A&M Job Thread From Recruiting Board

[Win4AU 4,052]

 

[tigeraddikt 1,609]

48 minutes ago, Win4AU said:

 

[AUwent 3,748]

13 minutes ago, tigeraddikt said:

I think it's a pretty good hire?

[GwillMac6 20,677]

4 minutes ago, AUwent said:

I think it's a pretty good hire?

Meh. Stoops would have been a better hire. Stoops has won at a basketball school more and a lot longer than elko.

[CR 2,442]

1 hour ago, GwillMac6 said:

Meh. Stoops would have been a better hire. Stoops has won at a basketball school more and a lot longer than elko.

I think A&M wanted a splashy hire to counter Sarkisian coming to the SEC and it didnt happen.

[Shadow Tiger 1,291]

I'm not surprised. I figured he would be the sleeper hire if they missed on a couple of big names. I think he was a former DC at A&M, and is doing about as good as you can do at Duke.

[GwillMac6 20,677]

4 hours ago, CR said:

I think A&M wanted a splashy hire to counter Sarkisian coming to the SEC and it didnt happen.

Stoops certainly would have been more splashy than a guy who has only been a head coach for 2 years at Duke. But I agree!!!

[DAG 33,982]

4 hours ago, CR said:

I think A&M wanted a splashy hire to counter Sarkisian coming to the SEC and it didnt happen.

The folks at A&M revolted at the thought of stoops. I like Elko. Defensive mind, did well at Duke and he knows Texas A&M. Not sure I buy the hype on Stoops. He has made Kentucky relevant but it hasn’t progressed and the fans are getting restless over there. 

[LPTiger 5,158]

If you are going to fire someone and doing so causes your boosters to pay out that kind of money don't you have a bird in the hand before you pull the trigger?  Maybe the boosters were just fed up with Jimbo and forced the termination in the first place.   aTm has no reliable evidence that they are better off today than they were 2 weeks ago.   They do have quantitative evidence that they have spent a lot of money to see how it plays out.  

[GwillMac6 20,677]

21 minutes ago, DAG said:

The folks at A&M revolted at the thought of stoops. I like Elko. Defensive mind, did well at Duke and he knows Texas A&M. Not sure I buy the hype on Stoops. He has made Kentucky relevant but it hasn’t progressed and the fans are getting restless over there. 

I mean yah. He’s at Kentucky. If elko was a head coach at a basketball school like Duke as long as stoops has been at Kentucky you would see there is just a ceiling and a cap to these jobs. We just saw mark stoops win 10 games in a season a few years ago with a WR (Lynn Bowden) at QB for most of the season. I will never question his coaching ability. Elko is just new as a head coach so the bloom is not off the rose.

Edited November 27, 2023 by GwillMac6

[Strychnine 1,802]

14 minutes ago, DAG said:

the fans are getting restless over there

Restless for what?  He is the first coach that has produced two 10 win seasons there.  Over the last century, the list of coaches that have had much success at Kentucky is a lot shorter than the list of those that have not.  He has a winning record.  You have to go back to the 1950s to find another coach that can claim that at Kentucky.  The last person that won more games than he lost at Kentucky, did it before Mark Stoops was born.

[DAG 33,982]

20 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

Restless for what?  He is the first coach that has produced two 10 win seasons there.  Over the last century, the list of coaches that have had much success at Kentucky is a lot shorter than the list of those that have not.  He has a winning record.  You have to go back to the 1950s to find another coach that can claim that at Kentucky.  The last person that won more games than he lost at Kentucky, did it before Mark Stoops was born.

Same reason we got restless when someone like Mark Stoops were bought up here. I don’t look at records at a vacuum. I think context matters in these things. It’s easy to say, well he won at such and such place with limited vices, so that will translate but that is not the case. But that is the way of life for fanhood. 

[DAG 33,982]

59 minutes ago, GwillMac6 said:

I mean yah. He’s at Kentucky. If elko was a head coach at a basketball school like Duke as long as stoops has been at Kentucky you would see there is just a ceiling and a cap to these jobs. We just saw mark stoops win 10 games in a season a few years ago with a WR (Lynn Bowden) at QB for most of the season. I will never question his coaching ability. Elko is just new as a head coach so the bloom is not off the rose.

