91AggieLawyer said:

---

AlexNguyen said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

Quote:

---

That's a lot of words to say "we threw a Hail Mary pass for Meyer and fell short, so now we're going with Plan B".

---

---

The other alternative candidates floated were enraging. James Franklin. Matt Campbell. Sarkisian in my opinion has a high ceiling. At least we're swinging for the fences. High risk, high reward play.

One more thing I like about this hire is it is obvious the admin just wants to win. This is not a PC hire at all.

---

The only thing I agree with you here is that it isn't a PC hire. Franklin and Campbell were both better (at least somewhat) better candidates, though they didn't really fit in to the t.u. culture and would have (or did) turn(ed) the job down flat without hesitation. Sark brings very little to the table that Herman didn't. Perhaps the big money sips want a west coast guy or someone who's been Saban's lackey for a few years, over what they know they've got with Herman. Maybe that makes them feel better and they're willing to cough up 25 mil to get it. But based on his head coaching record, which is a better indicator of future performance, he DOES NOT have what you call a high ceiling. Now, maybe he's capable of getting lucky one year and making a CFP run -- especially given the makeup of the B12, but absent an overall weak college football field, its unlikely that will go much farther than just a run and a POTENTIAL invite akin to what A&M had this year (I know we didn't get in, but we were, at least to some extent considered, and that's what I mean here).

Sark's record is this: In 7 years (really, 6.25 or so) at Washington and USC, he won THREE games over teams with 10+ wins, a measure of a good team. On the other hand, he had another three pretty bad losses to 3 or 4 win teams and another 2 or 3 losses to 6 win teams. So, his record is he's losing more to bad teams than he's beating good teams, not something t.u. needs, and in the Big 12, especially. It isn't like the Washington job was a wasteland of talent. 2 years after Sark left, they pulled off 3 straight years of 10+ win seasons. Indeed USC had double digit win totals in the 2 years after Sark was fired.

t.u. fired a coach with 2 10+ win seasons for a coach who has never won 10 games in a year. Better load up on Rice, UTEP, UTSA and hope that none of those teams are any good.

---

I don't weigh the Washington record too much although it is a good thing to have substantial HC experience which he got at UW. UW while somewhere in the top 5 or 6 of the Pac 12 as a destination school will always lag behind USC and Oregon. Sarkisian was in full-blown crisis with his personal problems when at USC as HC, so I give him some slack there. I mean if you really want to hold someone's record at a middle tier school against him, that would mean Mack Brown would have been a bad hire for Texas. His record at UNC the first time was only stellar the last two seasons or so.

Nobody knows whether this is a good hire ultimately or not. We're just all shooting bull. I'll be optimistic until I am given reason to not be.

AlexNguyen said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

AlexNguyen said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

Quote:

---

That's a lot of words to say "we threw a Hail Mary pass for Meyer and fell short, so now we're going with Plan B".

---

---

The other alternative candidates floated were enraging. James Franklin. Matt Campbell. Sarkisian in my opinion has a high ceiling. At least we're swinging for the fences. High risk, high reward play.

One more thing I like about this hire is it is obvious the admin just wants to win. This is not a PC hire at all.

---

The only thing I agree with you here is that it isn't a PC hire. Franklin and Campbell were both better (at least somewhat) better candidates, though they didn't really fit in to the t.u. culture and would have (or did) turn(ed) the job down flat without hesitation. Sark brings very little to the table that Herman didn't. Perhaps the big money sips want a west coast guy or someone who's been Saban's lackey for a few years, over what they know they've got with Herman. Maybe that makes them feel better and they're willing to cough up 25 mil to get it. But based on his head coaching record, which is a better indicator of future performance, he DOES NOT have what you call a high ceiling. Now, maybe he's capable of getting lucky one year and making a CFP run -- especially given the makeup of the B12, but absent an overall weak college football field, its unlikely that will go much farther than just a run and a POTENTIAL invite akin to what A&M had this year (I know we didn't get in, but we were, at least to some extent considered, and that's what I mean here).

