Just wondering, why would he leave OU?

He wouldn't.  It would be to give the appearance that we are going after the best.  Like Foley circa 2002....

She spoke to her recently to find out if the Grudens are coming to Knoxville for Homecoming.

And....? 

4 "elite" programs hired coaches going into 2010.  Notre Dame, FSU, USC, and Tennessee.   Looks like we fit better with the not so elite Kansas, Virginia, and Kentucky with our results.

All three of those inherited a much, much better situation than us, unfortunately.  All also have good coaches, other than USC.   

LOL, that was very long.  Reader's Digest version...even SABAN did rather poorly his first year, and the story was that he needed time and his own players.  

That could give some hope for Sunseri, but we are so far below where Saban was in 2007 that it likely destroys the hope, even factoring in a lower talent level and allowing that Sunseri, while he may be better than he has shown,  is "not Saban".

And a final note is that as the season winds down, the numbers are highly likely to improve, but we would have to hold the last 5 teams we play (assuming a bowl) to under 14 ppg to not be "the worst".  Which actually makes the rest of the season more interesting to me.

It's funny you brought this up Bandit because a friend and I were discussing it last night. We wouldn't have to have Randy Shannon. The 60th best DC in the country would probably have given us two more wins. If that's the case things are looking better.

Yep.  You want to make the case that Sunseri is just having growing pains and it will get better with time, and frankly that's probably true...if for no other reason than it can literally not get worse!

But when you start from such a low base...

But I will say this.  We do get into the softer part of the schedule and it's possible that they might actually be around the 2nd worst.  By the numbers, they would have to hold teams to  14 ppg or less for the last 4 games and the bowl (assuming there is one).  Given the weak slate, I suppose that might be possible, but is it likely?

Another thing is that believe it or not, Saban did poorly in his first year, and Suneri is implementing "Saban's D".  So if even SABAN struggled in 2007, I would be inclined to give Sunseri another year, factoring in that there is a painful adjustment for one year.

So the worst two things you can point to with Saban are that he gave up 41 points to no. 5 LSU late in the year, and that he surrendered 21 to La-Monroe in a HOMECOMING LOSS.   

Heck, when that happened I was gleeful.   Because it looked like bammer had just wasted millions on another loser.  What all the tahd fans said was that Saban's D took awhile  to implement, but also and mostly that it was the "Shula players" that were causing most of the problems.  At the end of the year, Saban "ran oft" a number of Shula players.

I just laughed at them and looked forward to the tahd sucking for another 3-4 years while Saban got paid way too much.  Well was *I* wrong. Badly wrong.  So I have figured, there must be something to the "need time to implement" but particularly to "needing the right players", especially players that learn the system from the begining and have nothing to "unlearn".

So the thought is...what would a Sunseri D look like with another year and mostly "his" playewrs in there?  It made HUGE difference for bammer.

But even then, looking at HOW BAD our D is, I really don't know if it's fixable or not.  FWIW, Saban's D in 2007 surrendered 22 ppg.  Factoring in that Sunser is not Saban and allowing for a lower talent level than 2007 bammer still probably can't explain a 12 ppg difference, I don'[ think.

FWIW, the new players that SUnseri has inserted seem to be playing well.  If we were averaging, say 25 ppg, not only do we probably win a game or two, but I could actually be an optimist with Sunser as our DC.

As it stands, it's difficult for ANYTHING to justify the defensive performance to date.  It is still possible to make a dent in the number and make it more like 2007 though.....

FWIW, the guy that I drove to the game with is a UDub (University of Washington) grad, who has adopted the Vols as his second team because (a) they are not Auburn or Alabama, and (b) a couple of his close friends are Tennessee fans, myself included.

On the drive back, I was complaining about losing Wilcox.  He stated that it wasn't necessarily Tennessee's fault, that UW wanted Wilcox really bad and offered him a pile of money (this goes for the guy that went with Wilcox, whose name I forget).

He stated that Wilcox is making $750K and the other guy $500K.   Looking at it, I suppose Wilcox had another offer that he liked better (he is a "West Coast guy" supposedly), and UT was simply unwilling to top it.  Rumor has it that Dooley wasn't completely satisfied with Wilcox anyway, and perhaps was unwilling to outbid UW.  Wilcox may well have been in a state where he was willing to take slightly less to get away from UT anyway.

At the end of the day, Dooley and Hart probably thought they couldn't justify giving any assistant more money after the crappy season we had...this seems very likely to me, but WDIK.

Anyway, FWIW, according to a huge Washington fan there was a bidding war and UT declined to play.

Looking back.....

Another thought that occured to me....we made the SECCG in the year we had the second worst scoring D in our history.

So if Wilcox was still the DC, and we were merely tied for second....or even better....

Sigh.

