Dabo vs Butch

[Remy]

There's always a danger the guy you have is what he is, a perennial 9 win coach. That will not get it at UT, EVER! That said going decades as a program hiring new guys that generally dips into 5,6,7 wins seasons on his way to his cap of 8/9 win seasons again will also NEVER work at UT either.

You only have a few paths to take until you find the one if ever? Some of which:

* Hire an up and comer with a solid support base by the UTAD for X amount of years (6, 7, or 8) where clear outcomes are on paper, must win SEC East or SEC championship(s), beat Bama X amount, etc etc

* Hire the glamour guy, big name, big pay, chance of success very high but expectations should not be lowered.

* Keep doing what you've been doing, canning a coach that does not make the SECG approximately every 5 years marching on into mediocrity

I submit you cannot have it every way which is what some here want. You're not going to hire up and comers, or even established coaches at $4 million per year in today's market in the SEC, and have a person that is guaranteed to perform like a glamour guy. Likewise hiring glamour guys are not a guarantee, Harbaugh at Michigan just completed his second season as a $9 million per year hire not having his conference title, gotten into the NC game, nor even beaten OSU yet. At UT we are at a crossroads IMO, do we can a 9-4 guy for another guy to come in and 4 or 5 years down the road (about another decade wasted by the way) have the same conversation about another 9-4 guy and then hire his clone after him who comes n at 9-4 and so on and so on? Another path is do you risk a 4th or 5th year guy who comes in at 9-4 with some bad losses for another couple of years into 7 or 8 breaking the cycle even though it's a risk? Which path is it sunshiners and negas?

 

[Bigorangefaninga]

the problem is, Harbaugh played in a conference with quiet a few top level teams, yes the big ten was overrated but besides Alabama everyone in the SEC was mediocre even LSU. So there was Bama and a bunch of 9 win teams. Auburn went to the Sugar where UT should have been and got killed because they weren't very good and LSU didnt have much offense which is why Florida beat them and they lost to teams like Wisky with middle of the road defenses. Penn State, OSU and Michigan would have easily won the SECeast this year. So he has them pointed in the right direction and i just dont see any way this team wins more than 8 games next year as a ceiling but 6-6 or 7-5 is more likely and we are right back to mediocre at best.

 

[JC61]

Nice rant. The ACC is 10-4 against the SEC this season, so theres that.

they had a good bowl season; OTOH, 3 teams accounted for 80% of those wins....good thing Jones managed to win his head to head v. the ACC...so there's that.

 

[volfannbama]

they had a good bowl season; OTOH, 3 teams accounted for 80% of those wins....good thing Jones managed to win his head to head v. the ACC...so there's that.

I tend to look at the performance on the field instead of the all the other clutter that people attempt to use to validate shortcomings. The ACC also had a better record against the Big Ten as well, 6-2 I believe. The SEC dominance things is sort of like the South will Rise again thing. Some people will never believe it is gone regardless of fact or personal embarrassment they bring upon themselves.

 

[JC61]

I tend to look at the performance on the field instead of the all the other clutter that people attempt to use to validate shortcomings. The ACC also had a better record against the Big Ten as well, 6-2 I believe. The SEC dominance things is sort of like the South will Rise again thing. Some people will never believe it is gone regardless of fact or personal embarrassment they bring upon themselves.

not sure what you're getting at.

Clemson, FSU and GT accounted for 8 of those 10 wins.

Outside Clemson beating UA there were no ah-ha wins...most were mediocre teams beating mediocre teams.

Thing is, just about every conference has their top 2 or 3, a mediocre middle and a weak bottom. Some just have more teams lumped in the bottom.

I do think the SEC is a bit harder due to the physicality and parity across the board...it showed in the conference records this year. Then again, maybe its only because the SEC was/is trending down.

 

[daniel3417]

Just to compare. Not meant to be bashing or supporting just looking at stats ONLY......

Dabo conference record first 4 years..... 19-10
Butch...... 14-18

Overall record Dabo...... 29-19 Bowl record 1-3
Butch....... 30-21........ Bowl record 3-0

Dabo one conference and one division title
Butch None

Recruiting
Dabo..... 31, 28, 10, 15 ( first 4 full years)
Butch..... 24, 7, 4, 14

Butch champions of life
Dabo champions of life, love and football

Food for thought

If you look at Dabo's first full four seasons, it changes things a bit, since he was an interim coach in 2008 without no recruiting, spring practice or preseason planning responsibilities:

Dabo conference record first 4 years..... 23-9
Butch...... 14-18

Overall record Dabo...... 36-18 Bowl record 2-2
Butch....... 30-21........ Bowl record 3-0

Dabo one conference and two division titles
Butch None

 

[imagine17]

Clemson has a significantly better staff, while we have more assets. We have several key coaches with no ties to the southeast or experience in the SEC.

 

[rocytop2624]

I don't think Butch can do what Dabo did in those years. Look at Clemson's record beginning in 2011, his 4th year.

he had 1 more win and in 2011 sec was alot stronger than ACC. SEC will always be stronger top to bottom then ACC
.

 

[volfannbama]

he had 1 more win and in 2011 sec was alot stronger than ACC. SEC will always be stronger top to bottom then ACC
.

And this type of thinking is the problem... regardless of the SEC record against other conference, the SEC is always better for no other reason than SEC SEC SEC.