tennessee's lack of success more has to do with south carolina finally keeping all their instate talent.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Mac considered one of the best off-season hires
- Thread starter boydbuff
- Start date
I see a 3-5 Tenn team heading into Missouri on November 2. If they lose that one, the 'Fire Foodcart' chant could get pretty loud.
:nod:
The rise of SC from nobodies has had a bigger effect on the Vols than anyone else. Would also add Bama regularly dipping into Georgia for top talent has hurt the Vols as well.
I know our circumstances (donor support, stadium size, recruiting base) are quite different than Tennessee's, but their considerable drop (not dissimilar) in the football world has provided considerable shadenfreude these last few years.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
Couldn't agree more. Don't see Tennessee being poised to launch the raids into SC, GA even FL/AL like they used to for the foreseeable future. And you've got Memphis metro within range of half the SEC closer than it is to Knoxville.
Definitely important to keep in mind Clemson's rise alongside U of South Carolina, too. They've taken it to a new level, although always having recruited rather well.
They also used to poke around Virginia, and still attempt to, but the elite talent in VA is largely being picked up by UVA and others at the moment, for however long that may last.
Last edited:
Well I was hoping to be back to a computer sooner than I was to further expand on that :lol:
Here is how CBS rated the 2008 coaching hires:
1. Mike Locksley - New Mexico, 2-26
- Fired
4. Steve Sarkisian - Washington
4. Lane Kiffin - Tennessee
- Left for USC
6. Gary Andersen
- Left to take Wisconsin HC in 2013
8. Brady Hoke - San Diego State
- Left for Michigan in 2011
10.Tim Beckman - Toledo
- Left for Illinois in 2012
- Fired
- Fired
- Fired
Now, that's just one year, I tried to get more but I was having trouble finding it back to 2007 and 2006 since I didn't feel that the 2009-2012 ones have a large enough sample size to come to a conclusion on them. The 2008 hires saw some sort of success and other than Mike Locksley and Lane Kiffin, I'd argue that half of them are pretty good coaches and CBS to an extent did a good job ranking these hires.
Maybe being the #1 hire is a curse :lol:
somebody
Well-Known Member
I think they'll give him a longer leash if he brings in recruits like he has so far.
I think that list more-or-less makes the point that the ratings are useless. A third of the people listed were abject failures with several more treading water (e.g. - Sark and Kiffin).
I hope that Mac is a good coach but I won't believe that he is a good coach because some talking head says so. I'd like to actually see results on the field.
Edit - I see that's the entire list of coaches and the bottom ones are, rightly, considered not good hires. Still doesn't seem like a ringing endorsement.
Last edited:
I'll give you Kiffin, but I disagree with Sark. He took over a 0-12 team and lead them to a 5-7 season in his first year and has loaded the roster with talent. I want to see what he does this year before I claim that he's treading water. As for the 1/3rd comment, other than Locksley (how a NMSU hire got #1 I have no idea) and to an extent Kiffin, the fired ones were at the bottom of the rankings. I think there needs to be more data here and the ratings are very ambiguous but I'd say that if you're ranked as a good hire by CBS or another outlet like that, it's reasonably accurate.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
Huge year for Sark. Determines if he takes it to the next level, or starts taking the "Tommy Bowden" route of fixing a broken program, but underachieving and never being able to get over that 7-8 win ceiling.
That's discrimination! No need to get DBT upset.
Butch Jones was a "splashy hire"??
Last edited:
Marrone was not fired at Syracuse, he left to take the Bills' job.
Not sure about Butch Davis but Butch Jones was considered a relatively hot commodity and way more known by media and recruits (outside of Cali especially) than HCMM.
My bad, I meant Butch Jones - I'm still not sure I would consider him a splashy hire. Weren't most Vol fans pretty underwhelmed with that hire?
All relative of course. But he was considered a hot up and coming coach and was much more in demand than HCMM. Regardless of that, I think HCMM is a better fit due to his rebuilding experience and his deep recruiting contacts in Cali. I also happen to like his personality better as Butch came off as an ass the way he handled everything.
FlatironsBuff
Well-Known Member
Much like Dan Hawkins when he left Boise for here and I can see Butch flaming out much the same way
Certainly a possibility for similar but different reasons. As it turns out CP was the brains in that operation. In the case of Butch, he has regularly followed a successful prior coach and has inherited a good roster. Not the case as much w/ Tennessee as of late, so we'll see.
If I were a betting man, I would guess that HCMM's stock in 3-5 yrs is going to be better than Butch's. If it is really good he may be headed to the SEC, but that wouldn't be the end of the world.
Ralphandler1
Member
Why did you change your mind on GB? All he did was get recruiting classes in top 30, win division titles and actually understood coaching. Stellar coach he was not... but he was VERY solid coach with a solid resume. His record at CU was 49-38 and 34-22 in conference. Throw away his crappy first 2 years which he was having to inherit from tricky ricky and looking at 39-23 and he took CU to bowls 5 outta 7 years! He beat NU about half the time (and arguably shoulda beat NU 5 times in that span.... recall last sec missed FG, last sec made FG, botched kick offs etc). Like I said not an amazing/best ever coach but averaging 7 wins a years or eliminate his ONE really down year averaging 8 wins a year is pretty damn solid.
I will always do the "what if" scenario of if Barnett had taken over right after McCartney. I think CU would have had very little drop off in this scenario. You don't take the worst program in the Big 10 to the Rose Bowl and come within a mouse fart of playing for the mNC at Colorado (while dismantling Nebraska and beating Texas back to back) without being a hell of a good coach. Barnett was defeated by the "scandal", not because he was a mediocre coach.
He stopped recruiting high caliber athletes after Ochs and Houston flamed out. GB dug his own grave by intentionally changing how he recruited. The sanctions didn't help, but he ran the other direction if he sensed any level of prima donna in a recruit.
ucabear
Member
Bielema has a rough first year schedule too
Texas A&M
@ Florida
South Carolina
@ Alabama
all in a row. Thats 4 losses in a row right there.
Also of note was that we were going through a public relations nightmare, which created some longstanding perception issues, both fair and unfair, regarding the program that really only recently have gone away because our horrible record has become our new perception.
Little redneck jones did us a favor.
I still like Barnett. What i meant was i stopped being angry at CU and decided it was best for him to walk away after 2005. I just wish we hired someone who knew how to coach.
If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice
He's choosing a path that's clear: freewill.