I mean I am pretty sure Elko saw that year one at Duke. Come on now. You can have your preferences but let’s stop acting like Mike Elko didn’t win ACC coach of the year (led one of the biggest turnarounds and college football history. Still had Duke playing at a quality level and was ranked partly through the season before his QB got hurt. He also has a history with Texas A&M, so of course the fans and the brass will lean to someone they feel like understands Texas politics. He also has an extensive coaching background at smaller level schools, so he is not new to maximizing resources. This guy is not chopped liver. He was well liked during his time as the Texas A&M dc. 

Edited November 27, 2023 by DAG

[DAG 33,982]

My apologies @Strychnine I confused your original post 

[Strychnine 1,802]

2 minutes ago, DAG said:

Same reason we got restless when someone like Mark Stoops were bought up here. I don’t look at records at a vacuum. I think context matters in these things. It’s easy to say, well he won at such and such place with limited vices, so that will translate but that is not the case. But that is the way of life for fanhood. 

I do not look at records in a vacuum either.  I tend to assume that if someone had success, at a program that does not generally enjoy success, then they probably have some correct answers.  Anyone posting a winning record at Kentucky within the last century is notable, and that is not just Kentucky notable, it is college football notable.

[DAG 33,982]

Kentucky fans like most fans , INCLUDING OURS, don’t find contentment and I think that is unrealistic to pose that to a fanbase even if they had a long history of losing. Take us, we all knew damn well this would be a rebuild. The last few years we just wanted one highschool lineman. Hugh Freeze in a short time got several and even that wasn’t enough ONCE HE PROVED HE CAN GET THEM. And when he proves he can get us in the top ten of recruiting , that doesn’t mean our contentment will stop there. We will want top five recruiting even though we haven’t consistent shown to do that. Then when he proves he can win 9 or 10 games, we will want multiple playoffs and national championship appearances , even though our history has shown we have not sustained that. That’s the life of a fan , particularly a fan in the SEC. It is not enough to just win now once you’ve proven you can do it. Now you got to win with substance. 
 

Prime example is Auburn basketball. We aren’t content with just winning eventhough Auburn basketball has been in the dark ages for a long time now. Based on your premise, the fact that we are relevant should be enough but you and I know that isn’t true. 

Edited November 27, 2023 by DAG

[GwillMac6 20,677]

14 minutes ago, DAG said:

Kentucky fans like most fans , INCLUDING OURS, don’t find contentment and I think that is unrealistic to pose that to a fanbase even if they had a long history of losing. Take us, we all knew damn well this would be a rebuild. The last few years we just wanted one highschool lineman. Hugh Freeze in a short time got several and even that wasn’t enough ONCE HE PROVED HE CAN GET THEM. And when he proves he can get us in the top ten of recruiting , that doesn’t mean our contentment will stop there. We will want top five recruiting even though we haven’t consistent shown to do that. Then when he proves he can win 9 or 10 games, we will want multiple playoffs and national championship appearances , even though our history has shown we have not sustained that. That’s the life of a fan , particularly a fan in the SEC. It is not enough to just win now once you’ve proven you can do it. Now you got to win with substance. 
 

Prime example is Auburn basketball. We aren’t content with just winning eventhough Auburn basketball has been in the dark ages for a long time now. Based on your premise, the fact that we are relevant should be enough but you and I know that isn’t true. 

 

22 minutes ago, DAG said:

I mean I am pretty sure Elko saw that year one at Duke. Come on now. You can have your preferences but let’s stop acting like Mike Elko didn’t win ACC coach of the year. Still had Duke playing at a quality level and was ranked partly through the season before  his QB got hurt. He also has a history with Texas A&M, so of course the fans and the brass will lean to someone they feel like understands Texas politics. 

My point is I don’t get why people think elko is a better hire than stoops. Stoops has done it a lot longer than elko and in a better conference. It’s like if you don’t win a championship of some sort or win 10 games almost every year then the honeymoon is over after awhile  and a big time job like tamu fans revolt when it’s floated that stoops is the hire.

[DAG 33,982]

Just now, GwillMac6 said:

 

My point is I don’t get why people think elko is a better hire than stoops. Stoops has done it a lot longer than elko and in a better conference. It’s like if you don’t win a championship of some sort or win 10 games almost every year then the honeymoon is over after awhile  and a big time job like tamu fans revolt when it’s floated that stoops is the hire.

Not one single person said he was a better hire . But does he make sense on paper? Yes. 

 

1 minute ago, GwillMac6 said:

It’s like if you don’t win a championship of some sort or win 10 games almost every year then the honeymoon is over after awhile

Sounds like Auburn.