ADVERTISEMENT

Steve Sarkisian

The problem is-- we are using a metric from the past (how to build a winning team) as our measuring stick for the current state of our program--- all the while, there's been a massive shift in the way college football conducts its business.

How do I explain this-----

Little kids (like I used to be) grow up with a few things in our lives. Kids now grow up with millions of things in their lives. Whether rich or poor, you have a line of influence to the outside world.
When I was a kid you had the television. But you could only watch what THEY were playing in the TV. Now, you can watch anything your mind can imagine via your phone and the internet.

So our options were limited back then. Sure, the occasional Notre Dame vs Michigan game was on. Or Georgia vs Alabama etc. But every weekend it was "Texas vs X or Texas A&M vs Y".

So as a kid you fell in love with what you saw with your limited scope.

Then when you got to college, you basically knew you were stuck there. You HAD to buy in. If you left, you were giving up 1 sometimes 2 years of your life if you bounced. It forced you to commit.

That's not the case now. Kids aren't loyal. There's no love for where they play. Make no mistake, every single 4 and 5 star recruit (and even a number of 3 stars) think they are destined to be in the NFL.
Why?
Because the media, the internet and their chirping, tweeting, mollycoddling hangers on possey, have convinced them that they are special. A special snowflake. This is the 1960s-70s-80s version of what Disney movies about princesses did to women of that era.
"You're all a Princess. And one day your Prince will come." <--- Thanks Walt.

The reality is, the majority of women are straight up witches living in fantasy land. The same goes for the majority of college football recruits. Fantasy land.

So going off to college is now a business decision for the majority of them. Not a "love" choice. Or a "loyalty" choice. Or even a "buy in" choice. It's a business decision.

1. Where am I going to get paid and how much?
2. If I don't play year 1, who will continue to pay me based on my potential.
3. Where can I play the earliest so I can get paid more?
4. Who is going to get me to the NFL?
5. If I don't get to play soon and stop getting paid, where can I transfer to that still thinks I have value so I can continue to get paid?

You see "loyalty" in that thought process? You see "love" or "commitment" in that thought process?

Sure, there's kids that buy in. No doubt. But those are the kids that are playing, getting paid, winning (which improves their draft chances and status), and have social media clout.
The minute you start taking or threatening any of those factors above-- that love, that loyalty and that buy in, are GONE.

Building a team around a culture, around a family, around a shared respect for an institution and its values-- are gone. Dead. Bye bye. That was the fvcking beauty of college football for over a hundred years. It's what made college football the greatest sport ever invented.

Now, like everything else, it's about the money.

Blowing second half leads has been a staple of Sark . It’s either he can’t adjust to the other’s adjustments or his strategy is to stay conservative like Tom Herman . Either way it doesn’t impress from a style point or dominate performance but one of hope and pray time runs out on the clock.
Sark is Riley Lite imo.Riley could blow a lead at OU like nobody's business. The playoff game between OU and Georgia was as close to a NC as Riley was going to sniff at OU. One thing Sark knows though which Riley can't grasp is you need some semblance of a defense, you can't just outscore everyone with your offense. Riley's a more creative OC than Sark but not as good a HC imo.Just my .02
 
Sark is Riley Lite imo.Riley could blow a lead at OU like nobody's business. The playoff game between OU and Georgia was as close to a NC as Riley was going to sniff at OU. One thing Sark knows though which Riley can't grasp is you need some semblance of a defense, you can't just outscore everyone with your offense. Riley's a more creative OC than Sark but not as good a HC imo.Just my .02
I agree that things have played out pretty accurately as you described. However, these two young coaches are still early in their HC careers. Things are still unfolding for them. I would give a couple of more years to fully evaluate what they have learned, applied and decision making with respect to their program.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Belldozer1
Sark is Riley Lite imo.Riley could blow a lead at OU like nobody's business. The playoff game between OU and Georgia was as close to a NC as Riley was going to sniff at OU. One thing Sark knows though which Riley can't grasp is you need some semblance of a defense, you can't just outscore everyone with your offense. Riley's a more creative OC than Sark but not as good a HC imo.Just my .02
Sark is recruiting at a higher level than LR ever did. LR never had a top 5 class in his time at OU and his last 2 classes finished just outside the top 10. Could be a little bit of the reason for the down year last season.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT