OC Write-up: Culture, Authority, and the Myth of Player-led Teams

[Bodacious Bevo 3576]

I'm a PhD student in a social science. I've mentioned before that I might do some write-ups on organizational culture and there was some interest in that. Sark made some comments during his Hail State presser that perfectly fit with one of the topics I've been thinking about: authority. So, I finally took some time to put some words down. I hope y'all enjoy it. 

Player-led teams are great. Old guys telling the new guys how things are done. Leadership councils. Colt McCoy driving around in his truck to pick up teammates for players-only practices in the summer. It's something we yearned for during our decade of wandering the college football desert. In this post I'd like to look at the idea of player-led teams a little bit more critically. Specifically, I want to look at the reason why it's a good thing for a bunch of 18-22 year olds to be leading a team. Because that's not a great idea at face value.

Sark's comments

Spoiler

Timestamped link

Question: "Sark, when we talk to guys it seems like there's kind of a no-nonsense tone, even Anthony Hill who's kind of happy-go-lucky. The message kind of comes back to the same thing. Is that a culture thing that has happened? And how important is it to happen as it trickles down to younger guys? We even hear it from a guy like Wingo."

Sark: "As a team, we've grown that way from a culture standpoint... you gotta remember now everybody... we either recruited or they don't know any different than being part of our program... The belief in our culture, the belief in the way we speak and the way we talk and the way we act, I think is real. It's true to them... What I enjoy is being at dinner or... listening to our guys or watching their press conferences... I kind of get goosebumps when I hear what I say to them and I've been saying to them over three years come out of their mouth. And they're not thinking about it. It just flows naturally for them. And so now it's not coach talk. That's our team talk... That just means that not only have they bought into what we're saying, they're living it... They've elevated our culture and and the belief in what we do to a point to where... I think that they start drilling it down in the younger players of why it's important. And when we start answering the why, that's when good things really start to happen for us."

I love this quote. Culture has become a feel-good buzzword for us Texas fans. It gives us the warm fuzzies as we reflect on a conference championship and playoff berth, bask in a #1 #2 ranking, and dream of national championships to come. It's a dramatic change from a decade of culture meaning entitlement and disappointment.

But, that's not why I like this quote. I like it because it really speaks to Sark's control over the program. Our culture isn't just good, it's intentional. It's aligned - coaches, players, and staff are all bought in. Most importantly, it's pointed in the exact direction that Sark decided. 

All social theory starts with a 19th century german guy

Spoiler

Max Weber (pronounced Vaber, if you want the voice in your head to sound super smart) was a 19th century German sociologist. More than that, really - he's considered the father of sociology and one of the most influential figures in social science more generally. The relevant part of his work for this post is his conception of authority. It's a great tool for understanding how Sark changed our culture.

Weber wrote about power, defined as the ability for a person to impose their will on others despite resistance. Authority, according to Weber, is one form of power. It is power over others that comes from an obligation for them to obey. That obligation is the key to authoritative power. Obligation requires a subordinate to voluntarily suspend their judgement and accept that of their leader. It can come from tradition (e.g., fathers over sons), charisma (e.g., cult leaders over members), or from rules (e.g., managers over employees).

However, there's a contradiction in there. Authority means that a subordinate is obligated to follow a command, but it also means that a subordinate voluntarily accepts the command. So, obedience to authority is both required and voluntary. How can that be?

We're almost back to football talk, but first let me describe how Peter Blau, another sociologist, resolves the contradiction by looking at belief systems and social dynamics. When people form groups, they develop common interests. If a leader shows that their decisions are good for those common interests, then the group will want to remain under the leader's control. The group will voluntarily develop belief systems and social dynamics that support the leader and create the obligation for individuals to obey the leader. That may include feelings of loyalty, behavior norms, and forcing compliance with the leader's directives. Some individuals in the group may not want to follow the leader, but those social dynamics will force them to do so. In this way, authority can be seen as voluntary for groups and required for individuals. 

So, how did Sark create those social dynamics? How did he establish authority and develop a culture that followed his leadership? And what is the role of player leadership?

Source: Blau, P. M. (1963). Critical Remarks on Weber’s Theory of Authority. American Political Science Review, 57(2), 305–316. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952824

Back to Texas Being Back

Spoiler

Let's bring all that social theory talk back to Texas football. Sark inherited a team that was disorganized, underachieving, and most importantly, lacking authority. In 2020, Tom Herman's final team had some good moments, like a bowl win over Colorado, a dominant game by Joseph Ossai against Oklahoma State, and some awesome young Bijan highlights. The team also had good leaders, like Sam Ehlinger, Ossai, and Caden Sterns. Yet, the legacy of that team is the photo of Sam standing alone for The Eyes after a 4OT loss to Oklahoma. 

