What's best for the future of UT football: Dooley teams win or... (merged)

#151
#151
grace2u said:
What's your point? We had good teams "back in the day" before college football became as big a cash cow as the NFL? I'm just saying be realistic. Just because you go out and hire a name, it doesn't mean automatic success. Ask Notre Dame, South Carolina, Michigan, etc, etc....

I'm not 100% sold on CDD, but to be starting threads about trying to get rid of him before he's coached his first practice is utter non-sense. I know its a free public forum and you can post what you want, but come on. Everybody starts somewhere. I'd almost guarantee in your job you're not where you were when you started. You prove it in the trenches. That goes for salesmen, bankers, custodians, fry cooks, mba's, preachers, and even football coaches.

How would you like it if people were questioning your ability in your profession before you even started? I don't know, maybe you've got the right idea. Maybe this ticks him and he feels like he needs to prove you wrong.
Click to expand...

My point is that we should expect to stay as one of the top programs in college football, and reducing expectations for Dooley because "it's hard to win here", or because "our program was never that good", or any of the other falsehoods that are being tossed around here is unacceptable.

You're right, going out and hiring a "name" coach is no guarantee of success. But at least it shows you that the AD is trying. Either way, I'd say there's a higher percentage of success in hiring a big name coach than in hiring a nobody with a losing record.

The comparison between other professions is nonsensical. We don't hire someone away from their old job and give them a 500% raise and then not expect anyone to question their qualifications. Especially when they weren't doing so well at their old job to begin with.
 
#153
#153
utmba93 said:
This logic is bogus because it puts a higher priority on one recruiting class than it does on 6 years of coaching.

It's a decent class. CLK had a decent one last year. 8 were already enrolled. 'Losing the class' probably means getting one ranked about 25th instead of 10th.

Besides, it seems Lance Thompson and Jim Chaney get most of that credit. They were hired by CLK.
Click to expand...

You missed my point.

UT may have been able to get a better coach, but if the process would have been gone on for an extended period of time, no doubt, we lose the class.

Look at our rivals, the level of talent that they are bringing in, it was imperative that UT do well, just to try and keep pace.

No one can say with any certainty that we could have hired a " better" coach.
 
Last edited:
#154
#154
BuckeyeVols said:
Why dont you just give our new coach and staff a chance before saying they will never win here? Everyone is entitled to their opinion.....but why not wait to form one with some tangible evidence?
Click to expand...

If everyone is entitled to their own opinion, aren't they equally free to formulate it through whatever means and manner they wish to do so?

Or does the entitlement only extend beyond that point which most believe it to be prudent?

I'm just asking, so that I know what's permissable.
 
#155
#155
utmba93 said:
To say that there is some doubt about whether CDD can ever win a championship at UT is a gross understatement.

There's also doubt that he can ever win the SEC East.

Instead, many here and in other UT circles, feel the best he can do is win may 10 games in his third year at UT, but never any more than that. In the meantime, many concede that he will help recruiting, but that he can not recruit as well as CLK and company. So, even his recruiting upside is limited versus the trajectory we were on.

Before anyone starts claiming that I don't want to Vols to win, let me clarify in saying that we all want the Vols to win.

Yet, is winning and restoring 'mediocrity' at UT over the next 6 or 7 years better for the Vols program, or would simply seeing Dooley repeat his LA Tech record at UT over the next two years get a proven coach on the Hill faster?
Click to expand...

This all sounds familiar...

"To say that there is some doubt about whether Kiffin can ever win a championship at UT is a gross understatement.

There's also doubt that he can ever win the SEC East.

Yet, is winning and restoring 'mediocrity' at UT over the next 6 or 7 years better for the Vols program, or would simply seeing Kiffin repeat his Oakland record at UT over the next two years get a proven coach on the Hill faster?"

See....the problem with your line of thought is that we didn't have a proven coach before. Kiffin had many of the same knocks that Dooley currently has, and his 7-6 season didn't exactly blow the doors off of the conference. For you to claim that you know that the new coach is "limited" compared to the trajectory of the old staff is amazing.

Here's what we know about the former and current coaches...

Both came in with less than stellar records coaching other organizations.

Both pulled off fairly amazing recruiting feats in their first partial seasons.

One was fired by his old boss, the other was impressive enough to become his own boss.

One put up a mediocre (though acceptable given the circumstances) season, and the other is yet to have that opportunity.

One mouthed off to the whole world (gaining publicity but losing overall respect), the other has been fairly quiet and avoided such confrontational posturing.

And....that's about all we know for now.

CDD may very well fail...he may also have twice the career of Kiffin. For now, the only sensible thing to do is give the man a chance and hope for the best.
 
