Article:Fulmer Commentary - Page 3

utmba93 · 10-08-2008, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

I think Fulmer's the winner because he basically elicits the response that you gave or changes some minds about whether he is massively overpaid.

One question would be whether the inevitable association with an improved Fulmer image is of some benefit to the program? No matter how much one dislikes CPF, the program would suffer from another bad divorce with its head coach.

The contract negotiations were over when the document was signed. If it's later deemed a bad deal, it's not the fault of the better negotiator. Fulmer did win the negotiation, I'd concede that. If his donation influenced his negotiations opponent more in CPF's favor, that too should be blamed on the opposing negotiator.

BigPapaVol · 10-08-2008, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by utmba93

One question would be whether the inevitable association with an improved Fulmer image is of some benefit to the program? No matter how much one dislikes CPF, the program would suffer from another bad divorce with its head coach.

The contract negotiations were over when the document was signed. If it's later deemed a bad deal, it's not the fault of the better negotiator. Fulmer did win the negotiation, I'd concede that. If his donation influenced his negotiations opponent more in CPF's favor, that too should be blamed on the opposing negotiator.

I think it's much more about public sentiment than about the negotiation.

utmba93 · 10-08-2008, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

I think it's much more about public sentiment than about the negotiation.

At this stage, managing public sentiment should be of paramount interest to the program.

The program has gone beyond the 'gray area' in which public sentiment influences the retention decision. The outcome has (as you pointed out some time ago would be the case) been decided on the field.

**allvol** · 10-08-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slobberknocker

The 14-14 record is very telling and I believe even the average fan is now starting to look at the stats that paint a not so pretty picture.

Stats can be pulled out of context, same as words.

Johnny Majors last "28 games" stops short of 4 straight SEC losses in 1988.

Meanwhile, Fulmer's last "28 games" stops short of a 6-2 regular season record in 2004 and also includes 2 postseason SEC Championship Game losses.

If you are going to compare apples to apples, it really ought to be based on winning percentage over a period of years and should not include postseason games.

Johnny Majors' last 6 seasons had a winning percentage of 67.5%. (26-12-2)

Phillip Fulmer's last 6 seasons (including this year) has a winning percentage of 61.9%. (26-16)

Majors had 2 non-winning SEC records in that stretch, while Fulmer has had 1. Majors shared or won via probation 2 SEC titles during that stretch, while Fulmer has guided 2 teams to the SEC Championship game.

If you go back 4 seasons, the difference in win pct separates quite a bit (similar to the previously quoted records by other posters). However, if you go back 3 seasons for each, they are back to being very similar again.

Now that we've got that out of the way, the reason that Majors was fired was not because of his record. Majors put together some good teams towards the end of his career and with Neyland, Majors, and Fulmer, Tennessee is one of a handful of schools with 3 coaches that have 100+ career victories.

In today's knee-jerk, fast-food society, everybody wants to react immediately. Let's see how the season plays out before making a decision. If the Vols finish 6-6 with the talent they've got, I am all for getting a new coach. However, more times than not since 1993, the Vols find a way to win more SEC games than they lose (with exception being 2005).

Also, remember that one team lost 4-of-5 games 2 seasons ago, including losses to Kentucky and Vanderbilt. Fans wanted the coach gone. They were on the verge of a national title last season and were ranked no. 1 to start this year. Same quarterback for all 3 seasons...... Georgia.

**orange+white=heaven** · 10-08-2008, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by allvol

Stats can be pulled out of context, same as words..

I love it when you jump in with those numbers...

cd12 · 10-08-2008, 11:59 AM

Where is all this talent everyone mentions? Eric Berry no doubt but who else among this group could start for the the nation's elite? Ask those familiar with the program and they will say that is the root of our problem. Which leads back to the HFC.

**oklavol** · 10-08-2008, 12:23 PM

This will be a moot point by the end of the season when UT is 5-7. Two losing seasons in 4 years and he's done. He knows it, we know it.

zjcvols · 10-08-2008, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oklavol

This will be a moot point by the end of the season when UT is 5-7. Two losing seasons in 4 years and he's done. He knows it, we know it.

I totally agree. two losing seasons in four years should get you fired at a storied program like tennessee.

BigPapaVol · 10-08-2008, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zjcvols

I totally agree. one losing season ever with the number of cupcakes teams play now should get you fired at a storied program like tennessee.

fyp

**jakez4ut** · 10-08-2008, 12:50 PM

bpv.......cupcakes is a bit of a stretch considering the weight the SEC schecule carries and that we do still routinely schecule, if nothing else in name value alone, BCS non conf. teams.

i think we're one of a few SEC schools that acutally does schedule well OOC.....

of course all that said, losing to a putrid UCLA team and hanging on to beat a mid level MAC team...at home...i get your point.

BigPapaVol · 10-08-2008, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakez4ut

bpv.......cupcakes is a bit of a stretch considering the weight the SEC schecule carries and that we do still routinely schecule, if nothing else in name value alone, BCS non conf. teams.

i think we're one of a few SEC schools that acutally does schedule well OOC.....

of course all that said, losing to a putrid UCLA team and hanging on to beat a mid level MAC team...at home...i get your point.

that might be strong, but each year we play roughly 3 OOC cupcakes + Vandy + Kentucky + SC + one of the MS schools or Auburn.

We play about 4 games that we should expect to be tossups or better or worse depending on the year. The rest are essentially fluff.

**jakez4ut** · 10-08-2008, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

that might be strong, but each year we play roughly 3 OOC cupcakes + Vandy + Kentucky + SC + one of the MS schools or Auburn.

We play about 4 games that we should expect to be tossups or better or worse depending on the year. The rest are essentially fluff.

i'll put it this way, if your asking me if we should be able to go a minimum of 8-4 against most any schedule we would ever play, i would agree with that.

BigPapaVol · 10-08-2008, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakez4ut

i'll put it this way, if your asking me if we should be able to go a minimum of 8-4 against most any schedule we would ever play, i would agree with that.

that was my point in saying that a .500 season is an absolute failure and warrants dismissal of the guy at the helm.

**orange+white=heaven** · 10-08-2008, 01:51 PM

I guess I really just posted this to point out that media folk who have spent the last 3 years calling people who wanted Phil gone, ridiculous.... are now walking towards the light...

Sunday morning, buckets of ink will be spent explaining what has been painfully obvious for a very long time.

**jakez4ut** · 10-08-2008, 01:53 PM

if they do lose Saturday, that likely could be the tipping point at which they start to lose the team. If that happens, then there's not much to stop the inevitable.