I just keep thinking on why Pruitt isn’t really working out like we hoped, and why a lot of the Saban tree isn’t working out anywhere else, and it just kind of hit me. When you go work for Saban, you learn how to coach at a “Goliath” program. They have all of the advantages, from recruiting to analysts doing a lot of the background work for the coordinators. The coordinators don’t have to talk to the media, and when they get to a new job, they emulate Saban, who can afford to browbeat the press without fear of them turning on him.
However, when they get hired, it’s usually a place that either has never had those advantages (like South Carolina, Maryland) or lost those advantages (like Florida, Tennessee). These programs really need an insurgent, “David” style strategy. I think that’s what Lane Kiffin saw when he came here (needed a brash image to attract recruits), FIU (hired Kendall Briles to put up lots of points and use exciting football to attract recruits), and Ole Miss (brash recruiting + Briles offense). The reason Kiffin is successful is because he’s not trying to exactly replicate Saban.
On the other hand, Smart and Fisher were able to walk into FSU, Georgia, and TAMU with the Saban style, Goliath strategy because they hadn’t fallen all of the way down. They just needed to maximize their advantages. Georgia got within a bomb of a Natty, FSU got there with Fisher before they decided they didn’t need to invest, and TAMU on its way up because they decided they had the investment but needed the coach.
Meanwhile, Florida tried the Saban thing twice, and it failed. Why? Because that wasn’t Florida’s brand, Muschamp and Mac were not proponents of fun, high flying football. The gruff, press persona didn’t compare to the Spurrier quips or the Tebow feel good stories, and their press and fanbase turned on them. Florida got back on its feet after Zook by getting an insurgent coach in Meyer, who routinely punched above his weight because he ran an innovative offense with an elite playcaller in Mullen and when they paired that with a Charlie Strong defense, whey were able run around and through the defenses built to stop the pro-style, run heavy teams like Auburn, Tennessee, LSU, and Georgia. We like to think of Meyer as one of the “Goliaths,” but really he was a David that climbed to the top and found ways to go toe to toe with the ultimate Goliath. If it weren’t for his “health issues,” he’d still be up there because he was a David who found his own way to be a Goliath at Ohio State.
I would argue that Florida went after Mullen because they realized they needed someone who “could do more with less” for a change, and while we were all laughing at their recruiting classes, Mullen has taken advantage of the transfer portal, scraped together a string of wins with elite play calling, and was a shoe toss away from being in the playoff discussion.
What did we do? Unlike Florida who came to grips with the fact they weren’t what they once were, we still think that we are a Goliath program that has all of the advantages. In some ways we do (facilities, rabid fanbase, near a great recruiting ground in suburban Atlanta, up and coming recruiting ground in Nashville), but the yearly beat downs by our biggest rivals and losing games regularly to Vandy has severely damaged our brand.
I think we made a big mistake in Pruitt, and it’s not because Pruitt is bad coach in a tactical sense. Our mistake was a strategic one. We need a David, and Pruitt is used to coaching at Goliaths, and he’s not adapting quickly enough to the reality of his situation. Fulmer walked into this decision because he’s blinded by his experience of being here when everything was firing on all cylinders. He loves this place, and he will always see it at as a Goliath program who needs a Goliath-style coach.
The reality is that we need an insurgent who can do more with less for awhile. I’m not sure Pruitt is gonna be that guy, and it just is what it is.
And it just irritates me because if you look at the long history of Tennessee football, we have been the program willing to innovate and take risks, from Neyland adapting military doctrine to playing the first black qb to going all in on pro-style offenses when places like Auburn were running the wishbone. Fulmer was innovative and elite when it came to recruiting.
We fundamentally just have to innovate and stay ahead of the curve because our recruiting footprint is mostly out of state and the SEC office isn’t staffed by our alumni. These are not things Bama has to worry about.
I’m not sure I’ve completely talked myself into Freeze, but I’ve definitely talked myself of thinking we can just replicate the Bama model and expect the same results.