I only bring up The Eyes because it was a very public display of disconnect within the team. My belief is that Herman's impersonal relationships and frustrating results had eroded his authority. He still had power as head coach. He was in charge of playing time and could dole out punishments in practice. The team continued to practice and play hard, going 5-1 after OU. Authority, though, unites a team. It's founded on belief in the coach. It requires players to submit to the coach's judgement above their own. That photo stands out because it shows none of that was true for the 2020 Texas Longhorns. 

Enter Sark, the man tasked with rebuilding Texas football. Let's dive into his presser and the story of authority that it tells. 

~~~ "As a team, we've grown that way from a culture standpoint"

Sark's first task (from a culture perspective) was to show the team that his leadership was good for them. College football teams have some universal common interests: winning, playing well, and getting drafted. It took three years for us, the fans, to see those results. That does not mean, however, that Sark was not slowly garnering buy-in and developing personal influence in his first two years.

In fact, it would be easy to argue that the painful first two years may have been required to do so. There is lots of literature that argues that organizations must go through 'shocks' in order to undergo permanent culture change (perhaps a post for another day). I think that we can all agree there were lots of shocks during that first year: 5-7, get in the motherfucker, and 0 players drafted. Christian Jones has talked about feeling broken after the loss to Kansas. But Jones has also talked about the self-reflection that came from that game. Those 'shocks' allowed the attitudes and habits of the team to 'unfreeze' so that they could be replaced by better ones.

~~~ "You gotta remember now everybody... we either recruited or they don't know any different than being part of our program..."

When I say Sark developed personal influence in his first two years, I mean that Sark showed some individual players that his leadership would benefit them: following him would help them achieve their personal goals. Tope Imade has talked about the self-confidence that Kyle Flood helped him gain in one season. Despite the losses on the field, a growing number of players were following Sark. That was still not authority. The group belief and social dynamics that create obligation were still lacking, but personal influence was the first step. 

