re: Why does college football in the state of Texas underachieve so much?

quote:

---

Once you get to the top 10-15 programs that have every resource available, winning in CFB is almost all about the HC.

Who has Texas had In that position since Darrell Royal? A lot of shite with the exception of Mack Brown, and he’s not anything too special either.

---

This is true. Briles at Baylor and Sherrill at A&M both appeared to be on their way towards special seasons with natties potentially at stake until one was fired and the other was forced to resign. Leach had Texas Tech of all schools in position to play for a natty late in 2008.

For all the crap A&M (rightfully) gets about underachieving, that school has made several big time football hires with Sherrill, Franchione, and Fisher. Jackie was even the backup plan to Schembechler once Bo turned down A&M's offer.

quote:

---

The two biggest programs have been horribly mismanaged for long periods recently, Texas for the last 15 years and a lot of the 80s and 90s, A&M for about 30 and points before that. The lower ceiling programs overachieve like crazy and have each had points where they are very strong. Why that is I don’t know, booster pissing matches are prevalent at both schools. As much as both fanbases like to antagonize each other they share many of the same issues over the last decade. The Baylors and TCUs are leaner and meaner and do more with less. Talent leaving doesn’t help but that’s a symptom not a cause.

---

This is I think the real answer. The power dynamic in that state creates a pressure cooker that has been horribly handled for the two programs really capable of being national powers while creating incentives for the smaller programs that will never have the talent or resources to really win at the highest levels to have to operate at max efficiency to stay relevant.

Basically, Texas and Texas A&M have been horribly run for most of the last 50 years, and if they don’t win one, nobody else will even at their best.

Despite said power dynamic in TX, we may see the two biggest programs finally rise to the top of their state's pecking order and remain there for the most part as the next realignment happens.

I agree with you except for this…

quote:

---

Basically, Texas and Texas A&M have been horribly run for most of the last 50 years,

---

Texas was the winningest P5 program in the 2000’s, and 2nd overall to Boise. They won 2 SWC titles and 1 Big 12 title in the 90’s. They pissed away a natty in ‘83.

There were bumps in the 80’s and 90’s, but also teams that contended for championships.

Someone said Mississippi.

First dozen or so players as good as anywhere else. After the first dozen, it falls off.

Big 12 losing Oklahoma is huge. Losing Texas not so much. They haven't even been the best team in the state of Texas for a number of years. The national perception of UT is greater than the actual product.

Pac12 is taking a bigger hit to their conference than the Big 12 IMO

They ivented the spread it around Flag High Scholl Football . Create softness that is never overcome if you stay in state to play.

Texas was a regional run state with tons of influence for decades. Doesn't exist anymore in enough numbers to matter. The nationalization of the sport exposed the state to the outside and faults were exposed as well.
The over emphasis on strength programs in the HS ranks has resulted in a ton of maxed out kids going to college. Projection is huge in college football and many TX kids don't have any.
Politics is likely the biggest hindrance for all. Austin is self explanatory. Expectations that don't meet reality. TAM has the same issues but entirely rooted in money=influence. They think they can buy it. Being little brother hasn't helped the cause. As for the other "power 5" schools, when have they ever been truly relevant for the long term? Which ones should we expect to be better than they are? Quite honestly most are exactly what they should be(average to pretty good) and TCU has overachieved.
The evolution of the spread offense(it took over TX very early on) is another major factor. It has made the game "softer" and everyone wants to be a skill guy. That bleeds into the overall talent pool and filling non skill positions with championship quality kids became much tougher when combined with the national landscape of the sport now(schools from outside are taking the best talent).
Texas, along with California, are generally overrated just because of numbers. Year to year most would take the top 20 from GA or FL over the top 20 from TX/CA without pause.

UT coaches in the past had to deal with the ghost of DKR or DKR himself up until the late 2000's. Boosters would go to Royal before talking to the head coach or the AD. Prior to Mack Brown, Royal and his buddies determined who the coaches would be and even their assistants to a great extent. In the beginning even Brown had to deal with Royal and his buddies meddling in some form......especially on the recruiting end.

I worked with a guy who was on a Texas team in the mid 80s who said Royal's buddies were whom you talked to if you had a problem....not anyone on the staff

quote:

---

every Florida team fell off when recruiting became national

---

Wrong they fell off when FAU FIU USF moved up to FBS from FCS, taking kids that would be walk-ons to Miami, FSU, and UF as scholarship players.

The same thing has happened to Texas and aTm, until NIL and aTm tried to buy the class.