Mandate For Change: Texas A&M
Turning the thing around.
- - -
"You look at A&M, and you wonder why they haven’t gotten to the top 5. Texas has since won a national championship. LSU, USC and Florida. There’s no reason A&M is not at that level."
– An opposing Big 12 assistant coach in Athlon.
"You're not as good as they are and you're probably never going to be."
– Nike rep, reportedly, when A&M asked for the same deal as Texas.
The Catalyst: R.C. Slocum’s teams in the early nineties set a high bar – undefeated regular seasons in ‘92 and ‘94 – which eventually ate his job and Dennis Franchione’s:

The ‘98 Big 12 Championship upset over Kansas State was a final, anomalous hurrah in a more or less consistent decline since 1995 – the last year of the SWC that A&M had come to dominate. The Big 12 has been a bear for A&M, throwing several challenges it never faced in the brief window the Aggies were finishing in the top ten on a regular basis:
a) Mack Brown and Bob Stoops. Between 1945 and 1985, the Longhorns and Sooners, playing in different conferences, were two of the four winningest teams in the country; A&M ranked 86th over that span, a couple dozen games below .500. The nineties were the worst decade for both UT and OU since World War II, opening the door for A&M to make its move (with, uh, a little assistance, Jackie Sherill style; the 10-0-1 season in 1994 was bowl-less because of booster shenanigans on Slocum’s watch). By 2000, Brown and Stoops had restored the historical order.
b) Mike Leach. A traditional ankle-biter, in relative terms, has made the South a much tougher division at the same time. Leach owns A&M: he was 4-1 against Franchione in ostensible toss-ups, three of the wins embarrassing, 20-plus-point blowouts. Given back-to-back wins over Texas in his last two tries, probably no single outside force acted more decisively for Franchione’s ouster than the Cap’n.
c) A glass-eating defense. See below.

Sorry to see you go, bro.
- - -
I’m a little more forgiving toward the Franchione era than I perceive most people to be. A&M’s return to mediocrity was underway well before he stole away from probation-addled Alabama in the dark of night. Slocum never had a losing season, but with three seven-win seasons and a couple wins over Texas in his last four years, Franchione more or less held the line overall re: Slocum’s last four years. Not good enough – at least not when you’re engaged in hilarious mini-scandals for your own financial benefit at the same time. So the question for Mike Sherman is, how frequently does he have to break the Texas-Oklahoma hold on the division to avoid the same fate? Or does he just have to get back beating Texas Tech?
The New Guy: Sherman is kind of a blank slate retread from the college perspective, just another NFL guy slumming with the kids, which would put him firmly in the category of fellow straight-lipped, brow-furrowing, low pesonality pro refugees Al Groh, Chan Gailey, Greg Robinson and Dave Wannstedt. This isn’t so encouraging. But Robinson was a more successful NFL coach than any of them, despite his eventual demise in Green Bay, with three division championships in four years (albeit in the morgue of the NFC North), and he has "glory days" connections as OL coach in the better half of the Slocum era.
Sherman has already made two gestures remiscent of better days: first, he hired mushmouthed ex-Alabama coach and rumpled coordinator extraordinaire Joe Kines to fashion a promising youth movement (Michael Bennett, Cyril Obiozor, Von Miller and Derrick Stephens were all touted recruits in 2006-07) into something more like the old "Wrecking Crew" than Franchione’s defense ever managed with Carl Torbush and Gary Darnell’s 4-2-5 look:

The other change is an apparent middle finger to the shotgun-based zone read sets, the first offense I’m aware of to move away from the spread and toward a more conventional, power-oriented philosophy (although almost certainly not the last). This suits A&M’s backfield: Jorvorskie Lane is a natural fullback, not built to operate in space, and there is no discernible reason Stephen McGee should have more carries than Mike Goodson, as he has the last two years; what I’ve seen of Goodson indicates to me he can be really electric (I’m thinking of the afterburner run he put on Texas in Austin as a freshman), but he only has one 20-carry game in two years. The offense spent most of the final scrimmage running from the I-formation, and unless it plans to let seldom-used, pined-for bench superstar Jerrod Johnson run around out of the shotgun, manly iso runs seem like the natural recipe here.
