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

[jakez4ut]

as for the 6-7 years, i encourage you all, if you haven't, to go find the audio, and listen to the segment.

the 6-7 years was brought up in regards to a discussion about having RS sr's and jr's on the roster. and CBJ said that he and some others were talking about how it takes 6-7 years to build THAT kind of quality competitive depth so you can maintain success at a high level.

he did not say "it's going to be 6-7 years before we win the SEC E or SEC championship".

carry on.

 

[titansvolsfaninga]

as for the 6-7 years, i encourage you all, if you haven't, to go find the audio, and listen to the segment.

the 6-7 years was brought up in regards to a discussion about having RS sr's and jr's on the roster. and CBJ said that he and some others were talking about how it takes 6-7 years to build THAT kind of quality competitive depth so you can maintain success at a high level.

he did not say "it's going to be 6-7 years before we win the SEC E or SEC championship".

carry on.

They will not...they've got to get their faux outrage ready for Friday. I mean I am sure Butch will do or say something on Friday that will cause them to have an epic meltdown. He may not hold the trophy right...he may jog to the locker room, and not do a full sprint. They've got a full list of things to be outraged about.

 

[NashVol11]

i don't think anyone will confuse winning a bowl game, not in the play off, is achieving anything in regards to a championship.

that said, winning a post season game for the coaches, and players does validate their season. and there's no reason why a team, or fan base, shouldn't be proud of winning. period.

not every team, every year has the same aspirations as the next. Duke wasn't going to the play off. but DUke hasn't won a bowl since the 60's.

so they should be proud, CDC should be happy he was able to do that for that program, and they should hang a banner or get a ring or whatever floats their boat.

and don't get me started on winning the division. you can't do anything for real in the post season if you don't win the division, so yes, that's an accomplishment.

jeez.

Nowhere did I say it wasn't an accomplishment. But when people want to say, "Boo yah, what now doubters? Butch has a bowl ring," I'm going to laugh because that's a stupid thing to use as a trump card. I'm not out here saying he can't win a bowl game or can't win the East.

 

[NashVol11]

until this year, how many games did we really have a chance at winning that we shouldn't? i mean, really, it's kind of a silly notion to look at a program that went 5-7 3 or 4 years in a row, then 6-6, and start talking about 'who we should have beat'. you could make an argument that a program like that, has a lot of opportunities to win games they shouldn't. Vandy beat us 2 of 3 years, so 2014 Vandy....could fall in that category....

seriously though, it's not like this team only has 1 or 2 dragons to slay before they're a title contender year in and year out. this team had to PROVE they could be Vandy, KY, MO, USC...the teams they were "supposed to beat"...because until the last two years, they hadn't even done that. so saying Butch hasn't won enough games he shouldn't have, eh, it's a sliding scale. year one, there were a lot of those opportunities. in year 4, there won't be but a couple.

i think you go back to GA game 2013, that was the game that you could see it happening. that game got validated in the USC game.

in 2014, i don't know that you could say we won any games we shouldn't have, based no rankings, records etc....that said, the USC game was once again the game that kind of validated the season, and how we ended it.

this year, i think the only one that would qualify was the GA game, especially considering we were down 24-3.

in the end, it's not really a suprise that we haven't beaten the top teams in the conf, because we haven't been anywhere near being a top team in the conference.

Butch has 3 signature wins as far as i'm concerned....'13 USC, '14 Bowl game, and '15 UGA, could have another if we beat NW on Friday.

To me, he has one. But as mentioned above, I'm not a big believer in reading this profound meaning into meaningless bowl games, win or lose. If Northwestern beats us by 20, I'm not suddenly going to be worried about next season or think we're less likely to beat, say, Florida.

 

[NashVol11]

For instance, if the Pac-12 has a winning record against the SEC in a bowl season, are people here going to suddenly think it's the better conference? Bowl games are important for the extra practice time and maybe for player morale, but they don't mean a whole lot more than that. Unless Tennessee wins, in which case it's a huge and important and predictive win because that's our team.

 

[ReaderVol]

i don't think anyone will confuse winning a bowl game, not in the play off, is achieving anything in regards to a championship.

that said, winning a post season game for the coaches, and players does validate their season. and there's no reason why a team, or fan base, shouldn't be proud of winning. period.

not every team, every year has the same aspirations as the next. Duke wasn't going to the play off. but DUke hasn't won a bowl since the 60's.

so they should be proud, CDC should be happy he was able to do that for that program, and they should hang a banner or get a ring or whatever floats their boat.

and don't get me started on winning the division. you can't do anything for real in the post season if you don't win the division, so yes, that's an accomplishment.

jeez.

