Are we in a better place?

by Seth C on Nov 25, 2007 1:25 PM CST in Texas Tech Football

I've been mulling this over ever since last week's win over Oklahoma and now this thought has become more prevalent with UT's loss to Texas A&M and potential conference chaos with OU playing OSU and Missouri and Kansas matching up. [editor's note, by Seth C] I wrote a majority of this on Friday night so I apologize in advance for the inappropriate game references.

I think much is made each year about whether or not a program is better off than the year before. You sort of expect there to be improvement each and every year and whether or not a team moves forward is usually more of a question of degrees of how much better a team actually is. Let's take a look at some of these standards.

Wins
Probably the best way to determine how much better your team is relative to the year before is to take a look at how many wins you have at the end of the year. Last year it was 8 and this year, before the bowl game we have 8 with the potential to have 9 wins.
Objectively, wins and losses is what defines a coach and a team and typically that is the best way to measure the relative success and failure of a team.
I realize that the success as defined by one program is not success as defined by another. Baylor winning two conference games would be a success and UT or OU not competing for a Big 12 title every year is failure. Take a look at the folks over at BON, as they are quite concerned that they have a mediocre 9-3 record. Thought about a little differently, Texas Tech is only 1 loss worse than Texas and 1 win better that Texas A&M. Each team lost games they shouldn't have lost to, but did and each program is thinking that they are better than their ranking. What's the difference? The difference here of course is that I've always believed that the relative talent at UT, OU, and A&M is much better than what is at Texas Tech.

Talent

Let's take a look at national recruiting rankings for the past 5 years and the average of those 4 years from Scout:

Team	2007	2006	2005	2004	2003	Avg.
Texas	3	3	13	10	14	8.60
Oklahoma	30	7	5	7	3	10.40
Texas A&M	26	21	17	14	9	17.40
Nebraska	21	29	10	38	28	25.20
Texas Tech	44	17	36	17	37	30.20
Oklahoma State	24	16	64	33	29	33.20
Colorado	35	50	44	49	19	39.40
Missouri	39	58	37	36	52	44.40
Kansas State	55	48	46	48	51	49.60
Iowa State	69	59	50	57	60	59.00
Baylor	52	55	64	89	47	61.40
Kansas	78	47	57	56	70	61.60

I thought that we should also probably conider the average number of stars for each of these programs, which might be a better measure of the overall talent level at a program, also via Scout:

Team	2007	2006	2005	2004	2003	Avg.
Texas	3.84	3.72	3.79	3.24	3.33	3.58
Oklahoma	3.15	3.36	3.50	3.47	3.60	3.42
Texas A&M	3.25	3.23	2.96	2.52	3.25	3.04
Nebraska	3.22	3.27	3.23	2.26	2.81	2.96
Oklahoma State	3.14	3.17	2.14	2.67	2.67	2.76
Texas Tech	2.56	2.85	2.67	2.65	2.92	2.73
Colorado	2.81	2.50	2.67	2.21	2.92	2.62
Kansas State	2.35	2.43	2.48	2.35	3.24	2.57
Missouri	2.62	2.43	2.65	2.30	2.50	2.50
Kansas	2.26	2.36	2.25	2.00	2.44	2.26
Baylor	2.37	2.23	2.25	1.85	2.52	2.24
Iowa State	2.23	2.17	2.52	1.93	2.23	2.24

This sort of confirms what we already know, right? That Texas, OU, Texas A&M, and Nebraska all have talent "better" than what is at Texas Tech. (As an aside, I know that these rankings are not entirely accurate, and they are more or less intended to be a tool to demonstrate the gap in talent or at the very least the perceived gap in talent.) The problem for UT is that they have top 10 talent and have not been considered as national championship contenders this year or last year. Not only that, I would not expect them to be mentioned as contenders next year either. Top 10 talent should mean that UT is contending for a national championship each year, right? That's not happening, at least not in 2006 and 2007, especially when the talent has been without compare in the conference, right?

OU couldn't win twice on the road in the conference, a problem that plagues almost every team in the Big 12. That being said, OU has top 10 talent and Coach Stoops is probably doing a much better job of coaching up his talent than Mack Brown is doing at Texas. At least OU is in the National Championship conversation and a part of the Big 12 Championship almost each year.

