IluvdoubleD's
Sir Loves
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2012
- Messages
- 18,446
- Likes
- 8,622
Yeah, I'm certainly not saying we are as bad off as any of those programs right now. I'm just saying they all enjoyed great success, sustained success in the past. Georgia Tech is still 20th all time in wins, and it's now largely forgotten. If we don't get it turned around in the next 10 years or so, we're at the same risk, i.e., being where they are, not now but 10-20 years from now.I understand the point you’re both making and I agree that the next decade is critical in making us relevant again. I think the difference between us and some of those other schools is that most people don’t remember those schools being elite, and certainly not for maintaining their success over a long period of time. Our brand is much more recognizable than any of those 3 programs and I think our ability to get back to where we once were is much more attainable than those other 3. I really hope that Heupel is the answer. I think that even if he’s not going to bring us championships he will make our program much more attractive than it has been in a very long time.
Friendly wager?Do we now??
Tell me more about these top defenses in the SEC.
Speaking of UCF, the last time they played against an "SEC" defense it put 32 points against it...
The next year that SEC team went 15-0.
Why am I assuming?? Uhm...maybe because EVERY offense Heupel has ever coached has been top 25 !
Even at lowly Mizzou with their 3 star players galore.
Oh really?
Then what does last years game have to do with this year????
See how that works?
No evidence? No kidding. They've not played a game yet!! You're so wise...
Every offense he's ever coached has been top 25...so that's the evidence at hand.
But keep believing UK is actually better if you want. And let's just ignore history...Heupels offensive track record; UTs historical dominance of UK....lets just not even give it ANY credit
Its almost like basketball where players come to a school for the coach not the program.That kind of stuff matters to fans, especially when there's not much else to hang out collective hat on.
Recruits though, no it just doesn't matter these days. The reality of our recent mass transfer from the program of a significant portion of the most highly ranked recruits of the last few cycles is proof enough of that. They want to win. They want the best chance of getting prepared for the NFL. That is the reality or modern college football.
Heupel starts winning on the field, and he'll win on the recruiting trail. No amount of talking up a "winning tradition" is going to convince a recruit who has their eyes set in entering the NFL as a 1st or 2nd round pick in three years, if there isn't a measure of on-the-field success.
You are largely correct. Early on, a new coach sells this:That kind of stuff matters to fans, especially when there's not much else to hang out collective hat on.
Recruits though, no it just doesn't matter these days. The reality of our recent mass transfer from the program of a significant portion of the most highly ranked recruits of the last few cycles is proof enough of that. They want to win. They want the best chance of getting prepared for the NFL. That is the reality or modern college football.
Heupel starts winning on the field, and he'll win on the recruiting trail. No amount of talking up a "winning tradition" is going to convince a recruit who has their eyes set in entering the NFL as a 1st or 2nd round pick in three years, if there isn't a measure of on-the-field success.
You are largely correct. Early on, a new coach sells this:
- the last guy was a bum (may not say it but will lead the recruit to that trough)
- we've done it before and have all the resources to do it again... and quickly
- we have a unique and great culture that will make you the best person and football player you can be
- you are a major piece of rising up
- you will have the opportunity to play and play early
- you will have a great opportunity to showcase your ability on television every game
- you will have an opportunity to play against the best and show the NFL how good you are
- WE ARE RIGHT AT THE THRESHOLD OF GREATNESS. We are on the rise. We just need you and a few guys like you and before you leave we will be competing with Bama.
I know they're selling that last one based on what multiple recruits have said in interviews.
Jones sold a version of this well... that wily old used car salesman. But if you don't win it doesn't work after year 2 or 3. Jones' recruiting fell off pretty sharply even after winning 9 games a couple of times. Recruits recognized... and rival recruiters reminded them constantly... that Jones' 9 win seasons should have been 10+ win seasons and weren't specifically because he isn't a very good coach.
Heupel or whoever finally pulls UT out of this funk will have to make recruits believe. They'll have to do things on the field that are universally recognized as overachievements. Strictly for recruiting purposes, I'm not sure Heupel wouldn't have more to sell if he goes 7-5 and keeps the UF/UGA/Bama losses within 10 points than if he goes 9-3 and gets blown out by those 3. One says, "We're this close". The other shouts that UT is nowhere close.
- WE ARE RIGHT AT THE THRESHOLD OF GREATNESS. We are on the rise. We just need you and a few guys like you and before you leave we will be competing with Bama.
