As Mack Brown was being discussed (and trashed by some) in another thread, I thought some of you might enjoy glancing at this site. Be sure to look at his coaching record, how he turned around all of the programs, and Mack By The Numbers.

http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/ ... brown.html

a more telling analysis of what brown has done at texas would be to look at the records of his predecessors: http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/ ... yyear.html

i got that link from the UT site, not mackbrown's site, so he's obviously something of a self-promoter, as well (or his supporters are mb promoters).

what you will see is that even if mack brown is a lousy coach in the sense of not getting assistants who can teach fundamentals, or coach well in actual games, the results he gets are certainly (overall) better than those of his predecessors from the last 20 years at UT-Austin.

now everybody will think i'm a greenie apologist. can't win fer losin'.

Think what you want, but the fact remains that Mack Brown has never been able to win the big game. He is known as a great recruiter. However, he never turns that great talent into significant wins. Overall won/lost records are very deceiving, as we know too well from our own 9-4 travesty, in which we lost at home to both a Div.II team, as well as in the first round of the playoffs.

One of my best friends is a big-time Texas supporter. He says the natives are getting very restless in Austin because Brown can't beat Oklahoma, win a bowl game, or contend for a NC. He also lost the two top Texas high school kids to Oklahoma, so, he may not have as good a recruiting class this year as he has enjoyed in the past.

In a previous post, you called Brown a "poor" coach, twice. It looks like you're backing off that statement. To me, there's a big difference between being a poor coach, and being accused of not being able to win the big game. 10-2 and 11-2 seasons, even with great talent, are not indicative of poor coaching, in my view.

As usual, your view is WRONG! Mack Brown is a POOR COACH! Is that loud enough for ya? Definion: A poor coach is one whose teams continually underperform relative to the talent they possess. Coaches who fit this criteria, include Mack Brown, Ron Zook, Gary Barnett, and Stolich.

Green - as a long time Nebraska fan, I can assure you that failing to beat your traditional rival for very long will make you a "bad coach" in the eyes of MANY of the fans. A big part of Solich's undoing was being embarrassed by Kansas State, and failing to beat Oklahoma.

And he was losing recruits to other Big 12 schools in areas that were traditionally "locked up" by Nebraska. It is my understanding they even lost an offensive lineman from in-state to Oklahoma.

A great coach will turn good talent into a great team. A great coach will not take great talent and turn them into a good team. I think that is what Mack Brown does. If his fans are content with 9-3 or 10-2 seasons, and not even winning the Big 12, then I guess he can be considered a "great" coach by his fans. Until he goes beyond that, he isn't great.

The discussion was not whether Brown was a great coach. It was whether he was a poor coach. Also, I don't factor in the views of fans in determining coaching ability. I realize that people will not agree as to what criterion should be used to determine coaching ability. However, I don't see how a coach with a track record of turning around or improving programs, recruiting better players, and producing 10-2 and 11-2 seasons is a "poor" coach. Maybe not a great coach, but certainly not a poor coach.

This is actually a pretty interesting topic.

Grizpack I agree with alot of what you said. Using your difinition of great coaching, who do you or anyone else feel is a "Great Coach"?

Is Bob Stoops a great coach with what happened to the Sooners their last 2 games?

What is the fine line between "Good Coaches" and "Poor Coaches"?

In this thread we have been talking about Mac Brown and the Big 12. My take from reading this thread is that there is only 1 coach that is any good that being Bob Stoops. My rational (as warped as it is) is that nobody has been able to consistently beat the sooners. Do I really believe that? no. Mac Brown and other must be pretty good coaches or they never would have gotten to where they are at now. While I am not saying that he is a great coach, but I would not rank him as poor either.

IMO the system weeds out the poor head coaches after a few years by not having other schools offering them HC positions. If a guy remains a HC and moves up the ladder would he really be a poor coach? I am thinking that the people doiing the hiring know a heck of alot more about the sport than I.

Az, the names that you used such as Barnett and Zook, while agree that they may have not won the NC they have won their share of big games. Ok maybe not Zook, but he has only been a HC for 2 years. Barnett took Northwestern to the Rose Bowl, was a good coach then but not now?

One last question. If any of these coaches were available to the Griz, would we snatch them up?

Oh Az. I can see how a guy who took Tulane from 1-10 to 6-6, NC from 1-10 to 10-1, and has been consistent at Texas would be a POOR coach. Give us a break Az. I could give a isht less about Mack Brown, but it is obvious he is not a poor coach.

What is the saying "if you can't say anything good about someone, don't say anything at all"
Az version "If you can't say anything bad about someone, don't say anything at all"

Great College Coaches? Good question. IMHO, a great college coach does not have to win national championships every year, but better be in the hunt most years. 3 out of every 4 years, your name better be mentioned in late November as having a legitimate chance to play for the National Championship.

