The Case for Mike Leach

[Woodrow24]

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.

From what I've seen those other years weren't bad.

2007: Missouri 4th in country 12-2, Kansas 7th 12-1, Oklahoma 8th 11-3, Texas 10th at 10-3, Texas tech 22nd 9-4.

2008: Texas 4th in the country 12-1, Oklahoma 5th in country 12-2, Texas tech 12th 11-2, Oklahoma state 16th in country at 9-4, Missouri 19th in country at 10-4, Nebraska 9-4, Kansas 8-5

2009: texas 2nd in country 13-1, Nebraska 14th 10-4, Texas tech 21st 9-4, Oklahoma state 9-4, Oklahoma 8-5, Missouri 8-5, Iowa state 7-6.


So, I left out the worst 6 years? I understand you saying SEC football is better in your opinion but to say the big 12 was weak at that time was completely inaccurate.

 

[Woodrow24]

Mike leach's coaching tree consists of: Art Briles, Dana Holgerson, Sonny Dykes, Neal brown, Kliff Kingsbury.

His last three seasons at tech was ranked in the top 25, his offenses have set NCAA records, went to a bowl game every year at tech, won 9 games last year at Washington state.....but he's not a good enough coach for Kentucky? Lol some of you all amaze me.

 

[Woodrow24]

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.

Washington state had a 9-4 record last season lol

 

[RonEJones]

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.

So having other SEC programs attempt to hire you is a pre-req for getting an SEC job? Using that logic, no one would be interviewed unless they've turned down an SEC job before. Food for thought, I never heard or saw Hugh Freeze's name on any SEC short lists until he was hired by Ole Piss. Boy, that didn't work out for them, did it?

In addition, how to do you know Leach wasn't approached by someone in the SEC while he was kicking butt at TTech and turned it down prior to it getting anywhere? You have no proof so your point is moot.

 

[RonEJones]

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.

Someone give Deeeefense a standing 8 count cause Murph just slapped the pi$$ out of him.

 

[kb22stang]

Washington state had a 9-4 record last season lol

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was season four and I don't think that Stoops has finished season 4. During that year they beat 1 team that was ranked at the end of year and lost to Portland State. They sure as heck didn't play 3 teams ranked in the top 10, like UK is doing this year.

My point remains, what he's done is better than what Stoops has done, but the margin isn't as outrageous as some of you act like.

I'm sure after going 3-9 the year before and then opening with a loss to Portland State you guys would be ready to fire him too.

 

[Woodrow24]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was season four and I don't think that Stoops has finished season 4. During that year they beat 1 team that was ranked at the end of year and lost to Portland State. They sure as heck didn't play 3 teams ranked in the top 10, like UK is doing this year.

My point remains, what he's done is better than what Stoops has done, but the margin isn't as outrageous as some of you act like.

I'm sure after going 3-9 the year before and then opening with a loss to Portland State you guys would be ready to fire him too.

His first season he upset Washington in their rivalry game and they were ranked #25. His second season he won 6 games and beat a 10 win southern cal team on their field. That auburn team that played in the national championship game only beat him 31-24. Year three he beat #19 ranked Utah. His fourth season he beat Oregon that finished 19th, and ucla was ranked in the top 25 and beat them on their field. Stanford only beat him by a score of 30-28. Washington state had a record of 9-40 the previous four seasons before he had taken over. He took over a very tough job. Stoops took over a tough job as well but even joker won more games in three seasons then the coach before leach did in 4 seasons.

 

[sluggercatfan]

Mike leach's coaching tree consists of: Art Briles, Dana Holgerson, Sonny Dykes, Neal brown, Kliff Kingsbury.

His last three seasons at tech was ranked in the top 25, his offenses have set NCAA records, went to a bowl game every year at tech, won 9 games last year at Washington state.....but he's not a good enough coach for Kentucky? Lol some of you all amaze me.

Amazing isn't it!!

 

[Woodrow24]

Amazing isn't it!!

I don't understand why posters on here claim he's not good enough to coach here. A coach like him is what this school needs.

 

[Shavers48]

let's not overlook that over the same timeframe that UK's been paying Stoops and staff, they've paid about $3 million more than WSU had to pay theirs.

 

[brianpoe]

Not sure why posters dont get @Deeeefense is a defensive guy...

 

[Woodrow24]

Not sure why posters dont get @Deeeefense is a defensive guy...

