WOW! What a bunch of cry babies!

[volndawgville]

..... a solid case, and it is one that probably has been made many times deep in the inter-sanctum of Tennessee football. And on a certain level, I agree with your argument for keeping Dooley.

HOWEVER.....

1. While I believe our team is stronger, more talented, deeper, and etc., its on the field performance does not show up in the Sunday paper as a "W."
2. UT football is the breadwinner for UT Sports in general, and the decline in revenue stream will not sustain quality athletic programs throughout the Athletic Department. In short, the failures of football to generate higher levels of income from operations will over time negatively impact other sports.
3. Not only has operating revenue suffered, but donor revenue has taken a hit. Imagine the next time UT tees up another major capital-intensive endeavor what the donor inflow will be (or won't be).
4. We probably TODAY will see a decision which could impact funding for the athletic department. The BOT will decide this afternoon whether to remove the Athletic Director from oversight of athletics fund raising. This decision could have a significant impact on UT athletics. This could be monumental power play within the university. UT as a whole needs $$, and this is seen as an avenue to be in control of all significant sources of outside private funding. Up until possibly this afternoon, the athletic department largely operated as a separate entity from the mainstream university in all aspects, being largely self-sustaining (even giving up to $10M to the university annually). But there have been whispers of Hart cutting back on this annual donation..... thus this power play. This could very well negatively impact the aggressive program to enhance athletic facilities, as well as other areas. The university has seen the athletic department raise significant $$ during the end of the Dickey era and through Hamilton's reign. But what they haven't seen is a return on the donor's investment in terms of wins; and more significantly, the university has observed a major decline in operating revenue from the breadwinner.
5. This financial impact falls squarely in one place: FOOTBALL. Football's expenditures have been sky-high over the last several years with facility improvements and new construction (not to mention contracts). Football has fallen off so much, it is impacting not only the morale of the fan base, but it directly impacts the athletic department's revenue generation to support football and other sports.

So where does this leave us? There's basically to options to consider with the football program.

Continue an election-type approach via electing Obama for more of the same with continuing with Dooley?

Or could UT make a change that will stop the bleeding.

In short, this proposition is one that must be considered with not only a micro-evaluation of the on-field considerations, such as where football was, where it is now, and whether staying the course will eventually make us competitive once again. It must be considered from a macro-view, as to the larger impacts (primarily financial-driven) to other aspects of the athletic department and university as a whole.

With this macro-view, UT can ill-afford maintaining the course, or even another back-page hire. Given the far-reaching implications of football success, or lack thereof, UT must act in the next 30 days with the expensive dismissal of Dooley, and the hiring of a new Head FB Coach..... one of the same ilk as "when Johnny came marching home. The new coach doesn't have to have the pizazz of a Gruden, but it needs to be one that will make the fans, student body, alumni, donors, and public take notice.

When looking at it from strictly a FB perspective such as your initial post, I still think Dooley has to go. While I see strong merit in your arguments, I made my mind up several weeks ago when the defensive struggles became unbearable. Throughout Dooley's tenure, it was known he supported a major shift in defensive philosophy with the installation of a 3-4 scheme. Theoretically, there are major "pains of change" with this transition. Well, why wait to your 3rd season to experience these growing pains? Why not install it your 1st season to acquaint the players with the new system, so by year 3 (this season) the experience the players gained as underclassmen would be in the system they expected to use on the field?

This significant strategic failure by Dooley was the tipping point for me.

Enough rambling..... back to the "Women of Mizzou."

 

[Vol'n'beers]

1. Though long, relatively well written.
2. Lost credibility when you let your political opinions come out (even though they may be parallel situations)
3. I'm pretty sure the 3-4 was Sal's idea (and Sal wouldn't have even been here if Wilcox had not left)
4. I agree that the AD (dept) needs to be able to operate autonomously (as much as possible) from the university

 

[orangeluvr]

You had a chance to change the topic and what did you choose to post about? We're not limiting your posting experience here. If you'd like to change topics, feel free. What would you like to talk about instead?

