(10-12-2014 06:57 PM)payday Wrote:  Yea right. Fire a 2nd year high pedigree coach. The only thing worse than the Bearcats defense...is their fan base on this pitiful site.

What has he done since 2006? There's a reason why Auburn fans, many of whom complained about him underachieving more often than not, were glad he was gone. Texas Tech fans had the same sentiment when he left for UC.

You can't hang your hat on what you did a decade ago.

(10-12-2014 06:57 PM)payday Wrote:  Yea right. Fire a 2nd year high pedigree coach. The only thing worse than the Bearcats defense...is their fan base on this pitiful site.

My apathy is so bad I can't even get excited over someone lobbing incendiary comments.



Go troll somewhere else.

(10-12-2014 11:44 AM)bearcatmill Wrote:  

(10-11-2014 10:46 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(10-11-2014 10:41 PM)bearcatmill Wrote:  Not sure how much of a mark Steger left on the program.

Look at athletics as a whole during the Winkler tenure (Steger's predecessor) and compare it to Joe's. Night and day.

Steger was much better than Winkler. No question.

That was simply my point. Steger improved athletics more than his predecessor. Winkler wanted little to do with athletics by not providing funding, and even considered eliminating football. Most folks don't realize that in 1983 UC was actually demoted to temporary I-AA status for the season.

Joe's biggest commitment to football was approving the budgets and financing needed to support the work Goin was engaged in as UC began their plans to move into the Big East with expanded facilities.

But you are correct that Joe was a big supporter of basketball. He was willing to put up with Huggins shenanigans because Steger knew the value a strong athletic program returned in corporate and alumni donations as well as improved enrollment.

And Steger's legacy was far better than Zimpher (who damn near destroyed basketball), Williams (who was naïve, trusted the wrong people, and left quickly not moving the University forward) and Ono (who to date has done nothing except watch UC fall to the minor leagues on his watch.) Obviously, Ono still has time to improve his legacy if the Nippert upgrade and commitment to Olympic sports puts UC back into a revenue conference.

Questions that I'm too lazy to look up but probably have some bearing on whether we can "Fire Tubs":
1. Have we paid for the Nippert upgrade?
2. Have we paid for the Varsity Village upgrade?
3. How much would be owed to Tubs if canned?
4. What's the ballpark salary range of the replacement head coach/staff?

Additional questions that may also have some bearing:
1. What's our current recruiting class look like compared to the last 4-5 years?
2. What's our athletic budget look like compared to those we "think" we belong with? Or currently belong with?
3. What's a reasonable amount of time for Tubs to implement whatever program/system he wants?

(10-11-2014 02:59 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Gran's not going to anything but a small Go5 gig if he leaves UC...

Get over yourself.

Get over myself, what is this high school?

(10-13-2014 07:13 AM)JPBearcat3 Wrote:  Questions that I'm too lazy to look up but probably have some bearing on whether we can "Fire Tubs":
1. Have we paid for the Nippert upgrade?
2. Have we paid for the Varsity Village upgrade?
3. How much would be owed to Tubs if canned?
4. What's the ballpark salary range of the replacement head coach/staff?

Additional questions that may also have some bearing:
1. What's our current recruiting class look like compared to the last 4-5 years?
2. What's our athletic budget look like compared to those we "think" we belong with? Or currently belong with?
3. What's a reasonable amount of time for Tubs to implement whatever program/system he wants?

1. No
2. No
3. I have heard $6M
4. We need to be in the $1.5-2M range based on what other AAC schools are paying.

1. On paper the upcoming class (as currently constituted) is the highest ranked class we have ever had. We are picking up good recruits in position of need (defense, OL, RB) and there is a lot of speed and size.
2. The last indication had our budget hovering around the $60M mark, which is near tops in the AAC and better than 10 or so schools in the P5. Additional revenue from the new Nippert and a better TV deal would help push us up even further.
3. IMO 3-4 years. Save for the JUCOs, he is not playing with his recruits yet.

I think my biggest problem with him is the lack of aggressiveness. The end of the first half was a joke. He doesn't trust his team at all. He then comes out running JEvans and trying to kill clock.... down multiple touchdowns. It was obvious he just wanted the game over and was no longer thinking about a comeback. There was tons of time left. He did the same thing @OSU and Memphis IMO. It reminded me of the Dantonio game @OSU a while back where he took all kinds of grief for his gameplan and just trying to get out of the building. We don't have anywhere near the roster that makes a conservative strategy reasonable. He's basically coaching like Dantonio with a Mike Leach roster. It honestly makes no sense.

