proves me wrong.

[Doc Daneeka 6793]

You can try to claim otherwise, but we both know it’s false. You can try to dig yourself out by lying more, but we all know that only makes you look more foolish.
 
 
ETA: I believe the exact word I used was “middlin”. 

You directed me to, and I quote, “page one.”

Maybe this kind of imprecise, goalpost moving nonsense usually works for you, but it won’t in this instance.

[Bevo 13891]

This thread is trash as is everyone who posts on it (except for me). I dare y'all to prove me wrong.

[lilMAC25 3993]

5 minutes ago, Doc Daneeka said:

You directed me to, and I quote, “page one.”

Fair enough, and in none of my posts on “page one” (the only ones I can control) did I call Sarkisian “trash”.

 

I didn’t move the goalposts. I’m responding to your false claims that this thread was started by me pitching a tantrum and calling Sark “trash”.  

Edited November 23, 2022 by lilMAC25
Stupid autocorrect

[Doc Daneeka 6793]

Fair enough, and in none of my posts on “page one” (the only ones I can control) did I call Sarkisian “trash”.
 

Again, I don’t know why you’re trying to say I attributed anything to you, in particular. I was talking about comments in this thread, not yours, in particular.

When I’m talking about you, in particular, I quote you and direct the comment at you. As when I asked about your take on who would be a better coach for Texas. You’re making it personal when it’s not meant that way.

[lilMAC25 3993]

1 minute ago, Doc Daneeka said:

Again, I don’t know why you’re trying to say I attributed anything to you, in particular. I was talking about comments in this thread, not yours, in particular.

When I’m talking about you, in particular, I quote you and direct the comment at you. As when I asked about your take on who would be a better coach for Texas. You’re making it personal when it’s not meant that way.

 

 

[Doc Daneeka 6793]

 
 

“I didn’t move the goalposts. I’m responding to your false claims that this thread was started by me pitching a tantrum and calling Sark ‘trash’.”

That’s not a claim I made, but it seems like you’ve figured that out by now and are trying to…

[lilMAC25 3993]

6 minutes ago, Doc Daneeka said:

“I didn’t move the goalposts. I’m responding to your false claims that this thread was started by me pitching a tantrum and calling Sark ‘trash’.”

That’s not a claim I made, but it seems like you’ve figured that out by now and are trying to…

I’m not backpedaling at all. I just recognize that you won’t admit it. Here’s a screenshot for you to enjoy.

Let’s make it 2

Edited November 23, 2022 by lilMAC25

[Doc Daneeka 6793]

I’m not backpedaling at all. I just recognize that you won’t admit it. Here’s a screenshot for you to enjoy.

Let’s make it 2

2022 and you still don’t understand the difference between “OP” and “page one.” That might explain some things.

[Hank Chinaski 6360]

Christ. No matter how firm you may be in your belief that Sark will be a failure at Texas, nobody knows. There are good reasons to think that he won’t cut it here. There are good reasons to think he has a shot. They’ve all been hashed and rehashed a million times in this thread.

Me, I think there is reasonable doubt to the notion that he’ll fail. That doesn’t mean I think it’s more likely that he’ll “succeed,” whatever that may mean to you. It just means that I don’t think you can rule it out based on what we know. 

Also, humans are terrible at predicting the future. And we know that college football coaches can be deeply flawed and still win; I mean, we live in a world in which Les Miles, Gene Chizik, Jimbo Fisher and Ed O have won national titles in the last 15 years. Of course that doesn’t mean we want a subpar coach; it just means that there is only one Saban and all the rest are flawed.

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

50 minutes ago, Tex Pete said:

This is the root of the problem. We did what we should do. Nothing more, nothing less. I’m glad we didn’t lose. I’d love for this to be a trend. That’s all I will declare.

The hire was completely unjustifiable, but I still hope it will work out. I’ve seen nothing that makes me positive that it will. 

