In my last post, I stated that Texas Head Coach, Mack Brown owed much of the success in his career in Austin to his success as a recruiter, and that without two star QBs, Texas wouldn’t be a top-tier program. An anonymous football fan (from Texas, I assume) posted a comment disagreeing with my statement. Below is his comment:
"Mack Brown was winning football games long before Vince Young and Colt McCoy came along. Take a look at the number of players he has sent to the NFL in his 20+ years as a head coach and then try to tell me that his entire career is about 2 guys.
As for Texas being a premiere program only because of said 2 guys, you are obviously a newbie to college football. Texas is #2 on the list of all-time winningest programs in the history of college football, and Mack Brown has averaged 10 wins a year for his entire 11-year tenure at Texas, including 5 years of 11 wins or more. He's won more games than any other coach in the country over that time-period.
So please, do some research, look at the facts objectively, and don't rely on Colin 'I never watch college football' Cowherd to form your opinions on one of the best coaches in the game."
In his comment, “Anonymous” refutes my claims with declarations of Brown’s success over the past 10 seasons. I want to clarify that I never said that Brown wasn’t a successful coach. I never even claimed that Texas wasn’t one of the best programs in the country. My argument was that Texas and Brown owe a lot of their current elite status to two players. I'm saying that without those two players, Texas would still be a great program, but probably not an elite one. And my beef is with the Mack Brown era Longhorns, not with the history of Texas football. Anonymous stated that I could not make these claims without doing some research. So I did.
First, let’s look at some basic numbers. Mack Brown joined Texas as Head Coach in 1998. In years without Vince Young or Colt McCoy as his QB, the years 1998-2002, Brown is 49-15, a very respectable 76% winning percentage. In years where VY and Colt were under center, 2003-2008, Texas is 66-11, a very impressive 86%. That’s quite a difference in college football. It’s the difference between an Oregon and a USC. Between a Wisconsin and an Ohio State. Between an Auburn and a Florida. Between a very good program, and a top-tier, five-star one.
A few more numbers to peruse:
With Young and McCoy: 1-0 in Big 12 Championship Games, 1 National Title, 3-0 in BCS Bowls, 6 10+ win seasons, 5-1 in overall bowls, 2-3 verses Oklahoma.
Without Young and McCoy: 0-2 in Big 12 Championship Games, 0 BCS Bowls, 0 National Titles, 2 10+ win seasons, 3-2 in overall bowls, 3-3 verses Oklahoma.
About those bowls:
These are the bowl games in which Texas has appeared without Young and McCoy: Cotton, Cotton, Holiday, Holiday, Cotton. With Young and McCoy: Holiday, Rose, Rose, Alamo, Holiday, Fiesta. Notice that the only three BCS Bowl games come during seasons in which Young and McCoy were at their best. Young was Honorable Mention All-Big 12 his Junior season, and Heisman trophy runner-up his Senior season when he led (practically single-handedly, as evidenced by his 467 yards of total offense and 3 rushing TDs) the Longhorns past USC for their sole National Title in the Mack Brown Era. Colt McCoy was Heisman runner-up this season when Texas beat Ohio State (literally by one yard) in the Fiesta Bowl. And in those three years were the only times Brown had one or no losses.
In comparison to other “Top-Tier” programs during the Mack Brown Era:National Titles: Florida-2, LSU-2, USC-2, Miami-1, Florida State-1, Tennessee, Ohio State-1, Oklahoma-1, Texas-1 (with Vince Young),
BCS Bowl Appearances:
Ohio State: 7; USC: 7; Oklahoma: 7; Florida: 5; Florida State: 5; Virginia Tech: 5; LSU: 4; Texas: 3 (Vince Young, twice and McCoy, once).
Conference Championships:
Texas has appeared in 3 conference championship games, Oklahoma has been in 7. Kansas State has as many Big 12 titles, one, as Texas does.
LSU, Florida, and Georgia all have more conference championships, in a tougher conference. So does Wisconsin and Iowa, in a conference ted by two teams over much of the last 10 years.
Brown is also considered a very successful recruiter, as commented on by Anonymous by the number of Texas grads in the NFL. It’s true. He has had one Heisman Trophy winner under his tutelage. But that was Ricky Williams, and Brown didn’t recruit him. Vince Young and McCoy were both runners-up, but that only helps to prove my point. How about recruiting class rankings? According to Rivals and Scout.com, the average ranking for Texas’s classes in the two years that he signed McCoy and Young was 2.5. In the other years his average class ranking was 10.5. The only time he had a #1 recruiting class? 2002, when he signed the blue chip Young.
You see my point? Mack Brown is successful coach without Vince and Colt. He's also a pretty good recruiter with a lot of Texas grads in the NFL (although not many of them have been superstars or even Pro-Bowlers). He’s had a very solid program, not unlike Oregon or Wisconsin. But he’s only gained exemplary success during 3 seasons—the best seasons of his star QBs. And that’s a shame considering Texas size, facilities, and history as one of the most successful programs in the history of college football. It’s almost unbelievable to me that Texas would let themselves settle for Holiday and Cotton bowls and for second place in their division in most years, let alone in their conference. It goes to show just how much a “master of illusion” Mack Brown is.
One could say that a football team’s identity is typified in their QB. So it’s not a bad thing that Texas has produced two very good ones. And yet I can’t help thinking of a Texas QB that played in Austin before Vince and Colt—Chris Simms. Simms was overhyped because of his name, one that brought with it a history of success. He was big, had good stats, looked really good on paper and on the cover of magazines, but never really won anything meaningful. Yeah, sounds a lot like Texas to me.
I hope that’s enough research for you, Anonymous.
