Fulmer debate extravaganza (merged)

[rexvol]

Phil did get us to the mountain top, but he has been unable to keep us there. I used to love Phil because at least he beat the teams he was supposed to beat. Johnny couldnt say that.

 

[hatvol96]

No, we're at a point where making it to the SEC Championship when we aren't predicted to finish in the top two of the division is "considered" failure.

THAT is Pitiful.

Celebrating merely making it to Atlanta makes us the Arkansas of the Eastern Division. That's really something to be proud of. 2 SEC titles in 15 years. Yeah, TCHFCATUTK is a real legend.

 

[jakez4ut]

That's where you are dead wrong. It took a loudmouth from another board to get me to checking it out for myself. The media, the university and Fulmer supporters want you to look at the overall win percentage. Throw out the wins against the nobodies and see what you have.

The last seven years of statistics are enough to have anyone fired - anyone that is not in a good ole boy network that covers their back no matter what the results. Seven years is a VERY LONG TIME to coach the same D1 team so taking a look over that long of a period is more than enough to see where our program actually is.

You measure a team as to how they do against the better competition. Throw out Kentucky, Vandy, Miss State, Ole Miss, etc. - we are supposed to beat them year in and year out.

Here is where it gets interesting:
Take the results from 2001 until today against LSU, Bama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, SEC championship games, the bowls and regular season games against
'equal' opponents (Miami, Cal, Notre Dame, etc).
Folks, that's a lot of games. How has the Dean of SEC coaches performed? He has won 39% of these games. That's right - he has lost 61% of the time, has not been fired but GETS A RAISE for being a failure. The good ole boy network doesn't want us to know how big of a failure he actually is. There you go - do like I did and check it out for yourself. Hamilton and Fulmer need to go. We are at the point where failure is accepted and rewarded. PITIFUL!!

a) then you're one of those folks i referred to yesterday that can't think for themselves. you need to be told what to think. at least you're honest about it.
b) your sense of entitlement about who we are supposed to beat smells of bammers, tar heels and golden domers. good company for you to keep. nothing is set in stone and throwing out those teams because of the percpetion of who we are supposed to beat is ridiculous.
c) i'll do you one better. take all the teams in the SEC, that you think are "worthy" and do similar w/l comparisions. take GA, LSU, Aub, Bama and FL over the same time period and do the same exact thing and see where the % come out. then we might have a better idea where we really fit in with those folks. i think you might be surprised at what you find.

lastly, again, as i stated earlier........i don't need anyone to tell me what i should think on this matter. i've watched every single game played under CPF.

ignoring the 1st 9 years is as dumb as ignoring the last 7.

 

[CheckerboardEndZone]

39% win percentage should be pitiful in anyone's math class, VolzRChamps. Only the brainwashed won't accept the true results.

 

[hatvol96]

That's where you are dead wrong. It took a loudmouth from another board to get me to checking it out for myself. The media, the university and Fulmer supporters want you to look at the overall win percentage. Throw out the wins against the nobodies and see what you have.

The last seven years of statistics are enough to have anyone fired - anyone that is not in a good ole boy network that covers their back no matter what the results. Seven years is a VERY LONG TIME to coach the same D1 team so taking a look over that long of a period is more than enough to see where our program actually is.

You measure a team as to how they do against the better competition. Throw out Kentucky, Vandy, Miss State, Ole Miss, etc. - we are supposed to beat them year in and year out.

Here is where it gets interesting:
Take the results from 2001 until today against LSU, Bama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, SEC championship games, the bowls and regular season games against
'equal' opponents (Miami, Cal, Notre Dame, etc).
Folks, that's a lot of games. How has the Dean of SEC coaches performed? He has won 39% of these games. That's right - he has lost 61% of the time, has not been fired but GETS A RAISE for being a failure. The good ole boy network doesn't want us to know how big of a failure he actually is. There you go - do like I did and check it out for yourself. Hamilton and Fulmer need to go. We are at the point where failure is accepted and rewarded. PITIFUL!!

How dare you use objective data to judge TCHFCATUTK? Don't you realize he's a Bible thumping man who is loyal to the core because he couldn't get a job anywhere else? We should all drop to our knees every day and thank the Almighty that we have TCHFCATUTK instead of some vagabond like Meyer, Carroll, or Saban.

 

[Fine Vol]

I Would Love Carroll.

 

[jakez4ut]

How dare you use objective data to judge TCHFCATUTK? Don't you realize he's a Bible thumping man who is loyal to the core because he couldn't get a job anywhere else? We should all drop to our knees every day and thank the Almighty that we have TCHFCATUTK instead of some vagabond like Meyer, Carroll, or Saban.

objective? really......c'mon hat....i give you more credit than that. He threw out the portion of data that suits his arguement.......that's not objective....and there's no comparision to draw this stuff up against to see where it really stacks up.

i don't need fancy stats to know where CPF stacks up against Meyers, Spurrier etc....but the way this is presented is far, far from objective.

