Arch Manning to Texas..
Posting because they are on schedule for 2024.
Blows my mind that kids want to go play for Seven Loss Steve
Texas may be in a rut, but they are still a sleeping giant with near-limitless resources in a state that LOVES its football.
The guy that revives that program will be an absolute legend for the rest of time. Still lots of appeal.
They just went 5-7 in a weak Big 12. They're about to join the SEC to become a punching bag. Until they get a real coach, there's no appeal in joining Texas unless you love Austin.
Few programs have the resources Texas does. Similar to Michigan, they could rise to very high heights if they can get their [expletive] together.
The ceiling for Texas is far higher than it is for Michigan. We are competing with a rival who is at historic highs, an instate rival who farms goodly, and in a state that produces only a handful of national recruits, in a conference that isn't the SEC, with cold winters, an academic administration that expects more, a non-"win at all costs mentality" in the school, a coach who insists on making his ride bumpy, and not a *ton* of hot females.
Money isn't the only factor.
Texas has all of that in their favor.
Texas is about to start getting pasted by Bama every year not too mention Texas ATM.
I just looked it up and Steve Sarkisian has a career head coaching record of 51-42 mostly against a pathetic PAC12 schedule. You strip out the G5 / FCS wins and the dude is probably under .500 against P5 teams.
Dude is overrated on a totally different level.
im not suggesting they are headed to their ceiling. I'm responding to "Michigan and Texas are similar" ... I do not see that being the case anymore. Probably true 30-40 years ago. Maybe.
It'll be interesting to see how they do the divisions when UT and OU join. Geographically Bama and Auburn go to the East and UT and OU go to the West. If they did it by geography, Bama and UT would rarely play each other.
When people here chime in about women, you know what kind of superficial fools they be. I like women with a minmum of physcial interventions, makeup, and big unconventional brains. I went to the right school; apparently, you went to the wrong one. You were, apparently, more SEC material than B1G.
^This. Let's not be disrespectful.
I'm not an 18 year old recruit. What I am is an adult who understands the difference between talking about your own personal feelings about others, women, etc.. and how others may have different feelings.
For decades, football programs AND universities, have used their co-ed population to lure recruits to town. I don't think that's a good thing, but I can assure you, based on nothing other than human nature, that this has likely not changed.
So, there will be many 18 year old boys who use that as a REASON, in part, to pick their school... for the same reason that people use weather, to pick their school.
I'm happy that you're special and I hope you feel like an internet hero for not understanding my point. Perhaps its you that should head to the SEC, since the complex thought was too much for you.
This is one of the best comments on the blog lifetime to date.
i'm not sure they allow 'pearl clutching' in the SEC.....
Carry on. Glad you're keeping it real for the bro's.
I don’t think it’s so much “chiming in about women” as it is acknowledging the fact that 17-18 year old kids like visually attractive women and some schools have that in spades and use it to their advantage in the recruitment of said 17-18 year olds.
You don’t have to agree with it or support it to acknowledge it is the world we live in
This guy gets it. You have permission not to be exodused to the sec!
Get what? That it's super cool to include a 'hot chix' rating for recruiting? Have you discussed this with the women who attend UM? They'll be thrilled to hear about your metrics.
Even after last season, and the stacked team we have, you say something stupid ike this. Harbaugh has this program so far ahead of Texas right now that it's quite silly you posted that. Even at Texas' heydey, we were still equal to them at worst.
I agree with you. But I still think Texas' ceiling is higher. They seem unable or unwilling to figure out how to reach it.
We've had a great run the past 12 months and I'm hoping we do it again this year.
The ceiling for Texas is far higher than it is for Michigan.
I agree that it's potentially higher, given their geographic location. But given that we just played in the College Football Playoff, calling it "far higher" is a bit much.
Not sure what you mean their ceiling is higher. I suppose you mean they have a greater chance of getting there than Michigan does. But unless you're saying Michigan flat-out can't win a National Championship -- and 1997 would like a word with you, as would the winningest program in college football history -- don't they have the same ceiling? Or ... is there an achievement greater than winning a national championship I'm not aware of?
I know, I'm nit-picking, but it's June, and that's what we do. I don't think anyone's "ceiling" is higher than ours. Some schools may have greater resources -- though good God, I think the overwhelming majority of schools would be stunned to find out how much fans at the school with the biggest stadium, largest fan base, greatest national TV visibility, incredible branding, incredible history, and tremendous reputation whine about how the world is stacked against them -- but geez, a higher "ceiling"? What are we talking about?
Those resources aren't going to mean anything once they join the SEC ,even if they get their crap together.
All they need is a coach. They are utilizing all their resources, but need that one coach to bring them back to the Vince Young days.
Michigan has a good coach, but he doesn't utilize all the resources.
College ball is about the Jimmy and the Joe's more than the Xs and Os. Texas will be just fine in 2-3 years. Even in the SEC.
Well, no one has better Jimmies and Joes than USC. And Sark did nothing but lick his own groin there. Poor Texas. I thought Charlie Strong and Tom Herman were good hires (that obviously didn't pan out). But the Sark hire was on par with Brady Hoke given his history.
Kansas!!
I don't disagree with you necessarily, but I imagine for QB's specifically, Sark has a pretty decent resume of coaching the likes of Mac Jones, Tua Tagovailoa, and Jake Locker. I mean, the rate he coaches college QBs that go on to play in the NFL has got to be pretty high up there.
And if this were a normal recruit it'd be one thing, but I'm going to venture to guess that when it comes to evaluating football coaching acumen, Arch MANNING has access to better resources and insight than us plebs on MGoBoard.
Sark is a better coordinator than head coach. That much is clear.
