Maybe the problem isn't with Jay Graham, Tee Martin, Vonn Bell...

[NashVol11]

Keep scrolling down. You'll get it.

(Interestingly enough, in a discussion about other people we could have hired besides CDD, those were the data points people were using against him, including reference to the conference he came from.)

No, the data point used against him was the fact that he didn't even have a winning record in said conference.

 

[NashVol11]

It mean... "Bigger", which was a word you accused me of pulling from some dark, stinky place. Nice back peddle.

Backpedal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Peddle - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Orange_Crush]

You back up to speed now, OC?

I used the word "big" after you did, yet pulled it out of my...?

You up to speed?

You really want to keep gigging on semantics? If so, I'll retreat and let you have it.

You have conspicuously jumped off the subject of your fallacious arguments. I'll take that as a concession and attempt at misdirection.

Have a nice day. It's been a pleasure. I wish you well.

:hi:

 

[Orange_Crush]

No, the data point used against him was the fact that he didn't even have a winning record in said conference.

Have a nice day. Let me know when you want to address your fallacious arguments.

:hi:

 

[NashVol11]

I used the word "big" after you did, yet pulled it out of my...?

You up to speed?

You really want to keep gigging on semantics? If so, I'll retreat and let you have it.

You have conspicuously jumped off the subject of your fallacious arguments. I'll take that as a concession and attempt at misdirection.

Have a nice day. It's been a pleasure. I wish you well.

:hi:

Apparently, you're still having reading comprehension issues. Here is our recent exchange:

Also remember the original point: It was about big names that would have crawled to UT to take the job.

No, it was about quality coaches. "Big names" is something you randomly pulled out of your ass when it became apparent that Sumlin proved you wrong.

Here is said "original point":

Coaches want to know that they will be given a fair shake-- especially the kind of quality coaches you need for a rebuild.

Quality coaches aren't scared of ending up like Dooley. In fact, "quality" and "Dooley" should never be in the same sentence.

I'm not even trying to bring up semantics anymore, because it's obvious that you're wrong and I don't think it's that big a deal. But if you're going to keep accusing me of sidestepping the original point, it might behoove you to know what the original point actually was.

 

[NashVol11]

It would be nice if we could discuss the topic rather than discussing how I'm not properly discussing the topic. Even nicer if that accusation made any sense whatsoever. This is pretty funny though

 

[Orange_Crush]

Apparently, you're still having reading comprehension issues. Here is our recent exchange:





Here is said "original point":





I'm not even trying to bring up semantics anymore, because it's obvious that you're wrong and I don't think it's that big a deal. But if you're going to keep accusing me of sidestepping the original point, it might behoove you to know what the original point actually was.

Okee Dokee. I concede your point per "big names" and apologize. :hi:

Now, I would ask you to go back and reread my original points per "small conference coaches who hadn't proven themselves. And God Bless 'Merica." when considering my "data points", and use of the concept of "big" coaches.

My entire point has been that, at the time, there was no (perhaps I should have made the point more explicit) proven, quality coach that would have crawled to Knoxville for the job. Let's revisit the argument:

Quote:
Originally Posted by VKAman
Kevin Sumlin would have crawled to Knoxville for the job in 2010,

And the fan base would have crucified the decision as much as they did CDD and CBJ. A weak conference coach who hadn't proved himself. We deserve better and God bless 'Merica!

Quote:
Originally Posted by VKAman
and this year you can pick pretty much any of the new coaching hires around the country as being at least arguably better than Jones.

Arguably...? "Most" of the "pretty much any" of the new coaching hires carry a .680 winning percentage with a 4-of-6 conference championship record?

And most of them weren't standing in line to get to UT. That's the discussion here, isn't it? Let's not change the subject, please.

After that exchange, where I made explicit that the context of my argument was about unproven coaches from small/weak conferences (just like CDD was), you gave a list of small conference coaches with experience levels from zero to three years.

That was the position that I was working from. If you disagreed, or didn't understand my argument, hopefully you will now. If not, then I don't know what else to say to you.

If you would like to continue to argue against that context, I'll be happy to. If you would like to concede that point and still disagree. That's fine too. But from my perspective, after that post, your replies became ludicrous and asinine.

:hi:

 

[NashVol11]

Okee Dokee. I concede your point per "big names" and apologize. :hi:

Now, I would ask you to go back and reread my original points per "small conference coaches who hadn't proven themselves. And God Bless 'Merica." when considering my "data points", and use of the concept of "big" coaches.

My entire point has been that, at the time, there was no (perhaps I should have made the point more explicit) proven, quality coach that would have crawled to Knoxville for the job. Let's revisit the argument:

After that exchange, where I made explicit that the context of my argument was about unproven coaches from small/weak conferences (just like CDD was), you gave a list of small conference coaches with experience levels from zero to three years.

