The Best of the Best

 Another narrative I'm hearing lately that is a bit of a head-scratcher is:

"Texas is going to get killed in the SEC. Enjoy going 5-7 every year!"

The Aggies joined the SEC in 2012. That year they were unranked in the preseason AP Top 25. 

Texas is currently ranked 20th in the preseason poll.

While the Aggies haven't won the conference, they haven't been embarrassing. Their team now is as good as it's ever been, and they've finished in the Top 25 in 4 of their 9 SEC seasons. Not great... but not bad. Their average SEC season nets them 8.5 wins. Respectable. 

Are we supposed to believe that Texas could never DREAM of having the same success as A&M has had in the conference? 

And that got me thinking... just where would Texas rank as a member of the SEC?

We all know football is king, but football isn't everything. Texas has been a very reliable "all-sports" school for quite a while. But even where your teams finish on the field isn't the whole story. Money is just as big a deal as football in this equation (obviously they go hand-in-hand to a large degree), but these are also schools, and academics matters, too. (Sorry, Mississippi State.)

Looking at what information was available, I began the process of ranking each "new" SEC team on 5 different criterion:

1) Football now. How good is your football team today? This will be 20% of your score.

2) Football history. How good is your program historically? Another 20%.

3) Value of your program. Money talks, and in this case tells another 20% of your tally.

4) All-sports ranking. 60% of your score was about football. Seems fair. 20% on all sports combined.

5) Academics. Gotta' throw Vanderbilt a bone! But seriously, the conference wants to be taken seriously as a group of universities. You always see commercials for these schools talking about how most college students "will go pro in something other than sports" and they want that to be a part of the equation, so that can be our final 20%.

So below I'll show you how all 16 SEC schools rank in each of these categories. You get 1 point for being the best, 16 for being the worst... and at the end you'll get an admittedly crude idea of where Texas an Oklahoma rank as far as total value of their membership.

Let's start with football now.

This is going to be Texas' worst category, as they're middle of the pack. Based on preseason rankings, Texas is #20 in the country, but that would only be #7 in the SEC. This is also, of course, the most short-sighted of all the rankings we'll look at today, but let's not pretend that this isn't what is driving the "Texas is gonna' get destroyed" fun that rivals like to have these days. 

"Rank" means national ranking and "points" will be used to determine our composite rankings at the end. Here's how it shakes out RIGHT NOW:

College Football Preseason Rankings

Rank        Team                      Points

1             Alabama                       1

3            Oklahoma                    2

5            Georgia                         3

6            Texas A&M                  4

11           Florida                         5

17           LSU                             6

20           Texas                           7

27           Ole Miss                      8

29           Auburn                        9

34           Missouri                    10

35           Kentucky                   11

46           Arkansas                    12

50          Mississippi St             13

56          Tennessee                   14

76          South Carolina            15

90           Vanderbilt                  16

I used the Athlon rankings here because they went beyond 25, but the order is basically the same in the Associated Press poll. Florida and LSU are flipped, but the points remain the same for everyone else.

So what about all-time?

For that we go to the college football all-time wins list. But wait! That's not fair to "younger" teams! I'm all for fairness. This is according to the college football all-time win PERCENTAGE list:

College Football All-Time win percentage

Rank        Team                      Points

2             Alabama                      1

6            Oklahoma                   2

7            Texas                            3

11           Tennessee                    4

13           Georgia                       5

14           LSU                            6

18          Florida                         7

20          Auburn                        8

25         Texas A&M                 9

39         Arkansas                     10

65         Ole Miss                     11

66         Missouri                     12

84         South Carolina           13

90         Kentucky                   14

96         Vanderbilt                  15

97         Mississippi St            16

There are other ways to measure overall football success, of course. National titles is a good one. If that was our metric the order would be Alabama, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas - then LSU, A&M and Ole Miss. But some of those are "claimed titles" from way back when and harder to verify. And what if you had 3 great teams 100 years ago but lost most of the time? Not looking at anyone in particular, TexAgs. All-time win % seemed like a fair way to do it. For the life of your program, how often do you win?