Bob Stoops is a great college coach. Took a down Oklahoma program and turned it into national champions.

I think Nick Saban is a great coach - has succeeded at every level.

Tom Osborne (obvious bias here) was a great coach, although it took him many years to get to that level.

Pete Carroll is a very very good coach. We'll see if he can maintain this level.

Paterno WAS a great coach. I think the game has passed him by.

Jimmy Johnson, Barry Switzer at the college level.

Coaches that I think were very good but not great - Spurrier & Bowden - again, with the level of talent they attracted, they should be right in the hunt every year. Bowden is close every year for a while, but can't quite get there.

I think history will show Tressel will be a great coach.

I could go on, but that is kind of my criteria.

Grizpack, I like your selections. However I would have to include Spurrier and Bowden just on longevity and consistenency. Most years the title hunt would come down to Florida vs. Florida State, Fla vs. Miami, or Fla St vs. Miami and 1 would be left standing, while the others would still be a top 5 team.

Let me qualify Spurrier. If he had continued coaching just in college I think he would have to be looked upon being a great coach, however the debacle in D.C. does not shine well.

Tressel I would have to agree. I have watched alot of Big Ten football the last 3 years and I have never been that impressed with their talent. But when the game is on the line the find a way to win and Tressel has alot to do with that.

IMO there are not as many great coaches today, but I think parity has alot to do with that. I for one like to see parity i.e. NFL.

One closing thought. I feel fortunate the Griz have maintained there level of play over the past 10 years. Most successful program are built on continuity. In the past 10 years the Griz have had 4 head coaches and in a sense 3 different schemes. The program is known as a stepping stone for coaches. I may be wrong, but if you look at Georgia Southern and YoungsTown in the past, their programs thrived because the HC was there for a length of time. Since Tressel and ??? have left they are not the same as they were.

I don't know how that last paragragh ties into the thread, but what the heck I'll leave there.

This thread is great because it shows exactly what is wrong with some of Griz nation. There are many people out there who know a lot about football yet this thread proves that FANS aren't really interested in football. Look at the criteria being listed for what makes a coach a "good" or "great" coach. Winning NC's and winning your rivalry game. I know that AZ knows that there is a lot more to coaching than that but it proves that he hates coaches and uses the "winning" factor as the only defintion of a "good" coach. Also I get the sense that many self-centered fans like AZ and others beleive that a coaches No.1 job is to make fans happy. I bet it would really chap all of your asses to know that that isn't as high on the list of coaches as you might think know matter what you endow to a university. By the criteria listed by AZ I am curious, besides Nick Saban, Pete Carroll and Mike Vand Diest, are there any other "great" coaches in college football? And if LSU and USC go 9-3 next season do they get bumped off the "great" coaches mantle?

its not just fans that use the criteria you mention, the media uses similar methods. and they do the same for players. how many times have we heard "he's done _______ and ____________ and put up great numbers but never won the big game."

By the way, speaking of coaches, that Brian Kelly coached the Shrine(or east-west-what ever its called) game this year.

great point hav. With 120 teams, or so, at the I-A and I-AA level, winning a NC takes more than just great coaching, it takes luck. Most rivalry's can go either way. Rare is the case we Griz fans had with 16 in a row. So considering that, by some people's standards, there are a lot of "poor" coaches out there I guess.
As far as what coaches care about, you are right there too hav. The coaches I've know care about a few things: winning, the excitement of football, and the kids. I have yet to meet a coach who does it for the fans.

Mania, screw the media, they like to create controversy where it normally wouldn't exist. I heard the media talking about Payton Manning being good, but not being able to win a big game. We'll he's now won a playoff game, and they will be saying, "he's pretty good, but he hasn't won a super bowl", "can Payton win it all". You get the point. Same goes for coaching, not everyone can win all the time, but that doesn't mean we have a bunch of "poor" coaches out there. If that is the case then the people who hire the poor coaches aren't doing their job and are poor administrators, and those that hire the administrators are "poor" for hiring the guy who does the hiring.

Havgrizfan - I am not sure if you were blaming AZ for my criteria or what. I really didn't see his criteria. Also, in my criteria, I didn't say you had to play for the NC 3 out of 4 years, but your team had better be in the conversation about teams with a chance to play in it in late November.

