First, I kindly ask that you don't shoot the messenger...
Some will take serious exception to what I am about to post. Others may be enlightened - and based on reading these boards, a few already know what I am about to post to be the case - but few will say publicly.
Lets look at the simple facts. Charlie Strong is 10-14 over two years for .417 record. For comparison purposes Mackovic was 11-10-1 in his first two years. David McWilliams was 11-12 in his first two years. Also, just for reference, Mack was 18-8 during same time frame and DKR was 13-7-1.
You would have to go all the way back to Jack Chevigny in 1934-46 who was 13-14 in his two years and Dana X. Bible's first two seasons in '37 & '38 to find comparative losing percentages. Bible was 3-14-1.
So, it is safe to state that Charlie Strong possesses the worst coaching record in modern Texas football history.
It's not just the losses - it's the blowout losses, the poor coaching decisions, game management (kicking off twice to UCLA?), the press conferences that are akin to nails on chalkboard, etc. etc. For a University that saw itself above the SEC in academic stature during realignment discussions, Texas hired a coach who at one presser said, "They spreaded the ball around real well...". (see Notre Dame presser)
Texas also hired a coach with zero ties to Texas high school coaches, who brought staff with him with the exact same lack of coaching relationships in the state. What were we thinking, collectively???
I like Charlie. I really do. Seems like a very nice man with integrity, etc. Like most of you, I thought we turned the corner with the shocking win over the Land Thieves. It looked like the players really cared. Then came the disaster at TCU, the shutout at ISU, etc. etc.
I will be first to agree the program was in need of some housecleaning. Patterson was likely a disaster AD hire, including ticking me off as a longtime donor with parking fees never had to pay before, ticket hikes, etc.
But in all fairness, Charlie inherited a program that was 8-5, 9-4 & 8-5 in the immediate three preceding years. And those records got Mack booted, despite the fact he delivered a national championship!
How many of you, given a crystal ball would have elected to boot Mack knowing what you know now and a 10-14 record after two years with any new coach? I had as many issues with Mack as anyone, but geez - not sure if I would have made this trade in hindsight.
So, why is Texas bringing Charlie back???
Simple. It's the politically correct thing to do. It is what this great University does.
To be perfectly honest, the hiring and keeping of Charlie smacks of an Affirmative Action hire. Yes, I said it. So what? I totally understand the motivations behind Affirmative Action, but the plan typically backfires. In many Affirmative Action hires, an unqualified candidate is hired, then when they underperform, nobody can figure out how to pull the plug - or are willing to do so. So we will continue to languish. Charlie may improve to 7 or 8 games and most (including the AD) will see this as progress and he will be retained for another year - hell, he may get a contract extension! What got Mack fired will keep Charlie in place.
The bar has been officially lowered at the almighty University of Texas football program - quite possibly forever.
This university has a bad case of "white guilt". I ask you to recall that Texas' '69 national championship team was the last all white champion. Do recall the recent movie about Syracuse football portraying Horns' players as racists. Do recall how long it took for a black quarterback to emerge as a starter (James Brown). Mix this in with the current "Black Lives Matter" silliness and the removal of Jefferson Davis that stood on campus for 100 years without incident. BMD's are openly mocked on posts as "old white racists", despite the fact their generosity has enabled Texas to build the legendary program it had become. Facilities and staff cannot keep up with the college football arms race strictly from ticket sales - it has to be from donors.
How much of Patterson's decision to hire Charlie was based on Sumlin's recruiting success?
The University, overrun with progressive ideologues for years has now infected the athletic department.
How would it look to the outside world for Texas to fire it's first black coach after two years?
Charlie will not be fired at season end because he is black. Period. There I said what very few are probably willing to say. It will have to get worse, much worse, if you can believe it can get any worse.
The sad thing is I truly believe that Charlie would not have it this way. That he would prefer to be retained because people believe he is righting the ship and believe in his decision-making, recruiting and development of young men. His disciplinary philosophies should be commended. I think he would rather be let go than remain under this pretense. But that's my humble unsolicited opinion because Charlie is that kind of guy.
Now - before I get the "racist" rants let me tell you I'm in an interracial marriage for 32+ years with four kids. Don't even go there.
I can do nothing but wish Charlie success and hope this is turned around quickly, but I just can't see it.
Here's to hoping Charlie is successful, because like or not we have him two more years.
