Texas Hires Sarkisian - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Texas Hires Sarkisian (/thread-21330.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Texas Hires Sarkisian (/thread-21330.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Texas Hires Sarkisian - Goose - 01-03-2021
(01-03-2021, 11:12 AM)Skiddy Wrote:Will, all that's fine, but I didn't mention Shaw one way or the other. The intent of my post was to dispute the idea that the way to success is to copy what others do. That can work in some cases, but the guys we remember are the guys that innovate and DON'T just copy what others do.(01-03-2021, 10:54 AM)Goose Wrote: It is certainly true that examining the philosophy and methodology of "successful" football programs and incorporating them into your own program can be helpful. However, imitating some other program is often not possible and/or would not produce the same result in any given program. The constraints that each football program must follow are different. The opponents and schedules are different. The University philosophies are different. The student bodies are different. Most importantly the definition of "success" is different.
It is equally true that many different and seemingly contradictory approaches have at various times produced successful teams. You need to know what others are doing, take what you think will work for your program and find alternatives to things that will not. Stanford attempts to be a contributor to the body of knowledge in many fields. Football should be no exception. As has been said "You can read the literature, or you can write it". Every coach borrows from other coaches, but at the same time every coach and every program is different. Bill Walsh chose to write the literature. So did "Pop" Warner and Walter Camp. So has Nick Saban, in a different way. None of these programs were identical. Innovation isn't often along a single straight line.
Shaw turned Davis Mills the player into Mac Jones the prospect, while Saban turned Mac Jones the player into Davis Mills the prospect.
On the other side of the Atlantic, Lampard turned 200M pounds spent in a single summer into a dumpster fire team, while Brendan Rodgers has Leicester City challenging for CL spots in the world's most cutthroat professional league almost every single season.
Keep thinking that your control experiment rationale justifies Shaw's utter incompetence.
RE: Texas Hires Sarkisian - martyup - 01-03-2021
English please.
RE: Texas Hires Sarkisian - old spanish trail - 01-03-2021
[quote="martyup" pid='303907' dateline='1609711027']
English please.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I'm going to guess "gloat" because it would fit. This discussion is silly.
RE: Texas Hires Sarkisian - cardcrimson - 01-03-2021
Gloaf
Slang term used to denote farmers and hillbillies. A gloaf is described as being a moronic, idiotic, impulsive, repulsive, dimwitted, clumsy oaf of a farmer. A gloaf usually smells of manure or body odour, or a mix of the two. Typically, most gloafs are ignorant and opinionated. See also, bigot
What is that horrible stench? Oh it's just that stupid gloaf standing over there picking his nose.
from the Urban dictionary.
Wasn't there some comment about Sark picking his nose and eating it?
RE: Texas Hires Sarkisian - CompSci87 - 01-03-2021
I think by GLOAF the poster meant Give Less Of A F***.
lex24 - lex24 - 01-03-2021
(01-02-2021, 04:05 PM)gailtate Wrote:(01-02-2021, 04:00 PM)lex24 Wrote:(01-02-2021, 03:17 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Wonder what it’d be like to have your top assistants courted and hired away every year.
1. Wonder what it would be like to be Football Royalty? Perhaps the most storied College Football program.
2. Wonder what it would be like to play in a region where College Football is King. And high school football is h u g e.
3. Wonder what it would be like to have no recruiting impediments - silly things such as academics.
4. Wonder what it would be like to have the possibility to play in front of 100,000 every game in a normal year?
5. Wonder what it would be like to be able to focus recruiting in a region of the country that has by far the most talent; and then snip off the top talent elsewhere.
6. Wonder what it would be like to have the number 1 recruiting class essentially every year, and play every single game with more talent than your opponent.
7. Wonder what it would be like to have your best receiver get hurt; and your No 2 receiver gets the Hiseman.
Sounds like it'd be pretty cool.
Yep. It would. But then you’d have to root for Bama......
(01-02-2021, 05:45 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(01-02-2021, 04:00 PM)lex24 Wrote:(01-02-2021, 03:17 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Wonder what it’d be like to have your top assistants courted and hired away every year.