Here is one that will probably raise an argument: Is Lou Holtz a great coach? My answer would be that he used to be great, but is now a good coach. I can't stand Notre Dame, but he resurrected that program from the depths of dispair, and took them to the top. He hasn't been able to come anywhere close at SC though.

maybe we ought to be defining the term "great". for me, "great" would be, at the very least, consistantly being in the top 5% of the population the person is being compared against (consistantly as in decades). the way i look at it, "great" football coaches are scarce, and to me this notion extends to labeling "greatness" at any occupation. superlatives get tossed around like a green salad in this day and age. i would say paul bryant, vince lombardi, tom landry and bill parcells rate as "great" coaches. not many others fit in that category. stephen hawkins and albert einstein are/were great theoretical physicists. it isn't very hard to conclude that alot of others who have come up with major advances in physics still aren't considered "great" in their field, merely good or lucky. guess it boils down to how easily and rapidly you want to toss around the term "great", as well as what context the term gets used in (a "great game" doesn't make a "great" player)...

did i really just type all that drivel?

Sure the media says someone hasn't been able to win the big game, but I don't hear them saying a coach isn't a good or great coach, let alone calling him a poor coach, just because he hasn't won the big game or won the national championship.

I assume most people would agree that Paterno was a great coach. He won 1 national champsionship. His bowl record was 20-10-1. With stats like that, the Griz fans would have run him off decades ago.

A coaches greatness or lack thereof, depends on numerous factors and the assumption that the great ones are necessarily associated with the LSUs, Oklahoma and Southern Cals is a serious error. Saban, Stoops and Carroll are eminently successful, but look at the tremendous tradition, recruiting appeal and resources they have to work with. I think a Fisher DeBerry who traditionally turns out winners at Air Force despite having to deal with some of the most stringent academic and physical restrictions in the country deserves the mantle of greatness no less -and maybe more - than these other guys. Let them deal with DeBerry's handicaps, but of course they never will.

Paul Johnson, who turned out some terrific Georgia Southern teams, put Navy into a bowl for the first time in Lord knows how long. And in only his second year. And probably no one has sent a program from the outhouse to the penthouse more dramatically than Kansas State's crusty old faht Bill Snyder. His job was not just taking over a lofty program that had had 2 or 3 down years and simply needed reviving. Wildcat football had been dead and seemingly beyond resurrection for eons before Snyder showed up in Manhattan.

Alas, greatness will probably always be a popularity contest measured by a successful coach's visibilty. Or lack thereof.

stephen hawkins and albert einstein are/were great theoretical physicists.

Yeah, and Stephen Hawking is almost as good as these two too !

Speaking of tu-tus...........anybody seen Az?

Speaking of pencils.....has anybody seen Tailboners badonga?

Great coaches are as rare as Griz passing yardage last season! These "good coaches", as Green Weenie calls them, will all be fired in the next couple of years. You can make book by it. Ron Zook, Mack Brown, Gary Barnett......the vultures are circlin'. And, if Bobby Hauck duplicates his 2003 next season, the noose will be a-tightin' for him too. And, he already knows it.

Once again AZ won't answer a legit question from one of my previous posts. Also is firing head coaches the only thing you care about in college football? Every other post, on any thread you mention BH or someone getting canned. I will say this right now, I will bet anyone on here any amount of money that if the Griz go between 8-4 or better the nest two seasons Bobby does not get fired. I guarentee it and I am serious about the bet. If anyone wants to take it I will be willing to meet you at the Red's tailgate before the Maine game to make it official.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

As a former student at UT, i felt obligated to put my 2 cents in this discussion. You can look at this in a couple different ways - most teams would love to have the kind of success that UT has had the past few years (record wise). Not Texas. In the state of texas, football is King. People aren't satisfied with winning records. A winning record without a championship puts you in the same place as the worst team in the nation - at home watching the national championship on TV. I personally contribute the records of the past couple years to Mack Brown's ability to recruit quality players. I also contribute the past 4 losses to Oklahoma to Mack Brown's inability to coach. The latter is becoming more and more evident as some of the best recruits in Texas take their services elsewhere, mainly Oklahoma. The two big recruits from texas that went to OU have recently said that the main reason for going to OU was that Stoops consistently puts his team in position to win the big games. They also said that UT has gotten the big recruits but have not won the big games, which is all that counts to them. In my opinion, Mack Brown is a smooth talking salesman, but when it comes down to game time, his words can't get him the big win.

Hmmmmmm, sounds striking similar to something I might have said! And, just as Texas fans won't settle for anything less than competing for the NC in IA, the Montana fans won't settle for anything less than competing for the NC in IAA! When you've been to the top of the mountain 4 times in the past 8 years, and reached the pinnacle twice, you're not going to be satified with losing in the first round at home. A 9-4 record is great for NAU, EWU, or MSU, but it ain't gonna keep the wolves from the door at UM! 'Nuff said!