Silly Season '13 (Coaching Changes)

[pkt77242]

I know the point you're trying to make but let me submit one thing, when Harbaugh took over Stanford in 2007 they hadn't had a winning season since 2001, Vandy had a winning season in 2008 with wins over #24 SC and #14 Auburn and Vandy was ranked as high at #13 that year. So while Vandy had been terrible for many years they had the athletes to pull off the 2008 season so maybe the turn around had already begun. I would also suggest that Franklin at Vandy is at an advantage over Harbaugh at Stanford because the admissions are looser and he can pitch ESE EEE CEE.

Um, Vanderbilt was 6-6 during the regular season and won a bowl game to finish 7-6 in 2008. I would say over the 10 years previous to Harbaugh's hire at Stanford and Franklin's hire at Vanderbilt was a wash.

 

[IrishLax]

The beauty of Franklin is that he is energetic and works hard. He will destroy it in recruiting at any major school. The question is whether or not he is a championship caliber coach and can build/maintain a strong assistant coaching staff.

I have no doubt he would sign consistent top 5 classes and win 10 games a year at Texas.

 

[pkt77242]

This is kind of my point. I don't think we can confidently say that Franklin is a good coach. He may be. Taking him is a huge risk, IMO, and I would not be happy as a UT fan

I am not saying that Franklin is an amazing hire (and I don't think he is a homerun hire like Saban, or Harbaugh, etc) but he is a good coach (you don't get Vanderbilt to 3 straight bowl games by being a crappy coach).

 

[ACamp1900]

Franklin is a great coach imo (though I don't like him)... I just don't think his hire would appease the masses...

You don’t hire according to that obviously, but it’ll be fun to watch I guess if they do go with someone that far down their initial list... Longhorn nation would shit themsleves.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

I am not saying that Franklin is an amazing hire (and I don't think he is a homerun hire like Saban, or Harbaugh, etc) but he is a good coach (you don't get Vanderbilt to 3 straight bowl games by being a crappy coach).

Nobody said he is a crappy coach. We are talking about hiring the guy for a top 5 job in college football. Being good at your job doesn't cut it for that. Wooly and I have pointed out that his resume is soft. The only response you have is that Vandy historically sucks. I have admitted a couple of times that the dude can recruit his ass off and that recruiting well equals a .500 conference record and wins over bullshit out of conference opponents, but guys like Kiffin can recruit too and see what happens on the field sometimes.

It's great that you have a gut feeling that Franklin is a good coach on the field, and maybe he is and will be, but the resume doesn't show me that and I'm not sure I'm picking the next coach of the most valuable team in CFB based off "gut" and "it moved"

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Nobody said he is a crappy coach. We are talking about hiring the guy for a top 5 job in college football. Being good at your job doesn't cut it for that. Wooly and I have pointed out that his resume is soft. The only response you have is that Vandy historically sucks. I have admitted a couple of times that the dude can recruit his ass off and that recruiting well equals a .500 conference record and wins over bullshit out of conference opponents, but guys like Kiffin can recruit too and see what happens on the field sometimes.

It's great that you have a gut feeling that Franklin is a good coach on the field, and maybe he is and will be, but the resume doesn't show me that and I'm not sure I'm picking the next coach of the most valuable team in CFB based off "gut" and "it moved"

I don't think is resume is that soft given where he's been successful. That's my point. Kiffin's resume was soft. Franklin had nearly as much success at Vandy as Kiffin did at USC.

To Acamp's point, it doesn't matter if the hire isn't popular right away. If he wins 10 games, he'll get the keys to the city.

 

[woolybug25]

Winning 10 games a year at Texas gets you fired.

Everybody keeps saying that he's a good coach but there is no proof of that. Sure Vandy stunk before him, so did a ton of schools. But those coaches aren't being mentioned for one of the best jobs in the land.

Again... ONE WIN AGAINST A RANKED TEAM IN HIS CAREER.

I don't get it.

 

[pkt77242]

Nobody said he is a crappy coach. We are talking about hiring the guy for a top 5 job in college football. Being good at your job doesn't cut it for that. Wooly and I have pointed out that his resume is soft. The only response you have is that Vandy historically sucks. I have admitted a couple of times that the dude can recruit his ass off and that recruiting well equals a .500 conference record and wins over bullshit out of conference opponents, but guys like Kiffin can recruit too and see what happens on the field sometimes.

