"A sick culture values results over process and success over people"

One paragraph from a short article:

A sick culture values results over process and success over people—like when winning comes at the expense of developing men and moneymaking trumps education or ethics. As the Longhorn’s challenging 2014 season attests (a 6-7 record and loss in a low-level bowl game), changing a culture can disrupt before it succeeds. And we have to remember that the definition for success must be expanded beyond merely wins or dollars, though in the end those are essential for a team or business. Success is also measured in how those wins and dollars are earned and what kind of people are developed to earn them.​

 

I agree to a point in basic principle, except for claims of success without winning results. Even Charlie said last year's losing season was a personal failure at his job and he must do better.

Other major programs are succeeding with both ethics and results. Pride and boasting over mediocre results with kids of good character is a defeatist mentality. Strong wants no part of that weak mindset.

Success in major college football is judged from both the process AND the results. The Texas head coach is tasked to develop quality young men AND win football games. Failure to attain both at a university with our advantages is not success. The Armed Forces schools run character rich programs and nobody is boasting of their great success on the college football landscape.

Charlie is succeeding in ethics, yet the jury is still out on the results. Both will determine if he's a success here or not. If he was cheating his way to titles, he'd have failed. If his character driven program doesn't compete for titles eventually, it's equally a failure at his job.

As for Patterson, I guess he missed the memo on the consequences of taking blood money.

 

I certainly admire Charlie Strong and the values he instills. But great youth ministers are good at that too and you can hire the best for about 1% of Strong's salary. There's too much money in college football to say it's all about character development. I guess he could be an experiment to see if a healty culture and big time college football are compatible. I love Strong and am hoping for the best.

 

@Brad Austin / @Crockett - I agree with you both; and I think the full article pretty much says the same.

Loved your last line, BA.

 

I agree with this 100%. I can't wait to see Strong's culture change pay dividends. Sometimes you have to break an egg to make an omelette.

 

I think this team is slightly better than last year, but they play a very tough schedule. In my opinion this team will struggle, I think they'll go 7-5 with a chance to win 8 in the bowl game. It's all about winning, I just hope Coach Strong gets the full 5 years to bulid the program back up. Mack Brown left this program a complete mess, he left a bunch of overrated players who couldn't play. Which is also the reason why I don't pay any attention to recruiting rankings, none of these "experts" know what they're talking about, and the Mack Brown era was a great example of that.

 

I think QB, OL, and special teams will be significantly better. Defense by end of year will be a terror.

 

Mack Brown had a fantastic academic rating his last year and it did not matter at all.
http://www.statesman.com/weblogs/be...s-football-scores-perfect-ncaa-academic-mark/
Coach Strong inherited a program doing well in the classroom.

In college football it's about wins and losses. There are multiple ways to win. Mack Brown and DKR produced wins in their ways. OU, Miami and Florida State produced wins in a different way. Ultimately it will come down to coaching, recruiting, Xs and Os, etc. more than anything else. Hopefully Coach Strong's way is successful. However, it will be measured in Ws and Ls starting after year 3.

If Coach Strong wins, fantastic! If he does not, we will find someone who can win and do things the right way. We found those guys in Mack Brown and DKR. Doing things the right way should just be expected at UT, honestly. However with the likes of Bill Powers and Steve Patterson, I understand why fans find Coach Strong, one of the few UT higher-ups trying to do things the right way, refreshing.

 

I don't know about three years. And I want patterson gone yesterday!

 

I'm predicting 7-5 heading into a bowl game. Brutal road schedule. We'll beat Cal or OSU, but not both. Just can't see us losing to ND, Cal, and OSU while starting 1-3. 2-2 seems about right.

I also think we upset one of TCU, OU, or Baylor away from home. Highly unlikely all 3 beat us back-to-back years. Yet we may take a road loss to West Va since we're possibly heading in on a 4 game winning streak. Could be caught napping in that one.

Here's a thought. We could still be in the conference title conversation heading into Baylor. At 3-3 after 6 games, if our early losses are ND, Cal, and TCU...yet we beat Rice, OSU and OU...the next 5 games before Baylor are all very winnable.

By the time we enter West Va. we could be 5-1 in conference by taking out KSU, ISU, and KU. Team would be highly motivated to keep it rolling. Anyway, maybe it's wishful thinking but not an absurd stretch if we get by OSU and OU. Taking our early losses to 2 OOC teams and then TCU wouldn't be the end of the world.

W: Rice, (Cal or OSU), OU, KSU, ISU, KU, TTU
L: ND, (Cal or OSU), TCU, WVU, Baylor

 

Cal and OSU should both be victories.......not sure what people are seeing in OSU other than the OU victory.

They beat UTSA, Missouri State, Kansas, ISU, Texas Tech and OU.....then beat a very beat up Washington Husky team....not buyinig the OSU Hype.

Cal.....won 5 games last year including games over Colorado, Washington State, Sacremento State, Northwestern and a 5-7 Oregon State team.

We better beat Cal and OSU home. Worst case, we will be 3-2 going into the OU game and they will be 3-1, getting crushed by Tennessee and almost losing to WVU at home.

 

We played a very banged up OSU team last year. As they started getting injured players back, they beat OU and Washington. Sonny Dykes is building at Cal. We could win both games or could lose both games, however it is probably too early to tell how good Texas, Okie State or Cal is. I think all 3 could be bad, mediocre or good. All are really teams that no one can be very certain how they will perform this year. Dykes and Strong are on their second jobs (first jobs at bigger schools), and looking to show improvement by winning in a major conference. Gundy is a proven winner at Okie State, so he may be the most likely to have a good team this year if only for that reason.

We are 5-0 against Cal all time.
2011 Holiday Bowl Texas 21 California 10
1970 Texas 56 California 15
1969 Texas 17 California 0
1961 Texas 28 California 3
1959 Texas 33 California 0

Our closest margin of victory is 11 points. We better keep up the undefeated record against Cal the next two years. Hopefully our coaches and players find out, and play for the pride of not being the first Texas team to lose to California.

 

And this is why I F-ing love college football! In August, so many teams are almost a complete mystery. Sure, many of them wind up mediocre, but some teams will stumble and falter with no warning while others will unexpectedly shine.
Its not that way in the NFL, where you can predict most teams' records with some accuracy.

Sept can't get here soon enough.

 

I hope so. I fully believe you can be as seriously he has been on ethics & values (and it's sad that his "core values" have been such a big deal rather than normalcy) and still achieve the highest levels of success. But there's also no doubt that it IS harder - even though some are attracted specifically b/c of the core values - because you are inevitably depriving yourself of some percentage of people who could otherwise be contributing to your pool of talent.

It's a lot like a more complex version of the common hero movie situation where if the good guy is hanging off a cliff the bad guy will just stomp on his hand and make him fall, but if the bad guy is hanging off a cliff the good guy feels obliged to give him a hand and help him up, and so the good guy has a tougher time because he doesn't have access to the full range of potential fight-winning techniques the bad guy does.