Of course, Imade would graduate after the 2021 season. He would not be there to advocate for Sark going into year 2. Fortunately, an entire class of high school recruits would join the program, all of whom had come to Texas to play for Sark. In Sark's first year, he had only one high school recruit that came to Texas for the explicit purpose of playing for Steve Sarkisian: Xavier Worthy. In his second, Sark had transformed the roster to comprise veterans under his influence (like Bijan, Overshown, Whittington, Gbenda, Christian Jones, Moro Ojomo) and recruits of the same mindset. And as the number of bought-in players grew, the team as a whole became aligned with Sark's vision. They became invested in his success - they want him to succeed, so that he can remain their coach, so that they can follow his leadership, so that they can achieve their individual and collective goals. The belief and social dynamics that legitimate authority were beginning to form. 

~~~ "The belief in our culture, the belief in the way we speak and the way we talk and the way we act, I think is real. It's true to them...  And so now it's not coach talk. That's our team talk... I think that they start drilling it down in the younger players of why it's important"

You may have noticed a notable exclusion from the list of vets that bought in to Sark early on. I wanted to give Roschon Johnson a special mention. From what we know, he may have been the first player to speak in a way that supported Sark's message after the Kansas loss (which he followed up with 31/179/1 in a wildcat-heavy win over Kansas State that broke the program's longest losing streak since 1956). Player leadership was coming together under Sark. They were beginning to force compliance with his directives and apply social pressure on teammates to follow him. It wasn't a perfect and instant switch, of course. Hell, there were rumors of a leaked gameplan in year 2. That's about as anti-authority as can be imagined.

I believe that year 2 saw the collective form around Sark. The belief in Sark became the majority opinion and part of the team's culture. The 2022 season and following offseason (close game against Bama, improved results in the draft, and Sark's admirable commitment to spend the entire 2023 offseason with the team) led to his authority being cemented by the start of his third season. That was the point where the group had voluntarily taken on Sark's authority and individuals were obligated to follow it. There may have still been individuals that did not care to follow Sark, but to quote Christian Jones: "Anyone who is not with it, they can get gone." 

Let's summarize and bring this back to the present. It's year 4. Texas is the reigning Big 12 champ, undefeated, and ranked #2. Sark showed the players that his leadership is good for their interests. If they follow him, they'll develop and win games. Individual players bought in, then most of the team, and now the team as a collective has voluntarily accepted Sark's authority. They believe in his vision and created social dynamics that enforce it. Individual players feel an obligation that requires them to accept his judgement above their own. Player leadership has coalesced around him.

I said at the beginning of this post that I wanted to critically examine player-led teams and to ask why it is good for 18-22 year olds to lead a team. My answer is that player-led teams are a misnomer (or a myth, for clickbait title purposes). When someone says a team is player-led, what they mean is that the players have accepted the coach's authority and player leadership is aligned in enforcing it. The true benefit of player-led teams is how well they follow their coach.

[gmr548 16517]

[Doc Daneeka 6769]

He really likes to say that trust is built with consistency over time. The hard part is making the progress in the meantime while learning that the results of the trust are positive. During that process, you can get Iowa State games, or even Arkansas games, and you have to have a plan in place to weather those. 

At this point, I think the results speak for themselves, both from a team and individual point of view. Add in the ability to recruit for personality as well as skill set reasons and you strengthen things even more. 

I think it’s pretty clear that this is a top-down scenario but Sarkisian and the staff can’t be everywhere, all the time. It feels like he’s building a “if you want to beat Ohio State…” mindset not just in the superhuman QB and team leader, but in almost everyone.

Obviously, you have his success in planning and development, but a decent number of coaches have that. I think, as cheesy as it sounds, his redemption arc and his willingness to share it goes a long way toward getting buy-in and trust in a way doesn’t run the risk of self-immolation the way a totally hardass — and I get that he’s a hardass when it comes to expectations and coaching hard — approach might. 

He seems really driven, but maybe not psychotically so. I think he, especially in the era of NIL, has a chance to build a program that rivals or even exceeds Royal’s machine at a national scale. A lot of that, I think, is not just his accountability but in the accountability his approach builds in his players and the way they see themselves as part of a team — the QB room, the receiver room, etc. — but who can still shine individually when it’s their time. 

At least, you know, with my orange glasses on. 

[NeverMarryAStripper 21781]

Treynor's "Identity Shift Effect" Hypothesis

[Rimbo 25784]

great shit.  thanks!

[Doc Daneeka 6769]

 

[SimkinsMan 4349]

Hold on, there's someone under 40 years old who posts on Surly Horns? 

Also, insightful stuff, thanks for sharing!

[Hornbeliever 708]

Jim Rome’s hair plugs are distracting from that interview.

[Deej 76568]

3 hours ago, Doc Daneeka said:

 

Rack him!

[Llewelyn Moss 203]

That was great reading, super insightful. I appreciated how you explained the sort of virtuous cycle between results/outcomes, social acceptance, and individual commitment. Learned something new today!

[Sleep off ugly 279]