I know they're selling that last one based on what multiple recruits have said in interviews.
Exactly!Oh, I don't doubt that's what he's trying to sell, the problem, is that he's trying to sell it to people who weren't even cognizant of football the last time UT made an SECCG appearance. He's going to have to show his and his staff's ability to coach, and develop before he's getting top recruits to consider UT again. I'm sure he'll snag a few guys looking for early playing time, or who in spite of being 4*, would still be 3rd man at a top school, but as we've seen with previous coaches, getting few 4* players and a bunch of 3* projects doesn't cut it in the SEC unless you can maximize the talent. He's going to have to win before he can make a serious run at top recruits.
Unfortunately I can see our SEC title drought which is now at 23 years hitting 30 years and each year that passes by we slip further and further into irrelevancy. Here’s hoping Heupel can get this thing turned around.
I would use teams like Colorado, Nebraska, Miami, Texas etc as falling off in our lifetime, those were all mighty at one time not Ole Miss, GT and Arkansas.
That doesn't matter as much as you think if they can get the kid on campus and walk him through UT history and tradition. It is an education process but most kids are more impressed with a school that was EVER there than one that has never been relevant.Oh, I don't doubt that's what he's trying to sell, the problem, is that he's trying to sell it to people who weren't even cognizant of football the last time UT made an SECCG appearance.
That's been part of my formula too. And unlike some here, I do not believe he has 4 or 5 or more years to prove it. IMHO, more so than the last 3 guys, he has to show it in year ONE. I'm not saying a 9 win season or East championship. But 7 or 8 wins and being competitive in every game would "sell".He's going to have to show his and his staff's ability to coach, and develop before he's getting top recruits to consider UT again. I'm sure he'll snag a few guys looking for early playing time, or who in spite of being 4*, would still be 3rd man at a top school, but as we've seen with previous coaches, getting few 4* players and a bunch of 3* projects doesn't cut it in the SEC unless you can maximize the talent. He's going to have to win before he can make a serious run at top recruits.
Unless you find someone who wants to coach here and that seems to be a scarcity recently, he will get a minimum of 4-5 years.That doesn't matter as much as you think if they can get the kid on campus and walk him through UT history and tradition. It is an education process but most kids are more impressed with a school that was EVER there than one that has never been relevant.
That's been part of my formula too. And unlike some here, I do not believe he has 4 or 5 or more years to prove it. IMHO, more so than the last 3 guys, he has to show it in year ONE. I'm not saying a 9 win season or East championship. But 7 or 8 wins and being competitive in every game would "sell".
That doesn't matter as much as you think if they can get the kid on campus and walk him through UT history and tradition. It is an education process but most kids are more impressed with a school that was EVER there than one that has never been relevant.
You should read his contract. 5yrs is a virtual lock and 6yrs is most likely. Unless something really stupid happens, like NCAA violations, or going winless for 2 years. He's guaranteed an additional year, based on NCAA sanctions. That alone could take a couple years to develop.That doesn't matter as much as you think if they can get the kid on campus and walk him through UT history and tradition. It is an education process but most kids are more impressed with a school that was EVER there than one that has never been relevant.
That's been part of my formula too. And unlike some here, I do not believe he has 4 or 5 or more years to prove it. IMHO, more so than the last 3 guys, he has to show it in year ONE. I'm not saying a 9 win season or East championship. But 7 or 8 wins and being competitive in every game would "sell".
So you are saying that his contract precludes being fired with a buy out until he's coached 5 years?You should read his contract. 5yrs is a virtual lock and 6yrs is most likely. Unless something really stupid happens, like NCAA violations, or going winless for 2 years. He's guaranteed an additional year, based on NCAA sanctions. That alone could take a couple years to develop.
I didn't say winning didn't carry more weight. I SPECIFICALLY said that recruits are more impressed with say UT than someone like Indiana or even UK because the Vols have "been there". Through the worst of this valley, UT has continued to be able to sell "we've been there and will be back" over programs that have never been there.If that were true schools like Tennessee, Nebraska, wouldn't struggle to much to get highly rated recruits in their down years, and schools like Oregon wouldn't be pulling in top recruits since they are recruiting heavily against a school like USC with their own "storied past".
It's only the fans that care about a school having a historical winning record back in the last century, and they only bring it up when their team hasn't won anything of note in over a decade.
.