Beware of Kansas...and I'm being serious..

[LimestoneOutcropping]

you saw what happend when mccoy got out of the pocket and things broke down.

He got scorched by Cox and others and ended up heaving up his powerbar.

[Fedor]

At UT he's never won less than 9 games in a season. 

UT failed to win 9 games in 12 out of 14 seasons before Mack arrived.

So are you arguing that Texas is impossible to win at?  Or that since Texas had crapty coaches ans was in a crapty conference a decade ago that it makes Mack a better coach today?

[catzacker]

At UT he's never won less than 9 games in a season. 

UT failed to win 9 games in 12 out of 14 seasons before Mack arrived.

So are you arguing that Texas is impossible to win at?  Or that since Texas had crapty coaches ans was in a crapty conference a decade ago that it makes Mack a better coach today?

I think the point is that you're either a good coach (which includes recruiting and hiring assistants) or a bad one.  The school's tradition/program strength/money accentuate both.  OU and UT, before they hired their current coaches, had horrible coaches, and all the money in the world, all the facilities in the world, all the prior national championships didn't change that. 

[ksu_FAN]

At UT he's never won less than 9 games in a season. 

UT failed to win 9 games in 12 out of 14 seasons before Mack arrived.

So are you arguing that Texas is impossible to win at?  Or that since Texas had crapty coaches ans was in a crapty conference a decade ago that it makes Mack a better coach today?

UT's home losses under Mack, FWIW.

07 - KSU 41-21
06 - Ohio State 24-7
06 - aTm 12-7
03 - Arkansas 38-28
99 - NC State 23-20
99 - KSU 35-17

[michigancat]

At UT he's never won less than 9 games in a season. 

UT failed to win 9 games in 12 out of 14 seasons before Mack arrived.

So are you arguing that Texas is impossible to win at?  Or that since Texas had crapty coaches ans was in a crapty conference a decade ago that it makes Mack a better coach today?

I'm just saying that "money" doesn't guarantee wins.

And wouldn't a crappy conference make it easier to get 10 wins/year?

[Bookie Pimp]

No, I don't.  I've never seen any evidence that a team is more likely to lose immediately before or after a "big game".

You can point to OU and UT this year, but this is the first time they both won't be undefeated in conference play since 1999.  No "looking ahead" at all.

Rusty...

take this argument up at www.cappersempire.com and you will get absolutely pwned!  I'm sure somebody there has statistics on it for you.

Now, with that said, the "look-ahead", "sandwich", and "hangover" situations are ALL very much real and play greatly into how each season plays out.  To a lesser degreee, "revenge" plays into a great deal of evenly matched contests as well.

HTH

Link to something.  I can't search the forum.

I'd love to see some stats on that.

I'm not certain that it's been discussed in detail, however if you were to simply register and ask for some stats somebody there surely has them, or knows where to find them.

With that said, the results are most likely ATS and not SU wins and losses... 

If you can't get help there, check www.covers.com

 

[michigancat]

Meh, that's too much work to get questionable info from a bunch of gambling degenerates.

[Fedor]

At UT he's never won less than 9 games in a season. 

UT failed to win 9 games in 12 out of 14 seasons before Mack arrived.

So are you arguing that Texas is impossible to win at?  Or that since Texas had crapty coaches ans was in a crapty conference a decade ago that it makes Mack a better coach today?

I'm just saying that "money" doesn't guarantee wins.
And wouldn't a crappy conference make it easier to get 10 wins/year?

John Mackovick, a well known crappy coach, was able to recruit both Priest Holmes and Ricky Williams to Texas.  Maybe he should be counted in the top ten for that accomplishment.  Or maybe Texas is easy to recruit bigtime talent to and recruiting should discounted heavily when evaluating coaching ability.  ergo  Mack Brown can win the games he should just on the strength of the talent he is granted by virtue of coaching at Texas.  But whenever he comes up against equal talent or a superior gameplanner he loses more often than not.

[pissclams]

But whenever he comes up against equal talent or a superior gameplanner he loses more often than not.

