CFB News From Around The Country

#26
#26
05_never_again said:
That's reversing cause and effect, at least since Kiffin.

Tennessee stinks on the field, so that's why we have coaching turnover. It isn't like we have experienced coaching turnover, and that's why we stink. If Dooley, Butch, or Pruitt had fielded good teams, any one of them would still be coaching here most likely.
Click to expand...
It's a little of both. Definitely snowballs. Coaching turnover leads to player turnover. New schemes, old players that stick dont fit the new one, constantly learning something new.

Heupel has 71 scholarships. Pretty sure pruitt was under 85, I know Butch was until his third 30+ class.

We had more OCs than HCs by a wide margin, how do you get good play when a play caller sticks around for an average of two years, and you dont have a system in place to rely on, because the HC gets replaced almost as often.

We have had high coaching turnover because of bad play, and bad play because of coaching turnover. It feeds upon itself.

Take UT out of the picture, how has constant change helped FSU?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UTwild82
#27
#27
LouderVol said:
It's a little of both. Definitely snowballs. Coaching turnover leads to player turnover. New schemes, old players that stick dont fit the new one, constantly learning something new.

Heupel has 71 scholarships. Pretty sure pruitt was under 85, I know Butch was until his third 30+ class.

We had more OCs than HCs by a wide margin, how do you get good play when a play caller sticks around for an average of two years, and you dont have a system in place to rely on, because the HC gets replaced almost as often.

We have had high coaching turnover because of bad play, and bad play because of coaching turnover. It feeds upon itself.

Take UT out of the picture, how has constant change helped FSU?
Click to expand...
Kiffin was the exception to this (left on his own, not because we fired him). However I don't think you can pin Tennessee struggling in 2021 on account of a head coach suddenly leaving us 12 years ago. There is absolutely a snowball effect once the negative mojo gets rolling, but ultimately Tennessee sees coaching turnover because the head coaches we have hired can't coach. If we hired a head coach who could coach and had success here, the turnover would stop. Tennessee has struggled because we've hired 3 coaches in a row that can't coach.

Penn St saw the firing of a legendary coach as a result of a gigantic child sex abuse scandal, yet they didn't even endure a losing season? Why? Because they guys they hired after Paterno (O'Brien as a stabilizer and Franklin after that) can coach. Similar deal with Baylor after they had to fire Briles.

As for FSU, a plausible argument could be made that they shouldn't have fired Taggart; he was fired after not even 2 full seasons. I'm not sure I would agree with that argument, but you could make a plausible one. Tennessee has not been that impatient. What was the plausible argument for keeping Dooley, Butch, or Pruitt after the performances they put up? I mean, everybody wants to avoid coaching turnover, but was there really a good argument for keeping any of them?
 
#28
#28
05_never_again said:
Kiffin was the exception to this (left on his own, not because we fired him). However I don't think you can pin Tennessee struggling in 2021 on account of a head coach suddenly leaving us 12 years ago. There is absolutely a snowball effect once the negative mojo gets rolling, but ultimately Tennessee sees coaching turnover because the head coaches we have hired can't coach. If we hired a head coach who could coach and had success here, the turnover would stop. Tennessee has struggled because we've hired 3 coaches in a row that can't coach.

Penn St saw the firing of a legendary coach as a result of a gigantic child sex abuse scandal, yet they didn't even endure a losing season? Why? Because they guys they hired after Paterno (O'Brien as a stabilizer and Franklin after that) can coach. Similar deal with Baylor after they had to fire Briles.

As for FSU, a plausible argument could be made that they shouldn't have fired Taggart; he was fired after not even 2 full seasons. I'm not sure I would agree with that argument, but you could make a plausible one. Tennessee has not been that impatient. What was the plausible argument for keeping Dooley, Butch, or Pruitt after the performances they put up? I mean, everybody wants to avoid coaching turnover, but was there really a good argument for keeping any of them?
Click to expand...
Is there that big of difference between 2 and three years? Taggart vs Pruitt and Dooley? Butch, as sad as it is, was as successful as we have had since 2007, and we fired after 1 bad season. Not saying he would have got us where we wanted to be, but we jumped ship pretty fast.

Is there some metric of when firing is acceptable? Or when is long enough? 3 years doesnt even let a class graduate with their coach.

We are expecting Saban or Pittman (who knows if that lasts) type turnarounds. But those are outliers.

Look at Kentucky and stoops, they kept him thru some bad years, long enough to churn through a full class and start showing results for UK. We would have fired him after year 3 at the latest.

Mullen took a while to churn out the Dak year. LSU was a flash in the pan and looks lost. Georgia fired their coach, and are getting almost the exact same results.

It takes the right coach in the right situation to be successful, hard to attract the right coach with what we are doing to coaches. There is a reason our searches start at tier 2, and settle on tier 3 or lower. We are a mess.

Also generally speaking no one has a clue how a coach will turn out when hired. Turnover isnt working for us, I am of the opinion we need to at least give coaches their initial contract time before reevaluating so we can at least pretend to be stable.
 