I don't think that we need to delve into the problems that A&M has, except of course that there is talent and most Aggies (at least most Aggies that I talk to) believe that Coach Fran hasn't coached up to the talent at the school. Top 20 talent and the Aggies have to fire their coach because he hasn't been able to live up to the expectations.

Nebraska, see the paragraph above except at least the Aggies finished with a .500 record in conference (the same as Texas Tech's).

Where does that leave Texas Tech? Probably about where they should be, at least right now. Coach Leach and Texas Tech will probably finish, at least in terms of the talent relative to the program, where they should. Keep in mind, I'm not saying that I'm happy with finishing 8-4, all I'm saying is that looking at what is coming into the program, Coach Leach, is not coaching down the program (see Nebraska and Texas A&M).

Perhaps the most amazing thing about the figures above is the relative lack of talent at Kansas and what Coach Mangino has been able to do at Kansas. The talent level at Kansas has been comparable to Iowa State and Kansas, but Mangino is coaching for a national championship. The same could be said for Missouri, who has taken top 50 talent and turned the program into national championship discussion. In terms of recruiting rankings both Mangino and Pinkel have coached up their teams to the cusp of a national championship game.

But back to Texas Tech and my more global question to you as Texas Tech fans, what is your expectation? I believe that this program can and should be a part of the national conversation for years to come, at least based on the talent at Texas Tech. I plan on dissecting the team position by position once the bowl game is over, but for our intents and purposes here, this is a relatively young team. This is a team, that despite the bad losses are not as bad as UT's losses relative to the talent available (i.e. UT has top 10 talent lost to a bad Kansas State team at home, a Texas A&M team that was reeling, and struggled against teams that don't have top 10 talent: Arkansas State, UCF, Nebraska and Oklahoma State). That's not to say that Texas Tech's losses to Oklahoma State and Colorado aren't bad losses, as they are, but even good teams suffer bad losses and teams with better talent suffer losses to teams with much less talent. In other words, there is improvement at Texas Tech relative to the talent level.

After discussing all of this, what's the bottom line, at least for me? Winning isn't easy. I think that more than anything else, I take from all of this, no matter how you slice recruiting rankings, the overall talent at a program, etc., winning isn't easy.

A couple of things to think about from a Texas Tech point of view and I'd love your perspective as well.

Is Coach Leach really doing more with less talent? I've always believed that he does do more with less talent, and I think for the most part, that in competing with UT, OU and A&M, all of which have been relatively successful at recruiting, Leach is more than holding his own. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see a few more wins against UT and OU, but the talent level between those schools and Texas Tech is still pretty significant.
How happy are you with the overall progress of the team, program and Coach Leach and is it based on recruiting success, plain wins and losses, etc.?
Considering the factors in recruiting, location, and history, is what Coach Leach doing at Texas Tech even more impressive or are you not impressed at all?
What's the tipping point? Is it something that you would be able to look at empirically or is will you know it when you see it? For example, UT hasn't won a national championship in 3 years, how much leash does Mack Brown get before you start asking questions about whether or not he's the right head coach? Same thing goes for Red Raider fans, at what point do you say 8 or 9 wins just isn't enough, realizing that hiring a new head coach is not necessarily a cure-all? The road is littered with head coaches who couldn't win enough, but the coaches who do win is few and far between.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Coach Leach's rating

I agree that Mike Leach is doing a good job based on all the information about recruiting. Like most folks, I expect Tech to win the South title next year, and the only way we do that is to improve our defense.

