This article explains why UT football has been in decline...and it's not due to coaching

#101
#101
GBOplayer said:
Tennessee football: ESPN’s SEC rights a further blow to Vols’ recruiting edge

This article hits the nail in the head about UT's football program decline. We no longer have a recruiting advantage anymore due to more revenue sharing. For those complaining about coaching being the issue, I would say there are bigger things in play.
Click to expand...
Couple this with all the negative news ESPN has spewed over the Vols and how Giddy they get over Bama and Ga. the hole just got deeper.
 
#102
#102
This article was dumb and we are dumber for reading it. The argument is more money allows other schools to recruit better? Was there a lack of money at bama, georgia and lsu in the 90's when they sucked? Georgie get rich when they hired Richt? Did bama suddenly get rich when they hired Saban? Was Florida broke between urban Meyer and Dan Mullen? No no no... UT was outspending on recruiting because it worked. And UT has continued to sign highly touted classes (although that is part of the problem with the star system because it evaluates talent based on the recruiter as much as the recruit). This team has way more talent than uk and arky, and enough to at least compete for 4 quarters with every team. The problem is with the program not the money.
 
#103
#103
Another factor that points toward coaching is the series of mind boggling in game decisions from Jones and Pruitt. And of course losing to teams that have never recruited above top 25 much less top 10 (see Ga. St. and BYU). It is coaching all day long but I wonder if it is because the coaches don't know how to motivate today's players in a Knoxville/Tennessee/UT culture. I know that would not change in game decisions but it may get more out of your recruits.
 
#104
#104
Sorry, that article is dead on. It's factual in terms of money. What's arguable is what UT did in response. But history has shown the outcome is very plausible. Not the end all to be all, but a definite factor. Good article, thought provoking. If nothing else.
 
#105
#105
99gator said:
I’m sorry. Money is not the problem.

Problem #1 is bad coaches as evidenced by the fact that except for Kiffin no one is doing a damn thing anywhere else. And, the most noteworthy thing Kiffin has done is get fired from USC. Even Ron Zook went on to take Illinois to the Rose Bowl

Problem #2, all the in-state schools where Tennessee had poached recruits are all better now than in the 90’s. Georgia, Clemson, Alabama, Ole Miss and Miss State, and LSU. And while the State of Florida is what it is as a recruiting hotbed, there are more large sharks in that body of water than before. Clemson, Ohio State, Alabama, etc., make it harder beyond recruiting against just the in-state Florida schools.

That’s what has happened.

No more Ray Goof, Gerry DiNardo, Mike Debose, Tommy West, and Brad Scott to recruit against
Click to expand...

As for #2, that applies to anyone competing for the talent. I'd argue that Georgia Tech will be a thorn in Georgia's side just because, and definitely if they improve remotely. As for #1, yah bad choices get you what you paid for. We know that. But we've transcended that. My point is, and it hasn't manifested itself yet, is not even Mullen will be able to overcome the change. At best he can achieve Kirby's success, which he hasn't even done yet. My guess is you hope to be competitive in the SECCG..... at worst, what happens is what most expect, a curb stomping. Regardless, a loss brings you no closer to breaking the monopoly of the top 4. At best you get honorable mention year in and year out as a top 6, to again get beat by the same names. It's like 1970.....repeating itself. At that point we're all essentially irrelevant except to catch lighting in a bottle once a decade. If we're lucky.
 
#106
#106
nomads-11 said:
Sorry, that article is dead on. It's factual in terms of money. What's arguable is what UT did in response. But history has shown the outcome is very plausible. Not the end all to be all, but a definite factor. Good article, thought provoking. If nothing else.
Click to expand...
In the last 10 years, UT has never had a recruiting class ranked below the top 25 in the nation.

As of today, UT is ranked around 90th in the nation.

While I could accept 25th, even 35th, even 45th..... but 90th in the nation while having top 25 and better recruiting classes for 10 years, at least?
No. That's an unacceptable return on recruiting.

This isn't about money and recruiting competition. This is SOLIDLY about coaching the great athletes we've managed to recruit.
 
#110
#110
Some may disagree, but one UT coach shows that coaching can attract better players, coach Barnes.

If UT had better football coaches, I think the better players would be more attractive to them. Better coaches make better players come here, thus a better product on the field.
 
#111
#111
Vols8086 said:
We no longer have a recruiting advantage because at our peak, every other program around us geographically was down. South Carolina was a doormat and Clemson was basically what South Carolina is now. UVA and VT weren't special. No program in North Carolina was relevant. UGA was meh, Bama wasn't a juggernaut and Auburn was decent, UK and UL were trash, LSU was ok, etc. We could literally cherry pick the best players from all over the south east. Once other programs developed we couldn't just waltz in and take all the best kids from each state. That's the recruiting decline, not the budget.
Click to expand...
This is CLEARLY a major issue and to deny it is a “one track mind” mentality. For those of us remembering the days we were finishing 1-3 in the nation in recruiting in a normal year it’s clear this impact has been hard to overcome. Coaching issue? Sure a kindergartner can see that. But to deny the rise of those strategic schools in areas we were regularly picking and choosing recruits as not being a relevant issue is not fully understanding what has happened! Let the mayhem continue now 😂😂.
 
#112
#112
Did that article say that the SEC championship game began in 2001. I’m having a hard time understanding it due to clarity free nature of the article.
 
#114
#114
While there is some validity to this, I think our biggest issue is the fact that we have coaches who appear to be great/good recruiters. That's why we get "high ranked classes." I believe we have talent. However the flip side to the coin is that our current coaches, with the exception of a couple (Martin and Graham) aren't good developers of the talent we've brought in.
 
#116
#116
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
In the last 10 years, UT has never had a recruiting class ranked below the top 25 in the nation.

As of today, UT is ranked around 90th in the nation.

While I could accept 25th, even 35th, even 45th..... but 90th in the nation while having top 25 and better recruiting classes for 10 years, at least?
No. That's an unacceptable return on recruiting.

This isn't about money and recruiting competition. This is SOLIDLY about coaching the great athletes we've managed to recruit.
Click to expand...

My response was based on the premise of the article, where other schools have realized greater income due to SEC broadcast deals, etc. This infers, to me, that they've used that money to improve their program and facilities in becoming more attractive to recruits and to better compete for them. I thought that focus was plausible - as one factor, albeit a significant one, in competing with other programs, like Tennessee. Now what one does with the talent after recruitment, is a different story.

Further, I'm always a bit leery about recruiting rankings equaling some level of expectation, like a 1:1 ratio. I say that as even though we may have the 15th or even 10th rated class nationwide, our "competition", several of them, always seem to be higher. When you're beat out by Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, TAMU, LSU...and wind up having the 6th or 7th class in your conference, you're facing 3 minimum, to 5 or more losses each year based recruiting class rankings. So right off the bat you're not winning the East and aren't going to a New Years 6 bowl with 5+/- losses. Take Tennessee and its recruiting, put it in the PAC12 and see what might or might not happen.

As for coaching, yep, in any case it has a lot to do with the outcome. But I think a lot of programs are suffering much of the same (USCsr, UCLA, Oregon, Arizona, TAMU, Michigan, Notre Dame (they just don't know it), LSU, Nebraska, etc.). These are programs with high expectations but limited returns. We're not unique. Conversely, college football has seemingly gone back to the 60s and 70s, where there are only a handful of programs essentially competing for the CFP each year....and the names don't change much.

So I'm not interested in re-entering the coach hiring process again......it is insane if we just take the same steps. If you want to break the monopoly at the top of college football, someone is going to have to think out of the box a bit. Because chances are real good a new coach will never meet the higher expectations.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top