Interesting perspective on Butch Jones' long-term prospects at Tennessee

#1

Volosaurus rex

Doctorate in Volology
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
5,915
Likes
3,955
#1
I don't know what personal allegiances the author of this piece may possess, but here is an interesting, speculative look, in projected rank order, of which SEC head football coaches will still be at their current jobs in a decade: Which SEC Coaches Will Still Be Around in a Decade? - Team Speed Kills. What is his bottom line? The only reason he doesn't have Saban No. 1 is because of his age. With respect to Butch Jones, whom he considers to be most likely to still be at his current position, Wunderlich states:

"At 47, he's nowhere close to retirement. With him having played at Ferris State, there isn't an alma mater out there to draw him away from Knoxville. Tennessee is also a historic and wealthy enough program that when it's good, it's not a place you leave. With most of his coaching past coming at Central Michigan and Cincinnati, there's not a past college job to tug at his heart strings either. Plus, he's yet to draw any interest from the NFL, and the fact that he runs a "college offense" and doesn't have a reputation as a "true innovator" like Chip Kelly or Malzahn means he probably won't either.

He was a winner at both CMU and Cincy. The arrow is pointing the right direction at Tennessee now too. The rough times between Fulmer's firing and Jones's arrival—not to mention the turmoil within the men's basketball program—will prevent UT from getting too impatient with him. He recruits and coaches well enough that he'll start winning SEC East and sometimes overall SEC titles with enough regularity to keep him in the job for a long time to come."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 22 people
#2
#2
With all the turmoil we've endured over the last decade, if you consider 2005 to be the start of the fall, I have a hard time seeing Tennessee rushing to fire Butch. Especially with the success he's seen on the recruiting trail.

I'd be willing to bet he gets longer than the standard 'you have 3 years to rebuild and get us back to the top.' I don't think It'll be an issue, though, because I have a hard time seeing us crashing out of this momentum we're starting to build up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3
#3
With all the turmoil we've endured over the last decade, if you consider 2005 to be the start of the fall, I have a hard time seeing Tennessee rushing to fire Butch. Especially with the success he's seen on the recruiting trail.

I'd be willing to bet he gets longer than the standard 'you have 3 years to rebuild and get us back to the top.' I don't think It'll be an issue, though, because I have a hard time seeing us crashing out of this momentum we're starting to build up.

2005 may have been Coach Fulmer's first losing season. However the start of the decline was 4 years earlier in the SEC Championship game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 people
#4
#4
I think the writer got things about right. I'd put money on Butch or Saban to be in their current jobs 10 years from now over just about everyone else in the SEC, though I'd add Miles to that short list.

Butch is a master recruiter, proven. With top tier recruiting, you are guaranteed a significant degree of success in the college game. Given a season that always includes two opponents from the Group of 5 and one from the FCS, as well as Vandy and Kentucky, getting to a bowl every year is simply a matter of beating one (1) of the seven significant opponents of each season. Win just above half of those significant games, and you are 9-3 with some chance of making the conference championship game. At sustained high recruiting levels, that becomes almost automatic. And this fan base, coming out of the 2008-2013 dark ages, will be hugely thankful for that kind of success for several years to come.

But great recruiting isn't Butch's only proven strong suit. He is driven, huge work ethic, a no-quit kind of guy. Certainly that's a part of what makes him such a successful recruiter, but it will bear fruit on the Xs and Os side of his job as well. Tennessee teams will be better-prepared than their opponents the majority of the time, because Butch doesn't sleep and only allows his coaches and players catnaps. That "pound of sweat" approach to the game adds another win or two each season as the Vols simply outhustle their opponents. Now we're up to 9-3 seasons being the norm, with 10-2 and 11-1 seasons fairly common. At that level of success, Butch never loses his job.

Side note: that same driven aspect of his personality keeps Butch from ever falling victim to the complacency that did Phil Fulmer in. It's simply not in Butch's DNA to relax on the job.

And all this comes before we find out if he's an SEC-tier genius as the chess match that takes place on the field between opposing coaches. I think his record at CMU and Cincy proves he plays that game very well, too, though I understand others in VN aren't yet ready to reach that conclusion.

