bleedingTNorange
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2012
- Messages
- 73,347
- Likes
- 47,209
Pearl was fired because of breaking the rules, Rick was fired because he wouldn't change staff's and because he wasn't getting the job done.
And Barnes was also as Texas 3x as long as Pearl was at Tennessee, so your point is invalid. You said Rick is no Pearl, that's beyond foolish which you likely realized when you started comparing resumes.
You said "did auburn fans think pearl was a big time get" of course they did, he wasn't fired for not getting the job done.
Pretty simple.
Both were fired for very different reasons.
The hiring of CBP at Auburn was a clear excitement buzz on the plains
The hiring of CRB wasn't around Knoxville.
Not even comparable
Not sure what else can be said
Correct me if I'm wrong...but didn't we hire a coach that was fired from his previous job in basketball? If so, not sure how thats big time
If someone thinks CBP isn't a big time hire I got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
I find it funny that with our two hires before Barnes,people complained about us going after young up and coming mid major coaches that hadn't done a whole lot and not throwing money at successful established coach. We hire a successful established coach this time in Barnes and people still complain. I don't think people realize how big of an hire Barnes was with the current state of Tennessee men's basketball.
Hiring a coach who got was just fired for performance/results is not a big time hire. And don't give me the "he was asked to fire his staff" story. If he is getting asked to do that then they wanted rid of him. Bottom line.
I don't want to hear about stats from their resumes and what they did 10 years ago. If schools are just going to look at career win totals to determine who to hire then every college football team in the country should be beating down Lou Holtz and Phil Fulmer's doors.
I'm not even saying Barnes was a bad hire or can't coach or the game has passed him by. Not saying any of that. But the truth is that hiring Barnes this past spring wasn't a "big time" hire. He is a very accomplished coach. But he's also a coach who was fired for his results.
So, Michigan hiring Harbaugh wasn't a big time hire because he was fired for performance issues. Do you agree to that given what you just said?
Hiring a coach who got was just fired for performance/results is not a big time hire. And don't give me the "he was asked to fire his staff" story. If he is getting asked to do that then they wanted rid of him. Bottom line.
I don't want to hear about stats from their resumes and what they did 10 years ago. If schools are just going to look at career win totals to determine who to hire then every college football team in the country should be beating down Lou Holtz and Phil Fulmer's doors.
I'm not even saying Barnes was a bad hire or can't coach or the game has passed him by. Not saying any of that. But the truth is that hiring Barnes this past spring wasn't a "big time" hire. He is a very accomplished coach. But he's also a coach who was fired for his results.
And nobody is arguing otherwise, I don't understand why that's still not clear, what's being said is that UTK's post was clearly not accurate, that is all.