A program that barely won it's conference and IMO, underachieved for the amount of $$ and in-state talent at it's disposal. Texas should be competing for football titles damn near every season. Too much money and talent not to.
I'm hoping he ends up like a Omar Epps, I mean Mike Tomlin, type of coach for Texas. A no nonsense, results oriented coach.
They were competing for titles every year. Usually coming up right under OU. I'm assuming you mean they should be winning championships more. So did Texas JUST get in-state talent when Mack won? What about the 35 years before that? Texas football must have sucked then right? Not to mention Mack averaged more wins per season then Royal even with the horrid last 4 years. Royal has 3 championships which is what makes him legend. That being said, they lost their bowl game one of those years but the national championship was awarded before bowl games at that time and only shared the national championship. I've had this argument before. I'm not saying Mack shouldn't have gone. But rewriting history is weak. A good number of posters (by no means all of them) weren't fans during the glory years and those two magical Rose Bowls.
Nobody is rewriting anything. Mack is gone because of a total process failure of the last 5 years. His goodwill from a decade ago is not that relevant in the ongoing failure due to his failure to adapt and stubborn adherence to the CEO coach mayor mack nonsense which is obviously not a going to cut it any longer
Your smoking crack. In the 1st 12 seasons of the Mack Brown era the Longhorns finished ranked outside of the top 15 exactly 1 time. They finished ranked in the top 10 exactly 6 times and ranked inside the top 5 exactly 5 times. Mack Brown's best rankings in order were: 1 2 3 5 5 6 10 12 12 13 15 That's not good, that's phenomenal. Mack did that in an era where OU has been exceptionally good. He was 10 wins and 5 losses in Bowl Games. In Mack's 1st twelve seasons he took the Horns to 2 BCS National Championship Games and won 1. He had very similar success to LSU with Les Miles and only slightly less than OU and Bob Stoops (although they have been very damn close).
Not sure what the point of this is. I said that he has failed the last 4 years and I don't have an issue him being let go. If you read the other posts in the thread you would see the criticisms on his performance before the last 4 years. That is what re-writing history is. Again, not really sure what you are disagreeing with. Just read other posts.
You launched into the rewriting history shebang by quoting a post of mine deriding the Mack-created perception that Texas coach must also serve as cruise social director, geriatric nurse to billionaires, and town midwife. Nobody is rewriting anything
That's not phenomenal with the amount of money and talent Texas has at it's disposal. The goal for other programs should be to finish in the top 15. The goal for a program with more money than anyone else and the best in-state football talent on earth should be to win the title every season. We have been a legit contender for the national title 3 or 4 times in his tenure, period. That's not phenomenal. If you want an example of phenomenal then look at Nick Saban. In his 7 seasons at Alabama they have won 3 titles and been a legit contender an additional 1-2 times. Does Texas have more money them any other program? Does Texas have access to recruits as good as those in any other program? If the answer is yes, then why is Texas not winning more national titles than any other program? How are you not underachieving when you have more $$ and talent than anyone else and they are outproducing you with less?
No, I mean competing for titles more. If you can't beat OU to win your conference and have a legit shot at winning the national championship then you weren't a legit title contender. And I never said we sucked. I said we underachieved for the amount of $$ and talent we had. What's happened the last 5 years is inexcusable. With the amount of $$ and talent available to us we should be having Alabama type success. Why shouldn't we, with better talent and more $$ than them, or any other program?
No program is immune to a lull. Alabama has experienced similar lulls, as well as every other program. Texas will be back, but saying they should always be competing for championships will inevitably lead to disappointment.
Alabama does not have as much $$ or in-state talent as Texas. I do agree that no program is immune to a lull. However, I don't believe that a program with more $$ and available talent then anyone else should only have 1 national title and 2-3 other legit chances to win one in a 16 year tenure. How is winning less with MORE not underachieving? The same goes for A&M as well. Both schools have too much $$ and talent to not be a constant on the national title chase.
