Fulmer Debate II

#426
#426
GAVol said:
Come on. Of COURSE it matters. If beating up on the bottom feeders was enough, Ron Zook, Tommy Tuberville, Jim Donnan and a host of other 7-8 win coaches would still be employed in the SEC. Everybody is evaluated on rivalry games.
Click to expand...

It isn't fair.

I bet Johnny majors has a losing conference record if not for vandy and Kentucky.

People speak of vandy and Kentucky like they haven't padded winning percentages for Tennessee coaches except Phil.

Heck, Tennessee has 9 conference wins in the last 4 years and 6 are against vandy and Kentucky. That would make Tennessee 3-22 against everyone else since Phil left.

Did Phil do better than 3-22?
 
#429
#429
govols/cc said:
16 full seasons

9 seasons of 10 or more wins

4 seasons of 8 or 9 wins

2 losing seasons

You're about to get a 4-8
Click to expand...

That would be relevant if we had a time machine so we could have 90's Phil. Unfortunately, we didn't, and we were stuck with mediocre Phil.
 
#430
#430
whobethis16 said:
No you wouldn't. If Butch gets this team to 12 wins in a season, once he goes back to back 4 or 5 wins, you'll demand him to be fired.
Click to expand...

You missed the point. I much prefer bumbling around with bad football teams until we finally fix things. Then we will have good teams. It's much better than just waving the white flag and hoping for mediocre.
 
#431
#431
99gator said:
It isn't fair.

I bet Johnny majors has a losing conference record if not for vandy and Kentucky.

People speak of vandy and Kentucky like they haven't padded winning percentages for Tennessee coaches except Phil.

Heck, Tennessee has 9 conference wins in the last 4 years and 6 are against vandy and Kentucky. That would make Tennessee 3-22 against everyone else since Phil left.

Did Phil do better than 3-22?
Click to expand...

He had it rolling at 10-14. Sweet.
 
#432
#432
tvolsfan said:
The fact that people still think keeping Fulmer was the best option shows how terrified Tennessee fans are of change.

I have no interest in seeing Tennessee play consistent 8-5/9-4 football whatsoever. Tennessee should either be playing at a championship level or taking the necessary steps to be playing at a championship level as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...

Outside of Fulmer's tenure who at Tennessee in your lifetime was doing such a better job?
 
#437
#437
tvolsfan said:
You missed the point. I much prefer bumbling around with bad football teams until we finally fix things. Then we will have good teams. It's much better than just waving the white flag and hoping for mediocre.
Click to expand...

So, then every time a coach only wins 8, we fire him and do this all again. That's smart.
 
#439
#439
tvolsfan said:
So? I'm not saying we should have hired Johnny back.
Click to expand...

this is where the argument gets taken to a place no one wants to go.

if you look at tennessee's winning percentage outside of the 90's since the 60's, what phil was doing in the 2000's was right in line with that.

the 1990's are not the norm. they are not close to the norm.

1960's. 66.6%
1970's. 65.4%
1980's. 66.8%
1990's. 81.3%
2000's. 65.3%
2010's. 43.2%

i am not saying you don't strive for the 1990's. of course you do. but, the likelihood is that isn't going to happen again.
 
#440
#440
99gator said:
this is where the argument gets taken to a place no one wants to go.

if you look at tennessee's winning percentage outside of the 90's since the 60's, what phil was doing in the 2000's was right in line with that.

the 1990's are not the norm. they are not close to the norm.

1960's. 66.6%
1970's. 65.4%
1980's. 66.8%
1990's. 81.3%
2000's. 65.3%
2010's. 43.2%

i am not saying you don't strive for the 1990's. of course you do. but, the likelihood is that isn't going to happen again.
Click to expand...

It's not about winning percentage. It has never been about winning percentage. It's about championships.
 
#441
#441
It seems silly to compare winning percentage by decade like that. Tennessee gets 3-4 free wins in OOC play, and what should be at least 3-4 easy wins for any semi-competent coach with a roster that isn't an abortion like the current one is. That basically means that you can lose every meaningful game and win 67%. That sucks, period.
 
#442
#442
99gator said:
It isn't fair.

I bet Johnny majors has a losing conference record if not for vandy and Kentucky.

People speak of vandy and Kentucky like they haven't padded winning percentages for Tennessee coaches except Phil.

Heck, Tennessee has 9 conference wins in the last 4 years and 6 are against vandy and Kentucky. That would make Tennessee 3-22 against everyone else since Phil left.