So if the above analysis is right, and Tennessee is destined throughout Butch's career to succeed in the 9-3 and up zone, with runs at championships frequently enough to keep things exciting, then no one wearing Orange is ever going to ask him to leave short of misbehavior. And I don't get the impression Butch is the kind of guy who's going to throw a chair at one of his players, or get on a motorcycle with some bimbo from the accounting department. His self-control is too high for those kinds of lapses.

So...he won't be run out of town for underperforming, and he won't be fired for off-field behavior issues. Will he leave for another job?

As the writer pointed out, Butch went to Ferris State. No high-prestige alma mater luring him away. He might have childhood ties to Michigan the way some of us are bound in our blood to Tennessee though we went to other schools...but he sure hasn't shown any sign of that through two Michigan coaching changes. Would he like to try out the NFL? Hard to tell. He hasn't said much of anything that I'm aware of either way. The article mentions that Butch's offense (which is a variation on Rich Rod's offense) isn't popular for translation to the NFL. Ok, though some things in life 'aren't' right up until the moment they 'are' and then they 'are', if you know what I mean.

So if Butch is destined to leave Tennessee within the next 10 years, I think it will be because he's curious about his ability to compete at the pro level, having succeeded at the highest tier of the college ranks. I do not think he'd make that leap until at least a couple of SEC championships and one appearance in the NC playoffs. He would have to think that he peaked at this level, and there wasn't anything left to prove or anything new to do. I think that means he'll be here a minimum of six more years.

I'm hoping he'll be here 25 more. Hoping he realizes earlier than many coaches that he's got a really good thing going, that he could make his life's work here without having to go see what's on the other side of the hill. Hoping he passes Phil Fulmer's # of career wins while wearing orange, leads the Vols to another couple-few national championships and eventually retires tied with General Neyland as the two most beloved and successful Tennessee coaches of all time.

That'd be nice.

In any case, I think the writer got it about right: Butch should be here a while.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 12 people
#5
#5
2005 may have been Coach Fulmer's first losing season. However the start of the decline was 4 years earlier in the SEC Championship game.

The "hill" metaphor doesn't fit Phil Fulmer's career very well. The idea of a career that rises, peaks, and then falls off just isn't an apt description of how the Fulmer era really went. It wasn't really this:
......__
...../....\
__/.......\__

But rather more like this:
...............__
......____/....\_____.......___
...../.......................\__/......\_ <-- fired there
__/

When we say "program in decline" about the Fulmer era, we mean not a complete fall from grace, but instead this nagging feeling of complacency, of not achieving what it could, of accepting mediocrity (which back in those halcyon days meant 9- and 10-win seasons right up to the end, interspersed with 5- or 6-win ones).

So yep, the complacency ("the start of the decline") has its roots probably in the few years after the NC ... 2001 is a decent marker. But the Vols Dark Ages didn't start until Fulmer's final year, 2008.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#6
#6
I think the writer got things about right. I'd put money on Butch or Saban to be in their current jobs 10 years from now over just about everyone else in the SEC, though I'd add Miles to that short list.

Butch is a master recruiter, proven. With top tier recruiting, you are guaranteed a significant degree of success in the college game. Given a season that always includes two opponents from the Group of 5 and one from the FCS, as well as Vandy and Kentucky, getting to a bowl every year is simply a matter of beating one (1) of the seven significant opponents of each season. Win just above half of those significant games, and you are 9-3 with some chance of making the conference championship game. At sustained high recruiting levels, that becomes almost automatic. And this fan base, coming out of the 2008-2013 dark ages, will be hugely thankful for that kind of success for several years to come.

But great recruiting isn't Butch's only proven strong suit. He is driven, huge work ethic, a no-quit kind of guy. Certainly that's a part of what makes him such a successful recruiter, but it will bear fruit on the Xs and Os side of his job as well. Tennessee teams will be better-prepared than their opponents the majority of the time, because Butch doesn't sleep and only allows his coaches and players catnaps. That "pound of sweat" approach to the game adds another win or two each season as the Vols simply outhustle their opponents. Now we're up to 9-3 seasons being the norm, with 10-2 and 11-1 seasons fairly common. At that level of success, Butch never loses his job.

