How Long Would You Give A New Head Coach To Turn It Around Here?
- Thread starter Random UK Fan
- Start date
So he's in his 3rd year? Sounds about right.
Stoops is in his 4th and setting this team backwards
Stoops is in his 4th and setting this team backwards
Last edited:
2 to 3 seasons.However,you can get a pretty good idea the direction the program is going to go in that first year.Stoops and staff showed they were terrible their first year but folks blamed his poor showing on Jokers players,and did not want to accept the reality that UK had hired the second coming of Ray and Curry.
If you graph time (x-axis) versus number of wins (y-axis), as long as that number of wins number is increasing as time increases they get as long as they want/need. If flatline or negative slope, change must be considered.
I truly believe if that is your criteria, UK would be doing essentially what they have done over the last 50 years, hire and fire coaches. It's extremely rare that a school lucks into that special once in a lifetime coach. I really think we have to be willing to be more patient and let a coach learn and grow on the job, or we are just going to rinse and repeat what we have been doing for the last 60 years. I do agree that you can tell very early on if you have hired one of those game changing coaches. But should that be the criteria for firing someone? Most coaches aren't game changers. If it is the criteria, not much will change from what we have seen. It may not change anyway, but what you are suggesting is what we have been doing for 50 years or more.
3-4 years.
You can start to tell by the end of year 3 if real improvement is occurring on offense, defense, attitude, decision making and recruiting.
Year 4 simply validates the year 3 opinion by wins and losses.
You can start to tell by the end of year 3 if real improvement is occurring on offense, defense, attitude, decision making and recruiting.
Year 4 simply validates the year 3 opinion by wins and losses.
i don't understand those that think UK is a place that is constantly replacing coaches. ncaa sanctions and retirement have nuked as many coaches in the last 40 years as poor performance. there've been 8 coaches in 40 yrs; 1 is still here, 1 left for a better check, 2 retired to never coach again, 2 were fired for poor performance and 2 were let go in the midst of scandal.
Nope, gotta extend that **** early in the season
What this program has done over history is make very bad coaching hires. Not all were bad but the majority of them were terrible. Giving someone to much time at a program is just as bad as not giving enough time. Why waste everyone's time if it's blatantly obvious a coach doesn't have what it takes to be successful here?
It depends on how much talent the new coach inherits...
If a new coach took Stoops place next year, I'd expect a bowl within 2 years.
If a new coach took Stoops place next year, I'd expect a bowl within 2 years.
3-4 years...if he is recruiting terribly and showing no improvement...3 is the max. Stoops got year 4 because his recruiting was perceived as an improvement and our record was better than Joker's last year. If we are 4-8 this year he's gone. 5-7 might buy him another year because of his buyout. I honestly would like to see him gone...just don't think he has what it takes to succeed on this level, and I'd love to see what a serious coach could do with our players.
depends on how the team looks how prepared they are and the recruits coming in.
Stoops has shown the team is ill prepared, team looks bad and has decent recruits. then you have to take the Gamble if those recruits that he has recruited pan out or not with his coaching. It is obviously right now not doing too well
Stoops has shown the team is ill prepared, team looks bad and has decent recruits. then you have to take the Gamble if those recruits that he has recruited pan out or not with his coaching. It is obviously right now not doing too well
Well, that depends in great deal on what your definition of "turn it around" is and what you are starting with.
On that latter point, for all the talk about what Joker left Stoops, it wasn't really any worse than what most new coaches at UK took over. After all, the reason why there is a new coach is the previous guy sucked. What Joker took over from Brooks and what Curry took over from Claiborne are probably the only 2 exceptions to taking over a challenged, losing roster. So let's just put roster issues aside.
Now a true turnaround for a chronically losing program takes time, a single flash-in-the-pan year does not signal "turnaround". Still you need some kind of mark that you are progressing from a losing mess to something better. In today's football world of 12 game schedules and innumerable post season opportunities I suggest that mark is a 6 win season. That seems to be a fairly accessible mark given 4 OOC games and some games against mediocre conference opponents. And yes, even the mighty SEC has some mediocre conference opponents. The question is also about how long it takes to get there (i.e., a 6 win season).
