Maybe Barnhart will give Stoops another raise and contract extension

[Old School]

a. I misunderstood your post was a current suggestion list for replacing Stoops.

b. As such I was taking issue with those four and 90% of the other names on the list based on where they are now.

As for Tubberville, he went 110 and 60 in his time as an SEC coach 64 and 50 in SEC games. He had several great years and several not so great years ending in his resignation. While I would certainly take his record at KY most of his wins came at Auburn. Bill Curry was 26-10 overall and 14-6 in SEC play at Bama... (That didn't work out so great)

Bowden hasn't played a nationally relevant game in forever.

Malzahn (like his predecessor) has had one great SEC season. One...


------

Bielema would NEVER have left Wisconsin to come here. He got killed for taking the AK job.

Tuberville only had two subpar seasons at Auburn, out of 10. He won 9 or more games the majority of the time. He's been doing well at his latest stop, too.

Granted, Bowden hasn't had many chances for nationally relevant games. But the year after that 1-11 season, took his team - a team with a roster worse than what Joker left at UK - on the road at #11 Michigan, and as 37 and a half point underdogs, they only lost 28-24. That same year they played at #23 Northern Illinois, and as 23 and a half point underdogs, they lost 27-20. Those are both better than most recent Kentucky efforts (with a better roster) against similarly ranked teams. They've played one ranked team since, last year's Oklahoma team that went to the playoff. It went as one would expect. But, he took an awful program and turned them into a bowl team. He was 29-9 at his stop before that. At Auburn, his records were 11-0, 9-1-1, 8-4, 8-4, and 10-3 before that single crazy year in which Lowder took control of the asylum and ousted him. The guy wins. In contrast to UK last year, his team went 5-0 to close the season.

Malzahn had a .750 winning percentage at his prior stop. I don't know if he'll ultimately be considered a success at Auburn or not; standards there are pretty demanding. But I think, if things hold up, at the end of their tenures he may be regarded more favorably than Stoops. I'd like to be wrong about that.

Agreed on Curry, and I don't think UK is that likely to try that again or have it work. I know some posters think UK needs to lure an established winner from a successful program. I'm not so sure about that, and didn't list guys like that above. I have a different take on who or what UK needs in a head coach hire.

I scratched my head when Bielema left Wisconsin for Arkansas. And I was skeptical that his run, run, run brute force attack would work there. He's done pretty well so far. I think he left Wisconsin at least in part due to the AD there; that is, he was looking to leave. Would he have come to Kentucky? If he'd take the Arkansas job in the stacked West, maybe. I think the bigger question though is whether Kentucky could land him if Arkansas was also angling for him.

[Matt Dillon]

With its next football hire, whether it's 2 years or 22 years from now, UK should offer a very heavily incentive-laden contract. If the guy can win 8 games here without breaking rules, pay him a lot, and more than he'd make elsewhere; offer to pay him what Saban makes if he can win 9. But if he can't break .500 let him make far less, and sock away the difference for someone who can. An up and coming coach ought to go for that. Some hungry coach who takes that deal and makes good on it is going to get a ton of press and punch his own ticket for wherever he'd like to go next, whether or not it's UK. IMO that beats throwing millions at someone regardless of results.

I agree, 100%.

[teamchemistry15]

You're high on Stoops. I'm interested to know your perspective on a few things.

Did you blame Dawson last year?

If Stoops is back next year but Eliot isn't, who likely gets the blame in 2017?

I would love to see this team win at the Swamp this weekend and go on a roll. I'd love it. If that doesn't happen, though, what record at what point this season makes you doubt that Stoops will be successful here?

Losing to a CUSA team in Year Four doesn't indicate to me that it's clicking. Nothing would taste better to me than a fresh dish of crow with a side of fried gator tomorrow. But I'm really disappointed at this point, and curious why people who are still high on Stoops feel that way.

I really like Stoops. I saw someone leave a list of other candidates, but there's no guarantee any of them would even consider UK. I think Stoops was the best candidate at the time of his hiring who would've picked up the phone when we called. He had a proven track record of turning defenses around and making them top ten in the country. I don't agree with any extension any of the staff has gotten. I think extensions should be given when we have successful seasons. So far we haven't had one.

I don't know who to blame last year. Towles wasn't what we expected, special teams was not good, the list goes on. So many people want to blame one person, but it's a mix of a number of things. In the end that all comes back to the head coach.

I haven't liked Eliot since he got here. I think he got the job because of his friendship and not his talent or ability. I know we should've scored in the second half and ran the ball more effectively, but if you tell any OC or head coach he will get 35 points and force three TOs they will tell you they should win that game. I think the majority of the blame goes to Eliot, and it has for a number of games over the last few years. Because Eliot has consistently been a problem IMO, that also falls on Stoops because he's in charge.

If we win four or less I will doubt Stoops can be successful here. If we win five I think he gets one more year but only if there's a new DC. We can score points. We just need to be able to stop the other team from running the same run play and moving it down the field. When Stoops came here we were not an attractive program. With the facilities, upgrades, and talent we have now we should be able to attract a better, more established DC. We are in the SEC and on the verge of being in a bowl. If the athletic department is truly behind the program, give a blank check to an established DC to come in and put the finishing touches on this thing.

I'm fine giving Stoops five years because I write off year one. If we win four or less this year I'll be very concerned. If we aren't in a bowl by the end of next year it would be time to look for an entire staff.

[Dwight Schrute]

That's about as constructive and enlightening as saying you're awfully happy about eating more of the same fresh steaming BS from Barnhart. If you disagree with any of what I or anyone else posted, maybe try saying why instead of going ad hominem.



