3 Years Usually tells the tale

[WoadBlue]

Many years ago, I began making the case that usually you can see rather clearly with the 3rd year of a coach at the school whether he will be better for the program, no better than what he replaced, or worse than what he replaced.

Steve Sarkisian at Texas is another example that fits my theory. This is his third season: 5-7, 8-5 (lost a bowl to 10 win Washington), and now 11-1, on the cusp of making the playoff.

Mack 2.0: 7-6 (won a minor bowl vs G5 team), 8-4 (lost Orange Bowl), 6-7 (lost minor bowl to another 6-6 team).

Note Sarkisian's steady improvment to a really great season in Year 3. Note Mack's hot house flower Year 2 and then immediate fall back into a losing season.

That says that Sarkisian should be better for Texas than Herman was (and Herman had 4 bowl winning teams in 4 years at Texas), and that Mack will be better than Fedora but never achieve much of anything at UNC.

 

[1156jack]

I am glad you used the word "usually" since there are notable exceptions.

Frank Beamer, in his first 2 seasons at Virginia Tech, went a combined 5–17 in 1987 and 1988. Indeed, after his first six seasons, VT was 24-40-2, a win percentage of .385

Mack Brown is another notable exception. In his first 3 seasons he went 1-10, 1-10, 6-4-1. Not very impressive at that point. Mack is such a nice guy that it belies his dogged tenacity.

 

[WoadBlue]

I am glad you used the word "usually" since there are notable exceptions.

Frank Beamer, in his first 2 seasons at Virginia Tech, went a combined 5–17 in 1987 and 1988. Indeed, after his first six seasons, VT was 24-40-2, a win percentage of .385

Mack Brown is another notable exception. In his first 3 seasons he went 1-10, 1-10, 6-4-1. Not very impressive at that point. Mack is such a nice guy that it belies his dogged tenacity.

There are always exceptions to every rule, hence the adage that exceptions actually prove the rule. But betting against the rule is always worse than risky.

AS for Mack, in 2 key areas, he proved less than Crum for UNC. Crum won an ACC championship, and Mack is never going to achieve the . Crum also won 4 consecutive bowls, and against National Name Brand programs. No way in Hell, Mack could ever equal that at UNC.

Like Mack at UNC, Beamer looked like a damned fool his first couple years at VT. Dooley's last VT team won 10 games, and it was Dooley's 7th consecutive winning team at VT. Dooley was the best HC in VT history at the time. When Dooley left, all the air around the program left with him - the assumption among fans, boosters, HS coaches, journalists, etc. - was that the program would return to nearly permanent irrelevance. Beamer was tolerated early on for two reasons: he was an alum, and most assumed that there was no way whatsoever that the program could have any chance to hire a coach who already had a proven winning record as a D1 coach - Beamer had been HC at 1AA Murray St.

 

[bluetoe]

There are always exceptions to every rule, hence the adage that exceptions actually prove the rule. But betting against the rule is always worse than risky.

AS for Mack, in 2 key areas, he proved less than Crum for UNC. Crum won an ACC championship, and Mack is never going to achieve the . Crum also won 4 consecutive bowls, and against National Name Brand programs. No way in Hell, Mack could ever equal that at UNC.

Like Mack at UNC, Beamer looked like a damned fool his first couple years at VT. Dooley's last VT team won 10 games, and it was Dooley's 7th consecutive winning team at VT. Dooley was the best HC in VT history at the time. When Dooley left, all the air around the program left with him - the assumption among fans, boosters, HS coaches, journalists, etc. - was that the program would return to nearly permanent irrelevance. Beamer was tolerated early on for two reasons: he was an alum, and most assumed that there was no way whatsoever that the program could have any chance to hire a coach who already had a proven winning record as a D1 coach - Beamer had been HC at 1AA Murray St.

unlike Mack, Beamer started winning when he started recruiting thugs....and playing them regardless of their demonstrated thuggery.

