Fulmer Debate II

[whobethis16]

I understand but if I'm not mistaken Tennessee has won more games than any other program since like 1928. So I disagree that is's only been a good program with some superior years.

That's because the losing seasons were so far between, but 7-3, 8-4 type seasons have been the average

Tennessee Volunteers football - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[05_never_again]

I understand but if I'm not mistaken Tennessee has won more games than any other program since like 1928. So I disagree that is's only been a good program with some superior years.

Tennessee has lower peaks but perhaps more consistency over long periods of time.

Schools like Alabama, Notre Dame, Michigan, USC, etc. have more national titles, conference titles, Heisman winners, and the like than Tennessee and thus are perceived to be the elite historical programs. Schools like Tennessee, Georgia, etc. I do think fit the "very good programs with superior years" label quite well.

 

[whobethis16]

I understand but if I'm not mistaken Tennessee has won more games than any other program since like 1928. So I disagree that is's only been a good program with some superior years.

That's because the losing seasons were so far between, but 7-3, 8-4 type seasons have been the average.

Tennessee Volunteers football - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scroll down to the yearly results. From the 50s-90s (everything without Neyland and Fulmer) there are a LOT of 7-5, 8-4 type years with a few sporadic 10-1 and 5-6 type years thrown in. If anything, all Fulmer did was bring us back down to where we used to be.

 

[whobethis16]

And that is exactly why the firing of Fulmer wasn't justified at the time. Now, if they started to not even competing for the SEC championship for 5-6 years, then I'd agree he needed to be let go. But, he did nothing but give UT a new high and then they came off it for a little while.

 

[Boston Vol]

Look I'm not one those people who hated Fulmer. I have a lot of respect for what he meant to Tennessee football. I believe what happened was his program lost all the momentum he and his staff had spent most of the 90's trying to build. There was a sense that the program had become stale, and quite frankly I can't disagree with that. Now in retrospect it doesn't look like good move replacing him, but I would simply argue that's more a consequence of the two guys that were hired to replace him.

 

[05_never_again]

And that is exactly why the firing of Fulmer wasn't justified at the time. Now, if they started to not even competing for the SEC championship for 5-6 years, then I'd agree he needed to be let go. But, he did nothing but give UT a new high and then they came off it for a little while.

That's kind of an unrealistic criteria for firing someone, isn't it? Fulmer's last SEC Title Game appearance was 2007. Is the administration really going to give him 5-6 years to make at least one more, whereupon if he hasn't done it you fire him in 2013? What if Tennessee appeared in a BCS bowl as an at-large during that time (like Richt did in 2007)? Do you still go by your criteria and fire him?

Go back and check out that list of non-competitive losses I posted a few pages ago in this thread. That's the reason he was let go. I actually think it had very little to do specifically with the 2005/2008 seasons themselves.

The reason he was let go was the increasing frequency of non-competitive games Tennessee played in, combined with a general feeling that Fulmer couldn't compete with Richt/Meyer/Saban/Miles/etc in terms of both coaching and recruiting. Even if Fulmer never had 2 below .500 seasons, I still think he would have been fired.

 

[whobethis16]

Look I'm not one those people who hated Fulmer. I have a lot of respect for what he meant to Tennessee football. I think what happened was his program lost all the momentum he and his staff had spent most of the 90's trying to build. There was a sense that the program had become stale, and quite frankly I can't disagree with that. Now in retrospect it doesn't look like good move replacing him, but I would simply argue that's more a consequence of the two guys that were hired to replace him.

And that may be. Just because I believe he never should've been fired doesn't mean I'm begging for him to be hired again. If the AD wanted him, I'd be for it, but I don't go around saying I wish he'd be hired back. I like Jones and think he can/will succeed. To what extent, no idea, but he will do better than Dooley. I liked Dooley, too, but I'm not sad he's no longer here. Most people that are "Fulmerites" feel exactly as I do, but just think that blaming him, calling him names, saying he was a failure, drove the program into the ground, etc is uncalled for and completely wrong.

 

[05_never_again]

And that may be. Just because I believe he never should've been fired doesn't mean I'm begging for him to be hired again. If the AD wanted him, I'd be for it, but I don't go around saying I wish he'd be hired back. I like Jones and think he can/will succeed. To what extent, no idea, but he will do better than Dooley. I liked Dooley, too, but I'm not sad he's no longer here. Most people that are "Fulmerites" feel exactly as I do, but just think that blaming him, calling him names, saying he was a failure, drove the program into the ground, etc is uncalled for and completely wrong.

"Driving the program into the ground" is an exaggeration. It might appear that way only when viewed relative to his own past success. Regardless of whether you still support him, I think you absolutely have to concede that he was a victim of his own success.

Something like "the game/competition had passed him by" is fairer to him and more accurate.

 

[whobethis16]

That's kind of an unrealistic criteria for firing someone, isn't it? Fulmer's last SEC Title Game appearance was 2007. Is the administration really going to give him 5-6 years to make at least one more, whereupon if he hasn't done it you fire him in 2013? What if Tennessee appeared in a BCS bowl as an at-large during that time (like Richt did in 2007)? Do you still go by your criteria and fire him?

