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

[daj2576]

Usually a program is "built" before they win a national championship. If a built program means winning national championships then there are a lot of programs that will never be built.

The comment I was responding to was the "idea that it takes 6-7 years to win anything". Ironically, that's exactly the average it takes to win a national championship.

 

[thebjd]

The comment I was responding to was the "idea that it takes 6-7 years to win anything". Ironically, that's exactly the average it takes to win a national championship.

I was hard on Jones for the Florida and Oklahoma choke jobs but I don't think building a program should mean winning a national championship. If 6-7 years includes a national championship I will take it.

 

[NashVol11]

The comment I was responding to was the "idea that it takes 6-7 years to win anything". Ironically, that's exactly the average it takes to win a national championship.

Lol the average is utterly worthless with Bowden and Osborne as gigantic outliers, especially if they're counted multiple times. Using the median would make much more sense

 

[NashVol11]

And, by either metric, I'd imagine it changes dramatically from 2000 on.

 

[Eddie Vol Halen]

It was coaching to just be in that game on the road. You can always find a decision or two after the fact in a close game. More than anything though, the other team was just better in that one.

I don't think so.

We had a lead in the fourth quarter. The Red Team made championship plays against solid D in crunch time. Our guys played their guts out and were in position on those passes.

I think Butch's Monday - Friday preparation is without fault. In the Bama game, it was the in-game decision to keep kicking Medley from distance that eventually meant Bama only needed one Championship drive to win.

Not saying that we would have put more points on the board if we use Bullock or go for it in that "zone of indecision" but the analytics at that time were very clear, especially after Medley missed the first field goal twice. Butch should have said: "Don't worry about it, AM. We won't kick from 40 today. Be ready to hit the 35 yard game winner."

 

[alexbond45]

And, by either metric, I'd imagine it changes dramatically from 2000 on.

The question should not be WHEN the championship is won, but more on the lines of SUSTAINED SUCCESS.

The Miami Hurricanes won in 2002...and then faded away. Is this what you want in a program? No...you want Alabama. As much as I hate Nick Saban, he has proved to be a brilliant college football coach who can sustain a program for multiple years despite the overall strength of college football as a whole.

In fact, only a few teams have repeated National Titles since 2000:
Alabama (3)[2009, 2011, 2012]
LSU (2) [2003, 2007]
USC (2, 1 vacated) [2003, 2004]
Ohio State (2) [2002, 2015]
Florida (2) [2006, 2008]

Of those teams, OSU and LSU had different head coaches on their second national championships. It should be noted that Urban Meyer was the coach for OSU on their second, as well as Florida for both of theirs. In addition, LSU's 2003 National Title is shared with USC, because the AP Poll decided to crown USC, while the BCS crowned LSU.

Thus, counting USC's vacated 2004 season, 10 out of the past 15 seasons have been by the same few teams.

The defense rests.

EDIT: Accidentally gave Bama 4 Nattys. I now understand how they miscount how many they have :crazy:

 

[Grand Vol]

EDIT: Accidentally gave Bama 4 Nattys. I now understand how they miscount how many they have :crazy:

According to most Bammers, you're shortchanging them about 15 titles.

 

[KBVol]

You whats funny, its all Butchs fault when we lose and not because of him when we win.

Who on here has not given him credit for any of his wins or has said the Vols won despite him? 99 if not 100% of the stuff I've seen on here criticizing Jones has to do with the Florida and Oklahoma losses and his demonstrable mistakes in how he "managed" those games. Most everybody else hasn't even remotely blamed him for the Arky and Bama losses, much less criticize him in much of any way regarding the wins, which I think is fair.

 

[ReaderVol]

Who on here has not given him credit for any of his wins or has said the Vols won despite him? 99 if not 100% of the stuff I've seen on here criticizing Jones has to do with the Florida and Oklahoma losses and his demonstrable mistakes in how he "managed" those games. Most everybody else hasn't even remotely blamed him for the Arky and Bama losses, much less criticize him in much of any way regarding the wins, which I think is fair.

Clay Travis has spoken. (Clay Travis worshiper actually)

 

[BruisedOrange]

Here's a simplified way of defending the 6 to 7 years remark:

When you recruit to a SEC championship level, each year you must have outstanding players ready to replace 2 or 3 of your best players who will be NFL early-entrants.