It's not realistic to fire Tubs though IMO, but I would think Hughes has to be up for consideration.

(10-13-2014 07:56 AM)uccheese Wrote:  I think my biggest problem with him is the lack of aggressiveness. The end of the first half was a joke. He doesn't trust his team at all. He then comes out running JEvans and trying to kill clock.... down multiple touchdowns. It was obvious he just wanted the game over and was no longer thinking about a comeback. There was tons of time left. He did the same thing @OSU and Memphis IMO. It reminded me of the Dantonio game @OSU a while back where he took all kinds of grief for his gameplan and just trying to get out of the building. We don't have anywhere near the roster that makes a conservative strategy reasonable. He's basically coaching like Dantonio with a Mike Leach roster. It honestly makes no sense.

It's not realistic to fire Tubs though IMO, but I would think Hughes has to be up for consideration.

Frankly I think bringing Evans in is more designed to keep the defense off the field more than anything else. Gunner has a lot of great attributes, but one of his weaknesses is running the read-option plays. Evans can run the read-option well enough to take a few minutes off the clock. Those minutes allow the defensive guys to get a breather.... not to mention keeps the opposing team from scoring yet again.

(10-13-2014 08:00 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 07:56 AM)uccheese Wrote:  I think my biggest problem with him is the lack of aggressiveness. The end of the first half was a joke. He doesn't trust his team at all. He then comes out running JEvans and trying to kill clock.... down multiple touchdowns. It was obvious he just wanted the game over and was no longer thinking about a comeback. There was tons of time left. He did the same thing @OSU and Memphis IMO. It reminded me of the Dantonio game @OSU a while back where he took all kinds of grief for his gameplan and just trying to get out of the building. We don't have anywhere near the roster that makes a conservative strategy reasonable. He's basically coaching like Dantonio with a Mike Leach roster. It honestly makes no sense.

It's not realistic to fire Tubs though IMO, but I would think Hughes has to be up for consideration.

Frankly I think bringing Evans in is more designed to keep the defense off the field more than anything else. Gunner has a lot of great attributes, but one of his weaknesses is running the read-option plays. Evans can run the read-option well enough to take a few minutes off the clock. Those minutes allow the defensive guys to get a breather.... not to mention keeps the opposing team from scoring yet again.

How does whether the clock is running or not impact the defense? You get them more time to rest by getting first downs. Otherwise, 3 incomplete passes is the same as 3 runs for 9 yards. The time spent on the sidelines is the same. The only thing it does differently is kill time off the game clock, in a game we are losing.

Now, if he thinks we're more likely to get first downs and move the ball with Evans than Kiel, then that is a different conversation and I guess we have more of a QB controversy than I realized.

(10-13-2014 08:09 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 08:00 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 07:56 AM)uccheese Wrote:  I think my biggest problem with him is the lack of aggressiveness. The end of the first half was a joke. He doesn't trust his team at all. He then comes out running JEvans and trying to kill clock.... down multiple touchdowns. It was obvious he just wanted the game over and was no longer thinking about a comeback. There was tons of time left. He did the same thing @OSU and Memphis IMO. It reminded me of the Dantonio game @OSU a while back where he took all kinds of grief for his gameplan and just trying to get out of the building. We don't have anywhere near the roster that makes a conservative strategy reasonable. He's basically coaching like Dantonio with a Mike Leach roster. It honestly makes no sense.

It's not realistic to fire Tubs though IMO, but I would think Hughes has to be up for consideration.

Frankly I think bringing Evans in is more designed to keep the defense off the field more than anything else. Gunner has a lot of great attributes, but one of his weaknesses is running the read-option plays. Evans can run the read-option well enough to take a few minutes off the clock. Those minutes allow the defensive guys to get a breather.... not to mention keeps the opposing team from scoring yet again.

How does whether the clock is running or not impact the defense? You get them more time to rest by getting first downs. Otherwise, 3 incomplete passes is the same as 3 runs for 9 yards. The time spent on the sidelines is the same. The only thing it does differently is kill time off the game clock, in a game we are losing.

Now, if he thinks we're more likely to get first downs and move the ball with Evans than Kiel, then that is a different conversation and I guess we have more of a QB controversy than I realized.