 When someone says a team is player-led, what they mean is that the players have accepted the coach's authority and player leadership is aligned in enforcing it. The true benefit of player-led teams is how well they follow their coach

 

I would posit this is distinction without a difference. There are multiple actors involved, all with their own agency. All that aside your take is very interesting, and I think I kinda agree with the concept. 

[hookemATL 11611]

4 hours ago, Doc Daneeka said:

 

I fucking love Ricky so much and it’s a life goal to smoke a bowl with him❤️

[Bodacious Bevo 3576]

20 hours ago, Doc Daneeka said:

He really likes to say that trust is built with consistency over time. The hard part is making the progress in the meantime while learning that the results of the trust are positive. During that process, you can get Iowa State games, or even Arkansas games, and you have to have a plan in place to weather those. 

At this point, I think the results speak for themselves, both from a team and individual point of view. Add in the ability to recruit for personality as well as skill set reasons and you strengthen things even more. 

I think it’s pretty clear that this is a top-down scenario but Sarkisian and the staff can’t be everywhere, all the time. It feels like he’s building a “if you want to beat Ohio State…” mindset not just in the superhuman QB and team leader, but in almost everyone.

Obviously, you have his success in planning and development, but a decent number of coaches have that. I think, as cheesy as it sounds, his redemption arc and his willingness to share it goes a long way toward getting buy-in and trust in a way doesn’t run the risk of self-immolation the way a totally hardass — and I get that he’s a hardass when it comes to expectations and coaching hard — approach might. 

He seems really driven, but maybe not psychotically so. I think he, especially in the era of NIL, has a chance to build a program that rivals or even exceeds Royal’s machine at a national scale. A lot of that, I think, is not just his accountability but in the accountability his approach builds in his players and the way they see themselves as part of a team — the QB room, the receiver room, etc. — but who can still shine individually when it’s their time. 

At least, you know, with my orange glasses on. 

I agree with all this. 

To your first point, college football has some pretty brutal feedback loops that can sometimes bury coaches before they really have a fair chance. That why, imo, first recruiting classes are so important. Sark also stayed consistent in his message 

To your point on Sark sharing his life, Brene Brown is an academic that has a bunch of bestselling books centered around her research on vulnerability. Part of her work is on the connection between vulnerability and leadership - that is, that leadership requires a certain amount of vulnerability and that the best leaders lean into it. There's also a concept called leader-member exchange that focuses on the quality of connection between leaders and followers as a primary driver for follower performance. There's quite a bit of research to support it. I personally consider Sark's 2023 offseason commitment to the team (he only took off July 4th weekend) the most admirable part of his tenure here. 

15 hours ago, Sleep off ugly said:

 When someone says a team is player-led, what they mean is that the players have accepted the coach's authority and player leadership is aligned in enforcing it. The true benefit of player-led teams is how well they follow their coach

 

I would posit this is distinction without a difference. There are multiple actors involved, all with their own agency. All that aside your take is very interesting, and I think I kinda agree with the concept. 

I'm aiming more for clarification than distinction. And this is only one way too look at the program. There are many approaches to culture/authority/performance/etc that will bring insight and value. 

[Whitewater Horn 965]

Whether it’s athletes, employees, a charity event, or even your own family, most people’s bullshit detectors are calibrated finely enough to detect the difference between a pretender attempting to lead them through legislated authority and someone genuinely leading them with legitimate authority. I don’t think there’s any doubt that Sark leads with modeled behavior and legitimate authority, so it was only a matter of time before a critical mass of buy in was achieved with the players and staff to establish and maintain the genuine culture we’re seeing in the program.  The leadership was established from the top down, and the players taking leadership roles are doing so with legitimate authority and not performative nonsense. It bodes well for the the present and future. 

[Doc Daneeka 6769]

53 minutes ago, Bodacious Bevo said:

To your point on Sark sharing his life, Brene Brown is an academic that has a bunch of bestselling books centered around her research on vulnerability. Part of her work is on the connection between vulnerability and leadership - that is, that leadership requires a certain amount of vulnerability and that the best leaders lean into it. There's also a concept called leader-member exchange that focuses on the quality of connection between leaders and followers as a primary driver for follower performance. There's quite a bit of research to support it. I personally consider Sark's 2023 offseason commitment to the team (he only took off July 4th weekend) the most admirable part of his tenure here. 

This is related to why I think his redemption arc and leaning into his issues and the vulnerability inherent in that is a big factor in getting not just buy in but participation from the coaches and team. I think this creates a kind of virtuous circle in which the more they do it, the more they’re willing to do it, and the more positive and deeply seated it becomes. 

He talked about how he’s told his story each season and some players have obviously heard it multiple times. Last time, his son heard about it in that context and in a different way than he’d experienced from his dad before. I think, in no small way, Sarkisian’s ability to share openly some things he may have sugarcoated for his son only magnified what he’s trying to do.