Jake, I'm sure you already know this... but here goes anyway. You have a better chance talking to a fence post. This guy is so hell bent off bashing UT facts and reality just don't matter.

 

[Sandvol]

until this year, how many games did we really have a chance at winning that we shouldn't? i mean, really, it's kind of a silly notion to look at a program that went 5-7 3 or 4 years in a row, then 6-6, and start talking about 'who we should have beat'. you could make an argument that a program like that, has a lot of opportunities to win games they shouldn't. Vandy beat us 2 of 3 years, so 2014 Vandy....could fall in that category....

seriously though, it's not like this team only has 1 or 2 dragons to slay before they're a title contender year in and year out. this team had to PROVE they could be Vandy, KY, MO, USC...the teams they were "supposed to beat"...because until the last two years, they hadn't even done that. so saying Butch hasn't won enough games he shouldn't have, eh, it's a sliding scale. year one, there were a lot of those opportunities. in year 4, there won't be but a couple.

i think you go back to GA game 2013, that was the game that you could see it happening. that game got validated in the USC game.

in 2014, i don't know that you could say we won any games we shouldn't have, based no rankings, records etc....that said, the USC game was once again the game that kind of validated the season, and how we ended it.

this year, i think the only one that would qualify was the GA game, especially considering we were down 24-3.

in the end, it's not really a suprise that we haven't beaten the top teams in the conf, because we haven't been anywhere near being a top team in the conference.

Butch has 3 signature wins as far as i'm concerned....'13 USC, '14 Bowl game, and '15 UGA, could have another if we beat NW on Friday.

Agree, but hasn't beaten anybody he shouldn't have. Also, seems to get outcoached a lot.

 

[jakez4ut]

To me, he has one. But as mentioned above, I'm not a big believer in reading this profound meaning into meaningless bowl games, win or lose. If Northwestern beats us by 20, I'm not suddenly going to be worried about next season or think we're less likely to beat, say, Florida.

For instance, if the Pac-12 has a winning record against the SEC in a bowl season, are people here going to suddenly think it's the better conference? Bowl games are important for the extra practice time and maybe for player morale, but they don't mean a whole lot more than that. Unless Tennessee wins, in which case it's a huge and important and predictive win because that's our team.

in regards to the bowl game, for any team, not just ours, bowl games are deemed unimportant until you lose one. we give no credit for winning the game because they're meaningless and you should win. but should we lose, it validates how bad of a coach he is because we should've won the game.

it goes back to what i've said before...there's no winning, just different levels of suck.

Jake, I'm sure you already know this... but here goes anyway. You have a better chance talking to a fence post. This guy is so hell bent off bashing UT facts and reality just don't matter.

but you're not an antagonist...right.:thumbsup:

i don't agree with him, but i think, for the most party anyway, we've had a pretty civil debate.

i know i haven't called anyone a fencepost, and it's been a while since i've been called one....you?

 

[Boca Vol]

in regards to the bowl game, for any team, not just ours, bowl games are deemed unimportant until you lose one. we give no credit for winning the game because they're meaningless and you should win. but should we lose, it validates how bad of a coach he is because we should've won the game.

it goes back to what i've said before...there's no winning, just different levels of suck.

I don't agree. You can't argue with UT's preparation for last year's bowl game. The team was ready & focused. It was, by far, the best performance of Butch's tenure here.

However, that had little impact on this season (IMO)...just because each season is different. Different schedules, injuries, etc.

If UT goes out and plays a good game on Fri but comes up short, the '16 expectations shouldn't change...for the reasons I listed above.

But I could see your point (somewhat) if UT comes out flat and gets hammered. However, the '16 expectations shouldn't change...but the haters will be in full force.

Bowl games are funny. There is a long time off. Sometimes you get a case where 1 team doesn't want to be there because they didn't meet their goals. But I don't see that being the case here. NU and UT will both put their best foot forward.

 

[jakez4ut]

I don't agree. You can't argue with UT's preparation for last year's bowl game. The team was ready & focused. It was, by far, the best performance of Butch's tenure here.

However, that had little impact on this season (IMO)...just because each season is different. Different schedules, injuries, etc.

