And made themselves substantially better next year with portal additions. We are falling farther and farther behind in the SEC.
Mizzou just won the Cotton Bowl
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
They also didn’t have any players opt out. We will never have that dedication
Well, I work with an ardent OSU fan and he felt certain the Buckeyes would dominate this game even with their opt-outs.
Were all of OSU's opt-outs on the O-line? They looked like garbage against Mizzou's D.
Drink deserves some real credit for that. He may be the most punchable face in college football, but you have to be impressed with the culture he has created in that program.
Not taking up for OSU. I was pulling for Mizzu. That said, they were playing with their 3rd string QB. Not sure it would have made a difference with their OL.
If I were an OSU player, I would have been very aggravated knowing we needed some offensive firepower and seeing Marvin Harrison in street cloths on the sidelines. I get why he opted out but not sure I would have allowed him on the sidelines.
I think their participation is an achievement in itself. It's going to be a bowl game key measure until somebody does something to restore college football, which is critically ill.
UPC won a bowl game with several pieces missing, though. Fact is, I'm as elated for Mizzou beating Ohio State as I was disappointed that UK tanked against UPC. I love it when Big 10 big boys bite the dust and the circumstances don't matter.
UPC was handed that game in multiple ways, and I was immensely p! $$ed about that. I had a statement ready to address a UPC loss and now it will have to wait until a similar opportunity arises. I hate Kentucky this morning, loathe them for losing that game.
KY boards sentiments read eerily similar to ours, ''Stoops has taken us as far as he can''.
Since Stoops has been there for 10 years, this makes our boards look stupidly premature regarding Beamer.
Since Stoops has been there for 10 years, this makes our boards look stupidly premature regarding Beamer.
If 10 years is the new time frame, we should go rehire Muschump and give him more time.
Point being, Stoops has had 10 and Beamer hasn't even had 5 and the comments are eerily similar.
I get that. But im not willing to call comments on our coach's progress premature if they're made before 10 years.
3 is quick, 4 is acceptable, and 5 is plenty of time, imo.
I have found myself hating UK as much as I do Clem. So how that game unfolded was perfectly fine for me. It’s funny bc UK just paid Stoops $8.8M to win 7 games, and completely botch the bowl game. It’s also funny bc that performance proved, yet again, that Clemmy is back to average.
Stoops won 10 games twice and 7 or more 7 times at Kentucky. Will Beamer do that in 10 years??
Well, I saw some of their fans posting that "the best is yet to come". Very high on the unlikelihood scale.
Hopefully, if we are as patient with Shane as VT was with Frank, we get a similar result. Cut and run prematurely and you'll never know.
Agreed. It’s kinda like the Ray Tanner experiment. Once you commit to going that route you may as well let it play out.
What is premature?
The average college coaching tenure is less than 5 years.
Personally, I don't hope we give him 10 years if he's missing out on bowl games consistently.
Frank Beamer's record in his first six seasons was 24-40-2, a win percentage of .385. After the team went 2–8–1 in 1992, athletic director Dave Braine believed in Beamer and thought he deserved more time. It proved to be a wise decision; the Hokies would not suffer another losing season under Beamer's watch. At his hall of fame induction, Beamer said he would have been unlikely to survive his early years had he been coaching in the 2010s.
Well, we hired Beamer based off his father's name, we might as well give him credit for his father's successes too.
/sarcasm
Again, we could have used this same logic to extend Muschump's tenure here too.
I don't believe 10 years is necessary to judge a coach. No matter what outlier we dig up.
The world has changed in lots of ways since the earlier years of the Frank Beamer era. College football was healthier then in almost every way other than financially. No one is going to thrash around for eight years or some of these other fanciful tenure suggestions I'm reading and keep his job, not in the SEC.
Agreed. It's a different world.
I'd also like to know how many coaches who failed through 4 or 5 years became long term successes vs the ones who were just failures.
That's a long winded, roundabout way of saying that I think Frank Beamer is an outlier, not a road map for what's normal or expected.
See, I don’t understand that. Why can’t we have that kind of dedication? What does Mizzou have that we don’t have? We have to build culture sure. But Mizzou isn’t a significantly better place than our Columbia if better at all. I don’t get it.
It's not like Frank's blood in Shane's veins heightens his odds or anything. Frank would have been fired today - at Va. Tech.
I think that just proves what Spurrier always said about how success just raises a fanbase's expectations. People always say that if a coach can win 7-8 games a year at this or that school with an occasional 10-win season that they'll love that coach forever. We've said that many times about our own program. But the truth is that fans eventually get bored with 7 or 8 wins every year and start expecting more.
A lot of teams, including us, own the 5-year coaching cycle. Why change anything? Just keep doing the same old thing.
We've been playing football for 131 years. In that time we've largely ranged from bad to mediocre, with an occasional blip to being good. We have 13 total seasons in our entire history with 8 or more win (by comparison, Clemson just completed their 13 consecutive season with 9 or more wins). Considering all of that, it's funny to me that people think we absolutely cannot afford to give Beamer more than 5 years. Heck, give him a solid decade. What do we really stand to lose?
Nothing and we might get something we didn't expect because we tried something different for a change.
Why didn't we give Muschamp a decade?
Is it because it didn't take us 10 years to see he wouldn't be a good coach?
There's a reason the average is 4.9 (ish) years. It's because you can generally tell what a coach is made of in that time-frame. Waiting longer with a "bad" coach helps no one.
We stand to continue to lose games. Lots of them. I was optimistic about Beamer. Of course I was blindly optimistic about Muschamp too. SMDH
All I can say is our current pattern clearly doesn’t work. Why not try something different for a change? What is there to lose?
Drinkwitz is definitely the most punchable face in college football, Kirby Smart is a close second.
What is so magic about 5 years? 6 or 7 years may turn a ''bad'' coach into the legendary coach you've been waiting for. The 5 year formula is not working for us or most other teams and has become a cycle of failure with huge payout rewards for these 5 year coaches.