Did Phil do better than 3-22?
Click to expand...

The point wasn't Phil's absolute winning percentage against SEC teams, regardless of whether you include Vandy/Kentucky. The point was the dramatic dropoff in the second half of his career.

I'd imagine that if you looked up his record against ranked teams, you'd also find a marked difference in what he did before and after, say, 2001.

I'm not one of the fans who thinks that he got lazy; I just think that the conference got a lot better around him while he stayed the same. But the result was the same either way: he didn't get nearly the same results in the second half of his career.
 
#443
#443
99gator said:
this is where the argument gets taken to a place no one wants to go.

if you look at tennessee's winning percentage outside of the 90's since the 60's, what phil was doing in the 2000's was right in line with that.

the 1990's are not the norm. they are not close to the norm.

1960's. 66.6%
1970's. 65.4%
1980's. 66.8%
1990's. 81.3%
2000's. 65.3%
2010's. 43.2%

i am not saying you don't strive for the 1990's. of course you do. but, the likelihood is that isn't going to happen again.
Click to expand...

Ron Zook's winning percentage was probably pretty close to Florida's historical norm. Why didn't you keep him?
 
#445
#445
Ron Zook won 62 percent of his games at Florida. Florida has now won 63.1 percent of their games, which means that at the time Zook's winning percentage was actually higher than Florida's historical norm. I can't believe they fired him.
 
#446
#446
Vercingetorix said:
Ron Zook's winning percentage was probably pretty close to Florida's historical norm. Why didn't you keep him?
Click to expand...

i have said i would have gotten rid of phil too. i stand by that.

what i have been trying to do in this thread and the other one, is point out that the "bad" fulmer years weren't all that bad. he did not destroy the program and he should be respected even for his job during the "bad" years....as evidenced by his winning percentage and his sec title game appearances.

in addition, the "bad" years are not as easy to duplicate as some might think.

so, yeah, zook's gator years were around the norm for florida football history. probably better. he deserved to be fired too. and his teams weren't near as horrible as they are described to be either. there were some damn good wins during the zook years.
 
#447
#447
Vercingetorix said:
Ron Zook won 62 percent of his games at Florida. Florida has now won 63.1 percent of their games, which means that at the time Zook's winning percentage was actually higher than Florida's historical norm. I can't believe they fired him.
Click to expand...

He also had a 16-8 record in conference play.
 
#448
#448
99gator said:
i have said i would have gotten rid of phil too. i stand by that.

what i have been trying to do in this thread and the other one, is point out that the "bad" fulmer years weren't all that bad. he did not destroy the program and he should be respected even for his job during the "bad" years....as evidenced by his winning percentage and his sec title game appearances.

in addition, the "bad" years are not as easy to duplicate as some might think.

so, yeah, zook's gator years were around the norm for florida football history. probably better. he deserved to be fired too. and his teams weren't near as horrible as they are described to be either. there were some damn good wins during the zook years.
Click to expand...

I respect the job he did through 2001. The problem is, we weren't getting near that productivity anymore.


Concerning the bold, I'm not optimistic about where Tennessee's program is now. I don't know how 2013-2019 will turn out. It may well be worse than 2002-2008. That said, I certainly would not take 2002-2008 right now.
 
#449
#449
99gator said:
i have said i would have gotten rid of phil too. i stand by that.

what i have been trying to do in this thread and the other one, is point out that the "bad" fulmer years weren't all that bad. he did not destroy the program and he should be respected even for his job during the "bad" years....as evidenced by his winning percentage and his sec title game appearances.

in addition, the "bad" years are not as easy to duplicate as some might think.

so, yeah, zook's gator years were around the norm for florida football history. probably better. he deserved to be fired too. and his teams weren't near as horrible as they are described to be either. there were some damn good wins during the zook years.
Click to expand...

I don't anyone in this thread is arguing that Phil's last years were as bad as what we've seen since then. All anyone is saying (that I know of) is that A) Fulmer's results had declined to the point where it became clear that Tennessee needed to make a change, and B) our subsequent ongoing nightmare has been the result of poor hiring since then, not that initial decision.
 
#450
#450
Vercingetorix said:
The scuttlebutt at the time was that Sumlin was never really a serious candidate because Hamilton really wanted to win the press conference, and he thought trotting Dooley out there would accomplish that. Which of course it did.
Click to expand...

Seriously? He thought trotting out Dooley would be a big splash or something?

I mean it was a big splash but not in the way he intended.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top