 

[WoadBlue]

unlike Mack, Beamer started winning when he started recruiting thugs....and playing them regardless of their demonstrated thuggery.

He was winning before that was apparent, and io never got as bad there as it did, say, at Florida under Meyer.

 

[bluetoe]

He was winning before that was apparent, and io never got as bad there as it did, say, at Florida under Meyer.

apparent shmarent, he dipped into the low-character dregs for the sake of winning and I'm not talking about just the Vick bros. And I'm not talking at all about Meyer; the comparison was being made between Beamer and Mack. And I'm pretty sure Mack never stooped to that kind of thing.

Here's an example of the difference. Beamer got a commitment from a kid who had been charged with a sex crime (not Vick, his crime was after he got to VaT) and brought him on board knowing this. Mack brought a high caliber kid on board who ended up being charged with a sex crime that had occurred before his recruitment, and that recruitment being when there was no apparent connection of the crime to that player. Once the kid was merely charged, Mack released him immediately.

I'm becoming much less of a fan of Mack as HC at UNC after this season, but I'm personally a big fan of Mack Brown. I don't like the pathetically missed opportunities on the field, but I've always been pretty fond of having a high-character coach on the sidelines.

 

[Xlance]

unlike Mack, Beamer started winning when he started recruiting thugs....and playing them regardless of their demonstrated thuggery.

Thugs using 'roids.

 

[Xlance]

There are always exceptions to every rule, hence the adage that exceptions actually prove the rule. But betting against the rule is always worse than risky.

AS for Mack, in 2 key areas, he proved less than Crum for UNC. Crum won an ACC championship, and Mack is never going to achieve the . Crum also won 4 consecutive bowls, and against National Name Brand programs. No way in Hell, Mack could ever equal that at UNC.

Like Mack at UNC, Beamer looked like a damned fool his first couple years at VT. Dooley's last VT team won 10 games, and it was Dooley's 7th consecutive winning team at VT. Dooley was the best HC in VT history at the time. When Dooley left, all the air around the program left with him - the assumption among fans, boosters, HS coaches, journalists, etc. - was that the program would return to nearly permanent irrelevance. Beamer was tolerated early on for two reasons: he was an alum, and most assumed that there was no way whatsoever that the program could have any chance to hire a coach who already had a proven winning record as a D1 coach - Beamer had been HC at 1AA Murray St.

It would be nice to have a real football coach again like Dooley.

 

[tarheeldan]

It would be nice to have a real football coach again like Dooley.

Yes sir the old trench fighter did bring some toughness. Could always be counted on to run the football and stop the run most times. We were not always great in the secondary, however. But most days his teams came to play hard and I appreciated that. Also to add onto above ,crumb won the 80 ACC championship but it was with basically Dooley‘s last recruiting class, LT, Stevie Streeter, Amos, Lawrence, and etc.

 

[1156jack]

No one can deny that Mack is an outstanding recruiter capable of filling the talent pool at UNC year after year. The program has a weird problem of starting in the national Top 10, then receding. But the talent and performance isothere until mid to late October once that anomalous issue is rectified.

The unexplainable loss to UVA was a mind blower which let the air out of the momentum ballon. But certainly Mack, who is a HOF legend, will figure it out.

 

[bluetoe]

No one can deny that Mack is an outstanding recruiter capable of filling the talent pool at UNC year after year. The program has a weird problem of starting in the national Top 10, then receding. But the talent and performance isothere until mid to late October once that anomalous issue is rectified.

The unexplainable loss to UVA was a mind blower which let the air out of the momentum ballon. But certainly Mack, who is a HOF legend, will figure it out.

the ability to recruit what's needed to advance, including a super QB, will soon begin to diminish due to our disappointing performances. We'll be lucky to snag one of those again for a long time.

We need players who aspire to play in the NFL, moreso than players who mostly want a free ride to a valuable degree. Players who aspire to play in the NFL will go to schools where they can develop.

