The Case for Mike Leach

[Woodrow24]

LOL! You have an inaccurate understanding. The stuff about people getting in Barnhart's ear and forcing his hand is just a fairy tale spun by disillusioned boosters with a greatly exaggerated sense of self importance. KSR picked up on it, but that doesn't make it the truth. Barnhart is actually 1 of the most secure athletics directors in the country, and he calls the shots. Barnhart and Capilouto have a close working relationship. I can tell you that much for a fact. Leach would be a very serious implosion risk at Kentucky. There is absolutely no evidence at all that Leach can be a successful SEC HC. It would be the kind of reckless hire that could blow up a program that just spent $200 million on upgrades. Talking specifically about Leach, no SEC athletics director in his right mind would take that kind of a risk. But you are right about Stoops still learning to be a HC. There are no guarantees that Stoops will succeed, but he will be back in 2017 unless this team totally collapses. And as of now, the team is actually making some progress. But I don't know if Stoops has enough quarterbacks or defensive ends to get it done. Seriously.

Just curious but how do you know for a fact that Barnhart wasn't forced to hire cal? I'm not saying it's true or false but you stating that makes me curious.
Leach has been PAC 12 coach of the year and big 12 coach of the year. His offenses have set NCAA records. He won 9 games last year at Washington state. His worst season at Texas tech was 7-5. They went to bowl games every season while he was there. He's working on building up a program that isn't traditionally good. Why would an SEC AD be taking such a major risk if they hired him? He has won many games over teams with more talent then he had, so I'm not sure where your coming from with that.

 

[Blue Decade]

blue you make good points from time to time but you are dead wrong here about Leach being a big risk.

That's your opinion. We have some people here who won't ever let it go. So if Barnhart won't hire their guy, then they bellyache. But Mike Leach has never had an SEC head coaching job, and I have never even heard his name on any SEC short lists either. If Leach was SEC head coaching material, an SEC school would have tried to hire him. He has certainly been available, no doubt about that. So, maybe 14 SEC schools have missed the boat by not hiring Leach. Or else, I am right in saying that he isn't a good fit in the SEC. It's 1 or the other. And if Stoops fails, which might or might not happen, it's going to be enlightening to see what happens next.

 

[Woodrow24]

That's your opinion. We have some people here who won't ever let it go. So if Barnhart won't hire their guy, then they bellyache. But Mike Leach has never had an SEC head coaching job, and I have never even heard his name on any SEC short lists either. If Leach was SEC head coaching material, an SEC school would have tried to hire him. He has certainly been available, no doubt about that. So, maybe 14 SEC schools have missed the boat by not hiring Leach. Or else, I am right in saying that he isn't a good fit in the SEC. It's 1 or the other. And if Stoops fails, which might or might not happen, it's going to be enlightening to see what happens next.

SMH...so a coach is bad if he hasn't been interviewed by SEC schools? Good football is played in other conferences as well.

 

[Blue Decade]

Just curious but how do you know for a fact that Barnhart wasn't forced to hire cal?

Yes. From the most reliable source of all. And I don't mean Barnhart. I am only answering this question because you asked me directly. I will probably regret it. I am not an athletics department insider, but my job brings me into contact with interesting people in Lexington. That's all I will say about it, and I'm sure it probably won't be enough for people who cling to this fantasy.

 

[Woodrow24]

Yes. From the most reliable source of all. And I don't mean Barnhart. I am only answering this question because you asked me directly. I will probably regret it. I am not an athletics department insider, but my job brings me into contact with interesting people in Lexington. That's all I will say about it, and I'm sure it probably won't be enough for people who cling to this fantasy.

Thanks for answering. It doesn't matter to me if he was forced or not lol I'm glad cal is our coach.

 

[Blue Decade]

SMH...so a coach is bad if he hasn't been interviewed by SEC schools? Good football is played in other conferences as well.

That isn't what I said. I don't mind defending what I actually say. I said 14 SEC schools have not tried to hire Leach as their HC. That speaks for itself. The best college football is played in the SEC. Kentucky fans want to be competitive in the SEC. Do the math.