Immediate Impact or Slow Burn? I’m optimistic about regime chages, generally, yet still have a lot of doubt about Sherman’s impact unless Goodson or Jerrod Johnson were really criminally ignored by the old staff, are better than the hype and bound to suddenly emerge as all-America-level difference makers. Defensive rejuvenation and a lot of low-scoring slugfests is much more likely. But I don’t see anyone without maroon-tinged scales on their eyes predicting a quick turnaround, and I’d like know on what basis anyone thinks the Aggies are positioned to compete with the division overlords in the long term.
Personal aloofness and illicit newsletters notwithstanding, I tend to think Franchione’s tenure is more or less the long-term norm for A&M, given the monolithic success of its most recent competitors over the vast majority of the last half century – since Bear Bryant, TAMU has only succeeded at a very high level when Texas and Oklahoma are relatively down, and has a long way to go to consistently recruit at the same clip (the ‘Horns and Sooners were 1-2 in Big 12 recruiting five of seven years since 2002 in the Rivals archives, and were 1-2 every year according to site’s ‘Average Star’ rating). At least to the extent that a breath of fresh air is not enough in itself to suddenly begin competing for division titles more than once every four or five years. But I don’t know how patient the partisans will be with just the occasional break from the usual string of Holiday and Alamo bowls. Even the ‘occasional break’ sounds like a best-case scenario, and just as likely to mean a ‘break’ from the December games in the same way it did with Fran.
0 recs |
22 comments
Comments
the first offense I’m aware of to move away from the spread and toward a more conventional, power-oriented philosophy
michigan state post JLS
by bsb2002 on
Jun 6, 2008 9:45 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Nice write up
As a A&M alum I am cautiously hopeful that Sherman can build the program back up to level of reasonable success and respectability. Sitting between the triangle of OU, UT and LSU makes recruiting difficult. Sherman seems to be trying to spread out to other states as the Texas recruiting pool, while deep and talented, gets raided my many out of state schools as well as the major in state schools.
No doubt the success of Leach at Tech hurt Franchione. But to me, his biggest downfall was getting consistently embarrassed in big games. Fran led A&M to the most lopsided defeats (OU 77-0, Cotton Bowl vs Tennessee, big losses to Tech). No doubt that despite an abundance of resources, upgraded facilities, and strong fan support winning at A&M at a consistently high level will be a big challenge. Are Sherman and his staff up to the task? I hope so but recent history is not on their side. I will be at Kyle field watching it all unfold these next few years.
by Cajunag on
Jun 6, 2008 10:02 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Three words
West Coast offense. It’s Sherman’s thing, and it never works in college because the NCAA doesn’t allow enough practice time to get it right.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
by Year2 on
Jun 6, 2008 11:40 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Really? That offense worked pretty damn well at Nebraska.
by gahnki on
Jun 6, 2008 11:13 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
How much of that last year was the function of the Big XII’s defense-optional style of play? Or the fact that opposing defenses didn’t have to care because Nebraska allowed 11 quintillion points per game?
by SpartanDan on
Jun 7, 2008 12:12 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The quality of defense they faced is a fair point. But the fact of the matter is that Nebraska put points on the board pretty regularly. They averaged 33.4 points per game. That’s nothing to laugh at no matter the competition level.
by gahnki on
Jun 7, 2008 4:13 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That was good for eighth in the Big XII. (Of course, the other totals may have been inflated by opponents who got to feast on the atrocious Huskers’ D.) I’m not impressed.
by SpartanDan on
Jun 8, 2008 3:13 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The point isn’t whether it’s a good total compared to the rest of the Big XII. It’s that the offense can work if it’s coached properly. And at the college level you don’t need all the bells and whistles that a Bill Walsh-esque West Coast offense provides. And Nebraska’s recruiting was never that good under Callahan. If you bring in top talent and teach them a simplified West Coast offense they will put points on the board.
