clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Mack Brown, Vince Young Will Muschamp

Mack's twelve year record at Texas now stands at a stellar 128-27. That's a .826 winning percentage, the highest in Texas history.

Brown has a national title, had a good shot at another (but Lady Luck is a cruel bitch), and he has two Big 12 Titles. I won't even try to address qualitative improvements, what he has meant to the school financially, the incredibly kind gestures he goes out of his way to make for people who can't benefit him in any way, or that he runs a clean program. The guy is a class act.

I'll simply say: thank you.

Our program has had three transformative developments over the last twelve years (honestly, the last twenty five plus). First, and most crucially, the hiring of Mack Brown. Next, the rise of Vince Young. And finally, the hiring of Will Muschamp as defensive coordinator.

The eight years prior to Mack Brown, which combined Mackovic with a couple of years of McWilliams, yielded a 56-36-2. A .609 winning percentage. One Big 12 Title, some stupid weak SWC titles. A lot of misery. A nice sprinkling of humiliation.

Over eight years at Texas without Vince Young under center full time or Muschamp on the sideline, Brown has a 79-24 record. A .767 winning percentage. No Big 12 Titles. No national titles. No BCS games. One top 5 finish. 3-5 against OU.

Over four years with either VY under center or Muschamp prowling the sideline, Brown has a 49-3 record. A .942 winning percentage. Two Big 12 Titles. One national title. Four BCS games. A 3-1 record in them. Four top 5 finishes. 3-1 against OU.

Looking at it another way:

2009 13-1 Boom MFer
2008 12-1 Boom MFer

2007 10-3
2006 10-3

2005 13-0 Masai Warrior
2004 12-1 Masai Warrior

2003 10-3
2002 11-2
2001 11-2
2000 9-3
1999 9-5
1998 9-3

A Mack Brown team without a wizard at QB or a defensive Hannibal wearing a headset is consistently 10-3, both as median and mean. Look at the two years between Vince and Muschamp. What do you see?

Is this analysis oversimplified? Vastly.

Is it still instructive? Yep.

Is this a denigration of Brown? No. He's the boss. We evaluate the bottom line. He gets credit for Muschamp and Young. To argue otherwise is folly. However, it is a reminder that a program can only take the next step with a transformative figure.

What do you make of it?