1. Wonder what it would be like to be Football Royalty? Perhaps the most storied College Football program.
2. Wonder what it would be like to play in a region where College Football is King. And high school football is h u g e.
3. Wonder what it would be like to have no recruiting impediments - silly things such as academics.
4. Wonder what it would be like to have the possibility to play in front of 100,000 every game in a normal year?
5. Wonder what it would be like to be able to focus recruiting in a region of the country that has by far the most talent; and then snip off the top talent elsewhere.
6. Wonder what it would be like to have the number 1 recruiting class essentially every year, and play every single game with more talent than your opponent.
7. Wonder what it would be like to have your best receiver get hurt; and your No 2 receiver gets the Hiseman.
Royalty? When Saban took over, Alabama was mediocre, posting a 67-54 record for the decade prior, with four patsies a year and only two bowl wins. Oh, and probation, too. . . .
Like him or not, he's built a juggernaut. Recruits the best talent, recruits the best coaches, who coach up the best talent and make them NFL ready. As an example, look at Najee's story--kid stuck around for another year to get his degree. Personally, too much like Belichek for my tastes, but both get it done (and don't run their trap like Dabo and Urban).
Saban is an excellent coach. Not suggesting otherwise. Being at Alabama he also has advantages others don’t. Simple as that.
(01-02-2021, 10:48 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(01-02-2021, 10:36 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote: Like I have said before, when someone keeps changing the subject to heap unending adulation on the same person and place over and over again it just comes off as kind of desperate and oddly defensive given the claims. I have never met a Cardinal or Crimson alum who talks, defends and adores like this. It is such a curious outlier, and has been so to me pretty much from the outset. I’m not saying any claims are untrue — I know all kinds of people with all kinds of backstories. I’m just saying the end result is, at the least, noteworthy and atypical, and gives me a litte smile.
What are "the claims?"
This whole thread is confusing.
What's so hard to understand about Saban building a juggernaut and doing things Stanford doesn't do - or even try to do, as far as I can tell. You know, like work really hard on the recruiting trail, hire the best assistants - even if they are independent thinkers who will not submit to . . . whatever it is Shaw thinks he has built here, etc.
Yeah, Stanford is not Alabama and never will be (though 2010 was pretty close).
Agreed.
Does that mean we should not try and get better (i.e., emulate those who do it best)?
Not sure I understand what the supposed debate is here.
Simple: Using Alabama football as some sort of benchmark or comparison to Stanford football is as foolhardy as Alabama using Stanford institutionally and /or academically as a benchmark or comparison. They are different universes.
That’s all. It doesn’t mean Stanford can’t and shouldn’t do better - recruiting and otherwise.
RE: lex24 - Goose - 01-03-2021
(01-03-2021, 06:13 PM)lex24 Wrote: Simple: Using Alabama football as some sort of benchmark or comparison to Stanford football is as foolhardy as Alabama using Stanford institutionally and /or academically as a benchmark or comparison. They are different universes.Agree they are very different universities, but they do exist in the same universe. I think it is fine to compare them academically, institutionally and athletically. We do aspire to be as good as Alabama in football. As somebody once said "We bow to no program". That said, there are big differences. Some of these differences are inherent and probably can't be altered. Some of these differences are a choice that the two universities make differently. We aren't Alabama, and they aren't Stanford. They don't want to be us and we don't want to be them. Neither of us could emulate the other exactly even if we tried. All that is good. It is also true it's lots harder to win football games at Stanford than it is at Alabama because of the ways we differ. That is just a fact.
That’s all. It doesn’t mean Stanford can’t and shouldn’t do better - recruiting and otherwise.
RE: lex24 - cardcrimson - 01-03-2021
(01-03-2021, 06:13 PM)lex24 Wrote: Simple: Using Alabama football as some sort of benchmark or comparison to Stanford football is as foolhardy as Alabama using Stanford institutionally and /or academically as a benchmark or comparison. They are different universes.
That’s all. It doesn’t mean Stanford can’t and shouldn’t do better - recruiting and otherwise.
This will not come as a surprise, but I disagree completely.
For generations, Alabama was a defense first team, especially with Bryant and Stallings. While they had a few great players on offense (Starr, Namath, Stabler), they didn't exactly light it up. No one, not once in the history of Alabama football, did someone win the Hizeman. Why, because they focused on a killer defense and an offense good enough to control the ball and win.
