Top Coaches

[Depotdog]

The Link Disagree?

 

[metallihorns]

Obviously tough to be objective as a Texas fan, but its hard to ignore that Mack is behind several coaches that haven't won national titles. I don't see how they can have Mark Richt and Tuberville ahead of Mack. I guess I can kind of see the argument that Beamer, Rich Rodriguez and Grobe are ahead for taking bad teams to respectability, but even then, it's not like the Horns were at the top of their game when Mack got here.

 

[Kafka]

I thought Spurrier might be ranked a bit high (at this point in his career). He was a great coach when he was younger but, from what I have read, he is not working nearly as hard now as he did when he was younger.

It was interesting that they felt compelled to throw in the gratuitous insult (i.e. about him not belonging in the Mt. Rushmore of college coaches) in the part devoted to Mack.

The first four (Meyer, Carroll, Tressell, and Stoops) are the same first four that I would pick. I thought rich rodriguez should be higher than 10 and Saban should be higher than 9. Erickson should probably be ranked higher than 14. Mangino should be higher than 24.

 

[Stuck_At_Work]

The critics claim that it is easy to coach at Texas given the talent in the state. People often forget that many coaches have failed at Texas. Mack has done what only one other coach UT has ever done and that is bring home a national championship. And equally as important, he represents the program better than any other coach in the country. H

 

[watashi]

What, no Charlie Weis?

 

[halsteadfrost]

There's no friggen way he should be behind Les Miles. Normally I take these "lists" with an open mind, but that is ridiculous. There's a lot of people on the list I think are in the wrong slot, such as Pete Carrol being behind Urban Meyer, but I'm OK with it being a single person's opinion. BUT, It drives me crazy knowing that anyone would think that Les is a better coach than Mack

 

[kgp]

This is the same kind of list that used to smooch and slobber on Ferentz and Weis.

 

[blonthang]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Thunderhoof]

Well, you must have pretty low standards if you think McWilliams and Mackovic were successful in their time here.

 

[blonthang]

It's a matter of semantics.

Your statement that "many coaches have failed at Texas" suggests that Texas football is a failure of a program.

By extension, if many coaches have failed at Texas, then the program must be mostly a failure, historically.

Not true.

Now, I won't argue that a number of head coaches at Texas didn't meet the high standards expected --- call that failure if you want, I won't argue --- but the original statement suggests something else.

My personal standards have nothing to do with what the historical record shows --- by and large most head football coaches at Texas have had success, maybe not to certain people's standards, but success as measure by win/loss records.

No need to get personal. Just the facts.

Hook 'em

 

[OldHippie]

Urban Meyer doesn't have a big enough jaw to be considered to be a top coach.

 

[miller 58]

Hey! I think I read on some blog that Mike Sherman is a great coach?


miller58

 

[Thunderhoof]

Sorry for the tenor of that last post -- I wasn't really trying to get personal about this.

You're right, it is largely a matter of semantics. We wouldn't be the 3rd winningest program in history with a lot of sub-.500 coaches.

I just think that there is a difference between having an overall winning record and being a "successful" coach at a place like Texas. There's more to it than winning percentage, and I'm sure you and anyone else would agree with that.

At other schools, I think that winning percentage would be enough to keep any coach around. Not here.