I'm not the guy that gets paid millions of dollars by UK to keep up with football coaches. But I'd say that better hires at that time would've included

Jim Mora
Todd Graham
Rich Rodriguez
Bill O'Brien
Larry Fedora
Brian Kelly
Ruffin McNeill
Doc Holliday
Kevin Sumlin
James Franklin
Kevin Wilson
David Shaw

And this last time around, and think you'd find some better hires among

Chris Petersen
Mark Helfich
Sonny Dykes
Kliff Kingsbury
Dave Doeren
Tom Herman
Justin Fuente
Tommy Tuberville
Willie Taggart
Matt Rhule
Paul Chryst
Bryan Harsin
Matt Wells
P.J. Fleck
Matt Campbell
Terry Bowden
Todd Monken
Gus Malzahn
Scott Satterfield
Willie Fritz
Bret Bielema

Other people can argue the merits of Bobby Petrino, Butch Jones, Charlie Strong, Kyle Whittingham, Paul Johnson, David Cutcliffe, Ken Niumataloo, Troy Calhoun, Bronco Mendenhall, Mike Leach, Art Briles, Hugh Freeze, Dan Mullen, Lane Kiffin, etc. in this thread if they want to. Compelling cases could be made for any of them (well, not so much Lane Kiffin...)

Well it's good that you're not unrealistic about who we could have actually hired.

[Old School]

Well it's good that you're not unrealistic about who we could have actually hired.

Your post is accurate, even though you did not intend for it to be.

Do you know where those coaches were at the times we are discussing?

Which, if any, do you think were in a position, at the time, from which they would not have been interested in being the head coach at Kentucky?

[Old School]

I really like Stoops. I saw someone leave a list of other candidates, but there's no guarantee any of them would even consider UK. I think Stoops was the best candidate at the time of his hiring who would've picked up the phone when we called. He had a proven track record of turning defenses around and making them top ten in the country. I don't agree with any extension any of the staff has gotten. I think extensions should be given when we have successful seasons. So far we haven't had one.

I don't know who to blame last year. Towles wasn't what we expected, special teams was not good, the list goes on. So many people want to blame one person, but it's a mix of a number of things. In the end that all comes back to the head coach.

I haven't liked Eliot since he got here. I think he got the job because of his friendship and not his talent or ability. I know we should've scored in the second half and ran the ball more effectively, but if you tell any OC or head coach he will get 35 points and force three TOs they will tell you they should win that game. I think the majority of the blame goes to Eliot, and it has for a number of games over the last few years. Because Eliot has consistently been a problem IMO, that also falls on Stoops because he's in charge.

If we win four or less I will doubt Stoops can be successful here. If we win five I think he gets one more year but only if there's a new DC. We can score points. We just need to be able to stop the other team from running the same run play and moving it down the field. When Stoops came here we were not an attractive program. With the facilities, upgrades, and talent we have now we should be able to attract a better, more established DC. We are in the SEC and on the verge of being in a bowl. If the athletic department is truly behind the program, give a blank check to an established DC to come in and put the finishing touches on this thing.

I'm fine giving Stoops five years because I write off year one. If we win four or less this year I'll be very concerned. If we aren't in a bowl by the end of next year it would be time to look for an entire staff.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote.

I think a lot of those guys listed would've taken the UK job at the time. At the time, a lot of them were unknowns, or hopeful up and comers. Barney is paid the big bucks to find the best of them. Other ADs do it well. All of those coaches listed were found and hired by an AD someplace who accurately saw their potential. Barney isn't good at that.

I think there is a lot of blame to go around for last year. I think a lot of fans were reluctant to assign much of it to Stoops. I felt that way. I liked the guy. I think we all did. I think all of that is changing rapidly, not just for this year, but in retrospect for last year as well.

[Spiritof96]

How many great coaches would look terrible here?

[George]

How many great coaches would look terrible here?

That's more or less my constant question - the same essential question that leads me to believe a lot of guys on your list would've said no to this job. I don't know what it is, but there's something about this program that seems to make it very difficult to succeed.

[Blue Heaven]

How good was Houston before Hermann? Or WKU before Brohm? Sometimes programs just miss on guys and it's apparent we missed out big time. I would take those two guys in a heartbeat. Brohm is more likely, imo, and we should have him in our sights.

[George]

How good was Houston before Hermann? Or WKU before Brohm? Sometimes programs just miss on guys and it's apparent we missed out big time. I would take those two guys in a heartbeat. Brohm is more likely, imo, and we should have him in our sights.

With Hermann you've got to keep his recruiting base in mind. During the Houston/Oklahoma game they talked about the number of players he's able to pull within a 200 mile radius of the school - sometimes as close as 36 miles. The guy never has to fly to see a recruit and can still pull top talent. That goes a long way when building a program.

As for Brohm, well, he might just be a coach on the rise. I don't have much of an explanation there.

[Spiritof96]

That's more or less my constant question - the same essential question that leads me to believe a lot of guys on your list would've said no to this job. I don't know what it is, but there's something about this program that seems to make it very difficult to succeed.

It wasn't my list....

[Spiritof96]

How good was Houston before Hermann? Or WKU before Brohm? Sometimes programs just miss on guys and it's apparent we missed out big time. I would take those two guys in a heartbeat. Brohm is more likely, imo, and we should have him in our sights.

I'm not sure it is a great idea to compare building a program in those leagues in comparison to the SEC.

[George]

It wasn't my list....

My bad. You and Old School have similar avatars at a glance.

[Spiritof96]

My bad. You and Old School have similar avatars at a glance.

No prob....

[Matt Dillon]

It's difficult to say who would and who wouldn't be successful here. Good coaches and good players are like a lock and a key, neither one is any good w/o the other.