That Schiano guy just won’t let this go will he?

[Pruitt Will Do It]

Who will be the lucky school to introduce Schiano as their new HC?

Still waiting Ok

I hope Vanderbilt hires him in December LOL

 

[Elhanan]

Glass Houses

Considering the dumpster fire in Ohio I’m not surprised.

I’m sure they’ll hire him as HC after Urban is forced out. Right?.... no? Weird.

 

[Volumnus 2011]

The News Sentinel is so bad now. What Schiano said is such a non story. Not only should it not get printed, but the headline is just stupidly inconsistent with what was actually said.

 

[LordBolton]

Urban loved his guy when it came to Tennessee pulling Schiano’s offer but he didn’t even trust him with the reigns to his own school. That urban is a class act I tell you! I think schiano should just no comment the crap out of that question anytime it comes up. He’s getting settlement money as a previous poster pointed out, so he should just plead the 5th and keep it moving.

That's because he saw the light at the end of the tunnel getting Schiano out of his hair without having to fire him. Since that isn't on the table any more he doesn't have to pretend Schiano is worthy of the HC job. Probably constantly looking over his shoulder as Schiano no doubt wants his job, and now there's a crack in the windshield there...

 

[livefaith]

Who cares what Schiano says?...i'm sure he will be spouting off about the job when he gets his big break at Old Dominion and has a platform. Nobody cares now and nobody will care then. Vol fans have already been vindicated.

Old Dominion! LOL!!!

 

[livefaith]

The News Sentinel is so bad now. What Schiano said is such a non story. Not only should it not get printed, but the headline is just stupidly inconsistent with what was actually said.

How out of touch with reality can these newspapers get? At what point do people at those places finally wake up and go "Oh *$+& all of our customers are about to be gone. That might affect the bottom line"?

It flat out amazes me how newsprint and television "news" editing are almost totally insulated from the real world they communicate with.

 

[05_never_again]

Go back and look at the details of those Rutgers seasons, and tell me how Schiano isn't more than barely acceptable.

Because he was at frickin' Rutgers. Rutgers! You answered your own demand in your own post.

Again, to say they had a "bad football program" before he arrived is an understatement. I won't even say they were "irrelevant" because that understates it too. They had a virtually invisible, completely anonymous program before he got there. He took nothing, absolutely nothing, made them at least appear on a map, and everything they have achieved since he left (3 bowl game appearances in 6 years, admission into the Big Ten) is because he at least made them visible. The financial mismanagement you cited makes what he did even more impressive. He stayed there 11 years and somehow finished a game over .500. The previous 3 coaches had gone 68-113-5 from 1984-2000 (.366). They never even won a bowl game until he arrived, and had only played in a single one in their history.

Besides, I also said that he tenure at Rutgers didn't "qualify" him for the Tennessee job anyway, so we don't even disagree on the main point. He would have been a horrible fit in Tennessee.

 

[BeardedVol]

Because he was at frickin' Rutgers. Rutgers! You answered your own demand in your own post.

Again, to say they had a "bad football program" before he arrived is an understatement. I won't even say they were "irrelevant" because that understates it too. They had a virtually invisible, completely anonymous program before he got there. He took nothing, absolutely nothing, made them at least appear on a map, and everything they have achieved since he left (3 bowl game appearances in 6 years, admission into the Big Ten) is because he at least made them visible. The financial mismanagement you cited makes what he did even more impressive. He stayed there 11 years and somehow finished a game over .500. The previous 3 coaches had gone 68-113-5 from 1984-2000 (.366). They never even won a bowl game until he arrived, and had only played in a single one in their history.

Besides, I also said that he tenure at Rutgers didn't "qualify" him for the Tennessee job anyway, so we don't even disagree on the main point. He would have been a horrible fit in Tennessee.

They were a bad football program, even when he was their coach. The only times that they were "good", were when the majority of the opponents on the schedule had down years; quite literally the same as Butch at UT. Of the 10 years he coached at Rutgers, they only had a winning conference record 4 of them, better than Doug Graber and Terry Shea, but far from anything to hang his hat on.

You set the bar low enough, and any coach looks good; just like Butch's 8-4 seasons after Dooley.

 

[05_never_again]

They were a bad football program, even when he was their coach. The only times that they were "good", were when the majority of the opponents on the schedule had down years; quite literally the same as Butch at UT. Of the 10 years he coached at Rutgers, they only had a winning conference record 4 of them, better than Doug Graber and Terry Shea, but far from anything to hang his hat on.

You set the bar low enough, and any coach looks good; just like Butch's 8-4 seasons after Dooley.