:good!: Members choose the topics!

 

[Jax_Vol]

1. Though long, relatively well written.
2. Lost credibility when you let your political opinions come out (even though they may be parallel situations)
3. I'm pretty sure the 3-4 was Sal's idea (and Sal wouldn't have even been here if Wilcox had not left)
4. I agree that the AD (dept) needs to be able to operate autonomously (as much as possible) from the university

I love you too Tom!!!! Vols brothers for life!

Suds, Dools hired Sal knowing that he was bringing the 3-4. If he wanted to stay 4-3, I think he would have hired someone else.

 

[Spawn]

TennesseeTom, if you were in charge, how long would you give Dooley to rebuild the team?

I think the rebuilding under Dooley is over. He has done a decent job in policy (VFL) and ok in recruiting. Based on the poor coaching, I think this is as far at he can take Tennessee.

Depending on the next coach, the amount of to finalize the rebuild will be based on when dooley gets let go. the longer he is here, they longer it will take the next coach.

 

[tnvols72]

Great Quote! Which is exactly why we must allow the coaches to build the winning tradition back to our decade of dominance level and then sustain it. Remember, new coach doesn't equal new players for at least 2 years. Most freshman do not impact a program immediately.

Tn will get back to a winning tradition as soon as the fire Dooley. Remember keeping a losing coach will always be a losing coach. As far as saying freshman do not impact a program immediately is BS. I can name a lot of players that were and are freshman that's made impacts and it helps when you got good coaching. Something Tn doesn't have.

 

[Vol'n'beers]

Suds, Dools hired Sal knowing that he was bringing the 3-4. If he wanted to stay 4-3, I think he would have hired someone else.

I know, but the question was why didn't Dooley go 3-4 in year one. From insiders in other threads we didn't have much choice on the Sal hiring.
The real question should be why we fired Randy Shannon before we hired him.

 

[Titan&Volfan4life]

..... a solid case, and it is one that probably has been made many times deep in the inter-sanctum of Tennessee football. And on a certain level, I agree with your argument for keeping Dooley.

HOWEVER.....

1. While I believe our team is stronger, more talented, deeper, and etc., its on the field performance does not show up in the Sunday paper as a "W."
2. UT football is the breadwinner for UT Sports in general, and the decline in revenue stream will not sustain quality athletic programs throughout the Athletic Department. In short, the failures of football to generate higher levels of income from operations will over time negatively impact other sports.
3. Not only has operating revenue suffered, but donor revenue has taken a hit. Imagine the next time UT tees up another major capital-intensive endeavor what the donor inflow will be (or won't be).
4. We probably TODAY will see a decision which could impact funding for the athletic department. The BOT will decide this afternoon whether to remove the Athletic Director from oversight of athletics fund raising. This decision could have a significant impact on UT athletics. This could be monumental power play within the university. UT as a whole needs $$, and this is seen as an avenue to be in control of all significant sources of outside private funding. Up until possibly this afternoon, the athletic department largely operated as a separate entity from the mainstream university in all aspects, being largely self-sustaining (even giving up to $10M to the university annually). But there have been whispers of Hart cutting back on this annual donation..... thus this power play. This could very well negatively impact the aggressive program to enhance athletic facilities, as well as other areas. The university has seen the athletic department raise significant $$ during the end of the Dickey era and through Hamilton's reign. But what they haven't seen is a return on the donor's investment in terms of wins; and more significantly, the university has observed a major decline in operating revenue from the breadwinner.
5. This financial impact falls squarely in one place: FOOTBALL. Football's expenditures have been sky-high over the last several years with facility improvements and new construction (not to mention contracts). Football has fallen off so much, it is impacting not only the morale of the fan base, but it directly impacts the athletic department's revenue generation to support football and other sports.

So where does this leave us? There's basically to options to consider with the football program.

Continue an election-type approach via electing Obama for more of the same with continuing with Dooley?

Or could UT make a change that will stop the bleeding.

