Butch says it takes 6 to 7 years to build a program in the SEC

[jbr82]

After USCw had an awful decade in the 90s pete carroll came in and went 6-6 first yr and won 11-12 games for like 6 yrs in a row. Champs his 4th yr I think.

 

[titansvolsfaninga]

Other factors like recruiting, facilities, resources, and recent and overall history that all favor Tennessee.

But yes, the bolded is probably true of Walt Harris and not Derek Dooley. Tennessee and its consistent top-20 recruiting classes was a team devoid of talent and winning games on Dooley's coaching, while Stanford and its 149th-ranked senior class was a sleeping giant loaded with talent.

I don't want to spend too much time on this, though, because this comparison has to be the dumbest thing posted on this board in the past month. I'm sure next you'll be saying that the situation Butch inherited was worse than post-death penalty SMU.

You don't get points on game day or wins for the bolded. That is a recruiting mechanism. At the end of the day, history does not help you when the games start.
Also take into account Pac12 vs. SEC. There are a lot of variables that you want to gloss over. There was NO team speed. How can you compete in the SEC with NO team speed. The LB's were slow. The DB's were slow. The RB's were slow. Dooley was a horrible coach as well. He recruited offensive talent at QB and WR. It appeared he could care less about.

Harbaugh came in to Stanford and increased the win total by 3 games. CBJ came in and equaled the same win total that Dooley had, but CBJ had a less talented QB and receiving corps.

 

[jakez4ut]

i don't now that i'd go around comparing our situation to anyone else's. i'd just say it was bad when CBJ got here. and in regards to the 6-7 year thing, he didn't say it would take 6-7 years before we'd be good, he was, in the context of the conversation taking place, saying it takes 6-7 years to build the kind of competitive depth to maintain success at a high level, like an Alabama, GA, OU, LSU etc.....

 

[jbr82]

Yeah, but they were only 2-10, and since Tennessee was equal to 1-11 Stanford, Butch inherited a worse situation. Lol

Just remember, when in doubt, Tennessee was worse. I know that may sound weird coming from Tennessee fans, but you gotta just roll with it.

Vandy was worse. Go back and look at their record for last 30+ yrs.

 

[NashVol11]

Vandy was worse. Go back and look at their record for last 30+ yrs.

Yeah that was sarcasm. I agree with you

 

[Orange_Crush]

Other factors like recruiting, facilities, resources, and recent and overall history that all favor Tennessee.

But yes, the bolded is probably true of Walt Harris and not Derek Dooley. Tennessee and its consistent top-20 recruiting classes was a team devoid of talent and winning games on Dooley's coaching, while Stanford and its 149th-ranked senior class was a sleeping giant loaded with talent.

I don't want to spend too much time on this, though, because this comparison has to be the dumbest thing posted on this board in the past month. I'm sure next you'll be saying that the situation Butch inherited was worse than post-death penalty SMU.

VKA... The underlying point of your first paragraph undermines the overall point you've been trying to make about Butch. i.e. It's primarily coaching. I would tend to agree with you on this paragraph, yet I would extend it to Butch in that he inherited a program that was ill-suited talent-wise to be as short-term-successful in the SEC.

Your second paragraph resorts to the fallacy of the excluded middle. The reality of the situation was probably somewhere between those extremes.

Your third paragraph suffered from the same fallacy as the second, and I wonder if the true reason that you don't want to spend too much time on this is because you're starting to realize that the comparison, and your response to it here, undermines your overall agenda/propaganda.

 

[NashVol11]

You don't get points on game day or wins for the bolded. That is a recruiting mechanism. At the end of the day, history does not help you when the games start.
Also take into account Pac12 vs. SEC. There are a lot of variables that you want to gloss over. There was NO team speed. How can you compete in the SEC with NO team speed. The LB's were slow. The DB's were slow. The RB's were slow. Dooley was a horrible coach as well. He recruited offensive talent at QB and WR. It appeared he could care less about.

Harbaugh came in to Stanford and increased the win total by 3 games. CBJ came in and equaled the same win total that Dooley had, but CBJ had a less talented QB and receiving corps.

Have you ever considered that there wasn't much talent, but that Harbaugh is just a great coach? Nah. Can't be.