Also, I think SEC teams average about 21 missed starts per season due to injuries, the highest rate of any conference. You have to have experienced, quality depth to replace those players throughout the season.

 

[KBVol]

Here's a simplified way of defending the 6 to 7 years remark:

When you recruit to a SEC championship level, each year you must have outstanding players ready to replace 2 or 3 of your best players who will be NFL early-entrants.

Also, I think SEC teams average about 21 missed starts per season due to injuries, the highest rate of any conference. You have to have experienced, quality depth to replace those players throughout the season.

It takes 7 years to get quality depth on your team? So he has to graduate his entire first class and then get 3 years deep after graduating that initial class before he has enough depth to replace a handful of players that may leave early for the draft? Said another way, he has to bring in approximately 150-175 players before we should expect to have enough talent/depth/experience to win at a high level/consistently be able to at least go .500 vs your top rivals? Don't you think that's a bit excessive?

 

[The Tall Gguy]

I was originally worried about Butch's ability to recruit in the SEC. He has calmed that fear so far...but now I wonder how long he can keep that up. The next 2 recruiting classes will be very telling.

I'm afraid that it is do or die time as far as winning the SEC and the National Championship.

 

[jakez4ut]

It takes 7 years to get quality depth on your team? So he has to graduate his entire first class and then get 3 years deep after graduating that initial class before he has enough depth to replace a handful of players that may leave early for the draft? Said another way, he has to bring in approximately 150-175 players before we should expect to have enough talent/depth/experience to win at a high level/consistently be able to at least go .500 vs your top rivals? Don't you think that's a bit excessive?

no, that's not what he said..

he said it takes 6-7 years to build the kind of competitive depth needed to maintain success at that high of a level. in regards to the conversation that spawned this thing, it was in direct response to statements made about RS juniors and RS seniors on a given roster.

and they weren't wrong.

no where in that statement was anything said or implied that we won't, shouldn't expect or won't have a chance to win meaningful games or compete for c'ships along the way.

CBJ's long term outlook is to have a program like an Alabama or OU that can maintain success over a long period of time. but you don't just "get there"...you do have to build up to that.

but that doesn't mean you can't/won't win at a high level along the way.

 

[jakez4ut]

I was originally worried about Butch's ability to recruit in the SEC. He has calmed that fear so far...but now I wonder how long he can keep that up. The next 2 recruiting classes will be very telling.

I'm afraid that it is do or die time as far as winning the SEC and the National Championship.

i don't know about that.

but i do think that while this class for 2016 won't have the wow factor the last two did, it will be a quality class. it just won't have the volume of the last two.

more importantly, next year, to maintain momentum in recruiting, so he can continue to build toward that "competitive depth" he desires, we have to show that we're in that conversation with the upper tier of the SEC.

if we do that, then we just might be in ATL and part of that play off conversation.

i've already said it multiple times. all my eggs for now are in the BEAT FL basket. we do that, and the season will have a far different narrative. the challenge for team 120 would be how do they handle success....not how they respond to adversity.

the future of the program uncer CBJ i think really hinges on what he's able to do with the team we have returning next year.

lose to FL again....is anyone going to believe? it doesn't mean we can't have a really good season. but really...if you want to be relevant...beat FL.

 

[ReaderVol]

no, that's not what he said..

he said it takes 6-7 years to build the kind of competitive depth needed to maintain success at that high of a level. in regards to the conversation that spawned this thing, it was in direct response to statements made about RS juniors and RS seniors on a given roster.

and they weren't wrong.

no where in that statement was anything said or implied that we won't, shouldn't expect or won't have a chance to win meaningful games or compete for c'ships along the way.

CBJ's long term outlook is to have a program like an Alabama or OU that can maintain success over a long period of time. but you don't just "get there"...you do have to build up to that.

but that doesn't mean you can't/won't win at a high level along the way.

He knows exactly what you stated is true. He fancies himself a "Clay Travis" type and thinks it makes him cool to be the constant antagonist. He's wrong a lot.

 

[jakez4ut]

He knows exactly what you stated is true. He fancies himself a "Clay Travis" type and thinks it makes him cool to be the constant antagonist. He's wrong a lot.

and what exactly do you think you are?