So we've covered today's football and football history, but let's not forget the almighty dollar. Thanks to the Wall Street Journal, we have rankings as to the VALUE of each program. Nationally, the SEC is very good in this department, but it doesn't look like the addition of Texas and Oklahoma is going to hurt TOO badly! (wink)

College Football Brand Value

Rank        Team                      Points

1             Texas                          1

3             Alabama                     2

6             Georgia                      3

7             Oklahoma                 4

8             Auburn                       5

9            LSU                            6

10         Tennessee                    7

11         Florida                         8

12         Texas A&M                9

16         Arkansas                    10

17        South Carolina            11

22        Ole Miss                     12

31         Kentucky                   13

35        Mississippi St             14

56        Missouri                     15

61        Vanderbilt                   16

Just a quick note here that on brand value, every team in the SEC is in the top 61 teams and 14 of them in the top 35. That's pretty impressive.

That's 3 out of 5 categories and so far they've been all about football. But what about other sports? Football will count in here, yes, but a conference plays many sports. That's why there's a Director's Cup given every year to the school with "the most success in college athletics."

Texas won it this year.

"Well, hang on - this shouldn't be only about this year." That's fair, but in the history of the Director's Cup, Florida and Texas would be 1-2 in the SEC in top 10 finishes, and they're the only ones that are high up in that department. In fact, this year was the first time Alabama has EVER finished in the Top 10. The Aggies have made the top 10 only 4 times. Texas, 21 and Florida 27 times.

Here are the current rankings:

Director's Cup "All-sports" Standings

Rank        Team                      Points

1              Texas                         1

5              Florida                       2

7             Alabama                     3

8            Arkansas                     4

10          Georgia                       5

12          Kentucky                    6

15          LSU                            7

19         Texas A&M                 8

22         Ole Miss                      9

24         Oklahoma                 10

26         Tennessee                   11

42        South Carolina            12

48        Missouri                      13

50        Auburn                        14

56       Vanderbilt                    15

59       Mississippi St              16

So that wraps up the athletic portion of our competition. Football, again, making up 60% of the total grade on its own, plus part of the all-sports total. All that remains is academics. Obviously this is more subjective, but the most commonly used ranking system comes from US News and World Report which puts out an annual list of the best "national universities." There are other lists, but it's hard enough to compete with Harvard and Yale without also adding Oxford and other international schools.

Here are the 2021 rankings for SEC schools:

National Universities Ranking

Rank        School                    Points

14            Vanderbilt                  1

30            Florida                       2

42            Texas                         3

47           Georgia                      4

66          Texas A&M                5

97          Auburn                       6

112        Tennessee                   7

118        South Carolina           8

124        Missouri                     9

133        Oklahoma                10

133        Kentucky                  11

143        Alabama                   12

153        LSU                          13

160        Ole Miss                   14

160        Arkansas                  15

206        Mississippi State     16

US News uses a lot of factors to decide these rankings, but the biggest are graduation and retention rates, faculty resources, and undergrad academic reputation. I'm sure it's not perfect, but it's the best we have.

I recognize that this is hardly a perfect science. I tried to look into national fan bases, but there isn't a really strong source for that. Sports Illustrated came the closest with a top 10 - for our schools the order would be Alabama, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma as the only ones ranked. Impossible to really quantify, but not going to change the overall rankings anyway, as you're about to see.

Conclusion:

So here we go! 5 different ways to stack the SEC schools up against one another. So what happens when you put them all together?

Well,  here's the final rankings based on each school's average finish against one another in the 5 categories:

Composite Rankings

Rank        School                  Composite  

1               Texas                        3.0

2              Alabama                    3.8

3              Georgia                     4.0

4              Florida                      4.8

5             Oklahoma                5.6

6             Texas A&M              7.0

7             LSU                          7.6

8             Auburn                      8.4

9            Tennessee                   8.6

10          Arkansas                   10.2

11          Ole Miss                   10.8

12          Kentucky                  11.0

T13        Missouri                   11.8

T13       South Carolina          11.8

15         Vanderbilt                  12.6

16          Mississippi St           15.0

This shouldn't be that much of a surprise. This is the reason Texas and Oklahoma are considered such a big prize. When you factor in several different ways to measure their value, they rise to the top.

There are really 4 tiers here. With the top 5 schools, there's never more than a .8 difference between them. Then a 1.4 drop into 6th and the same thing again. 6-9 are all fairly close, then it drops off at 10. Vandy and Mississippi State are really in their own category, even with Vandy's excellent academics.

So walking in the door, Texas and Oklahoma are 2 of the top tier of 5 schools. There's an argument that Texas has the most overall value of any of them.