Go back and check out that list of non-competitive losses I posted a few pages ago in this thread. That's the reason he was let go. I actually think it had very little to do specifically with the 2005/2008 seasons themselves.

The reason he was let go was the increasing frequency of non-competitive games Tennessee played in, combined with a general feeling that Fulmer couldn't compete with Richt/Meyer/Saban/Miles/etc in terms of both coaching and recruiting. Even if Fulmer never had 2 below .500 seasons, I still think he would have been fired.

While I don't usually believe in conspiracy theories, I can't help but think that as Fulmer kept getting closer and closer to Neyland's record, the old foggies who really have the power were looking for a reason to fire him to protect the General's record. And they didn't have it until he had the 08 season. They could've in 05, but that was his only real black mark on his record, so that wouldn't do.


Regarding making the SECCG, the trend is Fulmer would've gone in 2010 (not unreasonable in hindsight) and then again this year (and how it looks, not unheard of if there was consistency in the program). If he didn't make it in 5-6 years, yeah, fire him. But if he made it every 3 still, no.

 

[BenGrimm]

And what pure unbridled joy it has been. His defenders predicted this -- that without Fulmer, we would become truly irrelevant, a national afterthought, returning to most of the years in the 1980's when we were usually irrelevant (1985 wonderfully exempted, but that's also why that year is so memorable in Tennessee fans' heads -- it was so unusual back then for a season like 1985 to exist) before Fulmer's rise within the program. Fulmer supporters saw a Fulmer-less Tennessee team with years of 6-loss seasons to come.

By contrast, his critics promised quick return to glory, which they said only Fulmer was holding back, with coaches begging to come here, and 11-win seasons right around the corner.

We now know who was right and who was wrong.

In the middle of the 08 season when the writing was on the wall I told a buddy of mine I was dreading the years of coaching carousel we were headed for. Hopefully it's come to an end for a while.

 

[Eddie Vol Halen]

And what pure unbridled joy it has been. His defenders predicted this -- that without Fulmer, we would become truly irrelevant, a national afterthought, returning to most of the years in the 1980's when we were usually irrelevant (1985 wonderfully exempted, but that's also why that year is so memorable in Tennessee fans' heads -- it was so unusual back then for a season like 1985 to exist) before Fulmer's rise within the program. Fulmer supporters saw a Fulmer-less Tennessee team with years of 6-loss seasons to come.

By contrast, his critics promised quick return to glory, which they said only Fulmer was holding back, with coaches begging to come here, and 11-win seasons right around the corner.

We now know who was right and who was wrong.

At least now we have the "it wasn't firing Fulmer that was wrong, it was making the wrong hire" meme.

 

[Boston Vol]

At least now we have the "it wasn't firing Fulmer that was wrong, it was making the wrong hire" meme.

Well duh. If Tennessee would have made the right hire in 2009 we wouldn't be having this discussion. What's so hard to understand about this. If you hire shiiity coaches like we did in 2009 and 2010 you're probably not going to get the desired results. If you hire good coaches you normally win a lot of football games. I know this is a shocking concept.

 

[govols/cc]

Well duh. If Tennessee would have made the right hire in 2009 we wouldn't be having this discussion. What's so hard to understand about this. If you hire shiiity coaches like we did in 2009 and 2010 you're probably not going to get the desired results. If you hire good coaches you normally win a lot of football games. I know this is a shocking concept.

Like the concept of winning is easy & homerun hires are a dime a dozen.

 

[Boston Vol]

Like the concept of winning is easy & homerun hires are a dime a dozen.

It's not that hard. He had every opportunity to hire Brian Kelly or Gary Patterson in 2009. He interviewed them both. He just bought into Lane's recruiting plan and the fact he would bring Monte and O with him. He hires Kelly in 2009, Tennessee would be just fine right now. Instead he went the other way, and Tennessee is paying dearly for it.

 

[iluvsmesumdooley]

If you want to call Majors' Co-Championships and winning by default cause Florida was on probation, let's see how many times Fulmer would've won without a title game. 97, 98, 01, 07 That makes 4 that he had the best record or tied. Majors one 1 outright to Fulmer's 2 outright.

Considering the SEC was better in the 80s than it was in the 90s, I'll take it. The point is that Fulmer never had to rebuild - Majors did. And Majors had to take on the likes of Bryant, Stallings, Dooley (the real one, not the knockoff version we had), and Dye instead of Goff, Donnan, DuBose, Shula, Brad Scott, etc.
Did Majors mess up by coming back early in '92 and screwing up a perfect season? Yes. But to diminish what he did simply by comparing winning percentages between Majors and Fulmer tells absolutely nothing.

 

[114VOL]

SEC Championship appearances from
1997-08.

Alabama: 2
Arkansas: 2
Auburn: 3
Florida: 4
Georgia: 3
Kentucky: 0
LSU: 4
Ole Miss: 0
Mississippi State: 1
South Carolina: 0
Tennessee: 5
Vanderbilt: 0

That looks like being competitive in the SEC to me. I don't see how you can say it isn't competitive.

