Its over [hiring pause]

#278
#278
sjt18 said:
Or they'll demonstrate the worth both to the school AND the person being hired.... if they're successful. The definition of insanity applies here.... Most programs will hire coaches that they ultimately have to fire. The coaches are NOT worth the money being paid.

This isn't even a "tight" market. There are lots of guys who want to coach at that level. Some are FCS coaches with ability. I don't believe that the "best" are necessarily being revealed by the status quo.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, "if they're successful." That is a big "IF." I agree that there are likely many FCS coaches and coordinators who might well be successful under the scenario you describe. But what AD or administration is going to go first to hire an unknown FCS coach for, say $1.5M, plus incentives, when another, better known Div. 1 coach with a good record can be hired for $3.5M per year? Fans would go ape$hit with the "bargain bin" arguments. Everybody on this board only wants to consider "proven" coaches and are hard against hiring another "google" coach.

No established or proven coach is going to accept the contract you are talking about, so google coaches/coordinators etc. are all that's left. And it seems abundantly clear the fanbase isn't going to have the patience to give the google coach more than 3 or 4 years to "be successful."

Look I fully agree that coaching contracts have become untethered to reality, but as long as TV money is pouring in and fans demand that the coaching staff "win now" the market is going to be whatever the market is. If, that is, you want to hire more of the "can't miss" coach. I fear what you advocate is a recipe for even more coaching churn. Less generous contracts would likely work (by "work" I mean less money is paid to coaches, not that the coaches will necessarily be winners) IF the administration and the fanbase would stop with the unrealistic expectations that a new coach be winning 9 games by year 3, and can never lose a game they are heavily favored to win.

Personally, I think there is no particular rhyme or reason to why a coach is successful at a particular school (or not). There are just so many variables. Sure, the more experience and a good win/loss track record is a strong indicator, but it is by no means determinative. A coach can epically fail in one place, and then find success somewhere else. Even Nick Saban's early career record was less than stellar. Even at the same school, there can be big ups and downs from one season to the next (see LSU). Sometimes you catch lightening in a bottle, on the cheap (but of course, then you have to start really paying out the nose to keep the coach). Sometimes you spend a ton to hire the guy that on paper and prior experience looks like a can't miss hire, and they lay an egg. I don't know what the answer is..

I think what UT maybe needs to do right now is adopt more of the Kentucky approach. Find a good, reputable coach for a reasonable salary (by current standards) and give him time to do his thing. Stoops has been at KY since 2013. Now, some seven years later, his teams are respectable to good. Not great, but respectable. If KY decides to part ways with him after a bad season or two, their next coach will likely inherit a good roster to work with. That job will be attractive to the next guy up. Can't say that about Tennessee. Actually haven't been able to say that for awhile. TN is stuck in a hire and fire cycle which is embarrassing, and just puts us further and further behind. I am not saying keep Pruitt, given this season and the compliance issues, but what this program needs more than anything else is stability. Until we get stability, we can forget significant improvement.

JMHO.
 
Last edited:
#279
#279
MAUSERWERKE said:
Well, yes, "if they're successful." That is a big "IF." I agree that there are likely many FCS coaches and coordinators who might well be successful under the scenario you describe. But what AD or administration is going to go first to hire an unknown FCS coach for, say $1.5M, plus incentives, when another, better known Div. 1 coach with a good record can be hired for $3.5M per year? Fans would go ape$hit with the "bargain bin" arguments. Everybody on this board only wants to consider "proven" coaches and are hard against hiring another "google" coach.

No established or proven coach is going to accept the contract you are talking about, so google coaches/coordinators etc. are all that's left. And it seems abundantly clear the fanbase isn't going to have the patience to give the google coach more than 3 or 4 years to "be successful."

Look I fully agree that coaching contracts have become untethered to reality, but as long as TV money is pouring in and fans demand that the coaching staff "win now" the market is going to be whatever the market is. If, that is, you want to hire more of the "can't miss" coach. I fear what you advocate is a recipe for even more coaching churn. Less generous contracts would likely work (by "work" I mean less money is paid to coaches, not that the coaches will necessarily be winners) IF the administration and the fanbase would stop with the unrealistic expectations that a new coach be winning 9 games by year 3, and can never lose a game they are heavily favored to win.