"But how can that be? Texas can't even win the Big 12!"

Will Texas need some time to catch up in football? Perhaps. But history shows us that it's a lot easier to catch up in the on-field football results than it is to catch up in all-sports, or value, or fan base, or academics.

I've heard a lot this week that the Big 12 is garbage and there's no comparison.

Well... we just did a comparison. 

The SEC is great. Texas and Oklahoma make it greater.

A Big 12 History Lesson

The Longhorns and Sooners are headed to the SEC and I'm seeing a lot of anger and bitterness from other schools. Oklahoma State is upset that they're not being included. Schools like Kansas State, Baylor and West Virginia are scrambling to figure out where they fit. And the loudest, whiniest voice is definitely that of the Aggies.

The narrative now is that Texas and Oklahoma are destroying the old conference and A&M is being railroaded by the new one.

But I think some perspective is important here.

Sometime during the mid 2000’s the Big 12 Conference got together to vote on individual TV rights. The main deal is a conference deal – everyone gets paid on that one. But this conversation was for 3^rd tier rights. A handful of football/basketball games that weren’t going to be on the big network and a slew of smaller sports. There was talk of a conference network like others have, but in the end, the league voted to allow schools to maintain their own individual rights to do with as they please. Again – a league vote. Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Nebraska led that charge – feeling they could do better for their schools by making their own deals. Just to reiterate: A&M and Nebraska voted to let each school do what they wanted.

In 2007, Texas Athletic Director DeLoss Dodds approached Texas A&M to see if they’d want to partner in a network. The Aggies weren’t interested – UNTIL…

Early 2010. A&M gets wind that the Longhorns are working on a deal with ESPN to form their own network and asks if they can get in on a little of that. Texas informs the Aggies that it’s already too far down the road and by June it’s leaked that a 20-year, $300M deal to launch the Longhorn Network is imminent.

Meanwhile, the Sooners have struck a nice little deal of their own with FOX for some of their TV – including a pay-per-view plan that still makes Oklahoma a nice chunk of change. The Aggies got a bit of regional money, but not what they had hoped. Most of the schools sold those rights to a company like Learfied or IMG College to make a few bucks.

The top Big 12 schools are being courted by the PAC 12 at this time, but Nebraska isn’t in those discussions.

The Huskers had wanted to create their own network, but AD Tom Osborne quickly realized that there wouldn’t be enough national interest and programming would be tough and was now convinced that a conference network was the way to go. Seeing that they missed the boat, and that the other conference big boys may be on the way out, Nebraska pulls the “eject” lever and announces they’re heading for the Big 10 to get a piece of that network. Colorado sees a Pac 12 life raft float by and jumps on it.

It’s June 11^th 2010 and the Big 12 is suddenly now 10, in large part because Texas and Oklahoma were the only ones actually successful at doing what they all wanted to do. Again, these Tier 3 rights are only for the sporting events not in the main conference TV deals. Texas and Oklahoma haven’t taken any money out of anyone else’s pocket – just added more to their own. Anyone can do it. And they all did – just not as successfully.

So now the conference is in trouble. Texas and Oklahoma feel like they’re being blamed (ok, mostly Texas for starting a TV network). 

At the time, as Texas was being raked over the coals, DeLoss Dodds said, “I’m very upset. We’ve talked about it for years. People got interested when they found out what the money is. Should we apologize for someone paying us for it? I say no.”

That’s the rub – it wasn’t that Texas was able to start their own network. It’s that they were paid so much to do it. This was jealousy. Pure and simple.

So Texas can take a hint. This isn’t going well. The writing is on the wall. It is announced the next day that Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and “another Texas school” are considering leaving to go to the Pac 12. The reason it was “another Texas school” is because the Aggies thought maybe they’d rather go to the SEC, which would have sent Texas Tech out West in their place. The Longhorns don’t want to lose their LHN deal, though, so negotiations are difficult. And it becomes clear that the PAC 12 only wants the Oklahoma schools if Texas is also coming. At this point A&M would love to get away from Texas, but they don’t have a firm offer from the SEC. So what now?

The Big 12 tries a Hail Mary. They get the remaining 10 schools together and say, “how do we fix this?”

Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and Baylor lobby HARD to keep the conference together, fearful of what will happen to them if it disbands. They’re making more money in a power 5 conference than they likely would elsewhere, so they’re happy enough just to keep the status quo, but it’s even better than that for them: ESPN and FOX say they’ll keep paying the same money for 10 teams that they were paying for 12. So everybody is going to get more money.

Texas just wants to continue to have their network and some assurances that the conference will stay together.  Oklahoma wants to keep their FOX deal and keep a “top share” of the revenue (the money in the conference isn’t distributed equally – and all the schools agreed to that upfront.)

But the Aggies want more money. So the conference re-configures payouts to give A&M, Oklahoma and Texas $20M each and the other 7 teams split what’s left. So the Aggies have negotiated more money for themselves than they previously had. That was their only stipulation – more in their own pocket.

So on June 14^th, 2010 the Big 12 announces that the 10 remaining schools have committed to a new deal (and to each other) and the conference will remain. In essence – Texas, Oklahoma and Texas A&M have banded together to “save” the conference and the smaller schools from irrelevance.

The Aggies then spend the next several months behind the scenes scheming to leave, which they do the very next year. Whoop!

So to recap:

The league voted to allow individual TV rights deals.

Texas asked A&M if they’d like to partner in a network. “No thanks.”

Schools went out to see what the market would be for their wares.

Oklahoma got a deal.

Texas got a better one.

Everyone else got pennies and freaked out.

Then when the Big 12 looked to be blown to bits, Texas, Oklahoma and A&M agreed to work together to save the conference.

A&M immediately reneged and left.

Sure, Nebraska’s departure probably started the inevitable dissolving of the conference, but it was A&M and Missouri leaving for the SEC that really made it untenable.

Big 12 leadership may have had a chance to make it work if they could have been aggressive about bringing in some good schools to expand, but they sat on their hands for years.

So a decade after A&M and Missouri left, Texas and Oklahoma are doing the same.

But now it’s Texas and Oklahoma who are the bad guys?

“They’re destroying the Big 12.”

And the poor Aggies are the loudest, most disgusted voice in the room – “we’re getting screwed over.”

I get why they’re angry. They thought they had a commitment from their conference and its members. That’s how 8 Big 12 teams felt when you promised to stay then immediately went back on your word.

Sorry, A&M.

For a school who talks so much about tradition, you sure easily forget your history.

Surprised by the Texas coaching change? You shouldn't be.

I think it’s lovely that so many of you want my take on the Texas coaching move. I don’t know that I know any more than you do since I’ve been out of TV for 12 years now (gasp!) but here are my thoughts: 

First off, this can’t be a surprise. Yes, there was a “vote of confidence” given last month, but that’s worth less than the paper it’s written on. Texas thought they had a legitimate chance at Urban Meyer. Maybe they were led to believe that. Maybe it was just hubris. But they took a run at the big fish and he got away. No harm no foul, right? Wrong. From the moment it became clear that they were courting Meyer, it was EXTREMELY unlikely that Tom Herman would be back on the DKR sideline in September.

For one, the relationship is now damaged. Herman knew they would have rather had someone else – he also knew that so many alums were behind it - and that makes everything harder. He’s less likely to be a “team player” with his Athletic Director and boosters, and he wasn’t exactly that guy to start with. That’s a bad place to be.

But worse than that, it cripples recruiting. What kid will be convinced by Tom Herman that Texas and his scheme is right for them when they know he could be gone at any moment? It’s still Texas. They’ll still get some guys. But those 5-star kids that are the hardest to land would have been even harder. We can’t have that.

There were already reasons to move on. The problem is, there weren’t slam dunk reasons.

Herman seemed immature at times – he mocked the Missouri quarterback at the end of a game. He was seen headbutting his players in what felt like a showy display of excitement. He gave the old “double bird” to Longhorn Network cameras in the “war room” on signing day. He never quite seemed to get that he was the serious face of a serious program now. That didn’t sit well with boosters. But they hired a “player’s coach” and you can forgive the eccentric when it’s going well on the field.

Speaking of on the field… it got better. Let’s not pretend it didn’t. 4 seasons, 4 bowl wins. A couple of them were against real teams, too. The program is better today than it was when Charlie Strong was shown the door. But it always felt like they should have produced more.

