VTTW Board Index

Not because these guys trying their best to put out "breaking" information can't be wrong, but because his excuse that Cheek stepped in at the last minute (after the decision had already been made to can Dooley and a time had been set aside to announce it) is just not plausible, which tells me that this guy isn't nearly as "in the know" as he likes to pretend. Anyway . . .

http://feelslike98.com/articles/rumor-mill-the-latest-on-our-coaching-situation--2

Nutshell version: He says that Gruden is still in play. If it doesn't work out, the fallback guys are Charlie Strong and Tommy Tuberville. If neither of them work out, Dooley gets another year.

I don't think it's rooted in fact AT ALL. But, Tubs as a "big name"? LOL. Maybe he's a good coach; maybe Auburn canned him prematurely. But hiring an Auburn retread isn't going to do anything to solve the apathy issue with the fan base.

Tubs?!   :nono:

This all may well be true but it is a disaster for the program for this information to be "out there".  If the situation leads to the "top candidates" not working out and Dooley is "retained", how can Hart honestly expect, in all fairness, Dooley to have a successful recruiting year?  If it literally reaches a point where he's just a lame duck and the guy UT is "stuck with" because the other guys didn't pan out, then I put this mess on Hart and the blabbermouths on the net... what kid who can read is going to say, "I gotta be a part of that!"?

...he said as he blabbered his own mouth.   :crazy:

I don't think it's true at all. If it is, Hart is a moron.

This.  :thumbup:

Who hired Hart? 

Our other moron.

(http://media.knoxnews.com/media/img/vthumbs/2010/02/25/022610chloe-cheek_thumbnail_t320_240.jpg)

I can't tell when/"if" anybody is serious on FL98. I know the OP said he doesn't believe it, but I wouldn't believe anything on that site or any other. Too easy to proclaim "inside" info and watch the herd stampede.  Jmho

That is one scary looking dude! Who hired his ass? Lol.

So can He Coach? :dielaughing:

You may have your answer then.

Agreed. If it is true, we have much bigger problems than HC Dooley.

Shoot. Any of us could have made that speculation. Tuberville is a very good coach, but I'm not sure he excites the masses. I go back to my Petrino benchmark for guys like him.

If a guy would win less than Bobby P guaranteed (at least in my mind) I'm lukewarm.

I've read speculation that Cheek may be out this coming winter.

I'd be happier if we didn't have such a sorry track record of hiring Presidents. We need to go back to the Joe Johnson model. Hire a smart people guy (admittedly Johnson is very rare in this regard) who loves the university.

I will come back and taunt you mercilessly should you guys hire Tubs.  I realize I may get banned, but it'll be fun.

By the way, I don't see a snowball chance in Tuscaloosa's chance in that happening.

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/162/382381176_5611378c62_o.gif)(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/162/382381176_5611378c62_o.gif)(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/162/382381176_5611378c62_o.gif)(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/162/382381176_5611378c62_o.gif)(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/162/382381176_5611378c62_o.gif)(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/162/382381176_5611378c62_o.gif)

Serious question: Would you take Tubs over Chizik? (Feel free to respond with "Would you take Fulmer over Dooley?"  :laugh: )

Being a university Chancellor or system President is considerably different than when Johnson was here. I know it was not that long ago but the political and economic environments have created challenges that simply weren't an issue even 20 years ago. I'm not defending Cheek, as I have heard mixed things about him at work from people who know more about university administration than I do . . . but I know that job is not plug-and-play and demands quite a lot of skill in a number of important arenas. Very few have the chops for it, IMO.

One thing I can tell you is that hiring that position from within is probably a recipe for failure . . . so that may eliminate most people who love the university coming into the job. I say that because there is a culture at UTK that frankly needs eradicating, and promotion from within rarely leads to that result. UT is late getting to the party in several areas when it comes to competition for research funding and student recruitment and performance, and risks falling behind so far that catching up will no longer be a realistic goal. The Top 25 Initiative is not Cheek's alone and I read chastisement on this board about him trying to turn UT into Vandy, but it is a great goal that we should all support. I don't know if Cheek is the man for that challenge but I think as football fans we can lose sight of what the Chancellor's responsibility is.

I'm fine if he wants to compete academically with Vanderbilt....he needs to keep his nose out of the athletic side of things.

You and I both know that he can't do that. His job depends on him finding a proper balance among all things that make UT an attractive and integral part of the state and to improve them all-- and if he seriously downgraded athletics you and I both know he wouldn't keep his job. Even if he doesn't personally appreciate what the programs mean to the university, its alumni, the community, and the state, his job depends on him supporting it anyway. He reports to DiPietro and DiPietro reports to the Board. The Board is peopled largely with alumni who love the university and new trustees would be appointed by Bill Haslam . . . I think we have an idea of where he stands on UT athletics.