It doesn’t hurt that he’s a badass when it comes to scheme. Or development. Or, along with the staff, evaluation. I know people laugh at the “good kids who graduate” thing, but if he can build a team culture and (imperfectly, obviously) identify guys who are focused enough and team oriented enough maybe to do less of the idiotic things 18-22 year old guys tend to do, it has the dual effect of a building a kickass team and a team you don’t have to squint to support. 

Listening to guys like Barron talk about remembering to be grateful for where he is and to put in the effort worthy of that is, imo, pretty cool. I don’t know anything about him beyond what shows up in interviews but he seems bought in and it not only makes him a better player but (from this admittedly superficial perspective) also a better person. Maybe I’m wrong, but I think the world could use more guys like him, whether they can play football or not. And I think Sarkisian has helped with that. 

At this point, Sarkisian looks like a walkoff grand slam of a hire and not just for what he can get done on the field. 

[TrashMaster G 17391]

Sark has a number of things working in his favor here that facilitate the "player-led team" concept.

1- Demonstrated record of improvement (year 1 - year 4) and now success (B12 Championship and playoff berth).

2- Personal story that he embraces, uses to relate to the players and that they can find a way to identify with and connect to.

3- Recruiting success. Replacing good players with good or better players, will build on point 1.

4- Consistency of teaching - low staff turnover, high-caliber replacements when necessary.

5- Consistency of message - He is absolutely right about how key consistency is to building trust.

All of these things create a stable and successful program and allow the culture that he has established to flourish. With that, the natural leaders on the team can emerge and create that "player-led team" concept because they have bought in to his culture and the success that is being enjoyed makes it comfortable for the other players to accept those leaders AS leaders. They are proxies for Sark with the added advantage that they speak in the language that 18-23 year-olds understand. They also bring the added element of peer pressure.

[Davis Lane 5553]

23 hours ago, Hornbeliever said:

Jim Rome’s hair plugs are distracting from that interview.

That was Jim Rome?

[TrashMaster G 17391]

31 minutes ago, Davis Lane said:

That was Jim Rome?

Did you hear what he said about aggy?

[immamac 42519]

Can everyone please send this to all their longhorn friends. Why the fuck does this only have 1k views 

[Rimbo 25784]

29 minutes ago, immamac said:

Can everyone please send this to all their longhorn friends. Why the fuck does this only have 1k views 

most of em are already here that I care about anyhow

[thunderlounge 7758]

40 minutes ago, immamac said:

Can everyone please send this to all their longhorn friends. Why the fuck does this only have 1k views 

 

fine, fine.

 

refresh... refresh... refresh... refresh... refresh...

refresh... refresh... refresh... refresh... refresh...

refresh... refresh... refresh... refresh... refresh...

... ... ...

[Bama Llama 1447]

I’m no Longhorns fan but I am a college football fan with seven decades of memories.  I do love the irreverent world of Surly and its predecessors.  I am a Steve Sarkisian fan from his days at Washington through to the present.  The job he did at Alabama was remarkable.  I’m really glad he’s having great success now even though it led to last year’s debacle at Bryant-Denny, which in a way though has led to Bama sharing some of the glory with Texas for the time being.  The player competence and quality at Texas is getting back to where it was in Mack’s heyday, with more and better to come.  I appreciate what the OP wrote.  Here’s what another Bama man had to say to freshmen.  

The year was 1958.  His 1961 team were undefeated national champs.  Total points allowed for the season - 25.

[Captainant 27466]

That's some really insightful stuff, and helps me to better understand the growth the team has had under Sark. Very awesome, I hope you continue writing about this team and team dynamics

[TwiceHorn 31283]

Good stuff.  I think you articulated what a lot of people sense, but don't really have the vocabulary to express.

As is alluded to, I think a lot of Sark's success in these "people dynamics" areas is a direct result of his recovery from alcoholism.

Most alcoholics in their cups feel some sort of inadequacy as a person that they actively attempt to cover-up or overcompensate for, and also bury in barrels of booze.  Sometimes, this is kind of an obvious thing, like the person has failed dramatically at some aspect of life, other times, an outsider thinks wtf does this person have to feel inadequate about.  It can be sort of a paradox like the insecure bully or egomaniac.

Also, alcoholics are excellent at breaking trust.  They become little (and big) liars to cover up and protect their addictions, and engage in other bad behaviors (theft, infidelity, etc.) destroying the trust of spouses, parents, friends, and co-workers in the process.

So, a big part of recovery involves accepting yourself, flaws and character defects included, and being honest about them with yourself and others.  This leads to an authenticity that is key to a healthy self-regard and becomes quite evident to others, usually.  There's an aspect of vulnerability here, that Brene Brown seizes upon (she is a recovering addict, iirc).  The Stuart Smalley mirror monologue makes a funny joke, but there is some main truth there for the addict.

And, another big part of recovery is earning back the trust of those you betrayed in your addiction.  And addicts learn that there is no shortcut here:  it requires honesty and consistency in behavior.  And that works well on people whose trust you haven't betrayed, as well as those you have.

It is often said or observed in 12-step programs that those who earnestly recover become much more effective in their occupations and relationships.  And it's not just because they're not fucked up all the time, although that certainly has something to do with it.  An irony here is that sometimes the addiction leads people into occupations and relationships that are bad for the addict and that they need to get out of.  Other times, probably when the addict chose the occupation or relationship before the addiction became florid, they excel in those same endeavors.

