Which is the tougher coaching challenge?

#1
utgibbs

utgibbs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
7,394
Likes
0
#1
An interesting discussion in another thread has got me thinking about the toughest coaching assignments. It's relevant to UT as well since I would like to know what position we think CDD is in now:

Is it easier to take a proven winner and make them better (example: Phil taking over from Johnny) or to take a storied program close to its nadir and make them great again (examples: Stoops at OK and Saban at Alabama)?

Saban and Stoops basically fashioned NC teams in three years. You would think it would be easier to take a good team and make them better, but I'm not so sure. College football is all about turnover / it's a brand new team every four years.

Anyway, is Tennessee at a nadir? Or are we in some kind of dangerous limbo, a murky middle ground? At what state did Dooley inherit the team?
 
#2
#2
Interesting question, but I have no clue what the right answer is. I think Tennessee is VERY spoiled if our last few seasons are considered to be the worst stretch in program history. Dooley inherited a great job imo - He has been given the funding, facilities, tradition, and support to build greater success here than has ever been witnessed - the unknown is him and his staff - do they have what it will take? I have confidence Dooley is going to make Tennessee a feared program everywhere once again.
 
#3
#3
utgibbs said:
An interesting discussion in another thread has got me thinking about the toughest coaching assignments. It's relevant to UT as well since I would like to know what position we think CDD is in now:

Is it easier to take a proven winner and make them better (example: Phil taking over from Johnny) or to take a storied program close to its nadir and make them great again (examples: Stoops at OK and Saban at Alabama)?

Saban and Stoops basically fashioned NC teams in three years. You would think it would be easier to take a good team and make them better, but I'm not so sure. College football is all about turnover / it's a brand new team every four years.

Anyway, is Tennessee at a nadir? Or are we in some kind of dangerous limbo, a murky middle ground? At what state did Dooley inherit the team?
Click to expand...


I think he got a program in worse shape than Majors did when he took over for Battle...
 
#5
#5
utgibbs said:
An interesting discussion in another thread has got me thinking about the toughest coaching assignments. It's relevant to UT as well since I would like to know what position we think CDD is in now:

Is it easier to take a proven winner and make them better (example: Phil taking over from Johnny) or to take a storied program close to its nadir and make them great again (examples: Stoops at OK and Saban at Alabama)?

Saban and Stoops basically fashioned NC teams in three years. You would think it would be easier to take a good team and make them better, but I'm not so sure. College football is all about turnover / it's a brand new team every four years.

Anyway, is Tennessee at a nadir? Or are we in some kind of dangerous limbo, a murky middle ground? At what state did Dooley inherit the team?
Click to expand...
Is this a serious question? If you're trying to reach the top of a mountain, would you rather start at the base or 15 feet from the summit?
 
#6
#6
utgibbs said:
Saban and Stoops basically fashioned NC teams in three years. You would think it would be easier to take a good team and make them better, but I'm not so sure. College football is all about turnover / it's a brand new team every four years.
Click to expand...

Seriously? You think it would be easier for a coach to start off with fewer decent players? Kiffin brought in some good players and helped make some decent players good, but think how he would have fared without Eric Berry, Dan Williams, etc. On the flip side, think if he'd had just a couple more good players including maybe a decent kicking game. A win over Bama would really generate some buzz and help recruiting for the class of 2010.

How would Saban have been without Andre Smith and Glen Coffee? He'd probably have done fine eventually, but I bet 2009 isn't nearly as successful.

And of course, take away the great defenders Urban Meyer inherited and there's no 2006 NC for the Gators. Consequently, maybe slightly worse recruiting and the 2008 team maybe doesn't do quite as well.
 
Last edited:
#7
#7
LOL at someone using the word nadir.

Yes, Dooley is inheriting a program on the same tier as Miss State/Vandy talent-wise.
 
#8
#8
tvolsfan said:
Is this a serious question? If you're trying to reach the top of a mountain, would you rather start at the base or 15 feet from the summit?
Click to expand...

But we're not mountain climbing; this is college football. Every program has a new team every four years. The base of the mountain is a program like LA Tech. Or, perhaps a serious mountain climb has been achieved by, say, Boise State the last few years. Taking over at Tennessee, Alabama, or Oklahoma IS NOT the same challenge.

I think you are glossing over the question too quickly. It's understandable; and that's why I posted it. I think it's worthy of a few more grey cells.
 
#9
#9
I don't think his question is as easy to answer as this. When a new coach inherits the program, it takes a while for his style to reach the players/team. Inheriting a lot of talent would help if that new talent was ready to buy into a new program. However, a group of unproven guys who are ready for their shot in a completely renovated system is also a good situation.
 
#10
#10
LWSVOL said:
I think he got a program in worse shape than Majors did when he took over for Battle...
Click to expand...

The on-field product is worse but the facilities and support are much better. Due to having just won a NC and the ability to sign more players, Majors was able to more quickly address the players although it took him awhile.
 