by gahnki on
Jun 8, 2008 5:42 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
BIg 12 Offense
By Big 12 standards, Nebraska’s offense was average, but it was well above average nationally. The Huskers were only fifth in the conference in total offense, but they were ninth nationally. Eighth in the Big 12 in scoring was good for 28th nationally, which is top 25 percent. In their last four games, when Joe Ganz became the quarterback, they scored 25 against Texas (all but one TD w/ Sam Keller), 39 against Kansas, 73 against Kansas State and 51 against Colorado. Earlier in the year, they went over 30 in four of the first five games, and won the one they only scored 20. I’d say Nebraska’s offense was pretty good – but it had to be full throttle all the time, because the defense was so bad, and there was a lot of garbage time yards and points, I’m sure (against USC, for example, which was a complete blowout with a couple late touchdowns tacked on). They also had a brutal turnover margin.
Nebraska’s recruiting was much better under Callahan than under Frank Solich – it’s not even close, according to Rivals. Solich really left him with a middle of the pack roster.
by SMQ on
Jun 8, 2008 7:08 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Nebraska’s recruiting was much better under Callahan than under Frank Solich – it’s not even close, according to Rivals. Solich really left him with a middle of the pack roster.
But it still wasn’t Oklahoma/Texas level good. I still contend that with the talent level that Oklahoma/Texas have the West Coast offense could be extremely effective in the college game.
by gahnki on
Jun 8, 2008 7:17 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It could get really competetive in the Big 12 if Texas A & M turn things around. If Kansas, Texas Tech, Missouri, and Colorado can continute to play at a higher level than usual the Big 12 could rival the SEC as the most competetive conference.
by gahnki on
Jun 6, 2008 11:31 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Nicely done SMQ
I’m a UT alum from a family of Aggies, so to me, A&M always seems to be in a perplexing situation. They remain a major program in one of the most talent rich states in the nation, but are unable to consistently land the best recruits. Their alumni base however, refuses to recognize this, and demands they compete on equal footing with historically entrenched programs at UT and Oklahoma. It seems obvious that they’ll need to do something beyond the norm in order to accomplish this objective. I doubt A&M has a willingness to do that.
The Mike Leach parallel is interesting because of the way he was allowed to develop that program in an unconventional manner, and now is seeing the fruits of some highly touted recruits in his system. I doubt the aggie fans have the patience to let an innovative coach try to change the rules the conference plays by, preferring instead to attempt to beat UT and OU without allowing for growing pains.
Is there any precedent for a single talent pool (i.e. Texas) supporting 4 quality programs (UT, TTech, OU, and A&M) simultaneously?
by learned hand on
Jun 6, 2008 2:12 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
A single talent pool supporting four quality programs...
Florida supports at least three at any one time (up to six right now, depending on your opinion of Miami, UCF and Florida Atlantic), and stocks places like Georgia and South Carolina, too. Pretty much the entire Pac Ten, Mountain West and WAC and parts of the Big 12 have to recruit the hell out of California. Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State and Notre Dame all share the MI-OH-PA-NJ crop.
by SMQ on
Jun 6, 2008 2:34 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Thanks
Though, you clearly point out that I should have defined my terms better. I don’t dispute that there’s quality football in the Mountain West or the WAC, but I was thinking more in terms of teams in BCS conferences (inadvertent BCS induced elitism). Once we open the door to non-BCS conference feeders the number becomes quite a bit larger in all areas, with several schools snagging quality recruits.
In that context, you bring up another good issue, in that four of the primary Texas feeders (though LSU shouldn’t be discounted) are all in the same division of the same conference, while USF, Florida and Florida State are in different conferences. California seems to lay an inordinate amount of riches at the door of Pete Carroll, though I’d get myself in trouble saying much more about Cal recruiting.