We're a top ten historical program. We're supposed to compete for national championships, not hope we get into the SEC title game. We haven't been a national title contender since 2001? We haven't played in a BCS bowl since 1999...that's national irrelevance .


Face it, we slid into mediocrity during the 2002-2008 span.

AND yes, cc., firing Fulmer and the subsequent hires are mutually exclusive events

 

[iluvsmesumdooley]

Also, if Reggie Cobb wouldn't have discovered blow, UT would have won the 1989 NT. The CobbWebb was the best RB college tandem I ever laid eyes on.

 

[114VOL]

Then if you want to go 2001-08, LSU went 4, UT 3, UGA 3, Florida 2, Bama 1. So, to say he wasn't competitive his last 8 years is wrong, too.

If we were so good in those years, why didn't we get a BCS game when we made it to the SEC championship game? I will tell you why. Because we weren't nationally relevant. We were 't national title contenders of any sort. We were still getting blown out a couple of times a year in those seasons we won our DIVISION. You're making the dumbest argument of all. Winning a division isn't a championship. There's going to be years when a division is down. Do you believe Miss St was the second best team in the SEC in 1998? No, of course they weren't.

 

[whobethis16]

We're a top ten historical program. We're supposed to compete for national championships, not hope we get into the SEC title game. We haven't been a national title contender since 2001? We haven't played in a BCS bowl since 1999...that's national irrelevance .


Face it, we slid into mediocrity during the 2002-2008 span.

AND yes, cc., firing Fulmer and the subsequent hires are mutually exclusive events

Really? Then tell me why they only really competerd for National Championships under Fulmer and Neyland? Nobody else in UT history did that.

 

[whobethis16]

We're a top ten historical program. We're supposed to compete for national championships, not hope we get into the SEC title game. We haven't been a national title contender since 2001? We haven't played in a BCS bowl since 1999...that's national irrelevance .


Face it, we slid into mediocrity during the 2002-2008 span.

AND yes, cc., firing Fulmer and the subsequent hires are mutually exclusive events

The 50s had 5 seasons with 4+ losses.
The 60s had 4 seasons with 4+ losses.
The 70s had 5 seasons with 4+ losses.
The 80s had 6 seasons with 4+ losses.

That's 30 out of 40 seasons with 4+ losses. How the Hell is that consistently playing for National Championships? Hmmm? It isn't. Fulmer was on par his last year's, and he made your spoiled/entitled ass forget that.

 

[Boston Vol]

The 50s had 5 seasons with 4+ losses.
The 60s had 4 seasons with 4+ losses.
The 70s had 5 seasons with 4+ losses.
The 80s had 6 seasons with 4+ losses.

That's 30 out of 40 seasons with 4+ losses. How the Hell is that consistently playing for National Championships? Hmmm? It isn't. Fulmer was on par his last year's, and he made your spoiled/entitled ass forget that.

Then he brought those expectations on himself. 7-8 wins shouldn't have been acceptable for the money UT was paying him and his assistants.

 

[utvolpj]

While I don't usually believe in conspiracy theories, I can't help but think that as Fulmer kept getting closer and closer to Neyland's record, the old foggies who really have the power were looking for a reason to fire him to protect the General's record. And they didn't have it until he had the 08 season. They could've in 05, but that was his only real black mark on his record, so that wouldn't do.

I believe it was the opposite. Fulmer wanted to hang on long enough to grab that record. It didn't matter if he had to do it 5-7 wins at a time

Really? Then tell me why they only really competerd for National Championships under Fulmer and Neyland? Nobody else in UT history did that.

Dickey

 

[whobethis16]

Then he brought those expectations on himself. 7-8 wins shouldn't have been acceptable for the money UT was paying him and his assistants.

I'm not denying he raised the bar a bit. But to act like UT football is entitled and really was a national contender is just as ludicrous as saying the moon landing didn't happen.

 

[Gramps]

The 50s had 5 seasons with 4+ losses.
The 60s had 4 seasons with 4+ losses.
The 70s had 5 seasons with 4+ losses.
The 80s had 6 seasons with 4+ losses.

That's 30 out of 40 seasons with 4+ losses. How the Hell is that consistently playing for National Championships? Hmmm? It isn't. Fulmer was on par his last year's, and he made your spoiled/entitled ass forget that.

He was on par if you think averaging 7-5 over his last 4 years is okay. 2005-2008 we went 29-21.

He brought us many good memories but it was time for him to go. He had a great run but the records show that run was over.

Why did you stop with the '80's?

 

[whobethis16]

He was on par if you think averaging 7-5 over his last 4 years is okay. 2005-2008 we went 29-21.

He brought us many good memories but it was time for him to go. He had a great run but the records show that run was over.

Why did you stop with the '80's?

Because he was coach for most of the 90s and 2000s. I was showing that prior to him, what he did was the norm. But fine. 90s had season with 4+ losses and the 00s had 6 under Fulmer.

And the records show he was back on par with Majors, Dickey, etc etc.