It's not in Cheek's interest to throw up roadblocks to athletics.

I will preface my comments with this one: I was not in favor of getting rid of Tubs in the first place.  So, yes, I would take Tubs over Chizik. I don't think we would have had the multiple off-the-field issues over the last 12-15 months that, I think, has contributed to the piss-poor attitdue on the team, and would have continued to keep the good ol boy network, complete with Pat Dye's meddling.

I was hoping you'd weigh in from a University perspective.

Good points.

I will throw out the following on academics (a massive bunny trail). Please send this to the political forum or delete it if it is out of place.

Do taxpayers get a greater return on their investment by getting more research funding? I realize there is greater academic prestige, but does that equate to students getting a better education? I say this as someone who worked in a center for research for four years. There were some super bright people there, but it helped students and taxpayers not one iota - and it was at least in a practical field, not 13th Century Lowland Germanic Studies or something.  :smile:

This is why I favor the Joe Johnson model, BUT I am very wary of academic inbreeding. That's a major problem at most universities.

Don't encourage him.  The correct response would be "Vandy is a complete turd and should not be copied".  :kiss2: I love me some Clockwork Orange.

Idk why, but Clocky always calms me down.   :laugh:

Oh please Lord, not Tommy Tuberville! He's not the "Big Time" hire UT needs right now, please no retreads. Besides, the guy has a chance of being indicted for a fraudulent investment scheme he was involved in. Remember Jim Donnan? There's plenty of other guys I'd tap before Wingnut.

Is that Jimminy Cricket, or Barney Fife? :hi5:

That's a good question and it is not the same in all academic areas. I can tell you that in Business and the STEM fields it most definitely has an impact on all levels of education. The College of Engineering here gets almost 2/3 of its funding from external sources, nearly all of that being grants and contracts for research projects. The wonderful thing about that for undergraduates is that (1) it means better faculty connected with current research, giving them a chance to be near the cutting edge and taught by people respected in their field; and (2) for the lucky ones (and the more research, the more lucky ones) it provides them opportunities to be involved in the research itself. We have a number of faculty who involve undergraduates in their research and that is an unreal opportunity that they would not likely get if they went to a less research-focused school. We could add a (3) to that, which is that big research schools rise in the rankings and make the degrees more valuable for those who earn them.

Another wonderful thing about the College getting so much of its funding from research grants is that it can be steered through tough budgetary periods because it's not completely dependent upon its base budget from the Chancellor (which comes from the state).

One final thing is strong research programs attract top level grad students, many of whom go on to be very wealthy alumni. We have one new engineering building partially funded by Min Kao (Garmin) and another under construction partially funded by John Tickle (Strongwell Corp.). Those buildings will benefit everyone, including the undergraduates who will have new classroom and lab space. Obviously having these alumni offers the opportunity for reinvestment and re-enrichment of the college, which in turn means more good faculty and students down the road, and so on and so on.

I've emphasized Engineering because it's what I know, but the same is true for strong research programs in math and the sciences as well as business, education, social work, etc. Those programs being more self-sustaining and research-driven helps enable the university to keep other programs (humanities, social sciences, music, etc.) open when they risk being cut by universities more reliant on base budgets from the state and tuition.

I ramble, but you see my point. A university with a strong emphasis on research is a university with the ability to sustain and better itself.

Joe Johnson was in fact, a great guy.  Was an acquaintance of my parents.  All around class act, and I thought he handled the end of the Majors era very well. Still recall my father telling me that Joe told him that Majors had "relationship issues".  Couldn't get along with the players, staff OR AD, and that this was the primary reason for the change, though I am sure effing up the 1992 season had much to do with it as well.

But to the original post...these guys have been trolling for days.  More of the same.  Carry on.

Aw, shucks.    :smile:

Well said Clock. My experience was about three students per semester benefitted (and benefit they did) from our research center, but the rest got nothing from it. In fact, classes were frequently taught by grad students (not saying whether my wife or I may have done that or not) because the profs were too busy researching to teach paying students.

I'm actually very pro research, just not always sure it benefits the many instead of the select few. Also, in my line of work very few people care how prestigious a school you attended so academic ratings points don't mean much. That skews my bias.

That having been said I will entertain any offers to start a Center for Football Research at UT. Our first project will entail a detailed looked at porous defense.

Let me know if you need a statistician in this Center.  :wave:

How high will the calculators go?  :doh:

Or the office of Recruiting :wave:

Where can we get funding Clock? Hmm, perhaps we could get a grant from the VTTW Foundation. Please donate lots of money or expensive bodily organs we can easily sell.