by mrfinch on Nov 25, 2007 4:06 PM CST reply actions

interesting stuff Seth

I thought that last season, we took a step back. We had a lot of talent and experience in the WR's, OL, and front 7 of the defense. To go 7-5 to me, was a disappointment. We had leads on both Texas and Oklahoma in the 4th quarter of both games and lost them both. I think that the kinda hurt our recruiting. This year, with a win against Oklahoma and getting some recognition for what Harrell and Crabtree are doing has to be a positive for recruiting this year. I think Leach has done a great job coaching our team. Last year, people kept saying that "people had finally figured out how to stop our offense." That's bull-crap! The only team that can "stop" our offense is the players on our own team. If we come out flat, or are satisfied with how things are going, we can be stopped, but when we come out with that mentality of not letting anyone stop us, I really believe that nobody can stop our offense. The defense has gotten some better athletes, and that will start to pay some dividends (probably as early as next year). I see a 10 win season in the near future, and next year looks like prime time to do so. We have so much experience and a ton of talent. But these guys have to want it. The fans can't do it, the coaches can only do so much, but the players have to be hungry every single game and go out and seek to destroy, just like we did against Oklahoma.

liquidsmoke

by liquidsmoke on Nov 25, 2007 4:22 PM CST reply actions

Sometimes I think that

taking a step back is normal in most programs. I wonder if it's about the ability of a Coach to weather the storm and get the program back on track. So far, Leach hasn't had to take too many steps back as he's improved the program year in and year out. It isn't perfect, but there are few programs that are perfect (perhaps the best example is OU who is doing it each year).

Consistency.

Yes, I do believe that it's mostly about beating the teams that you are supposed to beat and preparing the team to compete in each and every game.

Go Raiders . . .

by Seth C on Nov 25, 2007 8:31 PM CST up reply actions

I think what Mike Leach is doing is phenomenal.

Acknowledging that what both Missouri and Kansas have done this year is likewise phenomenal, let's not forget that both those teams play in a much softer north conference. As you pointed out, the two unquestionably best recruiting programs in the Big-12 are in the South, where we get to face them every single season. Regardless of what metric you favor from above, four of the five teams that recruit better or comparably to Texas Tech are also in the South (OU, Texas, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M).

Since 2002, Gary Pinkel is 9-9 against the South, which is pretty damn good if you ask me. In that same period of time, Mangino is 4-14, which ain't so great. In aggregate, between the two teams I would absolutely rank them Missouri then Kansas, and that must apply to the coaches as well. But I don't think either of them enjoy the level of success they've had this year were they in the South instead of the North. Just my opinion.

If you want to compare Pinkel favorably to Leach, just look at their head-to-head record. Pointing out more success than Texas Tech on any given season is making an apples to oranges comparison, since we have to face Texas and OU every year. The South has carried the conference 4 of the last 5 years.

On Leach, I think there's more value to him than just our Ws and Ls. He does do more with less talent, but beyond that he gives our program an attitude, a style all its own, and I think there's a lot of value to that. I'm not positive that a coaching change would take us from a 8-9 win program to a 10-11 win program, but I am certain that a change would steal from me a personal source of immense program pride and entertainment; Coach Leach. When people talk about Texas Tech, it's always about Leach first. I don't ever feel like there are games we play that we just can't win, because we are such a unique program offensively.

Was this season a success? Absolutely; somehow, with the 2nd youngest team in the nation, we put up our usual 8 wins and look toward a 2008 season returning 10 of 11 starting offensive players. Our program is headed in the right direction in a division that hasn't ceded upward mobility past Texas or Oklahoma since 1998. There's no reason to think a new coach will hasten that transition.

by Red Blooded @ Double-T Nation on Nov 25, 2007 5:21 PM CST reply actions

I agree

wholeheartedly about the fact that Mizzou and Kansas have a distinct advantage by being in the North Division that just doesn't have the horses that the South has. I meant to mention that point but got distracted. As great of seasons that they've had, they haven't had to play Texas and Oklahoma. That being said, just winning the games in front puts you in the national championship conversation.

A win against Colorado and Crabtree catching that pass against OSU and we're talking about a completely different season for Texas Tech. Same could be said for UT, beating K State at home and beating an inferior A&M team means that they would be in a much better situation.

Quite simply, removing Leach is not a guarantee that the program will be improved. It's a complete crap shoot. You think you know (i.e. am hiring a coach who is superior to the one you have), but you really don't (see Franchione, Weis, etc.).

Go Raiders . . .

by Seth C on Nov 25, 2007 8:24 PM CST up reply actions

good post

I've been reading here for awhile bceause my friend Red Blooded has made me a Tech fan (I write the Steelers blog for SBN btw).

