You are either winning or losing on any level, there is no better, there is no worse, losing is losing...period.
How did you miss the "on any level" part? He's saying NFL coaches who lose to other NFL coaches equals college coaches losing to other college coaches. I don't see a college to NFL coaching comparison in that statement.With that logic, there are a number of college coaches better than Belichick, or any other NFL coach, since they lose less games per season than he does.
Should a University on the traditional level of Tennessee hire a coach with 20 losses in three years? If I were the AD at Tennessee, even given the crappy hand dealt with the former coach leaving at the worst possible time, I would have made the coaches I really wanted tell me no about ten times sorta like bammer did when Saban said no to them initially. No reflection on Dooley (he may become the next Robert Neyland for all I know) but hiring a coach with the track record he has at Tennessee makes no sense. Dooley better produce relatively quickly because if he doesn't Hammy will be swept out with him.I've asked this question before, but never get an answer.
So, you wouldn't hire a coach that had 20 loses in 3 years?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
i completely agree.Should a University on the traditional level of Tennessee hire a coach with 20 losses in three years? If I were the AD at Tennessee, even given the crappy hand dealt with the former coach leaving at the worst possible time, I would have made the coaches I really wanted tell me no about ten times sorta like bammer did when Saban said no to them initially. No reflection on Dooley (he may become the next Robert Neyland for all I know) but hiring a coach with the track record he has at Tennessee makes no sense. Dooley better produce relatively quickly because if he doesn't Hammy will be swept out with him.
Check out those 20 losses. What do you think our record would have been against them? We lost to some of those teams too, and he was a La. Tec when he lost to them.