I had hoped, thought, prayed that Sarkisian a) had earnestly recovered and b) would be one of those aforementioned effective recovering/ed alcoholics.  It looks like he is.  What a great story for us, and for him.

[tokamak 6352]

We hear a lot that “winning cures everything”. But does culture beget winning, or vice versa? Eventually you enter a virtuous cycle but seems to me that there has to be a big leap forward in one or the other at some point. 

[Doc Daneeka 6769]

29 minutes ago, tokamak said:

We hear a lot that “winning cures everything”. But does culture beget winning, or vice versa? Eventually you enter a virtuous cycle but seems to me that there has to be a big leap forward in one or the other at some point. 

In Texas’ case, the culture pretty clearly preceded the winning, imo. 

It wasn’t quick or smooth and involved some things like Bo Davis’s bus rant — pro and con — but it was more improved than the record was heading into 2023. It may be that 2023 kicked both into a mutually perpetuating state… or at least I can hope. 

[.45s 28]

Not much of a sample size

 

[pyrohornIII 4809]

Thanks for presenting this in a way we can grasp and understand.  I've always felt from very early on how Sark spoke of his addiction tribulations that he was a better person for it, and thought that it might help him relate to others.  This discussion helps me understand that feeling I had better.  

I'm not certain that winning fixes everything.  It might in the short term, but what kind of culture that spawns that winning is important.  If they have to cheat or play dirty to win, then eventually that bites them in the ass eventually.  I think A&M under Sherrill and RC, Baylor under Briles, Sooners under Switzer, etc.    If they play like bullies and then run up against someone who bullies them back, they tend to shrink, to lose their confidence, I think.  If you win but people by and large don't respect how you win, then it's not worth much.  

It's still a sport and underneath all that runs sportsmanship and respect.  That's where Sark's culture fits, since so much is based on respect for each other, their opponents, and their own self-respect.  

[nbmishoid 941]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Good stuff.  I think you articulated what a lot of people sense, but don't really have the vocabulary to express.

As is alluded to, I think a lot of Sark's success in these "people dynamics" areas is a direct result of his recovery from alcoholism.

Most alcoholics in their cups feel some sort of inadequacy as a person that they actively attempt to cover-up or overcompensate for, and also bury in barrels of booze.  Sometimes, this is kind of an obvious thing, like the person has failed dramatically at some aspect of life, other times, an outsider thinks wtf does this person have to feel inadequate about.  It can be sort of a paradox like the insecure bully or egomaniac.

Also, alcoholics are excellent at breaking trust.  They become little (and big) liars to cover up and protect their addictions, and engage in other bad behaviors (theft, infidelity, etc.) destroying the trust of spouses, parents, friends, and co-workers in the process.

So, a big part of recovery involves accepting yourself, flaws and character defects included, and being honest about them with yourself and others.  This leads to an authenticity that is key to a healthy self-regard and becomes quite evident to others, usually.  There's an aspect of vulnerability here, that Brene Brown seizes upon (she is a recovering addict, iirc).  The Stuart Smalley mirror monologue makes a funny joke, but there is some main truth there for the addict.

And, another big part of recovery is earning back the trust of those you betrayed in your addiction.  And addicts learn that there is no shortcut here:  it requires honesty and consistency in behavior.  And that works well on people whose trust you haven't betrayed, as well as those you have.

It is often said or observed in 12-step programs that those who earnestly recover become much more effective in their occupations and relationships.  And it's not just because they're not fucked up all the time, although that certainly has something to do with it.  An irony here is that sometimes the addiction leads people into occupations and relationships that are bad for the addict and that they need to get out of.  Other times, probably when the addict chose the occupation or relationship before the addiction became florid, they excel in those same endeavors.

I had hoped, thought, prayed that Sarkisian a) had earnestly recovered and b) would be one of those aforementioned effective recovering/ed alcoholics.  It looks like he is.  What a great story for us, and for him.

This is sort of what I inarticulately thought when he was announced.  Or hoped.   Thanks for your insights.

[nbmishoid 941]

26 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

Thanks for presenting this in a way we can grasp and understand.  I've always felt from very early on how Sark spoke of his addiction tribulations that he was a better person for it, and thought that it might help him relate to others.  This discussion helps me understand that feeling I had better.  

I'm not certain that winning fixes everything.  It might in the short term, but what kind of culture that spawns that winning is important.  If they have to cheat or play dirty to win, then eventually that bites them in the ass eventually.  I think A&M under Sherrill and RC, Baylor under Briles, Sooners under Switzer, etc.    If they play like bullies and then run up against someone who bullies them back, they tend to shrink, to lose their confidence, I think.  If you win but people by and large don't respect how you win, then it's not worth much.  

It's still a sport and underneath all that runs sportsmanship and respect.  That's where Sark's culture fits, since so much is based on respect for each other, their opponents, and their own self-respect.  

