Predict the East

[sjt18]

Just curious - are you:

1) 15-20
2) 21-30
3) 31-40
4) 40 or older

Your answer may explain a lot about our contrasting points of view.

I agree he has to win, but I will not say he has to win big in year 2.

Majors first big win was in year 3 versus Notre Dame...a week after losing to Rutgers at home.

3 yrs later (yr 6) Johnny's team finally beats Bama and Bear Bryant.

Another 3 yrs (yr 9) and the unexpected SEC Championship and Sugar Bowl win versus Miami.

I know Butch doesn't get 9 yrs, but he sure as heck deserves more than 2 to rebuild what has been wrecked & neglected for so long before his arrival.

1 recruiting class will not fix what has been broken for the previous 6 seasons.

#4.

It isn't the 70's. The modern era of football simply doesn't allow even a legend that long to turn things around. New media and money prohibit it. Once upon a time there was a game or two on TV on any Saturday. Now, how many? Many... but not enough for anyone but the "winners" to be assured a prime spot. That gets money... and interest from the best players.

No one asked for the job to be completed in two years. Winning 6 games with a team that will likely have more talent than six opponents is hardly asking for a miracle or completed rebuild job. It is asking for something far more reasonable- PROGRESS.

 

[sjt18]

It's all about context. I expect us to compete, but 5 or 6 win talent doesn't normally beat or compete well versus 9 or 10+ win talent.

... Missouri was in the SEC championship.

So IOW's, 5 or 6 win talent CAN beat and compete well vs 9 or 10 win talent, right? Mizzou has a good scheme. Pinkel recruits role players and a few stars to make his machine go. That's called GOOD COACHING. Yet you and Beattie seem to think asking a coach to take BETTER talent (though young) than Pinkel won the East with and winning 6 games with it... is expecting some sort of miracle. It isn't. It is expecting a coach that you seem to think is championship caliber to coach like a championship caliber coach. Championship caliber coaches beat opponents who have less talent and USUALLY those with roughly the same level... and they pick off more talented teams on a fairly regular basis.

So has Butch shown me everything I expect of my head football coach? No.

Has he shown me enough to have confidence in him and his staff to bring us back to the top of the SEC? Absolutely, yes.

The problem is very simply this. In this era of media and football, you don't get 6, 8, or 10 years to rebuild a program. Right now, Jones has sold a dream. He's sold them "brick by brick and putting UT back where it belongs". That works after one losing record... maybe if you are competitive and just have some breaks go against you it works for 2. But if you want to get back to the top of the SEC you need players. Players go to teams that have coaches that prove they can win.

The situation has not changed all that much from when Dooley took over. Jones will get 3 years. He needs six wins this fall to show progress and especially to the recruits he needs. He needs to take a major step forward in '15. If he can't do that... he won't continue to get players. They'll go to the guy with a fresher promise to sell or the guy who proved he could win.

If Jones has another losing season this fall then rival recruiters won't have to work too hard to convince recruits that he's nothing but a blowhard that can't actually fulfill those grand promises.

 

[ajvol01]

He failed by his own metric, ie reaching a bowl game (btw, CDD made it in his first year).

If he truly is the dominant coach you say he is, and the SC game was not a fluke, surely he should have beaten Vandy, at home, with their entire starting D backfield out of the game, with a bowl on the line.

Year 2 he needs to beat all of the less talented teams, which gets UT to a bowl. Another losing season proves that as far as the SEC goes, he is a ........ loser.

2013 schedule proved tougher by December than it appeared in August.

I'd guess his metric didn't account for Auburn and Mizzou winning their divisions.

I don't recall saying Butch is a dominant coach - it is simply my belief that he is the right coach - something we have not had since 2008.

I don't think 6 wins is unreasonable for 2014, but the ones I see predicting 10-2 are living in fantasy land.

Even more than wins and losses for me it is mental toughness - that no quit attitude - playing until the last snap no matter the score - every game, every play.

I never saw that attitude with Dooley's teams. Seems like we quit every week...every 2nd half.

Didn't see it every week with Kiffin's team (Ole Miss, Va Tech).