Sark's record is this: In 7 years (really, 6.25 or so) at Washington and USC, he won THREE games over teams with 10+ wins, a measure of a good team. On the other hand, he had another three pretty bad losses to 3 or 4 win teams and another 2 or 3 losses to 6 win teams. So, his record is he's losing more to bad teams than he's beating good teams, not something t.u. needs, and in the Big 12, especially. It isn't like the Washington job was a wasteland of talent. 2 years after Sark left, they pulled off 3 straight years of 10+ win seasons. Indeed USC had double digit win totals in the 2 years after Sark was fired.

t.u. fired a coach with 2 10+ win seasons for a coach who has never won 10 games in a year. Better load up on Rice, UTEP, UTSA and hope that none of those teams are any good.

---

I don't weigh the Washington record too much although it is a good thing to have substantial HC experience which he got at UW. UW while somewhere in the top 5 or 6 of the Pac 12 as a destination school will always lag behind USC and Oregon. Sarkisian was in full-blown crisis with his personal problems when at USC as HC, so I give him some slack there. I mean if you really want to hold someone's record at a middle tier school against him, that would mean Mack Brown would have been a bad hire for Texas. His record at UNC the first time was only stellar the last two seasons or so.

Nobody knows whether this is a good hire ultimately or not. We're just all shooting bull. I'll be optimistic until I am given reason to not be.

---

And that's as optimistic as it gets for the sips. Lol.

AlexNguyen said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

AlexNguyen said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

Quote:

---

That's a lot of words to say "we threw a Hail Mary pass for Meyer and fell short, so now we're going with Plan B".

---

---

The other alternative candidates floated were enraging. James Franklin. Matt Campbell. Sarkisian in my opinion has a high ceiling. At least we're swinging for the fences. High risk, high reward play.

One more thing I like about this hire is it is obvious the admin just wants to win. This is not a PC hire at all.

---

The only thing I agree with you here is that it isn't a PC hire. Franklin and Campbell were both better (at least somewhat) better candidates, though they didn't really fit in to the t.u. culture and would have (or did) turn(ed) the job down flat without hesitation. Sark brings very little to the table that Herman didn't. Perhaps the big money sips want a west coast guy or someone who's been Saban's lackey for a few years, over what they know they've got with Herman. Maybe that makes them feel better and they're willing to cough up 25 mil to get it. But based on his head coaching record, which is a better indicator of future performance, he DOES NOT have what you call a high ceiling. Now, maybe he's capable of getting lucky one year and making a CFP run -- especially given the makeup of the B12, but absent an overall weak college football field, its unlikely that will go much farther than just a run and a POTENTIAL invite akin to what A&M had this year (I know we didn't get in, but we were, at least to some extent considered, and that's what I mean here).

Sark's record is this: In 7 years (really, 6.25 or so) at Washington and USC, he won THREE games over teams with 10+ wins, a measure of a good team. On the other hand, he had another three pretty bad losses to 3 or 4 win teams and another 2 or 3 losses to 6 win teams. So, his record is he's losing more to bad teams than he's beating good teams, not something t.u. needs, and in the Big 12, especially. It isn't like the Washington job was a wasteland of talent. 2 years after Sark left, they pulled off 3 straight years of 10+ win seasons. Indeed USC had double digit win totals in the 2 years after Sark was fired.

t.u. fired a coach with 2 10+ win seasons for a coach who has never won 10 games in a year. Better load up on Rice, UTEP, UTSA and hope that none of those teams are any good.

---

I don't weigh the Washington record too much although it is a good thing to have substantial HC experience which he got at UW. UW while somewhere in the top 5 or 6 of the Pac 12 as a destination school will always lag behind USC and Oregon. Sarkisian was in full-blown crisis with his personal problems when at USC as HC, so I give him some slack there. I mean if you really want to hold someone's record at a middle tier school against him, that would mean Mack Brown would have been a bad hire for Texas. His record at UNC the first time was only stellar the last two seasons or so.

