Recruiting heating up

[BGIF]

The last numbers are the AP and Coaches rankings. There is no way you can convince me they have underachieved. How many programs have had a better 12 years? They have great classes, but so have the other top schools. I don't for one minute buy that they have underachieved or have been poor at developing talent. To me, that's lunacy.

From 1992 to 1997 (6 years) Texas won 3 Conference Championships while Lou Holtz and Bob Davie were raking in Texas talent.

From 1998 to 2010 (13 years) Texas won 3 Conference Championships while Davie, Willingham, Weis, and Kelly struggled for Texas talent.

The Texas Program has a career winning % of better than 71% which on a 13 game season (Mack Brown's) is 9.3 wins/year. Brown averages 10.3 wins which makes him 1 game in a 13 game year better than coaches like Royal and Aker.

I guess you were impressed with his 51-17 rout of Florida Atlantic this year.
Not quite as good as his 52-10 whipping of Florida Atlantic in '08.
'07 Impressive 21-13 win over Arkansas - STATE!
'06 56-7 win over NORTH Texas.
'05 60-3 over Louisana Layfayette.
'04 65-0 over NORTH Texas.
03 66-7 over New Mexico St., 53-18 over Tulane, 13-65 LOSS to OU (funny what happens when they played a real team.)
'02 NORTH Texas
'01 New Mexico St
'00 Louisiana Lafayette
'99 Rutgers, Rice
'98 New Mexico St.

Not hard to see where the extra one win per season increase comes from. Play one more patsy.

Your comparison of LSU and OSU is disingenuous. LA is a small state. They have some talent but nowhere near the numbers that TX has. OH is a bigger state but once again nowhere near the talent that TX has.

 

[TerryTate]

 

[Me2SouthBend]

I tend to agree w OMM. Ask yourself this, if the Irish had the recriting classes year after year that Texas pulls in, would you be satisfied with the annual results that they produce? How many people would be calling for the firing of Kelly if he suffered a year that Texas did this year after consistent top 10 (or top 5) classes? Idon't have the side by side comparison, but it would be interesting to see how the last dozen or so years compares with any string of 12 years at FSU under Bobby B. as much as I hate the Noles, they seemed to win at a higher level than anyone for a long time while fighting other major programs in state for talent. Texas can almost hand pick it's talent from arguably the most talent rich state in the nation. Anyway, I'm psyched for Junior Day and what this coaching staff continues to do. My .02 cents.

 

[Rocket89]

Would you say Tom Osborne was a poor developer of talent.... or an average coach? Just trying to fully grasp where this is coming from.

The same Tom Osborne with a .835 winning percentage (a rather sizable 39 percentage points ahead of Mack Brown)?

The same guy who won 3 national titles?

The same coach who won 13 conference titles in 25 seasons?

All with less built in advantages than Texas?

Is that a serious question?

 

[Rocket89]

seven top ten finishes in ten years is hard to argue with imo... only SC can argue a better run over that time frame...

and yes, the Big 12 has been up and down, but it has had it's years and is NOT some pushover two team conference... anyway, UT is not my team... so whatever.... it just jumped out at me.

We're talking about being an underachiever, not that Texas hasn't had great record over the past decade-plus.

You could make the case that Texas should be one of the top 1 or 2 programs...I would argue that they are not...thus they have underachieved.

They are third in winning percentage since 2000, but I would put Oklahoma, USC, LSU, and Florida ahead of them over that time span. Again, Texas is still right up there but I think they should be better.

Especially considering that they play a pretty weak schedule every year and face nothing like what the SEC teams do.

During this era of dominance for Texas, Nebraska has been down significantly, A&M has more or less sucked, and there has been mild challenges from the Okie States, Missouri's and Texas Techs of the conference sprinkled in. They have a losing record against OU under Brown and Stoops has 7 conference titles to Brown's 2.

They haven't played a BCS team out of conference with a winning record since 2006...a loss to Ohio State.