 

[hatvol96]

a) then you're one of those folks i referred to yesterday that can't think for themselves. you need to be told what to think. at least you're honest about it.
b) your sense of entitlement about who we are supposed to beat smells of bammers, tar heels and golden domers. good company for you to keep. nothing is set in stone and throwing out those teams because of the percpetion of who we are supposed to beat is ridiculous.
c) i'll do you one better. take all the teams in the SEC, that you think are "worthy" and do similar w/l comparisions. take GA, LSU, Aub, Bama and FL over the same time period and do the same exact thing and see where the % come out. then we might have a better idea where we really fit in with those folks. i think you might be surprised at what you find.

lastly, again, as i stated earlier........i don't need anyone to tell me what i should think on this matter. i've watched every single game played under CPF.

ignoring the 1st 9 years is as dumb as ignoring the last 7.

Yeah, because it's only perception that says we should beat Vanderbilt, Kentucky, and Mississippi State every time we see them. The talent is actually equal. Only the strategic brilliance of TCHFCATUTK has led us to victory against them.

 

[jakez4ut]

39% win percentage should be pitiful in anyone's math class, VolzRChamps. Only the brainwashed won't accept the true results.

39% against only part of the field. i'd be carefull about throwing around that brainwashed garbage if i were you, pot and kettles both being black and all.......

like i said earlier.....go do the same thing for FL, AUB, GA, Bama, LSU.....over the same exact time period.

then we can talk.

 

[hatvol96]

I Would Love Carroll.

How dare you imply anyone other than TCHFCATUTK could ever coach the Vols? You are obviously a disloyal fan hellbent on the destruction of the football program and America in general.

 

[jakez4ut]

Yeah, because it's only perception that says we should beat Vanderbilt, Kentucky, and Mississippi State every time we see them. The talent is actually equal. Only the strategic brilliance of TCHFCATUTK has led us to victory against them.

i didn't say that either.....but MSU is fresh off beating Bama and Auburn recently. VAndy has beaten GA and TN recently and KY beat LSU last year...and FSU in a bowl game.

we're not exactly talking about your older brother's VAndy or KY today.

regardless, my point is throwing all of this out to suit your argument, as he did, is not the way to get me to buy in to his view of "objectivity".

i can watch the games and decide for myself.

 

[CheckerboardEndZone]

Since last year has been brought up it was embarrassing, wasn't it? Totally ROUTED by Florida (remember all those television shots showing the Gators laughing at how their freshmen and third teamers were pushing us all over the field), humbled by a superior Cal team and humilated by Bama? That team quit against the Tide. We didn't 'win' the East last year - we backed in and there are some people that actually block these games out of their mind.

 

[Fine Vol]

Hopefully the new OC will by pass CPF conservative ways.

 

[jakez4ut]

Since last year has been brought up it was embarrassing, wasn't it? Totally ROUTED by Florida (remember all those television shots showing the Gators laughing at how their freshmen and third teamers were pushing us all over the field), humbled by a superior Cal team and humilated by Bama? That team quit against the Tide. We didn't 'win' the East last year - we backed in and there are some people that actually block these games out of their mind.

on the contrary......those three games are on the forefront of my mind.

but it is conveneint how when people talk about last year, and they bring up the Bama and FL beat downs.......they conveniently leave out the ARK and GA beat downs by us.

we beat both teams handily. and there was virtually no one around, self included, that thought we could beat either of those teams.

last year was an enigma. it was awful and good at the same time.

as to backing in to the SEC c'ship game, i will say it's a risky venture to count on FL losing 3 conf games a year. but they did and we won all of our remaining ones. we lose to SC, KY, Vandy or ARK last season we don't go to ATL.

it's not our fault FL lost 3 conf. games after dismantling us in September. And i'm not going to apologize for it either.

 

[myrobbins7]

I sure do hope so FV. 10 years is to long.

 

[Fine Vol]

I sure do hope so FV. 10 years is to long.

That is a fact.

 

[CheckerboardEndZone]

Jake, don't stoop so low as to include schools like Kentucky and Miss State within your 'measuring stick' parameters. The fact is Phillip Fulmer has failed terribly the past seven years against the schools we would want to be compared with. What does failure do? It gets him a raise with the 'Good Ole' Boys'.

 

[VolunteerHillbilly]

I have a new theory on the whole raise issue. I am now thinking that it was a move to try and silence criticism by so insulating Fulmer that anyone who wants to support the program will just have to suck it up and accept that Fulmer will be around for a long time to come due to the financial burden it would impose to get rid of him. I think this is a direct response to at least what has been reported to me as a fact that Fulmer was one loss away from losing his job last year. I think that what Hamilton and Fulmer may not have taken into account; however, is that if things start to get shaky the press and disgruntled fans will quickly turn the heat back up and the massive contract will just serve as gasoline for the fire. Whether they meant to or not, they have just exponentially increased the pressure on themselves to deliver a championship (conference or the whole enchilada) ASAP.

 

[jakez4ut]

Jake, don't stoop so low as to include schools like Kentucky and Miss State within your 'measuring stick' parameters. The fact is Phillip Fulmer has failed terribly the past seven years against the schools we would want to be compared with. What does failure do? It gets him a raise with the 'Good Ole' Boys'.

i don't think he's earned his new contract either.

but he hasn't been a "failure" the past 7 years either.

3 of those years we played for SEC titles. all but one we went to a bowl game.

the only thing he hasnt' done is win one of the title games we've played in.

and again, go do the same w/l % against the same teams you did it for us with the LSU's, Bama's, AUburn's, FL's and GA's of the world......then let's compare and see where we are in that pack.

dont' show me TN 39% win percentage and say "see there, i told you so". i already know how we've done against those guys. How have all those guys done against the same criteria? then we'll know just how bad it is.

 

[jakez4ut]

I have a new theory on the whole raise issue. I am now thinking that it was a move to try and silence criticism by so insulating Fulmer that anyone who wants to support the program will just have to suck it up and accept that Fulmer will be around for a long time to come due to the financial burden it would impose to get rid of him. I think this is a direct response to at least what has been reported to me as a fact that Fulmer was one loss away from losing his job last year. I think that what Hamilton and Fulmer may not have taken into account; however, is that if things start to get shaky the press and disgruntled fans will quickly turn the heat back up and the massive contract will just serve as gasoline for the fire. Whether they meant to or not, they have just exponentially increased the pressure on themselves to deliver a championship (conference or the whole enchilada) ASAP.

well, yeah.......go lose to Florida this year..again....or bama or georgia or god forbid all three......and you've got a full fledge firestorm coming their way, and rightfully so.

the contract is strange in it's timing. to not have delivered anythign to Knoxville in a long time and still get this.....yeah, it begs the question.....why? and when can we expect to hang a banner?

 

[General Jack]

the contract is strange in it's timing. to not have delivered anythign to Knoxville in a long time and still get this.....yeah, it begs the question.....why? and when can we expect to hang a banner?

Exactly my point in the other thread... there was no economic sense to the new contract. Why pay so far over market value... moreover, when the expectations publicly set haven't been met?

 

[DC Vol]

i don't think he's earned his new contract either.

but he hasn't been a "failure" the past 7 years either.

3 of those years we played for SEC titles. all but one we went to a bowl game.

1) I completely agree that he should be on a short leash, not rewarded with a fat new contract.

2) I can't agree with that. I consider the 2005 season an utter failure. That is unacceptable for the Vols, and maybe even for the "lower tier SEC schools"... which leads to:

3) True, but 0-3 is a sting for SECCGs, but none-the-less.... 3-5 in bowl games since the '98 is nothing to tip your hat to, the only other BCS game was a smack-down by Nebraska.... for the 1999 season.


Jake, I've agreed with your general sentiments, but I can't agree with these 2 points. The rationale between Fulmer being "not a failure" and "has been successful" is a large margin. He's been...

 

[jakez4ut]

i agree.....i don't understand the need for this new deal either and completely understand why anyone would question MH in making it.

i'm just sick of all the rhetoric spewing regarding CPF. it's gotten to the point now that with every person that is now wanting CPF fired, i'm wondering who the real sheep are now in this debate.

you have a point, make it, and please, make it your own. don't go in to these diatribes with all these stats and numbers in an effort to further convince your self or me or anyone else that's the way to think.......

i just don't need it. i've seen all i need to see to know what needs to happen for the future of this program.

i guess i'm just real tired of stupid people.

 

[DC Vol]

well, yeah.......go lose to Florida this year..again....or bama or georgia or god forbid all three......and you've got a full fledge firestorm coming their way, and rightfully so.

the contract is strange in it's timing. to not have delivered anythign to Knoxville in a long time and still get this.....yeah, it begs the question.....why? and when can we expect to hang a banner?

The biggest surprise to me is the "old-school" boosters could probably swallow losses to UGA and UF, but as long as he could churn out wins to Bama, he was fine.

An embarrassing loss to a bad Bama team and he gets a raise baffles me.

 

[BigPapaVol]

a) then you're one of those folks i referred to yesterday that can't think for themselves. you need to be told what to think. at least you're honest about it.
b) your sense of entitlement about who we are supposed to beat smells of bammers, tar heels and golden domers. good company for you to keep. nothing is set in stone and throwing out those teams because of the percpetion of who we are supposed to beat is ridiculous.
c) i'll do you one better. take all the teams in the SEC, that you think are "worthy" and do similar w/l comparisions. take GA, LSU, Aub, Bama and FL over the same time period and do the same exact thing and see where the % come out. then we might have a better idea where we really fit in with those folks. i think you might be surprised at what you find.

lastly, again, as i stated earlier........i don't need anyone to tell me what i should think on this matter. i've watched every single game played under CPF.

ignoring the 1st 9 years is as dumb as ignoring the last 7.

Jakez,

you know as well as I that his analysis was correct regarding the overinflated nature of CPF's winning %. AT LEAST half of each season's games should be gimmes.

I guarantee you that UF, even including the Zook years, has a better winning % in what we would consider truly competitive games than we do. In the 2000s, I would add UGA and LSU to that list.

I haven't looked up any stats or been told what to say. I know that we have struggled in big or competitive games for the vast majority of Fulmer's career.