I'm not disagreeing with any of that. I'd say it's fair to say that Texas has overall disappointed in these last 20 some-odd years. I'm just saying that your statement of how Texas should be a title team year in and year out is wishful thinking. But I don't doubt that Texas will be back towards the top in due time.
Really? When you wake up out of your fantasy world how about listing all the teams that have been more consistent over the 12 years that Mack did it. The list is pretty damn short. Pete Carroll 2001 - 2009 had 7 top 10 finishes and 2 national championships with one loss at the hands of Mack Brown Les Miles at LSU 2005 - Present 5 top 10 finishes with 1 national title Bob Stoops at OU 1999 to present 8 top 10 finishes (one more than Mack) and 1 national title. Nick Saban - no need to go here, he is the best. Those are pretty much the only coaches that can compare to Mack over a long time period. Thats pretty elite company and that is phenomenal. If you don't see that then you really are in some sort of fairy tell world.
As a member of The University of Texas family, I want to issue you a special invitation to join us tomorrow, as we welcome Charlie Strong to The University of Texas as the 29th football coach of the Texas Longhorns. The press conference welcoming Coach Strong will take place at 11:00 a.m. CST, and will be carried live on LHN, TexasSports.com, and on the radio in the Austin area via our radio partner KVET AM 1300. LHN will host a live in-studio interview with Coach Strong and myself at 1:00 p.m., following the press conference. Be sure to tune in. It’s a historic day, and I want to make sure you’re part of it. Hook ‘em! Steve Patterson Texas Men’s Athletics Director The University of Texas at Austin
Urban Meyer Auburn... Potentially....Though not a single coach Ohio State I think the point that Ice was trying to make, which is very very valid, is that if you have the most money in a state with the best talent, in a desire able city and college then you should be multiple championships if not Nick Saban like. If there's a level above you performance wise, but not access to resource wise, then definitional lymphoid underachieved.
Defending Mack Brown and trying to make Texas look like a model of success is just laughable. Most money and biggest pool of talent and you cant even hover within the top ten year end and year out is FAILURE!
Ill give you OSU but not Auburn. Mack and UT were 1 of 5 or 6 teams that were consistently in the National Championship discussion every single year during Mack's 1st 12 years. That is elite.
Trying to claim Mack's 1st 12 years was less than elite is laughable and ignorant. And maybe you should check his record, he was in the top damn near every year finishing there 7 times in his 1st 12 years. Maybe you should check the facts before making statements like that. In Mack's 1st 12 years UT was greatness.
How many teams do you think are in the National Championship discussion each season and how are you defining being in the title hunt? I finished from UT in 2001 and can only think of 3 years where we really thought we had a chance to win a national title, and none occurred before VY got there. For example, in 2004 we had a high finish and won the Rose Bowl. We only lost one game but there were three undefeated teams that season (USC, OU and Auburn) and we weren't in the national title discussion after getting shutout by OU. So if you are considering that a year of being in the national title discussion then we just view things differently. And the only way you can make a claim that we were consistently in the discussion is to count years like that. 2005, 2008 and 2009 are the only years in the Mack tenure where we were really in the title discussion, unless you would count this as a season that Baylor was in the national title discussion. However, I wouldn't and I don't think most would. It's been about Alabama, Fl State and Ohio State all along. For comparison, Miles has been at LSU since 2005. His team has been in the title discussion twice (2007 and 2011), winning 1 title. When it comes to serious title contention, he has almost caught Mack, at a program with less money and less talent (well, not the same talent to recruit from). And if I add in their title year in 2003 then LSU has had as much success as our program during the Mack tenure. Actually more since they won twice. With less resources. The Yankees have more $$ than anyone else, in a sport where you can just buy talent. Their expectation is to compete for a title every season. The same goes for the Lakers, who only hang title banners. Texas is the equivalent of that in college football. Yet we are bragging about top 15 finishes and how our coach did a phenomenal job when he had more money and talent than everyone else yet others are winning more. Finishing in the top 10 or 15 is as close to winning as making the western semifinals....it's not. If you have more yet others are winning more then you are underachieving.