I'm afraid we're stuck in mediocrity for a long time. That being said, if we're committed to mediocrity, I guess I'd just as soon be mediocre with Mack as anyone else.

 

[WoadBlue]

the ability to recruit what's needed to advance, including a super QB, will soon begin to diminish due to our disappointing performances. We'll be lucky to snag one of those again for a long time.

We need players who aspire to play in the NFL, moreso than players who mostly want a free ride to a valuable degree. Players who aspire to play in the NFL will go to schools where they can develop.

I'm afraid we're stuck in mediocrity for a long time. That being said, if we're committed to mediocrity, I guess I'd just as soon be mediocre with Mack as anyone else.

No. The young mediocre HC just might develop himself sand turn out a big winner. Mack is old and very content. He will only keep getting lesser in everything but his chirping self-promotion.

 

[WoadBlue]

No one can deny that Mack is an outstanding recruiter capable of filling the talent pool at UNC year after year. The program has a weird problem of starting in the national Top 10, then receding. But the talent and performance isothere until mid to late October once that anomalous issue is rectified.

The unexplainable loss to UVA was a mind blower which let the air out of the momentum ballon. But certainly Mack, who is a HOF legend, will figure it out.

He had all he money of football god at Texas and he could not figure out that mess of mediocrity. He just kept talking and hiring more close friends.

 

[Xlance]

No one can deny that Mack is an outstanding recruiter capable of filling the talent pool at UNC year after year. The program has a weird problem of starting in the national Top 10, then receding. But the talent and performance isothere until mid to late October once that anomalous issue is rectified.

The unexplainable loss to UVA was a mind blower which let the air out of the momentum ballon. But certainly Mack, who is a HOF legend, will figure it out.

It seems as if Mack can bring 'em in, but many -players are not being developed and/or choose to leave.
Recruiting rankings mean nothing if you can't hold on to the players.

 

[Kool1234567]

It seems as if Mack can bring 'em in, but many -players are not being developed and/or choose to leave.
Recruiting rankings mean nothing if you can't hold on to the players.

You just described pretty much the entire college football game for every team..

 

[bluetoe]

No. The young mediocre HC just might develop himself sand turn out a big winner. Mack is old and very content. He will only keep getting lesser in everything but his chirping self-promotion.

I don't know what you're saying 'no' to. I don't know what some 'young mediocre HC' has to do with anything I said. My remarks are based on the assumption that we are stuck with Mack. Is that not apparent? Or am I missing something?

 

[tarheel0910]

I don't know what you're saying 'no' to. I don't know what some 'young mediocre HC' has to do with anything I said. My remarks are based on the assumption that we are stuck with Mack. Is that not apparent? Or am I missing something?

I would say we're stuck until we can find someone who can raise money for NIL and has a good resume. The portal and NIL has changed how the game is played now. Coaches have more to add to their responsibilities. It's making fundraising significantly more important and you need someone with a good eye for cheap talent unless you have a large NIL account. Mack has actually done a pretty good job so far in the portal, which can cover up the weakness of having to develop players. The problem is the wins haven't increased as much as fans want.

 

[bluetoe]

I would say we're stuck until we can find someone who can raise money for NIL and has a good resume. The portal and NIL has changed how the game is played now. Coaches have more to add to their responsibilities. It's making fundraising significantly more important and you need someone with a good eye for cheap talent unless you have a large NIL account. Mack has actually done a pretty good job so far in the portal, which can cover up the weakness of having to develop players. The problem is the wins haven't increased as much as fans want.

" Mack has actually done a pretty good job so far in the portal, which can cover up the weakness of having to develop players. The problem is the wins haven't increased as much as fans want. "

up until now. that is.....which is exactly and precisely what I'm trying to convey. All the other BS only goes so far, and then reality sets in. The reality in this case is that our performance will stop attracting players who want to go to the next level and we'll end up with those mostly seeking a good degree. In order for US to get to the next level, we need those players with pro aspirations. And we ain't gonna be getting them.

