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.
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.