What do you have to back that up?

[Fedor]

But whenever he comes up against equal talent or a superior gameplanner he loses more often than not.

What do you have to back that up?

That was basically a statement I pulled out my ass, but it sounds good though doesn't it?

I was actually expecting something like this;Person

Person1:  "Team X had way better talent and mack beat them"

Me:  "Are you kidding me? They had Random Player A but that was it, Random Player B for Texas was way better than him anyway"

Person1:  "No way Random Player A had xxxx yards as a freshman, Random Player B was a chump.

Person2:  "Check out my new video it rox!!!111!!!!"

etc. etc. etc. ad naseum

[michigancat]

But whenever he comes up against equal talent or a superior gameplanner he loses more often than not.

What do you have to back that up?

That was basically a statement I pulled out my ass, but it sounds good though doesn't it?

I was actually expecting something like this;Person

Person1:  "Team X had way better talent and mack beat them"

Me:  "Are you kidding me? They had Random Player A but that was it, Random Player B for Texas was way better than him anyway"

Person1:  "No way Random Player A had xxxx yards as a freshman, Random Player B was a chump.

Person2:  "Check out my new video it rox!!!111!!!!"

etc. etc. etc. ad naseum

I guess at the end, all you can go off of is wins and losses.

[Fedor]

But whenever he comes up against equal talent or a superior gameplanner he loses more often than not.

What do you have to back that up?

That was basically a statement I pulled out my ass, but it sounds good though doesn't it?

I was actually expecting something like this;Person

Person1:  "Team X had way better talent and mack beat them"

Me:  "Are you kidding me? They had Random Player A but that was it, Random Player B for Texas was way better than him anyway"

Person1:  "No way Random Player A had xxxx yards as a freshman, Random Player B was a chump.

Person2:  "Check out my new video it rox!!!111!!!!"

etc. etc. etc. ad naseum

I guess at the end, all you can go off of is wins and losses.

yep...
 
provided of course you take into account how easy a school is to win at.

[michigancat]

^LOL

[SuperSoulFighter]

John Mackovick, a well known crappy coach, was able to recruit both Priest Holmes and Ricky Williams to Texas.  Maybe he should be counted in the top ten for that accomplishment.  Or maybe Texas is easy to recruit bigtime talent to and recruiting should discounted heavily when evaluating coaching ability.  ergo  Mack Brown can win the games he should just on the strength of the talent he is granted by virtue of coaching at Texas.  But whenever he comes up against equal talent or a superior gameplanner he loses more often than not.

What if he comes up against superior talent and a superior gameplanner?  What if he comes up against that in the Rose Bowl for the national championship?  What would happen more often than not in that situation?

If it is so damn easy to win at Texas, why did they suck so much before Mack got there?

[Fedor]

John Mackovick, a well known crappy coach, was able to recruit both Priest Holmes and Ricky Williams to Texas.  Maybe he should be counted in the top ten for that accomplishment.  Or maybe Texas is easy to recruit bigtime talent to and recruiting should discounted heavily when evaluating coaching ability.  ergo  Mack Brown can win the games he should just on the strength of the talent he is granted by virtue of coaching at Texas.  But whenever he comes up against equal talent or a superior gameplanner he loses more often than not.

What if he comes up against superior talent and a superior gameplanner?  What if he comes up against that in the Rose Bowl for the national championship?  What would happen more often than not in that situation?

If it is so damn easy to win at Texas, why did they suck so much before Mack got there?

Well, without Vince Young, a talent superior to any other on the field, he would lose.

Mack has only been to 3 Big XII Championships and only won one and of course he had Vince Young to thank for the one he got.  Why so few?  Because he had to get by OU, a team with equal talent and superior coaching.  Predictably he loses. OU on the other hand is 4 out of 5 in Mack's tenure, soon to be added to 'cause Texas' season is about to end this Saturday, although they will finish 10-2 or 9-3 to add to the mythology.

Texas is the 4th winningest program in the history of college football with a 71% winning percentage, if they sucked before Mack got there it was an abberation and not the rule. 

