We all know Mack Brown is a very average coach. UT won't be able to out talent USC and that's basically what they've done all year to their opponents with the possible exception of the Ohio State game which was a very good win. So I'll take USC 31-17.
No, he's been an average coach the whole time. Vince Young just had an extraordinary game against Ohio State and Ohio State made some critical errors in the game. Did you even watch the damn game?
Yeah, I did watch the game. I understand why you feel the way you do though, because your view is so typical of the majority of sports fans. In your opinion, the coach is to blame for the failures but not the successes of the team. It's your point of view but it's wrong. VY did make some great plays and OSU made some mistakes. Without Mack's coaching, those plays for UT don't get made.
Since UT and USC have a comparable talent level, I give the edge to the team with the better head coach. That's my logic on the pick. I think the record shows pretty well that Mack Brown's teams have performed poorly against teams of a comparable talent level. They really remind me of the Oilers that way. I think that falls on the coaching and the preparation, maybe you disagree.
Record of a CometsWin 'very average coach': Year Record 1998 9-3 1999 9-5 2000 9-3 2001 11-2 2002 11-2 2003 10-3 2004 11-1 2005 12-0 So in the last 5 seasons ... 55-8. That's 87.3%. That's pretty d*mn close to the highest winning %age of the 90's (Florida State at 87.8%), and comparable to the 5th best all-time decade winning %age. What a joke.
Please demonstrate how Mack Brown's exemplary coaching is the reason for their record the last five years. Also explain UT's performance against OU, a similarly talented team, over the last few years on a neutral field. Then explain how it's Mack's coaching and not the overwhelming talent advantage they enjoy in 95% of their games that is the reason for their record. Then somehow explain how it's Mack's coaching not Vince Young's maturation and incredible talent that finally has them having won a conference title and a shot at the National Championship. Thanks.
So I guess Pete Carroll has nothing to do with USC's success since they have so much talent right? With your point of view, coaches have nothing to do with winning teams because they have talent. Maybe you'd like to demonstrate how it hasn't been good coaching that has led the Horns to a 55-8 record in the last 5 years, a Rose Bowl Championship last season, a Big 12 Championship and the possiblity of a NC. Yes, Young has a huge part to do with it, but saying Mack has nothing to do with is a dumb statement.
They had good records....but 9-3, 9-5, 11-2 and 10-3 get you a meaningless bowl appearance at best...in upper echelon college football, that's not necessarily cutting it. They are consistantly good...which says a lot for their recruiting ability...but not playing for any national championships since 1998 (if they have, then im mistaken...but i dont remember them doing so), is probably why some question his coaching. Then again, that win in last years Rose Bowl was pretty impressive against a very good Michigan team.
I never said Mack Brown had nothing to do with UT's success. I agree that would be a dumb statement. If Mack were on the verge of a third consecutive AP National Championship I would probably need to have a different opinion on his coaching.
1. You said he was 'very average'. 2. The record is no where near 'average' So was it a dumb statement, or not?
So you need to be on the verge of 3 consecutive NC's to be considered an above average coach? If a 55-8 record over that past 5 years, 2nd longest winning streak behind USC, a Rose Bowl Victory last season, a Big 12 Championship, and a 2nd trip to the RB only warrants being an "average coach," who exactly do you consider good coaches then?
It's really really simple. Who else was the head coach for those UT teams? Is the improvement since he arrived (compared to the last 20 years) not obvious? What do coaches get hired to do? What do they have control over in college ball? What are they measured on? Why would he be second behind JoePat as coach of the year if he was so 'very average'?
Um, no it wasn't a dumb statement. I never said Mack had nothing to do with UT's success. That's a dumb statement. I said he was a very average coach. There is a lot more to having a successful football program than just coaching.
Do you think programs just win and lose because of coaching? Do you know anything about college football?
How is a program's improvement wholly indicative of coaching ability? Please explain that. Coaches get hired to do all kinds of things including getting support from alumni, recruiting, networking, selling the team, coaching, etc. Of those, which do you believe is Mack's weakest area? Coaching maybe? Perhaps? You seem incapable of determining everything that goes into having a successful football team. It's just coaching right?
I voted for USC, they are really in a league by themself. Remember, their national championship game against OU? Well, you will. Texas is a great college football team, just like OU was, but USC will roll in the Rose Bowl. Sorry Longhorn fans, you are about to run into a giant wall of reality, USC is probably one of the greatest college football teams of all time. It's just like the Lufkin Panthers, they can beat probably every H.S. football team in Texas, just about every year, EXCEPT, SouthLake Carroll. It's not fair, but it is just the way it is.