What impact interconference history has on recruiting, if any, I have no idea but anecdotally it appears to be an obstacle for A&M.
by learned hand on
Jun 6, 2008 3:12 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don’t know that conferences matter much to high schoolers. I can tell you as a Floridian that in the ‘90s, the choice between Florida, FSU, and Miami never had to do with conference affiliation. If FSU had joined the SEC in the late ‘80s as the conference wanted it to, I can’t imagine that making a difference.
Besides, UF/FSU/Miami don’t have more players to a team than Texas and Oklahoma do, so there’s no reason to think the state of Texas can’t support three powers the way Florida can. Most agree that the declines at FSU and Miami are due to coaching and not a dearth of talent, so you can up that to 4 powers depending on your view of how good USF is.
As for USC, it’s the only perennial national title contender west of Texas/Oklahoma, so it gets its pick of the finest recruits in the West. It’s nothing like in the eastern half of the country where there are a lot more power schools, though also a lot more people too.
by Year2 on
Jun 6, 2008 3:51 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Good points
I wonder about this only because, as inter-conference rivals, nabbing a good recruit serves the dual purpose of improving your own program while detracting from the program of your conference rivals. And the historical success of OU and Texas against A&M and Tech would seem to be another recruiting tool. (But no one at my high school was athletic enough to be recruited, so that’s a guess). Granted, all this comes from the limited scope of viewing recruiting through a primarily Big 12 and Texas-centric lens.
SMQ just brought up everybody’s favorite swashbuckler, Mike Leach, who succeeded in part because of an offensive scheme that made use of players not heavily recruited by Texas or OU. That success allowed him to build a program that attracts players which historically might have preferred other programs. Toss in A&M’s problem recruiting to the level of UT and OU, and I was just wondering if there’s enough to go around if Tech keeps improving and A&M rights the ship. The answer apparently is yes.
by learned hand on
Jun 6, 2008 5:56 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
“there’s no reason to think the state of Texas can’t support three powers the way Florida can. “
Unless we make the conclusion that the state of Florida has more top-notch recruits than Texas does (of which there is some evidence).
by DoubleB on
Jun 6, 2008 6:45 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
And Texas football in famously/notoriously run heavy. I’d be unlikely to concede that Florida has more top level talent than Texas, but I wouldn’t argue that if they each have 5 five star recruits in a year, Texas could easily have 3 RB’s without a single QB, and possibly no WR. All of the top in state linebackers/DBs will probably made their biggest impression at RB as well. Florida is almost certainly putting a more diverse group of top talent into the pool.
The fact that there’s usually only a single five star QB in any Texas class (as opposed to California which is absurd) is what got my mind going down this path.
by learned hand on
Jun 8, 2008 1:36 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
There’s usually good quarterback talent from Texas. Off the top of my head there’s Gilbert, Mossakowski, and Shepherd this year who are all rated extremely well.
by gahnki on
Jun 8, 2008 3:04 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If Virginia can do it...
Football’s pretty big in Virginia as well (probably third behind Texas and Florida) and it manages to support Virginia Tech, West Virginia and a bevy of other middle-rank teams: Virginia, Maryland, Pitt, etc. Michigan even scooped a big quarterback commit from Virginia (Kevin Newsome) because Tech is set at QB.
by Alaska Hokie on
Jun 7, 2008 5:31 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Michigan even scooped a big quarterback commit from Virginia (Kevin Newsome) because Tech is set at QB.
Virginia Tech recruited and is still recruiting Kevin Newsome pretty hard. I don’t know whether he went to Michigan because of early playing time, but I expect Virginia Tech to make a pretty good push at him. I know they cited the fact that the read option doesn’t get quarterbacks ready for the NFL, and I think you may see some more movement on Newsome.
And I would put Ohio, California, and Pennsylvania ahead of Virgina in addition to Texas and Florida in terms of excitement for the sport in the state.
by gahnki on
Jun 7, 2008 4:18 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs


