Fulmer debate extravaganza (merged)

[jakez4ut]

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...

he's been.......average compared to what he accomplished in the 1st part of his career.

but to suggest he's a failure.....just not true. that was my main issue....i'm not trying to spin SEC CG appearances in to something we should throw a party over or that just going to any old bowl game is just fine and dandy with me.

but none of that, save 2005, is a failure......is it not meeting expectations, or living up to a standard he helped build....yep. but failure? that's a big word for a guy that has been to 5 SEC title games, won 2 of them and has a NC.....is he as Hat says Legendary for that resume? no.

but certainly not worthy of the beatings he's taken in the past either.

i don't think he can consistently compete with the new coaches in this league anymore. can he sneak around and win one every now and then, probably. almost did it last year. may have a chance to do it this year. Long term though we need new blood at the helm.

i'm just over the flogging of the guy....he doesnt' deserve to be vilified like he is around here.

 

[jakez4ut]

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.

like i've said, i know our record against the teams and coaches he's mentioned. i've watched all the damn games.

just don't show me a number and say "see there you go, told ya" and expect me to take it for gospel.

do the same for the teams on his list with the same criteria.....and let's see where our w/l % stacks up against all of them over the same time span, against the same type of teams.

then we can really see just how bad we really are.

 

[CheckerboardEndZone]

Jake, it would be interesting to see how Spurrier, Tuberville, etc. has done against 'like' opponents. Would take quite a while to do that but I know one thing - winning only 39% of the games the past 7 years against LSU, Bama and Auburn in the West, Florida and Georgia in the East, SEC CGames, bowl games and regular season games against 'like' teams what do you call that???? That is a successful coach in your eyes???? It is failure - nothing short - nothing better. Winning 39% of these games are not standards that anyone should want but, apparently, it is just fine with some Vol fans. They think the past seven years have been successful. That is laughing stock and the joke has been pulled on Vol fans by the 'Good Ole' Boy' system. I see you are not laughing as you have bought into the sham.

 

[jakez4ut]

i'm still waiting.

and i've not bought in to anything.........i can make up my own mind. i have the good sense to call out crap like this when i see it.

and if you read what i write, i think you'll find that i'm not one to just slap ol phil on the back and say "great job coach, you'll get 'em next year."

 

[jakez4ut]

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.

compared to what? show me the other team's same w/l % against hte same criteria....

he puts up one number and says "failure". again...compared to what?

is 39% a good w/l %? no, but when you factor in the fact that he's only counting the best teams we've played over that time period......well, what would you expect it to be? 60%? 75%? 80%? who knows. it'd be nice to see what the best team of that bunch came in at against the same criteria to see what benchmark we're talking about.....but that's not the statement we're talking about......Failure?

just cant get there yet.

 

[CheckerboardEndZone]

You think losing the vast majority of these games is 'crap'? Tonight, when I get the time I will break down the results against these opponents since '01 and then I want you to come on here posting excuses for Homer Hamilton's boy denying what you see.

 

[jakez4ut]

You think losing the vast majority of these games is 'crap'? Tonight, when I get the time I will break down the results against these opponents since '01 and then I want you to come on here posting excuses for Homer Hamilton's boy denying what you see.

find a post where i've given an excuse for Fulmer or Hamilton.

the only thing i've questioned is your flawed logic.

when you do go back and look all this stuff up....a couple of things......1. what years are we doing? the last 7 right....01-08.
2. you factor in games against each other and comparable opponents for LSU, AUB, Bama, GA, FL....including bowl games, conf. title games.....and give an overall winning % based on that.....
3. to that end, i'd like to see how many games are factored in each year, and the opponents used for each team each year. ie Aub 01 5 games: BAma, FL, GA, LSU, OOC.....

and you've got a 3 day weekend, so no rush.....no need to spend all night tonight doing it.

 

[jakez4ut]

and make sure you include TN if they are on any of those teams' schedules those years.....

 

[hatvol96]

he's been.......average compared to what he accomplished in the 1st part of his career.

but to suggest he's a failure.....just not true. that was my main issue....i'm not trying to spin SEC CG appearances in to something we should throw a party over or that just going to any old bowl game is just fine and dandy with me.

but none of that, save 2005, is a failure......is it not meeting expectations, or living up to a standard he helped build....yep. but failure? that's a big word for a guy that has been to 5 SEC title games, won 2 of them and has a NC.....is he as Hat says Legendary for that resume? no.

but certainly not worthy of the beatings he's taken in the past either.

i don't think he can consistently compete with the new coaches in this league anymore. can he sneak around and win one every now and then, probably. almost did it last year. may have a chance to do it this year. Long term though we need new blood at the helm.

i'm just over the flogging of the guy....he doesnt' deserve to be vilified like he is around here.

I would consider the 2002 season an unmitigated failure.

 

[CheckerboardEndZone]

I see very similar circumstances with our football head coaching failure fiasco and meltdowns elsewhere. That's where we are headed, imo.

I've seen fan masses that recognized there was a problem as the athletic director, or board, continued to reward downtrending programs with contract extensions/raises. These programs brought in the worst of the worst - i.e. like Fulmer's hoodlum's, gangsters and thugs - and started the downward spiral. No discipline - anything goes to try to win a game (sound familiar?). Losses began to amass much like the area we are now firmly mired within and the extensions/cash rewards kept rolling in for the head man in charge. At this point the fans really became divided. One side felt the only way to bring change was to boycott games and quit buying anything sports related for their school - see Kentucky as an example in the Tubby Smith case. The school administration was an enemy toward the state and they firmly believed those that supported the current situation/coach were enemies as well. The other fan base side saw those that wanted changes were now enemies of the university. So, you had two sides totally divided over the status of that particular type of sport. I see this happening here, too. You?

 

[jakez4ut]

I would consider the 2002 season an unmitigated failure.

8-5 given what we were coming off of in 01...i agree.

now 8-5 adds a year to his contract......automatically.

 

[General Jack]

OK, so I started putting together the evidence to compare against Fulmer's 39% winning percentage against comparable opponents since 2001... it has taken a bit of time... but here goes for Florida and Georgia:

Unless otherwise noted, comparable opponents include only Arkansas, Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, SECCG opponent and bowl opponent)

Team / Games versus Comparable opponents / Losses

Florida
2002 3-4 Miami, LSU, Florida St., Michigan
2003 3-4 Miami, Tennessee, Florida St., Iowa
2004 3-4 Tennessee, LSU, Georgia, Miami
2005 4-2 Alabama, LSU
2006 7-1 Auburn
2007 2-4 Auburn, LSU, Georgia, Michigan
Total 22-19 54%
(also includes Florida State and Miami as comparable opponents)

Georgia
2002 7-1 Florida
2003 7-3 LSU, Florida, LSU (SECCG)
2004 5-2 Tennessee, Auburn
2005 4-3 Florida, Auburn, West Virginia
2006 4-2 Tennessee, Florida
2007 5-1 Tennessee
Total 32-12 73%
(also includes Clemson, Colorado & Georgia Tech in comparable opponents)

So... to be clear, Fulmer is 39% versus 54% for Florida and 73% versus Georgia. Even if you factor our Georgia Tech, Colorado and Clemson, Georgia is still winning at a 66% clip.

I would be willing to bet that LSU and Auburn are also > 50%, given the frequency with which those teams show up as losses for Georgia and Florida (and us).

 

[General Jack]

Auburn
2002 3-3 Arkansas, Florida, Georgia
2003 4-4 USC, Georgia Tech, LSU, Georgia
2004 7-0
2005 3-3 Georgia Tech, LSU, Wisconsin
2006 5-2 Arkansas, Georgia
2007* 5-2 LSU, Georgia
Total 27-14 66%
(includes Washington State, Georgia Tech, USC and Kansas State as comparable opponents)
*includes losses to South Florida and Mississippi State which are not considered comparable

 

[General Jack]

Running out of time... but LSU (condensed)

2002 1-5
2003 7-1
2004 5-2
2005 6-2
2006 5-2
2007 6-2
Total 30-14 68%

 

[General Jack]

So thats...

Georgia 73%
LSU 68%
Auburn 66%
Florida 54%
Tennessee 39%

 

[CheckerboardEndZone]

Wow, Jake what do you have to say now????? Would you say Fulmer is a success or a failure????

General Jack thank you for your work. Its certainly eye opening to those that will open their eyes and not keep their head buried in the sand.

That's great call-in show material right there.

 

[jakez4ut]

General....that's pretty close to what i came up with too.

i included Bama in mine, so they may be a little different:
GA: 46 total games against TN, AUB, Bama, FL, LSU, bowl, CG--i got 'em at 67.4%, best in the conf. since 01.

