VTTW Board Index

I know Tony is a loose cannon sometimes but his blog and info today has been approved as accurate and "Dead On" by Swan on the GQ.  Not sure if you know Swan but he is the most respected poster for info on the GQ who is not a mod.  I will try to link.


http://tonybasilio.com/index.php?page=tony (http://tonybasilio.com/index.php?page=tony)

I lol'd at the term "Buddy Can't Hackett".   :bowrofl:

It's unbelievable TN football has been allowed to reach this point.  If Sal is "Dooley's guy", then there's yet more proof Dooley doesn't have a clue.

swan confirming it is about as good an endorsement as can get

Im trying not to pile on Dooley today but I still can't get over the "I don't go over the defensive game plan" post game quote.  SMH
do you think the boosters have taken this out of Hart's hands because of the Sal hire or just because they are the ones paying?

Amen

That isn't too out of the ordinary, many head coaches do focus on one side, BUT knowing how bad the defense has been he should be more involved on that side and certainly should not have said that.

Like usual, I am sorry I clicked a link.   :banghead:  If this is true, then the UTAD is much worse off than I thought and Hart is not the person for the job:

"Here's how this thing is working.  The major boosters are handling this. Hart has very little input in it. They've told him to sit tight and when it's time to work the deal, they’ll bring him in.  But they are not leaving the heavy lifting to him.  That's why Jimmy Hyams can say over the weekend several times that Hart hasn't talked with anybody from Gruden's camp.  Because he hasn't and he won't.  That is until it's time to make a deal.  I understand Dave Hart is upset about me reporting this stuff but I have to do my job."

If I ever find out it's true that the inmates are running the asylum, then they can do without my piddling donation and I will never attend another game.

Bingo

I think they know this is a business decision at this point.

If the boosters can take this out of Hart's hands, then UT should get rid of Hart and just admit a total lack of control exists in all facets of the athletics department.  That is simply unacceptable.  :mad:  Why didn't they do that with Hamilton?  He got them to donate vast sums; that was his expertise.  An AD has to have control, for good or bad.  I tend to think this is simply hyperbole and wishful thinking by those who can't get real information, but....   :rolleyes:

If They bring in a great Coach,God Bless Them! :dude:

I think this is an overreaction. The boosters or whatever external contingent is talking with Gruden or other coaches give Hart plausible deniability. With Dooley still employed I think that matters.

I still stick by my paragraph on Hart:
http://volstothewall.com/board/index.php?topic=25280.msg120996#msg120996 (http://volstothewall.com/board/index.php?topic=25280.msg120996#msg120996)

I disagree.  That was my first reaction, but the usual practice is for the AD to use intermediaries, and the intermediaries deal with the same for the prospective coach.  That way they can both say that "they" have never spoken/been in contact.  But that is not what is said to be happening:

"The major boosters are handling this."
"Hart has very little input in it."
"They've told him to sit tight and when it's time to work the deal, they’ll bring him in."

Sorry, but that is not the usual practice as I have always understood it to exist.  Hamilton used intermediaries and kept the process secret, but he never relinquished control.  That is the AD's job!  I still think this is total garbage, except that perhaps Hart is using intermediaries.  But, if he has relinquished control "until it's time to make a deal," then I find that unacceptable.  They could revive Neyland from the grave and win 100% of their games and I would never go to another game.  I don't want boosters running the AD.  And, no, I don't think they ever have in the past.  Woodruff, Dickey and even Hamilton had too much backbone for that.

I think we have to keep in mind that this is coming from Basilio and is in his words. We can argue about the way he phrased it but these aren't quotes from a source . . . they are Tony sharing what he thinks is happening.

My impression of Hart is that he is a stronger leader than Hamilton. I'm not afraid of what you are afraid of because I highly doubt that is what is happening. It's also entirely possible that Basilio's source has no clue.

Hence my first comment, "Like usual, I am sorry I clicked a link."  :biggrin:  I should never do that..........NEVER!  :dance:  I hate sites like that.

I know what you mean. It takes a pretty good filter to not get worked up when you read some of these things . . . and I suppose it wouldn't be a bad policy to say "anything I have to filter that much isn't worth reading." Still, sometimes I can't help myself.

The good news is I haven't been able to open that blog for awhile.  Kinda peaceful actually ...

Just so I'm clear, you don't think any of these guys are credible unless they're plugged into the UTAD.  Is that correct?

Wasn't that the problem with SMU in the late 70's and 80's?

