How Much Does CDD's Record Bother You?

[GahLee]

He could have won 8 or 9 games this past year...they should not have been close to Boise St., or LSU for that matter...had a couple more games that were really close.

 

[Special Ed]

The close losses to Boise State and LSU remind me of UT's close losses to Bama and FL last season. If Dooley can nearly upset stout opponents with a Louisiana Tech team that doesn't recruit anywhere near as well as Tennessee, I'd say that's reason for optimism on the Big Orange horizon.

 

[bleedorange0037]

He could have won 8 or 9 games this past year...they should not have been close to Boise St., or LSU for that matter...had a couple more games that were really close.

Yeah, and we ALMOST won 9 or 10 games this year, but in the end only won 7. Just like we shouldn't have let UCLA hang around and beat us in a game we should have won, if La Tech was any kind of decent team, they wouldn't be losing close games to the likes of Idaho and Utah St.

 

[tm3]

when the carpetbagger was hired, the collective wail was, "how could we hire someone with a record of 5-15?"

the counter was, "but it was at Oakland."

now it is 17-20, and a counter of LTech.

the carpetbagger had some success here, but the jury is still out on whether he can coach (and whether he can stay off of NCAA probation).

CDD has only had a week or so, but there have been some nice recruiting pickups. let's give him a chance.

 

[bleedorange0037]

The close losses to Boise State and LSU remind me of UT's close losses to Bama and FL last season. If Dooley can nearly upset stout opponents with a Louisiana Tech team that doesn't recruit anywhere near as well as Tennessee, I'd say that's reason for optimism on the Big Orange horizon.

Don't let the final score of that game decieve you, La Tech got blown out in that game, and scored some points in garbage time to make the score a little more respectable. It was 27-7 at halftime.

 

[GahLee]

Yeah, and we ALMOST won 9 or 10 games this year, but in the end only won 7. Just like we shouldn't have let UCLA hang around and beat us in a game we should have won, if La Tech was any kind of decent team, they wouldn't be losing close games to the likes of Idaho and Utah St.

Not the same, our talent level is at least comparable, La Tech isn't even close to LSU, Boise...close games.

They lost a game or 2 that they should have won, they were in on a couple of games that they should not have even been close in.

If UT beat Alabama, it would not be comparable to them beating Boise or LSU, disparity in talent is absurd.

 

[bleedorange0037]

when the carpetbagger was hired, the collective wail was, "how could we hire someone with a record of 5-15?"

the counter was, "but it was at Oakland."

now it is 17-20, and a counter of LTech.

the carpetbagger had some success here, but the jury is still out on whether he can coach (and whether he can stay off of NCAA probation).

CDD has only had a week or so, but there have been some nice recruiting pickups. let's give him a chance.

Not once did I have any reservations about Kiffin's record in the NFL, but even the Raiders saw SOME improvement during Kiffin's tenure as their coach, something that Dooley cannot say about his time at La Tech.

And for the record, 5-15 at Oakland in the NFL > 17-20 at La Tech in the WAC

 

[GahLee]

Not once did I have any reservations about Kiffin's record in the NFL, but even the Raiders saw SOME improvement during Kiffin's tenure as their coach, something that Dooley cannot say about his time at La Tech.

And for the record, 5-15 at Oakland in the NFL > 17-20 at La Tech in the WAC

They won the first bowl game in like 40 years.

 

[bleedorange0037]

Not the same, our talent level is at least comparable, La Tech isn't even close to LSU, Boise...close games.

They lost a game or 2 that they should have won, they were in on a couple of games that they should not have even been close in.

If UT beat Alabama, it would be comparable to them beating Boise or LSU, disparity in talent is absurd.

Which is exactly my point. If he truly could recruit at an SEC or National Championship level, which is what you have to do at UT, then that would not have been the case, even at La Tech.

 

[warhammer]

He never went 4-8 in the WAC. What I'm saying is that he took over a team on probation and gradually improved them to the point that in his final year they won 10 games and went to the Citrus bowl at a time when the Big 10 was much tougher than it is now. How that doesn't indicate future success, but DD taking over a team that sucked in one of the worst conferences in D-1 and them still sucking when he left IS an indicator of succes is beyond me. I hope everything works out for the best, but it seems to me that people are just looking for ways to justify the fact that WE HIRED A HEAD COACH WHO HAS HAD ZERO SUCCESS AS A HEAD COACH IN THE PAST.

During that time, the Big 10 was (as usual) one of the more over-hyped conferences in college football (if not the most). I'll again point out that it was better than the WAC, but it wasn't as tough as the media members made it out to be.

The problem is you have made up your mind before even considering what you are saying. Dooley did have one winning season and won a bowl. If you call that "ZERO SUCCESS" at a place like La Tech, then you are not looking at the situation logically. By comparison, Saban was 1.5 games over 0.500 before the '99 season (Saban's 5th). Dooley was at La Tech for three years and had one winning season. It took Saban five to win more than 7 games. Dooley did it in his second.

None of this means anything. You can spin stats to say what you want. It's still the same in the end. Dooley is our coach. Complaining about it now doesn't really accomplish much. I am not sold on him being the answer to our problems. I would have liked to have seen a bigger splash made with the hire, but that is something over which I'd bet almost none of us on this board have any control. If he wins (and doesn't jump ship), we should all be happy. If he doesn't then hopefully he will be gone before too much more damage is done.

 

[GahLee]

Which is exactly my point. If he truly could recruit at an SEC or National Championship level, which is what you have to do at UT, then that would not have been the case, even at La Tech.

Your insane...you expect 4/5 star players to go to La Tech?

That is crazy talk. Him getting the number of 3 star players that he was getting is impressive to me.

 

[tm3]

Not once did I have any reservations about Kiffin's record in the NFL, but even the Raiders saw SOME improvement during Kiffin's tenure as their coach, something that Dooley cannot say about his time at La Tech.

And for the record, 5-15 at Oakland in the NFL > 17-20 at La Tech in the WAC

he got them to their 1st bowl game in 31 years, 2nd time they had even been to a bowl. that is like getting Vandy to a bowl, or better.

if you are comparing CDD to his predecessor, to keep the playing field level make sure you are only looking at LA Tech WAC years -- they used to be independent and played a different schedule with less travel.

NFL is certainly a stronger league than the WAC, but the talent level at Oakland is light years ahead of the talent level at LTech. i think a pretty good argument could be made that the standard deviation of NFL talent is much smaller than the standard deviation of WAC talent, thus 5-15 NFL < 17-20 WAC.

 

[bleedorange0037]

Your insane...you expect 4/5 star players to go to La Tech?

That is crazy talk. Him getting the number of 3 star players that he was getting is impressive to me.

OBVIOUSLY, I'm not in any way expecting that 4 and 5 star players will be banging down the doors to go to La Tech. What I'm saying is, if he could recruit at an acceptable SEC level, then La Tech should have been beating most if not all the teams in the WAC with the exception of Boise. I don't want to here this nonsense that La Tech is a tough sell either, because at this point neither is UT when compared to UF, Bama, USC, Texas, and some the other powerhouses. He's going to have to step it up to even hope to be competitive.

 

[GahLee]

It's understated how much travel they had to do, we have all seen what has happened to UT when they have had to go west in recent years, imagine all your road games are on the other side of the country.

He didn't perform miracles at La Tech, he did a good job coaching/recruiting for what La Tech, he had it going in the right direction, those of us who support him, hope that with our resources and tradition, his success will have a very high ceiling.

 

[paul1454]

Ain't trying to justify SH%$, just trying to keep from slitting my wrists on where our program is today. I'm an engineer, data analysis doesn't lie. Time will tell...

Oh snap. You really are an engineer? Wow, we should be impressed - since the implication is that the rest of this board is just a bunch of idiots. Someone get this guy a cookie! [rant over]

That being said, I'm still undecided on the hire. Sure LA Tech doesn't have the budget of major programs, recruits against some very good programs, and is not the most desirable location to spend four years of college, but one thing I can't seem to get over is the fact that he had the lowest winning percentage of any LA Tech coach since 1987. The only thing I could figure is that, as AD, he tried to schedule more high-profile games in an effort to bring additional revenue into the athletic department. However, I have looked at the past schedules and don't see a dramatic increase in the level of competition in his three years. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what he can do here. Until then, I guess I will remain cautiously optimistic.

 

[GahLee]

OBVIOUSLY, I'm not in any way expecting that 4 and 5 star players will be banging down the doors to go to La Tech. What I'm saying is, if he could recruit at an acceptable SEC level, then La Tech should have been beating most if not all the teams in the WAC with the exception of Boise. I don't want to here this nonsense that La Tech is a tough sell either, because at this point neither is UT when compared to UF, Bama, USC, Texas, and some the other powerhouses. He's going to have to step it up to even hope to be competitive.

