re: Matt Campbell - is now the time and would we want him?

quote:

---

nd I think it’s likely he could field a team that could average 7 wins a year with a 9 win year every 4 years or so.

---

We've been in desperate need of a reality check in the not-too-distant past, but we should examine this. Going 8–4 would be winning our four OoC games, and then going 4–4 in conference. We should expect to lose an OoC game sometimes when we have a really tough one lined up, like the canceled Notre Dame game for 2020, and we should expect to do better than 4–4 in conference sometimes, and worse other times. But the bottom line is 8–4 with a chance for 9 in a bowl should really be the expectation. That's essentially saying, on average beat three, sometimes four cupcakes, and then win every other conference game.

What you're saying is worse than the results we wanted Nutt gone for, and almost what Bielema and Pittman have gotten us. Sam's been here four years. His first year was recovering from the previous three years of unmitigated disaster, plus playing a ten game conference schedule. His 3–7 that year would have been 6–6 before the bowl most other years. Then he wins 9 and 7. Bert won at least 7 games three out of five years. What you're asking for is not actually what we want (including you), and no one here thinks that 9 wins every four or so years is our ceiling.

We need to stop making completely fricking retarded hires. It's not like we're doing everything right and we just can't get it done, there's an obvious and glaring flaw that's causing all this strife, and it's easily correctable. First Chad with a whole three years of underwhelming experience at SMU, followed by a career o-line coach. Now there's talk that Gus could be a frontrunner? Not every hire can be a Petrino, but we suck as badly as we do because whoever is sticking their spoons in this thing, keeps treating it like goddamn Russian roulette.

We should win 7/8 regular season games most years. There's no reason we shouldn't pull that off. 9 wins and a low 20-something ranking should be on the table almost every season. Maybe once a decade we should miss a bowl. Once or twice a decade we should win 10+ and at least threaten the conference. If we can't do that, then there's literally no point. We can't PLAN for underwhelming mediocrity, or we might as well keep Pittman. He can be a six-win coach. Texas A&M had the stones to go out and get a coach who won the NC five years prior. Then when they got too gung-ho on that and botched it in a way that I thought only Arkansas could, they had the resolve to pay 76 million dollars to get rid of him. The point is, they carry themselves like winners, and they spend like winners. They're eventually going to start winning. Yeah, we may never beat Alabama while Nick Saban is there, and that sucks. But Nick Saban is one thing. All we have to do is stop losing to G5 teams and teams that won't be making a bowl even us as a win. That alone makes us a 7/8 win team every year. I promise we can do at least that if we pull our heads out of our asses.

If the bar is that low, then we don't deserve to be upset at this product on the field. Even if we never win the SEC in our entire existence, if we don't expect to win even half of our conference games, then just get out of the damn conference.