In short, this proposition is one that must be considered with not only a micro-evaluation of the on-field considerations, such as where football was, where it is now, and whether staying the course will eventually make us competitive once again. It must be considered from a macro-view, as to the larger impacts (primarily financial-driven) to other aspects of the athletic department and university as a whole.

With this macro-view, UT can ill-afford maintaining the course, or even another back-page hire. Given the far-reaching implications of football success, or lack thereof, UT must act in the next 30 days with the expensive dismissal of Dooley, and the hiring of a new Head FB Coach..... one of the same ilk as "when Johnny came marching home. The new coach doesn't have to have the pizazz of a Gruden, but it needs to be one that will make the fans, student body, alumni, donors, and public take notice.

When looking at it from strictly a FB perspective such as your initial post, I still think Dooley has to go. While I see strong merit in your arguments, I made my mind up several weeks ago when the defensive struggles became unbearable. Throughout Dooley's tenure, it was known he supported a major shift in defensive philosophy with the installation of a 3-4 scheme. Theoretically, there are major "pains of change" with this transition. Well, why wait to your 3rd season to experience these growing pains? Why not install it your 1st season to acquaint the players with the new system, so by year 3 (this season) the experience the players gained as underclassmen would be in the system they expected to use on the field?

This significant strategic failure by Dooley was the tipping point for me.

Enough rambling..... back to the "Women of Mizzou."

Very excellent post my friend and I concur with most of it.

You asked at the end WHY would CDD wait until year 3 to switch to the 3-4 Defense when most smart people knew he wanted to make that move on day 1 when he took on the monumental task of rebuilding 1 of the worst football programs in the country which also plays in the toughest conference in the nation so I'll try to help you understand why the wait until year 3.

CDD took on this challenge with only 2 WEEKS left before National Signing Day to get as many good recruits to stay with UT from that laMe kiffScum class AND to try and add as many good players as he could in that short timespan.

That was another monumental task especially since we were under NCAA investigations at the time AND because he had ZERO coaches hired so CDD couldn't even tell recruits who their position coaches would be or what those coaches backgrounds and qualifications were.

CDD had a VERY serious NEED to recruit but he was just as pressured to try and hire the best coaches he could find as fast as he could too because more coaches hired also meant he could tell some recruits who their position coaches would be but NOT even close to enough time to do one of those things much less both but in retrospect he did a pretty good job at both considering such a short timeframe he had to work with.

Now to the 3-4 D situation....Good coaches that really KNOW the 3-4 Defense well are in short supply and even in the NFL there's been teams that waited a year or 2 or longer to make their switch to the 3-4 simply because they couldn't find and hire good 3-4 coaches to make the switch.

CDD and AD Hart almost HAD to give the 1st group of D coaches at least a 2 year contract if they wanted to fill the positions with anyone worth a crap and mostly all we could find were 4-3 D coaches so the switch was put on hold until we could find and hire coaches that know the 3-4 well BUT finding a 3-4 D coordinator with lots of experience is even harder to find than good 3-4 coaches that know the system well and can teach it to our kids so we did the best we could in the situation we were in.

CSS has been a D coord before but it's been awhile and I don't know if he was a DC using the 4-3 or the 3-4 but I'd guess it was the 4-3 since that's been the HOT Defense for 20 years now and it does take some time and learning to become a really good DC too.

I knew we would go through tough times switching to the 3-4 D but I had no idea things would go this badly in year 1.

CDD did fix our Running game like he promised after last season and it's better than most on here thought our run game could become with the same O linemen and the same RB's since most on here said all our O linemen and RB's flatout sucked but they were totally WRONG about those things.

IF, and a big IF, AD Hart decides that CDD gets 1 more year then I can only hope and pray that CDD fixes our Defense as well this offseason as he did fixing our run game last offseason because if that happens I can easily see Tennessee Winning the SEC East Title next year and giving both Bama and Oregon a good, tough game.

I hope that helps you understand a few things my friend.

VFL...GBO!!!

 

[OrangeSummit]

You are now the proud owner of some herpes.

Oral Herpes - YouTube

 

[LA Vol]

Perhaps two weeks wasn't long enough.

 

[tastycar]

I took a break from this site for about 2 weeks. Tired of reading the same ole crap about Dooley can't coach, Bray is an immature 2nd tier quarter back, Hunter has cashed the season in, Sal is a horrible defensive cord., etc., etc.

I come back today and it is just more of the same. I have bashed Dooley some through disappointment in wins and loses. But as I have reflected on the status of the program, Maybe Dooley hasn't done that bad.

His first year the program had no depth and tons of NCAA scrutiny. Most of the Kiffin recruits left or were bad seeds and removed. He has Good depth now and really no major player infractions since he took over.

His second year was plagued with injuries. This allowed allot of underclassmen to gain some experience and helped create depth. Unfortunately key injuries to key players resulted in poor wins and loses.

This is his third year. Depth is better. Offense is scoring and the line is improving on their run blocking. Lets face it. All we had for 2 years was a passing game. So the change and need for a running game takes time. Running backs are starting to become a part of the game. Passing game has been there and it is a little disappointing that the timing with Bray and receivers seems off at times but overall the numbers have been good. Now to defense...it is a new system. And with any new system you have to get the right players. Sal will get this done through recruiting. He has had 1 year. Allow the program to build depth at all positions and allow there to become the continuity Tennessee had with Fulmer, Chavis and Cutcliff. I say keep Dooley. We can't keep firing coaches every 3 years. There isn't a ton of Nick Saben type coaches out there. Let these guys build the program. GO VOLS, GO BIG ORANGE! AND CHANGE THE FREAKING TOPICS ON THIS BOARD!

. Ok...yesterday I posted that I needed to detox from vn for a bit. This guy makes me feel much better. I am not bad at all compared to this..^

 

[Jax_Vol]

I know, but the question was why didn't Dooley go 3-4 in year one. From insiders in other threads we didn't have much choice on the Sal hiring.
The real question should be why we fired Randy Shannon before we hired him.

Oh yeah, that is a good point Suds. Using the reverse logic, if he wanted to be a 3-4 guy, why hire Wilcox who you know is going to stay with the 4-3?

Yeah, good point!


Maybe looked long and hard and his personnel and realized how weak we were up front / linebackers? Doubt it though...

I really think Derek wanted to be a 3-4 guy all along. Personally, I like the 3-4 better than 4-3. So I dont know why he ever hired Wilcox

 

[BP4Prez]

We are winless in the SEC and barely beat Troy. Oh happy days! Future is sure bright! Better?

 

[Titan&Volfan4life]

I love you too Tom!!!! Vols brothers for life!

Suds, Dools hired Sal knowing that he was bringing the 3-4. If he wanted to stay 4-3, I think he would have hired someone else.

I have to agree totally that if CDD wanted to stay with the 4-3 D he would have hired someone else as the D coordinator because 4-3 DC's are much easier to find and hire.

I doubt we'll ever know for certain if CSS was totally a CDD hire of if AD Hart had a big say in that decision since 3-4 DC's are so hard to find and hire away from the NFL or other schools.

1 thing is known and that's that Sal is a really good coach and he demands alot from the players.

I seriously wonder if since the 3-4 is so complex and detail oriented our players just aren't smart enough to learn so much in a short period of time since most football players aren't the smartest people on Earth for the most part and we must always remember that these kids also have classes to attend, homework to do and also to try and have some sort of real life outside of just school and the classroom.

Things to think about anyway.

VFL...GBO!!!

 

[orangebloodgmc]

I took a break from this site for about 2 weeks. Tired of reading the same ole crap about Dooley can't coach, Bray is an immature 2nd tier quarter back, Hunter has cashed the season in, Sal is a horrible defensive cord., etc., etc.

I come back today and it is just more of the same. I have bashed Dooley some through disappointment in wins and loses. But as I have reflected on the status of the program, Maybe Dooley hasn't done that bad.

His first year the program had no depth and tons of NCAA scrutiny. Most of the Kiffin recruits left or were bad seeds and removed. He has Good depth now and really no major player infractions since he took over.

His second year was plagued with injuries. This allowed allot of underclassmen to gain some experience and helped create depth. Unfortunately key injuries to key players resulted in poor wins and loses.

This is his third year. Depth is better. Offense is scoring and the line is improving on their run blocking. Lets face it. All we had for 2 years was a passing game. So the change and need for a running game takes time. Running backs are starting to become a part of the game. Passing game has been there and it is a little disappointing that the timing with Bray and receivers seems off at times but overall the numbers have been good. Now to defense...it is a new system. And with any new system you have to get the right players. Sal will get this done through recruiting. He has had 1 year. Allow the program to build depth at all positions and allow there to become the continuity Tennessee had with Fulmer, Chavis and Cutcliff. I say keep Dooley. We can't keep firing coaches every 3 years. There isn't a ton of Nick Saben type coaches out there. Let these guys build the program. GO VOLS, GO BIG ORANGE! AND CHANGE THE FREAKING TOPICS ON THIS BOARD!

Well-stated. :hi:

 

[VolsFanRJ]

Gotta love it. Start a thread and cry about all the cry babies on the board. Classic.

 

[OWB]

I think this is as far at he can take Tennessee.

That's the biggest thing. Do we have a coach that can win SEC and National Championships? I think we all know Dooley isn't that guy. He was a desperation hire, and I'm talking really desperate. The sooner we can find a legitimate coaching staff, the better.

 

[Rudy123]

I took a break from this site for about 2 weeks. Tired of reading the same ole crap about Dooley can't coach, Bray is an immature 2nd tier quarter back, Hunter has cashed the season in, Sal is a horrible defensive cord., etc., etc.

I come back today and it is just more of the same. I have bashed Dooley some through disappointment in wins and loses. But as I have reflected on the status of the program, Maybe Dooley hasn't done that bad.

His first year the program had no depth and tons of NCAA scrutiny. Most of the Kiffin recruits left or were bad seeds and removed. He has Good depth now and really no major player infractions since he took over.

His second year was plagued with injuries. This allowed allot of underclassmen to gain some experience and helped create depth. Unfortunately key injuries to key players resulted in poor wins and loses.

This is his third year. Depth is better. Offense is scoring and the line is improving on their run blocking. Lets face it. All we had for 2 years was a passing game. So the change and need for a running game takes time. Running backs are starting to become a part of the game. Passing game has been there and it is a little disappointing that the timing with Bray and receivers seems off at times but overall the numbers have been good. Now to defense...it is a new system. And with any new system you have to get the right players. Sal will get this done through recruiting. He has had 1 year. Allow the program to build depth at all positions and allow there to become the continuity Tennessee had with Fulmer, Chavis and Cutcliff. I say keep Dooley. We can't keep firing coaches every 3 years. There isn't a ton of Nick Saben type coaches out there. Let these guys build the program. GO VOLS, GO BIG ORANGE! AND CHANGE THE FREAKING TOPICS ON THIS BOARD!

Shop the possible job opening around. If no big name coach who is a proven winner is intersted in U.T., then keep Dooley, until we eventually find a good replacement for him.

What is worse? To be a couple of plays away from beating UGA, USC, Miss St. & Florida and have the fans frustrated that we can't get over the hump OR to lose to UGA, USC, Miss St. & Florida by 14 or more points and show that the program is not making progess?

I thought that by barely losing would show the fans some encouragement and give us a reason to believe in the future. I know that I am getting tired of moral victories and almost wins though.

 

[strongtower]

Your break should have been longer.

lol:

 

[Catbone]

OP likes being mediocre?

 

[photovol]

I took a break from this site for about 2 weeks. Tired of reading the same ole crap about Dooley can't coach, Bray is an immature 2nd tier quarter back, Hunter has cashed the season in, Sal is a horrible defensive cord., etc., etc.

I come back today and it is just more of the same. I have bashed Dooley some through disappointment in wins and loses. But as I have reflected on the status of the program, Maybe Dooley hasn't done that bad.