Have to go back to 2006 for an entire season of that attitude with a Fulmer coached team. The '07 team just quit in Gainesville - I was there for the beat down (59-20 IIRC) - Tuscaloosa wasn't much better (41-17).

 

[ajvol01]

#4.

It isn't the 70's. The modern era of football simply doesn't allow even a legend that long to turn things around. New media and money prohibit it. Once upon a time there was a game or two on TV on any Saturday. Now, how many? Many... but not enough for anyone but the "winners" to be assured a prime spot. That gets money... and interest from the best players.

No one asked for the job to be completed in two years. Winning 6 games with a team that will likely have more talent than six opponents is hardly asking for a miracle or completed rebuild job. It is asking for something far more reasonable- PROGRESS.

I agree. 6 wins is very reasonable.

I've seen several 8, 9 and 10 win predictions - that is just not realistic IMO.

I never suggested Butch should get > 3 yrs to show progress - just hope we actually give him the full 3 yrs before passing judgment one way or another.

 

[ajvol01]

Wait a minute, now performance ISN'T quantified by wins and losses?

Did superman just reverse the rotation of the earth and we have all entered Bizarro world?

So by your logic:

2011 win over Buffalo > 2013 loss to Oregon

And that win only cost us a $750K paycheck to UNC - yet CDD still couldn't get us to 6 wins.

 

[LWSVOL]

He failed by his own metric, ie reaching a bowl game (btw, CDD made it in his first year).

If he truly is the dominant coach you say he is, and the SC game was not a fluke, surely he should have beaten Vandy, at home, with their entire starting D backfield out of the game, with a bowl on the line.

Year 2 he needs to beat all of the less talented teams, which gets UT to a bowl. Another losing season proves that as far as the SEC goes, he is a ........ loser.

talent alone doesn't equal automatic wins.. Carolina was more talented than Tennessee last year. Tennessee was more talented than Vanderbilt last year.

If football was as simple as most talented team wins, you and I could coach.

 

[tm3]

talent alone doesn't equal automatic wins.. Carolina was more talented than Tennessee last year. Tennessee was more talented than Vanderbilt last year.

If football was as simple as most talented team wins, you and I could coach.

talent plus a great coach, ie one with SECC potential, equals wins.

player talent is the single most important factor, but of course not the only one.

 

[tm3]

So by your logic:

2011 win over Buffalo > 2013 loss to Oregon

And that win only cost us a $750K paycheck to UNC - yet CDD still couldn't get us to 6 wins.

here is my logic

wearing the orange tie, saying the right things, being deferential to those who sign the $3.3mil paycheck, and even having a great recruiting class don't mean squat if he can't win football games. winning is the final arbiter.

 

[sjt18]

I don't recall saying Butch is a dominant coach - it is simply my belief that he is the right coach - something we have not had since 2008.

Fulmer wasn't the right coach anymore in 2008. He had become lazy, complacent, stubborn, and possessed a sense of "entitlement" over being UT's HC. He was FAR, FAR from being the "right" coach at that point.

I don't think 6 wins is unreasonable for 2014, but the ones I see predicting 10-2 are living in fantasy land.

Yet you chose to argue with me and I have YET to say anything more than 6-8 wins was the reasonable range.

Even more than wins and losses for me it is mental toughness - that no quit attitude - playing until the last snap no matter the score - every game, every play.

But then you bristle when some of us point to last year's blowouts (a record number of them) as a bad sign or something that must improve....

I never saw that attitude with Dooley's teams. Seems like we quit every week...every 2nd half.

Jones' teams didn't show up for the first half vs Bama or Oregon. It could be argued that neither Jones nor Dooley had the players to go toe to toe with the best teams but Dooley and staff figured out a way to stay competitive for a half before their lack of depth and experience and ability to adjust beat them.

Have to go back to 2006 for an entire season of that attitude with a Fulmer coached team. The '07 team just quit in Gainesville - I was there for the beat down (59-20 IIRC) - Tuscaloosa wasn't much better (41-17).

Notable that Fulmer stopped being competitive after UF and Bama upgraded their coaching. This is another reason that Fulmer was no longer the "right guy". He was not competing with the best coaches either on the field or in recruiting... and refused to change or accept responsibility.

