Once and For All: The Fulmer Debate Ends Here

[VegasVol]

It's ironic that you keep telling me that I'm changing my standards when I'm simply not. However, you clearly are. If you had paid any attention to my stats of the coaches that Fulmer fell on his face against, you would know that I provided their stats on the whole while they were at an SEC program. For example, I provided Saban's record on the whole at LSU, not just his SEC record. I did the same thing with Solich at Nebraska. He had a .753 winning percentage at Nebraska.

It is asinine to compare UNC and South Carolina football to Texas and Tennessee. Consequently, I have no idea why you threw out Brown and Spurrier's records at those schools. Funny enough, I believe Fulmer was only 2-2 against Spurrier while he was at South Carolina... Fairly pathetic when you consider the talent difference (or should be) and overall program difference. Btw, you're the one who stated "Brown @ Texas"... Now you're giving me his UNC record... Who keeps changing the standard again??

Another change in your approach is that you picked one coach that Spurrier struggled with while he was at Florida, while I gave you 6 different coaches at 4 different programs over the course of 17 seasons. If Fulmer had been piss poor against just one guy, you might have a point. And, for a while before the SEC hired coaches who knew how to run a program, it was just one guy. That changed around 1999, and Fulmer was completely exposed.

Nice try.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

1. Then you're elevating a coach's non-conference schedule as the basis to call them "good" or not. The question you're dodging is why use a "75%" win record at a particular school (and not even their conference record) as the standard for a "good" coach? How, then can you simultaneously claim the coach is not a "good" coach unless he also has a winning record against other 75% win-rate coaches? How can you include Solich as a good coach when he doesn't fit that latter standard? Doesn't your standard require to admit Fulmer as a good coach when he had the magical 75% win rate you've chosen as the definition of a good coach? You keep dodging these answers.

2. Here's your inconsistency. You include a 75% win rate coach when defining a "good" coach for win-loss record, but then exclude many of those same coaches from the label "good" coach based on that win rate against other coaches. You can't have it both ways. Either a 75% win rate means they are a good coach or not.

3. It is asinine to compare Tennessee to Texas. Another critical flaw in your methodology is that you refuse to account for local-talent differential when it comes to Tennessee but elevate it to extraordinary heights when it comes to North Carolina in the ACC, South Carolina in the SEC, Michigan State in the Big 10, etc. Pretending Tennessee has the same talent advantage relative to the SEC that Texas has to the Big 12 is one of the most ridiculous comments I've heard, but commonplace for the kiddies on this site still in delusional status about out inherent weaknesses in our program relative to the SEC elite.

4. You're the one who keeps changing the standard. If a win rate defines a "good" coach 75%, then Mack Brown's failures at North Carolina against Florida State make him a worse coach than Fulmer in your view (aside from your continuing contradiction about when a 75% win rate coach is a good coach or not). If you can't follow your own logic, I can't help you there.

5. Spurrier also has losing records against Meyer, Chizik, and any coach named Bowden, be it Terry Bowden, Tommy Bowden or Bobby Bowden.

Lastly, you've created a standard that excludes a wide range of good coaches (like coaches with a winning record in SEC play and a win rate of 65% or better at their program) because if you included those coaches, Fulmer's numbers go way up. You don't want to include those coaches, so you searched out a win rate number high enough to exclude coaches Fulmer beat constantly. The problem is you can't even apply that magical 75% win rate standard with any consistency (since it includes Fulmer as a good coach by your own definition), and manages to condemn a wide range of hall-of-fame coaches who didn't beat their more talented opponent (once you get to a 75% win rate, you're often talking about coaches at talent-rich programs, where talent, not coaching, is the difference in outcome).

 

[VegasVol]

Definitely. Fulmer losing to Vanderbilt with a loaded 2005 team and then to Wyoming in 2008 with senior-laden roster is clearly the same as Dooley and Kiffin getting bowl-eligible in year one with virtually zero depth and freshmen and walk-ons contributing so much.

Welcome to kiddie-world, where they have to go to Fulmer's worst games of his worst seasons to make his successors look good, because his successors have only done better than his two worst seasons in Knoxville, and come nowhere close to his average or good seasons in Knoxville, which constituted 15 years of the 17 years he helmed the Hill.

 

[VegasVol]

I don't need to provide anything.

And you typically don't. Kudos.

 

[LWSVOL]

I have no interest in engaging in this debate as it is far time to put it in the past. I will say this about my good friend and former coach.

Phillip Fulmer was not close to being the best college football coach to walk a college sideline. There were/are many college coaches that will be viewed as better than him and were IMO.

At the same time, he did much better than the vast majority of D-1 college football coaches that have walked the sidelines on college campuses.

the main reason that this argument will continue for many years is the extreme bias that those have on both sides of this argument. those that argue so hard either hate the man or love the man... he will never get credit for his accomplishments from the haters and will be raised up to higher standards then he made by those that love him. Just the way life works.

 

[Volfan8282]

1. Then you're elevating a coach's non-conference schedule as the basis to call them "good" or not. The question you're dodging is why use a "75%" win record at a particular school (and not even their conference record) as the standard for a "good" coach? How, then can you simultaneously claim the coach is not a "good" coach unless he also has a winning record against other 75% win-rate coaches? How can you include Solich as a good coach when he doesn't fit that latter standard? Doesn't your standard require to admit Fulmer as a good coach when he had the magical 75% win rate you've chosen as the definition of a good coach? You keep dodging these answers.

2. Here's your inconsistency. You include a 75% win rate coach when defining a "good" coach for win-loss record, but then exclude many of those same coaches from the label "good" coach based on that win rate against other coaches. You can't have it both ways. Either a 75% win rate means they are a good coach or not.