No team in the WAC is recruiting at an SEC level, why would you expect him too?

La Tech is a tough sell, they are basically the home to whatever Texas and Louisiana prospects don't get offers from a major university.

Having been to 1 bowl game ever speaks volumes about La Tech, they are a traditional cupcake.

 

[Smokeybluetick]

i posted this earlier on another topic, but apparently some language caused the thread to be deleted... I'll try again.

I've looked at a deeper level into the dooley 4-8 season at latech. Here's what i found;

there were 4 games that lt was supposed to lose. What i mean by that is boise, auburn, lsu and navy went a combined 41-13 and 3 of those 4 were on the road. The green highlights were losses when the ad signed the contract.

Let's look at the other games on the schedule. The games in pink were wins when the ad signed the contract, those teams were horrible and they were all home games. Bottom dwellers in the conference. Lt did win all those games.

So far he's won the ones he was supposed to and lost the ones he was supposed to. Now let's look at the remaining 4 games. 3 of those games were nevada, idaho and fresno. All three of those teams were 8-5. Sadly lt lost all of those games but 2 of them could have gone either way.

The final remaining game is the disturbing and unexplainable one. At utah state. Usu finished 4-8, jumped out to an early lead and held on to stun lt. This one is the unexplainable loss. But we as vol fans have ucla which this year is the unexplainable loss. How the hell did that just happen? Well, upon further inspection, we don't know too much about dooley, but we do know that for the most part he does what he's supposed to do and loses where he's expected to lose. Far from the 4-8 story you'd first read, but also perhaps not the miracle worker lt had hoped for.

I'm warming to coach d, and this analysis tells me not to be too harsh on his coaching record.

zero!!!!!!!!! How much did kiffins 5-15 record bother you?

 

[GahLee]

Oh snap. You really are an engineer? Wow, we should be impressed - since the implication is that the rest of this board is just a bunch of idiots. Someone get this guy a cookie! [rant over]

That being said, I'm still undecided on the hire. Sure LA Tech doesn't have the budget of major programs, recruits against some very good programs, and is not the most desirable location to spend four years of college, but one thing I can't seem to get over is the fact that he had the lowest winning percentage of any LA Tech coach since 1987. The only thing I could figure is that, as AD, he tried to schedule more high-profile games in an effort to bring additional revenue into the athletic department. However, I have looked at the past schedules and don't see a dramatic increase in the level of competition in his three years. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what he can do here. Until then, I guess I will remain cautiously optimistic.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't they win their only bowl game under him?

People are getting to caught up on his record, La Tech has been in a building mode since they started playing football, they have never been good.

 

[GahLee]

Don't let the final score of that game decieve you, La Tech got blown out in that game, and scored some points in garbage time to make the score a little more respectable. It was 27-7 at halftime.

No they weren't...Boise doubled them up in yardage but it was 30-21 going into the fourth and 30-28 halfway through the fourth quarter. Not a blowout by any means.

 

[paul1454]

No team in the WAC is recruiting at an SEC level, why would you expect him too?

La Tech is a tough sell, they are basically the home to whatever Texas and Louisiana prospects don't get offers from a major university.

Having been to 1 bowl game ever speaks volumes about La Tech, they are a traditional cupcake.

They have actually been to a few more than that. Dooley only took them to their first win since beating Lousville in the Independence Bowl in 1977. But before that they played E. Carolina in the Independence Bowl in 1978, tied Maryland in the 1990 Independence Bowl, and lost to Clemson in the 2001 Humanitarian Bowl. While they were DII, they went to about 10 other bowls I believe.

EDIT: While DII, they went to 7 bowls - winning 5.

 

[GahLee]

They have actually been to a few more than that. Dooley only took them to their first win since beating Lousville in the Independence Bowl in 1977. But before that they played E. Carolina in the Independence Bowl in 1978, tied Maryland in the 1990 Independence Bowl, and lost to Clemson in the 2001 Humanitarian Bowl. Before that, they were DII and went to about 10 bowls I believe.

I meant win...I thought it was their only bowl win...thanks for the info.