Nobody knows whether this is a good hire ultimately or not. We're just all shooting bull. I'll be optimistic until I am given reason to not be.

---

I'd love to see the timeline of how everything went down from sip heavily pursuing CUM to winding up with sark after dark. After being turned down by CUM I feel that sip was content with sticking with Mensa one more season but when Mensa actively lobbied for the South Carolina job they felt they were then forced to make a move. So they fired Mensa and were rushed to find someone and the only coach they could get to say yes was a recovering alcoholic with a very avg record. The way this all went down feels a lot like how sip hired cholie after all the chatter about Saban

Jock 07 said:

---

I'd love to see the timeline of how everything went down from sip heavily pursuing CUM to winding up with sark after dark. After being turned down by CUM I feel that sip was content with sticking with Mensa one more season but when Mensa actively lobbied for the South Carolina job they felt they were then forced to make a move. So they fired Mensa and were rushed to find someone and the only coach they could get to say yes was a recovering alcoholic with a very avg record. The way this all went down feels a lot like how sip hired cholie after all the chatter about Saban

---

That actually sounds plausible. The CUM acronym had me puzzled for a moment. LOL. Do Ohio State fans use that?

AlexNguyen said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

AlexNguyen said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

Quote:

---

That's a lot of words to say "we threw a Hail Mary pass for Meyer and fell short, so now we're going with Plan B".

---

---

The other alternative candidates floated were enraging. James Franklin. Matt Campbell. Sarkisian in my opinion has a high ceiling. At least we're swinging for the fences. High risk, high reward play.

One more thing I like about this hire is it is obvious the admin just wants to win. This is not a PC hire at all.

---

The only thing I agree with you here is that it isn't a PC hire. Franklin and Campbell were both better (at least somewhat) better candidates, though they didn't really fit in to the t.u. culture and would have (or did) turn(ed) the job down flat without hesitation. Sark brings very little to the table that Herman didn't. Perhaps the big money sips want a west coast guy or someone who's been Saban's lackey for a few years, over what they know they've got with Herman. Maybe that makes them feel better and they're willing to cough up 25 mil to get it. But based on his head coaching record, which is a better indicator of future performance, he DOES NOT have what you call a high ceiling. Now, maybe he's capable of getting lucky one year and making a CFP run -- especially given the makeup of the B12, but absent an overall weak college football field, its unlikely that will go much farther than just a run and a POTENTIAL invite akin to what A&M had this year (I know we didn't get in, but we were, at least to some extent considered, and that's what I mean here).

Sark's record is this: In 7 years (really, 6.25 or so) at Washington and USC, he won THREE games over teams with 10+ wins, a measure of a good team. On the other hand, he had another three pretty bad losses to 3 or 4 win teams and another 2 or 3 losses to 6 win teams. So, his record is he's losing more to bad teams than he's beating good teams, not something t.u. needs, and in the Big 12, especially. It isn't like the Washington job was a wasteland of talent. 2 years after Sark left, they pulled off 3 straight years of 10+ win seasons. Indeed USC had double digit win totals in the 2 years after Sark was fired.

t.u. fired a coach with 2 10+ win seasons for a coach who has never won 10 games in a year. Better load up on Rice, UTEP, UTSA and hope that none of those teams are any good.

---

I don't weigh the Washington record too much although it is a good thing to have substantial HC experience which he got at UW. UW while somewhere in the top 5 or 6 of the Pac 12 as a destination school will always lag behind USC and Oregon. Sarkisian was in full-blown crisis with his personal problems when at USC as HC, so I give him some slack there. I mean if you really want to hold someone's record at a middle tier school against him, that would mean Mack Brown would have been a bad hire for Texas. His record at UNC the first time was only stellar the last two seasons or so.

Nobody knows whether this is a good hire ultimately or not. We're just all shooting bull. I'll be optimistic until I am given reason to not be.