 

[KBVol]

no, that's not what he said..

he said it takes 6-7 years to build the kind of competitive depth needed to maintain success at that high of a level. in regards to the conversation that spawned this thing, it was in direct response to statements made about RS juniors and RS seniors on a given roster.

and they weren't wrong.

no where in that statement was anything said or implied that we won't, shouldn't expect or won't have a chance to win meaningful games or compete for c'ships along the way.

CBJ's long term outlook is to have a program like an Alabama or OU that can maintain success over a long period of time. but you don't just "get there"...you do have to build up to that.

but that doesn't mean you can't/won't win at a high level along the way.

Please read the post I directly responded to.

 

[ReaderVol]

and what exactly do you think you are?

Honest evaluator.

 

[daj2576]

Lol the average is utterly worthless with Bowden and Osborne as gigantic outliers, especially if they're counted multiple times. Using the median would make much more sense

"Utterly worthless" is utter hyperbole. You're talking about a relatively small group of data. Removing two, simply because it skews the data from where you'd want it, is more akin to messaging data to get the answer you like, then allowing the data to speak for itself.

Further, if you remove upper outliers, you also need to remove the low outliers too, right?

Fulmer was basically the average of all of the data.

If you remove the upper outliers,and give your position the most merit, the average drops to 3 years.

 

[GAVol]

It's better now with the playoff, but in the past I'd say national titles involved almost too much luck to even evaluate anyone negatively over. You certainly can't look back any further than 1998.

 

[jakez4ut]

Please read the post I directly responded to.

duly noted.:thumbsup:

 

[daj2576]

Would you disagree?

How many games have we won that we shouldn't? 2013 South Carolina and...? Georgia?

That's an interesting standard.

For a base line comparison, tell me how many games has Saban won that he shouldn't over the same period?

Once we iron out that metric, tell me what it means to "win a game you shouldnt". Because right now it appears you've set a subjective standard, and are judging that on a sliding subjective scale.

 

[ReaderVol]

That's an interesting standard.

For a base line comparison, tell me how many games has Saban won that he shouldn't over the same period?

Once we iron out that metric, tell me what it means to "win a game you shouldnt". Because right now it appears you've set a subjective standard, and are judging that on a sliding subjective scale.

Your post just gave him a headache. You posted way over his head.

 

[NashVol11]

"Utterly worthless" is utter hyperbole. You're talking about a relatively small group of data. Removing two, simply because it skews the data from where you'd want it, is more akin to messaging data to get the answer you like, then allowing the data to speak for itself.

Further, if you remove upper outliers, you also need to remove the low outliers too, right?

Fulmer was basically the average of all of the data.

If you remove the upper outliers,and give your position the most merit, the average drops to 3 years.

There's a formula for calculating outliers based on standard deviation from the mean. It's not just arbitrarily picking numbers, and not just every number at either end of the spectrum is an outlier. (The "lower outliers," for example, probably aren't outliers at all.) Outliers don't stop being outliers because there's more than one of them.

 

[NashVol11]

That's an interesting standard.

For a base line comparison, tell me how many games has Saban won that he shouldn't over the same period?

Once we iron out that metric, tell me what it means to "win a game you shouldnt". Because right now it appears you've set a subjective standard, and are judging that on a sliding subjective scale.

Your post just gave him a headache. You posted way over his head.

It's interesting that Reader would say this given that he's the one that introduced said standard, but I'll assume he can't or doesn't want to explain it.

It makes no sense to use the last couple of years for Saban, because Alabama is favored in every game they play at this point. If we're comparing hin to Butch, we would look at his first few years there, when he showed signs of what was coming by beating a ranked McFadden-led Arkansas team and destroying Tennessee in 2007. He did the same at LSU, where he inherited a 3-8 team and beat #11 Tennessee and #13 MSU in year one before beating a top-5 Tennessee team to win the SEC in year 2.

It shouldn't be that hard to come to a consensus on which teams are better, but if objective metrics really tickle your fancy that much, you're welcome to use the Vegas favorites. That has obvious flaws, like the fact that in October people thought Georgia was actually good, or the fact that those lines become more friendly to us because we choked away the month of September, but it is what it is.

Either way, this strikes me as nitpicking just to nitpick because none of this will substantively change the answer to my question. But, I've gotten used to people like Reader avoiding my questions and/or responding with their own questions, so it's nothing new.