Being stuck with Mack is the basis for my concern.

This being said, it's a good time to ask what I wanted to ask all season. Is it just me, or do the portal players we've brought on seem to have been better-coached and fundamentally more sound than those we already have on board? With exceptions, of course.

 

[tarheel0910]

" Mack has actually done a pretty good job so far in the portal, which can cover up the weakness of having to develop players. The problem is the wins haven't increased as much as fans want. "

up until now. that is.....which is exactly and precisely what I'm trying to convey. All the other BS only goes so far, and then reality sets in. The reality in this case is that our performance will stop attracting players who want to go to the next level and we'll end up with those mostly seeking a good degree. In order for US to get to the next level, we need those players with pro aspirations. And we ain't gonna be getting them.

Being stuck with Mack is the basis for my concern.

This being said, it's a good time to ask what I wanted to ask all season. Is it just me, or do the portal players we've brought on seem to have been better-coached and fundamentally more sound than those we already have on board? With exceptions, of course.

Players obviously want to win, but playing in the NFL is the most important thing (especially for theses lesser known players) and we've been putting players in the NFL. As for your question about development, yes the portal players are more developed. That's the point I was trying to make. So far Mack has done a good job finding players that have been more developed in the portal that are also cheap.

 

[bluetoe]

Players obviously want to win, but playing in the NFL is the most important thing (especially for theses lesser known players) and we've been putting players in the NFL.

damn dude, I wonder about you sometimes. Of course players WANT to win and WANT to play in the NFL, but only some have any real shot at it. My point is we need those who have a real shot and want to develop accordingly...as opposed to good players who don't really have a shot and mostly just want a good education.

We have put some players in the NFL with Mack but I wouldn't say we've been killing it in that respect. But either way, the point is that those better players are no longer going to be interested in us because of the obvious lack of performance and development.

I took your remark about portal players to mean 'the weakness of having to develop players', and not the weakness of having undeveloped players, which I guess is what you actually meant.

 

[tarheel0910]

We have put some players in the NFL with Mack but I wouldn't say we've been killing it in that respect. But either way, the point is that those better players are no longer going to be interested in us because of the obvious lack of performance and development.

We actually have been killing it on offense. People like Tez aren't going to Alabama because they don't consider him good enough. But these players from random colleges have a better chance to come here and get national attention. National attention is far more important than wins.

 

[bluetoe]

We actually have been killing it on offense. People like Tez aren't going to Alabama because they don't consider him good enough. But these players from random colleges have a better chance to come here and get national attention. National attention is far more important than wins.

I wouldn't say we've been killing it. Of course players from hole-in-the-wall schools will get more attention here. But that doesn't mean NFL. Or are you going to say Tez represents (prematurely) a tidal wave of players we're taking from the portal and sending to the pros? C'mon man.

 

[tarheel0910]

I wouldn't say we've been killing it. Of course players from hole-in-the-wall schools will get more attention here. But that doesn't mean NFL. Or are you going to say Tez represents (prematurely) a tidal wave of players we're taking from the portal and sending to the pros? C'mon man.

I'm not going to take the time to look, but I would guess we are no worse than 4th in the ACC in players drafted since Mack has been back. When the only people ahead of you are traditional powers/big name schools, I would qualify that as killing it.

 

[bluetoe]

I'm not going to take the time to look, but I would guess we are no worse than 4th in the ACC in players drafted since Mack has been back. When the only people ahead of you are traditional powers/big name schools, I would qualify that as killing it.

I wouldn't, whether we can assume your ranking or not.

You have a bad habit of ignoring the core of the argument. I keep saying we need players striving for the NFL in order to advance to a higher level and escape the mediocrity doldrums. A smattering of players being drafted, in numbers behind those programs AT a higher level, is only reinforcing exactly what I'm saying. In addition, I'm saying that whatever momentum in that regard we have recently enjoyed, we are presently going to lose due to our lackluster ability to cap on the talent we've had.

We'll see.