Why has football had such bad coaches and,

[shutzhund]

with a few notable exceptions, the basketball team had such good ones?

My guess is recruiting success on a consistent basis. What would you say made that so? Do you think that if football had the same recruiting results we would be a better team. Then is it that all those previous coaches were really bad or was it a weak roster, for most of these years, that keeps us at the bottom of the SEC?

Where does the blame really lie?

 

[Bluetick2100]

Great question.
I do not have any answer but I look forward to the replies.

Edit:
After thinking about this,......... it's the curse of the bear.

 

[kb22stang]

Success breeds success. It makes it easier to hire known quantities at the coaching level and recruit better players.

With the football team we can't just pick the coach we want. We usually wilil have to settle for a guy that is on the way down or a guy we hope is on the way up. But for it to work, you have to give that guy time, and not just a few years. Maybe he needs OTJ training if it's a guy that has less experience.

Bottom line, in my lifetime, for a variety of reasons, we've never stuck with one guy. I think you have a pick a guy that gives you some optimism and ride with him.

 

[UKWildcats#8]

Success breeds success. It makes it easier to hire known quantities at the coaching level and recruit better players.

With the football team we can't just pick the coach we want. We usually wilil have to settle for a guy that is on the way down or a guy we hope is on the way up. But for it to work, you have to give that guy time, and not just a few years. Maybe he needs OTJ training if it's a guy that has less experience.

Bottom line, in my lifetime, for a variety of reasons, we've never stuck with one guy. I think you have a pick a guy that gives you some optimism and ride with him.

That seems about right. UK football has never had that one hire that has got the ball rolling for them. Look at Miami with their hires in the late 70s/80s. Now I know they have been down again for a bout 10 years, but still, they had a glory year run of 20+ years at least. They had not done jack before that. The other thing is we play in the SEC, and it is just so hard to out recruit those teams who play in more talent rich states, and to beat better teams with better players and many times better coaches (almost everytime we play at present this is sadly true). In addition to all of that, the regular season is so compacted in football. You have no margin for error at a school like UK. In b-ball, you get about 30-31 games pre-SEC tourney. That's a big advantage as well if you have a team that needs to grow.

 

[kb22stang]

Those are the reasons I argue for more time for Stoops. To see what he can do with an experienced team of his recruits. Might not work, but neither has changing coaches like underwear.

 

[ZakkW]

Because the respective ADs never made the CORRECT hire when the time came. IMO.

 

[CardHack]

I don't think you've had bad coaches per se; I think what you guys are seeing is a clear deficit in available resources for your football coaches relative to the teams you generally play in the SEC. One thing that is undeniable...in a sport where the professionals are generally 3/4s African American, you guys are in a state whose population is only 8% composed of that demographic. The Freakanomics folks would get right to that reality as a foundation for your decades long struggles; you are competing in a league that has larger populations (Tennessee, Georgia and Florida in particular) that have anywhere from 20% to 35% of it's populations made up of African Americans. You also have a number of the SEC schools who have exclusive domain over what talent their is in their state or literally the pick of a rich litter; to me it's inconceivable that as good as LSU or Georgia are perennially that they aren't even more productive. They have an embarrassment of riches to draw from and in the case of LSU they don't have a legitimate Division I competitor within their borders for that pool.

Your facilities have by and large paled by comparison as well if you believe what is said by opposing fanbases and/or recruits; that's not a coaching problem.

 

[Blueathletics]

Same reason the football schools get crappy hoops coaches for the most part.....It's all about tradition/history

 

[ukalum1988]

with a few notable exceptions, the basketball team had such good ones?

My guess is recruiting success on a consistent basis. What would you say made that so? Do you think that if football had the same recruiting results we would be a better team. Then is it that all those previous coaches were really bad or was it a weak roster, for most of these years, that keeps us at the bottom of the SEC?

Where does the blame really lie?

There's no doubt that there is a high R2 correlation between talented recruits and the eventual won-loss record. In general, it's also true that a good coach will tend to attract more and better talented athletes than a bad coach. At the risk of oversimplifying and using a basketball comparison once again, compare and contrast the type of players Billy Clyde was recruiting with the players Cal has brought in.

Talented players want to play with other talented players under a coach who is a proven winner (or at least a great salesman/motivator). An athletics administration that is committed to success in a particular sport will find a way to provide the resources to attract and retain the best coaches and players. As I have pointed out in another thread, the UK Athletics Department's commitment to football success over the years has been spotty at best.

