Your team rolls out multiple unis every year because of Nike. This has been a clear recruiting platform. Sorry your D is awful, but there’s no reason your team shouldn’t be crushing.
Our upperclassmen are Helfrich and Taggart recruits. Our past two classes and the current one are our 3 best in our programs history. Let’s see what we do the next two years.
Year 1 was a failure for Sark at USC and shows he's not a good coach but Mario gets a pass in Year 3 bc of upperclassmen? Weird how that works.
Okay I guess I’m just not clear on what your point was. Because surely you weren’t making a case for Michigan being equivalent to Texas by pointing out that Oklahoma has managed to be an elite program by eating Texas’s lunch money and taking advantage of the massive pool of talent sitting in Texas high schools.
I would be curious how you came to the conclusion the bottom of the big 12 is any worse than the bottom of any other conference.
Michigan has the most wins in division 1 football and have not won an outright national title since 1948. While Texas has more recruits in the state they also have mid D 1 schools in the state. Using the recruiting hotbed excuse for why Michigan has not succeeded is just lazy. I used Oklahoma as an example of a school with a lot fewer built in advantages than both Texas and Michigan. Thus why both are underachieving.
That's just the Kansas effect, I'd argue that if you ditch Kansas, along with the worst team of every P5 conference, the Big 12's worst 3 teams are probably better than most other conferences' worst 3.
I'm really pulling for Sark. He's been a fantasic coach for us and a complete professional. He's beloved in our athletic department. I also think college football would be a lot more interesting if schools like Texas, USC, Michigan, Tennessee, and FSU became competent again. Maybe even Nebraska even though I think that's never going to happen
Saying “well actually, Texas has to compete with Baylor and Texas Tech to keep all that talent home” kind of proves the point. Texas and Michigan are comparable academically. Texas brings in and spends around 5-10% more annually on its program (and more than any other program in the country). Texas is in the most prospect rich, football mad state in the country; Michigan in about the 20th best state for talent. Texas has been in conferences where its primary competition are colleges that have to recruit Texas; Michigan has been in a conference where it has to recruit the home state of its biggest rival and the home state of another historically elite program to field a top level program. If they have comparable results - one title each in the last 50 years, 7 more conference titles for Michigan over that span - how exactly are they comparable in underachieving? If you want to say Michigan has underachieved comparable to Oklahoma, knock yourself out, but Texas is in a league of its own when it comes that.
Ok so I get it you don’t like Texas. All of your points are half truths. Like noting Baylor and Tech while ignoring A&M which is historically a top 25 program. Michigan does not have an outright NC in the last 50 years. You really think 1997 and 2005 are equal? Texas is the most prospect rich state? In raw number it is but then that doesn’t take into account the amount of schools in Texas. Then Texas has to compete with historical great teams in OU and LSU from just across their border. Like I said very similar.
a quick look at their Wiki page tells me if not great very good historically. They could claim 9 NCs.
FWIW I’m admitting that my “argument” comes from looking at their Wiki page. I’m not pretending to be an expert of LSU football history. Just looking at their numbers it seems they are at the very least very good historically. Depending on the criteria used I am sure there would be maybe 5 programs that can be called historically great.
Who cares how many other schools there are in Texas when you’re at the top of the food chain? Michigan doesn’t argue that it isn’t competing for titles because Michigan State is taking their recruits. Michigan State, btw, has more national championships than A&M, only two fewer conference titles in the last 50 years, and one more playoff appearance. Notre Dame, Ohio State, and Penn State are all closer to Michigan than Texas is to LSU. Between 2010-16, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania combined to produce 28 5 star recruits. Texas had 40.
TooooooooBeeeeeeeFaaaaaiiiirrrrrr in CFB before the playoffs they were all “claimed” NCs hence the term “mythical national championship”.