I do not think a single person posting on tweeter or message board is credible with regards to what is going on inside the UTAD

Nope, not at all, and I am not sure where that comes from.  But, since the UTAD is the ultimate source of information, even by leaks, that would certainly help.  That's where sources get their information, regardless of who the sources are and how fair down the source chain they are.  Information almost has to start with the UTAD.  If it doesn't, how credible can it be?  I just have never liked sites like that one, ever.  Personal preference.

  Seems weird to me that Hart wouldn't be the point man in all this, or that he would stand for it. But then, I've heard of AD's micromanaging to the point where they might determine assistant coaches, etc., which isn't right in my mind. I guess I'm saying that I've seen stranger things than Board members telling an AD we're taking the rains for a while on a matter such as this.
  If this were true, maybe it's to give Hart cover, because he's the one that will be asked. I don't agree with this heavy handed action, but then at least these guys are UT men, who want the football program to succeed, and they have a heavy stake in UT's success, esp football. I mean if this is true, at least I'm glad it's UT men making decisions for UT football.  

I'm sorry... and I am 100% behind change, but this approach seriously makes me feel terrible for Coach Dooley.  All of this talk, the way this is being "handled", and now his family is abused at the SC game, all of it.  I swear!  It's fizzleing football!  SO many more important things in this world.  Ugh.

Maybe it is not a case of the inmates running the asylum.  Maybe it is a case of sending Benjamin Franklin to France.  Well spoken, strong people skills, and with unquestioned authority to deal on behalf of the nation.  If we hired a search firm to approach France, we might all be having tea and crumpets this afternoon.

Awesome analogy.   :biggrin:

And that would be perfectly fine.  That would be Hart running the show and sending his emissaries forth to do his bidding -- pretty usual and expected.  But, that is not what was written.  What was written was Benjamin Franklin going to France and telling the U.S. government and to sit back and wait until he made the deal he wanted and told them what to do.  Not quite as alright.  :biggrin:

Yep, and the worst part is that none of us know that this approach is even being used.  It's all unsubstantiated stuff right now.  Too many things haven't panned out as predicted.  That makes me think that the sources are either not as in touch as they think, or they are being fed misinformation.  I should have stayed out of the discussion, since I have no sources and will probably just roll with whatever happens.  Like you said, it's just football, not real life.  I'll go back to tracking Sandy now. 

I would go out on a limb to say that the posters on this board are all smart, capable adults and know how things work with rumors and reports from "sources".  Of course there are lots of things that haven't panned out, we know that.   :nod:

If I was a booster (which I am not) and I was going to have to float the bill for the next coach (which the boosters are) I would want to be heavliy involved in making the coaching hire.  I see nothing wrong with this nor do I think it is uncommon.  It is their money period.  At least it is people that want to see us return to Victory.  I dont care who brings in the next coach as long as it is a big name coach with a winning record.  The following criteria is what I DO NOT want to my responses to be when we name our next head coach:

Who?
The man sitting in a "holler"?
His record is what?
Who?
Who?

Whoever can bring a coach in that can prevent me from repsonding like is all I care about?  

The entire process gives me a headache. I'm glad it's hunting season, because I've had just about all the football I can stomach for one year. (And if I hear Dooley say one more time that UT still has a chance to have a "great season," I might drop-kick my TV.)

Well, anyone who contributes to retain season tickets is a booster, so numerous people who post here are boosters, but probably not the type who contribute millions and get involved in stuff like hiring coaches.  :wink:  I have been making donatons since the 80s and I actually care about the process.  Boosters should not run the process IMO.  That is Hart's job.  He is charged with getting donations and administering the funds.  If the big boosters don't like it, they can keep their money and Hart might pay the price with his job.  I have a feeling that the story was just worded very poorly, perhaps even for effect, and Hart is controlling everything within the normal university system confines.  If not, then I say get rid of him. 

It's his usual political posturing, in line with scapegoating Matt Simms twice - once by putting Bray in at a time calculated to make him, Dooley, look good, and then by putting Worley in vs. USCe last year, providing a ready made excuse for losing to USCe and even struggling down the stretch ("its a new QB").

In this case, distance yourself from the part of the team that is struggling and put it all on Sunseri.

What do you expect?  He's a freaking attorney!  (No offense to TRO  :biggrin:)

Agreed as written, but what was written may be subject to interpretation, particularly given the author.  I have real trouble accepting face value on this.

Now we agree on that.  He can say "salvage the season", or "finish the year strong" or whatever, but a GOOD season is way gone.

Sitting in a Holler would be a positive attribute.   :toothless: :naughty:

I'm not sure the blog in the original link is even there any more, because I haven't seen the quote that is C&P'd above, but I do have a comment on this:

But Tony, what if we win our last four games? What if? If UT does win the last four on the schedule. Great for them! Great for us! But this was a 9 or 10 win team that's going to barely scrape in and qualify for a bowl game at 7-5. And don't call this team young. They're not young. Look at the roster. THIS was THE year for Dooley. You think that guy and that coaching staff could negotiate the front of that schedule next year with trips to Oregon and Florida? Don't kid yourself.