That’s where I’m at. Sark does a shit ton right, is likable and has a redemption story worthy of anyone’s time. It’s that whole consistently winning on game day thing that is the problem. 
 

I want him to succeed for a myriad of reasons. I’ve seen a lot of evidence this far that he could, and a lot that suggests that ultimately he won’t. 
 

Yay. We dominated the best KU squad since towels were being used as two ply in Lawrence. Their  defense is terrible and their quarterback was freshly back from injury while clearly being disinterested in using his legs beyond the most dire circumstances. 
 

Sark and the program need to win out and start taking CFB by storm next year. Anything less gets a lot of side eye while we look for an outlet to plug in the hot seat around October imoho. 

[BurntOrange&White 41859]

Anything short of 10 regular season wins next year is failure 

[Skipper 6411]

1 hour ago, Orange&White said:

No matter which way this turns out over the next couple of years, this may end up being one of the most quoted and linked threads on this site.

Meh.  This is every CFB message board after any coach loses games early in their tenure.  I can't imagine what this site would have looked like with respect to Mack Brown post 2003 Holiday Bowl.   If Sark doesn't work out it will be the same for the next coach.   In any given year how many coaches would be given a A or B grade by message board posters?  10?

[hook me 2163]

1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Anything short of 10 regular season wins next year is failure 

I agree with this, but if we're 9-3 and in the CCG I'll accept it.

[BurntOrange&White 41859]

1 minute ago, hook me said:

I agree with this, but if we're 9-3 and in the CCG I'll accept it.

Nope. 10 regular season wins with a chance to get to 11 or 12 wins via ccg or bowl. 
 

 

that’s two losses in the regular season AT MOST

[Hank Chinaski 6360]

3 minutes ago, Skipper said:

I can't imagine what this site would have looked like with respect to Mack Brown post 2003 Holiday Bowl.  

Oh, I’m old enough that I don’t have to imagine it (hornfans). It was exactly what you’d expect - people calling for Mack’s head, saying he couldn’t get over the hump, etc. Nobody - absolutely nobody - predicted after that game that Texas would win 24 of the next 25 games and a national title. That’s what I’m saying about how we are much worse than we think we are at predicting what happens next. 

[Pam Cummings 9868]

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

This thread is trash as is everyone who posts on it (except for me). I dare y'all to prove me wrong.

Nobody in this thread has any clue what they are talking about. If they did, people would pay them for their opinion.

[lilMAC25 3993]

1 hour ago, Doc Daneeka said:

2022 and you still don’t understand the difference between “OP” and “page one.” That might explain some things.

 

You quoted me directly and then made some statements. Now you’re shocked that I would think they’re directed at me and what I said on Page 1?

[lilMAC25 3993]

12 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

Nobody in this thread has any clue what they are talking about. If they did, people would pay them for their opinion.

[hobbes2702 13477]

36 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Anything short of 10 regular season wins next year is failure 

I 100% agree with this. I don’t think he’s the guy but he’s not getting fired. This team playing in this shit conference, with a none frosh Ewers should win 10. That should be the bar and anything less should have us looking again.

[lilMAC25 3993]

39 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Meh.  This is every CFB message board after any coach loses games early in their tenure.  I can't imagine what this site would have looked like with respect to Mack Brown post 2003 Holiday Bowl.   If Sark doesn't work out it will be the same for the next coach.   In any given year how many coaches would be given a A or B grade by message board posters?  10?

By that point, Mack Brown already had TEN  seasons with 9 or more wins (back when the seasons where shorter) including 6 at Texas and FIVE  seasons with 10 or more wins  including 3 at Texas.That’s a horse of a totally different breed than what we are discussing here.

Edited November 23, 2022 by lilMAC25

[Hank Chinaski 6360]

4 minutes ago, lilMAC25 said:

By that point, Mack Brown already had NINE 9 (or more) win seasons (back when the seasons where shorter) including 6 at Texas. That’s a horse of a totally different breed than what we are discussing here.