So Stanford had team speed, or they didn't need it because it's the Pac-12 and teams like Oregon or USC under Carroll weren't fast, and that's what makes 5-7 equivalent to 1-11. Got it.

 

[GAVol]

. I'm sure next you'll be saying that the situation Butch inherited was worse than post-death penalty SMU.

it wasn't that bad, but the attrition brought on by 3 coaching transitions in 4 years along with well documented busts and washouts created something akin to a team coMing off NCAA probation.

I remember a fairly prominent guy telling me that Kiffin leaving when he did would set the program back 5 years and I thought he was exaggerating. He wasn't.

 

[NashVol11]

VKA... The underlying point of your first paragraph undermines the overall point you've been trying to make about Butch. i.e. It's primarily coaching. I would tend to agree with you on this paragraph, yet I would extend it to Butch in that he inherited a program that was ill-suited talent-wise to be as short-term-successful in the SEC.

Your second paragraph resorts to the fallacy of the excluded middle. The reality of the situation was probably somewhere between those extremes.

Your third paragraph suffered from the same fallacy as the second, and I wonder if the true reason that you don't want to spend too much time on this is because you're starting to realize that the comparison, and your response to it here, undermines your overall agenda/propaganda.

Lol, yep, you got it. I'm actually afraid to spend too much time comparing Tennessee's situation to 1-11 Stanford because it's going to make ME look bad and not because it's mind-numbingly stupid.

 

[NashVol11]

it wasn't that bad, but the attrition brought on by 3 coaching transitions in 4 years along with well documented busts and washouts created something akin to a team coMing off NCAA probation.

I remember a fairly prominent guy telling me that Kiffin leaving when he did would set the program back 5 years and I thought he was exaggerating. He wasn't.

Alabama won two national titles in three years on probation, so I wouldn't say that's much of a big deal.

Hiring Dooley set us back. Once he left, we needed a couple recruiting classes of better players, but we weren't in some 5-10-year hole where we couldn't be good for a long time. To be honest, with Kiffin getting rid of so many of Fulmer's players combined with the attrition from the 2009 class, Dooley inherited a worse situation than Butch did. That was when we were really like a team under sanction and way under the scholarship limit IIRC

 

[jakez4ut]

Alabama won two national titles in three years on probation, so I wouldn't say that's much of a big deal.

Hiring Dooley set us back. Once he left, we needed a couple recruiting classes of better players, but we weren't in some 5-10-year hole where we couldn't be good for a long time. To be honest, with Kiffin getting rid of so many of Fulmer's players combined with the attrition from the 2009 class, Dooley inherited a worse situation than Butch did. That was when we were really like a team under sanction and way under the scholarship limit IIRC

what exactly are you expecting right now? or said differently, what has Butch failed at so far, from an expectation standpoint?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Alabama won two national titles in three years on probation, so I wouldn't say that's much of a big deal.

That metric would closer measure the level of talent that they had accrued, which got them on probation, not the level of attrition they had been forced to absorb leading up to the championships.

 

[MWAVolfan]

People need to cool their jets. Butch Jones is the greatest football in Tennessee history. If he says it takes 6-7 years to rebuild then by God its the truth. Have you ever been a head football coach? I bet not, which means you are completely incapable of making rational comparisons to other programs who have recovered much faster and have their teams in a position to win now.

Just so you know, Butch reserves the right to alter his prediction after our recruiting class tanks and we lose a bunch of players to the NFL. Then it will take an additional 3-4 years. I mean who else in the nation has such a big hill to climb dealing with things like this? Tennessee is so bad off because of Dooley. It's not right to just expect a traditional powerhouse to just fix their issues. You all have such unreasonable expectations. It's almost like you are really Alabama fans or Florida fans. Please just go away from here and root for them. They at least have a chance of meeting your gargantuan expectations. SMH at the fools who think Tennessee is capable of that. Didn't you see what happened to them with Fulmer and Kiffin and Dooley? I mean come on, it will take at least three decades to get to the point where UT doesn't embarrass themselves on national TV multiple times in a row. I mean, it has to be all Dooleys fault, right?

 

[NashVol11]

That metric would closer measure the level of talent that they had accrued, which got them on probation, not the level of attrition they had been forced to absorb leading up to the championships.

What are you talking about? The 2009-12 probation was because women's track athletes got free textbooks for other students in like 2006, not because they had so much football talent.