They were bad...compared to what? They averaged finishing 5th in their conference out of 8 teams when he was there. Given their history, that is beyond acceptable. He clearly was and should have been given multiple years to turn them around. If you throw out his first 2 years and start counting from year 3, the general benchmark that a coach is supposed to have a program turned around by, he went 65-47 (.580). Given the financial mismanagement, which I didn't even know was an issue there until you brought it up, it really should have been a 4-5 year turnaround job.

Also, Butch didn't "look good" relative to the bar. The bar at Tennessee isn't Dooley. It's much higher than that. The bar at Rutgers was what...winning about a third of their games? He clearly surpassed that.

Maybe it is because we are fans of a "big time" program here, but a lot of people on these boards have a lot of trouble grading on a curve when the program in question has huge disadvantages relative to other schools. Over in the UCF thread people are really quick to say that going 13-0 doesn't automatically mean you were the national champion. That's correct. On the flip side going 68-67 doesn't mean you sucked, or even were mediocre. The job Dan Mullen, for example, did at Miss St was impressive even though he went 69-46. I don't know if he'll be great at Florida...I hope he isn't, but if you think he isn't a good coach because he "only" won 60% of his games at Miss St you are either unable or unwilling to see differences in programs. Miss St winning 60% of their games over several years is like Tennessee winning 90% of its games over several years. Glory years. That doesn't mean Mullen will win 90% of his games at a big school like Florida, but remember Miss St is slightly below .500 all-time. That's actually worse than Rutgers.

 

[BeardedVol]

You

They were bad...compared to what? They averaged finishing 5th in their conference out of 8 teams when he was there. Given their history, that is beyond acceptable. He clearly was and should have been given multiple years to turn them around. If you throw out his first 2 years and start counting from year 3, the general benchmark that a coach is supposed to have a program turned around by, he went 65-47 (.580). Given the financial mismanagement, which I didn't even know was an issue there until you brought it up, it really should have been a 4-5 year turnaround job.

Also, Butch didn't "look good" relative to the bar. The bar at Tennessee isn't Dooley. It's much higher than that. The bar at Rutgers was what...winning about a third of their games? He clearly surpassed that.

Maybe it is because we are fans of a "big time" program here, but a lot of people on these boards have a lot of trouble grading on a curve when the program in question has huge disadvantages relative to other schools. Over in the UCF thread people are really quick to say that going 13-0 doesn't automatically mean you were the national champion. That's correct. On the flip side going 68-67 doesn't mean you sucked, or even were mediocre. The job Dan Mullen, for example, did at Miss St was impressive even though he went 69-46. I don't know if he'll be great at Florida...I hope he isn't, but if you think he isn't a good coach because he "only" won 60% of his games at Miss St you are either unable or unwilling to see differences in programs. Miss St is slightly below .500 all-time. That's actually worse than Rutgers.

You really can't compare pre-91 Rutgers to anything considering their independent status, but since they joined the Big East, they've been terrible. Almost every year, minus 4 years during Schiano's tenure, they were pretty awful. Granted, 3 of those years they weren't as awful but they were never good by any stretch of the imagination minus 1 year. Thate one year Schiano can tout as coaching success, required him to play 8 opponents with losing records to hit 11-2.

As far as UCF goes, any time a team can go undefeated, it's relatively impressive, but Greg Schiano going 28-48 in a terrible Big East, isn't even comparable to Mullen going 33-39 at Mississippi State in the Western division of the SEC. Not being as terrible as your predecessors, doesn't make you a good coach. Schiano has solidified that that with his disastrous tenure at Tampa Bay, and subsequent lack of HC offers, while Mullen's name has been mentioned in every off-season coaching search for the last 3-4 years before taking the job at Florida.

 

[05_never_again]

The one year Schiano can tout as coaching success, required him to play 8 opponents with losing records to hit 11-2.

Before that, Rutgers was always one of those teams with a losing record. That year, he actually got the team to a point where they beat a lot of those teams, and given the context in which he did it (University/AD that had been totally mismanaged financially, an almost non-existent football program), I think it was pretty impressive. Schiano took a Superfund site with old, decrepit, abandoned buildings on it, cleaned it up, and built a modest little house on it, and what you're doing is driving by and saying "That house isn't all that nice, but I suppose it does keep the rain off you." Perhaps that's all it is, but did you see what the lot looked like before?

The poor state their program was in when he took over was probably only surpassed by post-death penalty SMU. I think it's honestly fair to give him 4 or 5 years to make that program into something. If you write-off his first 4 years, he won 63% of his games overall, went 25-24 in conference play, and only had one stinker year (2010, which was a year after he had 3 guys drafted into the NFL, including 2 first round picks).

He was good for Rutgers and good at Rutgers in that particular situation. I don't think that's an indication whatsoever he'd be good at Tennessee; in fact, I think he'd be awful at Tennessee. It's a totally different job, different expectations, different dynamics.