(08-29-2014 09:39 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 09:34 AM)Tiger46 Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 08:19 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  We fired the coach to had our best record against SEC teams because our fans, "voting with their feet" decided he was "boring", despite 3 consecutive 6-win seasons playing SEC-laden schedules. A sound running game with tough defense wasn't good enough. Same half-assed fans who stay at home when a little rain is predicted.

He had the Ground Chuck reputation but Matthews set school records for passing. Can't have it both ways.

This is what boils down the Chuck Stobart era to me. Last game of the season, we have East Carolina at home, we win and probably get the Liberty Bowl invitation. Team shows up flat, crowd is flat and the game turns out to be a disaster. No fire in the belly of coaches, players and the fans as well.

True we beat some SEC teams, but that wasn't the SEC that it is now. Tommy's teams beat some much better Ole Miss teams.

Hell we can't ever beat ECU. Same thing happened to Rip after we beat UT

Maybe this is what I vaguely remember instead.

(08-29-2014 08:49 AM)bluebacker Wrote:  I don't really like the tone of Fuente's quote. To me it says, "We're not able to compete with them and we know it."

We aren't able to compete with them. We will not be able to compete with them on a consistent basis in the future.

So instead of squandering resources and games against teams we shouldn't realistically be trying to compete with on a regular basis, then lets line up and fight like hell against teams we should be able to compete with on a regular basis.

It's a perfect tone and its about time a coach laid out the truth.

Ole Miss, UT, etc are not now, and never will be our peers.

Houston, ECU, UCF...those are who we need to figure out how to compete with.

(08-29-2014 10:08 AM)madtiger Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 08:49 AM)bluebacker Wrote:  I don't really like the tone of Fuente's quote. To me it says, "We're not able to compete with them and we know it."

We aren't able to compete with them. We will not be able to compete with them on a consistent basis in the future.

So instead of squandering resources and games against teams we shouldn't realistically be trying to compete with on a regular basis, then lets line up and fight like hell against teams we should be able to compete with on a regular basis.

It's a perfect tone and its about time a coach laid out the truth.

Ole Miss, UT, etc are not now, and never will be our peers.

Houston, ECU, UCF...those are who we need to figure out how to compete with.

Drops mic

(08-29-2014 10:10 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 10:08 AM)madtiger Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 08:49 AM)bluebacker Wrote:  I don't really like the tone of Fuente's quote. To me it says, "We're not able to compete with them and we know it."

We aren't able to compete with them. We will not be able to compete with them on a consistent basis in the future.

So instead of squandering resources and games against teams we shouldn't realistically be trying to compete with on a regular basis, then lets line up and fight like hell against teams we should be able to compete with on a regular basis.

It's a perfect tone and its about time a coach laid out the truth.

Ole Miss, UT, etc are not now, and never will be our peers.

Houston, ECU, UCF...those are who we need to figure out how to compete with.

Drops mic

No kidding. Hell, let's just throw in the towel.

(08-29-2014 10:47 AM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 10:10 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 10:08 AM)madtiger Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 08:49 AM)bluebacker Wrote:  I don't really like the tone of Fuente's quote. To me it says, "We're not able to compete with them and we know it."

We aren't able to compete with them. We will not be able to compete with them on a consistent basis in the future.

So instead of squandering resources and games against teams we shouldn't realistically be trying to compete with on a regular basis, then lets line up and fight like hell against teams we should be able to compete with on a regular basis.

It's a perfect tone and its about time a coach laid out the truth.

Ole Miss, UT, etc are not now, and never will be our peers.

Houston, ECU, UCF...those are who we need to figure out how to compete with.

Drops mic

No kidding. Hell, let's just throw in the towel.

I think, if you read between the lines, the coach is referencing how to build a program that will one day be able to compete with SEC schools consistently....brick by brick. He has a plan.

(08-29-2014 10:47 AM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 10:10 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 10:08 AM)madtiger Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 08:49 AM)bluebacker Wrote:  I don't really like the tone of Fuente's quote. To me it says, "We're not able to compete with them and we know it."

We aren't able to compete with them. We will not be able to compete with them on a consistent basis in the future.

So instead of squandering resources and games against teams we shouldn't realistically be trying to compete with on a regular basis, then lets line up and fight like hell against teams we should be able to compete with on a regular basis.

It's a perfect tone and its about time a coach laid out the truth.

Ole Miss, UT, etc are not now, and never will be our peers.

Houston, ECU, UCF...those are who we need to figure out how to compete with.

Drops mic

No kidding. Hell, let's just throw in the towel.

It was thrown in about 1994

(08-29-2014 09:34 AM)Tiger46 Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 08:19 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  We fired the coach to had our best record against SEC teams because our fans, "voting with their feet" decided he was "boring", despite 3 consecutive 6-win seasons playing SEC-laden schedules. A sound running game with tough defense wasn't good enough. Same half-assed fans who stay at home when a little rain is predicted.

He had the Ground Chuck reputation but Matthews set school records for passing. Can't have it both ways.

