Jump to content

Texas at Kansas


UTfanatic

Recommended Posts

As disappointed UT Football has made me in the last 8 years or so, I think you gotta bring Charlie back for one more year, at least. He has the pieces on offense (QB), finally to make a run at a Big 12 title. Obviously the defense has got to play better, but there has been a progression in overall team play that they have not shown in recent memory. I'd give him one more year with this group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tigers2010 said:

As disappointed UT Football has made me in the last 8 years or so, I think you gotta bring Charlie back for one more year, at least. He has the pieces on offense (QB), finally to make a run at a Big 12 title. Obviously the defense has got to play better, but there has been a progression in overall team play that they have not shown in recent memory. I'd give him one more year with this group.

If a coaching change is not made this year, recruiting will be zero.  They have not shown a progression in my opinion.

Recruits want to play at a winner.

We have already witnessed the worst 3 year since before WWII. 

horns up and Hookem 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, UTfanatic said:

If a coaching change is not made this year, recruiting will be zero.  They have not shown a progression in my opinion.

Recruits want to play at a winner.

We have already witnessed the worst 3 year since before WWII. 

horns up and Hookem 

Idk, from what I've heard, A few recruits are waiting to see what happens with Strong to decide their future...that's why many recruits out of Texas have not made decisions recently ...as well as Thoes that are already committed...I think that's why administrators haven't made a decision yet cause a lot of eyes are on the university 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, D3zii said:

Idk, from what I've heard, A few recruits are waiting to see what happens with Strong to decide their future...that's why many recruits out of Texas have not made decisions recently ...as well as Thoes that are already committed...I think that's why administrators haven't made a decision yet cause a lot of eyes are on the university 

I believe the PTB have already made a decision, just waiting on the announcement. 

Black Friday

Texas will not be held ransom by a couple of recruits!!!

Depending on the new staff and having them on board in December, new recruits could be lining up outside of Belmont. 

Horns up and Hookem 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, UTfanatic said:

I believe the PTB have already made a decision, just waiting on the announcement. 

Black Friday

Texas will not be held ransom by a couple of recruits!!!

Depending on the new staff and having them on board in December, new recruits could be lining up outside of Belmont. 

Horns up and Hookem 

 

I doubt there will be a new staff. There is a pretty obvious progression at the QB position, which has killed Texas in the past. He can play, and there is no reason to dump a new coach on him after his freshman year. Didn't Strong hit on him? I think another year to grow from him and tighten up that defense, next year will be a more Texas-like year. I'm all for firing him, after one more year. ONE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

User Actions
 Following
This is the hidden content, please

A bunch to chew on here from

This is the hidden content, please
regarding Tom Herman:
This is the hidden content, please
This is the hidden content, please
This is the hidden content, please
This is the hidden content, please
This is the hidden content, please
This is the hidden content, please
This is the hidden content, please

 

It appears that UT may not be the only suitor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tigers2010 said:

I doubt there will be a new staff. There is a pretty obvious progression at the QB position, which has killed Texas in the past. He can play, and there is no reason to dump a new coach on him after his freshman year. Didn't Strong hit on him? I think another year to grow from him and tighten up that defense, next year will be a more Texas-like year. I'm all for firing him, after one more year. ONE.

I feel the same way 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, UTfanatic said:

IMO

If he beats Kansas loses badly to TCU!

We should not even be having this conversation. 

We are Texas and should not expect/accept mediocrity!

Hookem

Well, it's just what it is right now.

It has been frustrating to watch. I just try to convince myself that the team is young and will be 100% better next year.

Now, if Herman had UH playing lights out, I may have a different stance. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, UTfanatic said:

IMO

If he beats Kansas loses badly to TCU!

We should not even be having this conversation. 

We are Texas and should not expect/accept mediocrity!

Hookem

I doubt very seriously Texas loses badly to TCU. If they get ran off the field in embarrassing fashion he is probably gone. They will not lose to Kansas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Bandwagon Ranger said:

Well, it's just what it is right now.

It has been frustrating to watch. I just try to convince myself that the team is young and will be 100% better next year.

Now, if Herman had UH playing lights out, I may have a different stance

 

My whole point. There is not a realistic candidate out there that will change the landscape of Texas Football. The team is young. I don't think you bail on Charlie with a freshman QB that could be a difference maker next year. Unless you bring in a Saban, Meyer, Fisher, Swinney, what is the point. Give it another year and go from there.

Edited by Tigers2010
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bandwagon Ranger said:

Well, it's just what it is right now.

It has been frustrating to watch. I just try to convince myself that the team is young and will be 100% better next year.

Now, if Herman had UH playing lights out, I may have a different stance. 

 

Exactly 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Tigers2010 said:

I doubt there will be a new staff. There is a pretty obvious progression at the QB position, which has killed Texas in the past. He can play, and there is no reason to dump a new coach on him after his freshman year. Didn't Strong hit on him? I think another year to grow from him and tighten up that defense, next year will be a more Texas-like year. I'm all for firing him, after one more year. ONE.