 

[bones33]

What bothers me is that we cant hire more good recruiters so we can go out there and talk to the best recruits. If we had more ears and mouths to talk about what dooleys wants

 

[bleedorange0037]

No team in the WAC is recruiting at an SEC level, why would you expect him too?

La Tech is a tough sell, they are basically the home to whatever Texas and Louisiana prospects don't get offers from a major university.

Having been to 1 bowl game ever speaks volumes about La Tech, they are a traditional cupcake.

Look at it this way, suppose were a mediocre at best used car salesman, and one day woke up and found that a company had offered you a job selling private jets to super rich clients. Don't you think people who cared about that private jet company (stockholders) would look at that hire and think, "Wait a minute, he wasn't even really all that good at selling used cars to average joe's, how the hell is he going to handle THIS job?" And those stockholers would be entirely justified in their concerns, just like our fans are justified in their concerns because there has been nothing in his past that would really lead anyone to think he's going to be successful here other than just blind faith/hope.

 

[Volfan8282]

I posted this earlier on another topic, but apparently some language caused the thread to be deleted... I'll try again.

I've looked at a deeper level into the Dooley 4-8 season at LaTech. here's what I found;

There were 4 games that LT was SUPPOSED to lose. What I mean by that is Boise, Auburn, LSU and Navy went a combined 41-13 and 3 of those 4 were on the road. The Green highlights were losses when the AD signed the contract.

let's look at the OTHER games on the schedule. The games in pink were WINS when the AD signed the contract, those teams were HORRIBLE and they were all home games. Bottom dwellers in the conference. LT DID win all those games.

So far he's won the ones he was supposed to and lost the ones he was supposed to. Now let's look at the remaining 4 games. 3 of those games were Nevada, Idaho and Fresno. All three of those teams were 8-5. Sadly LT lost all of those games but 2 of them could have gone either way.

The final remaining game is the disturbing and unexplainable one. AT UTAH STATE. USU finished 4-8, jumped out to an early lead and held on to stun LT. This one is the unexplainable loss. But we as Vol fans have UCLA which this year is the unexplainable loss. HOW THE HELL DID THAT JUST HAPPEN? Well, upon further inspection, we don't know too much about Dooley, but we do know that for the most part he does what he's supposed to do and loses where he's expected to lose. Far from the 4-8 story you'd first read, but also perhaps not the miracle worker LT had hoped for.

I'm warming to coach D, and this analysis tells me not to be too harsh on his coaching record.

The only problem I have with doing an analysis of his W/L record and concluding that "well he lost the games he was supposed to lose and won most of the games he was supposed to win" is that this doesn't really separate him as being a good or bad coach. A "bad" coach would probably have done the same thing he did at LA Tech. That's the problem with being a coach at LA Tech... I still think it's impossible to tell if he will tear it up in the SEC or be a dud.

 

[GmanTN]

he got them to their 1st bowl game in 31 years, 2nd time they had even been to a bowl. that is like getting Vandy to a bowl, or better.

if you are comparing CDD to his predecessor, to keep the playing field level make sure you are only looking at LA Tech WAC years -- they used to be independent and played a different schedule with less travel.

NFL is certainly a stronger league than the WAC, but the talent level at Oakland is light years ahead of the talent level at LTech. i think a pretty good argument could be made that the standard deviation of NFL talent is much smaller than the standard deviation of WAC talent, thus 5-15 NFL < 17-20 WAC.

You should read more up on the new coach and his previous job before spouting out lies. Bicknell left UNH in 1997 to serve as the offensive line coach for the Louisiana Tech Bulldogs. When head coach Gary Crowton left to become the Chicago Bears offensive coordinator in 1999, Bicknell was promoted to replace him. In his first season as head coach, he led the Bulldogs to an 8-3 record, the school's first AP Top 25 ranking, and a 29-28 upset win over eventual SEC champion Alabama. In 2001, Louisiana Tech won the Western Athletic Conference championship during its first year of membership, earning Bicknell conference Coach of the Year honors. Louisiana Tech played Clemson in the Crucial.com Humanitarian Bowl, the program's first postseason appearance since 1990. During his tenure at Louisiana Tech, Bicknell's teams defeated national powers Alabama, Michigan State and Oklahoma State. 22 of his players were either drafted by or signed free agent contracts with National Football League teams. Bicknell was fired on December 4, 2006 after a 3-10 season.

The previous coach at La Tech accomplished more then Dooley and he was the one who took them to their first bowl since 1990, not Dooley.