Interesting discussion you've drummed up Seth. If I may, here's my one thought that hasn't been discussed: Tech would be best served offering Leach a life-time contract extension. It's pretty simple. Before Leach you had Spike Dykes, who in all fairness, won his fair share of games. The occasionall recruit (see Bam Morris) would make his way to the NFL, but basically the program toiled in relative anonymity (no thanks to the SWC, which might as well have been called the So What Conference in the 80s and early 90s). I feel fine commenting this way because I grew up in Austin and have seen what Tech has done over the past 15 years.

Still, and this is in no way intended to be disrespectful, we're talking about Texas Tech. Most college football fans these days barely know that Texas A&M was once a proud program. To think Tech has any sort of national cachet outside of Leach's offense is beyond far-fetched if you ask me.

But what you get with Leach is instant relevancy and status as 'must-watch football'. So long as Leach is at the helm, you're going to have a top-5 offense (if not #1), and by that fact alone, you'll inherently be in a better position to improve your program recruiting wise than you would be if you had another coach that won 8-9 games in a more conservative, conventional style.

I don't have the data in front of me and it's too late to track it down (ahem, Red Blooded), but there can't be too many programs that have won as consistently as Tech over the past 5 years. Don't give me any numbers from the Big East either. I'm talking about programs from the Pac 10, the Big 10, the SEC, the Big 12, and I guess the ACC, although I'd argue it's an inferior conference that doesn't deserve to be in the same discussion as the afore mentioned conferences.

My bet is that Tech has a top-15 to top-20 winning percentage over the past 5 years, despite having to play Texas and OU every year.

Whatever though, forget all that rambling and revert back to my initial point and what REd Blooded said: this team has an identity and a relevancy ONLY because of Mike Leach. As soon as he leaves, it's almost guaranteed you revert back to national irrelevance and mediocrity. What other coaches have NFL network specials on their offense? WHat other coaches win over Donald Trump in chance, random encounters? What other coaches have taken three major programs to the absolute pinnacle of offensive greatness (Kentucky, OU, and now Tech)?

Very few, if any, and certainly none that have close to two decades of coaching left in them. Mike Leach is a godsend to this program, and I highly encourage each and every one of you to do whatever is possible to keep him in Lubbock for as long as possible.

Keep up the good work Seth. You may very well be in store for some special things in the near future. That is if, and only if, you keep Mr. Mike Leach at the controls of this relevant and admirably consistent program.

by Blitzburgh @ Double-T Nation on Nov 26, 2007 1:43 AM CST reply actions

Bravo

Coach Leach and Coach Knight make writing this blog very easy and like you, I want no other coach as my head coach other than Coach Leach. I had thought about devoting an entire blog post about the job description if Leach would leave and I will have to save it for another day, but I too believe that Coach Leach has set a very high bar.

I love Coach Leach and would want nothing more than to keep him here forever. A lifetime contract is a good place to start.

Go Raiders . . .

by Seth C on Nov 26, 2007 8:21 PM CST up reply actions

Mike Leach

I fully we need to keep Mike around as long as he will stay!!!!!!! The national identity is huge for us!! As much as I love Spike he could not bring Donald Trump into the fold. I would like to win the south but who is the only bowl-eligiable team every year of the Big 12? That would be TEXAS TECH.

Wreck'em

by techgolf on Nov 26, 2007 8:10 AM CST reply actions

Tipping Point

I think, for me at least, that the tipping point may come next season. To me there is no reason that we should not win at least 10 games next season and/or be a legit competitor for the South.

Following Tech since the Leach era began, there are only three teams that I felt we most primed to make a statement season and so far only one proved anything...

