NCAAF  > General NCAAF  > Who Should Be the Next Texas Coach?
December 19, 2013, 01:40 PM
So who should be the Next Coach at Texas? This is unlike most jobs, where you have to look at if a coach can recruit, or what is his buyout? Neither of these really apply at Texas, as I have covered before is a Tier 1 Job. Recruiting in Texas is pretty simple, throw a football as hard as you can, and whoever catches it, see if they can run it back to you in under 5 seconds. Then give that kid a scholorship. Buyouts are no problem, Texas has enough ESPN money to buyout Brazil to get a punter. The Next Texas coach does not have to rebuild a program from a bad coach, or repair the psyche of the Longhorn faithful, he has to do one thing.

Win. Texas

ESPN and Texas are not spending the money they are spending the money they are spending, and giving you the advantages you have as a coach to hope you can make the Alamo Bowl. Its a HIGH pressure job, and while on the surface it might seem to be an easy job, its one of the worst jobs in the coaching industry if you start 3-1 or heaven help you, lose to the Aggies and the Sooners in the same year. Ask John Mackovic how much fun Texas is after you get blown out by UCLA.

I break down the major candidates:
http://tinyurl.com/q93yta 6
December 19, 2013  02:52 PM ET

ME!!!!!

::someone forward this to my boss please.::

December 19, 2013  10:20 PM ET

"its one of the worst jobs in the coaching industry."

Written in stone

December 19, 2013  11:01 PM ET

Worst jobs in the country if you fail?

Well every job sucks when you're a failure at it, but that doesn't change the fact that HC at Texas gets:

A crap load of money
America's best built in recruiting zone
the Longhorn Network
the most loyal boosters in the world
Mack Brown as a point of comparison

I don't see what sucks about being HC for Texas unless fear of failure is so gripping you can't shake it and try something new and potentially awesome.

December 20, 2013  09:04 AM ET

How about Luther and Dobber.

December 20, 2013  09:30 AM ET
QUOTE(#4):

How about Luther and Dobber.

Well done

December 20, 2013  09:54 AM ET
QUOTE(#3):

I don't see what sucks about being HC for Texas unless fear of failure is so gripping you can't shake it and try something new and potentially awesome.

So let's say you fail at it. So you get your 3 years and 15 million and walk away from it?

Sign me up.

December 20, 2013  01:02 PM ET

One day, a coach will come, and Texas shall rise again.

December 20, 2013  01:03 PM ET
QUOTE(#7):

One day, a coach will come, and Texas shall rise again.

Next topic.

December 20, 2013  01:41 PM ET
QUOTE:

... Recruiting in Texas is pretty simple, throw a football as hard as you can, and whoever catches it, see if they can run it back to you in under 5 seconds. Then give that kid a scholarship ...

This is an extremely outdated and flawed assumption. It's a holdover from the days of 100+ man rosters and 2 platoon football.

Back in those days Texas had, by far, the premier facility in the state if not the nation. A&M, Tech, TCU, Baylor, SMU, Houston, LSU, OU and others found it hard to compete with this. When recruits saw what was available in Austin ... yeah it was a huge recruiting advantage and it was easier to lock them down.

When you were allowed 100+ rosters and you had the premier facility you were better able to stockpile recruits and starve the other colleges in the state and the region. And that is one of the major reasons why the SWC resorted to paying players ... in order to pry them away from the Texas recruiting advantage built on premier facility and 100+ man rosters.

Now days everyone has facilities that will knock a recruit's socks off, or is in the process of building such. A&M, LSU, OU addressed these inequities years ago, TCU addressed theirs last year, Baylor is currently addressing theirs. Everyone can wow the recruits now, not just Texas

Also, 100+ man rosters made it easier to cover bad recruiting evaluations. Now that the limit is 85 ... well this is just simple math and elementary logic.

It was during those days that the term "Texas can just name their roster" was uttered. When I hear people, hack journalists and ESPN "experts" continue to drop this time-worn cliche' I laugh at their naivety, lack of knowledge and unprofessional-ism.

Another contributing factor: the other Tier 1 unversity in the state, Texas A&M, for years was a male-only university. That in itself was a huge recruiting DISADVANTAGE. When females were allowed to enroll it helped change the recruiting landscape in the state of Texas.

Also back in those days the SEC wasn't recruiting Texas hard like they have been over the past 10 years. Anyone who thinks the SEC is only now able to recruit Texas because of some BS about new TV footprint is extremely uninformed and naive.

So I'm calling a big BS on the author of "... recruiting in Texas is pretty simple, throw a football as hard as you can, and whoever catches it, see if they can run it back to you in under 5 seconds. Then give that kid a scholarship ..."

Recruiting in Texas is EXTREMELY competitive. This isn't 1969.

December 20, 2013  01:57 PM ET
QUOTE:

... Buyouts are no problem, Texas has enough ESPN money to buyout Brazil to get a punter... TexasESPN and Texas are not spending the money they are spending the money they are spending, and giving you the advantages you have as a coach ...

Yet another extremely flawed and naive assumption.

UTx is not blindly throwing the ESPN/LHN money at football. LHN money has funded 7 additional faculty positions and professorships. And when the LHN contract expires in 8 years the university is not planning to reduce those positions ... no ... some of the LHN money is held in securities that will continue to fund these 7 positions hopefully in perpetuity.

Texas has plenty of rich benefactors that throw money at football. Please don't confuse this money stream with the LHN money which is being used to further education and secure things that go way beyond football prowess.

December 20, 2013  02:47 PM ET

Doesn't have to recruit? Debateable... A common sentiment but I disagree. Recruiting is more than convincing a kid whether or not he should come to your program; it's evaluating whather or not that kid fits your program, whether he can succeed at the 'next' level. Recruiting at Tier-1 should be easy, right? but some guys, like Lane Kiffin, got all the best recruits yet still failed. Not necessarily 'cause they were bad coaches, but much of the time the guys that everyone said were 5* weren't.

IOW's a good coach must be a good talent evaluator 1st and foremost. And still, believe it or not, Texas has to compete for the best prospects. You think if UT has lost to OU the last 5 years Stoops isn't gonna bring it up?

Why was Mack so successfull for so long and then suddenly started failing? Answer that and you will start to find the next coach.

But me? I'm thinking Kiffin would be good...

 
December 27, 2013  07:00 PM ET

Every year recently THE U. of Texas has one of the top recruiting classes, composed almost entirely of in-state boys, yet it fails to break the Top 10 at season end. Possible reasons:

1) Being a Four/Five star recruiting don't mean diddly.
2) High school football in Texas is overrated.
3) Mac B. doesn't have good taste in assistant coaches.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Clippers, Warriors exchange barbs
    Views
    455
    Comments
    236
  2. 2
    Tuukka Rask takes blame for Bruins' Game 1 loss
    Views
    2469
    Comments
    231
  3. 3
    Smush Parker allegedly punches high schooler
    Views
    2077
    Comments
    140
  4. 4
    Time to penalize NHL's perennial losers?
    Views
    356
    Comments
    123
  5. 5
    Quarterback freefalling down draft boards
    Views
    7148
    Comments
    90

SI.com

SI Photos