#156
#156
grace2u said:
Some of you need to get real for a minute. We have never been a team that has "dominated". Even in the 90's when we were winning alot we lucked into a lot of wins and always seemed to sweat at UGA, FL, etc. Heck, even Kentucky took us to the wire a few times. So for you guys to be getting on here crying for the good ole days, you need to quit romanticizing and remember what those days were really like...blood, sweat, tears, and luck. And even at that, we weren't "dominant".
Click to expand...

I'm a big fan of the "we aren't that good anyway, so what's wrong with settling?" approach.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#157
#157
timmy said:
Yeah, the WAC is a brutal schedule. :crazy:
Click to expand...

For these smaller schools, these buyout games against SEC opponents (Auburn and LSU last year) are killers. I live close to MTSU and some years their depth is depleted before they ever get in to their conference schedule. Just a fact.
 
#159
#159
utmba93 said:
To say that there is some doubt about whether CDD can ever win a championship at UT is a gross understatement.

There's also doubt that he can ever win the SEC East.

Instead, many here and in other UT circles, feel the best he can do is win may 10 games in his third year at UT, but never any more than that. In the meantime, many concede that he will help recruiting, but that he can not recruit as well as CLK and company. So, even his recruiting upside is limited versus the trajectory we were on.

Before anyone starts claiming that I don't want to Vols to win, let me clarify in saying that we all want the Vols to win.

Yet, is winning and restoring 'mediocrity' at UT over the next 6 or 7 years better for the Vols program, or would simply seeing Dooley repeat his LA Tech record at UT over the next two years get a proven coach on the Hill faster?
Click to expand...


see it's really not the OP's fault he started this thread

If Hambone had opened the checkbook, and gotten a proven winner for a coach, we wouldn't be on here trying to speculate if a coach with a 17-20 record at LA Tech, can win at Tennessee
and if he can't how long does he have, how big of a hole are we in etc...

If he's not successful, I just hope it's someone else that's hiring a new coach, and Hambone gets the boot with him
 
#160
#160
VKAman said:
The question isn't that ridiculous. If Dooley isn't a national championship-caliber coach, which he probably isn't, we should want one to get here as fast as possible...
Click to expand...
Probably isn't NC coach? based on what? He is unproven yes, but that does not mean he is a bad coach or even a good but not "great" coach. WE just don't know. Very good coaches can emerge out of nowhere. Every "proven coach" was at one time unproven. It is safe to say that many of us wanted a proven coach and someone we could immediately get behind because he had done it before. I understand and I was initially upset at DDs hire as well. I literally had no idea who he was! It was hard to be excited about him. With that said, I've been encouraged by what I've heard from him, the staff he has assembled, and the way he wrapped up the recruiting class (which most everyone assumed would completely collapse). There is reason to he hopeful. We very well may have discovered the next great coach... we just don't know it yet!
 
#161
#161
vol_in_il said:
see it's really not the OP's fault he started this thread

If Hambone had opened the checkbook, and gotten a proven winner for a coach, we wouldn't be on here trying to speculate if a coach with a 17-20 record at LA Tech, can win at Tennessee
and if he can't how long does he have, how big of a hole are we in etc...

If he's not successful, I just hope it's someone else that's hiring a new coach, and Hambone gets the boot with him
Click to expand...

I agree that if CDD doesn't pan out, it should be the gamble that ends Hamilton's career at UT.
 
#162
#162
yoranguavol2 said:
Probably isn't NC coach? based on what? He is unproven yes, but that does not mean he is a bad coach or even a good but not "great" coach. WE just don't know. Very good coaches can emerge out of nowhere. Every "proven coach" was at one time unproven. It is safe to say that many of us wanted a proven coach and someone we could immediately get behind because he had done it before. I understand and I was initially upset at DDs hire as well. I literally had no idea who he was! It was hard to be excited about him. With that said, I've been encouraged by what I've heard from him, the staff he has assembled, and the way he wrapped up the recruiting class (which most everyone assumed would completely collapse). There is reason to he hopeful. We very well may have discovered the next great coach... we just don't know it yet!
Click to expand...

How many years at La Tech would you consider a sample size large enough to help us form an opinion? 14 work?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#163
#163
ReeceBobby said:
This is like the people that say they want Obama to fail...I don't care for him and didn't vote for him but in general what is good for him (in this case CDD) is what is good for the country as a whole (in this case the vol faithful).
Click to expand...

Massive fail of a comparison statement. What is good for Obama is definitely not good for the country.
 
#164
#164
First&Tenn said:
Both pulled off fairly amazing recruiting feats in their first partial seasons.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to attack Dooley here, but you should know there is a lot of data with which to do so. If you don't want people to keep spreading it, quit challenging them to do so. Do some of your own work here. His record is dismal.

Recruiting: The difference in what the two coaches demonstrated in recruiting is that Kiffin recruited both classes. In baseball terms, CLK and company were the starting pitchers and the most you can give Dooley credit for is a 'save' (with help from CLK hires who were left behind).

The thread is not Dooley versus Kiffin.