---

Hey dildo, how many playoff appearances does that "middle tier" school have? What about Texas?

"Hey dildo." Really?

You two should get a room.

goodAg80 said:

---

You two should get a room.

---

Not me. He brought it up.

I've been reading surlyhorns this morning (guilty pleasure). It's hilarious that the sips think they are going to poach a bunch of Saban's low-level assistants to do the same jobs in dildoland. Those guys know that another year under Saban is much better for their careers than a similar position under a booger-eating alcoholic with a mediocre track record as head coach.

AlexNguyen said:

---

"Hey dildo." Really?

---

My question remains.

SquareOne07 said:

---

AlexNguyen said:

---

"Hey dildo." Really?

---

My question remains.

---

Maybe another thread. I try not to have conversations with people that call me a dildo.

AlexNguyen said:

---

SquareOne07 said:

---

AlexNguyen said:

---

"Hey dildo." Really?

---

My question remains.

---

Maybe another thread. I try not to have conversations with people that call me a dildo.

---

You appear to be failing at that effort.

AlexNguyen said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

AlexNguyen said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

Quote:

---

That's a lot of words to say "we threw a Hail Mary pass for Meyer and fell short, so now we're going with Plan B".

---

---

The other alternative candidates floated were enraging. James Franklin. Matt Campbell. Sarkisian in my opinion has a high ceiling. At least we're swinging for the fences. High risk, high reward play.

One more thing I like about this hire is it is obvious the admin just wants to win. This is not a PC hire at all.

---

The only thing I agree with you here is that it isn't a PC hire. Franklin and Campbell were both better (at least somewhat) better candidates, though they didn't really fit in to the t.u. culture and would have (or did) turn(ed) the job down flat without hesitation. Sark brings very little to the table that Herman didn't. Perhaps the big money sips want a west coast guy or someone who's been Saban's lackey for a few years, over what they know they've got with Herman. Maybe that makes them feel better and they're willing to cough up 25 mil to get it. But based on his head coaching record, which is a better indicator of future performance, he DOES NOT have what you call a high ceiling. Now, maybe he's capable of getting lucky one year and making a CFP run -- especially given the makeup of the B12, but absent an overall weak college football field, its unlikely that will go much farther than just a run and a POTENTIAL invite akin to what A&M had this year (I know we didn't get in, but we were, at least to some extent considered, and that's what I mean here).

Sark's record is this: In 7 years (really, 6.25 or so) at Washington and USC, he won THREE games over teams with 10+ wins, a measure of a good team. On the other hand, he had another three pretty bad losses to 3 or 4 win teams and another 2 or 3 losses to 6 win teams. So, his record is he's losing more to bad teams than he's beating good teams, not something t.u. needs, and in the Big 12, especially. It isn't like the Washington job was a wasteland of talent. 2 years after Sark left, they pulled off 3 straight years of 10+ win seasons. Indeed USC had double digit win totals in the 2 years after Sark was fired.

t.u. fired a coach with 2 10+ win seasons for a coach who has never won 10 games in a year. Better load up on Rice, UTEP, UTSA and hope that none of those teams are any good.

---

I don't weigh the Washington record too much although it is a good thing to have substantial HC experience which he got at UW. UW while somewhere in the top 5 or 6 of the Pac 12 as a destination school will always lag behind USC and Oregon. Sarkisian was in full-blown crisis with his personal problems when at USC as HC, so I give him some slack there. I mean if you really want to hold someone's record at a middle tier school against him, that would mean Mack Brown would have been a bad hire for Texas. His record at UNC the first time was only stellar the last two seasons or so.

Nobody knows whether this is a good hire ultimately or not. We're just all shooting bull. I'll be optimistic until I am given reason to not be.