This is what boils down the Chuck Stobart era to me. Last game of the season, we have East Carolina at home, we win and probably get the Liberty Bowl invitation. Team shows up flat, crowd is flat and the game turns out to be a disaster. No fire in the belly of coaches, players and the fans as well.

True we beat some SEC teams, but that wasn't the SEC that it is now. Tommy's teams beat some much better Ole Miss teams.

we weren't even close in that game.

(08-29-2014 11:34 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 09:34 AM)Tiger46 Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 08:19 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  We fired the coach to had our best record against SEC teams because our fans, "voting with their feet" decided he was "boring", despite 3 consecutive 6-win seasons playing SEC-laden schedules. A sound running game with tough defense wasn't good enough. Same half-assed fans who stay at home when a little rain is predicted.

He had the Ground Chuck reputation but Matthews set school records for passing. Can't have it both ways.

This is what boils down the Chuck Stobart era to me. Last game of the season, we have East Carolina at home, we win and probably get the Liberty Bowl invitation. Team shows up flat, crowd is flat and the game turns out to be a disaster. No fire in the belly of coaches, players and the fans as well.

True we beat some SEC teams, but that wasn't the SEC that it is now. Tommy's teams beat some much better Ole Miss teams.

we weren't even close in that game.

It was 30-something to very little wasn't it?

(08-29-2014 10:08 AM)madtiger Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 08:49 AM)bluebacker Wrote:  I don't really like the tone of Fuente's quote. To me it says, "We're not able to compete with them and we know it."

We aren't able to compete with them. We will not be able to compete with them on a consistent basis in the future.

So instead of squandering resources and games against teams we shouldn't realistically be trying to compete with on a regular basis, then lets line up and fight like hell against teams we should be able to compete with on a regular basis.

It's a perfect tone and its about time a coach laid out the truth.

Ole Miss, UT, etc are not now, and never will be our peers.

Houston, ECU, UCF...those are who we need to figure out how to compete with.

I believe you also missed coach's point.

(08-29-2014 10:54 AM)Tigeer Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 10:47 AM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 10:10 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 10:08 AM)madtiger Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 08:49 AM)bluebacker Wrote:  I don't really like the tone of Fuente's quote. To me it says, "We're not able to compete with them and we know it."

We aren't able to compete with them. We will not be able to compete with them on a consistent basis in the future.

So instead of squandering resources and games against teams we shouldn't realistically be trying to compete with on a regular basis, then lets line up and fight like hell against teams we should be able to compete with on a regular basis.

It's a perfect tone and its about time a coach laid out the truth.

Ole Miss, UT, etc are not now, and never will be our peers.

Houston, ECU, UCF...those are who we need to figure out how to compete with.

Drops mic

No kidding. Hell, let's just throw in the towel.

I think, if you read between the lines, the coach is referencing how to build a program that will one day be able to compete with SEC schools consistently....brick by brick. He has a plan.

^
This.

Gotta crawl before you can walk?

(08-29-2014 09:00 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 08:41 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 08:29 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 08:27 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 08:21 AM)Mick Light Wrote:  I heard it was some hanky panky in the office that lead to Stobarts demise.

If average attendance was 40,000 (as it should have been) instead of 12,000 I doubt that his personal indiscretions would have mattered that much.

Maybe our fans had the scruples to not want to go watch a boring team coached by a known womanizer ?

Sure they did. Good, winning football isn't boring to me. I don't have to see a pass 75% of the time or lots of touchdowns to enjoy it.

God bless you. You should be a cubs fan too. You'd think after 40 years of boring football we woulda "lucked" up ONCE and hired a Sumlin or Leach type.



Sigh

We did. His name was Rex Dockery.

(08-29-2014 12:14 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 09:00 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 08:41 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 08:29 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 08:27 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  If average attendance was 40,000 (as it should have been) instead of 12,000 I doubt that his personal indiscretions would have mattered that much.

Maybe our fans had the scruples to not want to go watch a boring team coached by a known womanizer ?

Sure they did. Good, winning football isn't boring to me. I don't have to see a pass 75% of the time or lots of touchdowns to enjoy it.

God bless you. You should be a cubs fan too. You'd think after 40 years of boring football we woulda "lucked" up ONCE and hired a Sumlin or Leach type.



Sigh

We did. His name was Rex Dockery.

We really won't ever know about him though. He went 6-4-1 that one year. You would think he woulda spring boarded into something more. 1983 might as well be 1953. Charlie Cavagnaro made some terrible hires.

(08-29-2014 12:17 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 12:14 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 09:00 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 08:41 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 08:29 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  Maybe our fans had the scruples to not want to go watch a boring team coached by a known womanizer ?

Sure they did. Good, winning football isn't boring to me. I don't have to see a pass 75% of the time or lots of touchdowns to enjoy it.

God bless you. You should be a cubs fan too. You'd think after 40 years of boring football we woulda "lucked" up ONCE and hired a Sumlin or Leach type.



Sigh

We did. His name was Rex Dockery.

We really won't ever know about him though. He went 6-4-1 that one year. You would think he woulda spring boarded into something more. 1983 might as well be 1953. Charlie Cavagnaro made some terrible hires.