That was the position that I was working from. If you disagreed, or didn't understand my argument, hopefully you will now. If not, then I don't know what else to say to you.

If you would like to continue to argue against that context, I'll be happy to. If you would like to concede that point and still disagree. That's fine too. But from my perspective, after that post, your replies became ludicrous and asinine.

:hi:

Your points after that have all revolved around the point that small conference coaches all have roughly the same résumé, and are all roughly equivalent hires to Dooley. I've been directly addressing that point the entire time. Generally by ridiculing it, because it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Your points after that have all revolved around the point that small conference coaches all have roughly the same résumé, and are all roughly equivalent hires to Dooley. I've been directly addressing that point the entire time. Generally by ridiculing it, because it doesn't make any sense.

My point was always about unproven, small conference coaches. You responded by supplying unproven, small conference coaches, many of whom have shown the majority of their success since the CDD hire, and one of which still has no HFB experience to date.

Ridicule away.

Edit: The greater context of the argument was the effects that firing coaches a year into their tenure would have on hiring new coaches, and buy-outs, by the way. The underlying point was that if you want an experienced coach to take on a rebuild, firing his predecessor a year into his contract is not the smartest thing to do.

If you want to be relegated to unproven, small conference coaches, with limited experience for UT's rebuild, knock yourself out.

 

[NashVol11]

My point was always about unproven, small conference coaches. You responded by supplying unproven, small conference coaches, many of whom have shown the majority of their success since the CDD hire, and one of which still has no HFB experience to date.

Ridicule away.

And my point has always been that not all "small market coaches" are created equal, and it was obvious that we picked a bad one. Sumlin was clearly a better choice at the time. As I said, guys like Doeren and Taggart were names I threw out in comparison to Jones, not Dooley.

 

[Orange_Crush]

And my point has always been that not all "small market coaches" are created equal, and it was obvious that we picked a bad one. Sumlin was clearly a better choice at the time. As I said, guys like Doeren and Taggart were names I threw out in comparison to Jones, not Dooley.

See my edit above, which I was writing at the same time you were, I guess.

Sumlin was not a "clearly" better choice at the time. He was a small conference coach with one more winning season than CDD. At the time, we had no idea that he would prove himself at ATU, and that CDD would fail so miserably. Their resumes were, indeed, "roughly equivalent".

It's interesting that you threw Doeren/Taggart out as better than a guy with 4 conf championships and more experience, yet balk at Sumlin as "roughly equivalent" to CDD.

lol

 

[Orange_Crush]

And my point has always been that not all "small market coaches" are created equal, and it was obvious that we picked a bad one. Sumlin was clearly a better choice at the time. As I said, guys like Doeren and Taggart were names I threw out in comparison to Jones, not Dooley.

But, the fact remains that I set the context of my argument about guys that would come to UT around not being "unproven small conference" coaches, and you continued to throw those names out there.

lol

 

[NashVol11]

If your point is that Hamilton did a good job and Dooley was the best coach we could get, it's already proven wrong emphatically by Sumlin. You don't need any more examples than that, though Davis and even Al Golden would have been better choices than Dooley.

He was absolutely not the best we could do. I think most people here realize that.

 

[Orange_Crush]

If your point is that Hamilton did a good job and Dooley was the best coach we could get, it's already proven wrong emphatically by Sumlin. You don't need any more examples than that, though Davis and even Al Golden would have been better choices than Dooley.

He was absolutely not the best we could do. I think most people here realize that.

I just spent three posts and an update explaining to you what my point was.

Have a nice day. I'm done.

:hi:

 

[NashVol11]

Edit: The greater context of the argument was the effects that firing coaches a year into their tenure would have on hiring new coaches, and buy-outs, by the way. The underlying point was that if you want an experienced coach to take on a rebuild, firing his predecessor a year into his contract is not the smartest thing to do.

If you want to be relegated to unproven, small conference coaches, with limited experience for UT's rebuild, knock yourself out.

And my underlying point is that "experience" isn't what matters. Like you said yourself, you need a quality coach to rebuild your roster, not an experienced one. That made sense, and now you're going backwards to suggest that coaches with more "experience" are somehow inherently better.

 

[NashVol11]

See my edit above, which I was writing at the same time you were, I guess.

Sumlin was not a "clearly" better choice at the time. He was a small conference coach with one more winning season than CDD. At the time, we had no idea that he would prove himself at ATU, and that CDD would fail so miserably. Their resumes were, indeed, "roughly equivalent".

