We Need Rick Pitino

by kidbourbon on Oct 21, 2008 12:27 PM EDT Comment 14 comments

Bumped to the front. Another perspective on coach Fulmer from kidbourbon.

The football equivalent of Rick Pitino, of course. Allow me to explain.

The most similar situation that I can think of with regards to Fulmer right now is that of Denny Crum, former UofL basketball coach. Coach crum brought UL to national prominence in the late 70's and early to mid 80's. Then the program started to fall off. It fell off in a similar way that UT has fallen off: a slowly declining curve with an occassional upward spike (i.e. decent year). The fan base definitely became split on Crum into two different camps.

In camp A, you had the "Crum made this program what it is, and he can get it back to prominence" argument. Camp A would latch on to one of the upward spikes in support for the idea that Crum could still get it together.

In camp B, it was the "Crum may have made the program, but he is letting slip from prominence before our very eyes" argument. Camp B would dismiss the occassional upward spike year and would instead focus on the state of the program as a whole and where it was relative to where it had been a decade or so before.

Luckily for UofL fans, a perfect replacement came along: Pitino. Realizing that Pitino was the perfect guy for the job, and recognizing that Crum's best days were in his rearview, the UL AD nudged Crum out the door firmly but politely. He was given a front office position and a halftime ceremony in tribute to his career and what he had done for the program.

I think this is really very similar to what we have right now with Fulmer. Fulmer unquestionably brought this program to an elite level of prominence. Fulmer has also unquestionably allowed the program to slip back into mediocrity.

I am in camp B, which appears to be the majority. I respect Fulmer. I respect what he's done. But his best days are behind him. He's not bringing the program back to that elite level.

But here is the problem, and the point of this FanPost. We don't have our version of Rick Pitino (at least I don't think). If UL would have settled for a decent-but-not-great replacement for Crum, they might not have risen back to national prominence. They might have continued the mediocrity that Crum had established in his later years. What I'm saying is that we don't want a decent-but-not-great replacement. We need a football Pitino.

So, who is our Rick Pitino? Is there one right now? And if there isn't one, do we just ride Fulmer out until the perfect Pitino-esque candidate becomes available and interested? As much as I want Fulmer to be shown the door, I do think that we need to have a top notch coach in our pocket before we pull the trigger.

Thoughts?

P.S. -- This is my first FanPost, so forgive me if I messed up something from a technical point of view.

FanPosts are most often submitted by users. The views and opinions expressed in FanPosts do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by the editorial staff of Rocky Top Talk or SB Nation.

0 recs | Comment 14 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Spurrier would be our Pitino

Not saying I think Spurrier is the best man for the job but the situations are very similar. Pitino made a name for himself coaching at Louisville rival Kentucky, took a shot at the pro’s it didn’t pan out now hes back in the college ranks. I

by Getoffmyvols on Oct 21, 2008 2:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The rub, you nailed it

As much as I want Fulmer to be shown the door, I do think that we need to have a top notch coach in our pocket before we pull the trigger.

I at one point considered myself in the anti-Fulmer camp and have slid back over to the “no comment” camp (the unmentioned Camp C) for precisely this reason. If I thought there was a Nick Saban/Urban Meyer/Bob Stoops/Pete Carroll caliber coach out there, I might slide back. But I don’t know of a candidate like that. Which is probably why the University of Tennessee hasn’t offered me the athletic director job yet.

"Florida didnt win their first SEC title until 1991 and now they think they invented football."
-Ron Zook

by rustytanton on Oct 21, 2008 2:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The only thing constant is change

I think Fulmer has had some bad luck this year combined with a new QB,new offense and new coachs. Thats alot of change for a man that has been going to the same Krispy Kream for 17 years. And I’m not sold on that a new coach would make everything better like flipping a light switch. If a change does come I hope it is well thought out.

Phil,GO VOLS !!!

by bulldurham on Oct 21, 2008 3:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

But must it be change for the worst?

No doubt that change is the name of the game in in college football. Different QB’s every year, coordinators bolting for better jobs, etc. But some programs thrive through periods of change. Ohio State, Penn State, and LSU have new QB’s. Texas, USC, and LSU have new coordinators. Heck, USC seems to have a new offensive coordinator every year…who always seems to score a lot. I won’t belabor the point with more examples, but I just don’t think that coaching and personnel shake-ups have to == bad stuff.

by kidbourbon on Oct 21, 2008 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm driving the Brian Kelly bandwagon if anyone wants on

Is he a big name? No. But he moved up from the MAC when Mark Dantonio moved to Michigan State, and in his two seasons (plus the 2006 bowl game) he’s 16-4 – with two of those losses to a WVU team that won the Fiesta Bowl last year and Oklahoma this year. He’s done a fantastic job where he’s been, and at some point he’s going to move up to a major program.