Lol

 

[entropy13]

It seems to me from following this discussion, that those who really wanna find fault with Leach's record really have to parse, slice, and cherry-pick certain data in an attempt to support their arguments about why he's not that great of a coach. That's a pretty good indication that your argument isn't a good one to begin with.

 

[CatsPaws270]

It seems to me from following this discussion, that those who really wanna find fault with Leach's record really have to parse, slice, and cherry-pick certain data in an attempt to support their arguments about why he's not that great of a coach. That's a pretty good indication that your argument isn't a good one to begin with.

EXACTLY

Find me a candidate that we couldn't cherry pick their records and find bad things.
And with that same candidate...find someone with better credentials than Mike Leach?

The answer is that you can't find anyone.

 

[308955]

I don't think anyone has said that Leach is not a good coach. He is a great offensive coach and a good head coach. With anyone that operates as far outside of the box as Leach, there are going to be strong opinions for and against their philosophy. You are also likely to be able to point to metrics that support both sides of that coin. Although he would not be my first choice, it would be interesting to see what he could accomplish here.

 

[kb22stang]

It seems to me from following this discussion, that those who really wanna find fault with Leach's record really have to parse, slice, and cherry-pick certain data in an attempt to support their arguments about why he's not that great of a coach. That's a pretty good indication that your argument isn't a good one to begin with.

Well then let's make it real simple for you and everyone else. In 3 years, while neither coach was coaching in TX (where in state talent makes everything easier) Stoops had more wins. Leach did get to a bowl in year 2, but he was 3-9 in the other two seasons.

Leach is good enough to coach here, but in the 3 year sample he was not head and shoulders above what Stoops has done here. And no, I don't believe that WSU is a tougher place to win than UK, it might be similar but not tougher.

FTR, I wouldnt be opposed to Leach as a coach here at all, the guy got a raw deal at Tech and he's a good coach, but a rebuild takes time, even for a coach that has experience such as Leach. Not really complicated, or slicing of records, just comparing what we know.

 

[51stFan]

I can't believe that people can honestly try and argue that Stoops is as good a coach as Mike Leach. I know that Stoops has only coached three seasons, but no way can you say Leach wouldn't be an upgrade. He has won 9+ games at two mid level P-5 schools.

Washington St. is considered by many to be one of the worst P-5 schools in the nation due to facilities and location. Winning 9 games in year 4 there is/was an accomplishment and to say otherwise is absurd.

Stoops has won five SEC games in four years against teams with a combined 6-30 conference record. UK has never beaten a conference team that had a winning record in the conference.

 

[CatsPaws270]

Well then let's make it real simple for you and everyone else. In 3 years, while neither coach was coaching in TX (where in state talent makes everything easier) Stoops had more wins. Leach did get to a bowl in year 2, but he was 3-9 in the other two seasons.

Leach is good enough to coach here, but in the 3 year sample he was not head and shoulders above what Stoops has done here. And no, I don't believe that WSU is a tougher place to win than UK, it might be similar but not tougher.

FTR, I wouldnt be opposed to Leach as a coach here at all, the guy got a raw deal at Tech and he's a good coach, but a rebuild takes time, even for a coach that has experience such as Leach. Not really complicated, or slicing of records, just comparing what we know.

There's no credibility to an argument saying that there is no difference between Stoops and Leach. You pick out his two worst years and ignore the rest of his career.

That mindset is like MB calling us a microwave fan base and that we just like to watch exciting things like Leach winning consistently at lesser programs.

Coming off his BEST season ever at TTU in 2008-09, he only got the #35 rated class
https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2009

Go watch the 60 minutes interview video and read any article about the man. All you read is how amazing he is winning with lesser talent. All you hear about is how much of a "football intellectual" he is and how much attention to detail he puts into his teams.

I think the telling part of a coaching staff is the attention to little details. I think that is Stoops problem, too many mental errors by players/coaches that stems from a lack of preparation.

 

[RonEJones]

Well then let's make it real simple for you and everyone else. In 3 years, while neither coach was coaching in TX (where in state talent makes everything easier) Stoops had more wins. Leach did get to a bowl in year 2, but he was 3-9 in the other two seasons.

Leach is good enough to coach here, but in the 3 year sample he was not head and shoulders above what Stoops has done here. And no, I don't believe that WSU is a tougher place to win than UK, it might be similar but not tougher.

FTR, I wouldnt be opposed to Leach as a coach here at all, the guy got a raw deal at Tech and he's a good coach, but a rebuild takes time, even for a coach that has experience such as Leach. Not really complicated, or slicing of records, just comparing what we know.

