Maybe Barnhart will give Stoops another raise and contract extension

[catfaninin]

It happened at Vanderbilt. It happened at Northwestern. It happened at Stanford. It happened at Baylor. It happend at Kansas State. It happened at WKU. Missouri won the East two years in a row. But Kentucky has to be different? Really? Why?

The easy answer. Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, Texas A&M, Auburn, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St. There's a list of 9 teams that I don't see Kentucky being able to consistently win against.

[Old School]

Correct, they were not on the list. But you referenced Fla St and Florida having been bad and how they have improved.. Maybe having 2 of the all time great coaches played a part in that.

So, if a school makes a home run coaching hire, they can build lasting success in their football program?

[Old School]

The easy answer. Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, Texas A&M, Auburn, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St. There's a list of 9 teams that I don't see Kentucky being able to consistently win against.

Out of those 9 teams, a maximum of 1 out of 5 of them (Alabama, A&M, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss) can be on Kentucky's schedule in any given year. They could lose to all of the other four teams you named every year and still win 9 games each year. And losing to one of them, Mississippi State, every year would be a major turn from how things have ever been (the exception being with Mitch's two recent hires, Joker and Stoops).

In Vanderbilt's recent back to back 9 win seasons, 2012 and 2013, they managed to beat Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, and Ole Miss. They didn't play Alabama or LSU, just like Kentucky usually doesn't.

Why Vanderbilt and not Kentucky?

Mississippi State can manage wins against those programs. Why not Kentucky?

Northwestern laid Ls on Big Ten powerhouses. Baylor did it in the Big XII. So did K State. Stanford has in the Pac 12. Did any of them have farther to go than Kentucky to get to that point?

What do you think is the reason Kentucky hasn't and/or can't?

[catfaninin]

So, if a school makes a home run coaching hire, they can build lasting success in their football program?

The 2 I mentioned are a pretty good indication of that. Would either of those be where they are today without Bowden and Spurrier? No way to prove it for certain but common sense tells me no.

[catfaninin]

Out of those 9 teams, a maximum of 1 out of 5 of them (Alabama, A&M, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss) can be on Kentucky's schedule in any given year. They could lose to all of the other four teams you named every year and still win 9 games each year. And losing to one of them, Mississippi State, every year would be a major turn from how things have ever been (the exception being with Mitch's two recent hires, Joker and Stoops).

In Vanderbilt's recent back to back 9 win seasons, 2012 and 2013, they managed to beat Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, and Ole Miss. They didn't play Alabama or LSU, just like Kentucky usually doesn't.

Why Vanderbilt and not Kentucky?

Mississippi State can manage wins against those programs. Why not Kentucky?

Northwestern laid Ls on Big Ten powerhouses. Baylor did it in the Big XII. So did K State. Stanford has in the Pac 12. Did any of them have farther to go than Kentucky to get to that point?

What do you think is the reason Kentucky hasn't and/or can't?

Any team can catch lightning in a bottle for a short period of time, ala Vanderbilt. Do you really think they will be consistently a 9 win team?

UK had that in the day of Brooks, Woodson etc. They beat a #1 ranked team.

As long as Mullen is at Miss St I would guess losing to them most years is going to happen.

If UK were to manage that home run hire sure they could get there. I just don't see it. These coaches can get huge amounts of $$$$ thrown at them from many different directions. I think most will look at UK's football tradition, being second behind basketball, the murderers row schedule and decide to to make their money and try to make a name for themselves elsewhere.

[Old School]

The 2 I mentioned are a pretty good indication of that. Would either of those be where they are today without Bowden and Spurrier? No way to prove it for certain but common sense tells me no.

Any team can catch lightning in a bottle for a short period of time, ala Vanderbilt. Do you really think they will be consistently a 9 win team?

UK had that in the day of Brooks, Woodson etc. They beat a #1 ranked team.

As long as Mullen is at Miss St I would guess losing to them most years is going to happen.

If UK were to manage that home run hire sure they could get there. I just don't see it. These coaches can get huge amounts of $$$$ thrown at them from many different directions. I think most will look at UK's football tradition, being second behind basketball, the murderers row schedule and decide to to make their money and try to make a name for themselves elsewhere..

If one great coach can turn a program into what Florida or Florida State became, or one coach can produce 9 win seasons at Vanderbilt, can't a really good coach do the same thing at Kentucky?

Granted, Florida and Florida State had great talent pools nearby. Vanderbilt, not so much, but they still managed 9 win seasons in the SEC, and without a Spurrier or Bowden at the helm.

Could Vanderbilt have a consistent 9 win team? I don't know. If their coach or another like him had stayed, maybe. But at Kentucky I think most of us would be happy with 9 win seasons some of the time even if not all of the time.

[catfaninin]

If one great coach can turn a program into what Florida or Florida State became, or one coach can produce 9 win seasons at Vanderbilt, can't a really good coach do the same thing at Kentucky?

Granted, Florida and Florida State had great talent pools nearby. Vanderbilt, not so much, but they still managed 9 win seasons in the SEC, and without a Spurrier or Bowden at the helm.

Could Vanderbilt have a consistent 9 win team? I don't know. If their coach or another like him had stayed, maybe. But at Kentucky I think most of us would be happy with 9 win seasons some of the time even if not all of the time.

Sure he can, on occasion. Brooks won 8 so it's obviously possible. If only hiring that great coach were so simple. Maybe Mitch should place calls to Saban and Meyer?

Franklin is a great example of the "lightning in a bottle" I referenced. Sure Vandy won 9 games. Had he thought that was sustainable might he have stayed? But he bolted for Penn St, and I'm sure most of their fans would consider that a mistake of a hire as well. 16-13 isn't exactly stellar.

[Old School]

Sure he can, on occasion. Brooks won 8 so it's obviously possible. If only hiring that great coach were so simple. Maybe Mitch should place calls to Saban and Meyer?

Franklin is a great example of the "lightning in a bottle" I referenced. Sure Vandy won 9 games. Had he thought that was sustainable might he have stayed? But he bolted for Penn St, and I'm sure most of their fans would consider that a mistake of a hire as well. 16-13 isn't exactly stellar.

No, but he should have good candidates in mind at all times, and select wisely among them when he needs to hire a coach. That's not too much to expect of an AD.

Winning percentages of .351 and .350 with his last two hires is far, far afield from hiring a great coach, or a good coach, or even a decent or average coach.

And putting an $18 million one way price tag on one of them was abysmally poor judgment and a reckless squandering of major resources.