 

[Woodrow24]

That isn't what I said. I don't mind defending what I actually say. I said 14 SEC have not tried to hire Leach as their HC. That speaks for itself. The best college football is played in the SEC. Kentucky fans want to be competitive in the SEC. Do the math.

It was rumored at one time that when he was at Texas tech that Auburn had talked to him. I think he would be good here. He won't be our coach if their was an opening, I'm positive of that. Mitch wouldn't want him. I think he would do very good here but my opinion means nothing lol

 

[308955]

I am neither for nor against the hiring of Mike Leach. It would definitely be interesting. The offense would improve immediately and exponentially. On the other hand, he is an average recruiter and, admittedly, cares little about defense. In my opinion, that kind of caps his ability to succeed in the SEC.

A portion of our fan base seems to value Leach far more than the rest of the country and, probably, more than he deserves. Leach took over a TT program that had finished 2nd in the Big 12 South four consecutive years. TT also had winning seasons for 9/10 years before they hired Leach. While the Crabtree led team was certainly impressive, it was the only season where Leach won his division (he only finished second once). He basically won at the same rate that TT had been winning prior to his arrival. His 9-4 season at WSU was also very impressive, but was it an aberration? There are reasons that Leach has never been offered a premier job (and its not the silly James nonsense).

I think most people see Leach as a novelty and I am inclined to agree. Although with the recent level of play in Commonwealth Stadium, a novelty that could win 7 or even 8 games in a season would be a welcomed reprieve. Sigh.

 

[CatsPaws270]

12 Bowls in 14 seasons
Coach of the year in 2 different power conferences
Career winning record

For the people who are whining about "He never has been offered in the SEC, why would we want someone no one else wants"

NEWSFLASH TO BBN:
UK IS THE 13TH MOST ATTRACTIVE JOB IN THE SEC. WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET A COACH THAT SOMEONE ELSE IN THE SEC HAS OFFERED.

Do you think a coach would choose UK if Arkansas, Miss State, SC, or even Mizzou have offered them...no!


If a coach has had SEC interest, he probably is a coach that would not want to come to UK, I'm being realistic.

My thing for Leach is this simply that he does one thing well and we can always count on that.

If we have an offense that can score, we can always count on that at least. No matter what else we do, we can count on our offense putting points on the board. Point to any program that wins consistently, they always have one characteristic that they always do well..

Also, once again, quit acting like we are in the SEC West. I would understand not wanting Leach if we had to play Alabama, Ole Miss, LSU, Arkansas, A&M, and Auburn every year...but we are playing SC, Mizzou, Vandy, UGA, UF, UT, and Miss St. I'm pretty sure Leach's teams at Tech could do just fine against those teams.

Think about Leach's offense against these offensively challenged teams in the East...these teams cannot score on anyone and we would not have to worry about scoring. Other than the big 3 schools we face every year...its not like the bottom tier schools would be scoring a high rate on our D anyways.

 

[308955]

No need to yell. Pretty much everyone here knows where UK football stands. Mike Leach has had a good coaching career, unquestionably. I said nothing about him not getting any SEC offers. He hasn't gotten any big time offers (in any conference), despite the success he has had. None. He is overvalued by fans of offense and, probably, undervalued by fans of defense. He probably would win 7 or 8 games a year at UK, but I keep reading on this board that we should demand more than that. If that is what we are shooting for, then Leach is a good hire.

I would much rather UK pursue a younger coach that will, hopefully, someday be pursued by big programs. Even the 13th best job in the SEC can get that guy. Mike Leach is a known commodity.

Additionally, both the Big 12 and PAC are more offensively driven leagues. I am not certain Leach would find consistent success against the more talented SEC defenses. This is all just my humble opinion, though.

 

[sluggercatfan]

Im in favor but Mitch can't control him therefore it'll never happen. Plus he says potty words and Mitch no likey.

He can't control Cal either so what's the deal? That is why DP takes care of bb, Cal dosen't need anybody telling him what to do.

 

[Mojocat_rivals48469]

Like Leach, and it's hard to keep a straight face while reading Kentucky fans criticize his record.