It's interesting that you threw Doeren/Taggart out as better than a guy with 4 conf championships and more experience, yet balk at Sumlin as "roughly equivalent" to CDD.

lol

But, the fact remains that I set the context of my argument about guys that would come to UT around not being "unproven small conference" coaches, and you continued to throw those names out there.

lol

The quickest way to measure coaching acumen is to look at whether the coach is leaving the team with a better record than he inherited. Dooley didn't do that, Jones didn't do that, and there were plenty of guys available in both 2010 and 2012 that did.

That measure favors guys like Golden, Sumlin and Harbaugh, who greatly improved their teams even if they were at lower levels. They, especially the latter two, proceeded to immediately show everyone that major conference "experience" isn't at all a necessity. Your "data points," on the other hand, seem entirely based on experience; they would dismiss Sumlin and Harbaugh for experienced guys like Houston Nutt and Ron Zook. If you think that's a good measure, good for you, but don't pretend that Sumlin and Dooley were equal because they're somehow equivalent in your flawed system. Many of us could see the difference, even if you can't.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The quickest way to measure coaching acumen is to look at whether the coach is leaving the team with a better record than he inherited. Dooley didn't do that, Jones didn't do that, and there were plenty of guys available in both 2010 and 2012 that did.

That measure favors guys like Golden, Sumlin and Harbaugh, who greatly improved their teams even if they were at lower levels. They, especially the latter two, proceeded to immediately show everyone that major conference "experience" isn't at all a necessity. Your "data points," on the other hand, seem entirely based on experience; they would dismiss Sumlin and Harbaugh for experienced guys like Houston Nutt and Ron Zook. If you think that's a good measure, good for you, but don't pretend that Sumlin and Dooley were equal because they're somehow equivalent in your flawed system. Many of us could see the difference, even if you can't.

So, as opposed to having the discussion that I had stated that I was having (per the exchange that I quoted from very early in our discussion), you decided to have a completely different discussion.

I never said that I believe that all small-conference coaches are the same, only that the ones that you provided were "roughly equivalent" by the standards that I set out early in our discussion.. I said that by firing our coaches a year into their tenure before they had a chance to prove that they had failed, it limited the pool of coaches that would want our job, and would drive up buy-out clauses.

I am not saying that CDD was the right hire. But I did say that the other small market coaches with limited experience were not much safer of a hire, at the time. That doesn't mean that none of them would have been a success, just that it was a riskier proposition at the time than a coach with proven success at rebuilding programs.

(Remember, the discussion was within the context of the size of the coaching pool we want to have at UT, and shrinking that pool due to firing coaches immediately into their tenure. The conversation that you jumped into wasn't about small market vs big market vs whether the CDD hire was the right choice. It was about keeping the pool of interested coaches as large as possible to get the most talented coach we could. You are the guy that misinterpreted and went into some strange little corner to argue an argument that I wasn't having. I can understand now why you came across as so asinine.)

Yet, even after I listed unproven, small market coaches as the type I wasn't talking about, you gave a list of unproven, small market coaches to answer me.

:good!:

 

[NashVol11]

So, as opposed to having the discussion that I had stated that I was having (per the exchange that I quoted from very early in our discussion), you decided to have a completely different discussion.

I never said that I believe that all small-conference coaches are the same. I said that by firing our coaches a year into their tenure before they had a chance to prove that they had failed, it limited the pool of coaches that would want our job, and would drive up buy-out clauses.

I am not saying that CDD was the right hire. But I did say that the other small market coaches with limited experience were not much safer of a hire, at the time. That doesn't mean that none of them would have been a success, just that it was a riskier proposition at the time than a coach with proven success at rebuilding programs.

(Remember, the discussion was within the context of the size of the coaching pool we want to have at UT, and shrinking that pool due to firing coaches immediately into their tenure. The conversation that you jumped into wasn't about small market vs big market vs whether the CDD hire was the right choice. It was about keeping the pool of interested coaches as large as possible to get the most talented coach we could. You are the guy that misinterpreted and went into some strange little corner to argue an argument that I wasn't having. I can understand now why you came across as so asinine.)

Yet, even after I listed unproven, small market coaches as the type I wasn't talking about, you gave a list of unproven, small market coaches to answer me.

:good!:

The discussion you're trying to have assumes that Jones is a safer hire than Harbaugh or Sumlin because he's more "proven" in "major conferences."

I'm saying your underlying assumption is wrong, because my measure is a much more accurate predictor of success than the measure of "experience." I don't think you are "proven" unless you're clearly an improvement over the situation when you arrived.

Therefore, the discussion is useless because I don't see Jones as some kind of "proven candidate" who's much safer than Sumlin the way you do. And your discussion pretty much requires that to be the case.

 

[oregonvol]

By definition, a coaching search with no announcements/reports is close to the vest.

But we heard plenty of detailed reports of the Strong offer and rejection. So it wasn't close to the vest at all.

Man, you can really keep reciting the same sophistry all day long can't you? You would think, after praising Dooley, you would be tired of being wrong by now.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The discussion you're trying to have assumes that Jones is a safer hire than Harbaugh or Sumlin because he's more "proven" in "major conferences."

I'm saying your underlying assumption is wrong, because my measure is a much more accurate predictor of success than the measure of "experience."

I think you should prove that your measure is a much more accurate predictor. I can't promise that I'll be here to continue discussing. Go ahead and bring that back to the conversation. You've drained about as much of my time as I'm willing to give when I was having a discussion about the effects that firing a coach a year into his tenure would have on coaches' desire to work here and its effect on buy-out clauses. Knock yourself out.

The fact of the matter is that CBJ is our coach and they're not. It is yet to be seen whether he will be a success. We will literally never see if one of the guys you prefer could do a better job at this time, and in this state of the rebuild.

Literally. never.

Knock yourself out.

I don't think you are "proven" unless you're clearly an improvement over the situation when you arrived.

That gets into a lot more than win/loss records, doesn't it?

Therefore, the discussion is useless because I don't see Jones as some kind of "proven candidate" who's much safer than Sumlin the way you do. And your discussion pretty much requires that to be the case.

The discussion about the size of the talent pool willing to take a position, after firing a coach a year into his tenure, requires that we agree on whether CBJ is "proven" or not? Go figure...

In any event, I consider inheriting a roster devoid of 2-deep talent and winning two conf championships in three years "proven". Feel free to disagree. I'm not here to argue opinions with you.

Time will tell if he's the man. No one else will get the same, exact opportunity he has to prove it. Anything else is just bull**** and moaning.

:hi:

 

[tm3]

The quickest way to measure coaching acumen is to look at whether the coach is leaving the team with a better record than he inherited. Dooley didn't do that, Jones didn't do that, and there were plenty of guys available in both 2010 and 2012 that did.

't.

You are absolutely right about CDD. As for CBJ ...

I think Brian Kelly has been mentioned as a pretty good or even great coach. By the above metric, CM went from 9/4 when CBJ arrived post Kelly to 11/2. cincy was 12/0 at Kelly's end. That would be impossible to improve or even maintain, but CBJ left them at 9/3 (while improving Cincy's recruiting rankings),

So taking ND out of the equation, is the conclusion that CBK and CBJ are pretty close?

 

[NashVol11]

You are absolutely right about CDD. As for CBJ ...

I think Brian Kelly has been mentioned as a pretty good or even great coach. By the above metric, CM went from 9/4 when CBJ arrived post Kelly to 11/2. cincy was 12/0 at Kelly's end. That would be impossible to improve or even maintain, but CBJ left them at 9/3 (while improving Cincy's recruiting rankings),

So taking ND out of the equation, is the conclusion that CBK and CBJ are pretty close?

I wouldn't call their Cincinnati tenures "close," considering that Kelly went 34-6 (17-4) and took them to 2 straight BCS bowls. I do think Jones did well at Central Michigan.

If you want my more detailed thoughts on his tenure(s), they're right here: http://www.volnation.com/forum/tennessee-vols-football/184365-butch-numbers.html

 

[NashVol11]

cincy was 12/0 at Kelly's end. That would be impossible to improve or even maintain,

Also, when you're left a team that just went 7-0 in conference, it's not that difficult and certainly not impossible to maintain a conference record better than 12-9.

 

[Orange_Crush]

But we heard plenty of detailed reports of the Strong offer and rejection. So it wasn't close to the vest at all.

Man, you can really keep reciting the same sophistry all day long can't you? You would think, after praising Dooley, you would be tired of being wrong by now.

So, after you stated that Hart didn't offer anyone before CCS, I pointed out that you can't know that. I pointed out that just because you didn't hear about the offers preceding CCS's, it doesn't mean that the offers weren't made. In late November, Hart said that he was searching for the new coach. GoVolsXtra stated that he was speaking to candidates at the coach's convention so that his coaching search would be under the radar.

And yet, because you believe that the CCS offer was the first offer, and it made the media, the coaching search wasn't close to the vest-- just because you can't conceive that there were things happening before that offer that was close to the vest.

And that's just sophistry, i.e. a fallacious but believable argument. Ironic, considering the fallacious reasoning that you've used, which isn't even subtle enough to be believable on first sniff.

Carry on.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You would think, after praising Dooley, you would be tired of being wrong by now.

And for the record, my argument per Dooley was, give him time to be judged. I stated that I was hopeful but only time would tell.

Nothing wrong about that.