He didn't the entire mess. He lost to two shit teams to start the year and finished 7-5, which is what everyone expected. He just did it the hardest way possible.
I think it's a little too soon to say South Carolina and Kentucky aren't real games. Vandy and Missouri do seem to be fading fast.
Kentucky will be a 6 or 7 win team with a chance to win 8 or 9 every three or four years under Stoops. He's assembled a decent staff and a decent roster. If he starts losing assistants, it could go sideways on him. South Carolina is experiencing Muschamp in all his glory. Vanderbilt is dead. Missouri is dead.
would be funny to get him on UT's staff, and have him say something to the effect of, "guess the grass is actually greener here."
I agree. Right at the point when sanctions hit is a pretty terrible time to be firing and hiring a coach.
The Dooley hire was stupid. You might argue fireable. But you've got to be pragmatic. Getting rid of an overpriced OC is still a lot easier than trying to replace a decent-ish coach at a place where it is really hard to win.
We've lost to UK twice since I've been living. There's been some close ones with them throughout that period of time, but we simply dont lose that game. They are about at the height of where they can be over that period of time too and we still beat them. It took Butch and Dooley for us to lose to them during the span I've been alive. But my point is, it used to be that those were the only 3 games on the schedule. That's where we need to get to again, and we're not far from it.
Yeah, if the hometown hero can’t make it while batting about .500 and with a $2.5M buyout can’t get more loyalty than that....he won’t likely be replaced by anyone who is A) Worth a shit B) Who will likely do better C) That they can afford D) Who will stick around, even if does do well. Welcome to the drain-circling hellscape of reaching further for replacements who are as increasingly risky and unproven as they are expensive to get rid of.
Mizzou has had a lot of faux success the last ten years or so. Won an awful Big 12 North a few times. Even had that one year where they were a top 5 team for a bit when the Big 12 as a whole was way down. Then they come into the SEC when the division is as bad as it’s ever been and win it. I think they’ve built up a false sense of their capabilities. I’d be curious to know the best SEC team they’ve beaten since they joined the conference.
Everyone expected a win against GA State. The teams they beat were not very good. It was an okay season that should have been better. To me that means below average.
They absolutely do not realize that winning the east a couple of times with Pinkel will be the pinnacle of their existence, and they don’t see it for the outlier it was.