But Deeeefense raised a good point: Leach has had the luxury of coaching in the Big 12 and Pac 12, where defense seems to be optional. Big question as to how his offense, style and success would translate in the SEC.

 

[sluggercatfan]

I wouldn't mind Leach at all but I understand what he is as a coach and what he would bring.

First, there is something to say about stability. Leach wins consistently and he doesn't bolt for program after program after program. If you are looking for someone to take UK to a bowl game every yr for 10 yrs he'd do it.

Second, there's what Leach is as a coach and what he could be. And by his own admission those two will never meet. In the time between being at TTU and WSU he was on satellite radio.....and I listened to him 4 days a wk for as long as he was on the radio. He said on multiple occassions that he doesn't care about defense. He has said that no good DC will ever want to be on his staff because he funnels all resources into the offense....recruiting, practice time, etc. The only thing he asks of the defense, "is to give his offense a minute to rest."

Because of this philosophy he will never be the coach he could be. At TTU he basically won 6-8 games/yr. He's getting WSU to the point where they win 6-8 games/yr. What do you think he'd do at UK? He'd likely get us to where we'd win 6-8 games/yr. If he cared more about defense he would win more.

So, if you think UK can be a program that wins 9, 10, 11+ games/yr fairly consistently then Leach will disappoint you. If you understand what Leach brings to the table....and you're ok with that.....then he'll be one of the safest bets we could land.

At TT. ML had 2 7s..4 8s..3 9s..and 1 11win seasons and a bowl every season...I'll take that and

 

[51stFan]

We have to either hit the lottery with a MAC HC or go after a coach like Leach or Petrino that can beat you with less talent. Both of those may not be the Pope but at least you know they can win without Alabama talent.

 

[Ukbrassowtipin]

Again I like leach, but TT was still way better than UK before he took them over. They were the only charter member of the big12 to have a winning season every year. In fact they didn't have a losing season while in the Big12 until 2011. Getting instate talent passed over by UT, A&M, and others is still better than what UK is filling back up spots with.

 

[sluggercatfan]

The problem with an Air Raid guy like Leach is it's hard to see how he succeeds in the SEC. The top and upper mid tier teams in this league almost always have top 25 defenses. If that type of system could succeed here, it would already have been done. Not saying the other P5 conferences don't rely on defense, just not to the extent that the SEC does. Without a decent defense and a reliable running game you just can't get too far in this league.

If you go back to the 2014 season through this season to date Leach has posted a 14-15 record overall, 9-10 in the conference. If you can't post a winning record in the Pac10, why would anyone think he could have more success at Kentucky in the SEC?

He inherited a bigger disaster than MS did and has been to two bowl games in 4 years...and why didn't you bring up his record at TT?... 85- 43..0 non losing seasons with only his 1st season as a losing record in conference.

 

[sluggercatfan]

But at the same time, if a coach at UK put up a 9-4 record with a 6-3 conference record, including a win over Miami in the Sun Bowl, he'd have a statue made for him outside the stadium.

And people keep acting like winning in the SEC with defense and toughness is the way to go at UK?! We will never have the talent to match up against the other teams in our conference that do that...its delusional to think that way.

All Leach has to do is put out a team good enough to beat 3 mid major schools, Mizzou, Miss St, Vandy, and SC....with a chance to upset a few of the other 4 we play every year and have a team that can compete with a high powered UofL offense.

Outside of LSU, ALL the upper tier teams in conference now run high powered, high scoring offenses

 

[sluggercatfan]

So everyone is going to ignore the fact that he went 3-9, 6-7, 3-9 in his first three seasons at WSU. His fourth season he did go 9-4 but that was in the PAC 10 (or 12 or whatever) which isn't nearly as tough as the SEC. I just don't see that his record, outside of TX, is that much different than Stoops.

The second year was also a bowl game and so was last year. That's 2-2 not 0-3..

 

[sluggercatfan]

I am not interested in building our program around Mike Leach's Flying Circus. Let's establish the identity of being a very tough defensive team, and go from there. I will be entertained when we look like a serious football team, not a football lab experiment.