It's great that you have a gut feeling that Franklin is a good coach on the field, and maybe he is and will be, but the resume doesn't show me that and I'm not sure I'm picking the next coach of the most valuable team in CFB based off "gut" and "it moved"

I don't have a gut feeling, again you don't get Vanderbilt to be a bowl team 3 years in a row by being an ok coach. Here is how I will put it so you can understand. Franklin is for sure in the top 25 best coaches in College football and possibly in the top 15. Texas is a top five job, but that doesn't mean that all the coaches in schools below Texas are going to jump at the job. I would argue that Texas is probably a better job than LSU but Miles isn't leaving for Texas, etc.

The realistic candidates for the job that most people seem to think are great coaches are
Briles
Gundy
Shaw (I don't see Shaw leaving for Texas, so I would probably cross him off).

Then there are the crazy people who think Harbaugh is going to go there or Tomlin (though that could be a possibility if he gets fired or really starts to feel the heat in Pittsburgh).

It is possible that Briles ends up in the pros either at Texans or the Redskins. So that leaves Gundy as maybe a possibility. Who else are they enticing? Who do you think they should hire that will actually go there and is better than Franklin?

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

The beauty of Franklin is that he is energetic and works hard. He will destroy it in recruiting at any major school. The question is whether or not he is a championship caliber coach and can build/maintain a strong assistant coaching staff.

I have no doubt he would sign consistent top 5 classes and win 10 games a year at Texas.

I agree but Texas does that anyway.

2006: 4th
2007: 3rd
2008: 9th
2009: 6th
2010: 2nd
2011: 4th
2012: 2nd

Then last year they dropped off to 17 because they had signed 15 kids but the average star ranking was in the top 10.

UT doesn't need a recruiter, they need a solid coach, or at least a solid CEO type. Maybe Franklin is the latter. I don't know

 

[woolybug25]

I don't think is resume is that soft given where he's been successful. That's my point. Kiffin's resume was soft. Franklin had nearly as much success at Vandy as Kiffin did at USC.

To Acamp's point, it doesn't matter if the hire isn't popular right away. If he wins 10 games, he'll get the keys to the city.

Hows it not soft? He won one game against a ranked team. He has a losing record in the SEC with all but one win coming against teams that top level SEC teams (in the year he played them).

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Winning 10 games a year at Texas gets you fired.

Everybody keeps saying that he's a good coach but there is no proof of that. Sure Vandy stunk before him, so did a ton of schools. But those coaches aren't being mentioned for one of the best jobs in the land.

Again... ONE WIN AGAINST A RANKED TEAM IN HIS CAREER.

I don't get it.

No...Mack Brown is getting fired because he HASN'T won 10 games since 2009.

It's an argument that can't have a winner unless he gets hired. But I think he'd thrive.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

I don't have a gut feeling, again you don't get Vanderbilt to be a bowl team 3 years in a row by being an ok coach.

This is a gut feeling.

Here is how I will put it so you can understand.

You don't need to be condescending just because we don't agree

Franklin is for sure in the top 25 best coaches in College football and possibly in the top 15. Texas is a top five job, but that doesn't mean that all the coaches in schools below Texas are going to jump at the job. I would argue that Texas is probably a better job than LSU but Miles isn't leaving for Texas, etc.

The realistic candidates for the job that most people seem to think are great coaches are
Briles
Gundy
Shaw (I don't see Shaw leaving for Texas, so I would probably cross him off).

Then there are the crazy people who think Harbaugh is going to go there or Tomlin (though that could be a possibility if he gets fired or really starts to feel the heat in Pittsburgh).

It is possible that Briles ends up in the pros either at Texans or the Redskins. So that leaves Gundy as maybe a possibility. Who else are they enticing? Who do you think they should hire that will actually go there and is better than Franklin?

This is a good post. Obviously at some point you have to drop down the list a little because the best coaches are happy where they are. I'm not saying that it's crazy his name is being floated, I'm saying that as a UT fan I would be really nervous about the future of the program with him running it. I'm not convinced he has coaching ability to bring Texas back to the level they want to be.

 

[pkt77242]

Hows it not soft? He won one game against a ranked team. He has a losing record in the SEC with all but one win coming against teams that top level SEC teams (in the year he played them).

Wooly while I get that you are looking at the record as a straight wins and losses, you understand that you can judge a coach in relation to what that school has historically done and the increase in wins per season from the years before that coach?

Also please don't bring up a the whole many coaches take bad teams and turn them into winners unless you want to find programs in a power conference that are historically horrible and the coaches turned them around in 2-3 seasons.

 

[pkt77242]

This is a gut feeling.