The Longhorns played in 27 one-score games under Herman (the most of any power 5 program during that time.)  They went 14-13 in those games. Texas was a top-25 ranked team for 19 of those games and went 10-9 in those, so whether they were good or not, every close game was a coin flip. That’s terribly frustrating. It makes it hard to fully buy in, and also makes it hard to give up. They seemed to perpetually be a play or two away, finding new and creative ways to lose in the final minutes – which often makes it feel like just bad luck. Until it happens over… and over… and over. Herman never lost a game at Texas by more than 20 points. They hung around. But let’s face it - results are results.

Here’s where it gets harder to stomach: a ranked Texas team lost to an unranked opponent 7 times during the Herman tenure. Nobody has done that more during these 4 years. Nobody. So even when they were “good” it turns out they weren’t good enough.

When you put all of that together (on the field and off) with the fact that they had already decided to try and hire a better coach, this relationship was doomed.

So Texas had a choice to make: do we fire him and start the coaching search in public? That can lead to bidding wars and weeks of rumors, then the perception of “missing out” on your top choices. Chris Del Conte decided to try it a different way. This was his hire. He may have known exactly who he wanted. He may have talked to a few different guys. But in the end, he got one of the biggest names available. He got the quarterback whisperer off of THE team. Are there some crimson flags? Sure. We’ll get to those.

But if you look at Sarkisian’s resume’, you start with the quarterbacks. In his time in college football, Sark has coached Carson Palmer, Matt Leinert, Matt Cassell, Mark Sanchez, Jake Locker, Tua Tagovailoa… all of whom went on to play on Sundays. That’s a long list… and Sarkisian is only 46. That’s going to sound awfully good in 5-star living rooms. Then, when Alabama lost their superstar Tua to the Miami Dolphins, they turned it over to Mac Jones, who had nowhere near the same hype, and you could argue Jones has been better. Plus, Sarkisian brings NFL experience, which always opens some doors with recruits.

Let’s get to the drunken elephant in the room. Yes, 5 years ago Sarkisian was forced out at USC due to an alcohol problem. He’s been open about it. He had just gone through a divorce and he got himself into trouble. He went to rehab and has since been hired by both the Atlanta Falcons and Alabama without any incidents. People make mistakes and deserve second chances. So far it looks like Sark has learned from his.

I’ve also heard a lot of talk about his head coaching record. It’s only 47-35. At first blush, that doesn’t look so good. But let’s start here: his first head coaching job came at Washington after an 0-12 season. That’s right – 0 wins. Sarkisian’s first year on the job, they went 5-7. In year 2, they were above .500. 3 more years at Washington winning more than he lost before resigning to be the head coach at USC. That’s not exactly failing. Then the Trojans went 9-4 in his only full year before falling off the wagon. It’s not world-beating, but you know what has happened since then? Sarkisian has gotten to watch and learn under Nick Saban.

I’m also hearing “Saban assistants haven’t done very well” but that list includes Mark Dantonio, Will Muschamp, Lane Kiffin, Kirby Smart and Jimbo Fisher. Smart, solid football men who always seem to find work at the highest level. If you don’t think Kirby Smart and Jimbo Fisher have “broken through” then I guess one of the Saban guys is due. But there aren’t many coaching trees producing more fruit than that.

Just like any other hire, a lot of the Sarkisian success will come from who he brings in as his assistants. Tom Herman saw it as a way to throw million-dollar contracts at his buddies. That was the first of many ways Herman didn’t take it all quite seriously enough.

Which brings us full circle.

Herman could have stayed if he had been a bit more of a grown-up. Or if he had found a way to win just a few more of those close games. But he wasn’t. And he didn’t. And Texas went after Urban Meyer, so here we are. Herman had to go.

Texas could have pursued Pat Fitzgerald (15 years at Northwestern averaging 7 wins per year – even had a few 10-win seasons, but has never made a Rose Bowl or New Year’s 6 game.) Or Matt Campbell! He’s the hot head coaching name right now after winning the Fiesta Bowl. But he’s had 5 years at Iowa State and just had his first season there with less than 5 losses, so let’s not get starry-eyed. Those would be good hires, sure. And I'm sure you can think of a few more. But Sarkisian is in that same conversation.

Chris Del Conte is the Athletic Director. Herman wasn’t his hire. He gets to own this one, and most people think he’s a pretty smart guy. So was this process perfect? Of course not.

But In the end, I think Texas needed a change, Del Conte needed his own guy, and Sarkisian needed a chance to prove that he can lead a team to the promised land.

Ok, cool. Hook ‘Em!