Tennessee Football Life Cycle (1992-2007)

#1
Business

Business

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
7,210
Likes
1
#1
We're going to look at Fulmer's time at Tennessee through a simple "Life Cycle" in respect to firms and or companies.

Contingencies in red. Explanation follows in black.

Embryonic: Firms attempt to build share
Year(s): 1992-1994
Parallel:
Fulmer's seed was being planted in 1992 and started to come out of the shell the two years after. Tennessee was building momentum to go to the next step.

Growth: Strong firms sustain growth. Weaker firms concentrate on strategy.
Year(s):1995-1997
Parallel:
1995-1997 were the years that Tennessee were growing into something to be dealt with. The weaker teams in the league had to adopt strategies to beat them. Still though Florida had the majority of market share until 1997. First goal acheived.

Shake-Out: Strong firms seek to maximize their market share. Weaker firms focus or withdraw.
Year: 1998
SEC and National Champs. Top of the pecking order of College football or "acquring the majority of the market share"

Maturity: Hold and maintain strategies. Yet complacency is a downfall of firm.
Years: 1999-2004
These years yeilded no Championships and also two very average years. Complacency became obvious. Some cite 2001 as the declining stage but 2 out of the next 3 years they won 10 games. I view that as a hold and maintain of strategies. The effort on the field might have been different of the eyes of the viewer but the results were on par with a maturity stage. The 2004 trip to the SECCG also showed we were in or around where we needed to be where other firms were still in a strategy phase to get to us.

Note: The Maturity stage is when most firms will begin to think of new way to produce a higher market share. Hence, the reason why being complacent is view as a downfall. We can relate this to Fulmer's unchanging ways when it comes to strategy on the field and the rise of other teams. (firms)

Decline: Asset reduction
Years: 2005-Present
2005 was an obvious "slap in the face" decline. Even though 2006 gave some hope the 2007 version so far is looking to be going the way of decline. When in decline firms have 3 options but 2 are relevent here: either 1: Maintain, hope other companies pull out of market 2: Discontinue and create new strategy (or product) to gain back market share.

Notes: At anytime during the cycle the companies in weak positions can attempt a turn around at anytime. I see the upcoming games as a turnaround effort since there is optimism is around about the SECCG.

So with all that being said and Hamilton being a business man and knowing this theory like the back of his hand.

A.Do you think Hamilton realized his firm (Football Program) was in a maturity stage (as far as on field performance) when he took over the reigns as CEO in 2003 and like stated started making a strategy, at the time, for the future market share (success) of the Tennessee Football program?

B. Do you think Hamilton notices or to a man admits that Tennessee is in a weak position of market share?

C.Do you agree with the Life Cycle assesment of Tennessee I have posted?

D. Hamilton has a major in BA so things like this are imbedded into his thinking. A smart businessman is taught to never, never, never wishful think and to always have hard evidence before he moves on. Do you think Hamilton looks at the on feild success of the football team in a business manner like this without the enviromental forces of money?

Feedback please! If you want to get all Billy Madsion on me and tell me that you are now dumber for reading this post please feel free.
 
#2
#2
Business said:
We're going to look at Fulmer's time at Tennessee through a simple "Life Cycle" in respect to firms and or companies.

Contingencies in red. Explanation follows in black.

Embryonic: Firms attempt to build share
Year(s): 1992-1994
Parallel:
Fulmer's seed was being planted in 1992 and started to come out of the shell the two years after. Tennessee was building momentum to go to the next step.

Growth: Strong firms sustain growth. Weaker firms concentrate on strategy.
Year(s):1995-1997
Parallel:
1995-1997 were the years that Tennessee were growing into something to be dealt with. The weaker teams in the league had to adopt strategies to beat them. Still though Florida had the majority of market share until 1997. First goal acheived.

