Mack Brown’s recent comments have stirred up real unease in Buckeye Nation, and it’s easy to see why. The College Football Playoff rematch between Texas and the defending national champion Ohio State Buckeyes, set to open the 2025 season on August 30 in Columbus, promised fireworks—and now Brown has poured gasoline on the fire. On the Triple Option podcast, the former Texas coach delivered a blunt assessment of Ohio State—even going so far as to question their quarterback situation and overall team cohesion—signaling major concern about how the Buckeyes are positioned in what many anticipated to be a marquee clash in Columbus. At the heart of his criticism is the quarterback room: that glut of uncertainty at the most important position, where experience and leadership are essential, is nothing to scoff at coming off last season’s Cotton Bowl semifinal loss and the Buckeyes’ transition away from CJ Stroud and Will Howard. In Brown’s telling, Ohio State is already at a disadvantage before the opening kickoff.
The quarterback situation at OSU has been in flux since Stroud departed for the NFL. Kyle McCord assumed the role but never quite inspired confidence in the fan base. His play was inconsistent, and injuries didn’t help. The instability led Ohio State to chase Will Howard via the portal, to seek more reliability and arm talent. Howard was eventually named starter after a competition that included Devin Brown, Lincoln Kienholz, and others. Howard has delivered a strong statistical season—completing a high percentage, throwing multiple touchdowns, minimal interceptions—but hasn’t fully silenced concerns from analysts and fans who’ve questioned his ability under pressure and his rapport with the wide receiver corps. Mack Brown used that uncertainty to heighten his argument: “a young quarterback,” he said, in reference to the Buckeyes, coupled with the fact that Texas would open the game at noon instead of under the lights, giving the Longhorns what he described as “a great advantage.” He believes that starting quarterback Julian Sayin and his receivers may not have shared seasoning, and that chemistry could become a pronounced issue.
Reports from ESPN’s coverage of spring practice and training camp echoed a similar storyline, but with nuance: Devin Brown, previously praised for mobility and dual‑threat capability, was seen as the dynamic element in the room, yet his mechanics and decision‑making were far from polished. Meanwhile, Kienholz remained a wildcard project, unlikely to be ready until at least redshirt‑like development kicked in. McCord’s tenure flew out the window with mixed results, and Howard emerged as the most experienced comer, albeit not overwhelmingly so. Analysts have suggested the competition is ongoing, with Day choosing to assess players into fall. That hesitation, Brown implies, is exactly the kind of indecision that undermines team chemistry and clarity in leadership. If your quarterback isn’t clearly established, he argues, it’s nearly impossible to build consistency in your offense.
Insiders have cautioned that Day’s offense at Ohio State demands precision: quick reads, accurate throws, and elite timing with a pass‑catching group that’s lost key contributors like Marvin Harrison Jr. to the NFL, but still returns All‑Americans Jeremy Smith, Emeka Egbuka, and emerging stars like Carnell Tate. Talent is undeniable. But offensive line concerns have emerged as a real problem. Reports highlighted injuries plaguing the line—lack of protection led to a spike in quarterback pressures, sacks, and turnover‑worthy plays, especially affecting Howard. In recent games, OSU’s offensive performance dipped when facing advanced fronts, raising further questions about consistency in live game action.
Brown’s shade extended past just that quarterback instability. He didn’t trust Day’s staff to have rebuilt the QB room sufficiently after McCord and Brown’s departures. By suggesting that Ohio State’s in‑game offensive identity lacks the confidence and trust necessary among coach, line, and quarterback, Brown insinuates internal discord. Coverage from Land‑Grant Holy Land articulated that Day seems to “hide in a shell” during play calling, avoiding creative looks and dynamic usage of his best playmakers. In effect, Brown’s remarks build on that interpretation: if the head coach doesn’t fully trust his quarterback, and the QB doesn’t trust the coach or his teammates, then you’ve got a chemistry problem—and you’re likely not going to operate at your personnel’s potential.
Social media reaction from Buckeye fans hasn’t been kind. On Reddit, threads about the quarterback room have been blunt: one user stated Day “didn’t recover the QB room” after earlier transfers and failures, leading to “a severe lack of depth,” which they hold squarely on the coach. Another user even remarked that McCord “instilled zero confidence” and that Ryan Day “failed to beat Michigan with CJ Stroud.” They scapegoated McCord when he underperformed, but in their view, the collapse had deeper roots: coaching decisions, trust issues, and failure to create leadership. Those posts captured a prevailing current of doubt: that OSU’s quarterback competition devolved into an organizational problem, not simply a personnel one.