#29
#29
LouderVol said:
Is there that big of difference between 2 and three years? Taggart vs Pruitt and Dooley? Butch, as sad as it is, was as successful as we have had since 2007, and we fired after 1 bad season. Not saying he would have got us where we wanted to be, but we jumped ship pretty fast.

Is there some metric of when firing is acceptable? Or when is long enough? 3 years doesnt even let a class graduate with their coach.

We are expecting Saban or Pittman (who knows if that lasts) type turnarounds. But those are outliers.

Look at Kentucky and stoops, they kept him thru some bad years, long enough to churn through a full class and start showing results for UK. We would have fired him after year 3 at the latest.

Mullen took a while to churn out the Dak year. LSU was a flash in the pan and looks lost. Georgia fired their coach, and are getting almost the exact same results.

It takes the right coach in the right situation to be successful, hard to attract the right coach with what we are doing to coaches. There is a reason our searches start at tier 2, and settle on tier 3 or lower. We are a mess.

Also generally speaking no one has a clue how a coach will turn out when hired. Turnover isnt working for us, I am of the opinion we need to at least give coaches their initial contract time before reevaluating so we can at least pretend to be stable.
Click to expand...
I think the generally accepted "need to see improvement by year 3" rule is pretty good. If you hire a coach and by year 3 the program is no better, it is totally fair to assume he ain't the guy and start looking elsewhere. By year 3, the roster is made up primarily of your players. I have yet to see a good explanation of why it might take 5-7 years to turn around a program, especially a program with a recognizable brand like Tennessee.
 
#30
#30
05_never_again said:
I think the generally accepted "need to see improvement by year 3" rule is pretty good. If you hire a coach and by year 3 the program is no better, it is totally fair to assume he ain't the guy and start looking elsewhere. By year 3, the roster is made up primarily of your players. I have yet to see a good explanation of why it might take 5-7 years to turn around a program, especially a program with a recognizable brand like Tennessee.
Click to expand...
I guess for me it's a question of time or scale. Players werent alive when we won a title. Heck most wont remember our last SEC East title.

Is there an example of a school where we are that has turned things around.

Bama wasnt as bad as us for as long before Saban.

Clemson took a while to come back.

FSU/Miami/Texas/Nebraska who else belongs on the "They're back" bandwagon? Who has gotten off of it? I legit dont know, but it's late so I am probably forgetting someone.
 
#31
#31
LouderVol said:
I guess for me it's a question of time or scale. Players werent alive when we won a title. Heck most wont remember our last SEC East title.

Is there an example of a school where we are that has turned things around.

Bama wasnt as bad as us for as long before Saban.

Clemson took a while to come back.

FSU/Miami/Texas/Nebraska who else belongs on the "They're back" bandwagon? Who has gotten off of it? I legit dont know, but it's late so I am probably forgetting someone.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of schools that were bad for a period of time and came back, or had never really been good/great and became good/great.

Oklahoma was in the wilderness for a while after Switzer left; they were OK under Gary Gibbs and fired him, then tried a weird one-year experiment with Howard Schnellenberger that didn't work out, then were simply bad for 3 seasons under John Blake. They then made a good coaching hire (Stoops) and renewed their status as an elite program.

Between Stallings and Saban, Alabama was not quite as bad as Tennessee has been since Fulmer, but there were a few years that were very bad (1997, 2000, 2003) and the drama around their program was pretty embarrassing, much like Tennessee (e.g., NCAA trouble, the way Coach Fran left, having to fire Mike Price before he even coached a game). The Coach Fran departure was Bama's version of Kiffin, and the Mike Price firing was Bama's version of Schiano. When they fired Price, I remember some Bama fans and folks in the media giving up and declaring that they'd never recover; the mistakes had just piled too high and they were too far removed from a dominant period to ever be good again. Whoops.

I wouldn't say Clemson "came back" as much as I would say they were a solid, but not great program for a long time before joining the ranks of the elite.
 
#32
#32
Vandy/UConn tickets going for $6. That's only because UConn went travel well.
 
#33
#33
05_never_again said:
There are plenty of schools that were bad for a period of time and came back, or had never really been good/great and became good/great.

Oklahoma was in the wilderness for a while after Switzer left; they were OK under Gary Gibbs and fired him, then tried a weird one-year experiment with Howard Schnellenberger that didn't work out, then were simply bad for 3 seasons under John Blake. They then made a good coaching hire (Stoops) and renewed their status as an elite program.

Between Stallings and Saban, Alabama was not quite as bad as Tennessee has been since Fulmer, but there were a few years that were very bad (1997, 2000, 2003) and the drama around their program was pretty embarrassing, much like Tennessee (e.g., NCAA trouble, the way Coach Fran left, having to fire Mike Price before he even coached a game). The Coach Fran departure was Bama's version of Kiffin, and the Mike Price firing was Bama's version of Schiano. When they fired Price, I remember some Bama fans and folks in the media giving up and declaring that they'd never recover; the mistakes had just piled too high and they were too far removed from a dominant period to ever be good again. Whoops.