I see you angle but you are not entirely right. The time on the sidelines might be roughly the same although pass plays are run more quickly and use less time overall. What it really does by running the ball is shorten the game so that the overall amount of plays on the field is lessened thereby creating less overall time in the game for your defense to be on the field.

But you are right, if you can't pickup first downs it's a bit of a moot point. If you can pickup first downs effectively, you do give the defense a better rest.

However, rested or not- our defense stinks. We just need to score as much as possible. If that means throwing 70 times a game I'm all for it.

This recruiting class will end up nowhere close to the best in UC history. It's been dropping like wildfire lately down into the mid to low 40s now. Basically it was rated high early because they had an inordinate amount of commitments before everyone else.

(10-13-2014 08:21 AM)Bearcatbdub Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 08:09 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 08:00 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 07:56 AM)uccheese Wrote:  I think my biggest problem with him is the lack of aggressiveness. The end of the first half was a joke. He doesn't trust his team at all. He then comes out running JEvans and trying to kill clock.... down multiple touchdowns. It was obvious he just wanted the game over and was no longer thinking about a comeback. There was tons of time left. He did the same thing @OSU and Memphis IMO. It reminded me of the Dantonio game @OSU a while back where he took all kinds of grief for his gameplan and just trying to get out of the building. We don't have anywhere near the roster that makes a conservative strategy reasonable. He's basically coaching like Dantonio with a Mike Leach roster. It honestly makes no sense.

It's not realistic to fire Tubs though IMO, but I would think Hughes has to be up for consideration.

Frankly I think bringing Evans in is more designed to keep the defense off the field more than anything else. Gunner has a lot of great attributes, but one of his weaknesses is running the read-option plays. Evans can run the read-option well enough to take a few minutes off the clock. Those minutes allow the defensive guys to get a breather.... not to mention keeps the opposing team from scoring yet again.

How does whether the clock is running or not impact the defense? You get them more time to rest by getting first downs. Otherwise, 3 incomplete passes is the same as 3 runs for 9 yards. The time spent on the sidelines is the same. The only thing it does differently is kill time off the game clock, in a game we are losing.

Now, if he thinks we're more likely to get first downs and move the ball with Evans than Kiel, then that is a different conversation and I guess we have more of a QB controversy than I realized.

I see you angle but you are not entirely right. The time on the sidelines might be roughly the same although pass plays are run more quickly and use less time overall. What it really does by running the ball is shorten the game so that the overall amount of plays on the field is lessened thereby creating less overall time in the game for your defense to be on the field.

But you are right, if you can't pickup first downs it's a bit of a moot point. If you can pickup first downs effectively, you do give the defense a better rest.

However, rested or not- our defense stinks. We just need to score as much as possible. If that means throwing 70 times a game I'm all for it.

Bingo. Our defense stinks from the opening kickoff to the final whistle. If we could move the ball and put up points with Evans I'd be all for it. We'd shorten the game and keep the other team from scoring a mountain of points. But clearly we cannot score with anyone other than Kiel. With Evans in the game, we picked up a total of one first down. We won the time of possession battle this week and still got our teeth kicked in.

A+++ Thread. Would read again.

BTW -- reality stinks, but UC is in a second-rate conference and wouldn't have a prayer of attracting a coach with the experience and pedigree of Tommy T. right now if it went to the open market.

(10-14-2014 08:07 AM)#41 Wrote:  A+++ Thread. Would read again.

BTW -- reality stinks, but UC is in a second-rate conference and wouldn't have a prayer of attracting a coach with the experience and pedigree of Tommy T. right now if it went to the open market.

Would we be able to get one that could get our defense out from being the worst in the country, though? What kind of pedigree and experience does that take?

(10-14-2014 08:07 AM)#41 Wrote:  A+++ Thread. Would read again.

BTW -- reality stinks, but UC is in a second-rate conference and wouldn't have a prayer of attracting a coach with the experience and pedigree of Tommy T. right now if it went to the open market.

You bring up a good point. Dantonio, Kelly, and Jones all came to UC after we were in the Big East. Who knows if we could attract this type of coach now.

(10-14-2014 10:41 AM)back2vinyl Wrote:  

(10-14-2014 08:07 AM)#41 Wrote:  A+++ Thread. Would read again.