Side note: that same driven aspect of his personality keeps Butch from ever falling victim to the complacency that did Phil Fulmer in. It's simply not in Butch's DNA to relax on the job.

And all this comes before we find out if he's an SEC-tier genius as the chess match that takes place on the field between opposing coaches. I think his record at CMU and Cincy proves he plays that game very well, too, though I understand others in VN aren't yet ready to reach that conclusion.

So if the above analysis is right, and Tennessee is destined throughout Butch's career to succeed in the 9-3 and up zone, with runs at championships frequently enough to keep things exciting, then no one wearing Orange is ever going to ask him to leave short of misbehavior. And I don't get the impression Butch is the kind of guy who's going to throw a chair at one of his players, or get on a motorcycle with some bimbo from the accounting department. His self-control is too high for those kinds of lapses.

So...he won't be run out of town for underperforming, and he won't be fired for off-field behavior issues. Will he leave for another job?

As the writer pointed out, Butch went to Ferris State. No high-prestige alma mater luring him away. He might have childhood ties to Michigan the way some of us are bound in our blood to Tennessee though we went to other schools...but he sure hasn't shown any sign of that through two Michigan coaching changes. Would he like to try out the NFL? Hard to tell. He hasn't said much of anything that I'm aware of either way. The article mentions that Butch's offense (which is a variation on Rich Rod's offense) isn't popular for translation to the NFL. Ok, though some things in life 'aren't' right up until the moment they 'are' and then they 'are', if you know what I mean.

So if Butch is destined to leave Tennessee within the next 10 years, I think it will be because he's curious about his ability to compete at the pro level, having succeeded at the highest tier of the college ranks. I do not think he'd make that leap until at least a couple of SEC championships and one appearance in the NC playoffs. He would have to think that he peaked at this level, and there wasn't anything left to prove or anything new to do. I think that means he'll be here a minimum of six more years.

I'm hoping he'll be here 25 more. Hoping he realizes earlier than many coaches that he's got a really good thing going, that he could make his life's work here without having to go see what's on the other side of the hill. Hoping he passes Phil Fulmer's # of career wins while wearing orange, leads the Vols to another couple-few national championships and eventually retires tied with General Neyland as the two most beloved and successful Tennessee coaches of all time.

That'd be nice.

In any case, I think the writer got it about right: Butch should be here a while.

I agree with almost everything, the exception being... let's have Butch reach a Fulmer level of success before we declare him incapable of getting fat and happy. He doesn't SEEM like the contented type but frankly I am willing to risk it if we get another piece of hardware to display.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7
#7
I know CPF. I don't know CBJ. I also remember McDonald and Wyatt. It was exciting to see them go and Dickey arrive. When he went "home" to FL, the Battle era was another empty feeling. The history did not begin with Fulmer. I have no clue about much before Wyatt but am anxious to see the current development continue. Let it be about NOW and leave Coach Fulmer out of it. If nothing else, he deserves to enjoy bleeding orange.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 people
#11
#11
The "hill" metaphor doesn't fit Phil Fulmer's career very well. The idea of a career that rises, peaks, and then falls off just isn't an apt description of how the Fulmer era really went. It wasn't really this:
......__
...../....\
__/.......\__

But rather more like this:
...............__
......____/....\_____.......___
...../.......................\__/......\_ <-- fired there
__/

When we say "program in decline" about the Fulmer era, we mean not a complete fall from grace, but instead this nagging feeling of complacency, of not achieving what it could, of accepting mediocrity (which back in those halcyon days meant 9- and 10-win seasons right up to the end, interspersed with 5- or 6-win ones).

So yep, the complacency ("the start of the decline") has its roots probably in the few years after the NC ... 2001 is a decent marker. But the Vols Dark Ages didn't start until Fulmer's final year, 2008.

Fulmer took over a top 15 program from Majors in 93. The lowest point was 2008, not at the beginning of Fulmer's career as HC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#12
#12
Fulmer took over a top 15 program from Majors in 93. The lowest point was 2008, not at the beginning of Fulmer's career as HC.