IMO based on what MY eyes see!

The only things that have progressed are talent and reduction on "off field incidents"

These are my Top Ten why  it's time for change!

1. Game/Stategy Decisions

2. Time management 

3. Special teams

4. Players missing assignments and lack of development. 

5. Players confused on where to line up. 

6. Offense inability to attack the middle of the field. 

7. Promises made by staff, then broken. 

8. Poor staff hiring/evaluation, this staff is being paid as among the best in CFB. It is time for them to coach like it. 

9. Players are winning, a little bit, now on ability only.

10. The "worst" three years of Texas football since 1939. 

It's kind of like listening to the weekly press conferences. 

"EXECUTION and ACCOUNTABILITY"

Horns up and Hookem 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Bandwagon Ranger said:

Barring a loss on Saturday, Strong will be back. 

 

What I hear is he has to win both of the remaining games to have a chance.  That depends on some other variables as well.  For instance, my personal belief is if U of H were to beat Louisville tonight, winning out may not even get it done for him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, TxHoops said:

What I hear is he has to win both of the remaining games to have a chance.  That depends on some other variables as well.  For instance, my personal belief is if U of H were to beat Louisville tonight, winning out may not even get it done for him. 

Ruh roh Charlie.  Big Game Tom is gunning for yo job!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,206
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Ceb2000
    Newest Member
    Ceb2000
    Joined



  • Posts

    • You got a LOT more than that, you’ve got Riceland filling up. GCM is dropping down from 23-6A back down to 5A in ‘26.  GCCISD is redrawing attendance zones to make sure of that.  At the same time, BH was only about 100 students under the 6A threshold last time UIL drew districts so BH is definitely going up to 6A when those maps get redrawn, probably right into the empty spot in 23-6A GCM is leaving when they drop down.
    • Like I said, even if it’s only 10% of the 100 kids BHISD takes from GCCISD each year, that’s 10 athletes per year and that’s being generous.  You’re right about the jobs with BHISD, BTW.  There’s more than 1 athlete from Baytown originally who got transferred to BHISD after a job opened up for Mama.
    • Here’s a link to another story about it This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up
    • It’s behind a paywall but here’s Baytown Sun’s story on it.  It was reported on in other papers statewide so if you search by the date I think you’ll find other stories on it. UIL strengthens student transfer rules By Ron McDowell [email protected] Oct 18, 2024   In order to maintain a level playing field for all member schools, the University Interscholastic League strengthened rules regarding transfer student eligibility at its most recent meeting in Austin. Every year thousands of students transfer schools in the state of Texas. A student’s ability to participate in UIL sanctioned activities may be limited base on the reasons for the transfer. A change in family status, work transfers, enrollment in an academic magnet program, or a move across town, receive scrutiny, but only rarely does one of these reasons result in the loss of eligibility. The only reason to automatically cause the loss of participation eligibility is a transfer for athletic purposes. The current rule, which has been in place since 1981, does not require a Previous Athletic Participation Form (PAPFs) to be submitted if the student-athlete does not participate in a varsity level sport during the first year of enrollment. There has been growing concern among some member schools, that other members are breaking the current rule and creating “super teams” with new transfer enrollees, and that the UIL is not doing enough to police, what appear to be, the inordinate number of transfers among high school athletes. To mitigate these concerns, the UIL approved a proposal to expand the power of the State Executive Committee (SEC) and allow it to investigate schools based upon the number of PAPFs submitted. Schools that submit an inordinate number of PAPFs would face heightened scrutiny and possible public reprimand and future sanctions. The UIL has also changed the requirements for PAPF submission, mandating that the form be submitted before a grade 9-12 transfer student may participate at any level of school athletics. This is a marked departure from the current policy which encourages schools not to complete PAPFs for students who transfer in, if the school believes that the student will not play a varsity sport in the first year the student is enrolled at the new school. Some critics of the current system think that the change doesn’t go far enough. Speaking on background, one local school district source suggested that there should be an automatic year wait for transfer students due to the number of loopholes in the waiver process. “If a student transfers, it should be a year out of competition automatically,” the source said. In addition, the UIL also approved a proposal that gives the SEC the power to appoint an independent administrator to oversee the conduct of the local District Executive Committee (DEC) if it is determined that the DEC is not consistently enforcing the rules of the governing body. The change is significant since all appeals that a school brings, starts and usually ends with the DEC. That includes the determination of transfer student eligibility. It is believed that with the implementation of this change, schools in a UIL district will be less likely to face retribution from the DEC chair and other members. The policy changes will go into effect, Aug. 1, 2025 This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up  
    • I was hoping WOS was going to win. To get another chance to redeem ourself. Silsbee did not look good in that game and has not played consistent during the season. Hopefully against La Vega they will play 4quarters of football
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...