You’re right in the sense that Mack had experienced much more success at that point; I’d say that the essence of the discussion was mostly the same though. Mack was typecast as the guy who couldn’t beat Bowden at UNC and couldn’t beat Stoops at Texas. Couldn’t win the big games (shit, remember that whole thing?). Most were pretty convinced that’s how it would always be.

With Sark, we’re just asking him to win the medium games consistently…until he does, at which point we’d demand he win all the games like we did with Mack. (And I’m not saying that’s unfair, just saying that’s how it will be.)

[Droopy 2639]

Opens thread: How's it going fellas...?

Closes Thread: Welp, that's about what I thought I'd see.

[Skipper 6411]

43 minutes ago, Hank Chinaski said:

Oh, I’m old enough that I don’t have to imagine it (hornfans). It was exactly what you’d expect - people calling for Mack’s head, saying he couldn’t get over the hump, etc. Nobody - absolutely nobody - predicted after that game that Texas would win 24 of the next 25 games and a national title. That’s what I’m saying about how we are much worse than we think we are at predicting what happens next. 

Oh I remember Hornfans meltdowns.  But imagine THIS board without any moderation (where the moderators are probably leading the charge) LOL.

[Skipper 6411]

46 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Nope. 10 regular season wins with a chance to get to 11 or 12 wins via ccg or bowl. 
 

 

that’s two losses in the regular season AT MOST

In a season where we play Bama on the road?  Basically what you are saying are your expectations is making the playoff or fire Sark given our schedule next year. Yeah, Texas fans are realistic.

[Had Enough 2116]

……and Worthy (I guess) ……….

Kinda funny and heart crushing at the same time.

[Loop 1604 227]

Sark is trash. Your record is what you are as a head coach. Dude has won absolutely nothing significant as a head coach. 
 

Glad we are now on to the “nice guy” and “likeable” phase ala the Strong days. I swear this is 2016 again.

Before you feel for the guy, remember he makes more in a week than most on this board do in a year.

Edited November 23, 2022 by Loop 1604

[BurntOrange&White 41859]

11 minutes ago, Skipper said:

In a season where we play Bama on the road?  Basically what you are saying are your expectations is making the playoff or fire Sark given our schedule next year. Yeah, Texas fans are realistic.

My expectation is a potential Bama loss and 1 conference loss. If that is too much to ask for in the portal/NIL era in year 3 of a coach who has flipped the roster where 80%+ are his guys then yeah this dipshit isn’t the guy. 

Edited November 23, 2022 by BurntOrange&White

[ClubWhatever 12306]

We've got a good nuculus

[hook me 2163]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Nope. 10 regular season wins with a chance to get to 11 or 12 wins via ccg or bowl. 
 

 

that’s two losses in the regular season AT MOST

Judging by the history of Texas football you're likely to be disappointed. Can't wait to read all the posts about how Sark isn't meeting a standard that's been fairly elusive at UT dating back to 1900. Should be a fun season.

He's either as good as the best 2 coaches in our history or we should give up on him in year 3 because he only won 9 games & made the conference championship game? Is that the train of thought here? I'm not convinced that Sark is the guy at this point, but if the team is improving & the results on the field are improving it seems fairly ridiculous to give up on him because he hasn't ascended to DKR/Brown levels by year 3. 

[BurntOrange&White 41859]

1 minute ago, hook me said:

Judging by the history of Texas football you're likely to be disappointed. Can't wait to read all the posts about how Sark isn't meeting a standard that's been fairly elusive at UT dating back to 1900. Should be a fun season.

He's either as good as the best 2 coaches in our history or we should give up on him in year 3 because he only won 9 games & made the conference championship game? Is that the train of thought here? I'm not convinced that Sark is the guy at this point, but if the team is improving & the results on the field are improving it seems fairly ridiculous to give up on him because he hasn't ascended to DKR/Brown levels by year 3. 