You can't blame UK's lack of success in football on any one factor; there are a multitude of them, some of which have been and are being addressed, and others than remain to be addressed.

 

[Senore2006]

Are you saying that Tubby and BillyG were great hires?

 

[UKWildcats#8]

Are you saying that Tubby and BillyG were great hires?

Yeah, UK has had 3 great hires to me in Rupp, Pitino and Cal. I think Hall was a very good hire, and Tubby was very solid overall, while Sutton and Coach G were disasters. I'm sure me saying what I am about Hall will get blowback if this was on the b-ball board but despite his 1 title and 3 Final Fours he had a lot of bad years as well and would have gotten so much more heat in the modern era. Of course, he followed a legend. That is tough.

 

[Katwatcher]

with a few notable exceptions, the basketball team had such good ones?

My guess is recruiting success on a consistent basis. What would you say made that so? Do you think that if football had the same recruiting results we would be a better team. Then is it that all those previous coaches were really bad or was it a weak roster, for most of these years, that keeps us at the bottom of the SEC?

Where does the blame really lie?

Its certainly not the coaches. We have had some really good coaches. There is no doubt in my mind that its recruiting. It is so hard to get the top recruits to come to a traditional basketball school that has dominated SEC like forever. The same holds true for coaches, they had rather go to a school that has a strong football tradition and has had success and not go through the rebuilding process.

Another point is the administration has not supported the Football program nearly as much as Basketball. The Athletic Directors have all been basketball guys and have let football survive only.

You can recruit 3 of the top basketball players and compete with anyone. In Football you have 80-90 players, and you have to have top talent to even stay off bottom of conference All of this takes time and so far the fans after about 2 years of losing with a new coach have not got the patience it takes.

The negative criticizing of players and coaches doesn't help the recruiting any either. Kentucky is unique in that its a state not known for producing elite players, in fact it has less football schools than any of the other SEC schools.

The recruiting is already showing improvement and we have the coaches in place to start putting together a winning program. I have confidence in Stoops. Go Cats

 

[Mojocat_rivals48469]

I'd challenge the premise a little. It's true because of tradition we get to be pickier, obviously, when it comes to hoops coaches. And Rupp, Pitino (the UK version, not the diminished guy at UofL) and Cal are certainly great coaches......But because of our place on the totem poll, we get great talent in basketball, and less so in football. Is Rich Brooks a worse coach in an absolute sense than Tubby? If Brooks had Tubby's talent to work with, and Tubby had Brooks' equivalent, how would they compare?.....

 

[KY Hog Man]

Has UK ever hired a head basketball coach who didn't have division one head coaching experience? They have in football, Mumme, Morriss, Joker, and Stoops. Placing an inexperienced coach in the SEC is a bad practice.

 

[docholiday51]

Going back to the 60's not all the hires have been bad,some of them for sure.
If Collier had stayed longer(legislative recruiting issue) maybe one of his hall of fame staff would have taken over and things would have been different

Bradshaw over Claiborne was a bad hire,if that had gone the other way history might have been different

Ray probably was not as bad of a hire as it appears,here may have been the first or second case of the UK job being more difficult than an incoming coach understands at the time

Curci would have been a good hire minus the NCAA issues,he is what we needed to jump start the program

Claiborne came along too late in his career at this point,Howard S might have been better.This might have been the beginning of the era where some 'name" coaches were afraid to take the UK job because they didn't want to risk their career.They saw how tough the job was and figured out that it was easier to build somewhere else

Curry to the job and thought he could get UK to mid level SEC but could not,I don't remember who the other choices were at the time but he was probably the best choice of a poor lot.There was nothing here to attract a top tier coach.

Mumme jumped at the chance to coach in the SEC,he should have paid his dues as an OC in Division 1 for a few years(his offense was innovative) but he lacked background in so many other areas he had little chance of success

Morris knew the lay of the land and took the job as a bridge and was smart enough to get out of town as soon as he could.

Brooks was much like Claiborne(he got here too late) and the job was tougher than he thought but to his credit he left it in better shape than he found it(probably the only one we can say that about)

Joker was in over his head and everyone knew it after year one(Brooks left him in the best possible position to succeed and he dropped the ball right out of the gate)

Mark Stoops has a punchers chance to succeed(he may or may not have made some fatal errors in his hires)he is on the ropes but 2 wins the rest of the year gives him a chance to make it.

UK is a tough job,historically not too many coaches have been willing to take the chance for what the pay or possible rewards are,the professional risk just isn't worth it.