You're right, of course. It's just hard to depict how well the program was performing throughout his tenure without building it up from some base (without seeing a valley, you'd never know we were on mountains) ... a necessity of the simplistic graphics rather than his record.

EDIT: Here is an accurate graph, based on #wins:

Fulmer%20Era%20Wins.png


SECOND EDIT: Just for fun, here's a chart of #wins over the 38 years of our past five coaches (including current Coach Jones). It's interesting to look at the general trends:

Wins%20from%20Majors%20to%20Jones.png


Majors era was a general trend of gradual improvement. Fulmer took the program to the pinnacle, but then fell off. Then the Dark Ages came. And now, just at the very tail end of the chart, are we climbing out of that valley.

Go Vols!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#13
#13
Just keep recruiting, out recruit the competition, and then try to out recruit the previous signing class.. Enough Jimmys and Joes will beat the Xs and Os.. Recruit Butch Recruit!!!
 
#14
#14
Majors put Tennessee on a sound foundation.. His teams weren't as talented as Fulmers, but execution and fundamentals Majors was the best.. The man knew his football. He just always lost one or two he shouldn't have but you always knew his teams were going to be smart and fundamentally strong. Tennessee was in bad shape when CJM took over, much like what CBJ inherited.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#15
#15
You're right, of course. It's just hard to depict how well the program was performing throughout his tenure without building it up from some base (without seeing a valley, you'd never know we were on mountains) ... a necessity of the simplistic graphics rather than his record.

EDIT: Here is an accurate graph, based on #wins:

Fulmer%20Era%20Wins.png


SECOND EDIT: Just for fun, here's a chart of #wins over the 38 years of our past five coaches (including current Coach Jones). It's interesting to look at the general trends:

Wins%20from%20Majors%20to%20Jones.png


Majors era was a general trend of gradual improvement. Fulmer took the program to the pinnacle, but then fell off. Then the Dark Ages came. And now, just at the very tail end of the chart, are we climbing out of that valley.

Go Vols!

I like how Butch's line is just going straight up
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#16
#16
Majors put Tennessee on a sound foundation.. His teams weren't as talented as Fulmers, but execution and fundamentals Majors was the best.. The man knew his football. He just always lost one or two he shouldn't have but you always knew his teams were going to be smart and fundamentally strong. Tennessee was in bad shape when CJM took over, much like what CBJ inherited.

You may be right on average. However the '90 Majors coached team where Chuck Webb got hurt, was about as talented a team as I've ever seen at Tennessee.
 
#17
#17
Majors put Tennessee on a sound foundation.. His teams weren't as talented as Fulmers, but execution and fundamentals Majors was the best.. The man knew his football. He just always lost one or two he shouldn't have but you always knew his teams were going to be smart and fundamentally strong. Tennessee was in bad shape when CJM took over, much like what CBJ inherited.

Majors was a very unique situation. While he did take over a bad situation from Battle, it's interesting to note that Battle won more his last 4 years than Majors did his first 4 after taking over. Strange. He wouldn't have gotten a 5th year in today's world of college football, nor would he have gotten a 5th year had he not been an all-time Tennessee great imo.

He also only had 2 10-win seasons, and had a few poor seasons after he had been there a long time.... 7-5 in his 10th year and only 5-6 in year 12 (started 0-6 in 1988).
 
#18
#18
2005 may have been Coach Fulmer's first losing season. However the start of the decline was 4 years earlier in the SEC Championship game.


I believe I'd go back further than that. I'd pick Cutcliffe's departure at the end of '98....considering how Phil's teams won 83% of the time when Cut was OC, and barely over 60% when he wasn't.
 
#20
#20
[/B]

I believe I'd go back further than that. I'd pick Cutcliffe's departure at the end of '98....considering how Phil's teams won 83% of the time when Cut was OC, and barely over 60% when he wasn't.

Best I can tell, Cut was Tennessee's OC under Fulmer 1993-1998 and then again 2006-2007. So, with Cut, Phil was 82-19-1, which was obviously outstanding...that's a .804 win %.