Shake-Out: Strong firms seek to maximize their market share. Weaker firms focus or withdraw.
Year: 1998
SEC and National Champs. Top of the pecking order of College football or "acquring the majority of the market share"

Maturity: Hold and maintain strategies. Yet complacency is a downfall of firm.
Years: 1999-2004
These years yeilded no Championships and also two very average years. Complacency became obvious. Some cite 2001 as the declining stage but 2 out of the next 3 years they won 10 games. I view that as a hold and maintain of strategies. The effort on the field might have been different of the eyes of the viewer but the results were on par with a maturity stage. The 2004 trip to the SECCG also showed we were in or around where we needed to be where other firms were still in a strategy phase to get to us.

Note: The Maturity stage is when most firms will begin to think of new way to produce a higher market share. Hence, the reason why being complacent is view as a downfall. We can relate this to Fulmer's unchanging ways when it comes to strategy on the field and the rise of other teams. (firms)

Decline: Asset reduction
Years: 2005-Present
2005 was an obvious "slap in the face" decline. Even though 2006 gave some hope the 2007 version so far is looking to be going the way of decline. When in decline firms have 3 options but 2 are relevent here: either 1: Maintain, hope other companies pull out of market 2: Discontinue and create new strategy (or product) to gain back market share.

Notes: At anytime during the cycle the companies in weak positions can attempt a turn around at anytime. I see the upcoming games as a turnaround effort since there is optimism is around about the SECCG.

So with all that being said and Hamilton being a business man and knowing this theory like the back of his hand.

A.Do you think Hamilton realized his firm (Football Program) was in a maturity stage (as far as on field performance) when he took over the reigns as CEO in 2003 and like stated started making a strategy, at the time, for the future market share (success) of the Tennessee Football program?

B. Do you think Hamilton notices or to a man admits that Tennessee is in a weak position of market share?

C.Do you agree with the Life Cycle assesment of Tennessee I have posted?

D. Hamilton has a major in BA so things like this are imbedded into his thinking. A smart businessman is taught to never, never, never wishful think and to always have hard evidence before he moves on. Do you think Hamilton looks at the on feild success of the football team in a business manner like this without the enviromental forces of money?

Feedback please! If you want to get all Billy Madsion on me and tell me that you are now dumber for reading this post please feel free.
Click to expand...

Awesome post. I also see the world in a business type outlook and have viewed the Tennessee Program in simular terms as in your post. I have the feel, by previous actions I have observed, that indeed Hamilton is an astute businessman and sees things from that perspective. I also see in Hamilton, someone that is loyal. I believe he is torn over whether to make a sound business deision (replace Fulmer) or to remain loyal to someone whom he views as giving him an opportunity (Phil's endorsement of MH as AD). I believe ultimately that Hamilton hopes things will work out where he won't have to be the one to make that decision (to fire Phil). He is pulling for Phil to turn things around. I believe there is at least a non-verbal understanding that if Phil could turn things around and win ,or at least play for, a SEC Championship then Phil would retire. That being said, I believe Hamilton is smart enough to realize when things have gone too far for the big dollar contributors and he will do what he needs to do to keep the heat off himself.
 
#3
#3
Very nicely done bidness. This is very helpful in understanding the "CEO" arguments that are thrown around on the board from time to time.

While I was not a business major, you might also add this to the mix when considering the life cycle. If we give credit to CPF for starting it, it is common knowledge in the business world that the person responsible for "launching the business" is rarely able to support recovery after decline. Furthermore, to that end, CPF has not attracted innovative "coaching talent" when given the opportunity.
 
#4
#4
Lexvol said:
Very nicely done bidness. This is very helpful in understanding the "CEO" arguments that are thrown around on the board from time to time.

While I was not a business major, you might also add this to the mix when considering the life cycle. If we give credit to CPF for starting it, it is common knowledge in the business world that the person responsible for "launching the business" is rarely able to support recovery after decline. Furthermore, to that end, CPF has not attracted innovative "coaching talent" when given the opportunity.
Click to expand...
To scared someone may make him look bad. Ala johnny majors.
 
#5
#5
Cartervol said:
To scared someone may make him look bad. Ala johnny majors.
Click to expand...