The wins will come and go, but the greatness in what Sark and the team are intentionally doing and passing on to the next group is the big win for our university.

[MissingInAction 24824]

Speaking of bullies.

Mack's pussy bitch ass got bullied by cock chugging stoops on the reg.

Sark ain't got no time for that bullshit.

[Gil Bang 25898]

TL/DR Herman was/is a cunt

[CycleTex87 2954]

Ricky looks and sounds stoned. 

[jimmyjazz 45560]

My first takeaway from the original post:  you would never see this thread on texags

[Bobby Layne 266]

On 10/5/2024 at 9:57 AM, TwiceHorn said:

Good stuff.  I think you articulated what a lot of people sense, but don't really have the vocabulary to express.

As is alluded to, I think a lot of Sark's success in these "people dynamics" areas is a direct result of his recovery from alcoholism.

Most alcoholics in their cups feel some sort of inadequacy as a person that they actively attempt to cover-up or overcompensate for, and also bury in barrels of booze.  Sometimes, this is kind of an obvious thing, like the person has failed dramatically at some aspect of life, other times, an outsider thinks wtf does this person have to feel inadequate about.  It can be sort of a paradox like the insecure bully or egomaniac.

Also, alcoholics are excellent at breaking trust.  They become little (and big) liars to cover up and protect their addictions, and engage in other bad behaviors (theft, infidelity, etc.) destroying the trust of spouses, parents, friends, and co-workers in the process.

So, a big part of recovery involves accepting yourself, flaws and character defects included, and being honest about them with yourself and others.  This leads to an authenticity that is key to a healthy self-regard and becomes quite evident to others, usually.  There's an aspect of vulnerability here, that Brene Brown seizes upon (she is a recovering addict, iirc).  The Stuart Smalley mirror monologue makes a funny joke, but there is some main truth there for the addict.

And, another big part of recovery is earning back the trust of those you betrayed in your addiction.  And addicts learn that there is no shortcut here:  it requires honesty and consistency in behavior.  And that works well on people whose trust you haven't betrayed, as well as those you have.

It is often said or observed in 12-step programs that those who earnestly recover become much more effective in their occupations and relationships.  And it's not just because they're not fucked up all the time, although that certainly has something to do with it.  An irony here is that sometimes the addiction leads people into occupations and relationships that are bad for the addict and that they need to get out of.  Other times, probably when the addict chose the occupation or relationship before the addiction became florid, they excel in those same endeavors.

I had hoped, thought, prayed that Sarkisian a) had earnestly recovered and b) would be one of those aforementioned effective recovering/ed alcoholics.  It looks like he is.  What a great story for us, and for him.

As a friend of Bill W. I concur. 

[Surly Bevo 24696]

OP could have just posted this video
 

Edited October 7 by Surly Bevo

[Pimphand 5597]

On 10/3/2024 at 8:32 PM, hookemATL said:

I fucking love Ricky so much and it’s a life goal to smoke a bowl with him❤️

I made the mistake of shaking his hand on 6th street one night (my gf at the time was BFFs with Julie) when he was baked beyond recognition.  I'm fairly certain my hand still hurts 25 years later lol

[Not a cat 5620]

6 minutes ago, Pimphand said:

I made the mistake of shaking his hand on 6th street one night (my gf at the time was BFFs with Julie) when he was baked beyond recognition.  I'm fairly certain my hand still hurts 25 years later lol

Could the pain be due to all the slapping instead?

[High Plains Drifter 10978]

 

On 10/5/2024 at 5:56 AM, Bama Llama said:

I’m no Longhorns fan but I am a college football fan with seven decades of memories.  I do love the irreverent world of Surly and its predecessors.  I am a Steve Sarkisian fan from his days at Washington through to the present.  The job he did at Alabama was remarkable.  I’m really glad he’s having great success now even though it led to last year’s debacle at Bryant-Denny, which in a way though has led to Bama sharing some of the glory with Texas for the time being.  The player competence and quality at Texas is getting back to where it was in Mack’s heyday, with more and better to come.  I appreciate what the OP wrote.  Here’s what another Bama man had to say to freshmen.  

The year was 1958.  His 1961 team were undefeated national champs.  Total points allowed for the season - 25.

 

In other words,

hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard. 

 

 

[horn4life 3755]

Quote

Specifically, I want to look at the reason why it's a good thing for a bunch of 18-22 year olds to be leading a team. Because that's not a great idea at face value.

My snap response - Because the coach can't fucking do everything! 

 

I started my post with read premise only, as this is close to my heart.  But as a courtesy, I went back and skimmed (as good as my profs got) your assertions. 

 All teams are player led.  Which can be good or bad, as every team a freshmen walks into has leaders.  The real question is what do those players prioritize? as you paraphrase- But the demographics of a young age cannot both be, negative because of youth, and positive, because of ability to influence. (I circled that on your paper 😉 )

Quote

If a leader shows that their decisions are good for those common interests, then the group will want to remain under the leader's control. 

Which I think is sort of bullshit.  As I think leaders lead, they don't control.  They show examples and they assert their power, not as in individual but as a part of a core group. In a university setting every kid coming is was an alpha/leader/imposing control.  The reason team leadership is so important ,and is a reflection oftentimes of the the( or A) coach is obvious.  BUT - that's where recruiting and player evaluation fuck the simple argument.  Super talented misfit toys, are the fucking worst thing a coach can have.  Because THEY are the leadership.  And they do not give a fuck.  