One...this was not a 9/10 win year IMO.  I have consistently said 8...so maybe it's 8/9 at best.  I don't think ANYONE thought we would win TEN, I think he's exagerating to make a point.

Regardless....I think the key difference with me is that THIS was not "The Year".  Next year was.  I have felt that since Dooley was hired, and losing to UK last year did not change my mind.

If the D improves as much next year as the offense did this year, next year could in fact be "good", meaning we go no worse than 6-2 in the SEC and are in the mix for the East title late in the season.  (I am not mentioning the overall record cause I know we play the Ducks in Eugene and I am too lazy to look at the other OOC foes).

Don't think we can go 6-2?  Given that USCe and uga are at home, and we almost beat them this year on the road, with the worst D in our history, and that Missouri, UK, Vandy and hopefully Auburn are very winnable, well there it is.

And I know what everyone is going to say "DOOLEY CANT WIN THE CLOSE ONES AGAINST A QUALITY FOE!".  Well, he has to win one eventually, if for no other reason than random statistics.   :dielaughing:

If by "the year" you mean the year we should have been contending for the SEC East, then yes . . . I'd say most would agree that next year was the first year we could expect that. If by "the year" you mean the year we beat someone of consequence for the first time in Dooley's tenure . . . no. Nobody was willing to be that patient, as far as I remember. And that's where we are.


Speaking of those, here are a few:

Combined record of teams beaten during Dooley's tenure at UT: 62-100 (includes 18 wins by UT Martin, Montana, and Georgia State-- FCS schools).

Combined overall record of SEC teams beaten during Dooley's tenure at UT: 18-32

Combined SEC record of the four SEC teams beaten during Dooley's tenure: 6-26 (and none of the four won more than 2 SEC games).

The best case scenario for this season is we win 3 SEC games, and those 3 SEC teams have won a combined 3 SEC games to this point. Once again we will have beaten only the cellar dwellers and that's if we even manage that. I don't know anyone who would have said we'd be track with that kind of performance through three years.


No. You can try to make your list of six SEC wins sound plausible if you like, but I don't think anyone is buying it. The chances are very good that Dooley will have six or fewer SEC wins in his first three seasons combined . . . no way in hell do I think it's at all reasonable to see him winning 6 in his fourth year.

I know it's a waste of time to even engage in this, but it's hard for me to read such detachment from reality without commenting.

Detachment from reality.. Perfectly worded.

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.


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.



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 :biggrin:).  The season is, in fact, not over yet.

You have repeated this a number of times as if the rest of us are judging Dooley based on one game. While that game was revealing on a number of levels, it's also nothing more than a strawman in this context. We have 19 losses in less than three seasons, so you have 18 more you could take a look at, along with a number of games played against lesser teams that we struggled to come away with.


It may as well be. I don't personally think we should be measuring our coaches on their successes in November, especially when you consider that the only reason Dooley is not 0-for-October in his three years is that he was lucky enough for Buffalo to fall on October 1 in 2010.

I badly wanted Dooley to succeed because I really liked the guy and still do. But it's just hard for me to imagine that anyone with functional eyes can look upon his tenure at UT and envision future success.

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.

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.  :biggrin:

Cliff notes version please.   :sleep:

About where I am....

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  :rolleyes:)

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!   :wow:  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.

 :dielaughing:

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.

Yes yes, the "ball will bounce funny" argument. In 2005 we still won a "coin flip" game against a good team, beating #4 LSU in Baton Rouge. So in the season that was "the beginning of the end for Fulmer" his team still managed a quality win . . . a great win even. And in the seasons before and after 2005, Fulmer's teams beat five ranked teams. So your example may sound great until you add any context whatsoever. Somebody better check the ball we're using under Dooley as it's bouncing badly every time we kick it off against a good team.


Again, you use an example that you think is appropriate but looks completely ridiculous with any sense of context. That team won 11 games and beat 3 ranked teams. UK gave them a game . . . but in the context of a fantastic season for UT I hardly think this means much.


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.

And it's abundantly 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....

When one finds himself halfway down the mountain and looking to get to the top, it's typically in his best interest to stop heading down.

Well, there aren't.

In January 2010, we found ourselves at the bottom of the mountain looking up in trying to sign another recruiting class in a 3 week time period. All the while mattresses were burning in the streets. Now, you have to determine where on the mountain you are versus January 2010. Just everyone's own perspective on where we are versus where we have been.

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.