You don't think he tries to surround himself with what he thought to be the best staff possible to win games, because they may make him look bad? I'm not sure I buy this.
 
#6
#6
Majors was never scared to fire someone. DC Ken Donohue was considered a genius after the 1985 season, but when the Vols started '88 with a record of 0-5, Majors pulled the trigger, fired Donohue, and finished the season 5-1.
 
#7
#7
tennaseevol said:
You don't think he tries to surround himself with what he thought to be the best staff possible to win games, because they may make him look bad? I'm not sure I buy this.
Click to expand...
I wasn't refering to johnny as someone who was scared to fire someone. I believe phil has had chances to hire really good coaches in the past. For whatever reason he didn't. I think he doesn't want someone to come in and show him up so to speak. Do you ever wonder why noone is beating our doors down to get at any of our coaches. Yeah there is a reason for it.
 
#8
#8
I never understand that argument. I don't know how it is at your job, but at most workplaces it's kept very private when someone is approached about a job unless they are under contract and have to seek permission to talk to someone. There's no way to know every time one of our coaches has been approached by another school.
 
#9
#9
Business said:
We're going to look at Fulmer's time at Tennessee through a simple "Life Cycle" in respect to firms and or companies.

Contingencies in red. Explanation follows in black.

Embryonic: Firms attempt to build share
Year(s): 1992-1994
Parallel:
Fulmer's seed was being planted in 1992 and started to come out of the shell the two years after. Tennessee was building momentum to go to the next step.

Growth: Strong firms sustain growth. Weaker firms concentrate on strategy.
Year(s):1995-1997
Parallel:
1995-1997 were the years that Tennessee were growing into something to be dealt with. The weaker teams in the league had to adopt strategies to beat them. Still though Florida had the majority of market share until 1997. First goal acheived.

Shake-Out: Strong firms seek to maximize their market share. Weaker firms focus or withdraw.
Year: 1998
SEC and National Champs. Top of the pecking order of College football or "acquring the majority of the market share"

Maturity: Hold and maintain strategies. Yet complacency is a downfall of firm.
Years: 1999-2004
These years yeilded no Championships and also two very average years. Complacency became obvious. Some cite 2001 as the declining stage but 2 out of the next 3 years they won 10 games. I view that as a hold and maintain of strategies. The effort on the field might have been different of the eyes of the viewer but the results were on par with a maturity stage. The 2004 trip to the SECCG also showed we were in or around where we needed to be where other firms were still in a strategy phase to get to us.

Note: The Maturity stage is when most firms will begin to think of new way to produce a higher market share. Hence, the reason why being complacent is view as a downfall. We can relate this to Fulmer's unchanging ways when it comes to strategy on the field and the rise of other teams. (firms)

Decline: Asset reduction
Years: 2005-Present
2005 was an obvious "slap in the face" decline. Even though 2006 gave some hope the 2007 version so far is looking to be going the way of decline. When in decline firms have 3 options but 2 are relevent here: either 1: Maintain, hope other companies pull out of market 2: Discontinue and create new strategy (or product) to gain back market share.

Notes: At anytime during the cycle the companies in weak positions can attempt a turn around at anytime. I see the upcoming games as a turnaround effort since there is optimism is around about the SECCG.

So with all that being said and Hamilton being a business man and knowing this theory like the back of his hand.

A.Do you think Hamilton realized his firm (Football Program) was in a maturity stage (as far as on field performance) when he took over the reigns as CEO in 2003 and like stated started making a strategy, at the time, for the future market share (success) of the Tennessee Football program?

B. Do you think Hamilton notices or to a man admits that Tennessee is in a weak position of market share?

C.Do you agree with the Life Cycle assesment of Tennessee I have posted?

D. Hamilton has a major in BA so things like this are imbedded into his thinking. A smart businessman is taught to never, never, never wishful think and to always have hard evidence before he moves on. Do you think Hamilton looks at the on feild success of the football team in a business manner like this without the enviromental forces of money?

Feedback please! If you want to get all Billy Madsion on me and tell me that you are now dumber for reading this post please feel free.
Click to expand...