I guess the difference is, when you've done what Leach did at TTech, he deserves the benefit of the doubt the first 3 years. When you're an unknown commodity, like Stoops, you haven't earned that respect. In addition, as Murph stated earlier, Leach's teams are good at offense. It's his identity. Stoops, an advertised defensive genius, has shown nothing to get excited about unless you want to talk about recruiting. We are not good on offense and possibly worse on defense. There's very little light at the end of the tunnel in year 4.

Can he turn it around? For me, yes. Keep the improvement coming, win 6 or more games and I'll be singing a different tune and ready to eat some crow.

 

[Woodrow24]

Well then let's make it real simple for you and everyone else. In 3 years, while neither coach was coaching in TX (where in state talent makes everything easier) Stoops had more wins. Leach did get to a bowl in year 2, but he was 3-9 in the other two seasons.

Leach is good enough to coach here, but in the 3 year sample he was not head and shoulders above what Stoops has done here. And no, I don't believe that WSU is a tougher place to win than UK, it might be similar but not tougher.

FTR, I wouldnt be opposed to Leach as a coach here at all, the guy got a raw deal at Tech and he's a good coach, but a rebuild takes time, even for a coach that has experience such as Leach. Not really complicated, or slicing of records, just comparing what we know.

Let's make this simple for you. He had better quality wins in those three seasons. Season one he beat #25 Washington. Season two he beat #19 ranked Southern Cal on their field. Season 3 he beat #21 ranked Utah. His fourth season he won at # 19 Oregon at their field. He beat a top 25 ranked UCLA team on their field as well. Stoops have any wins like that here?

 

[sluggercatfan]

There's no credibility to an argument saying that there is no difference between Stoops and Leach. You pick out his two worst years and ignore the rest of his career.

That mindset is like MB calling us a microwave fan base and that we just like to watch exciting things like Leach winning consistently at lesser programs.

Coming off his BEST season ever at TTU in 2008-09, he only got the #35 rated class
https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2009

Go watch the 60 minutes interview video and read any article about the man. All you read is how amazing he is winning with lesser talent. All you hear about is how much of a "football intellectual" he is and how much attention to detail he puts into his teams.

I think the telling part of a coaching staff is the attention to little details. I think that is Stoops problem, too many mental errors by players/coaches that stems from a lack of preparation.

To me the most intriguing part of that 60 video was the qb explaining the options he had on ONE pass play that was called..

 

[RackOps]

Is there a coach more polarizing on here than Mike Leach?

Not even Bobby Petrino evokes such a stark contrast in opinion. Most everyone agrees that Petrino is a 1) Masterful X's and O's coach and 2) A terrible human being.

With Mike Leach, you have a substantial number of people who believe he is the mad scientist of college football and others who believe he is a sham.

Every time Leach wins a game he shouldn't have (and he does frequently), someone starts a "Bring Leach to UK!!" thread......and every time he loses a game he shouldn't (and he often does ) someone from the other camp will start a thread saying he sucks.


My opinion is this....Mike Leach is a great coach who takes chances that most coaches will not take. This means he wins games he shouldn't.....and he loses games he shouldn't.

That being said, I would love to have him...Leach's teams will always have a puncher's chance against just about anyone. I can take the inexplicable losses......if I couldn't, I wouldn't be a Kentucky Football fan.

 

[JC CATS]

Ahead of Kiffin and Neal Brown on my list, I truly believe Mike Leach is the coach to take UK to the next level if Stoops does not work out for and is fired after this season. Leach has exhibited everything necessary to prove he is capable of winning at UK.

In the Fall of 2011, this forum was lit up with fans wanting him to replace Joker. There was a bunch of fans who did not think it would work...Mitch said we were in a Microwave society..he went to WSU...we went 2-10...and then we got Stoops. He was the right choice at the time, and I also believe he is the right choice today.

The Facts:
1.We all say that UK needs to hire someone who is a proven winner, experienced. Leach has plenty of years proving he is a winner.
-Career winning record with a .591 winning %
-12 of 14 seasons coaching he has made a bowl

2. UK needs someone who knows how to win in a power 5 conference, Leach has coached every year in the power 5.
-Won a Pac-12 Coach of the Year
-Won a Big 12 Coach of the Year
-So basically a coach of the year in 2 different power conferences
-Made a bowl 10 out of 10 seasons at Texas Tech
-Faced off against Talented Texas and OU teams every season when Stoops and Brown were at their best with players like Peterson and Vince Young.
-Texas A&M and Oklahoma St. were also tough divisional opponents every year too.