I wouldn't say Clemson "came back" as much as I would say they were a solid, but not great program for a long time before joining the ranks of the elite.
Click to expand...
You are still talking 4 5 years. Sometimes not even solid stretches. We have been worse for longer
 
#34
#34
LouderVol said:
You are still talking 4 5 years. Sometimes not even solid stretches. We have been worse for longer
Click to expand...
Alabama wasn't great between 1997 and 2007, so 11 seasons. We have been bad for longer, but other programs have had stretches where they weren't good for a decade.
 
#35
#35
05_never_again said:
Alabama wasn't great between 1997 and 2007, so 11 seasons. We have been bad for longer, but other programs have had stretches where they weren't good for a decade.
Click to expand...

Didn’t Alabama win the SEC Championship Game in the 1999 season and play in the Orange Bowl with a 10-2 record?

(I mean, while at it, there was also that 10-3 year in 2002 finishing ranked #11 during their bowl ban and another 10-2 season in 2005 where they finished #8…though they had to vacate that season’s wins a few years later.)
 
#36
#36
TrueOrange said:
Didn’t Alabama win the SEC Championship Game in the 1999 season and play in the Orange Bowl with a 10-2 record?

(I mean, while at it, there was also that 10-3 year in 2002 finishing ranked #11 during their bowl ban and another 10-2 season in 2005 where they finished #8…though they had to vacate that season’s wins a few years later.)
Click to expand...
Yes, their down period was much better than ours. But they also had a bunch of stinkers during that time and the consensus around college football was that they had "lost it" and needed to become OK with never competing for titles again.
 
#37
#37
244430934_4384652568317170_5979662998791120800_n.jpg
 
#39
#39
RDU VOL#14 said:
I feel like College football needed a season like this. We may still see a CFP W/ Bama, Ohio State and OU, but this is the kind of top 10 that drives National, not just regional interest in our sport .
Click to expand...

I doubt Bama makes the playoff now.
 
#42
#42
allvol123 said:
I don’t see them beating UGA, which means they wouldn’t. The A&M loss was crushing.
Click to expand...
I have Bama beating UGA until UGA finally wins that game. All the pressure in the world will be on UGA that night to finally get over the hump. Add putting Saban in a potential underdog role and I’m leaning Bama.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel
#43
#43
RDU VOL#14 said:
I have Bama beating UGA until UGA finally wins that game. All the pressure in the world will be on UGA that night to finally get over the hump. Add putting Saban in a potential underdog role and I’m leaning Bama.
Click to expand...

I don’t. UGA D is insane. Also, Bama right tackle was abused the other night. They have some real issues.
 
#44
#44
allvol123 said:
I don’t. UGA D is insane. Also, Bama right tackle was abused the other night. They have some real issues.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. On paper and the eye test says UGA is the better team. I just can’t take UGA over Bama. Not yet. They’ve come so close so many times, but until they do I’m taking Bama. This could definitely be one of those moments where the team finally overcomes their nemesis like the Bulls with the Pistons, Colts w/ Patriots or even we did in 98 against Florida. It’s gonna take a Herculean effort by UGA to knock down an incredibly focused/determined Bama team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosier_Vol and allvol123
#45
#45
RDU VOL#14 said:
I totally agree. On paper and the eye test says UGA is the better team. I just can’t take UGA over Bama. Not yet. They’ve come so close so many times, but until they do I’m taking Bama. This could definitely be one of those moments where the team finally overcomes their nemesis like the Bulls with the Pistons, Colts w/ Patriots or even we did in 98 against Florida. It’s gonna take a Herculean effort by UGA to knock down an incredibly focused/determined Bama team.
Click to expand...

I gave you a like but I believe UGA beats Bama rather easily in December.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RDU VOL#14
#46
#46
allvol123 said:
I gave you a like but I believe UGA beats Bama rather easily in December.
Click to expand...
They may beat them, but I don’t think it will be easy. Too much pride and talent for Bama to go out quietly against a UGA team that they feel like they own. I also don’t think a Stetson Bennett quarterbacked team can beat a Bama team easily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123
#47
#47
RDU VOL#14 said:
They may beat them, but I don’t think it will be easy. Too much pride and talent for Bama to go out quietly against a UGA team that they feel like they own. I also don’t think a Stetson Bennett quarterbacked team can beat a Bama team easily.
Click to expand...

I do think UGA can be handcuffed by their own offense.

That said, I sadly believe this might be the best defense I’ve seen in a long time. The front 7 is absurd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RDU VOL#14 and Plecoptera
#50
#50
RDU VOL#14 said:
I feel like College football needed a season like this. We may still see a CFP W/ Bama, Ohio State and OU, but this is the kind of top 10 that drives National, not just regional interest in our sport .
Click to expand...
I dont see this drawing eyes. Iowa? Ok is a known blow out in the playoffs.

College Football Playoff (and BCS) Ratings History

Alabama, clemson, osu, and Georgia draw eyes.

I think a lot of those eyes are people not normally CFB fans, but it speaks for itself.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top