When he was hired, Saban too was a defensive coach, and his first teams in Tuscaloosa had the best defense in the country. A perfect fit, one might say. Then college football changed. What did Saban do? He adapted and changed his philosophy and that of Alabama football to what was happening in college football. What happened, he continued to win and several of his players succeeded enough to win that dreaded trophy at the expense, sadly of a couple of our players.
Similarly, Saban has put together a recruiting juggernaut, and continually brings in the best kids in the country that fit Alabama. Stanford has something incredibly unique to offer. Do we have a recruiting juggernaut that continually brings in the best kids in the country that fit Stanford, the kids that are good to great players who have the academic capabilities to make it on the Farm? I don't follow recruiting policy and procedures well enough, but there have been plenty of threads discussing how recruiting has changed because of new rules, yet Stanford remains mired in the past.
I guess what frustrates me the most, is Stanford has a built in competitive advantage. We are simply the best academic institution that plays Power 5 football. Harbaugh rebuilt the program around that, he understood that advantage. Is it too hard to ask that we look outside our program to see what policies and procedures are successful elsewhere, then tailor those efforts to best suit our particular competitive advantage?
Foolhardy you say to compare Stanford to Alabama. In one aspect of my livelihood, I work with a group of CEOs with who own a vastly different array of businesses that serve a variety of markets, from high tech and private equity, to service, to manufacturing, to HVAC distribution, etc.. The beauty of our program is that they all benchmark each other, are willing to learn from one another, and implement best practices and strategies tailored to their unique situations. Is that not translatable to college football. Methinks it is.
RE: Texas Hires Sarkisian - BostonCard - 01-03-2021
I think the difference lies in the interpretation of Saban's accomplishments. My first inclination was to agree with Lex, that to compare Shaw's results to Saban's is an unfair comparison. But I think you were talking about the process. Saban most certainly has exploited the advantages that Alabama confers and maximized the results. It is fair to wonder whether Shaw has, especially when it comes to recruiting.
I'm still inclined to agree with Lex that we might draw the wrong lessons from Saban's tenure in Alabama (not that there aren't lessons to be learned but you do have to extrapolate carefully from one environment to another; Saban, though great at LSU and now Alabama, didn't exactly set the NFL on fire), but I do agree that Shaw should look a bit at what others are doing to maximize the recruiting advantages they do have. In that sense, i might look a little closer to home, and see how, for example, Tara Vanderveer constructed the top ranked basketball team in the country and has really kicked it up a notch recruiting-wise in the last three or four years, or even the men's basketball program, which, regardless of what you think of the on-the-field results, has figured out how to market itself to elite players.
BC
lex24 - lex24 - 01-03-2021
(01-03-2021, 08:13 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(01-03-2021, 06:13 PM)lex24 Wrote: Simple: Using Alabama football as some sort of benchmark or comparison to Stanford football is as foolhardy as Alabama using Stanford institutionally and /or academically as a benchmark or comparison. They are different universes.
That’s all. It doesn’t mean Stanford can’t and shouldn’t do better - recruiting and otherwise.
This will not come as a surprise, but I disagree completely.
For generations, Alabama was a defense first team, especially with Bryant and Stallings. While they had a few great players on offense (Starr, Namath, Stabler), they didn't exactly light it up. No one, not once in the history of Alabama football, did someone win the Hizeman. Why, because they focused on a killer defense and an offense good enough to control the ball and win.
When he was hired, Saban too was a defensive coach, and his first teams in Tuscaloosa had the best defense in the country. A perfect fit, one might say. Then college football changed. What did Saban do? He adapted and changed his philosophy and that of Alabama football to what was happening in college football. What happened, he continued to win and several of his players succeeded enough to win that dreaded trophy at the expense, sadly of a couple of our players.
Similarly, Saban has put together a recruiting juggernaut, and continually brings in the best kids in the country that fit Alabama. Stanford has something incredibly unique to offer. Do we have a recruiting juggernaut that continually brings in the best kids in the country that fit Stanford, the kids that are good to great players who have the academic capabilities to make it on the Farm? I don't follow recruiting policy and procedures well enough, but there have been plenty of threads discussing how recruiting has changed because of new rules, yet Stanford remains mired in the past.