2005 team - Favorable schedule, strong O-Line filled with experience, one of the more experienced defenses we have had in a while...
Result: End with a 9-3 season, first trip to Cotton Bowl in 10 years, huge statement wins @Nebraska, OU...garner first Top 10 ranking in decades, finish year in top 20

2006 team - On paper, best corp of WRs in the nation in a long time, senior-laden team that was expected to build upon success of previous season

Result: 7-5 season, which if was not capped off by the biggest comeback in Bowl history, would be seen as a total disaster...Ugly Losses to Mizzou, Colorado...blew 2nd half lead to UT, @OU...produce worst offensive showing in Leach era at TCU...ultimately lack of leadership, little chemistry and selfish players lead to demise of team that had a lot of potential

To me we have a lot of things going for us next season:
Experienced QB
Experienced OL
Proven corps of WRs
Favorable schedule (only games that really concern me are @KU, UT, @OU)

Obviously there are still questions surrounding the Defense, but you have to think that the DL and LB areas will get better due to their experience they have been gaining from playing this year. Throw in the fact that an overhaul is expected with our defensive strategy and you have to like our prospects on D...

Needless to say with the team we are bringing back with a year of experience under their belt and a favorable schedule...we should expect at least 10 wins next year

by techman16 on Nov 26, 2007 8:19 AM CST reply actions

Tech

This year, though right on-maybe better than expected, had a chance to be BCS worthy. Defense hurt us (re: UTEP-almost & Oklahoma State) at first, then poor attitude (re: Missouri, Colorado and Texas) slowed us. We need to be SERIOUS for 60 minutes, all three sides of the ball, EVERY GAME. We cannot take any team for granted. If the Defense gets better and is consistent game-to-game, and the Offense takes what is given, then burns the enemy at prime times, the team we take into the bowl game (probably the Gater against Clemson) and next year will be unbelievably awsome. Talent on this team is not as deep as UT, A&M, or OU, but first teamers can tear anyone up. We should have had two Heisman contenders go to the presentations this year because NO ONE can compare, I don't care how you try to slice it. Next year, all offensive accolades should be Tech's to grab: Harrell, Crabtree & Leach, to be specific. BCS is the next step, and recruiting will grow to support this explosive team for years to come. Defensively, McNeil may be the person, but remember, Michigan's DC is now available, too.......

TTpilk

by TTpilk645 on Nov 26, 2007 7:29 PM CST reply actions

tremendous work

re-post this again in Jan after the bowls

by Freneau on Nov 26, 2007 10:17 PM CST reply actions

north soft?

Let's not forget it wasn't all that long ago when Nebraska, Colorado and KState were pretty darn good. Iowa State even had a decent run there for a few years.

The fact that UT and OU are stout most years makes it toughER, but the north is not easy with a national contender in Mizzou, and a much improved Colorado team (uhhh, TTU is 0-4 against those guys in two years). Who here is excited about playing at Kansas (losing, I think, 4 starters from this year's team), and what will likely be a rejuvinated Nebraska team next year?

by Tech92 on Nov 27, 2007 6:54 PM CST reply actions

Overall

Tech is in a much better place than 10 years ago. Leach got us to the mountain, as hoped. Question is, is he the guy to lead us over the peak?

Next year will really be telling. If we can swing 10 wins, then I say let's commit to this guy as best we can long-term. If, with the talent returning, we only hit 7-8 regular season wins again...time for a change.

I have altered my expectations from just hoping to qualify for a bowl, to expecting an 8 win season most years, to now expecting to start competing consistently for division and conference championships.

by Tech92 on Nov 27, 2007 8:19 PM CST reply actions

I guess my question to you is

who does lead us over the mountain. I think you saw the list of candidates and I was none too impressed. If Leach leaves, then I'll settle for one of those, but I just don't think the available options are better than what we have.

Go Raiders . . .

by Seth C on Nov 27, 2007 8:43 PM CST up reply actions

Who?

I guess I'm the Lone Ranger thinking Briles would really add something to Tech's program. That's cool...

I just honestly feel, total package wise, that Briles would be that guy. Tech will not likely lure a Spurrier type of guy, and I'm not sure that's the type of guy we'd like anyway. I love what the guy at Cinci has done with his team. I forget his name at the moment...former Cent Mich guy - my graduate degree alma mater, but that's a coincidence : )

I think Grobe at Wake would be a decent fit, Leavitt at South Florida would do well - Tech is a MUCH better job even though the results don't say that...hint hint.

by Tech92 on Nov 28, 2007 9:20 AM CST reply actions