La Tech - 2 AD

No, the idiotic logic that acts as if an imbecile who demonstrably over his head "deserves" four years. If Jeremy Foley had been moronic enough to buy into that line of thinking, Urban Meyer is never the coach there and they're two National Titles lighter.

 

Winners. How hard did Florida find it to hire a coach when they fired Zook after three years? How'd firing Billy Gillispie after 2 years turn out for Kentucky? Real coaches aren't afraid of expectations.

 

exactly!!!

 

Fine, Zook got three years to show he was worthless. He also had immensely more talent than Dooley to work with from day one and, had he been in the same situation as Dooley, he would've been allowed four years as well with the way he recruited. It's not as clear cut an example as you might think.

 

Winners win because they find winning situations. Gillispie? Did you really just compare a basketball job to a football job? Yeah, those sports' rebuilding situations are so comparable. Plus, Gillispie got fired for entirely different reasons than you are advocating for Dooley. You haven't really given me any apples to apples examples.

So, why would a "winner" not go here? The one who would say "If they give me [penis] to work with and then have unreasonable expectations after I only get a freshman class enrolled, jeopardizing my employment, then why the hell would I bother?" In other words, good coaches have common sense, and they wouldn't bother going into a shit situation without a reasonable time to demonstrate their abilities and bring in real talent.

Of course, the real issue is that you would have never hired Dooley in the first place, which is fine (Hell, I didn't want him, either), but, after UT did hire him, then you can't advocate firing him at every turn. You are operating in a world of "should", not the world of "is".

 

The first thing a real coach does is that he says to himself "I'm not some [uck fay]ing second rate clown with a 17-20 record in the WAC who is only employed because of his last name. I'll do just fine with Tennessee's resources." A real coach would be smart enough to realize UT fans are fine with letting someone who has proven they know what they're doing time to get the ship righted. What they aren't fine with is letting a dipshit whose teams can't get the proper number of people on the field and call timeouts coming out of dead ball situations run the thing completely off the cliff before deciding he needs to go.

 

That's it? That's why we should fire him, on the basis of a few [uck fay] ups? Pfft, it's as if you were waiting to validate your original opinion and have pounced on the inevitable mistake any coach has, sort of working back from a conclusion made initially. And, who's to say Dooley won't do fine? The only thing I'm arguing is giving him the opportunity to "do fine", which means 4 years to get his guys and see if they and he works out. Dooley hasn't shown nearly the incompetence you suggest to warrant a pink slip.

 

I'm not saying he should be fired, but just what has he done that instills you with confidence in him? He hasn't accomplished very much that demonstrates that his coaching acumen is SEC caliber.

 

He isn't making a definitive argument as to whether or not Dooley is good, he is being decidedly neutral and saying that he should be given a chance to show that he is good. And that it would take 4 years to show his ability.

 

Great point. Why fire a guy because he was a loser in a sewer conference and can't manage even the most basic parts of the game? UT is apparently running a coaching welfare program. "Hey, everything this guy has done as a head coach indicates he's Ray Goff Lite. However, we're going to sing Kumbaya and give him a chance because he tells stupid anecdotes with a southern drawl and babbles about tradition. VFL!!!"

 

Ok, thanks. I was a bit confused. I can actually see some of both sides. On one hand, I have no problem with giving the man a fair shake. On the other hand, it only took me one time to figure out that pissing on an electric fence is not an endeavor that I should pursue in perpituity. At this point, my opinions of Dooley's coaching ability is not the best. It could change , I guess.

 

I could give a shit about southern drawl or traditions. I'm from Wisconsin and think the reciting of the Game Maxims in the locker room is a waste of time.

And, "can't manage a game" is based upon a total of three total examples in two years. Like I said, outside of a few [uck fay] ups, can you elaborate? I've seen HOF coaches [uck fay] up a few times as well, so your comment is a stretch unless you can provide something actually concrete outside of a few random examples.

You keep coming back to the LA Tech stuff, which meant you didn't want to hire him in the first place. Again, fine, but that just reflects arguments made when looking to hire him or not. He got the job based upon his LA Tech and assistant experience. It's irrelevant and pointless to bring it up in the context of coaching here now. It's not as if we hired him in spite of being incompetent and put on probationary status for two years.

Once more, you are operating in a world of "should" (in your mind) and not in a world of "is". UT felt he was qualified to be the head coach and, as such, will be given a reasonable amount of time to prove his value, which is 4 years.

 

Exactly. When Dooley was hired, I knew that the first two years would be bottom loaded with inexperience. I was fully aware and prepared for periodic cluster[uck fay]s these first two years because that's what having freshmen and sophomores running the show means, which is why I felt Dooley should get a pass until year three. I'm on the fence with Dooley, although I do like where recruiting is going.

My problem with hat's arguments are that they are the same ones he gave when he didn't want Dooley hired. But, we hired him, so those arguments obviously were felt erroneous or whatever and are irrelevant now to Dooley's status. We're not going to fire Dooley (partly) on the basis of what hat feels is a negative mark on his resume, yet one that UT felt was worthy of hiring him. It's not reasonable to expect UT to go back and say "Well, yeah, we hired you on this criteria, but, you know what, we think it sucks now, so adios." That's not a rational scenario to have play out.

 

Let's be honest here. Dooley wasn't hired because of his accomplishments or his resume.

He was hired because he was the first one Hamilton could get to say yes.

 

Exactly. I love the logic that says a coach's body of work isn't relevant to his continued employment. Dooley is now in his fifth year as a D-I head coach and hasn't shown the sightest evidence of being able to handle his responsibilities well. It's pretty telling that Louisiana Tech got better after Doofus left and Arizona went to hell after Sonny Dykes departed to take the job in Ruston. That tells me who the real coach in that equation is.

 

That's very much open to debate.

 

Pro Dooley in my opinion, but it can interpreted either way.

 

OK, who? Who has been fired under this scenario? So, you are arguing a program will hire a coach based upon certain facts and then fire him based in part upon those same facts? Sorry, this is one of your weaker arguments and it's based upon the fact that you didn't want to hire him in the first place, as I've stated a million times.

And, LA Tech got better when half their team returned from injury, not because Dooley left. It's reasonable to say that Dooley is an unknown due to extenuating circumstances, but your "loser" label is based upon superficial analysis. To me, it's an "incomplete". I think it's fair to ask why we hired a guy with little experience, but the dude has never had a shot to complete a rebuilding job in a reasonable amount of time.

 

^ Not the best time to be posting this, imo, imho, imoo........

 

Why? You mean we are on the road against a top ten team with a freshman QB and aren't winning? Fire Dooley!! Like I said, this year is a wash to me. It's next year I pull out the knives.