Great Coaches, Coach Great

[BanditVol]

Consequences? No. Circumstances? Yes. But you've made assumptions about the Divine, God, that I would dispute. The God of the Bible precludes "randomness". Free will and its extent is a far bigger debate that we won't be allowed to discuss here.

"Luck" is a pagan notion of the causeless-effect. That things happen for no reason. I'm an old, fairly experienced, guy now. You might observe that I'm more "lucky" now with finances than I was when I was 23. I'm not. Just more experienced. So even when I might not be able to identify it as a clear path of reasoning... I avoid some things and gravitate toward others. I've developed habits that have proven fruitful.

God is ultimately in control but allows free will. How I think about that is that there are bubbles of quantuum uncertainty floating around called human beings. We each have our own sphere of influence, some more than others. Inside the sphere we can choose to be bad or good, make good or bad decisions. That's free will. There are limits to what we can decide and accomplish, but within those limits it is random in a sense based on our decisions.

There is a randomnes, but limited to the effects of free will and overall there are limits to it.

 

[sjt18]

God is ultimately in control but allows free will. How I think about that is that there are bubbles of quantuum uncertainty floating around called human beings. We each have our own sphere of influence, some more than others. Inside the sphere we can choose to be bad or good, make good or bad decisions. That's free will. There are limits to what we can decide and accomplish, but within those limits it is random in a sense based on our decisions.

There is a randomnes, but limited to the effects of free will and overall there are limits to it.

Would not explain it that way. But again, we won't be permitted to discuss that issue here.

Not that this scripture alone comes close to spelling out how I answer that question but just to provide a counter to what you said... Romans 9:10-24.

My simplest answer is that every creature has a measure of free agency within its nature. A dog can do dog things in a way that expresses the choices of the dog but in perfect alignment with God's plan.

 

[NighthawkVol]

There has been a long running debate through our miserable walk through the valley about how long a coach should be given before being expected to win.

Some said that they needed 4-5 years since it would take that long to recruit players to their system and develop them.

Others of us said that a great coach can demonstrate his ability even with (maybe especially with) a roster that isn't ideal.


Heupel doesn't "disprove" that giving a guy 5 years will work. I don't think it would because you lose recruiting momentum and fan support... but that's an opinion that I believe aligns with history and not an ironclad "truth".

OTOH, Heupel IS an illustration of what many of us said DOES work. Coaches who come in and prove they can accomplish great things in the first 3 years are the ones who go on to win championships. There aren't a lot of them. Current success is showing why. UT now has recruiting credibility to go against the top programs without excuse or explanation. The fan and media buzz support that momentum. There is even some indications for the first time in many years that the Vols are a team opponents genuinely fear.


I am VERY hopeful we never have to have those debates again. Heupel appears to be our guy. Hopefully he retires as UT HC having won many championships.

During many of these discussions, I pointed out that if a coach is going to turn a program around and win big, we almost always see it in his 2nd year, after going a little over .500 in his first year. I think that's because great coaches need a year to get their culture in place, but when they do, they're going to win with whatever talent they have. Consider the following "returns to greatness" for these historically great programs:

Oklahoma-Bob Stoops
99: 7-5
00: 13-0 (NC)

USC- Pete Carroll
01: 6-6
02: 11-2 (P10C)

Florida-Urban Meyer
05: 9-4
06: 13-1 (NC)

LSU-Nick Saban
00: 8-4
01: 10-3 (SECC)

Alabama-Nick Saban
07: 7-6
08: 12-2

Georgia-Kirby Smart
16: 8-5
17: 13-2 (SECC)

There are some exceptions. Mack Brown (Texas) and Jim Harbaugh (Michigan) began their tenures at those schools in the 9-10 win range and sorta hovered there (or worse) before finally busting out on a national level. James Franklin went 7-6 in his first two years at Penn State before going 11-2 and winning the Big 10 in his 3rd season. But typically, if a coach is going to do well at a blueblood, he's winning big by his 2nd year. Heupel is doing just that.

 

[BanditVol]

My simplest answer is that every creature has a measure of free agency within its nature. A dog can do dog things in a way that expresses the choices of the dog but in perfect alignment with God's plan.

We are saying the same thing. Some decisions are delegated to us, but only up to a point, is what I am saying.

Anyway, you are right...its a topic for a different forum.

 

[BanditVol]

During many of these discussions, I pointed out that if a coach is going to turn a program around and win big, we almost always see it in his 2nd year, after going a little over .500 in his first year. I think that's because great coaches need a year to get their culture in place, but when they do, they're going to win with whatever talent they have. Consider the following "returns to greatness" for these historically great programs:

Oklahoma-Bob Stoops
99: 7-5
00: 13-0 (NC)

USC- Pete Carroll
01: 6-6
02: 11-2 (P10C)

Florida-Urban Meyer
05: 9-4
06: 13-1 (NC)

LSU-Nick Saban
00: 8-4
01: 10-3 (SECC)

Alabama-Nick Saban
07: 7-6
08: 12-2

Georgia-Kirby Smart
16: 8-5
17: 13-2 (SECC)

There are some exceptions. Mack Brown (Texas) and Jim Harbaugh (Michigan) began their tenures at those schools in the 9-10 win range and sorta hovered there (or worse) before finally busting out on a national level. James Franklin went 7-6 in his first two years at Penn State before going 11-2 and winning the Big 10 in his 3rd season. But typically, if a coach is going to do well at a blueblood, he's winning big by his 2nd year. Heupel is doing just that.

The coach at Miami in the early 2000s won the NC in his first year...I think it was 2001. But he inherited a ton of talent. That was one of the most talented teams of all time.

 

[NighthawkVol]

The coach at Miami in the early 2000s won the NC in his first year...I think it was 2001. But he inherited a ton of talent. That was one of the most talented teams of all time.

Yeah, that was no rebuild. That was Coker taking Butch Davis’ talent and letting them play.

 

[Athens TN Vol]

I like what I’ve seen so far. Recruiting over and over makes a difference. I think year 3 could be hard by looking at the seniors we have like on the offensive line. Hopefully we keep a lot of Seniors that get to play extra for a Covid year. Coaching on d line is good. I believe in what I’ve seen but if year 3 falls off any some people will over react and say we are doomed. Recruiting and keeping a full cupboard so you can continue to plug in is a must.
From what I have seen year 4 and out should be great. Just got to recruit.
Remember GT offense running over everybody without Alabama and Georgia talent. I think the best is yet to come with recruiting.
Coaches are doing good