 

[Glenn Fohr]

Experienced coaches who want to succeed don't want a fix er upper. We missed the boat when we didn't give the job to Schnellenberger. We've paid the price ever since.

 

[ZakkW]

Has UK ever hired a head basketball coach who didn't have division one head coaching experience? They have in football, Mumme, Morriss, Joker, and Stoops. Placing an inexperienced coach in the SEC is a bad practice.

Joe B. Hall. But your overall point is well-taken.

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

with a few notable exceptions, the basketball team had such good ones?

My guess is recruiting success on a consistent basis. What would you say made that so? Do you think that if football had the same recruiting results we would be a better team. Then is it that all those previous coaches were really bad or was it a weak roster, for most of these years, that keeps us at the bottom of the SEC?

Where does the blame really lie?

Coaches look at programs and study how serious they are about winning. An elite BB coach looks at UK, he sees a program with great tradition, multiple NCs banners, many more conference banners, he sees BB as a big deal, where the administration wants and expects a successful BB program and he can have full support to make that happen. A FB coach looks at UK, he doesn't see that success, that tradition or any recent substained success, he isn't sure how committed the administration is to put a winning product on the field. UK is improving facilities under Stoops, but pre Stoops it was towards the bottom of the conference, today they are probably somewhere in the middle. But I think its more the tradition and the support they can expect from the administrations.

 

[BlueRaider22]

-Curci had a few good teams. To at least accomplish that, you have to be a fairly decent coach. So, the the reason why he didn't do so well overall it likely due to lack of talent.

-Brooks was a fair coach. But didn't excel probably due to lack of talent.

-Claiborne was a good coach. He did quite well at Maryland and VT.....in fact, his only losing record at a school was at UK. My guess is likely lack of talent.




So, when I look back at the coaches we've had, some were poor hires.......and some were fair hires. But we've seemed to always had a lack of ability to recruit.

This is one of the things that really intrigues me most about Stoops. And it's a big reason, why I am willing to give him quite a bit of leash. Sure, he seems to have made some mistakes with his pesonnel choices (Special Teams coach, etc), some of words with the media (like saying that was going to play Barker at lot at EKU), and on field management (TO's, playcalls, etc)........but I can't remember a staff at UK that has ever recruited like they have. Because of that I'm will to give them quite a bit more time. If they get their act together, then we could have something really special.

 

[Poetax]

It's just one person's opinion but our administration has always seem to steer away from those who had dominant personalities. Claiborne and Curry were safe picks, Curci always said the basketball bias was easy to see, Mumme was another easy out for them because of the air raid but no one felt it important to ask him if he knew what defense was. They didn't want Morriss, and Brooks like Claiborne was another safe decision as was joker later. The administration was slanted toward basketball program in the past in my opinion. Guys like Howard S. were what we needed to succeed but this administration didn't want strong personalities, and that's why we ended up with what we did.

 

[BlueBallz_rivals30790]

To me it's pretty simple as far as past coach's. Prior to Mark Stoops, UK has always tried to get off on the cheap as far as paying football coaches and administration commitment to the program. They weren't willing to pay for a hot, up and coming coach. At the time they hired Stoops, it seemed they turned this corner and from my memory, the fans were behind him as well. To me, the jury is still out on Stoops and I'm not off the bandwagon yet. Although I think it's safe to say now, his butt warmers have been turned on and next year the seat will be heating up.

 

[UKWildcats#8]

I'd challenge the premise a little. It's true because of tradition we get to be pickier, obviously, when it comes to hoops coaches. And Rupp, Pitino (the UK version, not the diminished guy at UofL) and Cal are certainly great coaches......But because of our place on the totem poll, we get great talent in basketball, and less so in football. Is Rich Brooks a worse coach in an absolute sense than Tubby? If Brooks had Tubby's talent to work with, and Tubby had Brooks' equivalent, how would they compare?.....

Tubby didn't really have great talent most years, as recruiting was his weakness by far. He had some very good players, but not enough depth and consistently talented players to win big in the NCAA Tourney. If anything, Tubby was similar to Brooks for building up lower ranked players at times, although to a lesser scale in numbers and I do feel a lot of the "four stars" Tubby got were inflated due to signing with UK, as we see with some of these types in football.

 

[Mr Schwump]

Decades ago athletic programs at colleges were competing for money from the same pot. UK decided, probably due to Rupp, to place their emphasis on basketball first and everything else second. If you look at UK ADs after Bernie Shively it's not a coincidence most were basketball guys. That wasn't by mistake.