LSU: 42 total games against the same as above: 66.7%

Auburn: 46 total games: 56.5%

Florida: 44 total games: 54.5%

TN: 42 total games: 40.5%

Bama: 34 totals games: 23.5%

and you know what, this doesn't tell me anything i didn't already know.....we're about the 5th best team in the conf. overall.

a statement i made yesterday w/out having to do any of this.

 

[jakez4ut]

Wow, Jake what do you have to say now????? Would you say Fulmer is a success or a failure????

General Jack thank you for your work. Its certainly eye opening to those that will open their eyes and not keep their head buried in the sand.

That's great call-in show material right there.

nothing. the same thing i will always say. this doens't do anything to my stance on fulmer.

as i've said, i don't think he's the guy for us long term.

i just don't need spew stuff like this to convince me, or anyone else, of it when i can see the product for myself on Saturdays.

 

[jakez4ut]

General, i didn't include Arkansas in any of mine unless they were in the CG......

 

[General Jack]

General, i didn't include Arkansas in any of mine unless they were in the CG......

Arkansas was part of the difference, the other was that I included semi-big name teams from other conferences (Kansas State, Georgia Tech...). I might go back and do Tennessee myself to see how it would stack up using my objectivity... but I doubt it would change the answer that we fall behind the others... and by a wide margin. Might even take a look at Arkansas... based on what I've done so far I don't think we'll come out much ahead of them.

 

[General Jack]

Wow, Jake what do you have to say now????? Would you say Fulmer is a success or a failure????

General Jack thank you for your work. Its certainly eye opening to those that will open their eyes and not keep their head buried in the sand.

That's great call-in show material right there.

Thanks. For the record, I'm not a Fulmer hater - but at the same time I have little faith he can beat Richt, Spurrier, Saban, Meyer and Tubberville in the same season... much less with any frequency.

The thing that has really got me going lately is my extreme displeasure in the administration for the recent contract... paying well above market for not meeting expectations.

 

[jakez4ut]

Arkansas was part of the difference, the other was that I included semi-big name teams from other conferences (Kansas State, Georgia Tech...). I might go back and do Tennessee myself to see how it would stack up using my objectivity... but I doubt it would change the answer that we fall behind the others... and by a wide margin. Might even take a look at Arkansas... based on what I've done so far I don't think we'll come out much ahead of them.

same here.
i did exclude the KY and Vandy losses for Georgia in 06, add those two back in and on mine they drop to 64%.....but in the essence of fairness, they are excluded....as are losses to Ole Miss and MSU to Auburn, ARK beating Bama, Auburn and LSU....

ARK is probalby pretty comparable to us right now if you go back over that same timeline.

but in the end, what did we learn from this exercise?

that we're about hte 5th best team in the conf., under this criteria, over the last 7 years.

shocking. absolutely shocking.

 

[General Jack]

same here.
i did exclude the KY and Vandy losses for Georgia in 06, add those two back in and on mine they drop to 64%.....but in the essence of fairness, they are excluded....as are losses to Ole Miss and MSU to Auburn, ARK beating Bama, Auburn and LSU....

ARK is probalby pretty comparable to us right now if you go back over that same timeline.

but in the end, what did we learn from this exercise?

that we're about hte 5th best team in the conf., under this criteria, over the last 7 years.

shocking. absolutely shocking.

You're right, nothing we didn't already know at a high level... but at least we have that much more data to support what our gut and hearts have been screaming.

Winning the SEC (and beating florida) sure would make me feel better.

 

[jakez4ut]

i dunno. i'm just sick of all the manufactured BS to find a reason to support or slam CPF. who needs it?

i knew pretty much all i needed to know after the FL game last year. If people are still searching for reasons, then whatever. Good for them.

for me, my standard on whether or not CPF can get this job done begins on Sept. 20th. win that game. and we'll go from there.

 

[General Jack]

eason to support or slam CPF. who needs it?

i knew pretty much all i needed to know after the FL game last year. If people are still searching for reasons, then whatever. Good for them.

for me, my standard on whether or not CPF can get this job done begins on Sept. 20th. win that game. and we'll go from there.

Agree... Florida is the new barometer and ultimately the key road block in our success. And 59-20 margins can not be tolerated... much less rewarded... but thats another story.


FYI, by my own calculations Tennessee is at 38% and Arkansas is 28% since 2001.