With new staffs, I think there is usually some pretty early on the field evidence that things are heading in the right direction. Not necessarily a 6 win season but a few "unexpected" wins and clear competitive improvement. By pretty early I mean year 2 or year 3. A 6 win season by year 4 is not an outlandish benchmark even in the SEC (see Mullens at MSU, Franklin at Vandy, Petrino/Bielema at AR, Freeze at Ole Myth). As I have noted before, John Ray is the only UK coach since Blanton Collier to not have a 6 win season after his 4th year. Six wins by year 4 is not an indication a program is "turned around" but failure to achieve such is a decent indicator that it is unlikely to happen. JMO
Peace
On that latter point, for all the talk about what Joker left Stoops, it wasn't really any worse than what most new coaches at UK took over. After all, the reason why there is a new coach is the previous guy sucked. What Joker took over from Brooks and what Curry took over from Claiborne are probably the only 2 exceptions to taking over a challenged, losing roster. So let's just put roster issues aside.
Now a true turnaround for a chronically losing program takes time, a single flash-in-the-pan year does not signal "turnaround". Still you need some kind of mark that you are progressing from a losing mess to something better. In today's football world of 12 game schedules and innumerable post season opportunities I suggest that mark is a 6 win season. That seems to be a fairly accessible mark given 4 OOC games and some games against mediocre conference opponents. And yes, even the mighty SEC has some mediocre conference opponents. The question is also about how long it takes to get there (i.e., a 6 win season).
With new staffs, I think there is usually some pretty early on the field evidence that things are heading in the right direction. Not necessarily a 6 win season but a few "unexpected" wins and clear competitive improvement. By pretty early I mean year 2 or year 3. A 6 win season by year 4 is not an outlandish benchmark even in the SEC (see Mullens at MSU, Franklin at Vandy, Petrino/Bielema at AR, Freeze at Ole Myth). As I have noted before, John Ray is the only UK coach since Blanton Collier to not have a 6 win season after his 4th year. Six wins by year 4 is not an indication a program is "turned around" but failure to achieve such is a decent indicator that it is unlikely to happen. JMO
Peace
I think about Charlie Strong's time at TX, from his hire date to now.
Here's the issue for UK. UK's perceived recruiting success - which I do believe in - indicates Stoops should be having a six win season this year. It can still happen, but the way we lost the first two games has created this mess. If we had lost to Southern Mississippi and it had been a who has the ball last game from start to finish I think the fans wouldn't be happy - but they would not be in melt down mold. If we had looked like a competent team against Florida - the fans wouldn't be so upset.
Let's look at the Alabama/Western Kentucky game. The game score was 38-6. That was a bad beat - I know Bama is number one - but it was still a bad beat - based on the score. Now look at the game itself. Western wasn't out of the game until well into the second half and the team was competing until the end. So, people feel their coach is great and is doing a great job. Not disagreeing with that - but when you look at scores - they don't tell the whole story.
When Stoops came in I fully expected him to take us to a bowl game and the team would look respectable THIS year, not last year. His teams jumped out of the box the second and third years and we were all expecting more. I think most of us knew he didn't have the team to do it in year 2. But, in year 3 UK should have went bowling - we had 4 decent chances to make it happen. We change co-ordinators and passed the blame on Dawson. That kept the fans on board - but now Stoops has mostly his players and who he says he wanted as OC from the beginning. This is the year - it's 6 wins or he should be gone.
The bright side of this is this. Even though we might lose some of the recruits if we change coaches - I think most people and most potential coaching candidates who have been successful previously - would be excited about coming here and competing with next year's team. In fact, the next two years talent level is already in place except for a few positions. A good recruiter of JUCO's could probably get the necessary pieces in place to take UK to a top level almost immediately.
This is why the next 10 games are critical. This team still has the same schedule and opponents it had when the season opened. Winning six games might be a little more difficult, however, many people thought UK had a chance to win 7 games. 6 of those teams we thought we could beat are coming up. We should still give Stoops our support - however, if this team has no possiblity of winning six games - we should move quickly and let some good candidates and recruits know we are going after the best coach available. That's my bottomline - this is the year for 6 wins and no excuses! Mark Stoops controls his own destiny and so do his co-ordinators. They have time and the right opponent to right the ship emotionally wise.
Go Big Blue!