If UT goes out and plays a good game on Fri but comes up short, the '16 expectations shouldn't change...for the reasons I listed above.

But I could see your point (somewhat) if UT comes out flat and gets hammered. However, the '16 expectations shouldn't change...but the haters will be in full force.

Bowl games are funny. There is a long time off. Sometimes you get a case where 1 team doesn't want to be there because they didn't meet their goals. But I don't see that being the case here. NU and UT will both put their best foot forward.

i was generalizing to make my point. i don't think expectations will change either way, and they shouldn't really.

i just don't like the notion of writing the game off as meaningless before hand, but if you lose, then using it as a reason to prove the coach is no good because he couldn't win a game that no one is supposed to care about in the first place?

and if we lost to NW on friday, the Butch haters will be out in force with the "see told ya, couldn't even beat NW".

on the same token, the pumpers shouldn't be out, should we win, with the "see told ya, he's awesome we just beat a top 15 team!"


rather just take it for what it is supposed to be...an opportunity to enhance your season, get some pub, and feel good about where we are headed in to next season.

i mean, remember folks, this is supposed to be fun for us as fans.......:thumbsup:

 

[ReaderVol]

Agree, but hasn't beaten anybody he shouldn't have. Also, seems to get outcoached a lot.

So beating teams when we're underdogs don't count? Ok

 

[ReaderVol]

in regards to the bowl game, for any team, not just ours, bowl games are deemed unimportant until you lose one. we give no credit for winning the game because they're meaningless and you should win. but should we lose, it validates how bad of a coach he is because we should've won the game.

it goes back to what i've said before...there's no winning, just different levels of suck.

but you're not an antagonist...right.:thumbsup:

i don't agree with him, but i think, for the most party anyway, we've had a pretty civil debate.

i know i haven't called anyone a fencepost, and it's been a while since i've been called one....you?

First I didn't call him a fence post it was an analogy that your chance of getting him to accept fact is zilch.

And do I antagonize some? Sure mostly by using absurdity to expose absurdity.

 

[jakez4ut]

First I didn't call him a fence post it was an analogy that your chance of getting him to accept fact is zilch.

And do I antagonize some? Sure mostly by using absurdity to expose absurdity.

you said it.

 

[McDad]

Regardless of coach, location, weather, size of crowd, attrition, moon cycle, who Corso picks, whether you wear your lucky socks to the game, or the color of Gruden's tie, power 5 teams with a higher 4 year recruiting average win the game 70% of the time.

In championship games, the number skyrockets with only 1 team since 2005 winning a championship with a worse 4 year recruiting average. That lone exception was Texas in 2005.

My lucky socks bring the wins. Don't care what you say.

 

[ReaderVol]

you said it.

LOL well it's important for one to know ones audience.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

As I stated, there are a finite number of coaches. You pay to keep capable and competent coaches. You don't restrict pay and make your University unattractive to other coaches.

There are other Universities that see what CBJ has done here, and would love to have him.

Name anyone better than UT who would come after Butch?

 

[jakez4ut]

Name anyone better than UT who would come after Butch?

in fairness that's a fairly short list to begin with. there are a lot more that are even with or "below" Tennessee.

but to answer your question, i don't think there's any program currently at or above tennessee's level that will seriously court CBJ for a job.

the closest we'll see is the Michigan rumblings after his first year.

he's ours til he quits, or we fire him.

 

[titansvolsfaninga]

Name anyone better than UT who would come after Butch?

Better is subjective. UT hasn't been relevant in a decade or more. Any team that has a winning program for the past 4 or 5 years, sans Georgia, has stability at the coaching position. If you think the job that he did overhauling the roster is something that a regular joe schmoe could do, you are mistaken. Since he has proven that he can recruit against the likes of Saban and the rest of the SEC, he will get more looks going forward.