I guess what frustrates me the most, is Stanford has a built in competitive advantage. We are simply the best academic institution that plays Power 5 football. Harbaugh rebuilt the program around that, he understood that advantage. Is it too hard to ask that we look outside our program to see what policies and procedures are successful elsewhere, then tailor those efforts to best suit our particular competitive advantage?
Foolhardy you say to compare Stanford to Alabama. In one aspect of my livelihood, I work with a group of CEOs with who own a vastly different array of businesses that serve a variety of markets, from high tech and private equity, to service, to manufacturing, to HVAC distribution, etc.. The beauty of our program is that they all benchmark each other, are willing to learn from one another, and implement best practices and strategies tailored to their unique situations. Is that not translatable to college football. Methinks it is.
I don’t think Harbaugh built Stanford around their academic reputation. He pushed limits and boundaries. (For example, and please correct me if I’m wrong on this - but I recall many being uncomfortable with Harbaugh over committing with recruits - and then pulling some commitments ). He also had Bowlsby. A football guy. I don’t for a second believe Harbaugh could have sustained. But I may be wrong. I also believe losing Bowlsby was a much bigger blow than losing Harbaugh.
As for Stanford being mired in the past that may be, unfortunately, true. My question is whether it’s a Shaw issue or an institutional issue. Or perhaps a bit of both. Maybe someone on the board knows.
You are right Stanford has something unique to offer. And they need to exploit that. No question. But Stanford will never be able to consistently have top 10 much less top 1-3 recruiting classes. It’s just a function of numbers.
The only Pac-12 school,that has the history etc to potentially compete with Bama on the recruiting trail is SC. And they aren’t even close to Bama right now.
I just think using Saban and Bama as any kind of “mark” is off base.
Huh?? Did someone say "Saban" ? - Redrum - 01-03-2021
Whoa!! Hey! I'm awake! Man, that was weird. One day I was watching Stanford play I-forget-who (and doing so forgettably) and I just fell in to a deep sleep. And now, I'm back. I'm not sure I understand the problem with Saban. Think of it this way: You are happily married to Stanford football and have been for decades. But every now and then a guy just needs a little good football to spice up his otherwise perfect life. So, you take another football team on the side. Nothing serious. Just a little something to remind you of when you were young and your team could actually win games and respect. And if your football lover is a little trashy while being REALLY good in be...I mean, good in the stadium, it's all part of the thrill, no? And besides, if a man normally pays a hell of a lot for flashy jewelry, paying less than Stanford tuition for a very good education for Redumette II just seems like icing on the cake compared to what I paid for with Redrumette I 's Stanford education. (She's doing fine, still part of a far-flung Stanford neuroscience research team [end bragging])
And then, of course, there's the football. It's the seductive pull of knowing that winning a game has better odds than winning the Lottery. And you won't be clawing out your own eyes to avoid seeing...ummm, what's the phrase? A work not-so-much-in-progress every Saturday.
So I'm OK with Nick Saban. At least he turns out a competent product that entertains. And I don't pay his salary. Cheers,all!
RE: lex24 - JohnR34231 - 01-04-2021
(01-03-2021, 10:05 PM)lex24 Wrote:(01-03-2021, 08:13 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(01-03-2021, 06:13 PM)lex24 Wrote: Simple: Using Alabama football as some sort of benchmark or comparison to Stanford football is as foolhardy as Alabama using Stanford institutionally and /or academically as a benchmark or comparison. They are different universes.
That’s all. It doesn’t mean Stanford can’t and shouldn’t do better - recruiting and otherwise.
This will not come as a surprise, but I disagree completely.
For generations, Alabama was a defense first team, especially with Bryant and Stallings. While they had a few great players on offense (Starr, Namath, Stabler), they didn't exactly light it up. No one, not once in the history of Alabama football, did someone win the Hizeman. Why, because they focused on a killer defense and an offense good enough to control the ball and win.