Personally, I think there is no particular rhyme or reason to why a coach is successful at a particular school (or not). There are just so many variables. Sure, the more experience and a good win/loss track record is a strong indicator, but it is by no means determinative. A coach can epically fail in one place, and then find success somewhere else. Even Nick Saban's early career record was less than stellar. Even at the same school, there can be big ups and downs from one season to the next (see LSU). Sometimes you catch lightening in a bottle, on the cheap (but of course, then you have to start really paying out the nose to keep the coach). Sometimes you spend a ton to hire the guy that on paper and prior experience looks like a can't miss hire, and they lay an egg. I don't know what the answer is..

I think what UT maybe needs to do right now is adopt more of the Kentucky approach. Find a good, reputable coach for a reasonable salary (by current standards) and give him time to do his thing. He has been at KY since 2013. Now, some seven years later, his teams are respectable to good. Not great, but respectable. If KY decides to part ways with him after a bad season or two, their next coach will likely inherit a good roster to work with. That job will be attractive to the next guy up. Can't say that about Tennessee. Actually haven't been able to say that for awhile. TN is stuck in a hire and fire cycle which is embarrassing, and just puts us further and further behind. I am not saying keep Pruitt, given this season and the compliance issues, but what this program needs more than anything else is stability. Until we get stability, we can forget significant improvement.

JMHO.
Click to expand...


This all day long. The SEC is the premier football conference. Its also full of pressure that most other programs in other parts of the country dont have. Look at any coach in the SEC making less than 5 mil a year. They all suck. Sam Pittman being the possible exception but he's brand new and can easily turn out to be the next Jeremy Pruitt.

If you want to compete in the SEC look at what the successful teams in the SEC are paying 7-9 mil a year guaranteed, more with incentives but never less. Nobody in their right would take an SEC job with all that pressure for less money unless 1. They are really dumb and dont know what they are doing 2. Have never been a head coach before and are looking to break in and at least get that huge payday if it turns out they suck (Jeremy Pruitt).
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAUSERWERKE
#280
#280
So now we can interview coaches and get them pay raises at their current schools.
 
#282
#282
photovol said:
let’s keep things the way they are, everything is in good shape at UT
Go Vowels
Click to expand...

200.gif
 
#283
#283
Volnbeers said:
Tom Herman...come on down!
Click to expand...
Why! He’s in the easiest state to recruit in, our divisions much harder, Jimbo Fisher already owns him. Why would he succeed here to the level we want? If we just want somebody to get by and win eight games a year might as will hire Gus
 
#285
#285
PruitthasLanded16 said:
Why! He’s in the easiest state to recruit in, our divisions much harder, Jimbo Fisher already owns him. Why would he succeed here to the level we want? If we just want somebody to get by and win eight games a year might as will hire Gus
Click to expand...
I'm not sayin he'd be my choice, but if i'm not mistaken, he'd wouldn't come with a buy-out, which is something you KNOW this administration would find appealing.

let's not kid ourselves though...he'd be leaps and bounds better than our current loser of a coach.
 
#287
#287
I say we just bring back Dooley but pair him up with Muschamp at DC. Dooley and Chaney could be reunited and hopefully bring back the high powered offense we had. I know a lot of people won’t like this idea but I think it gives us the best chance to become an 8-9 win team very soon.
 
#288
#288
Vols1891 said:
I say we just bring back Dooley but pair him up with Muschamp at DC. Dooley and Chaney could be reunited and hopefully bring back the high powered offense we had. I know a lot of people won’t like this idea but I think it gives us the best chance to become an 8-9 win team very soon.
Click to expand...
Dooley was twice the coach Pruitt is...he just screwed up the DC hire after Wilcox left.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vols1891
#289
#289
KeyVol14 said:
Dooley was twice the coach Pruitt is...he just screwed up the DC hire after Wilcox left.
Click to expand...

I will agree that Dooley, while he had much to learn, he DID actually learn, and he did screw up the DC hire, and... he was at least 2x the coach that Pruitt has shown himself to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vols1891
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top