jasonvols2.2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 784
- Likes
- 658
The Kelly Bryant fiasco made me think of this. At one time, he didnt. Of course he left for Ole Miss, and coached in their bowl game. (After that sloppy win against Mississippi State) i thought it was cheap that he didn't get one.
Cutcliffe said:Cutcliffe could have been there in person. Fulmer invited Cutcliffe to come to Tempe, Ariz., after Ole Miss’ Independence Bowl. Cutcliffe declined.
“I just felt like it was going to disrupt,” he said. “It was very hard telling him I don’t need to do that.”
Cutcliffe has more than just rental home memories of UT winning a national title. He has a memento that symbolizes what he meant to the Vols, a national championship ring.
We you do understand that it’s the job of the head coach to hire the best staff that he can and when he hired both Cut and Chief, he got full credit for it. A head coach and his staff aren’t adversarial....the staff doesn’t happen without the head coach putting it together. So while people want to say Fulmer only lasted as long as he did because of the staff he put together, it’s foolish.Cutcliff and Chavis both extended Fulmer's career as Head Coach @ Tennesssee and I have no reservstions about this fact, do you?
The Kelly Bryant fiasco made me think of this. At one time, he didnt. Of course he left for Ole Miss, and coached in their bowl game. (After that sloppy win against Mississippi State) i thought it was cheap that he didn't get one.
In retrospect, looking at how he helped drive this program down with Erik Ainge and Fulmer, I really hope he didn't get a ring...The Kelly Bryant fiasco made me think of this. At one time, he didnt. Of course he left for Ole Miss, and coached in their bowl game. (After that sloppy win against Mississippi State) i thought it was cheap that he didn't get one.
One was involved for the entire process for over a decade and only missed one game.OP, it is interesting to entertain the reasons why KB doesn't get a ring while CDC did get a ring. Different schools, but the thinking process is interesting to me.
We look at Cutcliff as a key cog in our success, worthy of the spoils, even though he left for a better opportunity
We look at Bryant as a quitter, unworthy of spoils, even though he left for a better opportunity.
Both contributed to the NC. It cannot be precisely proven that with or without either, the teams would have won the NC or not. Both quit on their teams before the job was complete. One is a hero (generally & helped by a return later) and the other is a goat (generally).
Humans are an interesting group.
One was involved for the entire process for over a decade and only missed one game.
The other played in 30% of the games at the beginning of the season and quit on his team.
Not sure how these are equal in any reasonable persons eyes.