Can you graph that in form of a bell curve? Thanks
 
#10
#10
GAVol said:
I never understand that argument. I don't know how it is at your job, but at most workplaces it's kept very private when someone is approached about a job unless they are under contract and have to seek permission to talk to someone. There's no way to know every time one of our coaches has been approached by another school.
Click to expand...

That may be a fair assumption, but when coaches have enough suitors the facts become much harder to hide.
 
#11
#11
Whatever the only point i was trying to make is this. Phil had a chance to make a change. Go on a "national search" for a new OC. That national search ended right down the hallway when he found David cutcliffe. That is it . You get what you get with phil conservative playcalling, playing not to lose and watching it backfire in your face. Anyone ever thinking we will run some version of the spread. Mix things up to catch up with the times is kidding himself. Phil is a product of the system. A system that dates back well over 80 years. Change is overdue.
 
#13
#13
Cartervol said:
I wasn't refering to johnny as someone who was scared to fire someone. I believe phil has had chances to hire really good coaches in the past. For whatever reason he didn't. I think he doesn't want someone to come in and show him up so to speak. Do you ever wonder why noone is beating our doors down to get at any of our coaches. Yeah there is a reason for it.
Click to expand...


Wins & losses, in the end, is the only thing that matters. Surely CPF and every other coach makes staffing decisions which they think will maximize their chances at getting a W. This includes surrounding themselves with the staff that they think will get them more Ws than Ls.

Who do you think gets the majority of the credit for Ws & Ls over time? The assistants?
 
#14
#14
GAVol said:
I understand your overall point, but I'm not getting what "system" you are talking about here.
Click to expand...
This coaching staff has roots all the way back to general robert neyland. Old school mentality, neylands maxims. We have not went outside the tennessee family to hire a coach in 80 years. Thats a system if i ever heard of one. Mafia if you want to call it that, 80 years!
 
#15
#15
Cartervol said:
This coaching staff has roots all the way back to general robert neyland. Old school mentality, neylands maxims. We have not went outside the tennessee family to hire a coach in 80 years. Thats a system if i ever heard of one. Mafia if you want to call it that, 80 years!
Click to expand...

Nevermind that Doug Dickey was a Florida guy who was coaching at Arkansas and that Bill Battle- while on Dickey's staff for a short time- was an Alabama guy.

Fulmer may have run his course, but I don't think you can exactly call him a bad hire.
 
#16
#16
Cartervol said:
This coaching staff has roots all the way back to general robert neyland. Old school mentality, neylands maxims. We have not went outside the tennessee family to hire a coach in 80 years. Thats a system if i ever heard of one. Mafia if you want to call it that, 80 years!
Click to expand...

There have been a few coaches outside the UT family in that time if you get past Fulmer and Majors.
 
#18
#18
GAVol said:
Nevermind that Doug Dickey was a Florida guy who was coaching at Arkansas and that Bill Battle- while on Dickey's staff for a short time- was an Alabama guy.

Fulmer may have run his course, but I don't think you can exactly call him a bad hire.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
#19
#19
Cartervol said:
Name them beside battle and dickey who were both tied into the coaching staffs there.
Click to expand...

There are only 11 years between Neyland and Dickey. Does a coach in 1955 really add much to your argument?
 
#21
#21
GAVol said:
Bowden Wyatt was a former player but was the head coach at Arkansas when he took the job.
Click to expand...
He was hired by neyland. I'am not saying we never hired a coach who didn't play for tennessee. We have always hired from within. Thats it nothing more. Don't want to get everyone bent out of shape. We haven't had a national search for a coach in 80 years. Someone within always had a lead or new someone thats it. Never said phil was a bad hire either. :good!:
 
#24
#24
Cartervol said:
And? Whats that got to do with a national coaching search?
Click to expand...

I think it illustrates that for the most part Tennessee has done alright the past 80 years when deciding whom to give the head coaching job to.

Not saying a national search wouldn't be warranted next time though.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top