You don't need to be condescending just because we don't agree



This is a good post. Obviously at some point you have to drop down the list a little because the best coaches are happy where they are. I'm not saying that it's crazy his name is being floated, I'm saying that as a UT fan I would be really nervous about the future of the program with him running it. I'm not convinced he has coaching ability to bring Texas back to the level they want to be.

I agree, I am just not sure that there is a sure fire candidate out there who is going to go to Texas. That is the problem. If Briles goes to the Pros, they really could be looking at Gundy or Franklin. Neither of which are homerun hires.

 

[woolybug25]

I don't have a gut feeling, again you don't get Vanderbilt to be a bowl team 3 years in a row by being an ok coach. Here is how I will put it so you can understand. Franklin is for sure in the top 25 best coaches in College football and possibly in the top 15.

Why... and don't say because he has a .500 record at a school that has been historically bad. That alone doesn't make him a good coach, imo. In all actuality, he hasn't "turned them around". They are still not competing for the SEC championship game. In fact, they are still getting ran over by the ranked teams in the conference. The only difference is before they were winning 4-6 games, now they are winning 7-9. What evidence is there that he is one of the best coaches in football?

I have never heard of a career .500 coach with one career win against a ranked team be considered in the upper eschelon of all coaches. It boggles my mind.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Why... and don't say because he has a .500 record at a school that has been historically bad. That alone doesn't make him a good coach, imo. In all actuality, he hasn't "turned them around". They are still not competing for the SEC championship game. In fact, they are still getting ran over by the ranked teams in the conference. The only difference is before they were winning 4-6 games, now they are winning 7-9. What evidence is there that he is one of the best coaches in football?

I have never heard of a career .500 coach with one career win against a ranked team be considered in the upper eschelon of all coaches. It boggles my mind.

Again, there were several near misses in there with dramatically undermanned teams. I know they're not wins, but they tell me something when they happen several times. And the trajectory of the program, one that has been as pathetic as any in a major conference for decades, is very impressive.

 

[woolybug25]

Again, there were several near misses in there with dramatically undermanned teams. I know they're not wins, but they tell me something when they happen several times. And the trajectory of the program, one that has been as pathetic as any in a major conference for decades, is very impressive.

Not denying that he has made them better. I don't think that alone puts him in the top eschelon of coaches in the game.

Charlie Weis has had a lot of close losses in his career too. Doesn't make him any better.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

Wooly while I get that you are looking at the record as a straight wins and losses, you understand that you can judge a coach in relation to what that school has historically done and the increase in wins per season from the years before that coach?

I see that you edited this to take a softer position but I still think this is only causally related to recruiting and sheds very little if any insight onto his coaching ability.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Not denying that he has made them better. I don't think that alone puts him in the top eschelon of coaches in the game.

Charlie Weis has had a lot of close losses in his career too. Doesn't make him any better.

Sure. I just think that, in context, he's had a remarkable 3 years. He'd have better recruits in Texas and would eat most of the Big XII alive. Just as important, I don't see Texas getting another "home run" type of guy. I don't think he's out there.

Some Wikipedia facts that speak to how inept Vandy has been for, well, forever.

Franklin has led Vanderbilt to a bowl game in each of his first three seasons as head coach. Vanderbilt had never previously participated in a bowl game in consecutive seasons. In his second season (2012), the Commodores finished 9–4 and ranked in both the Associated Press and USA Today end-of-season coaches' top 25 for the first time since 1948 (and the first ranking in any week since 2008). It was just the third nine–win season in school history. Additionally, Vanderbilt's fifteen combined wins in Franklin's first two years in charge was the Commodores' highest total since 1926–1927.[12]

 

[pkt77242]

Why... and don't say because he has a .500 record at a school that has been historically bad. That alone doesn't make him a good coach, imo. In all actuality, he hasn't "turned them around". They are still not competing for the SEC championship game. In fact, they are still getting ran over by the ranked teams in the conference. The only difference is before they were winning 4-6 games, now they are winning 7-9. What evidence is there that he is one of the best coaches in football?

I have never heard of a career .500 coach with one career win against a ranked team be considered in the upper eschelon of all coaches. It boggles my mind.

Um, Franklin is 23-15 which is a .600 winning percentage.

Actually you do judge coaches in relation to what they do with the team they have. Look at Cutcliffe winning the ACC coach of the year the last two years. Neither year did he have the best team in the ACC but he did the most with the least which generally makes you a great coach. Now lets look at Vanderbilt and the talent that Franklin had to work with.