#11
#11
utgibbs said:
But we're not mountain climbing; this is college football. Every program has a new team every four years. The base of the mountain is a program like LA Tech. Or, perhaps a serious mountain climb has been achieved by, say, Boise State the last few years. Taking over at Tennessee, Alabama, or Oklahoma IS NOT the same challenge.

I think you are glossing over the question too quickly. It's understandable; and that's why I posted it. I think it's worthy of a few more grey cells.
Click to expand...

Some very good points here, utgibbs.

I would say, however, that any program or job can be a monumental challenge based on talent level at the time the coach arrives (we are a case in point of that).
 
#12
#12
I think if you have a good coach it doesn't matter he could proablly turn around a program in the same amount of time in either senario
 
#13
#13
kptvol said:
Seriously? You think it would be easier for a coach to start off with fewer decent players? Kiffin brought in some good players and helped make some decent players good, but think how he would have fared without Eric Berry, Dan Williams, etc. On the flip side, think if he'd had just a couple more good players including maybe a decent kicking game. A win over Bama would really generate some buzz and help recruiting for the class of 2010.

How would Saban have been without Andre Smith and Glen Coffee? He'd probably have done fine eventually, but I bet 2009 isn't nearly as successful.

And of course, take away the great defenders Urban Meyer inherited and there's no 2006 NC for the Gators. Consequently, maybe slightly worse recruiting and the 2008 team maybe doesn't do quite as well.
Click to expand...

So Urban took a good team and made it better.

For Saban's case, you mean he doesn't have an undefeated regular season in 2008, but still does the business in 2009? Or does it just delay the NC until next year?

It just seems, if you get a team (with tradition / facilities like Bama and OK) at its nadir, it's easier to get "your" recruits (simply because there are fewer decent players to start). It's easier to get buy-in from the team, etc. You have the resources to recruit, hire great coaches, etc.

However, I think the starting line analogy is pretty good too. I see its merits as well.

So, where is TN on this line right now?
 
#14
#14
millsvol said:
LOL at someone using the word nadir.

Yes, Dooley is inheriting a program on the same tier as Miss State/Vandy talent-wise.
Click to expand...

Well, as compared to years past we are a little depleted talent wise, but I wouldn't say we are in the talent class of Miss St or especially Vandy.
 
#15
#15
utgibbs said:
But we're not mountain climbing; this is college football. Every program has a new team every four years. The base of the mountain is a program like LA Tech. Or, perhaps a serious mountain climb has been achieved by, say, Boise State the last few years. Taking over at Tennessee, Alabama, or Oklahoma IS NOT the same challenge.

I think you are glossing over the question too quickly. It's understandable; and that's why I posted it. I think it's worthy of a few more grey cells.
Click to expand...
I don't get it. What is the benefit of starting further behind? Don't really understand the question in this thread. It seems like a straightforward answer: I'd rather inherit talented team than a bad team.
 
#18
#18
Inheriting a good team raises the immediate expectations. Makes it more critical to win and improve immediately. Inheriting a bad team, or one with a low talent level gives you the advantage of lower initial expectations and when gains are made, they are much more readily visible. How much better is 11-1 than 10-2 unless you win the SEC or BCS? But, take a 5-7 team and go 7-6 or 8-5 and you look like you're setting the world on fire.
 
#19
#19
superdave1984 said:
Inheriting a good team raises the immediate expectations. Makes it more critical to win and improve immediately. Inheriting a bad team, or one with a low talent level gives you the advantage of lower initial expectations and when gains are made, they are much more readily visible. How much better is 11-1 than 10-2 unless you win the SEC or BCS? But, take a 5-7 team and go 7-6 or 8-5 and you look like you're setting the world on fire.
Click to expand...
If you're a competent coach, it doesn't matter.
 
#21
#21
bamacheats said:
Building anything is easier than maintaining it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
Based on what? There's no reason to actually believe that. People may get complacent when at the top, but it's not like their job got harder.
 
#22
#22
utgibbs said:
So Urban took a good team and made it better.

For Saban's case, you mean he doesn't have an undefeated regular season in 2008, I don't think he does but still does the business in 2009? Or does it just delay the NC until next year? Tough to say

It just seems, if you get a team (with tradition / facilities like Bama and OK) at its nadir, it's easier to get "your" recruits (simply because there are fewer decent players to start). It's easier to get buy-in from the team, etc. You have the resources to recruit, hire great coaches, etc.

However, I think the starting line analogy is pretty good too. I see its merits as well.

So, where is TN on this line right now?
Click to expand...

I mean, UT isn't behind OU or Bama regarding facilities. We're behind on tradition, but not all that much.
 
#25
#25
We have great good young talent our upperclassmen is what is going to hurt us. If we have 2 more years of a top 10 class we will compete for SEC and National titles. We probably have one of the best groups of underclassmen recievers in the nation. We also have alot of young linebackers with SEC experience some solid defensive backs a pretty good stable of runningbacks and a QB with alot of upside and a pretty good group of freshmen and sophmores on the offensive and defensive line. If Dooley can recruit good for the next year or two we will be fine.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top