Still, Will Howard has put up solid numbers—passing over 1,700 yards, throwing 17 touchdowns to four interceptions, and his completion percentage nearing 74%. Those are respectable stats, yet opponents see a vulnerable linchpin in Howard’s ability to process pressure. Reports indicate a 5.2 percent rate of turnover‑worthy plays when he faces pressure, leading to critical sacks and stalled drives. The offensive line’s inconsistency makes it more likely Ohio State’s offense will falter in clutch moments. For Mack Brown, that situation underscores a larger theme: Ohio State enters the season with more questions than answers under center.
Brown pointed to the noon kickoff, a time change that might undermine the electric night atmosphere at Ohio Stadium—something he remembers vividly from his own coaching days. He suggested that the energy, nerves, and chaos associated with primetime in Columbus might be mitigated at midday, in effect giving Texas a psychological edge in the opener. When you combine that scheduling factor with a quarterback room that’s still unsettled, and offensive‐line question marks, Brown sees a recipe for Texas to come into OSU and win—something he flatly predicted on the podcast. He didn’t just dismiss Ohio State’s chances; he argued they’re already behind the sticks before they even break the huddle.
There’s also a contrast being drawn between Texas’s incoming prestige and Ohio State’s internal dysfunction. Arch Manning, the Longhorns’ new starting quarterback, is being compared to Vince Young by none other than Mack Brown himself. Brown emphasized Manning’s humility, poise, and listening ability—traits that made Young a Texas legend and national champion. Arch Manning may not be as physically explosive as Young, but early analysis projects that he is developing chemistry with his receivers, balancing dual threat potential with pocket presence. Visiting commentators and news columns foresee preseason drills centered on Manning’s rapport with Ryan Wingo, DeAndre Moore Jr., Jack Endries, and new portal additions. That cohesion is precisely what Brown contends Ohio State lacks, making Manning’s growth a foil to the Buckeyes’ quarterback uncertainty.
Brown’s remarks echo broader concern within the Buckeye community about leadership and coaching consistency. If the quarterback isn’t definitively established, that ambiguity ripples through positional groups and the playbook. NFL scouts and college football analysts alike have said it’s hard to define how Day wants to use his best offensive talent if he distrusts his QB’s ability to read defenses and trust his receivers. When high-level athletes like Egbuka or Smith think twice before working into space, or when routes aren’t timed to leverage arm strength, it can stagnate an offense built to thrive on explosive plays. For critics, Ohio State’s diminished creativity and perceived fear of aggressive play calling reflect Day’s lack of faith in his signal callers.
Buckeye Nation is understandably defensive. They point to Howard’s postseason performance in the Cotton Bowl, the explosive run game keyed by Treyveon Henderson and Quinshon Judkins, and a deep receiver room that includes NFL‑bound talent. They argue any prediction of Texas victory underestimates Ohio State’s overall roster strength and coaching pedigree. And if Howard can stay healthy and build momentum early, the narrative can flip: leadership through performance, experience through execution, and trust built in wins. But Mack Brown’s position is that the margin for error is slim, especially given how close elite-level games tend to settle.
There’s a broader symbolic weight to Brown’s critique. He’s casting Texas as a program on the rise—anchored by a talented quarterback, continuity in coaching, and rising expectations—against an Ohio State team mired in turbulence at the most important position. Brown frames Arch Manning and his offensive group as harmonious in development, resilient in preparation, and ready to exploit any cracks in OSU’s armor. That messaging matters as the season opener nears: perception becomes reality, and if Buckeye fans sense the same jitters Brown vocalized, that can diminish a stadium atmosphere once considered impenetrable.
Ultimately, Brown’s shade at Ohio State is about more than just quarterback concerns—it strikes at the core of what drives team chemistry: clarity, leadership, trust, and cohesion. He argues that Ohio State lacks those elements at quarterback, and that uncertainty bleeds into play calling, wide receiver timing, line cohesion, and ultimately, performance in elite games. He believes Texas enters the opener with more internal certainty, more offensive identity, and an edge not just in skill but psychological readiness with strangers ready to perform under pressure.
Whether Mack Brown’s assessment proves prophetic will depend on how Ohio State answers back in fall camp. If Howard cements trust, if the offense clicks with tempo and creativity, if protections hold up under pressure—that narrative changes fast. But if questions linger—if secondaries confuse the timing, if sacks pile up, if turnovers emerge—then Brown’s shade will look prescient. Buckeye Nation’s faith is being tested, and Brown’s comments have thrown that test into public view. Regardless of who wins or loses on August 30, Brown has succeeded in reframing the narrative: Ohio State enters the season not as a sure thing, but as a team under pressure—not just from Texas, but from internal instability at the most important position on the field.