85-43 At TT...great experiment when is the last time we hired a coach with that kind of winning record at a P5 school...let me think...got it..NEVER!

 

[sluggercatfan]

As long as Barnhart is the AD, Mike Leach has no shot as UK's next coach. I love Mike Leach but I realized that he will never be the UK Coach.

Gabe..then it's time too get rid of the road block

 

[sluggercatfan]

LOL! You have an inaccurate understanding. The stuff about people getting in Barnhart's ear and forcing his hand is just a fairy tale spun by disillusioned boosters with a greatly exaggerated sense of self importance. KSR picked up on it, but that doesn't make it the truth. Barnhart is actually 1 of the most secure athletics directors in the country, and he calls the shots. Barnhart and Capilouto have a close working relationship. I can tell you that much for a fact. Leach would be a very serious implosion risk at Kentucky. There is absolutely no evidence at all that Leach can be a successful SEC HC. It would be the kind of reckless hire that could blow up a program that just spent $200 million on upgrades. Talking specifically about Leach, no SEC athletics director in his right mind would take that kind of a risk. But you are right about Stoops still learning to be a HC. There are no guarantees that Stoops will succeed, but he will be back in 2017 unless this team totally collapses. And as of now, the team is actually making some progress. But I don't know if Stoops has enough quarterbacks or defensive ends to get it done. Seriously.

The wick on the bomb is burnt about
2/3 thru.

 

[brianpoe]

Assuming we are looking to hire a coach after this season, which is doubtful, I have a question about Leach as a potential hire. Isn't he coaching at Washington State? Not a powerhouse elite program but UK football isn't, either. Is he noticeably unhappy where he is at? Exactly why is assumed that this guy is going to leap at an opportunity to make a lateral move at best? Without Falk coming with him?

1. Mitch would never do it because:
a) he's not a nice enough guy
b) Mitch chooses guys who are better recruiters than they are coaches, that's not the case with Leach

2. Despite what you think of Washington State, that's still basically a lateral move coming to Kentucky..I see zero reason he would do it unless he's fed up with the administration there..the advantages of UK over WSU would be minimal at best and not worth the headache unless he's just completely miserable where he's at

3. Not sold that he'd be any better than Stoops, this is a man's conference and I think with so many teams running variations of the Air Raid now I think a lot of teams and coaches have caught up to him

No doubt that there would be many worse options than Leach. Why would he want to come here at this point in his career?

The chance of MB ever hiring Leach are slim to none.

However, Leach loves Lexington, wanted the job before and would come back.

I knew Mike when he was here and have mutual friends.

 

[BlueRunner11]

He can't control Cal either so what's the deal? That is why DP takes care of bb, Cal dosen't need anybody telling him what to do.

You're right, Cal and Bball are their own entity at UK. Football is not.

 

[BlueRaider22]

At TT. ML had 2 7s..4 8s..3 9s..and 1 11win seasons and a bowl every season...I'll take that and

He was also in the Big12 where defenses aren't spectacular.....and sitting in the fertile recruiting ground of Texas. During a similar jaunt at UK you could probabaly cut 1-2 wins off every season.

Like I said, I wouldn't mind him as coach but I understand what he brings to the table. Leach would bring us 6-8 wins a yr very regularly and he would likely stay for a while.....but he likely wouldn't bring more than that except for very rare exceptions.

(And just for discussion purposes only). A guy like Petrino would get us 9-10+ win seasons fairly regularly but comes with a TON of baggage. A guy like Fleck is an unknown.....he's good enough that reaching bowl games shouldn't be an issue.....my money says he's like a James Franklin type that would win 8-10 games/yr for a couple yrs then bolt for a elite tier job. Etc.

So, with Leach (depending on who else you might consider as a HC) you might be trading a few wins/yr for stability and safety. I'd put Schiano in the Leach category as well....safe and stable.

Like I said earlier, I would mind Leach (or Schiano) but I understand the cost.

 

[Shavers48]

You are quick to get nasty, but nothing you said is true.

no, it's an opinion about what would have happened based on reason. what do you base yours on?