The TCU team they played in 2007 was the weakest of the past half decade (8-5 record).

Their last two games against Arkansas (2008 & 2004) the Hogs had a combined 10-13 record for those two seasons and didn't have a winning season in either.

Texas is only 5-4 versus BCS teams out of conference since 2000.

And they are 2-2 versus BCS teams OOC with a winning record...the only wins being Ohio State (10-2) in 2005 and North Carolina (8-5) in 2001. Which means Texas will be going on six years without beating a BCS team out of conference with a winning record heading into 2011.

Once again, a great program...but given the talent they bring in every single year, given the facilities, the fan base, the money, the support, their location....I think they can do better and have underachieved.

 

[BGIF]

... Ask yourself this, if the Irish had the recriting classes year after year that Texas pulls in, would you be satisfied with the annual results that they produce? How many people would be calling for the firing of Kelly if he suffered a year that Texas did this year after consistent top 10 (or top 5) classes?

ND did pull in that kind of talent every year during the Faust years. His recruits dominated the Parade All-American Teams. I believe he had 3 #1 classes. His record was 30 26 1 .53509. Worse than Davie, Willingham, or Weis.

... Idon't have the side by side comparison, but it would be interesting to see how the last dozen or so years compares with any string of 12 years at FSU under Bobby B. as much as I hate the Noles, they seemed to win at a higher level than anyone for a long time while fighting other major programs in state for talent. Texas can almost hand pick it's talent from arguably the most talent rich state in the nation. ...

I started to post about FSU last night but let it go. Texas does not have in-state recruiting competitors like UF and MIA. And no, they don't have an OU to contend with. They have Bama, UGA, and LSU on their borders. FSU had the advantage of a "soft" ACC when they joined a conference. They owned it. But Bowden's team seemed to do better in the big games than Brown's do. Brown carried the "Can't win the big ones" lable when he was a t UNC and kept it at UT until he won an NC.

A couple of "Wide Rights" were the difference in a couple of Bowden's key rivals games. That wasn't Bowden's miscoaching that was the Holtz Curse for Scott Bentley.

 

[OCIrish]

The entire point being that with the talent that Mack Brown has at his disposal, more championships should be decorating his trophy case...I tend to agree with this OMM about UT underachieving.

 

[ACamp1900]

The same Tom Osborne with a .835 winning percentage (a rather sizable 39 percentage points ahead of Mack Brown)?

The same guy who won 3 national titles?

The same coach who won 13 conference titles in 25 seasons?

All with less built in advantages than Texas?

Is that a serious question?

the case was made that Texas is underahieving because they play soft schedules and then get laid out in big games...

so I brought up Osborne... if that isn't Tom Osborne i don't know what is... especially pre-Tommy Frazier

so yeah... idk how anyone can say Texas is underachieving and pretend to be serious about it... or actually makes the case that we as ND fans should be dissapointed if we were Texas... I'd be doing back flips, and so would you

 

[ACamp1900]

so let's say McCoy doesn't get hurt and they hold on to win the title game against Bama... suddenly, they are some legit top end program??? Because sorry, holding so strongly to the premise that they play pantsies, lose in big games and they basically waste their talent is saying they aren't a top flight program... don't kid yourself.


they rack up ten wins seasons like it's child's play (in a damn good conference, again, don't kid yourself)... have won and played for National Titles, have won conference titles and regularly send talent to the league... set a record for most consecutive 10 win seasons... finsihed in the top ten seven tmes in ten years and we are really calling that underachieving...

again, what would Texas have to have done to not be?? Beat the New England Patroits in the Super Bowl??? ha

 

[tankjeep]

Texas just set a record for consecutive 10 win seasons did they not???

i think that was VT, virginia tech.

 

[ACamp1900]

i think that was VT, virginia tech.

actually it may be FSU now that I think about it... forget that... UT is up on that list though, so is VT I think... how many did they (UT) just have??? Something ten straight for crying out loud.