UK hired some football HCs who could've succeeded but never were really adequately funded. Never paid assistants a fair wage. When Curry left Alabama he had probably 2 of the top OCs/DCs in the business in OC Homer Smith and DC Don Lindsey. The story at the time was when both came to interview Newton picked them up at the airport, drove them around campus/town, put them back on the plane without making an offer. In other words, Newton wouldn't pay them what top coordinators of the day were commanding. Curry ended up with lessers and pretty much hamstrung himself from the get go. UK has a painfully long history of trying to get by on the cheap when it comes to football.

Spring forward to current day and athletic funding is much different. UK basketball is pretty much self-sufficient. Thanks to sponsorships, SEC Network and TV in general, there's now adequate funds for both sports. Unfortunately, UK has decades of neglect to erase, it'll take time.

Is Stoops the answer? He's done some good things, some not so good things. But he's early enough in his career to right the wrong. Stay focused and move forward.

 

[docholiday51]

A few thoughts on the current coaching situation:

Stoops and his staff have upgraded recruiting thus far,it remains to be seen if he can continue to do that.It is also fair to say that even though recruiting has improved it is still near the bottom of the SEC.

He has yet to prove that he can coach at the necessary level to get us to the next rung of the ladder
in the SEC(a mid grade team)

I think Stoops comes from the right background and is the type of coach that is best suited to succeed at UK.He was part of a winning program,he saw what it takes to win on a regular basis and he was there long enough to learn some of the things he needs to know to shape his own program

Depending on how this season ends he will be on or behind schedule to have UK moving in the right direction.A win last week would have put him on schedule for sure.

Last weeks game brings me to my final point.Stoops has had some good wins and made some progress in his nearly 3 years,however, his miss steps have been big enough to keep him hovering at or just below the break even point in his time here.If you look at how each of his first 3 years fit together

The WKU game he started the wrong qb and it cost him a chance to win a game in a season that was going to be short on chances to win anyway Looking at the bigger picture he mortgaged that first season in favor of the next one.

Year two he made good progress and almost got to a bowl which would have been nothing short of remarkable,the blowout losses were troubling though

This year he was in position to post a winning record,8 home games,a down year in the SEC east and enough winnable games spread out thru the schedule to avoid a long losing streak.He hasn't been able to take advantage of the almost perfect storm(somewhat like Joker in his first year.) ULL,EKU and Vandy raise questions as to where Coach Stoops has UK and where he can take us..Win the games you are supposed to win,win them the way you are supposed to win them and make it plain that you can take care of the business that you should be able to take care of at this point.

If you put yourself behind the 8 ball often enough you will eventually have no shot

 

[Mojocat_rivals48469]

Tubby didn't really have great talent most years, as recruiting was his weakness by far. He had some very good players, but not enough depth and consistently talented players to win big in the NCAA Tourney. If anything, Tubby was similar to Brooks for building up lower ranked players at times, although to a lesser scale in numbers and I do feel a lot of the "four stars" Tubby got were inflated due to signing with UK, as we see with some of these types in football.

Granted, Tubby didn't take advantage of the resources and his talent wasn't what it should have been at UK. That's even more clear now than it was then. Still, my guess is if you ranked the teams in the country from 1 to whatever, just based on talent level, although he would've been short of where he should've been, he still would have been far higher than any UK football coach would appear on such an imaginary ranking of football talent for all teams. If that makes sense.....

 

[pickled cat]

with a few notable exceptions, the basketball team had such good ones?

My guess is recruiting success on a consistent basis. What would you say made that so? Do you think that if football had the same recruiting results we would be a better team. Then is it that all those previous coaches were really bad or was it a weak roster, for most of these years, that keeps us at the bottom of the SEC?

Where does the blame really lie?

Ky. football doesn't have near the history as Ky. basketball, thus the big time recruits don't seek them out . Same goes for coaches with a big name can take their pick at big time programs, and Ky just isn't on the radar. As for recruits; Stoops has brought in the best players since the Bear at Ky. Coaching? I don't know what the future holds for our Cats, but for now, Stoops did choose "us".

 

[theoledog]

They weren't bad coaches.... some were just less successful than others:flushed:
OP... you need a little more water in your glass

 

[KY1WING]

For a while UK wouldn't pay their assistants. Curry couldn't keep an offensive coordinator for over a season so it was a new system almost every year, so there was little continuity which resulted in a slightly different recruiting focus each year.

BTW Folks tend to forget Curry looked like a heck of a hire. He posted a 9-2-1 record at GT and was ACC COTY.