Since you are talking about Sark specifically in your references, I would suggest (if your are writing a paoer 😉. ) That you test your assertions with research on Sarks USC team where he shit the bed.  There were "leaders" there as well, but it's might be an interesting contrasting negative argument, in your sociological argument. FWIW.  If I were in your line of study I would say a two specific things; 1) All groups of anything are dog psychology.  2) And that being able to choose your subject, completely and totally, after four years, is like choosing your children to raise at a dog breeder.  This is the odd one.  Can you harness the power of bad dogs to become good dogs?  

The singe hardest thing a coach ever has to deal with is the super talented shitty teammate alps, that is a primadonna, is a cancer to "culture."

What I think Sarks secret weapon is, beyond the obvious ability to evaluate talent at both the player and coaching level, is his approachability.  Sark was a fuck up,  HE fucked a fantastic job, ruined his life because of a vice, and has somehow come out of those ashes.  Which is why I personally think that he does so damn well in the portal.  I always knew he could pull the right kids in normal recruiting, but I think his history is even better in the portal.  The portal is full of kids that either miss home, fucked up (we don't take those), or they want more money for their talent.  Probably Sarks hardest job now is NOT TAKING the super talented "wrong guy." The culture cancer.

The secret IMHO is to find kids that have a commitment and dedication to something beyond themselves.  People like that can be molded to a common goal.  You need 3 or maybe 4 of these sorts of Alpha players to build a "team ledership" structure in a D1 size.  But the key is the right character kids.  Most coaches don't have Sarks luxury.  We are in a great place, but I would argue fervently that if Sark were reading your paper, he would say his influence over his players has a lot to do with his evaluation of his players. Probably more specifically their parents, to evaluate good teammate or not.  The talent is always there, or Sark is not talking to them. But do they "fit?"S

Sponsored by Jack Daniels and a couple extra english classes....

 

[Bodacious Bevo 3576]

23 hours ago, horn4life said:

My snap response - Because the coach can't fucking do everything! 

 

I started my post with read premise only, as this is close to my heart.  But as a courtesy, I went back and skimmed (as good as my profs got) your assertions. 

 All teams are player led.  Which can be good or bad, as every team a freshmen walks into has leaders.  The real question is what do those players prioritize? as you paraphrase- But the demographics of a young age cannot both be, negative because of youth, and positive, because of ability to influence. (I circled that on your paper 😉 )

Which I think is sort of bullshit.  As I think leaders lead, they don't control.  They show examples and they assert their power, not as in individual but as a part of a core group. In a university setting every kid coming is was an alpha/leader/imposing control.  The reason team leadership is so important ,and is a reflection oftentimes of the the( or A) coach is obvious.  BUT - that's where recruiting and player evaluation fuck the simple argument.  Super talented misfit toys, are the fucking worst thing a coach can have.  Because THEY are the leadership.  And they do not give a fuck.  

Since you are talking about Sark specifically in your references, I would suggest (if your are writing a paoer 😉. ) That you test your assertions with research on Sarks USC team where he shit the bed.  There were "leaders" there as well, but it's might be an interesting contrasting negative argument, in your sociological argument. FWIW.  If I were in your line of study I would say a two specific things; 1) All groups of anything are dog psychology.  2) And that being able to choose your subject, completely and totally, after four years, is like choosing your children to raise at a dog breeder.  This is the odd one.  Can you harness the power of bad dogs to become good dogs?  

The singe hardest thing a coach ever has to deal with is the super talented shitty teammate alps, that is a primadonna, is a cancer to "culture."

What I think Sarks secret weapon is, beyond the obvious ability to evaluate talent at both the player and coaching level, is his approachability.  Sark was a fuck up,  HE fucked a fantastic job, ruined his life because of a vice, and has somehow come out of those ashes.  Which is why I personally think that he does so damn well in the portal.  I always knew he could pull the right kids in normal recruiting, but I think his history is even better in the portal.  The portal is full of kids that either miss home, fucked up (we don't take those), or they want more money for their talent.  Probably Sarks hardest job now is NOT TAKING the super talented "wrong guy." The culture cancer.

The secret IMHO is to find kids that have a commitment and dedication to something beyond themselves.  People like that can be molded to a common goal.  You need 3 or maybe 4 of these sorts of Alpha players to build a "team ledership" structure in a D1 size.  But the key is the right character kids.  Most coaches don't have Sarks luxury.  We are in a great place, but I would argue fervently that if Sark were reading your paper, he would say his influence over his players has a lot to do with his evaluation of his players. Probably more specifically their parents, to evaluate good teammate or not.  The talent is always there, or Sark is not talking to them. But do they "fit?"S

Sponsored by Jack Daniels and a couple extra english classes....

 

FWIW this isn’t a paper. I wrote it to share one tool for understanding culture. It’s a surlyhorns exclusive 😎 

[horn4life 3755]

On 10/9/2024 at 10:07 PM, Bodacious Bevo said:

FWIW this isn’t a paper. I wrote it to share one tool for understanding culture. It’s a surlyhorns exclusive 😎 

I was grading you anyhow... did you not see the Jack Daniels... 😉