BTW -- reality stinks, but UC is in a second-rate conference and wouldn't have a prayer of attracting a coach with the experience and pedigree of Tommy T. right now if it went to the open market.

You bring up a good point. Dantonio, Kelly, and Jones all came to UC after we were in the Big East. Who knows if we could attract this type of coach now.

If UC fired Tubs we still could garner an up and comer. The highest paid MAC coaches are Frank Solich (not an up and comer) at $514K/yr and Matt Cambell (he is an up and comer) at $457K/yr The rest of their coaches are making in the $325-420K range. UC hasn't paid a coach less than a $1M since Kelly's first year.

Even if we are stuck in the AAC the conference gives the coach much more exposure than they had in the MAC (and just for clarification C-USA too). They still know that if they duplicated the efforts of Kelly or Jones they could be writing their ticket to a much bigger deal.

This is not even taking in the consideration of key assistant coaches. Not every coach is about the Benajmins. Chuck Martin took a $200K/yr pay-cut to leave Notre Dame so he can be a head coach. UC could very well land a guy like that from a P5 school.

(10-14-2014 12:13 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(10-14-2014 10:41 AM)back2vinyl Wrote:  

(10-14-2014 08:07 AM)#41 Wrote:  A+++ Thread. Would read again.

BTW -- reality stinks, but UC is in a second-rate conference and wouldn't have a prayer of attracting a coach with the experience and pedigree of Tommy T. right now if it went to the open market.

You bring up a good point. Dantonio, Kelly, and Jones all came to UC after we were in the Big East. Who knows if we could attract this type of coach now.

If UC fired Tubs we still could garner an up and comer. The highest paid MAC coaches are Frank Solich (not an up and comer) at $514K/yr and Matt Cambell (he is an up and comer) at $457K/yr The rest of their coaches are making in the $325-420K range. UC hasn't paid a coach less than a $1M since Kelly's first year.

Even if we are stuck in the AAC the conference gives the coach much more exposure than they had in the MAC (and just for clarification C-USA too). They still know that if they duplicated the efforts of Kelly or Jones they could be writing their ticket to a much bigger deal.

This is not even taking in the consideration of key assistant coaches. Not every coach is about the Benajmins. Chuck Martin took a $200K/yr pay-cut to leave Notre Dame so he can be a head coach. UC could very well land a guy like that from a P5 school.

No doubt we could easily get a good up and comer. There is no reason for a good, young coach to take a job at a bottom tier SEC, ACC or Big 12 school. It is waaaaay easier to be successful at UC where you avoid the big boys. In other words, we are still a great stepping stone job. God how I wish I was worried about coach "X" leaving UC for the opening at school "X".

Tom Groeschen @TomGroeschen · 2h 2 hours ago
'We're gonna win here. I'm not looking for a job.' -- Tuberville. #Bearcats

Joe Danneman @FOX19Joe · 2h 2 hours ago
Tuberville: I have patience because I know our recruiting is good. We're building a program. @FOX19

Joe Danneman @FOX19Joe · 2h 2 hours ago
Tuberville: "I take blame for all of these losses...that's my job. They hired me to win games." @FOX19

(10-14-2014 12:55 PM)Bearcat2012 Wrote:  Tom Groeschen @TomGroeschen · 2h 2 hours ago
'We're gonna win here. I'm not looking for a job.' -- Tuberville. #Bearcats

Joe Danneman @FOX19Joe · 2h 2 hours ago
Tuberville: I have patience because I know our recruiting is good. We're building a program. @FOX19

Joe Danneman @FOX19Joe · 2h 2 hours ago
Tuberville: "I take blame for all of these losses...that's my job. They hired me to win games." @FOX19

well...doesn't fix anything today but those quotes are better than I have seen coming out of the CTT camp

(10-14-2014 12:55 PM)Bearcat2012 Wrote:  Tom Groeschen @TomGroeschen · 2h 2 hours ago
'We're gonna win here. I'm not looking for a job.' -- Tuberville. #Bearcats

Joe Danneman @FOX19Joe · 2h 2 hours ago
Tuberville: I have patience because I know our recruiting is good. We're building a program. @FOX19

Joe Danneman @FOX19Joe · 2h 2 hours ago
Tuberville: "I take blame for all of these losses...that's my job. They hired me to win games." @FOX19

He feels the heat. Hope it leads to more than just lip service.