Was at Bama for three years where he brought them their first SEC championship since Bryant and was two time SEC COTY. Had the highest winning percentage since CBB but you can lose to Auburn three years in a row.

But on paper looked like one heck of a steal. But paper and gridiron are two different things.

 

[Fresh Start]

Maybe it's not the coaches

 

[jc2010]

Things were rolling along when we had the Bear but he left. Blanton Collier could have followed the Bear's success but the legislature had to go and hamstring recruiting and Collier left for greener pastures. The boat had sailed, we were a basketball school and the money was not made available to bring the football program back

 

[rmattox]

with a few notable exceptions, the basketball team had such good ones?

My guess is recruiting success on a consistent basis. What would you say made that so? Do you think that if football had the same recruiting results we would be a better team. Then is it that all those previous coaches were really bad or was it a weak roster, for most of these years, that keeps us at the bottom of the SEC?

Where does the blame really lie?

Ky got in on the ground floor re: bball. bball was not significant on a national level until the late 60's with that Astrodome game featuring ucla and ?.... Football was THE game on campus at most colleges and universities. Had we been focusing on Football since the early 1900's, maybe we would be as good as other schools. We just got behind and never could/can catch up....the same that Bama will never catch up in bball. IMO, it's very unfortunate for us.

 

[rmattox]

Is Rich Brooks a worse coach in an absolute sense than Tubby? If Brooks had Tubby's talent to work with, and Tubby had Brooks' equivalent, how would they compare?.....

The answer to that is easy. Brooks was better at his sport. He coached in the NFL and brought an also ran Football school up to respectability. ts may or may not have had an opportunity to go to the nba but never did. As for leading an also ran to respectability....seems he did the opposite to some extent.

 

[WildcatofNati]

I don't think you've had bad coaches per se; I think what you guys are seeing is a clear deficit in available resources for your football coaches relative to the teams you generally play in the SEC. One thing that is undeniable...in a sport where the professionals are generally 3/4s African American, you guys are in a state whose population is only 8% composed of that demographic. The Freakanomics folks would get right to that reality as a foundation for your decades long struggles; you are competing in a league that has larger populations (Tennessee, Georgia and Florida in particular) that have anywhere from 20% to 35% of it's populations made up of African Americans. You also have a number of the SEC schools who have exclusive domain over what talent their is in their state or literally the pick of a rich litter; to me it's inconceivable that as good as LSU or Georgia are perennially that they aren't even more productive. They have an embarrassment of riches to draw from and in the case of LSU they don't have a legitimate Division I competitor within their borders for that pool.

Your facilities have by and large paled by comparison as well if you believe what is said by opposing fanbases and/or recruits; that's not a coaching problem.

Tennessee and Florida are both about 15% African-American, which is a far cry from the 20% to 35 % that you cite, and that is comparable to the overall percentage of the country. Tennessee does OK in producing elite prosepcts; Florida does much, much better, even on a per capita basis.

Ohio and Pennsylvania each manage to place about 25 times as many legit college prospects as New York State, even though New York has a higher black population than either.

California has a comparable African-American population to Kentucky yet produces about 10 times as many prospects, per capita. Not total, per population. Per capita.

It's not about demographics, though I will admit that it's a factor. The MOST important factor is whether or not a state has competent high school football coaching, example, Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, Florida. Or not, like Kentucky or New York.

 

[shutzhund]

Maybe it's not the coaches

lke, like, like ad infintum.

 

[WildcatofNati]

Has UK ever hired a head basketball coach who didn't have division one head coaching experience? They have in football, Mumme, Morriss, Joker, and Stoops. Placing an inexperienced coach in the SEC is a bad practice.

Unless you're Vandy (Franklin), Georgia (Richt), Miss. St. (Mullen), etc etc. The examples go on and on. This is no excuse.

 

[shutzhund]

From what I've read it seems the roster needs a major shot in the arm. Stoops is heading away form the traditional SEC stomping grounds and going to Ohio, etc. to find players who want to play in the SEC.

Bet grumpyoldawd might agree with this.

 

[omnivos]

with a few notable exceptions, the basketball team had such good ones?

My guess is recruiting success on a consistent basis. What would you say made that so? Do you think that if football had the same recruiting results we would be a better team. Then is it that all those previous coaches were really bad or was it a weak roster, for most of these years, that keeps us at the bottom of the SEC?

Where does the blame really lie?

We haven't really horrible coaches except 1 since Curci
I would be curious to see how recruiting classes ranked for each coach.
We've had several assistant coaches who were successful at other places.