---

How old are you? 15? 20? I don't mean to insult you, but the statement I bolded is laughable to anyone who's been around college football for longer than 2 decades. No, seriously, to be fair, you're half right -- USC is higher on the PAC food chain than Washington but Oregon is a VERY recent phenomenon. They've won like 13 PAC titles, all but about 3 or 4 of which have come in the last 20 years. Its been the exact opposite for Washington. As I said, Washington IMPROVED GREATLY when Sark left. So did USC. Regardless of the reasons. And Sark was just as bombed at Washington as he was at USC; they were just better able to cover it up in Seattle than in LA. (DKR coached at Washington, btw, before coming to t.u.).

Several problems with your comparison to Brown. First, you're just wrong about his record. From '92 on, his win total at UNC was 9,10, 8, 7, 10, 11. That's pretty damn good, especially for UNC. If by "last two seasons" you really meant, "last SIX seasons," then yeah, I'd agree. Sure, 7 wins isn't great but it is an anomaly here. Second, remember that Brown was like t.u.'s third (no better than second) choice. He was a backup hire when Gary Barnett turned you guys down. So his record wasn't really an issue.

I'm not saying Sark is going to be a bad coach. What I don't understand is why you essentially spend 25 million to get the same thing. Why not just say Herman stays, use the Covid excuse, make him shake up his staff, then try and find a replacement after next year? Its one thing to TRY and find someone now but if Sark was truly the best available, that would have been a hard pass for me, objectively speaking. I have several t.u. friends on my FB feed and NONE of them have even POSTED about this hire (none like Herman and have said so). I don't know if they're still doing the WTF thing or have just given up.

Honestly, had t.u. hired me, as an Aggie, to come in and screw up the athletic department, this MIGHT have been what I would have done. I don't know whether I would have hired Sark specifically but I would have definitely made a mediocre hire like him (maybe Malzahn or Muschump) and cost the department a lot of money for little to nothing.

Horns can't beat BYU so they hire a former BYU QB.

Nice

91AggieLawyer said:

---

AlexNguyen said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

AlexNguyen said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

Quote:

---

That's a lot of words to say "we threw a Hail Mary pass for Meyer and fell short, so now we're going with Plan B".

---

---

The other alternative candidates floated were enraging. James Franklin. Matt Campbell. Sarkisian in my opinion has a high ceiling. At least we're swinging for the fences. High risk, high reward play.

One more thing I like about this hire is it is obvious the admin just wants to win. This is not a PC hire at all.

---

The only thing I agree with you here is that it isn't a PC hire. Franklin and Campbell were both better (at least somewhat) better candidates, though they didn't really fit in to the t.u. culture and would have (or did) turn(ed) the job down flat without hesitation. Sark brings very little to the table that Herman didn't. Perhaps the big money sips want a west coast guy or someone who's been Saban's lackey for a few years, over what they know they've got with Herman. Maybe that makes them feel better and they're willing to cough up 25 mil to get it. But based on his head coaching record, which is a better indicator of future performance, he DOES NOT have what you call a high ceiling. Now, maybe he's capable of getting lucky one year and making a CFP run -- especially given the makeup of the B12, but absent an overall weak college football field, its unlikely that will go much farther than just a run and a POTENTIAL invite akin to what A&M had this year (I know we didn't get in, but we were, at least to some extent considered, and that's what I mean here).

Sark's record is this: In 7 years (really, 6.25 or so) at Washington and USC, he won THREE games over teams with 10+ wins, a measure of a good team. On the other hand, he had another three pretty bad losses to 3 or 4 win teams and another 2 or 3 losses to 6 win teams. So, his record is he's losing more to bad teams than he's beating good teams, not something t.u. needs, and in the Big 12, especially. It isn't like the Washington job was a wasteland of talent. 2 years after Sark left, they pulled off 3 straight years of 10+ win seasons. Indeed USC had double digit win totals in the 2 years after Sark was fired.

t.u. fired a coach with 2 10+ win seasons for a coach who has never won 10 games in a year. Better load up on Rice, UTEP, UTSA and hope that none of those teams are any good.

