Cardboard
You remind me of the Ag I received an email from during the realignment in June.

He stated we just needed to stay in the Big 12 and hope to win a few more games and try to beat ou and tu.

I think anyone who accepts mediocrity during any time is a loser!!

Jimmy Johnson did not say after going 1 - 15 that he hoped to win a few more games. Their blueprint each day was to be a champion; not to get a little better.

Successful people do not follow your path. I hope you are not a big cigar. If so, then that speaks volumes of our current state of the program.

quote:

---

Also, Meyer, Stoops, Caroll, and Brown inherited teams that had only had to look back a few years to Conference and National titles. And they weren't in their FIRST game when they blew those either.

---

Prior to Stoops taking over in 1999, OU's last conference title was the 1987 Big 8 title.

Now I'm not saying Sherm should have matched Stoops' success, but there is something in between winning a national title in year 2 and having a losing record after year 2 (and in all likelihood year 3). When you buy three wins a year like we do, a .500 record is the least the fans should expect.

Shermy could lose out the rest of the way and some of you would still be saying hes on the right track. Joke of a hire and that is what most people think, total joke.



[This message has been edited by SB in H-Town (edited 10/7/2010 2:03p).]

quote:

---

OU, texas and USC did not accept mediocrity. They pulled the plug on many coaches who did not produce in 3 - 4 years until they found a winning formula.

---

Akers, Mackovic, and Mcwilliams at Texas had 10, 6, and 5 years before they were fired.

Gary Gibbs, Howard Schnellenberger, and John Blake had 6, 1, and 3 years at OU. With Schnellenberger only being fired for off field reasons, not losses. And as bad as some of you think Sherman is, you can't possible think he has worse than Blake.

Tedd Tollner, Larry smith, John Robinson, and Paul Hackett had 4, 6, 5, and 3 years at USC.

That doesn't equate to firing a coach every 3-4 years - and Sherman is only now starting his 3rd.

The idea that only giving a coach 3 years to prove himself will lead to getting another Nick Saban is crazy - especially for an athletic department with money troubles.

We can "demand excellence" and "not accept mediocrity" all we want from our keyboards, but somebody has to pay the coaches. If we start firing a coach every 3 years, a prospective coach will take notice that he will be on a short leash. Fired coaches usually don't as well in the job market after being fired so he will be facing a huge pay cut in 3 years. He will then either ask for a far higher annual salary or more likely longer, guaranteed contracts- like the ones Sherman and Francione got - that we all complain about. The revolving door is not going to lure away established coaches with other alternatives. And it will be very expensive.

Also according to at least one coach (admittedly biased), the short term contracts do have a significant negative effect on recruiting. Coaches who don't look like they'll be around long don't recruit well - like Fran after he looked done following the 2006 Tech game, and the newsletter in 2007.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-05-13/sports/fl-randy-shannon-um-contract-follow-020100513_1_randy-shannon-landing-top-talent-hurricanes

[This message has been edited by Spider Rico (edited 10/7/2010 2:39p).]

eleventynine

quote:

---

I will give any coach 5 years when the school hadn't won 10 games in a season for the 10 years prior to him taking over.

---

I agree 100%

however, should it happen that sherman is gone i think the ABSOLUTE BEST CANDIDATE FOR THE NEXT COACH AT TEXAS A&M WOULD BE...JON GRUDEN

quote:

---

however, should it happen that sherman is gone i think the ABSOLUTE BEST CANDIDATE FOR THE NEXT COACH AT TEXAS A&M WOULD BE...JON GRUDEN

---

1. No more NFL guys!

2. That is super delusional thinking, if Wade fails Gruden could probably coach the Cowboys if he wanted so why would he mess with us?

3. We can't afford him.

quote:

---

Shermy could lose out the rest of the way and some of you would still be saying hes on the right track. Joke of a hire and that is what most people think, total joke.

---

while i think "lose out the rest of the way" is a bit extreme and not going to happen..i do think 6-6 is very realistic but that should also be treated as a complete failure of a season. unfortunately, you are right..it wont be and fans of the current leadership (most of who wanted him hired in the first place and are just hoping and praying to be made to look right at some point) will be able to say "well...we are making progress, we are still young, and 6-6 for a young team is not bad at all".

6-6 will keep the current leadership in place, and we will get to waste another year under it...while we go into next season with wayyy more question marks than we did this year.

6-6 would be a huge disappointment, but Sherman would still be here.

The questions I asked in my prior post were not rhetorical. Deruyter gets another year on defense. Sherman has shown he can put up points. I'm sure he is as disappointed as anyone else that JJ caught the int bug last week. But the only way to cut out ints is to run 100% of the time, and I don't think yall would like that either.

So many of yall seem to be short sighted.

And the only reason I mentioned that we have some good players starting is that Fran was not able to land them in recruiting, but Sherm did. The first year he was not able to get any big name OL, and Fran clearly didn't recruit any for him. I don't know what happened in year 2, but I'm much happier now than I was.

Have any of you heard Jackie speak and tell the story of his axe handle from Bonfire? He got what it means to be an Aggie, and so does Sherm.

Yall treat Aggie FB as most fools do stocks. Yall look at the past and base your decisions on your cost basis, instead of looking forward. It doesn't matter if you lost your rear end in a stock or made a killing in it. You should base your decision on where it is going from here relative to the market.

Our defense is on a huge rise. On offense, if we see 5 more ints or a lack of productivity and Tannehill doesn't get a chance to shake things up, then I will be upset with yall.

Milkman..JJ has turned the ball over 11 times in the last 2 games (9 picks and 2 fumbles). He lost the OSU game for us.

4 YEARS... BUT I WILL SUPPORT AND BACK THEM THROUGH THICK AND THIN... HOPEFULLY THIS WEEKEND WE'LL BE HIGH ON THE HOG

Cardboardboxer,

Quote: The only way for us to ever have a good program is to realize we are at a disadvantage compared to every other major program in America, and that if we want success we have to build up slowly.


This is the most preposterous statement I have ever heard. We are at a disadvantage to about 10 programs in the whole of CFB. We have the facilities, fan base and most importantly recruiting base to be good FAST, VERY FAST with the right coach. A&M IS 2 HOURS FROM HOUSTON, 3 HOURS FROM DALLAS, 3 HOURS FROM SAN ANTONIO, A FEW SHORT HOURS FROM THE FERTILE RECRUITING GROUNDS OF LA. Almost any program in America would kill to have the recruiting base A&M has. You sir should stop posting altogether, until such time as your brain is fully functioning.

74Ag1 - I agree with you. I can see why Sherman has stuck with him, and I would have as well to this point. But if JJ continues to struggle, perhaps the competition will encourage him to improve. We all know JJ wants to cure his issue more than anyone else.

I think Sherman has helped his recruiting by sticking with JJ, but if what I read about some players losing faith is true, three games in a row of poor performances (in terms of ints) would necessitate trying the backup.

The issue is what happens if the backup also has problems if you bench JJ too early. Then you have a #1 with no confidence due to getting pulled, and a #2 that isn't more effective.