3. UK needs a coach who can create a scheme to make-up for the talent difference.
-Air Raid Guru
-His offenses have set multiple NCAA records

4. UK needs a coach that understands how to win at a traditionally awful school. WSU was in worse shape than UK is when he took over.
-Washington State was on a 10 year bowl drought before Leach arrived.
-WSU has reached a bowl 2 out of his 4 seasons
-The 3rd year when he did not make a bowl, his starting QB was lost for the season with an injury.
-Texas Tech is in an unfavorable location compared to the powerhouses like Texas, TAMU, and Oklahoma that they had to compete with on an annual basis.
-He coaches in a stadium now that only seats 32,000 fans...think how marketable of a program that is right now.

5. UK needs a coach that understands the program at UK and what he will be getting into trying to build the program up. UK needs a coach that wants to be here.
-Leach was our offensive coordinator during probably our best season in my lifetime. They went 7-4 and went to the Outback Bowl...beat Alabama
-Leach obviously wanted the job in 2011, I remember KSR interviewing him and he visited Lexington during the season
-He's 55...so he is not too old, but old enough to this would be a job that he'd want to keep.

To summarize my statement, Mike Leach is an experienced, successful, and offensive minded coach with ties to UK and knowledge of how to win at lesser programs. There would not be bad press if people are worried, because WSU already hired him and he seems to be redeemed by the press.

Ask Oregon how they feel about him after that 51-33 beat down he put on them last week?

He has the resume and meets the traits necessary that fit what UK needs in a coach. If there is a change(Stoops could turn it around), Leach should be phone call #1, end of story.

Oh Mike Leach... I thoiught you said Tom Leach

 

[BlueRaider22]

^To me he's a really good coach (maybe even great) who could be elite but isn't due to his philosophical choice in the way he coaches. He would be a safe bet to get us 6-8 games/yr on a very regular basis. We would be very lucky to have him and I would be grateful.

 

[CatsPaws270]

Apparently someone called this in on KSR today. Matt responded that Leach would not get the job because Mitch would not hire him and Neal Brown is a younger Mike Leach supposedly.

If the reasoning for not getting a good coach like Petrino or Leach is that your AD does not like them...and your team hires coaches that continue to lose games and those coaches that were passed over win games...is that not a failure on the part of the AD?

 

[Woodrow24]

Apparently someone called this in on KSR today. Matt responded that Leach would not get the job because Mitch would not hire him and Neal Brown is a younger Mike Leach supposedly.

If the reasoning for not getting a good coach like Petrino or Leach is that your AD does not like them...and your team hires coaches that continue to lose games and those coaches that were passed over win games...is that not a failure on the part of the AD?

It was an interesting show. Including when the buyout money was brought up. Regardless of the win-loss record I'm starting to think Stoops will be here next year regardless.

 

[51stFan]

KSR will spin things for the insiders of the program when they are told to do so. Can't blame them, that's how they get access.

If what Matt Jones said is true, then MB should be gone today. How can you not sit down and talk to anyone that might be interested. He did that in basketball with Calipari the first time around and we end up with BCG. He does that with Petrino in football and we end up with Stoops while used to be " little " brother hires him and are contending for a national title.

Got to love UK football. Geesh

 

[TBCat]

It's becoming clear that we might as well give up on football as long as Mitch is here. The list of good coaches and the list of people Mitch will hire do not intersect at any point.

 

[Shavers48]

It's becoming clear that we might as well give up on football as long as Mitch is here. The list of good coaches and the list of people Mitch will hire do not intersect at any point.

welcome! help me spread the word.

 

[BlueRaider22]

I know this isn't society's view but I think ADs get too much blame when the hired don't work out. Take Stoops for instance: the hire "on paper" was about as good as UK could hope for. An elite coordinator with a name chooses to jump on board with you.....that's a good hire.

However, if that hire doesn't work out it's up to the AD to fix it. Billy G was hot name in coaching, was hired, complete cluster-flop, Barnhart pulled the plug quickly and brought in a stud. Stoops was ultra hot name, was hired, appears to be failing, but was given a ludicrous extension. One was done the right way and one was not.

 

[Deeeefense]

I know this isn't society's view but I think ADs get too much blame when the hired don't work out. Take Stoops for instance: the hire "on paper" was about as good as UK could hope for. An elite coordinator with a name chooses to jump on board with you.....that's a good hire.