On top of that, he’s defensively-minded (two seasons in the top 20 of rushing defense, and while the pass D isn’t as good, the 15-26 TD-INT ratio isn’t too shabby) so he’d fit in well with both the team and conference philosophies. At this point I’m not sold that we have a solid offensive mind in the program, so – hey, it’s worth a shot. Not everyone can run the spread, and not everyone should try.

Hey, he’s worth a shot – and more importantly, I think he’s reachable.

by Graysnail on Oct 21, 2008 6:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: the spread

I’m staying firmly planted on many fences about coaches, but I’m rather firmly convinced that UT should not go to a spread system. There are now enough schools running it that defenses are getting sufficient time learning how to defend it. It’s a workable system, but it’s not going to be this magical mystical beast it used to be. Even Florida, with all its offensive talent, is no longer enjoying this huge advantage over opposing defenses like it once did. It’s simply a strong offense.

Back to the point. The reason I’d rather not see UT use the spread is that there is a lot of talent available for other fully viable offenses. Florida will always be the best at recruiting for the spread (with Michigan a probable second) because of the reputation of the coaches (i.e. ESPN’s incessant adoration). UT won’t be able to outrecruit Florida for a spread, but UT can easily outrecruit nearly the entire country for power football. There’s a reason that we’re getting strong looks by running backs; UT is a place that still makes running backs look NFL-ready; remember that Foster was projected as 2nd- or 3rd-round talent last year (even if that has changed now). Hardesty and Creer look better, and Poole is widely considered the most talented of the bunch. Stephens suits a conventional offense very well, and it’s the direction that UT can have the most success.

by Hooper on Oct 21, 2008 8:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No spread here

I completely agree with you – the “no spread” comment was intended to dissuade people thinking that going to that offense (one of the many variants) thinking it was going to be a cure-all. More importantly, as teams move to a multi-WR spread-ish offense, there’s much more of an opening for the excellent RBs to come to Tennessee. It’d be a terrible idea to squander that advantage.

by Graysnail on Oct 21, 2008 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not for the "spread" because there is no "spread."

“Spread” essentially means make the defense defend the whole field. UT ran a spread in the 90’s when they’d put 3 or 4 WRs in, and let Peyton find the open one.

Regarding UT RBs, not all NFL teams draft RBs in the first round. RBs often don’t last long enough to make a return on the big rookie contract a first-rounder gets. I think UT hasn’t sent a first team RB to the NFL since Travis Henry.

Another myth is that Rivals.com “stars” are necessary to run it. Northwestern runs it. WVU has never, ever had a high ranking recruiting class (Steve Slaton got double-crossed by Maryland and LSU wanted Pat White to be a DB or a WR), and they ran the spread pretty well. Last night when they returned to the spread, they ran it very well up and down the field on Auburn.

Deferring is for p_ssies. Make a decision!

by wvvol on Oct 24, 2008 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Correct on RB drafting theory.

Besides the short shelf-life of an NFL RB, it’s also one of the easier positions to find a workable player. Some NFL teams also make a living out of designing a system for RBs and finding guys who have the skillset for that system rather than finding “great” RBs. Denver is perhaps the best example of that.

As for the spread, there are two different “spreads” in the discussion: the spread offense and the spread option. When teams are called “spread offenses”, it usually means that they are spread option teams. The spread option places a tremendous value on an effective spread option QB (Tebow, White, etc.). If the QB can’t run the option part of the spread option effectively, the entire system falls apart.

For a long while, the rankers were never able to figure out how many “stars” a prospect spread option QB should get because the definition of a competent player in that position wasn’t clear. (Alex Smith would be such a guy.) They’re getting better about figuring it out, but they’re still a little reluctant because of the lack of NFL success. (Rankings sites hate seeing 5-stars not get drafted because too many people think the correlation between high school rankings and NFL success should be 100%.)

by Hooper on Oct 25, 2008 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you're confusing "read option" with "spread option"

I think “Power Football” has been slain by fast defenses. You can’t block what you can’t touch. At least our “great” lineman can’t.

Deferring is for p_ssies. Make a decision!

by wvvol on Oct 26, 2008 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, we need a solution before we go into the wilderness

Kidbourbon, i agree with you. What are the prospects for replacements for Fulmer if he is fired? Which coaches would be interested in the job? I’ve heard people saying that they want the coach to be someone who went to Tennessee or is from East Tennessee. To me, we should get the best possible coach regardless of whether he is an alum or not. Are there any guys currently on the staff that are ready for elevation? I don’t think so. Maybe if Cutcliffe was still there they might make him the interim coach to see if he could handle it.

The one thing that worries me is that I’ve seen some programs hire coaches and wait on them three or four years and they are just mediocre and they get fired and they try to get another guy. I don’t want to be out in the football wilderness for too long, and it feels like we’re almost there.

by Colonel Corn on Oct 23, 2008 11:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs