What's the Problem at Tennessee (if such exists)?

*WARNING - THIS IS LONG AND RAMBLING, JUTTED AND SOMEWHAT NONSENSICAL AS IT WAS WRITTEN OVER THE COURSE OF TWO DAYS, IN PIECES, WHILE DOING OTHER THINGS. I HAVEN'T EVEN PROOFED IT. SO, I WOULDN'T SUGGEST READING IT.

Is there a problem in Tennessee's Athletic Department, and particularly, with the football program? And if so, what is it? Who does it involve? Why does it exist, and has (seemingly) been perpetuated to new heights (depths?) over the last decade or so?

And perhaps most importantly, is what I believe to be a "problem", really a "problem" at all, even if it does exist. Whereas a fisherman sees the first drops of rain as a problem, a farmer does not. Maybe the same thing is happening here.

I've given this some considerable thought since Coach Jones was hired, because frankly, I believe that coaching drives the proverbial train. To be sure, you've got to win, be an excellent tactician, recruit the best athletes and so forth - but all of those criteria, as important as they are, are of secondary and lesser importance than the head coach, as he plays the greatest and most direct role in each of those critical areas, and far more. How he goes, they will go.

• First, fight your urge to vomit, and consider Nick Saban. He's the best coach in college football, bar none, but what he is doing isn't uniquely possible at Alabama, alone, or only a select few of the "best" programs in the country, by any means. In fact, outside of a handful of schools with particularly unique challenges, I would wager that you could put Saban into just about any college coaching job in the country, and he'd win a national title within 7 years, absolute maximum. Arizona State. Duke. Wisconsin. Baylor. Miss. St., etc. Seven years.
• The SEC's active string of 7 consecutive national titles, which could have ended at the fifth one, and it still would not be seriously threatened to be broken by another conference having similar success until our grandchildren had grandchildren, if ever at all. But what has given the greatest push to the SEC's rise to this new age of dominance, and even more, that which is unique to them, alone? In other words, how best to attribute its success? Athletes? Sure, the SEC footprint boasts some of the best players in the country - but there are also hundreds of other players who are from other regions and who attend other schools, too. But with an exception or two (i.e. the SEC's recent dominance along the DL is hard to ignore and impossible to overstate), you don't see this across-the-board talent disparity when watching an SEC team play an out of conference foe of similar standing. Money? Sure, the SEC makes a lot of money, but last I checked, it wasn't as much on a per-school basis as those members of the Big 10 received.

So, if it's not athletes, money or even passion alone that separate the SEC, what is it? It's coaching, pure and simple. We not only have the best coaching of any conference, but are constantly re-tooling to bring in the next best coach, a trend that is not likely to stop, anytime soon....so long as money is important.

Look at this list of SEC coaches - and tell me which one wouldn't be one of the top 2-3 in any other conference? How many would be the best in another conference, by any margin? Several, at the very least.

While things like money, passion and athletes are undoubtedly important, sustained excellent always begins, ends and is fueled by superior coaches.

And that brings us to Tennessee's hiring of coaches in the recent past, which has been, let's just say, less than awe-inspiring (too strong?). Let's quickly review:

Johnny Majors
The last big "splash" hire that Tennessee made was bringing Johnny home, the year after he won the NC at Pitt. Johnny never replicated his Pitt successes at Tennessee, but he did revive a moribund program that had sunk to the depths with fallout following the loss of Doug Dickey to Florida, and the ineffectiveness of a then 28-year old Bill Battle.

Phil Fulmer
Thereafter, our coaching search didn't leave campus and Fulmer was hired, having been promoted from OC. While he went on to win a national championship on a string of miracles not seen since the Jewish slaves fled Egypt, he also stayed around for 3-4 years longer than he should have, unraveling a large part of the championship-caliber program that he had built in the mid to late 90's.

Lane Kiffin
Kiffin was by no means a "slam-dunk" hire. He was a solid hire, and one that was probably undervalued by a lot of fans, once he was named as the new coach. In fact, had he not assembled the (truly) world-class staff that he did, his hiring would have remained to hover at at/near the slightly above-average watermark (recall, I'm speaking of when he was hired) for most.

[ddiapos]
He had a losing record at LA Tech. I have never known what more needed to be said about him, than that, and still don't.

Butch Jones
I hope like hell that he is the next Saban, and has all of the success in the world here. But facts and logic seem to suggest that such a belief is nonsensical, foolish even, and must be rooted in either stupidity, blind allegiance or delusion. But, given the news that NYYVol has fathered two children, nothing is beyond the realm of possibility, however remote. But I have more faith that he will bed both Williams sisters before Jones even plays for an SEC title.

Can we look at that list and agree that Tennessee is not simply under-performing, as a program suffering with some large and systemic problems, but rather, are simply being out-coached? Or, more accurately, out-hired at the coaching position?

And so here is my ultimate question: if we are being out-coached/hired....why? And that question begs another, what's the common link that spans such a broad chasm of time, through so many hires and in such divergent circumstances?

• The SEC has always been near or at the top, but even it has ebbed and flowed, as have particular teams within it (i.e. LSU in the 80's and 90's, Bama in the mid-90's, etc.), so it's difficult to see it as a conference-centric phenomena.
• Coaches have come and gone - young, old, at various levels of professional accomplishment, those from within the "family" and those from outside of it, etc.
• Athletic Directors have come and gone in that timeframe, as have Chancellors, University presidents, Governors and numerous BOT members.
• Fans have cycled in at least one, if not two entirely new generations since 1992.

If not those, then what? What has been the one unchanging element, the one thing that has remained largely (if not entirely) the same, throughout? Further, what has not only remained the same throughout, but could have yielded a sufficiently high level of importance and influence to have impacted or affected each of the hires, going all the way back to Fulmer? And if there is only one constant, how then do you not attribute the perpetuation of any "problem" onto their watch, alone, if such exists and is real?

• Who is the one person whom Fulmer would have had to convince to complete his flanking move to oust Johnny?
• Who is the one person who would have been an integral part - and some would allege had singular hiring / firing power - for each of the hires, previously mentioned?
• Who has been instrumentally involved in the goings on with the football team, for some time, especially when they have no "official" standing? (Hint: they were on the plane with Hambone when it landed in Ruston to retrieve Dooley, before he was hired)
• Who's preferences have been previously tabbed as being important in the hiring of other UT officials, beyond the athletics department, and for the University as a whole....which also turned out to be calamitous failures? (think John Schumacher)

I'm not saying that anyone is mean, bad and evil - or that they hate Tennessee, or any of us. I'm just asking if it is possible that the "problems" which we see perpetuated at Tennessee are really "problems" at all, but rather, are exactly how things are, and perhaps, must be.....by one person's design.

I'll give you two hints (I don't think that most will need them):

1. See this article, and tell me if this sort of "diamond in the rough" / nut job coaching search remind you of anything....or 3-4 things? Link: Cleveland Browns interview CFL's Marc Trestman - NFL.com

2. There's an interesting comment buried in this article, first to copy it here wins 5 cool points, and will give everyone else a very important clue in solving this poorly worded riddle. Link: Beyond Pilot and politics: Haslams' influence can be seen in sports, entertainment and philanthropy » Knoxville News Sentinel


Just an interesting topic of discussion, and an intriguing question that I have been thinking about, of late.

 

What does that mean?

 

5 cool points awarded to the Gentleman from Colorado.

Exactly, IP....what does that mean, exactly? Serious question.

It's tragically ironic that our University is on the fastest-track toward becoming mirror images at UVA and UNC....in football. And nothing else.

 

That is my bet.


Edit. Beaten to it. Lol.

 

We have quite a few professional academics posting here. I doubt any could or would make a case that the football program's past success negatively affected the university as a whole. Some people don't give a damn about the school. Not even being aware of the brand only hurts more.

 

To me (I'm biased), the quote smarts of someone who believes that priorities are skewed, and should be corrected, willfully or not.

 

Tenny - you are not alone in these thoughts. I have mentioned a similar belief in a couple of posts and in PM's with a couple of members several weeks ago.

What I don't know is what can be done about it, if anything. That is other than educating our dumbass fan base to stay away from Neyland Stadium in the fall.

It could be as we say about some individuals and committees in church that seem to booger up everything - "nothing that a few funerals won't fix eventually." Not wishing ill will on anyone, but some people need to recognize their limitations and get the hell out of the way for the good of the program (and school). Otherwise their continued participation sends an evil intent message.

 

I don't see how de-emphasizing a strength makes people get excited about a weakness.

 

UT is the cute girl who dated the abercrombie model, Kiffin, then was dumped and went out with the first guy available and rebounded with Dooley.

Once UT got some confidence back and realized they were better than rebound and flirted with the supermodel, Gruden.

Ill say once a steady commitment could not be reached the cute girl settles for the guy her parents can approve of and starts making babies merely being content with life and wondering what if.

 

If I were UT, I would fondle myself in the shower.

 

Well done and often committed.

 

Could someone clear up Haslam's quote for me? I get the sense he is saying UT should emphasize academics over athletics.

 

Old boy wants of retraction of Neyland back to Shield Watkins.

 

Marriage = masturbation, correct?

 

Nothing wrong with wanting to improve UT's academic standing, if that's what he is saying.

 

The quote sounds like it, but his actions would seem to contradict that, wouldn't they? Isn't he a major donor to athletics too? I am also sick of people treating this university like the background for a minor league football team. I also want us to skull**** Alabama and win every game. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

 

they've been doing that for a while now.

 

This either/or mindset is one that I never understood. Because having a great university and a great football program are mutually exclusive?

 

So THAT is what "shower discipline" was all about.

 

Stanford, Notre Dame, USC, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio State, Georgia, etc laugh at the people who say that