re: ***Coaching changes discussion***

I think that's why it's so hard to knock off a dynasty unless the dynastic coach leaves for whatever reason (age, scandal). You have one program per region usually that is choosing instead of begging. There's a huge difference in outcomes. Begging sometimes pays off. But it also comes with a lot of non-hackers who foul the team up and never amount to their potential. The opposite route is the Mike Sherman Method of doing real player evaluations among a pool of 3* players you can actually get without going on your knees and selecting from them the kids you think you can actually coach.

But, you see where that gets you. It's too slow and (in Mike Sherman's case, a lot of it actually had to do with his own stubbornness around calling his own plays on offense) you'll probably just wind up providing a lot of great 3* players who play like 5* to the next coach and make HIM look good instead of you benefiting from any of the scouting or coaching-up you did. Your Mike Evans find and incredible O-line built during A&M's least attractive time to recruits since 1975 goes to make Sumlin look like he knows what he's doing so he can use that capital to go get "swag" 5*s who pass on the other schools around us because they want to play as fish.