Ladies and gentleman,
I haven't posted a in a very long time. I do enjoy reading this board, which in my mind is perhaps the most successful college football fan message board in the nation.
The title, "Stinky Questions" is because of several questions that I am asking myself, perhaps you are as well, and, the potential answers to the questions raise what we call in the south "A stink".
Over the next several months, I honestly think the legitimate answers to these questions need to be answered by the University.
1. (Two part question) Who was pulling the reigns behind the scenes that inspired Currie to go after Greg Schiano, and, why?
2. The University of Tennessee has a longstanding proud tradition of winning. Our decline over the previous decade has the fanbase at near riot status. Who then is deciding that the university should actively seek head coaches with lackluster records?
3. Having a proven winner as head coach, someone with the gumption to be competitive for titles year after year seems to be a no-brainer for anyone. Anyone, that is, not associated with the University of Tennessee. Why is that?
4. If competing for titles is not the focus, and knowing that anything less than near stellar performance equals fewer sold seats and merchandise, who in the administration or boosters have gains, and specifically, what do they gain?
5. David Cutcliffe, Dave Doeren....why? Seriously, why?
6. Are boosters who allegedly push for mediocre coaches so vital that winning becomes a secondary concern? If so, why would a booster yield such a big hammer to maintain losing, unless they have something vested in the losses?
7. If, as it is being reported, that Currie's courting of Leach was blacklisted by Haslem/Fulmer, why? Was Cutcliffe/Doeren simply "controllable" while Leach is not?
I'll hang up and listen.....
I haven't posted a in a very long time. I do enjoy reading this board, which in my mind is perhaps the most successful college football fan message board in the nation.
The title, "Stinky Questions" is because of several questions that I am asking myself, perhaps you are as well, and, the potential answers to the questions raise what we call in the south "A stink".
Over the next several months, I honestly think the legitimate answers to these questions need to be answered by the University.
1. (Two part question) Who was pulling the reigns behind the scenes that inspired Currie to go after Greg Schiano, and, why?
2. The University of Tennessee has a longstanding proud tradition of winning. Our decline over the previous decade has the fanbase at near riot status. Who then is deciding that the university should actively seek head coaches with lackluster records?
3. Having a proven winner as head coach, someone with the gumption to be competitive for titles year after year seems to be a no-brainer for anyone. Anyone, that is, not associated with the University of Tennessee. Why is that?
4. If competing for titles is not the focus, and knowing that anything less than near stellar performance equals fewer sold seats and merchandise, who in the administration or boosters have gains, and specifically, what do they gain?
5. David Cutcliffe, Dave Doeren....why? Seriously, why?
6. Are boosters who allegedly push for mediocre coaches so vital that winning becomes a secondary concern? If so, why would a booster yield such a big hammer to maintain losing, unless they have something vested in the losses?
7. If, as it is being reported, that Currie's courting of Leach was blacklisted by Haslem/Fulmer, why? Was Cutcliffe/Doeren simply "controllable" while Leach is not?
I'll hang up and listen.....
