FULMER - Due Respect!…..

#202
#202
EconVol92 said:
Ok, I'll play.

Why did no one want to hire a coach with a 70% win record?

Don't most football coaches in the SEC make more than the AD?

I will not defend Hamilton as I agree he was part of the problem, but Fulmer was also part of the problem as he was just doing time trying to get more wins than the General and he was in coast mode.
Click to expand...
Fulmer's blood was orange , he didn't want another coaching job. and I know coaches make more than AD's, but Hammy wanted notoriety like Fulmer and he wanted a coach that was beholding to him. After all Hammy was boss. And besides satan, how many even have one NC.
Overall, the record is one of a consistently good team, with a winning percentage of.766 for all 15 seasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpookyAction
#205
#205
volcop1 said:
Fulmer's blood was orange , he didn't want another coaching job. and I know coaches make more than AD's, but Hammy wanted notoriety like Fulmer and he wanted a coach that was beholding to him. After all Hammy was boss. And besides satan, how many even have one NC.
Overall, the record is one of a consistently good team, with a winning percentage of.766 for all 15 seasons.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Fulmer interview for both the Louisville and UCon jobs and didn't get either?

Also, wasn't Fulmer's winning record without Cutcliffe about .660?

I'm just trying to present a different opinion here as we obviously have different takes on Fulmer and in the end just have to agree to disagree.

I will give him credit as a great recruiter; however, he lost more games that he never should have lost than win many that he shouldn't have won, as Tennessee almost always had the same or better talent than most opponents.

Now I hope that we can agree that he was a complete failure as AD.
 
#206
#206
Delmar said:
... And please tell us how a one year “sabbatical” would work?
Click to expand...
I actually agree with the wisdom of putting Fulmer on sabbatical for a year after the 2008 season, so can help explain how it might work:
  • AD tells Fulmer to take a year off, reflect on the state of the game of football and where he wants the program to go, that as things are working right now it's not going in a positive direction. Tells him the job is his again after the year has passed, if he still wants it, but that he is to have no contact with the football program, the coaching staff, or the players for those 12 months.
  • The idea is for Fulmer to have a chance to do two things: rediscover his hunger for excellence, and reflect on ways to improve the program, hire new coaching talent in one or more spots perhaps, get things rolling toward championships again.
  • Then the AD calls in Chavis, offers him a one-year head coaching gig, after which time he goes back to being DC. Only thing he's not allowed to do is fire assistant coaches during that year, unless they're doing something illegal/immoral/unethical. It's good for Chavis, good for the program, and keeps a sense of continuity going.
  • When, after the year passes, Fulmer comes back as head coach (assuming he does), he has a fresh start to prove his leadership, just as any new coach would. Things don't go well after three or so years, THEN the AD can fire him.
That's a four-year process, 2009 to 2012. I can guaran-damn-tee you we'd do better than 23-27 over those four years, which is what Kiffin and Dooley did for us. AND even if Fulmer were fired after 2012, our AD (Hart by then) would be MUCH better positioned to get a top candidate on board than he was after the Dooley mess. Instead of a Butch Jones, we'd get a James Franklin or a Sonny Dykes, someone on that tier.

And that's if Fulmer isn't back to winning championships with a strong new offensive coordinator.

That's how a sabbatical could work.

EconVol92 said:
...but Fulmer was also part of the problem as he was just doing time trying to get more wins than the General and he was in coast mode.
Click to expand...
"...just doing time trying to get more wins..."
Friend, isn't that what we pay head coaches to do? Get more wins?

EDIT: Econ, I do see your point. I do. You're saying he was coasting. Just 21 wins behind the General for the title of "winningest coach in Tennessee history," and even if it takes him three or four years to get there, he still reaches that goal, so he's coasting. I get it.

Which is where the idea of a sabbatical fits so well. It threatens that goal while giving the man a chance to rediscover his own competitive spirit (and we all know every head coach in college football is ultra-competitive by nature).

Go Vols!
 