So far through year 2 he’s closer to the bottom 5 than top 5. 
 

 

[stork642 4511]

4 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Yeah because we have dog shit coaches. Sark is dog shit too. 

[hobbes2702 13477]

38 minutes ago, Skipper said:

In a season where we play Bama on the road?  Basically what you are saying are your expectations is making the playoff or fire Sark given our schedule next year. Yeah, Texas fans are realistic.

Bama is one game and our conference is a dumpster fire. Which team in the Big12 should we be losing to next year?

[hobbes2702 13477]

13 minutes ago, hook me said:

Judging by the history of Texas football you're likely to be disappointed. Can't wait to read all the posts about how Sark isn't meeting a standard that's been fairly elusive at UT dating back to 1900. Should be a fun season.

He's either as good as the best 2 coaches in our history or we should give up on him in year 3 because he only won 9 games & made the conference championship game? Is that the train of thought here? I'm not convinced that Sark is the guy at this point, but if the team is improving & the results on the field are improving it seems fairly ridiculous to give up on him because he hasn't ascended to DKR/Brown levels by year 3. 

10 wins is not some huge accomplishment in the modern game. You can lose 4 times and win 10 games. 
He also has 3 years of NIL. It shouldn’t take him 4,5, or 6 years to win 10 games especially in a conference with no one in it.

[gmr548 16701]

Nope. 10 regular season wins with a chance to get to 11 or 12 wins via ccg or bowl. 
 
 
that’s two losses in the regular season AT MOST

Eh. At Alabama is a L and not really one to get worked up about as long as the game is competitive and not obviously lost by a coaching decision(s). That’s a better roster and a better coach, on the road.

Your bar therefore comes down to 8-1 in the conference with a relatively young defense and replacing the three most important components in the running game (including a generational talent in Bijan), which is the strength of the offense. Defense is probably going to take a step back and the offense is going to have to make people respect the downfield passing game, something teams haven’t had to do for two years, if it’s going to be successful, because Texas is going to be less able to impose its will running the ball than it is this year (which has not been automatic).

I think 9+ regular season wins was the bar for a categorical success this year. 7-5/8-4 is in line with where I expected the team to be, but feels underwhelming because two of the four losses thus far are just plain bad losses, no matter how you slice them, and even avoiding one could/would have given this team a shot at hardware for only the third time since 2009.

With the caveat that we don’t even know the schedule (lol), I think 8-9 wins would actually be a pretty good performance next year. Team’s going to have more holes and going to need to make bigger leaps than people realize.

[hook me 2163]

4 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

10 wins is not some huge accomplishment in the modern game. You can lose 4 times and win 10 games. 
He also has 3 years of NIL. It shouldn’t take him 4,5, or 6 years to win 10 games especially in a conference with no one in it.

The OP was 10 regular season wins.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

7 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Eh. At Alabama is a L and not really one to get worked up about as long as the game is competitive and not obviously lost by a coaching decision(s). That’s a better roster and a better coach, on the road.

Your bar therefore comes down to 8-1 in the conference with a relatively young defense and replacing the three most important components in the running game (including a generational talent in Bijan), which is the strength of the offense. Defense is probably going to take a step back and the offense is going to have to make people respect the downfield passing game, something teams haven’t had to do for two years, if it’s going to be successful, because Texas is going to be less able to impose its will running the ball than it is this year (which has not been automatic).

I think 9+ regular season wins was the bar for a categorical success this year. 7-5/8-4 is in line with where I expected the team to be, but feels underwhelming because two of the four losses thus far are just plain bad losses, no matter how you slice them, and even avoiding one could/would have given this team a shot at hardware for only the third time since 2009.

With the caveat that we don’t even know the schedule (lol), I think 8-9 wins would actually be a pretty good performance next year. Team’s going to have more holes and going to need to make bigger leaps than people realize.

faaaaaaq

[hobbes2702 13477]

12 minutes ago, hook me said:

The OP was 10 regular season wins.