It's Dooley versus mediocrity and how will UT fans respond this time around?
 
#165
#165
oregonvol said:
My point is that we should expect to stay as one of the top programs in college football, and reducing expectations for Dooley because "it's hard to win here", or because "our program was never that good", or any of the other falsehoods that are being tossed around here is unacceptable.

You're right, going out and hiring a "name" coach is no guarantee of success. But at least it shows you that the AD is trying. Either way, I'd say there's a higher percentage of success in hiring a big name coach than in hiring a nobody with a losing record.

The comparison between other professions is nonsensical. We don't hire someone away from their old job and give them a 500% raise and then not expect anyone to question their qualifications. Especially when they weren't doing so well at their old job to begin with.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, but everyone starts somewhere. I found these examples a few months ago and thought they were intersting.

In 1902, Atlantic Monthly rejected a stack of poems by Robert Frost. In 1905, the University of Bern rejected Albert Einstein's dissertation as "irrelevant and fanciful". In 1894, a teacher wrote that a student was "a conspicuous lack of success". The student was Winston Churchill. In 1785, Napoleon graduated 42nd in a class of 58 from Ecole Militaire in Paris.

Now, I'm not about to compare CDD to any of those men, but my point is this...there is a point in every great man's life before he is great. I agree this is a bit far fetched, but the best sometimes come from unsuccessful backgrounds.
 
#166
#166
PayingUTKTuition said:
I keep hearing over and over about Dooley's record at LA Tech. His record at LA Tech is totally irrelevant. Go do your research into the reasons behind the 4-8 season. See the schedule they played and see that they were fighting injuries to a point that converted DB walk-ons were starting at wide receiver by mid-season. The point is, this staff has not fielded a team yet and people on here are complaining about mediocrity. Their record is 0-0 . Your boy Kiffin's record is 7-6, and worse than that before he got here. Give CDD a chance to show his hand before you call it.
Click to expand...

It was Dooley's 3rd year at La. Tech. If he was doing such a great job, why didn't he have any depth?

I'm also sick of seeing Dooley's losing record compared to Kiffin's. Surely you recognize that having a losing record in the WAC and having a losing record in the NFL (with the Raiders, no less) are two entirely different things?

For my part, I wasn't convinced (and I'm still not) that Kiffin was a good coach, when Hamilton hired him. I wasn't crazy about his losing record then, even though it was against better competition and at a tougher place to win. But, having his Hall-of-Fame dad in tow helped.
 
#168
#168
I am amazed at the posts about CDD. Not good enough for UT... I didn't see a line of prospects outside Hamilton's office. Best I heard he ran through quite a few names to get there.
 
#169
#169
BigPapaVol said:
How many years at La Tech would you consider a sample size large enough to help us form an opinion? 14 work?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

how does your question have anything to do with my post? My point is not that he IS a proven coach... by all admission he IS NOT proven. What I am saying is that being "unproven" does not necessarily mean that he will be "unsuccessful"- just because he hasn't done it doesn't mean that he won't!
 
#170
#170
PayingUTKTuition said:
I am amazed at the posts about CDD. Not good enough for UT... I didn't see a line of prospects outside Hamilton's office. Best I heard he ran through quite a few names to get there.
Click to expand...

the question is what was he offering.....

you get what you pay for
 
#171
#171
PayingUTKTuition said:
I am amazed at the posts about CDD. Not good enough for UT... I didn't see a line of prospects outside Hamilton's office. Best I heard he ran through quite a few names to get there.
Click to expand...

Funny how he had so little time for the guy who was standing there.
 
#172
#172
utmba93 said:
I'm not trying to attack Dooley here, but you should know there is a lot of data with which to do so. If you don't want people to keep spreading it, quit challenging them to do so. Do some of your own work here. His record is dismal.

Recruiting: The difference in what the two coaches demonstrated in recruiting is that Kiffin recruited both classes. In baseball terms, CLK and company were the starting pitchers and the most you can give Dooley credit for is a 'save' (with help from CLK hires who were left behind).

The thread is not Dooley versus Kiffin.

It's Dooley versus mediocrity and how will UT fans respond this time around?
Click to expand...

So you are an idiot and a liar?
 
#175
#175
BigPapaVol said:
I'm a big fan of the "we aren't that good anyway, so what's wrong with settling?" approach.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I'm not saying we're not that good, I'm saying we're never going to be what some people envision...ie NCAA 2010 where the qb throws for 700 yards a game, the defense is never scored on and you have the #1 offense, #1 defense, #1 special teams, etc. We are a good program, definately one of the best in the nation. But I'm not going to kick the coach to the curb because the AD didn't resurrect Gen. Neyland or go out and hire the superbowl winning coach.

If we get less than 6 wins next year, there will be alot of raised eyebrows. We do it two years in a row, you guys can get on here and go to town telling everyone how right you were. I just think its a bit premature to be looking for the guys replacement.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top