re: Setting the record straight - Stoops got rejected

quote:

---

Texas A&M record was below average but that is not important.

---

No way, all offseason, you said Jimbo would win 10 games, win the West, beat LSU, and save his job.

quote:

---

No one really seems to understand why their fanbase hated the Stoops "hire" but embraces Elko.

The biggest benefit is that Elko is cheaper but we are constantly told that money isn't an issue.

---

Not only that if you look at what do Stoops have advantage over Elko?
More Experience.
Been in the SEC long time.
Elko
knows Texas A&M staff and players.
Knows HS coaches in Texas. This is huge!
More comfortable with the school.
Plus, cheaper and by far better chance to succeed over Stoop because Stoops hasn't been around Texas HS coaches.
I say Texas A&M made the right choice to hire Elko.

Who gives a shite whether A&M or Stoops backed out?

It was a ridiculous nonsensical arrangement all around, and was destined for failure for all parties involved.

A&M, UK, and Stoops should all just be glad the whole thing fell apart at the 11th hour, and grateful they're all in better situations today because of it.

Poor little aggie trying to make themselves look like they were a destination and that an avg coach from duke was their top choice.

I was really concerned about this. Thanks for setting the record straight.

The straight record is Bjork is a proxy for the money folks at A&M and has to get a hall pass from them to even go to the bathroom. It happens. Look at Texas.

The bottom line is this: You went after some big names and got turned down.

You went after Stoops. People with money probably felt you could get someone that has done what Stoops has done at a similar program for less money.

If anything, this shows Kentucky was right to pay Stoops, IMO. They have a good coach who will keep them a winning program for years to come with an occasional season with playoff hope in a 12 team field.

Could Stoops be a big time coach at a big time program? I don't know, but there's nothing there to really say he can't. He recruits well for where he is at. He evaluates well and finds players that are better than most think. His players play hard, disciplined, and fundamentally sound football for the most part.

quote:

---

Regents and/or big-dollar boosters told Bjork they wouldn’t support the hiring of Stoops, sources tell SI. As a general rule, letting people off-campus decide who your coach should be is not a great strategy—athletic directors are paid a lot of money to make these decisions.

---

Hmmm. I said a few weeks ago that, like Texas, A&M’s issue has never been lack of money hindering its football success. I also said that those same people who ponied up the millions to oust Jimbo were inevitably going to want a seat at the table.

I was then told by multiple aggys that A&M doesn’t have an issue with meddling boosters like Texas…

And now, an article provided here by an aggy proves me spot on correct.

Stoops makes a lot of money and is never on the hot seat at UK, that’s crazy to me. Reminds me of Gary Patterson at TCU. I think he was there like 15 years. Or Stoops at OU. What’s the longest tenured SEC coach?

He got contacted, you offered, he considered, he said no. Best of luck with Duke's 7-5 ACC guy.