When he was hired, Saban too was a defensive coach, and his first teams in Tuscaloosa had the best defense in the country. A perfect fit, one might say. Then college football changed. What did Saban do? He adapted and changed his philosophy and that of Alabama football to what was happening in college football. What happened, he continued to win and several of his players succeeded enough to win that dreaded trophy at the expense, sadly of a couple of our players.
Similarly, Saban has put together a recruiting juggernaut, and continually brings in the best kids in the country that fit Alabama. Stanford has something incredibly unique to offer. Do we have a recruiting juggernaut that continually brings in the best kids in the country that fit Stanford, the kids that are good to great players who have the academic capabilities to make it on the Farm? I don't follow recruiting policy and procedures well enough, but there have been plenty of threads discussing how recruiting has changed because of new rules, yet Stanford remains mired in the past.
I guess what frustrates me the most, is Stanford has a built in competitive advantage. We are simply the best academic institution that plays Power 5 football. Harbaugh rebuilt the program around that, he understood that advantage. Is it too hard to ask that we look outside our program to see what policies and procedures are successful elsewhere, then tailor those efforts to best suit our particular competitive advantage?
Foolhardy you say to compare Stanford to Alabama. In one aspect of my livelihood, I work with a group of CEOs with who own a vastly different array of businesses that serve a variety of markets, from high tech and private equity, to service, to manufacturing, to HVAC distribution, etc.. The beauty of our program is that they all benchmark each other, are willing to learn from one another, and implement best practices and strategies tailored to their unique situations. Is that not translatable to college football. Methinks it is.
I don’t think Harbaugh built Stanford around their academic reputation. He pushed limits and boundaries. (For example, and please correct me if I’m wrong on this - but I recall many being uncomfortable with Harbaugh over committing with recruits - and then pulling some commitments ). He also had Bowlsby. A football guy. I don’t for a second believe Harbaugh could have sustained. But I may be wrong. I also believe losing Bowlsby was a much bigger blow than losing Harbaugh.
As for Stanford being mired in the past that may be, unfortunately, true. My question is whether it’s a Shaw issue or an institutional issue. Or perhaps a bit of both. Maybe someone on the board knows.
You are right Stanford has something unique to offer. And they need to exploit that. No question. But Stanford will never be able to consistently have top 10 much less top 1-3 recruiting classes. It’s just a function of numbers.
The only Pac-12 school,that has the history etc to potentially compete with Bama on the recruiting trail is SC. And they aren’t even close to Bama right now.
I just think using Saban and Bama as any kind of “mark” is off base.
I recall tutoring a kid once who had been recruited by Harbaugh. He said JH showed up at his school and gave him a big pitch about what a great propspect he was and how much Stanford needed him, and how successful they were going to be. He got around to asking to see the kid's transcript. The kid hands it to him. Harbaugh blanched a bit and said we'll have to get back to you. That was the last he heard.
Not a dumb kid, but one who had no interest in academics.
Bottom line, I don't think JH was trying to build Stanford around its academic reputation.
RE: Texas Hires Sarkisian - cardcrimson - 01-04-2021
(01-03-2021, 09:30 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think the difference lies in the interpretation of Saban's accomplishments. My first inclination was to agree with Lex, that to compare Shaw's results to Saban's is an unfair comparison. But I think you were talking about the process. Saban most certainly has exploited the advantages that Alabama confers and maximized the results. It is fair to wonder whether Shaw has, especially when it comes to recruiting.
I'm still inclined to agree with Lex that we might draw the wrong lessons from Saban's tenure in Alabama (not that there aren't lessons to be learned but you do have to extrapolate carefully from one environment to another; Saban, though great at LSU and now Alabama, didn't exactly set the NFL on fire), but I do agree that Shaw should look a bit at what others are doing to maximize the recruiting advantages they do have. In that sense, i might look a little closer to home, and see how, for example, Tara Vanderveer constructed the top ranked basketball team in the country and has really kicked it up a notch recruiting-wise in the last three or four years, or even the men's basketball program, which, regardless of what you think of the on-the-field results, has figured out how to market itself to elite players.
BC
That's it indeed. What Tara has done the last few years is perfect. She's found a way to get the best players, who can cut it academically, to want to play for Stanford and nowhere else, not UConn, not Notre Dame, not Oregon. 12 years ago, the best AND the brightest wanted to play football here, so much they coined Intellectual Brutality and were proud to don the nerd glasses; now not so much. . . .