---

I don't weigh the Washington record too much although it is a good thing to have substantial HC experience which he got at UW. UW while somewhere in the top 5 or 6 of the Pac 12 as a destination school will always lag behind USC and Oregon. Sarkisian was in full-blown crisis with his personal problems when at USC as HC, so I give him some slack there. I mean if you really want to hold someone's record at a middle tier school against him, that would mean Mack Brown would have been a bad hire for Texas. His record at UNC the first time was only stellar the last two seasons or so.

Nobody knows whether this is a good hire ultimately or not. We're just all shooting bull. I'll be optimistic until I am given reason to not be.

---

How old are you? 15? 20? I don't mean to insult you, but the statement I bolded is laughable to anyone who's been around college football for longer than 2 decades. No, seriously, to be fair, you're half right -- USC is higher on the PAC food chain than Washington but Oregon is a VERY recent phenomenon. They've won like 13 PAC titles, all but about 3 or 4 of which have come in the last 20 years. Its been the exact opposite for Washington. As I said, Washington IMPROVED GREATLY when Sark left. So did USC. Regardless of the reasons. And Sark was just as bombed at Washington as he was at USC; they were just better able to cover it up in Seattle than in LA. (DKR coached at Washington, btw, before coming to t.u.).

Several problems with your comparison to Brown. First, you're just wrong about his record. From '92 on, his win total at UNC was 9,10, 8, 7, 10, 11. That's pretty damn good, especially for UNC. If by "last two seasons" you really meant, "last SIX seasons," then yeah, I'd agree. Sure, 7 wins isn't great but it is an anomaly here. Second, remember that Brown was like t.u.'s third (no better than second) choice. He was a backup hire when Gary Barnett turned you guys down. So his record wasn't really an issue.

I'm not saying Sark is going to be a bad coach. What I don't understand is why you essentially spend 25 million to get the same thing. Why not just say Herman stays, use the Covid excuse, make him shake up his staff, then try and find a replacement after next year? Its one thing to TRY and find someone now but if Sark was truly the best available, that would have been a hard pass for me, objectively speaking. I have several t.u. friends on my FB feed and NONE of them have even POSTED about this hire (none like Herman and have said so). I don't know if they're still doing the WTF thing or have just given up.

Honestly, had t.u. hired me, as an Aggie, to come in and screw up the athletic department, this MIGHT have been what I would have done. I don't know whether I would have hired Sark specifically but I would have definitely made a mediocre hire like him (maybe Malzahn or Muschump) and cost the department a lot of money for little to nothing.

---

LOL. I am probably a lot older than you. I can remember when A&M ran rampant over the SWC. When Nebraska was a dominant power. And when the Big 12 South was the best division in NCAA football.

No offense, but you need some perspective. Mack Brown was a disappointing hire when we got him and he turned out to be at least the second best coach in program history. We will see with Steve Sarkisian.

Quote:

---

No offense, but you need some perspective.

---

Irony coming from sip trash

I will say as someone that follows college football pretty closely, the fact that I didn't really even register the news as real news until today says something. I legit thought this was some sort of rumor.

This is as quiet a hire as I can ever remember them making. I heard more about Sam leaving for the NFL (lol) than I did the coach hire.

Did Maryland not have any coaches to hire?

Bump!

Bump!

This thread should be bumped to the top daily.

Sark won't be the coach in two years. The culture in Austin will have its way with yet another coach since they fired one of the greatest coaches in football history. What a bunch of entitled, arrogant goofballs.

Will the sweaty towel midget bet the next horn hire????

Hahaha!!!!!

BTW, who is the "Sweaty Towel Midget"???

ravingfans said:

---

Hahaha!!!!!

BTW, who is the "Sweaty Towel Midget"???

---

AlexNguyen said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

AlexNguyen said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

Quote:

---

That's a lot of words to say "we threw a Hail Mary pass for Meyer and fell short, so now we're going with Plan B".