 

[Shavers48]

That's your opinion. We have some people here who won't ever let it go. So if Barnhart won't hire their guy, then they bellyache. But Mike Leach has never had an SEC head coaching job, and I have never even heard his name on any SEC short lists either. If Leach was SEC head coaching material, an SEC school would have tried to hire him. He has certainly been available, no doubt about that. So, maybe 14 SEC schools have missed the boat by not hiring Leach. Or else, I am right in saying that he isn't a good fit in the SEC. It's 1 or the other. And if Stoops fails, which might or might not happen, it's going to be enlightening to see what happens next.

please, tell me of this mythical sec coaches-in-waiting list you speak of. just create it yourself out of thin air so you can point to it as proof of something. I'll bet thats how barney operates too.

 

[Shavers48]

That isn't what I said. I don't mind defending what I actually say. I said 14 SEC have not tried to hire Leach as their HC. That speaks for itself. The best college football is played in the SEC. Kentucky fans want to be competitive in the SEC. Do the math.

it also applies to about 100 other coaches. means NOTHING. and get over your sec woody, it's not as big as you imagine and has 0 to do with coaching, it's demographics.

 

[megablue]

Leach has not proven that he is committed to having a good defense.

 

[drbubba]

He's a good coach but not the guy I'd want. Too much emphasis on offense and not enough on defense. Never recruited well but his system does produce offensive results. I never thought Mummeball would consistently get us to the next level and still don't. I'd rather get a successful MAC HC than Leach. JMHO

TOM.

 

[51stFan]

Leach has not proven that he is committed to having a good defense.

He has won everywhere he has been and at places that are not high level P5 jobs. We have a former DC as head coach now with statistically one of the worst defenses in the nation to go along with a mediocre offense. At least we wouldn't be bad on both sides with Leach.

 

[megablue]

He has won everywhere he has been and at places that are not high level P5 jobs. We have a former DC as head coach now with statistically one of the worst defenses in the nation to go along with a mediocre offense. At least we wouldn't be bad on both sides with Leach.

His overall W-L record is 107-74, with 61-56 in conference play and 6-5 in Bowl Games.
He has certainly performed MUCH BETTER in the BIG 12 than he has in the PAC 12.
Although not an overly-impressive overall record, he's only had 2 losing seasons in 14 years. Also, 11 bowl games in 14 years is a sign of consistency and is impressive. Not a great hire, but would probably be decent. He would need a defense in the SEC, for sure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Leach_(American_football_coach)

 

[Deeeefense]

He inherited a bigger disaster than MS did and has been to two bowl games in 4 years...and why didn't you bring up his record at TT?... 85- 43..0 non losing seasons with only his 1st season as a losing record in conference.

Fair enough but during his reign at Tech, the B12 was a joke, dominated by Oklahoma and Texas. From 2000-2009 Kansas, Colorado and Iowa state all had losing overall records and horrible in-conference records; Missouri, K State, OK State and Texas A&M were a little over 500 overall but all four had losing conference records and Baylor was horrible with a total of 11 conference wins over the 9 years.

I just don't think putting up wins against a lot of chump teams in a weak conference is a predictor of success in the SEC.

 

[Shavers48]

Fair enough but during his reign at Tech, the B12 was a joke, dominated by Oklahoma and Texas. From 2000-2009 Kansas, Colorado and Iowa state all had losing overall records and horrible in-conference records.

you mean like UK, Vandy, and Miss St? they had 2 NCs over that time- hardly a joke. not SEC level but for sure not the worst p5

 

[Deeeefense]

you mean like UK, Vandy, and Miss St? they had 2 NCs over that time- hardly a joke. not SEC level but for sure not the worst p5

during that period the B12 was by far the weakest of what is now the P5 conferences.

 

[51stFan]

During the last decade Florida and UT was as bad as they had been in 25 years. UGA had also been in a situation where their coach was almost always in the fire or bring him back discussion. How do you think Missouri, Vandy, and USC jr started having a few good years? Brooks bolted when the talent got low and MB made a few bad hires. The SEC east has not been any better than other P5s. UK missed their chance.