RE: Huh?? Did someone say "Saban" ? - slide - 01-04-2021
(01-03-2021, 11:26 PM)Redrum Wrote: Whoa!! Hey! I'm awake! Man, that was weird. One day I was watching Stanford play I-forget-who (and doing so forgettably) and I just fell in to a deep sleep. And now, I'm back. I'm not sure I understand the problem with Saban. Think of it this way: You are happily married to Stanford football and have been for decades. But every now and then a guy just needs a little good football to spice up his otherwise perfect life. So, you take another football team on the side. Nothing serious. Just a little something to remind you of when you were young and your team could actually win games and respect. And if your football lover is a little trashy while being REALLY good in be...I mean, good in the stadium, it's all part of the thrill, no? And besides, if a man normally pays a hell of a lot for flashy jewelry, paying less than Stanford tuition for a very good education for Redumette II just seems like icing on the cake compared to what I paid for with Redrumette I 's Stanford education. (She's doing fine, still part of a far-flung Stanford neuroscience research team [end bragging])
And then, of course, there's the football. It's the seductive pull of knowing that winning a game has better odds than winning the Lottery. And you won't be clawing out your own eyes to avoid seeing...ummm, what's the phrase? A work not-so-much-in-progress every Saturday.
So I'm OK with Nick Saban. At least he turns out a competent product that entertains. And I don't pay his salary. Cheers,all!
welcome back RR. you've been missed.
RE: Texas Hires Sarkisian - martyup - 01-04-2021
Red Rum Winkle awakes! You didn't miss much. Nothing happened in 2020. {:•)
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Falexinargentina.files.w...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Falexinargentina.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F04%2Fripvanwinkle.jpeg&f=1&nofb=1)
RE: Texas Hires Sarkisian - CTcard - 01-04-2021
(01-04-2021, 08:40 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: 12 years ago, the best AND the brightest wanted to play football here, so much they coined Intellectual Brutality and were proud to don the nerd glasses; now not so much. . . .
247 Recruiting Rankings.
Year Natl Rank Pac12 Rank Coach
2001 14 2 Willingham
2002 32 6 Teevens
2003 26 6 Teevens
2004 60 11 Teevens
2005 24 5 Harris
2006 63 12 Harris
2007 51 8 Harbaugh
2008 47 9 Harbaugh
2009 21 3 Harbaugh
2010 25 6 Harbaugh
2011 22 4 Shaw
2012 7 1 Shaw
2013 52 11 Shaw
2014 13 2 Shaw
2015 24 5 Shaw
2016 16 3 Shaw
2017 14 2 Shaw
2018 40 7 Shaw
2019 19 3 Shaw
2020 21 3 Shaw
2021 53 8 Shaw
It's hard to see a trend here that says 12 years ago things were great in recruiting, but are terrible now.
There is a popular story out there that Harbaugh turned the program around by energizing recruiting. That is partly true in that getting Andrew Luck was the single most important component of the turnaround - but that was one guy in the 2008 class. More broadly, he got guys already in the program who were not particularly highly recruited to work extremely hard and get better.
For the most part, Shaw's recruiting has been good by Stanford historical standards.
He's been head coach on signing day for 11 classes.
8 of the 11 were nationally top 25 (5 top 20).
3 of the 11 were bad, worse than 40th nationally. All 3 of those were small: 12, 15, 15.
By eye, there appears to be a negative trend among just the Shaw years, but it doesn't look much beyond the noise level.
The trend that concerns me most has been the decline of the defense over the past five years or so. That seems to span recruiting, player development, and schemes.
In my history of Stanford fandom, Stanford has struggled on that side of the ball. Perhaps because of that, my impression (without checking) is that the defense being good or not has been more determinative of whether the team has been good than the same measure for the offense.
RE: Texas Hires Sarkisian - oman - 01-08-2021
The fact that this thread is more about Alabama than Texas gives me a sad.
RE: Texas Hires Sarkisian - martyup - 01-09-2021
(01-08-2021, 02:05 PM)oman Wrote: The fact that this thread is more about Alabama than Texas gives me a sad.
Here you go Oman.