 

[sjt18]

talent plus a great coach, ie one with SECC potential, equals wins.

Agree.

player talent is the single most important factor, but of course not the only one.

Not really. There are different formulas for winning but great coaching CAN and DOES make up for talent. Les Miles wins... so you can do it with recruiting. Pinkel and Oregon win... so you can do it with coaching and systems.

 

[tm3]

Agree.



Not really. There are different formulas for winning but great coaching CAN and DOES make up for talent. Les Miles wins... so you can do it with recruiting. Pinkel and Oregon win... so you can do it with coaching and systems.

Yes, it really is. DAJ and VegasVol have reams of data to support it.

Let's see your data to the contrary, not just an anecdote or two, and we can talk.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Good coaching can go a long ways, but a lack of speed kills.

 

[sjt18]

Yes, it really is. DAJ and VegasVol have reams of data to support it.

Let's see your data to the contrary, not just an anecdote or two, and we can talk.

Do I really need to produce data showing that teams with lots of talent but poor coaching don't win championships? Is it really necessary to do that?

You said that talent was the "single" most important factor. If that were true then Charlie Weiss would have gone down as an ND legend. Kiffin would still be HC of USC. Ron Zook would have been fine. Mack Brown would certainly still be at Texas. Talent is necessary but so is elite coaching. The FACT that teams with talent don't always win big... demonstrates that coaching is a coequal component of success... and especially if you consider that recruiting is a function of coaching and a coach's demonstrated success.

Elite coaching, not talent, put Oregon on the national stage. Poor coaching, not poor talent, sunk Texas, USC, and others.

Missouri won the East. Overall, they were at best the 5th most talented team in the East.

 

[Boca Vol]

Yes, it really is. DAJ and VegasVol have reams of data to support it.

Let's see your data to the contrary, not just an anecdote or two, and we can talk.

DAJ's data that you're speaking of really only states that the more talented team will win almost 70% of the time. That's not some earth-shattering stat. Hell, I can pick 70% winners most of the time just looking at the teams....which is all DAJ is really saying.

The contrary teams to what DAJ's data says are Oregon and Stanford.

On paper, UT and Oregon were about even. On paper, UT and South Carolina were about even (maybe a slight edge to UT).

To the eye test, there is no way UT and Oregon were even. That disproves DAJ's data.

On the other hand, the UT/ S. Carolina game proved DAJ's data.

When you look at recruiting rankings, you have give more weight to the upper classes vs the newer players. Also, there really isn't that much difference between teams ranked 6-10, 11-15, etc. That's where the coach comes in!

 

[tm3]

Do I really need to produce data showing that teams with lots of talent but poor coaching don't win championships? Is it really necessary to do that?

No, not at all. All you have to do is produce data showing that teams with lesser talent (per Rivals) but elite coaches (by your definition) consistently beat more talented teams. Not an anecdotal upset, but consistently.

DAJ's data shows that talent is the factor with the strongest positive predictive value (even though, as BocaVol points out, it is "only" 70%). To disprove this claim, you have to prove that another factor (elite coach) has a stronger positive predictive value.

Capiche?

 

[sjt18]

No, not at all. All you have to do is produce data showing that teams with lesser talent (per Rivals) but elite coaches (by your definition) consistently beat more talented teams. Not an anecdotal upset, but consistently.

Oregon. Boise State. USCe. Wisconsin. Vandy. Stanford. Those are teams that have found ways to consistently beat teams with more talent.

DAJ's data shows that talent is the factor with the strongest positive predictive value (even though, as BocaVol points out, it is "only" 70%). To disprove this claim, you have to prove that another factor (elite coach) has a stronger positive predictive value.

Capiche?

Actually, no. Daj's data has associated talent as projected by recruiting rankings onto winning %. You have somehow construed that talent alone accounts for those 70% wins. There is no necessary dichotomy here like you seem to assume. Talented teams are often also well coached. IOW's, the fact that 70% of the time a team with greater talent according to Rivals wins... does not preclude a similar statistical association between elite coaching and winning. Since it is not a one or the other situation, it could be that the most talented team wins 70% of the time while the better coached team wins 60%... 80% of the time. A team with elite coaching and talent will very seldom lose to any team without both.