Last edited:
#207
#207
VFL-82-JP said:
I actually agree with the wisdom of putting Fulmer on sabbatical for a year after the 2008 season, so can help explain how it might work:
  • AD tells Fulmer to take a year off, reflect on the state of the game of football and where he wants the program to go, that as things are working right now it's not going in a positive direction. Tells him the job is his again after the year has passed, if he still wants it, but that he is to have no contact with the football program, the coaching staff, or the players for those 12 months.
  • The idea is for Fulmer to have a chance to do two things: rediscover his hunger for excellence, and reflect on ways to improve the program, hire new coaching talent in one or more spots perhaps, get things rolling toward championships again.
  • Then the AD calls in Chavis, offers him a one-year head coaching gig, after which time he goes back to being DC. Only thing he's not allowed to do is fire assistant coaches during that year, unless they're doing something illegal/immoral/unethical. It's good for Chavis, good for the program, and keeps a sense of continuity going.
  • When, after the year passes, Fulmer comes back as head coach (assuming he does), he has a fresh start to prove his leadership, just as any new coach would. Things don't go well after three or so years, THEN the AD can fire him.
That's a four-year process, 2009 to 2012. I can guaran-damn-tee you we'd do better than 23-27 over those four years, which is what Kiffin and Dooley did for us. AND even if Fulmer were fired after 2012, our AD (Hart by then) would be MUCH better positioned to get a top candidate on board than he was after the Dooley mess. Instead of a Butch Jones, we'd get a James Franklin or a Sonny Dykes, someone on that tier.

And that's if Fulmer isn't back to winning championships with a strong new offensive coordinator.

That's how a sabbatical could work.


"...just doing time trying to get more wins..."
Friend, isn't that what we pay head coaches to do? Get more wins?

Go Vols!
Click to expand...
I see what you did there.
1689617172564.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: VFL-82-JP
#208
#208
VFL-82-JP said:
I actually agree with the wisdom of putting Fulmer on sabbatical for a year after the 2008 season, so can help explain how it might work:
  • AD tells Fulmer to take a year off, reflect on the state of the game of football and where he wants the program to go, that as things are working right now it's not going in a positive direction. Tells him the job is his again after the year has passed, if he still wants it, but that he is to have no contact with the football program, the coaching staff, or the players for those 12 months.
  • The idea is for Fulmer to have a chance to do two things: rediscover his hunger for excellence, and reflect on ways to improve the program, hire new coaching talent in one or more spots perhaps, get things rolling toward championships again.
  • Then the AD calls in Chavis, offers him a one-year head coaching gig, after which time he goes back to being DC. Only thing he's not allowed to do is fire assistant coaches during that year, unless they're doing something illegal/immoral/unethical. It's good for Chavis, good for the program, and keeps a sense of continuity going.
  • When, after the year passes, Fulmer comes back as head coach (assuming he does), he has a fresh start to prove his leadership, just as any new coach would. Things don't go well after three or so years, THEN the AD can fire him.
That's a four-year process, 2009 to 2012. I can guaran-damn-tee you we'd do better than 23-27 over those four years, which is what Kiffin and Dooley did for us. AND even if Fulmer were fired after 2012, our AD (Hart by then) would be MUCH better positioned to get a top candidate on board than he was after the Dooley mess. Instead of a Butch Jones, we'd get a James Franklin or a Sonny Dykes, someone on that tier.

And that's if Fulmer isn't back to winning championships with a strong new offensive coordinator.

That's how a sabbatical could work.


"...just doing time trying to get more wins..."
Friend, isn't that what we pay head coaches to do? Get more wins?

EDIT: Econ, I do see your point. I do. You're saying he was coasting. Just 21 wins behind the General for the title of "winningest coach in Tennessee history," and even if it takes him three or four years to get there, he still reaches that goal, so he's coasting. I get it.

Which is where the idea of a sabbatical fits so well. It threatens that goal while giving the man a chance to rediscover his own competitive spirit (and we all know every head coach in college football is ultra-competitive by nature).

Go Vols!
Click to expand...
Interesting idea. Just never seen it done before and probably never will unless it was a health issue that forced a sabbatical. You are correct. It could not have been worse than Dooley, Jones and Cornbread but I also don’t believe mediocrity was what we were searching for either. And Phil’s last few years were a study in mediocrity. I just don’t believe he would have changed but we’ll never know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VFL-82-JP
#209
#209
Delmar said:
Interesting idea. Just never seen it done before and probably never will unless it was a health issue that forced a sabbatical. You are correct. It could not have been worse than Dooley, Jones and Cornbread but I also don’t believe mediocrity was what we were searching for either. And Phil’s last few years were a study in mediocrity. I just don’t believe he would have changed but we’ll never know.
Click to expand...
Indiana did a something like this for Terry Hoepner (sp?).
Coach got sick, was given a year off to beat it, came back for a fairly successful season, but cancer returned and sadly won that fight.
 