Here's to hoping that Fuente has a nice spike in year 3 like Dockery did.

(08-29-2014 11:42 AM)Tigeer Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 11:34 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 09:34 AM)Tiger46 Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 08:19 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  We fired the coach to had our best record against SEC teams because our fans, "voting with their feet" decided he was "boring", despite 3 consecutive 6-win seasons playing SEC-laden schedules. A sound running game with tough defense wasn't good enough. Same half-assed fans who stay at home when a little rain is predicted.

He had the Ground Chuck reputation but Matthews set school records for passing. Can't have it both ways.

This is what boils down the Chuck Stobart era to me. Last game of the season, we have East Carolina at home, we win and probably get the Liberty Bowl invitation. Team shows up flat, crowd is flat and the game turns out to be a disaster. No fire in the belly of coaches, players and the fans as well.

True we beat some SEC teams, but that wasn't the SEC that it is now. Tommy's teams beat some much better Ole Miss teams.

we weren't even close in that game.

It was 30-something to very little wasn't it?

30-6

(08-29-2014 01:17 PM)Mick Light Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 11:42 AM)Tigeer Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 11:34 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 09:34 AM)Tiger46 Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 08:19 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  We fired the coach to had our best record against SEC teams because our fans, "voting with their feet" decided he was "boring", despite 3 consecutive 6-win seasons playing SEC-laden schedules. A sound running game with tough defense wasn't good enough. Same half-assed fans who stay at home when a little rain is predicted.

He had the Ground Chuck reputation but Matthews set school records for passing. Can't have it both ways.

This is what boils down the Chuck Stobart era to me. Last game of the season, we have East Carolina at home, we win and probably get the Liberty Bowl invitation. Team shows up flat, crowd is flat and the game turns out to be a disaster. No fire in the belly of coaches, players and the fans as well.

True we beat some SEC teams, but that wasn't the SEC that it is now. Tommy's teams beat some much better Ole Miss teams.

we weren't even close in that game.

It was 30-something to very little wasn't it?

30-6

yea and that score was kind

(08-29-2014 12:34 PM)3601 Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 12:17 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 12:14 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 09:00 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 08:41 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  Sure they did. Good, winning football isn't boring to me. I don't have to see a pass 75% of the time or lots of touchdowns to enjoy it.

God bless you. You should be a cubs fan too. You'd think after 40 years of boring football we woulda "lucked" up ONCE and hired a Sumlin or Leach type.



Sigh

We did. His name was Rex Dockery.

We really won't ever know about him though. He went 6-4-1 that one year. You would think he woulda spring boarded into something more. 1983 might as well be 1953. Charlie Cavagnaro made some terrible hires.

Here's to hoping that Fuente has a nice spike in year 3 like Dockery did.

If Fuente has a good spike, he won't be here much longer. He will "move on up." Sadly, the only way to actually build a program in today's college football world is to take the UCF approach. Hire an older coach who has no desire to move up the ladder. Preferably one who has reached the pinnacle before and knows what it takes. As long as we decide to hire young "up and comers", we will not see any sustained success. Look at Arkansas State. Four head coaches in four years and not one was fired. They had success, and moved along. Boise State is the closest thing to actually building a program in today's day and time. Yet even they could not sustain it. Peterson left, and now they are slowly declining. Programs were built 50, 60, and 70 years ago. In today's college football world, if you're program is not a destination job, then you are just a stepping stone.

(08-29-2014 01:39 PM)MemTiger90 Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 12:34 PM)3601 Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 12:17 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 12:14 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 09:00 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  God bless you. You should be a cubs fan too. You'd think after 40 years of boring football we woulda "lucked" up ONCE and hired a Sumlin or Leach type.



Sigh

We did. His name was Rex Dockery.

We really won't ever know about him though. He went 6-4-1 that one year. You would think he woulda spring boarded into something more. 1983 might as well be 1953. Charlie Cavagnaro made some terrible hires.

Here's to hoping that Fuente has a nice spike in year 3 like Dockery did.

If Fuente has a good spike, he won't be here much longer. He will "move on up." Sadly, the only way to actually build a program in today's college football world is to take the UCF approach. Hire an older coach who has no desire to move up the ladder. Preferably one who has reached the pinnacle before and knows what it takes. As long as we decide to hire young "up and comers", we will not see any sustained success. Look at Arkansas State. Four head coaches in four years and not one was fired. They had success, and moved along. Boise State is the closest thing to actually building a program in today's day and time. Yet even they could not sustain it. Peterson left, and now they are slowly declining. Programs were built 50, 60, and 70 years ago. In today's college football world, if you're program is not a destination job, then you are just a stepping stone.

Well O'Leary hasn't left UCF yet

It didn't hurt UCF that the "older coach who has no desire to move up the ladder" lied on his resume and got fired from Notre Dame before ever coaching a game thus tarnishing his rep forever.

(08-29-2014 01:45 PM)Mick Light Wrote:  It didn't hurt UCF that the "older coach who has no desire to move up the ladder" lied on his resume and got fired from Notre Dame before ever coaching a game thus tarnishing his rep forever.

When Fuente moves on we should hire Cyp