To make YOUR case that talent is the single most important thing. To prove that, you would have to narrow the sample specifically to situations where great coaches face lesser coaches with more talent.

Obviously that will rely on some subjectivity... but it DOES invalidate your ironclad contention that talent is the single most important thing if you can't do it.

Talent is absolutely necessary. So is coaching... and it is the sum of the two that determine success. Elite talent can carry mediocre coaching. Elite coaching can carry mediocre talent. Since the two are NOT mutually exclusive, most championships go to teams that have both.

 

[Other_Guy]

OP, not sure why being competitive worthy of the #2 spot?
Unless you're predicting a 7-5 record i enough.
Loss of the OL is too big a deal. Defense is still a long ways off.

 

[vtvol98]

OP, not sure why being competitive worthy of the #2 spot?
Unless you're predicting a 7-5 record i enough.
Loss of the OL is too big a deal. Defense is still a long ways off.

I think you are over estimating the impact of attrition on Tennessee's offensive line. All of the linemen who graduated or left early were recruited as pro-style road-grader type offensive linemen. These guys were all in the 300 to 335 pound range. The guys remaining on the roster that have been recruited by Butch are more suitable to the spread offense that Butch chooses to run. They are less bulky and more athletic than the guys they are replacing. I think the Vols will be OK in the trenches on the offensive side of the ball.

 

[utknate]

@kirkherbstreit
“@shawtygot_LOWE: you think Tennessee is back bowling this year?” Yes. Next year is the big jump for the Vols. This year? 6-6 or 7-5

Kirk Herbstreit thinks we go bowling this year.

 

[sjt18]

I think you are over estimating the impact of attrition on Tennessee's offensive line. All of the linemen who graduated or left early were recruited as pro-style road-grader type offensive linemen. These guys were all in the 300 to 335 pound range. The guys remaining on the roster that have been recruited by Butch are more suitable to the spread offense that Butch chooses to run. They are less bulky and more athletic than the guys they are replacing. I think the Vols will be OK in the trenches on the offensive side of the ball.

I am hopeful that they will be more suited to his system.

Hard to say that they are "more athletic". I'll be tickled if they're just more aggressive.

 

[tm3]

as coach majors always said,

"it is more about the johnnies and joes than it is about the Xs and Os"

 

[oregonvol]

as coach majors always said,

"it is more about the johnnies and joes than it is about the Xs and Os"

Didn't he say that every year after the Alabama game?

 

[tm3]

Didn't he say that every year after the Alabama game?

i think that after bama it was more about the jack and the black for johnny

 

[BeattieFeathers]

Do I really need to produce data showing that teams with lots of talent but poor coaching don't win championships? Is it really necessary to do that?

You said that talent was the "single" most important factor. If that were true then Charlie Weiss would have gone down as an ND legend. Kiffin would still be HC of USC. Ron Zook would have been fine. Mack Brown would certainly still be at Texas. Talent is necessary but so is elite coaching. The FACT that teams with talent don't always win big... demonstrates that coaching is a coequal component of success... and especially if you consider that recruiting is a function of coaching and a coach's demonstrated success.

Elite coaching, not talent, put Oregon on the national stage. Poor coaching, not poor talent, sunk Texas, USC, and others.

Missouri won the East. Overall, they were at best the 5th most talented team in the East.

No way jose! Get real! Nick saban wins because he has the best players. All coaches will tell you it's the Jimmy's and joes not X's and O's. Texas had zero players drafted this season. If you think missouri has average players because of rivals rankings you are sadly mistaken. 75 percent talent, 15 percent coaching, 10 percent luck, but I'm sure you'll tell me luck has nothing to do with it and you will ignore comments from every coach that has ever coached that you need material.

 

[BeattieFeathers]

I think you are over estimating the impact of attrition on Tennessee's offensive line. All of the linemen who graduated or left early were recruited as pro-style road-grader type offensive linemen. These guys were all in the 300 to 335 pound range. The guys remaining on the roster that have been recruited by Butch are more suitable to the spread offense that Butch chooses to run. They are less bulky and more athletic than the guys they are replacing. I think the Vols will be OK in the trenches on the offensive side of the ball.

It will take a while for the oline to jel.