 

[Rocket89]

We're not talking about how Notre Dame fans should feel if we had Texas' past resume.

We're not talking about "what if" Texas won the 2009 title.

You're blowing this out of proportion. I wasn't really arguing that they always lose big games, aren't a top flight program, and don't send a ton of talent to the NFL.

2 conference titles in 13 years under Mack Brown.

At Texas.

You don't see how people view that as underachieving in the least bit????

You mean to tell me if USC had only won 2 conference titles instead of seven in a row that you wouldn't entertain the thought of the Trojans even slightly underachieving?

 

[Rocket89]

A quick check shows FSU had 14-straight 10-win seasons...I believe that is the record.

Texas' 9-straight is probably in the top 3 I would assume.

 

[ACamp1900]

Let's look at BGIF's point... the wins per season...

Texas is one of the top ten programs ever... no? they averaged 9 wins a season in a 12-13 game season according to his Math PRIOR to Brown taking over (I'll trust it and not double check)

Mack Brown came in, again to one of the top ten programs ever, and added a full win per season to that average... (again in a sport that only plays 12-13 games a year) and we are saying THAT is underachieving... while winning multiple conference titles in a conference with a title game, and winning a National Title among many other notibles such as Heisman's, All Americans, and otherwise... How much further was Brown supposed to bring the program up??? Did he somehow bring all these advantages with him??? Were they not there before???

no I don't see it, sorry

 

[Rocket89]

Go talk to some Texas fans and they'll tell you.

His record is awesome, there's no doubt about it. But if not for the black football Jesus, what does Texas have to show for the second most dominant era in their history?

Take that one incredible season where VY was simply not going to allow Texas to lose and Mack Brown has ONE conference title.

If Brown retires or whatever after next season and doesn't win any titles, you really think that Texas fans won't look back and wish they had more hardware?

 

[ACamp1900]

Go talk to some Texas fans and they'll tell you.

His record is awesome, there's no doubt about it. But if not for the black football Jesus, what does Texas have to show for the second most dominant era in their history?

Take that one incredible season where VY was simply not going to allow Texas to lose and Mack Brown has ONE conference title.

If Brown retires or whatever after next season and doesn't win any titles, you really think that Texas fans won't look back and wish they had more hardware?

thought we weren't talking about "what ifs"...


and I talk to Longhorn fans all the time... My brother in law lives in Austin and I visit on the reg... he and all his buddies are die hards and talk nothing but UT football basically, and I can honestly say I have never heard anything like that... though I am sure there are all types in every fan base

 

[Rhode Irish]

I think it is fair to point out that winning 2 conference championships in 13 years is a surprisingly low output considering the talent that comes through that program and the overall success the program has had during that same time period.

On the other hand, I do think it is a stretch to label them as underachievers considering they have so consistently finished the season as one of the nation's top 10 teams. I know 99% of programs would kill for that kind of underachievement.

So I see both sides of this argument, and I think you can rectify the two viewpoints. While it is hard to argue with the success of the Texas program under Coach Brown when looking at objective factors such as winning percentage and NFL players produced, it is also understandable that Texas fans and some football observers would feel that the program should have achieved more in terms of conference titles and maybe even national championships, considering the abundance of talent that has come through that program.

 

[Rocket89]

I think it is fair to point out that winning 2 conference championships in 13 years is a surprisingly low output considering the talent that comes through that program and the overall success the program has had during that same time period.

On the other hand, I do think it is a stretch to label them as underachievers considering they have so consistently finished the season as one of the nation's top 10 teams. I know 99% of programs would kill for that kind of underachievement.

So I see both sides of this argument, and I think you can rectify the two viewpoints. While it is hard to argue with the success of the Texas program under Coach Brown when looking at objective factors such as winning percentage and NFL players produced, it is also understandable that Texas fans and some football observers would feel that the program should have achieved more in terms of conference titles and maybe even national championships, considering the abundance of talent that has come through that program.