Please face the facts, Mack is nothing but an average coach in a great situation in a power conference which amplifies the inherent advantages (unlike the corrupt and defunct SWC).

[michigancat]

John Mackovick, a well known crappy coach, was able to recruit both Priest Holmes and Ricky Williams to Texas.  Maybe he should be counted in the top ten for that accomplishment.  Or maybe Texas is easy to recruit bigtime talent to and recruiting should discounted heavily when evaluating coaching ability.  ergo  Mack Brown can win the games he should just on the strength of the talent he is granted by virtue of coaching at Texas.  But whenever he comes up against equal talent or a superior gameplanner he loses more often than not.

What if he comes up against superior talent and a superior gameplanner?  What if he comes up against that in the Rose Bowl for the national championship?  What would happen more often than not in that situation?

If it is so damn easy to win at Texas, why did they suck so much before Mack got there?

Well, without Vince Young, a talent superior to any other on the field, he would lose.

Dude, you know USC had TWO HEISMAN WINNERS, right?

[Kat Kid]

John Mackovick, a well known crappy coach, was able to recruit both Priest Holmes and Ricky Williams to Texas.  Maybe he should be counted in the top ten for that accomplishment.  Or maybe Texas is easy to recruit bigtime talent to and recruiting should discounted heavily when evaluating coaching ability.  ergo  Mack Brown can win the games he should just on the strength of the talent he is granted by virtue of coaching at Texas.  But whenever he comes up against equal talent or a superior gameplanner he loses more often than not.

What if he comes up against superior talent and a superior gameplanner?  What if he comes up against that in the Rose Bowl for the national championship?  What would happen more often than not in that situation?

If it is so damn easy to win at Texas, why did they suck so much before Mack got there?

Well, without Vince Young, a talent superior to any other on the field, he would lose.

Dude, you know USC had TWO HEISMAN WINNERS, right?

HE SAID: "more often than not" Rusty!   God.  You can be soooo unfair sometimes.  It also fits under his convenient "Vince Young Corollary" which negates any of Mack's success.

Back to the drawing board n00b!! LOL @ RUSTY!!!

[Fedor]

John Mackovick, a well known crappy coach, was able to recruit both Priest Holmes and Ricky Williams to Texas.  Maybe he should be counted in the top ten for that accomplishment.  Or maybe Texas is easy to recruit bigtime talent to and recruiting should discounted heavily when evaluating coaching ability.  ergo  Mack Brown can win the games he should just on the strength of the talent he is granted by virtue of coaching at Texas.  But whenever he comes up against equal talent or a superior gameplanner he loses more often than not.

What if he comes up against superior talent and a superior gameplanner?  What if he comes up against that in the Rose Bowl for the national championship?  What would happen more often than not in that situation?

If it is so damn easy to win at Texas, why did they suck so much before Mack got there?

Well, without Vince Young, a talent superior to any other on the field, he would lose.

Dude, you know USC had TWO HEISMAN WINNERS, right?

You mean like Eric Crouch, Danny Weurffel, Gino Torretta, Ron Dayne, Jason White, Chris Weinke  etc... 

50% talent.... 50% hype

as I said Vince Young was by far the biggest talent on the field and was able to save Mack from himself.

[Fedor]

John Mackovick, a well known crappy coach, was able to recruit both Priest Holmes and Ricky Williams to Texas.  Maybe he should be counted in the top ten for that accomplishment.  Or maybe Texas is easy to recruit bigtime talent to and recruiting should discounted heavily when evaluating coaching ability.  ergo  Mack Brown can win the games he should just on the strength of the talent he is granted by virtue of coaching at Texas.  But whenever he comes up against equal talent or a superior gameplanner he loses more often than not.

What if he comes up against superior talent and a superior gameplanner?  What if he comes up against that in the Rose Bowl for the national championship?  What would happen more often than not in that situation?

If it is so damn easy to win at Texas, why did they suck so much before Mack got there?