However, Phil was much better than "barely 60%" without him. He was 70-33, which is a .679 win %. He obviously was better with Cut, but that wasn't too shabby and it's much more accurate to say he won "nearly 68%" of his games with other OCs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#21
#21
Well, if we are going to compare CJM and CPH teams, then we also have to look at the staffs. CJM was a much better coach than he got credit for, as he had very little stability in his top coaches. He was a major stop on anybody who wanted to be a coach someday.

CPF, on the other hand, enjoyed relative stability on his staff. And when he did have major turnover, it did seem to effect him (while still great at 67.9%, at 10 point decline from 80% is still a marked decrease).
 
#22
#22
Well, if we are going to compare CJM and CPH teams, then we also have to look at the staffs. CJM was a much better coach than he got credit for, as he had very little stability in his top coaches. He was a major stop on anybody who wanted to be a coach someday.

CPF, on the other hand, enjoyed relative stability on his staff. And when he did have major turnover, it did seem to effect him (while still great at 67.9%, at 10 point decline from 80% is still a marked decrease).

Hiring and keeping a staff as a head coach is part of the deal and quite frankly, part of the equation when attempting to evaluate how good they were/are at their jobs. The records are what they are. Bottom line, after many years of mixed results, Johnny did a nice job of stabilizing and building the program toward the end of his tenure....Fulmer then took what Majors left him and took the program to another level/heights not seen since the Neyland era.
 
#23
#23
Hiring and keeping a staff as a head coach is part of the deal and quite frankly, part of the equation when attempting to evaluate how good they were/are at their jobs. The records are what they are. Bottom line, after many years of mixed results, Johnny did a nice job of stabilizing and building the program toward the end of his tenure....Fulmer then took what Majors left him and took the program to another level/heights not seen since the Neyland era.

Agree. But Johnny wasn't as bad as some remember. If he could have kept more coaching talent longer, he would have had better records. The Sugar Vols were a great break through and relief back then. We still carried a chip on a shoulder in those days when we knew we were the better team, and we just weren't given the rankings that some others with similar records were given.

Was it time from CJM to move on? Absolutely. His health and temperament dictated it. Was CPF the right choice? Again, absolutely. But one skill he never got from CJM was ability to replace someone as important as an OC and not really miss a beat.

I think that the real issue was the position of AD. AD Hamilton was a disaster that contributed as much to the Dark Years of Vol sports as any coach.
 
Last edited:
#24
#24
Agree. But Johnny wasn't as bad as some remember. If he could have kept more coaching talent longer, he would have had better records. The Sugar Vols were a great break through and relief back then. We still carried a chip on a shoulder in those days when we knew we were the better team, and we just weren't given the rankings that some others with similar records were given.

Was it time from CJM to move on? Absolutely. His health and temperament dictated it. Was CPF the right choice? Again, absolutely. But one skill he never got from CJM was ability to replace someone as important as an OC and not really miss a beat.

I think that the real issue was the position of AD. AD Hamilton was a disaster that contributed as much to the Dark Years of Vol sports as any coach.

Don't think Johnny was bad at all. As a matter of fact he was the man when I was a student. Extremely fond memories of the '85, '87 and '89 teams in particular. Had a blast at the '90 Sugar Bowl. I have no ill feelings of Majors really at all, other than how he's behaved towards Phil all these years later....he definitely holds a grudge. Just find it a little odd that so many wanna trash Fulmer and only exalt Majors when Fulmer had signicantly more success at Tennessee than Johnny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#25
#25
Don't think Johnny was bad at all. As a matter of fact he was the man when I was a student. Extremely fond memories of the '85, '87 and '89 teams in particular. Had a blast at the '90 Sugar Bowl. I have no ill feelings of Majors really at all, other than how he's behaved towards Phil all these years later....he definitely holds a grudge. Just find it a little odd that so many wanna trash Fulmer and only exalt Majors when Fulmer had signicantly more success at Tennessee than Johnny.

I actually think you and I might be on the same page. :thumbsup:
 

VN Store



Back
Top