Year National Ranking SEC ranking
2009 67 Last
2010 54 Last
2011 56 2nd to last
2012 47 2nd to last

Doing more with less is the hallmark of a great coach. Coaching players up, making them perform better than their rankings, etc is what a school like Texas might need. Brown was great at landing top recruiting classes but he never got the players to perform as well as their rankings. Franklin does an very good to great job at getting his players to outperform their rankings. That makes him a good coach.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Um, Franklin is 23-15 which is a .600 winning percentage.

Actually you do judge coaches in relation to what they do with the team they have. Look at Cutcliffe winning the ACC coach of the year the last two years. Neither year did he have the best team in the ACC but he did the most with the least which generally makes you a great coach. Now lets look at Vanderbilt and the talent that Franklin had to work with.

Year National Ranking SEC ranking
2009 67 Last
2010 54 Last
2011 56 2nd to last
2012 47 2nd to last

Doing more with less is the hallmark of a great coach. Coaching players up, making them perform better than their rankings, etc is what a school like Texas might need. Brown was great at landing top recruiting classes but he never got the players to perform as well as their rankings. Franklin does an very good to great job at getting his players to outperform their rankings. That makes him a good coach.

And he had them at #19 last year (current true freshmen) and currently sits at #19. Outperforming rankings and starting to win recruiting wars.

 

[woolybug25]

He didn't just coach up, he recruited some nice talent since he got there. A bunch of 4 star kids that they never got there before. Credit to him for that.

But winning at a .600 clip doesn't make you a great (you're words, fellas) coach. The actual results are what they are. Just because they were historically bad before him doesn't change the fact that they still aren't in the upper class of the SEC. They are an 8-9 win team and there isn't anything I see that tells me that they will be better than that anytime soon. So forgive me if I don't get why his 8-9 wins is any different than the other 70ish teams that win that many each year.

Top 15... just because he wins 60% of his games at a historically bad school? Again... he has only beat one ranked team in his entire career. That is a fact.

 

[ND NYC]

i tend to agree with wooly here on franklin...any coach at vandy is the beneficiary of very low expectations and is therefore lauded and fawned over for every victory and/or winning record he gets.

 

[pkt77242]

He didn't just coach up, he recruited some nice talent since he got there. Credit to him for that.

But winning at a .600 clip doesn't make you a great (you're words, fellas) coach. The actual results are what they are. Just because they were historically bad before him doesn't change the fact that they still aren't in the upper class of the SEC. They are an 8-9 win team and there isn't anything I see that tells me that they will be better than that anytime soon. So forgive me if I don't get why his 8-9 wins is any different than the other 70ish teams that win that many each year.

Top 15... just because he wins 60% of his games at a historically bad school?

Wooly please start dealing with facts. About 65-70 teams a year finish 6-6 or better so there is no way that 70ish teams win 8-9 games a year.

Also it takes time to build a bad program up especially in a power conference and as his players get better his record will. Again coaching up players makes you a great coach. Last year was the first 9 victory year at Vanderbilt since 1915. That is how historically bad Vanderbilt is, which makes them almost as bad as Duke historically. I would say a .600 winning percentage at Vanderbilt makes you a great coach.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

He didn't just coach up, he recruited some nice talent since he got there. A bunch of 4 star kids that they never got there before. Credit to him for that.

But winning at a .600 clip doesn't make you a great (you're words, fellas) coach. The actual results are what they are. Just because they were historically bad before him doesn't change the fact that they still aren't in the upper class of the SEC. They are an 8-9 win team and there isn't anything I see that tells me that they will be better than that anytime soon. So forgive me if I don't get why his 8-9 wins is any different than the other 70ish teams that win that many each year.

Top 15... just because he wins 60% of his games at a historically bad school? Again... he has only beat one ranked team in his entire career. That is a fact.

As pkt pointed out (and I'm trusting his numbers), they were last or 2nd to last (in the SEC) prior to the current freshman class. The 2012 class had three 4 star guys and 2011 had none.

The trajectory of recruiting is also good, but they're outperforming their talent.

 

[ACamp1900]

I would say a .600 winning percentage at Vanderbilt makes you a great coach.

agreed... There is a huge difference between winning at a 60% clip at Vandy than winning at a 60-% clip at say, well... Texas.

I think the fact we are all here having this dialouge speaks pretty strongly to that.

 

[pkt77242]

As pkt pointed out (and I'm trusting his numbers), they were last or 2nd to last prior to the current freshman class. The 2012 class had three 4 star guys and 2011 had none.

The trajectory of recruiting is also good, but they're outperforming their talent.

I used 247's class rankings for my numbers.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I used 247's class rankings for my numbers.

I've been looking at Rivals. The point remains.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

I thought Franklin would have been a good fit at UW


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ACamp1900]

I was worried SC would hire him...