However, if that hire doesn't work out it's up to the AD to fix it. Billy G was hot name in coaching, was hired, complete cluster-flop, Barnhart pulled the plug quickly and brought in a stud. Stoops was ultra hot name, was hired, appears to be failing, but was given a ludicrous extension. One was done the right way and one was not.

I don't agree with the premature extension of Stoops contract, but I just don't think those two situations are comparable, BG had some serious "personal issues" Stoops does not, also there are some measurable positives to go with Stoops most notably recruiting, but also some quality staff hires.

 

[BlueRaider22]

I don't agree with the premature extension of Stoops contract, but I just don't think those two situations are comparable, BG had some serious "personal issues" Stoops does not, also there are some measurable positives to go with Stoops most notably recruiting, but also some quality staff hires.

Agreed. Football takes significantly longer to build. And in general I tend to be on the patient side. In general I would rather keep a coach 1 yr too long than let them go 1 yr too short. If Stoops is a failure I don't fault Barnhart......because it was a great hire at the time. And I don't think it's too bad an idea to give Stoops another yr.....circumstances depending.

 

[51stFan]

I know this isn't society's view but I think ADs get too much blame when the hired don't work out. Take Stoops for instance: the hire "on paper" was about as good as UK could hope for. An elite coordinator with a name chooses to jump on board with you.....that's a good hire.

However, if that hire doesn't work out it's up to the AD to fix it. Billy G was hot name in coaching, was hired, complete cluster-flop, Barnhart pulled the plug quickly and brought in a stud. Stoops was ultra hot name, was hired, appears to be failing, but was given a ludicrous extension. One was done the right way and one was not.

The Stoops name was ultra hot a decade ago. For some odd reason "our " Stoops didn't get a HC job. Stoops actually came to us and was actually giving the courtesy to be a prospect for a job here unlike coaches with the name of Petrino and Leach.

 

[sluggercatfan]

The Stoops name was ultra hot a decade ago. For some odd reason "our " Stoops didn't get a HC job. Stoops actually came to us and was actually giving the courtesy to be a prospect for a job here unlike coaches with the name of Petrino and Leach.

Old saying...you do what you always did, you get what you always got

 

[BlueRaider22]

The Stoops name was ultra hot a decade ago. For some odd reason "our " Stoops didn't get a HC job. Stoops actually came to us and was actually giving the courtesy to be a prospect for a job here unlike coaches with the name of Petrino and Leach.

Bob is still one of the highest repected coaches in the game and will have no trouble finding a job if he parts from Oklahoma. Mike is still highly respected throughout college. "A decade ago", Mark was just starting to develop his name. Mark reached his height by excelling at FSU just a few yrs ago. The Stoops' name is still hot in college.

The AD and coaching staffs have to work side by side a lot. Do you think it's prudent that two entities have a good relationship? (PS, that's a rhetorical question) So, if Petrino wasn't considered is that necessarily a bad thing? Especially given his history? And are we 100% certain that the considerations stopped at Barnhart's door? I know for a fact that at several other colleges I've been a part of that the AD's were hamstrung by collegiate presidents, boosters, and boards.

As far as Leach, nobody was touching him. He sat for 3-4 yrs without a job because of the controversial way he left TTU. He talked about it on the radio. Said that the controversy ruined his career and that he hadn't received any "real" offers. Then WSU....a small college without a good football program.....called him. He took a heck of a demotion in perceived "power rankings" from TTU to WSU.....to go to a region where he had never been before. He was toxic at the time. Now he's doing well. He's had no controversies in over 5-6 yrs. He is building his name back up.

Barnhart has many things he's done well. He has mishandled a number of things as well. Certainly enough to warrant some criticism and job pressure. But, my goodness, some fans just blindly throw around blame for things that have happened without consideration as to whom should actually shoulder it.

 

[Deeeefense]

Barnhart has many things he's done well. He has mishandled a number of things as well. Certainly enough to warrant some criticism and job pressure. But, my goodness, some fans just blindly throw around blame for things that have happened without consideration as to whom should actually shoulder it.

The thing some don't seem to get is that none of these coaches come with guarantees. When Newton brought in Curry he looked like a genius. SEC Coach of the year, coming off a 10 win season, highly successful at both Bama and GaTech, NFL player with a Superbowl ring etc. A "can't miss" hire that missed. Then you have guys like Debo Swinney who was a position coach promoted to interim head coach until a real head coach could be found. Morphed into gold.

You can do all the due diligence in the world but in the end, it's a bit of a crap shoot. You can get the advise from an experience coach like Rich Brooks who successfully built a power program from ground up, but then wind up with a Joker Phillips.