Last edited:
Everyone seems to believe our problem is line play. So, if you hire at end of year, year one recruiting for the OL and DL talent you need is highly unlikely. So, you don't get any good OL and DL recruits until after first year is played.Year 2 they redshirt. Year 3 the first real class that should help the OL and DL is playing their first season. Not the upperclassmen you need, just one class of first year players.
Anyone thinking this turns around fast is sorely mistaken. If you take jucos to try to speed the process along (think Zadarius, Lewis, Johnson), you might get good players. However, you don't have them long and you lose a four year player for development.
I am not suggesting you must give a coach ten years. Just pointing out that OL and DL issues do not have a fast track solution. Need to make a bowl yes, but real, lasting improvement requires good, consistent line play.
Anyone thinking this turns around fast is sorely mistaken. If you take jucos to try to speed the process along (think Zadarius, Lewis, Johnson), you might get good players. However, you don't have them long and you lose a four year player for development.
I am not suggesting you must give a coach ten years. Just pointing out that OL and DL issues do not have a fast track solution. Need to make a bowl yes, but real, lasting improvement requires good, consistent line play.
Last edited:
3 years to show some postive traction. You look at the situation Stoops came into and it was bad. I'll grant you that. But playback any game in that first 2-10 year and tell me anything looks different with the exception of the names on the back of the jersey. That tells me 4 years later, nothing positive is changing on the field.
If you have all the facilities in place like what Kentucky does now... By your fourth year and first graduating class you should either be showing significant Improvement or of already gotten... I don't think if there is anyone that can deny that Stoops is headed in the wrong directionI think about Charlie Strong's time at TX, from his hire date to now.
For the average situation it's 3-4 yrs to get to 6-6.
For Stoops having to dig out of the roster Joker left, it's 4-5 yrs.
For the coach taking over after Stoops is let go next yr, it's 1-2.
The roster "should" be nice "on paper" that the next coach "should" they fit well to do well quickly.
For Stoops having to dig out of the roster Joker left, it's 4-5 yrs.
For the coach taking over after Stoops is let go next yr, it's 1-2.
The roster "should" be nice "on paper" that the next coach "should" they fit well to do well quickly.
This. You have to base it on progress being made. The problem for Stoops is that there hasn't been since the 2nd year.
5 years. I will be greatly disappointed if we do not make a bowl game this year, but would make it a condition of employment for year 5. In our case, you have all of your recruits, staff and facilities to make a solid run towards respectability. If any coach cannot do it by year 5, it is time to look elsewhere.
Exactly right TBCat,
It's not measured in time but progress being made.
Players that you see development in, teams that play better at the end of the season than the start.
I can't think of a single player that has gotten better under Stoops?
Anybody?
Agree, I've always thought a coach needed 5 years, but he must be showing a lot of improvement his 4th year. He must take UK to a bowl his 4th year, or get rid of him.
OLD STOLL FIELD GUY!
It's a million dollar question for sure. We have hardly left any new coach with much over the years so 4 may be the magic number for those guys. But if we replace stoops with the setting that we have now, and we hire a reaL D-1 HC, not an assistant, who is proven and wanted by others, he gets it done in two years max. The secret there is the coach hire.
Year 1 your team looks like
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
It's time to go!!
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
It's time to go!!
With our mess, it was going to take four or five. But we shouldn't be manhandled by conference USA teams by now
II think about Charlie Strong's time at TX, from his hire date to now.
I believe it took Frank Beamer 7 years at Virginia Tech to get a solid program that has now been respected for years. VT has a solid program and plays competitive football on a regular basis.I think about Charlie Strong's time at TX, from his hire date to now.
That was a long time ago. No other programs are giving their coaches seven years anymore. Good coaches are proving they only need three.
We've lost 8 out of our last 9. Choked and abused.
This staff sucks.
Schlarman in particular has done ZERO with decent depth and talent. We had Mike Summers begging to keep his job. That one initial, horrible move of getting rid of him was a harbinger of ****** decision to come.
This staff sucks.
Schlarman in particular has done ZERO with decent depth and talent. We had Mike Summers begging to keep his job. That one initial, horrible move of getting rid of him was a harbinger of ****** decision to come.
By year 4 you definitely find out how he develops players. And ding ding. with all that time to cook.....our Sr's and Jr's are still served raw.