Do you remember what Texas was pre-Mack Brown? That was about 27 years of sleeping giant that never woke. When Ricky Williams won the Heisman (the year after Woodson won it) Texas was only 8-4…barely ranked. Yet that was considered a good season for them.
With all the advantages they have, it doesn’t always mean they can quickly turn things around. As far as I’m concerned, Texas is back to their normal selves ever since Brown left.
So you agree that with the right personnel Texas can compete at the highest level because the resources and foundation for it already exist there. Got it.
I mean... you could probably say this about 30 schools.
True story. There are realistically probably about 20 schools that have a real shot at winning a national title. Among them is Texas, and they probably have more resources than just about any one of those 20.
Just because they've been mismanaged for some time doesn't mean they aren't there waiting to be taken advantage of properly.
Asking, "Why would anyone go play for Texas" while they are in a down spell would be like somebody asking, "Why would anyone go play for Michigan," while in a similar place.
and it took Michigan hiring a proven winner and the best head coach on the market to get out of that rut. Texas hired a guy whose high mark is 8 wins and who was fired from his most recent coaching gig because he was coaching games drunk.
And Cam Newton pretty much single-handedly won a national championship for an even worse coach at an SEC school with fewer resources than Texas.
I mean, by your logic most of P5 is a "sleeping giant". Off the top of my head, here's a list of teams beyond the Bama/Clemson/OSU/UGa set who could credibly be described as "sleeping giants" given recent success even if they're down a bit. And I'd add that Texas before and after peak Mack Brown was a profoundly average team, so we're putting a bunch of eggs in that single basket for "Texas has a foundation to be elite":
- Pac-12: Washington, Oregon, UCLA, USC. I'd even entertain discussions of ASU/Arizona and Colorado.
- ACC: FSU, Miami, UNC, VT
- SEC: A&M, LSU, Florida, maybe Tennessee
- Big 12: Baylor, Texas, maybe TCU.
- Big 10: MSU, PSU, maybe Nebraska.
And mind you I'm not including teams like OSU, UM, Alabama, Georgia, Clemson, OU, etc. who have been elite and don't look to be slowing down. And yes, you could argue that in theory a fully-operational Texas has a higher ceiling but the Longhorns aren't going to ever be able to lock down the state like they have in the past (teams simply recruit too well there now and the recruiting world is so flat that guys are going to be willing to move beyond the border).
It's similar to people thinking Lincoln Riley is going to unleash USC, a team that outside of Pete Carroll being both a savant and breaking a ton of rules has been pretty meh since the 1970s, because he was able to keep OU the big fish in the little pond that is the Big 12. He'll make the Trojans better but USC hasn't been "USC" for a long time. Feels like Texas is in the same boat, a higher ceiling than teams like Nebraska but still a bit shackled to a past that they can't reasonably expect to replicate consistently.
I only remember those Ricky Williams teams for getting smoked by UCLA in back to back seasons. Both UTs (Texas and Tennessee) will have a much harder time returning to their glory years, especially playing in the same conference.
They really underachieved much of the time under Mack Brown. They had some great teams the last couple years of Vince Young and when Colt McCoy was there. Other than that they were nothing special
But if you go back far enough (to the Darrel Royal years), they were a powerhouse. Royal won 3 NC's while there. Granted the last of those was 1970 and he only had a couple good teams after that until he retired. 167-47-5 is a darned good coaching record over 20 years.
And they've done all this in a pretty mediocre conference. So they're double awesome.
This has been true for 20 years. hasnt made anything different. They'll probably have a run of recruits. Maybe one of those Texas WRs will leave osu - though who cares, theyll find another. But still. F them both.
Man - I'm sure he's a very good prospect, but i have to wonder if ther would be less fascination and excitement if his name was Chaboogie, and not Manning.
I hope, in whatever way best, that this is a debacle for Texas.
I, for one, find the name Chaboogie much more fascinating than Manning.
so was usc. sark couldn't do shit THERE, either.
Agreed - seems like a weird choice unless he and his family think that either:
(1) Quinn Ewers is overrated
or
(2) Quinn Ewers is sooo good that he will go pro after 2023.
Seems like a big risk to take that Ewers isn't "just" really good and is the starter for 3 years at UT. I hope he enjoys running for his life getting chased by SEC defensive players.
If college kids could turn pro after Year 1, he'd likely be headed elsewhere. He might be cool with sitting as a backup and collecting NIL money for two years, since he can't go pro anyway.
he wont even play the SEC while at TX. They are moving in 2025
I was referring to Manning - he will be there in 2025 and probably 2026 unless he transfers.
The SEC is also trying to make it happen earlier - as early as 2023 so his whole career could be in the SEC.
I don't think it's a bad bet if he really wants to play for Texas or for Sarkisian (come on, it could happen). It is a gamble; Ewers could turn out to be brilliant and not leave the field for the next two years. If so, Manning transfers.
The question I have is whether or not Ewers would have been better off staying in high school last year instead of going to Ohio State. I think you could make a case either way and I'm curious to see how this pans out.
The case for staying in high school is more game experience, which he certainly didn't get at Ohio State last year. As far as I can tell, he didn't throw a pass in a game, whereas he obviously barring injuries he would have played his entire high school football season.
The case for going to Ohio State is better coaching. Having said that, he'll be learning his third system in three years at Texas (i.e., whatever his high school ran, Ryan Day's system and now Sarkisian's). Some kids will thrive with that and others will struggle.
It's also possible Manning is arrogant enough to just assume he'll win the starting position. He may be right.
Anyway, I'm kind of curious as to how this will play out. I have to admit I don't have a good feeling about Ewers, but he's almost certainly going to get the chance to prove himself. (Just maybe not at Texas.)
I think with Ewers it was all about the $$ from day one. He used a loophole to bilk OSU fans out of NIL money, knowing the whole time he was going to transfer to UT.