 

[NashVol11]

People need to cool their jets. Butch Jones is the greatest football in Tennessee history. If he says it takes 6-7 years to rebuild then by God its the truth. Have you ever been a head football coach? I bet not, which means you are completely incapable of making rational comparisons to other programs who have recovered much faster and have their teams in a position to win now.

Just so you know, Butch reserves the right to alter his prediction after our recruiting class tanks and we lose a bunch of players to the NFL. Then it will take an additional 3-4 years. I mean who else in the nation has such a big hill to climb dealing with things like this? Tennessee is so bad off because of Dooley. It's not right to just expect a traditional powerhouse to just fix their issues. You all have such unreasonable expectations. It's almost like you are really Alabama fans or Florida fans. Please just go away from here and root for them. They at least have a chance of meeting your gargantuan expectations. SMH at the fools who think Tennessee is capable of that. Didn't you see what happened to them with Fulmer and Kiffin and Dooley? I mean come on, it will take at least three decades to get to the point where UT doesn't embarrass themselves on national TV multiple times in a row. I mean, it has to be all Dooleys fault, right?

Lol that about sums it up

 

[Orange_Crush]

What are you talking about? The 2009-12 probation was because women's track athletes got free textbooks for other students in like 2006, not because they had so much football talent.

I'm talking about the fact that probation doesn't take current athletes off the field, but instead takes scholarships away during the probation period, so you are building your attrition (whatever level it may be) while on probation--not leading up to it. So, I'm questioning why you would use the years while on probation in an argument about attrition.

 

[utvolpj]

Alabama won two national titles in three years on probation, so I wouldn't say that's much of a big deal.

They vacated wins. That's all that happened with the "probation"

 

[NashVol11]

I'm talking about the fact that probation doesn't take current athletes off the field, but instead takes scholarships away during the probation period, so you are building your attrition (whatever level it may be) while on probation--not leading up to it. So, I'm questioning why you would use the years while on probation in an argument about attrition.

First, my point was that probation doesn't really mean anything, and that the NCAA often doesn't even take scholarships away.

My second point was that if you're referring to significant scholarship reductions, that applies much more to Dooley, who inherited 48 scholarship returnees and added 25 freshmen to get to 73 (aka under USC's scholarship limit), than it would to Butch, who inherited 65 scholarship players and brought in 20 freshmen to get to or near the full complement of 85.

Third, what you said isn't really even true. If the NCAA limits a school to, say, 80 scholarships, they generally have to get under 80 by the time the probation period starts. It's not a grace period.

 

[Orange_Crush]

They vacated wins. That's all that happened with the "probation"

Good point. I'm not an Alabama historian, and they've been on probation a lot. I wan't sure which probation he was referencing. lol

 

[Orange_Crush]

First, my point was that probation doesn't really mean anything, and that the NCAA often doesn't even take scholarships away.

My second point was that if you're referring to significant scholarship reductions, that applies much more to Dooley, who inherited 48 scholarship returnees and added 25 freshmen to get to 73 (aka under USC's scholarship limit), than it would to Butch, who inherited 65 scholarship players and brought in 20 freshmen to get to or near the full complement of 85.

Third, what you said isn't really even true. If the NCAA limits a school to, say, 80 scholarships, they generally have to get under 80 by the time the probation period starts. It's not a grace period.

Recruiting classes are usually 4 years, longer with redshirts. If a team had good talent and depth leading up to probation, they'll generally have good talent and depth while on probation.

As to your last paragraph, it generally effects recruiting and thus depth several years into probation. The school already had talent recruited and on the team. And that talent rarely transfers out. It just means that they can't absorb attrition as easily, and their recruiting while on probation is handicapped.

It shows up most noticeably later than sooner.

 

[NashVol11]

Recruiting classes are usually 4 years, longer with redshirts. If a team had good talent and depth leading up to probation, they'll generally have good talent and depth while on probation.

As to your last paragraph, it generally effects recruiting and thus depth several years into probation. The school already had talent recruited and on the team. And that talent rarely transfers out. It just means that they can't absorb attrition as easily, and their recruiting while on probation is handicapped.

It shows up most noticeably later than sooner.