His first year the program had no depth and tons of NCAA scrutiny. Most of the Kiffin recruits left or were bad seeds and removed. He has Good depth now and really no major player infractions since he took over.

His second year was plagued with injuries. This allowed allot of underclassmen to gain some experience and helped create depth. Unfortunately key injuries to key players resulted in poor wins and loses.

This is his third year. Depth is better. Offense is scoring and the line is improving on their run blocking. Lets face it. All we had for 2 years was a passing game. So the change and need for a running game takes time. Running backs are starting to become a part of the game. Passing game has been there and it is a little disappointing that the timing with Bray and receivers seems off at times but overall the numbers have been good. Now to defense...it is a new system. And with any new system you have to get the right players. Sal will get this done through recruiting. He has had 1 year. Allow the program to build depth at all positions and allow there to become the continuity Tennessee had with Fulmer, Chavis and Cutcliff. I say keep Dooley. We can't keep firing coaches every 3 years. There isn't a ton of Nick Saben type coaches out there. Let these guys build the program. GO VOLS, GO BIG ORANGE! AND CHANGE THE FREAKING TOPICS ON THIS BOARD!

OP Your about as bad as the coach...Cry Baby...when Dooley leaves...Go with Him

 

[vfl08]

Gotta love it. Start a thread and cry about all the cry babies on the board. Classic.

the irony is too thick to see through!

 

[deckerkd]

I took a break from this site for about 2 weeks. Tired of reading the same ole crap about Dooley can't coach, Bray is an immature 2nd tier quarter back, Hunter has cashed the season in, Sal is a horrible defensive cord., etc., etc.

I come back today and it is just more of the same. I have bashed Dooley some through disappointment in wins and loses. But as I have reflected on the status of the program, Maybe Dooley hasn't done that bad.

His first year the program had no depth and tons of NCAA scrutiny. Most of the Kiffin recruits left or were bad seeds and removed. He has Good depth now and really no major player infractions since he took over.

His second year was plagued with injuries. This allowed allot of underclassmen to gain some experience and helped create depth. Unfortunately key injuries to key players resulted in poor wins and loses.

This is his third year. Depth is better. Offense is scoring and the line is improving on their run blocking. Lets face it. All we had for 2 years was a passing game. So the change and need for a running game takes time. Running backs are starting to become a part of the game. Passing game has been there and it is a little disappointing that the timing with Bray and receivers seems off at times but overall the numbers have been good. Now to defense...it is a new system. And with any new system you have to get the right players. Sal will get this done through recruiting. He has had 1 year. Allow the program to build depth at all positions and allow there to become the continuity Tennessee had with Fulmer, Chavis and Cutcliff. I say keep Dooley. We can't keep firing coaches every 3 years. There isn't a ton of Nick Saben type coaches out there. Let these guys build the program. GO VOLS, GO BIG ORANGE! AND CHANGE THE FREAKING TOPICS ON THIS BOARD!

THIS. I am not even going to go into all if Dooley' record breaking statistics which prove he has not improved and he was a loser when he came here and remains a loser. I will say that three years is long enough to win at least one meaningful game if you are going to. He has not. Also, those so called recruits that Kiffen's bad seed recruits include: our O line, Justin Junter, Tyler Bray, Oneal. These aren't Dooley recruits. He is very close to last in SEC in recruiting. So either you don't have your facts, your an Alabma fan, your a relative of Dookey or you are just very stupid to want to retain his services or lack there of

 

[Panthro]

I know you are, but what am I?

 

[Vol'n'beers]

I agree that Sal is a good coach, but good coaches do not always make good coordinators. Everyone has a ceiling. I'm not judging him yet, just commenting.

Jackson, I disagree about Dooley being a 3-4 guy. I haven't done my homework, but I don't think he employed it at LaTech. Fact is, if Wilcox were still here we'd still be 4-3.

I doubt Dooley makes this big of a change in a year that even he knows is critical. Especially since 2011 defense wasn't that bad. It smacks of a call from higher up the ladder.