30 Fran Curci 1973–1981 100 47 51 2 .480 25 30 0 .455 1 0 0 — 2 0 - AP coach of year. 3 winning seasons out of 9, finished 10-1 tied for 1st in SEC, #6 in nation. Recruiting violations.
Jerry Claiborne

1982–1989 90 41 46 3 .472 13 37 0 .260 1 1 0 — Good coach- teams were hard nosed, tough 3 winning season out of 8, 2 bowls 1-1, 9-3 season.
32 Bill Curry 1990–1996 78 26 52 0 .333 14 40 0 .259 0 1 0 0 0 0 — Some success at Alabama. To stubborn to change game plan to fit players recruited at Kentucky
33 Hal Mumme 1997–2000 46 20 26 — .435 10 22 — .313 0 2 0 0 0 0 — Very innovative on offense.(Father of Air Raid ). Unfortunately didn't care about defense games were fun even in losing.
34 Guy Morriss 2001–2002 23 9 14 — .391 4 12 — .250 0 0 0 0 0 0 — Interm coach. Had a really good season. Left for Baylor then flopped.
35 Rich Brooks 2003–2009 86 39 47 — .453 16 39 — .291 3 1 0 0 0 0 — Took over with basically nothing. It took him 4 years to rebuild. Went to 4 bowls, 3 wins? retired.
36 Joker Phillips 2010–2012 37 13 24 — .351 4 20 — .167 0 1 0 0 0 0 — 3 straight down years. fired
37 Mark Stoops 2013– #1 FSU defense. Started with nothing at UK. Not sure how he will turn out as a head coach. I hope he doesn't turn out like Curry.

 

[Poetax]

We haven't really horrible coaches except 1 since Curci
I would be curious to see how recruiting classes ranked for each coach.
We've had several assistant coaches who were successful at other places.

30 Fran Curci 1973–1981 100 47 51 2 .480 25 30 0 .455 1 0 0 — 2 0 - AP coach of year. 3 winning seasons out of 9, finished 10-1 tied for 1st in SEC, #6 in nation. Recruiting violations.
Jerry Claiborne

1982–1989 90 41 46 3 .472 13 37 0 .260 1 1 0 — Good coach- teams were hard nosed, tough 3 winning season out of 8, 2 bowls 1-1, 9-3 season.
32 Bill Curry 1990–1996 78 26 52 0 .333 14 40 0 .259 0 1 0 0 0 0 — Some success at Alabama. To stubborn to change game plan to fit players recruited at Kentucky
33 Hal Mumme 1997–2000 46 20 26 — .435 10 22 — .313 0 2 0 0 0 0 — Very innovative on offense.(Father of Air Raid ). Unfortunately didn't care about defense games were fun even in losing.
34 Guy Morriss 2001–2002 23 9 14 — .391 4 12 — .250 0 0 0 0 0 0 — Interm coach. Had a really good season. Left for Baylor then flopped.
35 Rich Brooks 2003–2009 86 39 47 — .453 16 39 — .291 3 1 0 0 0 0 — Took over with basically nothing. It took him 4 years to rebuild. Went to 4 bowls, 3 wins? retired.
36 Joker Phillips 2010–2012 37 13 24 — .351 4 20 — .167 0 1 0 0 0 0 — 3 straight down years. fired
37 Mark Stoops 2013– #1 FSU defense. Started with nothing at UK. Not sure how he will turn out as a head coach. I hope he doesn't turn out like Curry.

It is sad that none of them ever had a total record of .500 or more.

 

[shutzhund]

With all the available past experience some UK fans still beat the sad old drum that it's the coach's fault. It's kind of obvious that the fault lies predominately in the roster. Saban couldn't coach UK to a win over a Stoops coached Bama with the present rosters.

 

[ukalum1988]

With all the available past experience some UK fans still beat the sad old drum that it's the coach's fault. It's kind of obvious that the fault lies predominately in the roster. Saban couldn't coach UK to a win over a Stoops coached Bama with the present rosters.

I would to like that most posters on this board are astute enough to know that UK historical football misfortunes have their roots in more than just one cause. You seem fixated on the fact that we simply haven't had a sufficient quantity of quality players on the roster to win games. While that's certainly true, the reasons for the dearth of talent in no particular order, include, but are not limited to the following: Poor support from UK athletics administration (as evidenced by poor facilities, underpaid coaches etc.), geographic location relative to sources of talent, and yes, questionable coaching hires, some of which were not readily apparent without 20/20 hindsight.