It just depends on the reductions. If Alabama were cut down to 75, they'd have to get down to 75 and they're not going to do it by only signing 10 players. People will transfer, and regardless of the talent and depth you have, you're not just going to keep it because you wouldn't have the scholarships to do that.

USC had no depth immediately. They got away with it for a year, but were bad by year 2. It doesn't take long.

Scholarships aren't taken away from future recruiting classes. They're taken away from the 85 that you can have on your team, right now. I think that's where there's a disconnect here.

 

[Orange_Crush]

My second point was that if you're referring to significant scholarship reductions, that applies much more to Dooley, who inherited 48 scholarship returnees and added 25 freshmen to get to 73 (aka under USC's scholarship limit), than it would to Butch, who inherited 65 scholarship players and brought in 20 freshmen to get to or near the full complement of 85.

The attrition that Butch dealt with wasn't just total number of athletes, but talent attrition as well. There's no doubt that the level of athlete that Dooley recruited was below SEC-standard.

Just say that Bama lost 5 scholarships a year for three years. They'd probably remain pretty stable for three years due to the level of talent they'd accrued leading up to that the reduction, and any noticeable drop-off--if any-- would show up later, especially if the 80 per year they recruited were high-level recruits.

So, if you are a college coach, which would you prefer to inherit?

• A loaded Bama team that was losing 5 schollies a year for three years?
• A Bama team that had just endured a 5-scholly-per-year-reduction, but had recruited 80 studs a year?
• Or a post-Kiffin/Dooley UT with numbers issues and depleted talent?

 

[NashVol11]

Sure, you CAN get down to 75 by keeping all of your older players and signing tiny classes, but most coaches are smart enough not to do that. And even if you do that, your depth still goes out the window and quickly.

 

[NashVol11]

The attrition that Butch dealt with wasn't just total number of athletes, but talent attrition as well. There's no doubt that the level of athlete that Dooley recruited was below SEC-standard.

Just say that Bama lost 5 scholarships a year for three years. They'd probably remain pretty stable for three years due to the level of talent they'd accrued leading up to that the reduction, and any noticeable drop-off--if any-- would show up later, especially if the 80 per year they recruited were high-level recruits.

So, if you are a college coach, which would you prefer to inherit?

• A loaded Bama team that was losing 5 schollies a year for three years?
• A Bama team that had just endured a 5-scholly-per-year-reduction, but had recruited 80 studs a year?
• Or a post-Kiffin/Dooley UT with numbers issues and depleted talent?

You can't recruit 80 per year haha. That's the total on your team. That's why I'm trying to explain that reductions aren't applied to recruiting classes and thus deferred to the future. It's a statement that you have to cut down your roster right away, one way or another.

I'd rather face Bama limited to 80 than Bama after that with 85, because with 80 they have less depth. The depth issue hits hardest during the period of sanctions, not after it usually. Afterward, your depth is young, but young is better than nonexistent.

The point I was making is that if there were a time when Tennessee's situation was at rock bottom and we didn't have numbers, it was in 2010 much more than in 2013.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It just depends on the reductions. If Alabama were cut down to 75, they'd have to get down to 75 and they're not going to do it by only signing 10 players. People will transfer, and regardless of the talent and depth you have, you're not just going to keep it because you wouldn't have the scholarships to do that.

USC had no depth immediately. They got away with it for a year, but were bad by year 2. It doesn't take long.

Scholarships aren't taken away from future recruiting classes. They're taken away from the 85 that you can have on your team, right now. I think that's where there's a disconnect here.

I understand that, and it's been part of my posts. What I'm saying is that you don't lose all of your payers and have to rebuild immediately. You lose them over 4-5 years as steady attrition, which you can partially replace with good recruiting. So, even as you mentioned, the attrition will not show up until later.

See my above post.

If Bama was stocked (which they always are), then they had hugely talented athletes with depth.

They lose 10 schollies a year (which is EXTREME, by the way).

They lose 20 seniors. They restock with 75 studs. It hurt, but they still have three recruiting seasons to play, as well as ~2/3 worth of a potentially strong recruiting class.

Next year, they lose 20 seniors. They restock with 75 studs. It hurts again, but they still have two recruiting classes, 2/3 of one and 2/3 coming in.

Any true decline will reveal itself incrementally, over time. And will probably show up minimally if a team was well stocked and recruits well during probation.