I thought he played much better vs. USCe.  Pirate pointed out that they seemed to get him involved earlier in the game with a couple easy plays, and it seemed to pay off.

The answer is "no, not the same guy", but at the same time last year was a pretty small sample to compare to.

If he can continue the trend of the last game, he can close the season strong, and I hope he does.

How he finishes the season may or may not determine his pro prospects.  There are plenty who think he has the talent and the NFL will take him in the first round regardless of how he plays.

I of course would like to see him come back....he's the one of the three that seems the least likely to do so.

Wow. That's awful. One thing that might skew this year's numbers in comparisons is teams know they have to score a lot to beat us. Kentucky has a higher ranked D than us, but coaches know if you score 30 you're safe. That's not the case with UT this year. I'm convinced UGA would have score 35 and called it a day if out offense was inept.

That's not to say this year's numbers are skewed, just that it makes a comparison more difficult since some other years everyone knew we couldn't score 25. Opponents were more conservative on offense.

Great point murf...I thought about that making a difference last year, when we couldn't score to save our lives.   The fact that other teams didn't need to score as much probably made last year look better than it was, though I would take last year's D over this one in a heartbeat.

I've seen it a few times.  Great stuff.  Funny episode was when the guy tried to get his friend to scare his daughter out of playing with a toy he hated because she made him play a game with her and it was wearing him out, and it back-fired and made her like it that much more.   

2012   34 ppg
2007   27 ppg
1988   26 ppg


I was surprised at two things....one that we are currently seven points worse than the next crappy D, and also that the second worst was in 2007.

Of course, as the rules have changed over the years, scoring has increased.  That has an effect, but scoring has been high since about 1970 or so, and I'm not sure it matters that much what happened when they wore leather helmets.  OTOH, the soft part of the schedule is coming up, and it's possible that the number will improve dramatically...possibly even enough to not be THE worst anymore.

Heck, if I were the coaches, I might try to use that as motivation.

Well, there aren't.

No doubt.  But losing close games means progress is being made, vs. being blown out.

That doesn't mean losing is ever acceptable.

It just means winning is getting closer.

That's not a "moral victory".  A moral victory is saying, "I lost, but I feel good because the other team was so much better".   Not what I am saying at all.....

But if you think losing 49-7 would leave one just as optimisitic or pessimistic about the future as losing 38-35, then I would love to hear why.  It's all about looking to the future and where we are going vs. where we have been recently.

I felt similarly when Buzz was basketball coach, and I was originally a huge fan of Buzz.

Well I never did like Buzz .

I don't blame people for not wanting to attend games they don't find interesting.  I could just never root against the Vols, or any other team I care about, for any reason whatever.

HBTY!

I'll never go there.  Win every game.  Period.

But to each their own...

Because we don't live in sunshine, fairy, and rainbow land? Of course he could improve the defense. But does the track record say we can expect that? Hardly. We were healthier, deeper, and more experienced this year and are 99th in total defense. Blame that all on Sunseri if you like . . . but he is Dooley's hire.

I think you just like to argue, but in a moment of sincerity I will tell you where I (and most thoughtful fans I know) differ from you. We are losing ground in a league that already has ~8 programs ahead of us. There is so much money at stake that a program can hardly afford to be "optimistic." It must be realistic, and that means cutting bait when it's clear that things are going south.

It went south a long time ago dude.  It's just a matter of the best path back.  Whether Dooley is let go this season or next, just doesn't matter that much to me.

Good chance he's gone anyway, so....

By disinterested and unmotivated I was referring to how the team might show up this Saturday against Troy. I think

Right.  I just don't see it though.  We will find out!

There will be nothing but bad luck as long as Dooley is our coach.  People he is gone so these scenarios that are being thrown out by ppl of dooley being here next here are just a waste of time!     Get your head out of your rear!!!!!!!!

Exactly!  Because that's how the random bouncing of a football works. It always favors or disfavors a coach in exactly the same way.

 

If and until Dooley is gone, it's fair game to speculate on how he might do next year.  But also premature...there is a whole month left.

["No one really worries about that.]

The difference is, in 2008 the players LOVED Fulmer.  Their actions at his "resignation" presser testify to that.  I knew right then and there that they wouldn't show up for the Wyoming game.  I'm not sure that Dooley has garnered that same kind of affection from his team. 

That doesn't mean they want to LOSE though.  Unlike the 2008 team (unfortunately!) they have no memories of winning routinely, and these game actually matter...to THEM.  And for THEIR SAKE, I hope they do win them all. They deserve some small measure of success after eating a giant shizzle sandwich for four years.

But don't take my word for it, listen to what the players say:

http://www.govolsxtra.com/news/2012/oct/28/ut-coach-derek-dooley-says-there-is-hope-for/?partner=popular

"Yeah, I mean everyone's always talking about Coach Dooley being on the hot seat," said quarterback Tyler Bray. "No one really worries about that. He's going to put us in a great position to win, and we've got to execute, which we've failed to do."