#210
#210
IndianaVol said:
Indiana did a something like this for Terry Hoepner (sp?).
Coach got sick, was given a year off to beat it, came back for a fairly successful season, but cancer returned and sadly won that fight.
Click to expand...
Health sabbaticals I can understand. Nobody should lose a job for getting sick.
 
#211
#211
Delmar said:
Interesting idea. Just never seen it done before and probably never will unless it was a health issue that forced a sabbatical. You are correct. It could not have been worse than Dooley, Jones and Cornbread but I also don’t believe mediocrity was what we were searching for either. And Phil’s last few years were a study in mediocrity. I just don’t believe he would have changed but we’ll never know.
Click to expand...
It would have been as dumb as it was to make him AD. I still can't believe he was our AD. Thank God we did a 180 with Danny White
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dansky
#213
#213
VFL-82-JP said:
I actually agree with the wisdom of putting Fulmer on sabbatical for a year after the 2008 season, so can help explain how it might work:
  • AD tells Fulmer to take a year off, reflect on the state of the game of football and where he wants the program to go, that as things are working right now it's not going in a positive direction. Tells him the job is his again after the year has passed, if he still wants it, but that he is to have no contact with the football program, the coaching staff, or the players for those 12 months.
  • The idea is for Fulmer to have a chance to do two things: rediscover his hunger for excellence, and reflect on ways to improve the program, hire new coaching talent in one or more spots perhaps, get things rolling toward championships again.
  • Then the AD calls in Chavis, offers him a one-year head coaching gig, after which time he goes back to being DC. Only thing he's not allowed to do is fire assistant coaches during that year, unless they're doing something illegal/immoral/unethical. It's good for Chavis, good for the program, and keeps a sense of continuity going.
  • When, after the year passes, Fulmer comes back as head coach (assuming he does), he has a fresh start to prove his leadership, just as any new coach would. Things don't go well after three or so years, THEN the AD can fire him.
That's a four-year process, 2009 to 2012. I can guaran-damn-tee you we'd do better than 23-27 over those four years, which is what Kiffin and Dooley did for us. AND even if Fulmer were fired after 2012, our AD (Hart by then) would be MUCH better positioned to get a top candidate on board than he was after the Dooley mess. Instead of a Butch Jones, we'd get a James Franklin or a Sonny Dykes, someone on that tier.

And that's if Fulmer isn't back to winning championships with a strong new offensive coordinator.

That's how a sabbatical could work.


"...just doing time trying to get more wins..."
Friend, isn't that what we pay head coaches to do? Get more wins?

EDIT: Econ, I do see your point. I do. You're saying he was coasting. Just 21 wins behind the General for the title of "winningest coach in Tennessee history," and even if it takes him three or four years to get there, he still reaches that goal, so he's coasting. I get it.

Which is where the idea of a sabbatical fits so well. It threatens that goal while giving the man a chance to rediscover his own competitive spirit (and we all know every head coach in college football is ultra-competitive by nature).

Go Vols!
Click to expand...
Thank goodness we didn't do it
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dansky and hog88
#216
#216
I appreciate what he has done throughout the years, albeit he had a lot of help with great assistance coaches and players. That said, if hes playing stupid or dumb that is his business only thing I dont like about the whole deal is the Tennesseee the entire educating higher level from state universities to communtiy colleges is so political what Fulmer did or didnt do PALES with some things going on .PALES! Just be fair never happen I dont think. Too many friends and high salaries and politcians to change.
 
#217
#217
Volnuck said:
I agree he deserves respect and he was an above average coach, but he was a GREAT recruiter. The talent level was always excellent under Fulmer. He got outcoached several times, but all coaches do. Always remember, Coach Fulmer said an Athletic Director at UT would always be defined by his hiring of the football coach. He hired Pruitt and everyone acted like Fulmer was not even connected to that mess, and he was. Also, Phil never left UT that he was not paid for years after exiting (even after the Pruitt debacle). Excellent coach with questionable scruples
Click to expand...

Everything you said is true, but Pruitt was hired late in the year and there wasn't much to choose from. He was probably considered the best alternative. Schiano would have been a train wreck as well. He probably would have recruited worse than Pruitt and left the incoming coach with less talent.
 
#219
#219
I don’t know why people don’t think a sabbatical would work.?.? Sure, maybe it has not been done in major college football before or anywhere else other than for medical reasons but, I think it would have been a great idea! The only question I have is would he have kept his salary for that year?

Had we done something like giving him a one year sabbatical then brought him right back in the fold and, had he gotten us back to elite status, it would not have mattered what others thought!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 207 others
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top