Hook'em
Some will take serious exception to what I am about to post. Others may be enlightened - and based on reading these boards, a few already know what I am about to post to be the case - but few will say publicly.
Lets look at the simple facts. Charlie Strong is 10-14 over two years for .417 record. For comparison purposes Mackovic was 11-10-1 in his first two years. David McWilliams was 11-12 in his first two years. Also, just for reference, Mack was 18-8 during same time frame and DKR was 13-7-1.
You would have to go all the way back to Jack Chevigny in 1934-46 who was 13-14 in his two years and Dana X. Bible's first two seasons in '37 & '38 to find comparative losing percentages. Bible was 3-14-1.
So, it is safe to state that Charlie Strong possesses the worst coaching record in modern Texas football history.
It's not just the losses - it's the blowout losses, the poor coaching decisions, game management (kicking off twice to UCLA?), the press conferences that are akin to nails on chalkboard, etc. etc. For a University that saw itself above the SEC in academic stature during realignment discussions, Texas hired a coach who at one presser said, "They spreaded the ball around real well...". (see Notre Dame presser)
Texas also hired a coach with zero ties to Texas high school coaches, who brought staff with him with the exact same lack of coaching relationships in the state. What were we thinking, collectively???
I like Charlie. I really do. Seems like a very nice man with integrity, etc. Like most of you, I thought we turned the corner with the shocking win over the Land Thieves. It looked like the players really cared. Then came the disaster at TCU, the shutout at ISU, etc. etc.
I will be first to agree the program was in need of some housecleaning. Patterson was likely a disaster AD hire, including ticking me off as a longtime donor with parking fees never had to pay before, ticket hikes, etc.
But in all fairness, Charlie inherited a program that was 8-5, 9-4 & 8-5 in the immediate three preceding years. And those records got Mack booted, despite the fact he delivered a national championship!
How many of you, given a crystal ball would have elected to boot Mack knowing what you know now and a 10-14 record after two years with any new coach? I had as many issues with Mack as anyone, but geez - not sure if I would have made this trade in hindsight.
So, why is Texas bringing Charlie back???
Simple. It's the politically correct thing to do. It is what this great University does.
To be perfectly honest, the hiring and keeping of Charlie smacks of an Affirmative Action hire. Yes, I said it. So what? I totally understand the motivations behind Affirmative Action, but the plan typically backfires. In many Affirmative Action hires, an unqualified candidate is hired, then when they underperform, nobody can figure out how to pull the plug - or are willing to do so. So we will continue to languish. Charlie may improve to 7 or 8 games and most (including the AD) will see this as progress and he will be retained for another year - hell, he may get a contract extension! What got Mack fired will keep Charlie in place.
The bar has been officially lowered at the almighty University of Texas football program - quite possibly forever.
This university has a bad case of "white guilt". I ask you to recall that Texas' '69 national championship team was the last all white champion. Do recall the recent movie about Syracuse football portraying Horns' players as racists. Do recall how long it took for a black quarterback to emerge as a starter (James Brown). Mix this in with the current "Black Lives Matter" silliness and the removal of Jefferson Davis that stood on campus for 100 years without incident. BMD's are openly mocked on posts as "old white racists", despite the fact their generosity has enabled Texas to build the legendary program it had become. Facilities and staff cannot keep up with the college football arms race strictly from ticket sales - it has to be from donors.
How much of Patterson's decision to hire Charlie was based on Sumlin's recruiting success?
The University, overrun with progressive ideologues for years has now infected the athletic department.
How would it look to the outside world for Texas to fire it's first black coach after two years?
Charlie will not be fired at season end because he is black. Period. There I said what very few are probably willing to say. It will have to get worse, much worse, if you can believe it can get any worse.
The sad thing is I truly believe that Charlie would not have it this way. That he would prefer to be retained because people believe he is righting the ship and believe in his decision-making, recruiting and development of young men. His disciplinary philosophies should be commended. I think he would rather be let go than remain under this pretense. But that's my humble unsolicited opinion because Charlie is that kind of guy.
Now - before I get the "racist" rants let me tell you I'm in an interracial marriage for 32+ years with four kids. Don't even go there.
I can do nothing but wish Charlie success and hope this is turned around quickly, but I just can't see it.
Here's to hoping Charlie is successful, because like or not we have him two more years.
Hook'em