---

---

The other alternative candidates floated were enraging. James Franklin. Matt Campbell. Sarkisian in my opinion has a high ceiling. At least we're swinging for the fences. High risk, high reward play.

One more thing I like about this hire is it is obvious the admin just wants to win. This is not a PC hire at all.

---

The only thing I agree with you here is that it isn't a PC hire. Franklin and Campbell were both better (at least somewhat) better candidates, though they didn't really fit in to the t.u. culture and would have (or did) turn(ed) the job down flat without hesitation. Sark brings very little to the table that Herman didn't. Perhaps the big money sips want a west coast guy or someone who's been Saban's lackey for a few years, over what they know they've got with Herman. Maybe that makes them feel better and they're willing to cough up 25 mil to get it. But based on his head coaching record, which is a better indicator of future performance, he DOES NOT have what you call a high ceiling. Now, maybe he's capable of getting lucky one year and making a CFP run -- especially given the makeup of the B12, but absent an overall weak college football field, its unlikely that will go much farther than just a run and a POTENTIAL invite akin to what A&M had this year (I know we didn't get in, but we were, at least to some extent considered, and that's what I mean here).

Sark's record is this: In 7 years (really, 6.25 or so) at Washington and USC, he won THREE games over teams with 10+ wins, a measure of a good team. On the other hand, he had another three pretty bad losses to 3 or 4 win teams and another 2 or 3 losses to 6 win teams. So, his record is he's losing more to bad teams than he's beating good teams, not something t.u. needs, and in the Big 12, especially. It isn't like the Washington job was a wasteland of talent. 2 years after Sark left, they pulled off 3 straight years of 10+ win seasons. Indeed USC had double digit win totals in the 2 years after Sark was fired.

t.u. fired a coach with 2 10+ win seasons for a coach who has never won 10 games in a year. Better load up on Rice, UTEP, UTSA and hope that none of those teams are any good.

---

I don't weigh the Washington record too much although it is a good thing to have substantial HC experience which he got at UW. UW while somewhere in the top 5 or 6 of the Pac 12 as a destination school will always lag behind USC and Oregon. Sarkisian was in full-blown crisis with his personal problems when at USC as HC, so I give him some slack there. I mean if you really want to hold someone's record at a middle tier school against him, that would mean Mack Brown would have been a bad hire for Texas. His record at UNC the first time was only stellar the last two seasons or so.

Nobody knows whether this is a good hire ultimately or not. We're just all shooting bull. I'll be optimistic until I am given reason to not be.

---

I didn't see this response until just now, but you apparently did no checking before writing it. In his last 6 seasons at UNC (the first time), Brown won 10 games 3x, 9 games once, and 8 games another time. During the years he won this list of games, he never finished lower than 3rd in the ACC. The ACC during those years had FSU, Clemson, and some very good Virginia teams. Brown had a far better resume than Sark.

Incidentally, Brown was t.u.'s second choice in 1998. t.u. offered Gary Barnett, who instead stayed at Northwestern, then went to Colorado a year or two later. t.u. faithful denied ever offering Barnett but it was common knowledge and even reported at the time.

My prediction as of almost 2 years ago still looks spot on. However, I will concede things may change.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

AlexNguyen said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

AlexNguyen said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

Quote:

---

incidentally, Brown was t.u.'s second choice in 1998. t.u. offered Gary Barnett, who instead stayed at Northwestern, then went to Colorado a year or two later. t.u. faithful denied ever offering Barnett but it was common knowledge and even reported at the time.

---

---

---

---

---

---

Dodds wanted to hire Barnett but Darrell Royal said, "We are not going to hire another northerner to coach at UT." Horns hired Mack Brown and got a coach whose bad years would be considered great years in Austin now. Ever since Ketch and his minions ran off the greatest or second greatest coach in UT history, the culture surrounding the program has become toxic.

I remember seeing firemackbrown.com and hoping y'all would be stupid enough to do it. Really glad you did.