Senior receiver Zach Rogers said the final games are important for everyone.

"We've got to play for coach (Dooley), we got to play for ourselves, we got to play for this university," Rogers said. "It's not just one individual we're playing for. This hurts the whole community when we lose like this."

Cliff notes version please.   

Fine.

"Close games DO matter...because some seasons you win them, some you lose them"

I am willing to bet we win some going forward.  My theory is that it's not ingrained in a coach or team to lost them, as many seem to think, but instead that luck plays a large role.

And we are due for some luck.

FWIW....(cue crowd to chants of "there are no moral victories" and repeat 1000x  )

If that were truly the case (and I don't believe it for a second), then I would be forced to root against UT in the last four.  Sorry.

And there may not be many other who admit it, but I guarantee I'm not the only one.

Bingo   

I didn't expect us to have a great year, but I did expect us to win at least 8 games. I don't think it is wise to say we should beat "x" team, but I did expect us to beat at least one of the MSU, UF, UGA, Bama and USC group.

Losing one can be explained, but losing all of them is a pattern. The team is experienced and relatively healthy.

About where I am....

I don't know, I think you are underselling the talent on that 2008 team a little. I was thinking this year's team might be similarly disinterested and unmotivated.

I keep hearing this.  Was our team unmotivated and uninterested Saturday?  No, but plenty thought they would be.  I expect them to show up for Troy.  And while we are at it, recall that Fulmer was fired the week of the Wyoming game.

Had Dooley been let go today, as many predicted, I would expect the team to perhaps give up, or at any rate the coaches to be unmotivated.

No matter how bad our fanbase wants a coach out, I never want to piss 4 games away just to fire a coach in midseason.  The team will show up, and I hope they play well.

I hear you on that 1996 UF game. LOL!  I went with a friend, and bought student tix without realizing that they now had electronic scanners for the student IDs.  I wasted ~$70 for a ticket, then we wandered the strip from site to site looking for a good place to view the game all while getting rained on and watching the Vols lay a 0-35 egg before making it look respectable.  Not a good memory for me either...

Ah yes, on the detachment from reality part.  Glad you brought that up.  I do see a detachment from reality, but it's on the part of other fans.

I'll give a couple quick examples.  The 2004 season vs. 2005 and last year's Kentucky game.

In 2005, we lost several key games by a few points and went 5-6.  That was the beginning of the end for Fulmer.  In 2004, we won several key games and unexpectedly went to the SECCG.  Everyone thought it was great.

The difference in the two seasons was that in 2004, we won the "coin flip" games - games that could be decided by one score - because on ONE PLAY the ball bounced our way better than it did for the opponent.  In 2005, we lost those same "coin flip" games. 

In 1995, with Fulmer still in his prime and Peyton Manning at QB, we narrowly beat UK 38-35.  Last year, we lost to UK 10-6.  Again, one play.  One play separates a game that everyone thought a disaster from a game in one of our best seasons ever.  A coin flip!

So I look at our scores vs. UGA and USCe this year and see no reason why we can't beat them next year in Neyland...IF AND ONLY IF the D improves considerably.  But I think they can.

If Dooley can improve the offense this year from where it was last year, why not the D also?


And BTW....none of this means that I expect Dooley back.  I think there is still a good chance that he is a goner.  It's just painting an optimistic scenario of "what could be" if he does come back, which is still an option.

But if we can't get a top coach to replace him this year, then I can be patient and wait till next year.

I am not going to tolerate the current mess forever, but I could go another year if that's how it plays out.  We can all agree that there is no way he stays next year without signifcant improvement, if it comes down to that.

And FTR, a KNS poll showed 60% sentiment for firing Dooley, and Bassilo's poll showed  70%.  So it's roughly only 2-1 for firing him, no matter how skewed this corner of the Vol universe may seem. 

If by "the year" you mean the year we should have been contending for the SEC East, then yes

That is, in fact, what I mean.  Beating anyone of consequence...not that big a deal to me personally, but I see things differently than most.  More on that below.

. . . Speaking of those, here are a few:

All those things you cite...another way of saying we suxed the last two years, a big part of which was not Dooley's fault (but definitely some was).  I already know that, citing the stats doesn't change anything.

  I don't know anyone who would have said we we'd be track with that kind of performance through three years.

Great point!  My point is that I NEVER THOUGHT we would be on track after three years given the deep hole we started in and then compounded by the injuries last year.  And I am not backing off that just because we lost to UK.   I will state that I expected 8 wins, not 7, so we are worse than I thought we'd be...but really not by that much  (so far ).  The season is, in fact, not over yet.