3. It is asinine to compare Tennessee to Texas. Another critical flaw in your methodology is that you refuse to account for local-talent differential when it comes to Tennessee but elevate it to extraordinary heights when it comes to North Carolina in the ACC, South Carolina in the SEC, Michigan State in the Big 10, etc. Pretending Tennessee has the same talent advantage relative to the SEC that Texas has to the Big 12 is one of the most ridiculous comments I've heard, but commonplace for the kiddies on this site still in delusional status about out inherent weaknesses in our program relative to the SEC elite.

4. You're the one who keeps changing the standard. If a win rate defines a "good" coach 75%, then Mack Brown's failures at North Carolina against Florida State make him a worse coach than Fulmer in your view (aside from your continuing contradiction about when a 75% win rate coach is a good coach or not). If you can't follow your own logic, I can't help you there.

5. Spurrier also has losing records against Meyer, Chizik, and any coach named Bowden, be it Terry Bowden, Tommy Bowden or Bobby Bowden.

Lastly, you've created a standard that excludes a wide range of good coaches (like coaches with a winning record in SEC play and a win rate of 65% or better at their program) because if you included those coaches, Fulmer's numbers go way up. You don't want to include those coaches, so you searched out a win rate number high enough to exclude coaches Fulmer beat constantly. The problem is you can't even apply that magical 75% win rate standard with any consistency (since it includes Fulmer as a good coach by your own definition), and manages to condemn a wide range of hall-of-fame coaches who didn't beat their more talented opponent (once you get to a 75% win rate, you're often talking about coaches at talent-rich programs, where talent, not coaching, is the difference in outcome).

You apparently have way too much time on your hands. Regardless, I'm not going to continue arguing with you. I'll leave it at this: I wouldn't state that every coach who has a .750 winning percentage is a good/great coach... I believe a lot of them are, but not all. If I've said that somewhere, then I retract that statement. Larry Coker at Miami for example is not on an elite level by any means even though he had a .800 winning percentage there overall.

I guess my reason for picking that number is that over the course of Fulmer's career in the SEC, those were the coaches/teams that we had to get through to do anything of significance in the conference. He got through them at basically a 30% clip, and that doesn't cut it for me. It apparently did cut it for you, and that's fine. Later on.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[kptvol]

And you typically don't. Kudos.

I'm sure it's frustrating having to torture numbers in an effort to make a guy that was at his best the second best in his conference. It's just not required when you're choose to side with reality.

 

[kptvol]

Welcome to kiddie-world, where they have to go to Fulmer's worst games of his worst seasons to make his successors look good,

You're right. When talking about what Kiffin and Dooley should have done with the 2009 and 2010 teams it makes way more sense to look at the Manning years and 1998 than it does to look at 2008. I guess it's the kid in me that thinks looking at how things turned out with the same coaches in place and many of the same players is more relevant than discussing what occurred when our current roster was busying learning the alphabet.

 

[VegasVol]

You're right. When talking about what Kiffin and Dooley should have done with the 2009 and 2010 teams it makes way more sense to look at the Manning years and 1998 than it does to look at 2008. I guess it's the kid in me that thinks looking at how things turned out with the same coaches in place and many of the same players is more relevant than discussing what occurred when our current roster was busying learning the alphabet.

How about compare 2006-2007 to 2009-2010, the most analogous time periods? Are we worse off in 09-10 than we were in 06-07?

 

[VegasVol]

I'm sure it's frustrating having to torture numbers in an effort to make a guy that was at his best the second best in his conference. It's just not required when you're choose to side with reality.

I prefer 2nd best in the SEC to 6th best, which is where we are headed.

 

[rote]

 

[VolDad]

I prefer 2nd best in the SEC to 6th best, which is where we are headed.

The reward is the same which is why Fulmer was fired and nobody will hire him.

 

[kptvol]

How about compare 2006-2007 to 2009-2010, the most analogous time periods?

We lost four games both years. Depending on how Dooley does in his first bowl game, we could end up losing 2 more games per year with two first year coaches. I saw quite a few games this year and last that nearly swung the other way. I'm not sure why it's so difficult to believe once these coaches get a few more of their players in place and get past the kinks that normally come with installing a new system that we can't improve by a couple of games.

Are we worse off in 09-10 than we were in 06-07?

Do you think next year will be 5-win season?

 

[kptvol]

I prefer 2nd best in the SEC to 6th best, which is where we are headed.

Right. Clearly we hadn't already been passed up by Florida, Bama, and LSU. Auburn and UGA weren't exactly in our rear view, either.

Lady Luck blessing us to be .500 against South Carolina was a great sign, too.

 

[GAVol]

Do you think next year will be 5-win season?

I would add to that question . . . What would be a bigger coaching failure - winning only 5 games next year or winning 5 games in 2005 and 2008?

 

[vol_in_ar]

I have no interest in engaging in this debate as it is far time to put it in the past. I will say this about my good friend and former coach.

Phillip Fulmer was not close to being the best college football coach to walk a college sideline. There were/are many college coaches that will be viewed as better than him and were IMO.

At the same time, he did much better than the vast majority of D-1 college football coaches that have walked the sidelines on college campuses.

the main reason that this argument will continue for many years is the extreme bias that those have on both sides of this argument. those that argue so hard either hate the man or love the man... he will never get credit for his accomplishments from the haters and will be raised up to higher standards then he made by those that love him. Just the way life works.

good post

 

[Volgrad98]

good post

Yes, that should end the debate right there but...