 

[jakez4ut]

Better is subjective. UT hasn't been relevant in a decade or more. Any team that has a winning program for the past 4 or 5 years, sans Georgia, has stability at the coaching position. If you think the job that he did overhauling the roster is something that a regular joe schmoe could do, you are mistaken. Since he has proven that he can recruit against the likes of Saban and the rest of the SEC, he will get more looks going forward.

i don't think so. i think there were enough jobs open this season that if there were some serious suitors, they would have come...programs like MD and UVA...., and they didn't. neither did top programs like USC or GA.

so i think we're pretty solid with CBJ staying, i don't see any heartstrings anywhere from power 5 conf. not sure how much there was to the rumblings about the Mich job a few years ago, but i'm betting that's the last of the big power 5 schools coming after him.

and he's not going to to go back to non power 5 school.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

For instance, if the Pac-12 has a winning record against the SEC in a bowl season, are people here going to suddenly think it's the better conference? Bowl games are important for the extra practice time and maybe for player morale, but they don't mean a whole lot more than that. Unless Tennessee wins, in which case it's a huge and important and predictive win because that's our team.

That's a bad "for instance", VKA, since the SEC and PAC don't normally play each other in bowls (unless in the playoffs).

But sure, I use bowl records to judge the relative strengths of conferences every year. I'm not alone, either...ESPN and SI and the AP and tons of other sports coverage media pay attention to the conferences' bowl records as well.

It's an indicator of relative strength. An imperfect one, sure, but nothing's perfect in football comparisons. Fact is, among the many imperfect means of comparing conferences, seeing how they did on the field is better than most. So yep, plenty of folks will be watching for that.

Just not PAC-vs-SEC. Not this year, anyway.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

Better is subjective. UT hasn't been relevant in a decade or more. Any team that has a winning program for the past 4 or 5 years, sans Georgia, has stability at the coaching position. If you think the job that he did overhauling the roster is something that a regular joe schmoe could do, you are mistaken. Since he has proven that he can recruit against the likes of Saban and the rest of the SEC, he will get more looks going forward.

Point is he would be taking a step down, in all likelihood, for the immediate future. Two schools in our conference who've seen what he's done first hand didn't give him a sniff. If Butch had thought he was better served to go to say VT with Whit Babcock, then you let him walk. You don't pay him $4.5m or so to keep him from taking a job that would only be able and willing to pay $3m. If you have a coach who's willing to take a lesser job why would you pay to keep him and better yet, why would you want him?

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Point is he would be taking a step down, in all likelihood, for the immediate future. Two schools in our conference who've seen what he's done first hand didn't give him a sniff. If Butch had thought he was better served to go to say VT with Whit Babcock, then you let him walk. You don't pay him $4.5m or so to keep him from taking a job that would only be able and willing to pay $3m. If you have a coach who's willing to take a lesser job why would you pay to keep him and better yet, why would you want him?

BowlingGreen, we have no idea whether they "sniffed" or not. You don't publicly talk about considering the coach who you know you can't get. That just embarrasses your program. So we'll never know.

AD makes a quiet call to agent: "would he be interested in talking?" "nope, he says he's not moving." "ok, forget we asked."

That's how it goes when the coach has ZERO interest in other jobs. And we never even hear about it. Among the very (very) few who know that phone call happened, it serves no one's interest for it to be made public.

So it looks to us like no one is shopping for him.

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." -- Carl Sagan

 

[ReaderVol]

BowlingGreen, we have no idea whether they "sniffed" or not. You don't publicly talk about considering the coach who you know you can't get. That just embarrasses your program. So we'll never know.

AD makes a quiet call to agent: "would he be interested in talking?" "nope, he says he's not moving." "ok, forget we asked."

That's how it goes when the coach has ZERO interest in other jobs. And we never even hear about it. Among the very (very) few who know that phone call happened, it serves no one's interest for it to be made public.

So it looks to us like no one is shopping for him.

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." -- Carl Sagan

Hammer meat nail.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

My lucky socks bring the wins. Don't care what you say.

Can't believe people.are.still.arguing in this thread. Is it the offseason...already? Wow.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

BowlingGreen, we have no idea whether they "sniffed" or not. You don't publicly talk about considering the coach who you know you can't get. That just embarrasses your program. So we'll never know.

AD makes a quiet call to agent: "would he be interested in talking?" "nope, he says he's not moving." "ok, forget we asked."

That's how it goes when the coach has ZERO interest in other jobs. And we never even hear about it. Among the very (very) few who know that phone call happened, it serves no one's interest for it to be made public.

So it looks to us like no one is shopping for him.

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." -- Carl Sagan

The media/sources that throw out names are usually pretty close on who was/is considered. His name didn't surface from any media member even suggesting that he be considered. Butch's name was thrown out in the beginning of our search as a potential candidate presumably down the list. When it was leaked he was the guy I don't think anyone was shocked cause we knew he would be considered.