Mea culpa. Although I think anything less than 9 regular season should result in firing. There’s no reason for us to lose Big12 games 

[JFKFC 4978]

7 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Mea culpa. Although I think anything less than 9 regular season should result in firing. There’s no reason for us to lose Big12 games 

Of course there are reasons for us to lose some Big 12 games. You are dealing with young men in their late teens and early 20s. Nothing is more volatile. 

You mitigate that volatility by making smart decisions with the things you can control. Is Sark adapting to the way college football has changed? Are other coaches doing a better job with those new variables? If we lose to Baylor (and, especially if we lose to Baylor and lose our bowl game) then Sark really needs do some things this offseason that he failed to do in the previous 2 offseasons.

Edited November 23, 2022 by JFKFC

[Hpara759 1792]

29 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Bama is one game and our conference is a dumpster fire. Which team in the Big12 should we be losing to next year?

we got beat by tech this year.....and you can ask that question? 

[Hookem2147 22033]

3 minutes ago, JFKFC said:

Of course there are reasons for us to lose some Big 12 games. You are dealing with young men in their late teens and early 20s. Nothing is more volatile. 

You mitigate that volatility by making smart decisions with the things you can control. Is Sark adapting to the way college football has changed? Are other coaches doing a better job with those new variables? If we lose to Baylor (and, especially if we lose to Baylor and lose our bowl game) then Sark really needs do some things this offseason that he failed to do in the previous 2 offseasons.

And what would those things be your opinion?

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

1 hour ago, ClubWhatever said:

We've got a good nuculus

This made me laugh.

[lilMAC25 3993]

1 hour ago, Hank Chinaski said:

You’re right in the sense that Mack had experienced much more success at that point; I’d say that the essence of the discussion was mostly the same though. Mack was typecast as the guy who couldn’t beat Bowden at UNC and couldn’t beat Stoops at Texas. Couldn’t win the big games (shit, remember that whole thing?). Most were pretty convinced that’s how it would always be.

With Sark, we’re just asking him to win the medium games consistently…until he does, at which point we’d demand he win all the games like we did with Mack. (And I’m not saying that’s unfair, just saying that’s how it will be.)

Agree, it’s a horse of a COMPLETELY different breed.

 

 

Mack-couldn’t win the “big game”.

 

Sark-almost 50/50 that he will lose ANY game.

[hobbes2702 13477]

11 minutes ago, Hpara759 said:

we got beat by tech this year.....and you can ask that question? 

Yea that’s kinda the point there guy.

[hobbes2702 13477]

38 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Eh. At Alabama is a L and not really one to get worked up about as long as the game is competitive and not obviously lost by a coaching decision(s). That’s a better roster and a better coach, on the road.

Your bar therefore comes down to 8-1 in the conference with a relatively young defense and replacing the three most important components in the running game (including a generational talent in Bijan), which is the strength of the offense. Defense is probably going to take a step back and the offense is going to have to make people respect the downfield passing game, something teams haven’t had to do for two years, if it’s going to be successful, because Texas is going to be less able to impose its will running the ball than it is this year (which has not been automatic).

I think 9+ regular season wins was the bar for a categorical success this year. 7-5/8-4 is in line with where I expected the team to be, but feels underwhelming because two of the four losses thus far are just plain bad losses, no matter how you slice them, and even avoiding one could/would have given this team a shot at hardware for only the third time since 2009.

With the caveat that we don’t even know the schedule (lol), I think 8-9 wins would actually be a pretty good performance next year. Team’s going to have more holes and going to need to make bigger leaps than people realize.

We will have some holes but that is a Sark problem. The ability to plug holes is there like never before. 
Next season he loses all of the Herman contributions and it’s purely on him and what he has done. Year 3 cannot be a step back year. If it is then why the fuck did he hire him?