 

[Shavers48]

during that period the B12 was by far the weakest of what is now the P5 conferences.

you can have that opinion, but I will have another. just on bowls alone the big12 had a 43% winning pct against the SEC from 2000-2009; nearly identical to big10 vs sec and better than the ACC's 40%.

 

[Woodrow24]

Fair enough but during his reign at Tech, the B12 was a joke, dominated by Oklahoma and Texas. From 2000-2009 Kansas, Colorado and Iowa state all had losing overall records and horrible in-conference records; Missouri, K State, OK State and Texas A&M were a little over 500 overall but all four had losing conference records and Baylor was horrible with a total of 11 conference wins over the 9 years.

I just don't think putting up wins against a lot of chump teams in a weak conference is a predictor of success in the SEC.

He had wins against both Oklahoma and Texas when he was at tech. He beat Texas when they were the number one team in the country and Texas finished the year at 12-1 for the season.

Your statement on playing in a weak conference is not true.

In 2000: Oklahoma won the national championship, Kansas st finished at 8th in the country, Nebraska at 9th, Iowa state 25th, Texas 12th. Texas tech was at 7-5. Texas a and m 7-6.

In 2001: Texas was 5th, Oklahoma was 6th, Nebraska was 7th, and Colorado was 9th in the final AP poll.Texas a and m 8-4, Texas tech 7-5. This was les miles first season at Oklahoma state.

In 2002: Oklahoma was 5th, Texas was 6th Kansas state was 7th, Colorado 20th in the final AP poll. Texas tech 9-5, Oklahoma state 8-5, Iowa state 7-7, Nebraska at 7-7.

In 2003: Oklahoma was 3rd, Texas 12th, kansas state 14th, Nebraska 19th in final AP poll. Oklahoma state 9-4 record, Texas tech 8-5.
I can keep giving examples of the big 12 not being as bad as stated in your post. Not saying it was better then sec or anything like that but to say the conference was bad from 2000-2009 is not true. I didn't even list all the seasons and can prove that is wrong.

 

[51stFan]

I will be glad when our actual claim to fame is winning and not just our current moto of "We in the SEC".

We are the only school in the league that has not had a decent run in the last decade. Tired of that excuse.

We have not fielded a team in the last seven years that would be in the top tier of any P5.

 

[Deeeefense]

He had wins against both Oklahoma and Texas when he was at tech. He beat Texas when they were the number one team in the country and Texas finished the year at 12-1 for the season.

Your statement on playing in a weak conference is not true.

In 2000: Oklahoma won the national championship, Kansas st finished at 8th in the country, Nebraska at 9th, Iowa state 25th, Texas 12th. Texas tech was at 7-5. Texas a and m 7-6.

In 2001: Texas was 5th, Oklahoma was 6th, Nebraska was 7th, and Colorado was 9th in the final AP poll.Texas a and m 8-4, Texas tech 7-5. This was les miles first season at Oklahoma state.

In 2002: Oklahoma was 5th, Texas was 6th Kansas state was 7th, Colorado 20th in the final AP poll. Texas tech 9-5, Oklahoma state 8-5, Iowa state 7-7, Nebraska at 7-7.

In 2003: Oklahoma was 3rd, Texas 12th, kansas state 14th, Nebraska 19th in final AP poll. Oklahoma state 9-4 record, Texas tech 8-5.
I can keep giving examples of the big 12 not being as bad as stated in your post. Not saying it was better then sec or anything like that but to say the conference was bad from 2000-2009 is not true. I didn't even list all the seasons and can prove that is wrong.

You left out 6 of the worse years. Anyway, what I posted is accurate, and I assume what you posted is accurate as well. Different metrics. One can draw their own conclusions but I can't accept that th B12 with all those bad teams was anywhere near comparable to the SEC during that time. I'm not saying Leach isn't a successful coach, I give him his due, but I just don't think he would be the right fit here, others can think otherwise.

Thanks for your input, I'm movin on.

 

[kb22stang]

The second year was also a bowl game and so was last year. That's 2-2 not 0-3..

No, that's 2 bowls in 4 years. Which means it's one win better than Stoops in the first 3 years. My only point is that he isn't that far off, and it's not like Leach had performed head and shoulders better than Stoops.