Well, without Vince Young, a talent superior to any other on the field, he would lose.

Dude, you know USC had TWO HEISMAN WINNERS, right?

HE SAID: "more often than not" Rusty!   God.  You can be soooo unfair sometimes.  It also fits under his convenient "Vince Young Corollary" which negates any of Mack's success.

Back to the drawing board n00b!! LOL @ RUSTY!!!

You said it yourself, take away VY = no success before or after.  I don't think Rusty wants your help anymore.

n00b   

I may only have 40-some posts but everyone of them is pure gold.

[SuperSoulFighter]

You said it yourself, take away VY = no success before or after.  I don't think Rusty wants your help anymore.

n00b   

I may only have 40-some posts but everyone of them is pure gold.

tee &@#%ing hee.

Kat Kid may still have that "Kid" in his name, but he figured out the art of satirical message board posts a long time ago.  Take some notes.

Seriously though, Mack gets his "outcoached" reputation from his losses to Stoops.   Yet he has beaten Stoops the last two years.  One with Vince and one without.  I won't be a bit surprised if Texas wins this Saturday.  Yes, Stoops made him look like a fool for 5 years, but during those 5 years he beat damn near everyone else he faced and Bob Stoops played in 3 national championship games.  That ain't bad for either one.

[SuperSoulFighter]

Texas is the 4th winningest program in the history of college football with a 71% winning percentage, if they sucked before Mack got there it was an abberation and not the rule. 

Also, Mack's winning percentage at Texas is 81%.  And that is against the Big XII.

[Fedor]

You said it yourself, take away VY = no success before or after.  I don't think Rusty wants your help anymore.

n00b   

I may only have 40-some posts but everyone of them is pure gold.

tee fracking hee.

Kat Kid may still have that "Kid" in his name, but he figured out the art of satirical message board posts a long time ago.  Take some notes.

Seriously though, Mack gets his "outcoached" reputation from his losses to Stoops.   Yet he has beaten Stoops the last two years.  One with Vince and one without.  I won't be a bit surprised if Texas wins this Saturday.  Yes, Stoops made him look like a fool for 5 years, but during those 5 years he beat damn near everyone else he faced and Bob Stoops played in 3 national championship games.  That ain't bad for either one.

I didn't pick up the sarcasm.  I guess I figured this board was a little like prison.  You've got to shiv some people to get respect. I AIN'T NOBODY'S BITCH!!! 

Triple kills, killing sprees.  It's what I do.

[SuperSoulFighter]

I didn't pick up the sarcasm.  I guess I figured this board was a little like prison.  You've got to shiv some people to get respect. I AIN'T NOBODY'S BITCH!!! 

Triple kills, killing sprees.  It's what I do.

There's some gold!

[BMWJhawk]

LOL @ Rusty's mancrush on Mack Brown

Bob Stoops has absolutely OWNED Mack Brown with equal talent. 

[Pontius Pearslice]

LOL @ Rusty's mancrush on Mack Brown

Bob Stoops has absolutely OWNED Mack Brown with equal talent. 

And your point is?

Bob Stoops > Mack Brown does not mean that Mack Brown = bad coach.

YOU HAVE BAD MATHS LOL!

[Beer]

LOL @ Rusty's mancrush on Mack Brown

Bob Stoops has absolutely OWNED Mack Brown with equal talent. 

If Mack would not have won that national title, a very good coaching comparison in terms of underachieving with a world of talent could be made in a cross-sport fashion with Bill Self.  

Since Mack at least has a ring: Mack > Self

[michigancat]

Bob Stoops has owned everyone.

Mack:  Top 10 coach
Stoops:  Top 5 coach

Of course the top 5 coach would beat up on the top 10 coach.

[WavetheWheat]

Pretty impressive Manhatter.

[chum1]

Pretty impressive Manhatter.

No, he picked KSU to win.  And ku is not anywhere near as good as Texas. 

[oneuponaggies]

Pretty impressive Manhatter.

No, he picked KSU to win.  And ku is not anywhere near as good as Texas.