Football record is not a zero sum game. As Vandy has gotten better under Franklin (undeniably), it means that some of the SEC teams that used to have an extra win against Vandy no longer do. So, if Vandy was going 2-10 in 2009 and 2010, and now they are going 8-4, that means that the combined record of their opponents, just because of Vandy's own improvement, will now have six fewer wins and 6 more losses. And, in fact, the change in opponents record in your list above is almost completely explainable within that range.
Right, except for the fact that, as I said, switching places with the Mississippi State's of the world is not a noteworthy accomplishment.
Then it wasn't for Briles at Baylor three years ago either then when he reached pretty much the same level with a similarly traditional bottom feeder? I mean, if you don't think that is an accomplishment, that's fine -- I disagree with you, but whatever. But I just don't see how anyone can say that what Franklin has accomplished at Vandy after three years is any less of an accomplishment than what Briles had done at Baylor after three years.
What Briles did after 3 years at Baylor wasn't noteworthy either (never said it was, so not sure why you bring that up). Anybody speculating that Briles would be up for the UT job after 2010 would have been considered out of their friggin mind.
Really? UT was looking pretty shaky right at that time, and I was hearing a lot of UT fans salivating for Briles even then. Even media guys on Austin sports radio. But, again, as long as your consistent (as you are being) there is no reason for us to argue. I disagree that it is no accomplishment or that 3 year old Briles Baylor was not a viable UT coaching candidate or that Vandy's Franklin isn't either -- but I am happy to agree to disagree on that point. Oh, sorry, re: the bolded part -- I was originally responding to someone talking about Briles being more impressive than Franklin, so I thought you were coming from that perspective as well. But, like I said, you are being consistent with your evaluations, so I have no argument with you, even though I am not in agreement with your said consistent evaluations.
And Briles wouldn't and shouldn't have been considered for the UT job 3 years ago either. For every Briles, there are tons of coaches who flame out after a few years instead of taking that next step. Gary Barnett, who Texas almost hired 15 years ago, is a perfect example.
Briles IS more impressive than Franklin, because he's already done what you hope Franklin could do in theory. Basically, he's the upside version of Franklin. Gary Barnett is the downside version.
Yeah, to clarify, I would rather have Briles than Franklin too, for the very reason you point out (as well as his connections to HS football in Texas). The question is can you get him. If so, yeah, go for it. But I do think that Franklin through three years is as impressive as any head coach taking over a traditionally bad/small program in that time span. Also, A "proven" winner like Briles is not a sure bet either. To take the structure of your argument and turn it back on you, the downside of hiring Briles at UT is Rich Rodriguez being hired at Michigan (a coach who does surprisingly well at a tough job and then gets a big time job...and then fails hard). So, I say that to say that almost no coaching hire is going to be fool proof. As much as I like Franklin, I would indeed like Briles more -- but, I don't think he is leaving Baylor and I don't think he is that much safer of a hire than Franklin.
Standard disclaimer about inside sources blah blah blah: http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/co...nalyst-jon-gruden-interested-in-texas-job.ece Report: Monday Night Football analyst Jon Gruden interested in Texas job
ooooh. I do not want Gruden. I hope these reports are one sided. Seems from the report (and I am totally guessing here) that one of the big money guys (probably one of the ones who was pushing for Saban) is now pushing for Gruden (in contrast to names like Mora and Franklin that either other big money guys are pushing for, or perhaps Patterson is pushing for). I sure hope Patterson has the collateral and the power to control this process and does not get run over and trampled from all the deep pocket blow hards. Yeah, I think Gruden would be bad. I know he "looks like a college coach" (whatever that means), but he never really got along with players the way a college coach needs to. He has a good skill set to succeed at the NFL, but he is not the type of leader who would really excel in college -- in my opinion.
That wouldn't be a bad hire, I think he'd be a great recruiter. Also a Super Bowl winning coach is something you don't find often.
This is more than likely coming from the Gruden camp. His name seems to always be in the mix for any above average college and NFL head coach job. His people do a great job of keeping his name and image relevant.
Pete Carroll was 1 game over 0.500 before going to USC. Hiring coaches isn't necessarily about just looking at W-L record, especially when translating skill sets from the NFL, just like looking at a college QB is more about skill sets than performance when projecting to the NFL. The most interesting thing about the Gruden article is that it's the first time we've had a "leak" that suggested interest from a coach, as opposed to someone that Texas is interested in. Doesn't mean much, but it's pretty interesting that the leaks have all very much been one-sided so far.
Another point of my confusion: he's been out of the game for a long time. Hasn't the game naturally progressed to a point, especially within the spread-happy Big 12, that his rust would be a liability?
Timeline of the Saban saga http://www.chatsports.com/texas-longhorns/a/exclusive-why-texas-was-so-sure-theyd-get-nick-saban-10-136-666
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissm...e-teams-2013-texas-longhorns-cant-be-stopped/ This is how we can afford lots of things