Perfectly put.

I agree with ACamp on how good Texas has been for the most part, I just wanted to see him acknowledge some level of underachieving, however small it may be.

 

[ACamp1900]

I don't see having OU and Bob Stoops get the best of you as underachieving though... is that not a slap in the face to OU and Bob Stoops??

should they have more conference titles??? idk, should they win it every single year the way tOSU and USC have more ofent than not?? If that's the way you look at it sure, but I don't think that's realistic.

if it makes you feel better... here's a post from ACamp1900

Texas absolutely grossly underachieves.

there.

 

[mgriff]

From 1992 to 1997 (6 years) Texas won 3 Conference Championships while Lou Holtz and Bob Davie were raking in Texas talent.

From 1998 to 2010 (13 years) Texas won 3 Conference Championships while Davie, Willingham, Weis, and Kelly struggled for Texas talent.

The Texas Program has a career winning % of better than 71% which on a 13 game season (Mack Brown's) is 9.3 wins/year. Brown averages 10.3 wins which makes him 1 game in a 13 game year better than coaches like Royal and Aker.

I guess you were impressed with his 51-17 rout of Florida Atlantic this year.
Not quite as good as his 52-10 whipping of Florida Atlantic in '08.
'07 Impressive 21-13 win over Arkansas - STATE!
'06 56-7 win over NORTH Texas.
'05 60-3 over Louisana Layfayette.
'04 65-0 over NORTH Texas.
03 66-7 over New Mexico St., 53-18 over Tulane, 13-65 LOSS to OU (funny what happens when they played a real team.)
'02 NORTH Texas
'01 New Mexico St
'00 Louisiana Lafayette
'99 Rutgers, Rice
'98 New Mexico St.

Not hard to see where the extra one win per season increase comes from. Play one more patsy.

Your comparison of LSU and OSU is disingenuous. LA is a small state. They have some talent but nowhere near the numbers that TX has. OH is a bigger state but once again nowhere near the talent that TX has.

They recruit the same level of talent, according to the recrutiniks and most people who follow college football. They don't have the sheer quantity, but they have quality, and you can only have 85 people on your roster. Louisiana isn't as big as Texas, so Texas might have a monopoly on talent, but that doesn't mean they can take every recruit, they have to whittle their list down like everyone else. In that regard,they get the same level of talent as the other big programs, and return a comparable record over the same time. Texas might be huge, and they might get their choice of recruits, but they can't get every single recruit they want.

As for patsies, that is something truly disingenuous. You have to list every other elite program over they last decade because they all play patsies. I suppose Florida, Alabama, LSU, USC, and Oklahoma should all be branded as "underdevelopers of talent" because they line up patsies to pad their records?

Texas is comparable to every other elite program over the last decade for winning percentage, National Titles, Conference Championships, and sending players to the NFL. Basically, it appears like you're trying to say that since Texas can pick who they want from the state, that they should have turned in better records than the other elite programs over the last decade. Being up there with the elite is not good enough? They should be winning national titles every year? Forget their status at the top with USC, Florida, Alabama, Oklahoma, and LSU over the last decade, they get to pick who they want from TEXAS, so they should be winning everything.

Texas produces a ton of talent, but so does the rest of the country. If you think your post, or any other post has convinced me that Texas has underachieved over the last decade, when they are in the mix at the top of every category, you're kidding yourself.

 

[KPENN]

ND fans talking about a program underachieving and not developing talent is very very very ironic. Sorry. It's just hard for me to **** talk a program that has been much much more successful then ND

 

[tankjeep]

actually it may be FSU now that I think about it... forget that... UT is up on that list though, so is VT I think... how many did they (UT) just have??? Something ten straight for crying out loud.

haha, i know vt owns the current streak of ten win seasons. ut has 22 10 win seasons (fourth-most of any program).