The B12 (XII) Forum, home of the 'Front Porch, y'all' at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

One program we oft note that has never faded for more than 2-3 years is OSU of course, it's remarkable.  Others have had mediocre spells, and some recovered (Bama).

Recruiting: check! TOSU is in the heart of a fertile recruiting ground and has a great national brand as well.
Facilities: as far as i know, check!
Financial resources: check!
Leadership: I assume, check!

Important, but not sufficient. If recruiting were all that matters, Texas would have captured a string of Big 12 championships.
And it's the same thing with financial resources and facilities.
Leadership is critical. If you have a strong president and a strong A.D. who are committed to a strong football program, and you've got the resources, and you've got recruiting, then many good things are possible.
Great leadership hires--and supports--great coaching.
I would guess that leadership has been part of Nebraska's problem.
If boosters have the power--as it is often said that they do at UT--then good things are difficult.

This is such an oddly and often repeated idea.

Mack Brown got comfortable and fat and lost his edge, and then Texas hired a string of bad coaches.  It's pretty simple.

I suppose the argument could be made that the boosters influenced the hiring of that string of bad coaches, but most people thought Charlie Strong would be a good coach at Texas, and a lot of folks thought Tom Herman would, too-- Texas had to outbid LSU to get Herman on campus, so it's not like Texas was going out on a limb and hiring an undesirable from out of nowhere.

I don't have much hope for Sarkisian, but it wasn't the boosters that selected him, it was the university president.

At least LSU got a NC from Ogeron before they had to can him.  That whole episode seems so strange to me, going from winning the CFP to being fired in two years.  

Do you think LSU is trending more like tOSU where they can win different NC's under different coaches?  LSU has done it with three different coaches in 20 years.  

This (boosters having the power at UT) is such an oddly and often repeated idea.

Mack Brown got comfortable and fat and lost his edge, and then Texas hired a string of bad coaches.  It's pretty simple.

I suppose the argument could be made that the boosters influenced the hiring of that string of bad coaches, but most people thought Charlie Strong would be a good coach at Texas, and a lot of folks thought Tom Herman would, too-- Texas had to outbid LSU to get Herman on campus, so it's not like Texas was going out on a limb and hiring an undesirable from out of nowhere.

I don't have much hope for Sarkisian, but it wasn't the boosters that selected him, it was the university president.

Yes, it is odd and often repeated.
Back in the "Before Times," when there were a number of Texas posters--Hooky, Burnt, and Erin come right to mind, but there were others--on the old board, there was periodic discussion of the disappointments of being a UT fan. The "Austin malaise" was discussed. And so were the "PTBs"--the powers that be. I always took that to mean the boosters.
Amongst OU fans and homer mediots, there was some commentary on the announcement that the UT starting QB was going to be Quinn Ewers rather than Hudson Card. Why was it the UT SID rather than Sarkesian who made the announcement, and why did he make it at the very end of a press conference as the mediots were practically putting their laptops away? The theory--and comments from Texas message boards were cited in support--was that it wasn't Sarkesian's decision to make, or that Sarkesian had decided to start Card and the boosters wanted it to be Ewers. For NIL purposes or something.
It seems that, when Charlie Strong was hired, there was some semi-public grumbling from big donors.
And Tom Herman seemed to be caught on the Horns of a dilemma during the "Eyes of Texas" controversy--whether to satisfy his players or satisfy the donors.
Anyway, as you say, the idea that the boosters have an excessive and damaging influence on the Texas Longhorn football program is longstanding. Is it possible that they don't have much say on hirings but have significant influence on firings?

Card was disappointing last season.  It was widely accepted that Ewers was coming in as the heir apparent.

So I think all the internet message board hubbub about his being selected is kind of silly.  That's been the presumed outcome for the past 9 months.

The "controversy" sounds an awful lot like deliberate pot-stirring from people who have a vested interest in seeing Texas fail.  And potentially some wishful thinking on their part, as well.

Our LSU buddy has told me Orgeron had "other issues" that angered boosters greatly.  I don't know if it involved a motorcycle or not.

It's just a lot easier to fire a HC than replace him with someone better.  I think boosters at UGA did want Kirby Smart a lot, and had some influence on firing Richt because Smart was in the wings.  Tennessee has gone through however many HCs now and maybe the FNG is The Guy, but they've thought that before.  Mullen at UF of course was dumped due to a really bad season and his lack of focus on recruiting.  They don't tolerate mediocrity down there.

not all best decisions possible at the time work out