Can Tulsa ever be successful (more wins than losses) in D1?

[TU_BLA]

Go look through the game threads from last year, we were all complaining about the line. We expected them to be good. They weren't.

The line looked good for two seasons (Dane's last year and the following year) the other seasons have mostly been questionable with occasional good play rolled in.

And the reason is we have guards playing at the tackle positions. Why is Willie Wright in the NFL right now...because the Browns put him at guard and he is excelling. They've also tried him at C. There's a reason why NFL teams draft LTs #1 overall when they're really good. The movie The Blind Side wasn't lying. You simply have to have better athletes at the tackle spots and we keep putting slower, shorter, short-armed guys outside and it simply isn't working with this new group. Plagg was, IMO, a true tackle with a really mean disposition towards opposing DEs. It also helped you had Bowling, Browning, and Miller in there was well and those guys beat the hell out of DTs. Ask Ed Oliver. His worst games in college always seemed to come against TU. Yeah, we doubled him a lot, but those guys beat the hell out of him too. Every time one of ESPNs draft gurus (Kiper and McShay) tried to dig up negative film on Oliver, it always started with film from TU games as we seemed to come up with a game plan that pretty well neutralized him.

We need better athletes on the OL...not just the big bruisers. DTs/DEs are getting bigger and faster and more athletic. Doesn't it make sense you need to come up with faster and more athletic OL to combat that?

 

[Fmr'Cane16]

And the reason is we have guards playing at the tackle positions. Why is Willie Wright in the NFL right now...because the Browns put him at guard and he is excelling. They've also tried him at C. There's a reason why NFL teams draft LTs #1 overall when they're really good. The movie The Blind Side wasn't lying. You simply have to have better athletes at the tackle spots and we keep putting slower, shorter, short-armed guys outside and it simply isn't working with this new group. Plagg was, IMO, a true tackle with a really mean disposition towards opposing DEs. It also helped you had Bowling, Browning, and Miller in there was well and those guys beat the hell out of DTs. Ask Ed Oliver. His worst games in college always seemed to come against TU. Yeah, we doubled him a lot, but those guys beat the hell out of him too. Every time one of ESPNs draft gurus (Kiper and McShay) tried to dig up negative film on Oliver, it always started with film from TU games as we seemed to come up with a game plan that pretty well neutralized him.

We need better athletes on the OL...not just the big bruisers. DTs/DEs are getting bigger and faster and more athletic. Doesn't it make sense you need to come up with faster and more athletic OL to combat that?

That’s the rub. Helluva lot easier to identify and successfully recruit guards and centers. The good Lord didn’t make too many 6’6” 290lb dudes with good feet at 17. And if they are they usually aren’t coming to 11th and Harvard. You have to project them and hope you don’t miss. Just like great DT’s. They are unicorns and when you get one they are game changers for your front.

 

[HuffyCane]

That’s the rub. Helluva lot easier to identify and successfully recruit guards and centers. The good Lord didn’t make too many 6’6” 290lb dudes with good feet at 17. And if they are they usually aren’t coming to 11th and Harvard. You have to project them and hope you don’t miss. Just like great DT’s. They are unicorns and when you get one they are game changers for your front.

This. It’s one of the few attractive things about this offense. It lets you run it with 5 guards if you want to. It won’t be pretty but at least the run game and base RPO package can run on it. So it gives TU a little bit of wiggle room as far as recruiting goes.

 

[Hurricane Drummer]

Go look through the game threads from last year, we were all complaining about the line. We expected them to be good. They weren't.

The line looked good for two seasons (Dane's last year and the following year) the other seasons have mostly been questionable with occasional good play rolled in.

True, the line wasn't as good last year as previous years, but there were also multiple injuries and guys moving around. That probably had some to do with it.

 

[TulsaGrad07]

What about the center (Couch) who was an Iowa State transfer or something and unable to snap a ball back to the QB and gave up 10 to 13 points against Michigan State? Was he not a center to begin with and implemented in a pinch? Seems like fundamentally they aren't prepared to block or even snap the ball, let alone the bajillion false starts every game. I'd say those big guys are the greatest immediate issue that needs addressing (second to finding a competent head coach).

 

[Tulsa76]

http://www.thetulsavoice.com/September-A-2018/Ego-and-denial-on-11th-Street/

 

[Gmoney4WW]

His estimation of the football programs earnings are underestimated just as much as it's reported earning are overestimated. And he doesn't even talk about the prestige and advertising of a div I sports program. It's tiring to see rumblings in the media begin to talk of dropping to div 2 again. Friedman is full of it, and jumping on the bandwagon when there are problems at the University that have nothing to do with football. How bout the issue of overspending on apartment buildings right before a downturn in the economy. How bout not mentioning the increased media deal which will be coming in next year.

 

[hotterthanyourhusbandTU]

Goodness. An awful, and slanted editorial.

He completely ignores the MASSIVE value of having D1 sports in a very good conference.

Yes, there are professors who HATE football. He found them.

When was this article released?

 

[TigerCane16]

http://www.thetulsavoice.com/September-A-2018/Ego-and-denial-on-11th-Street/

I am sorry, but that is full of misinformation and stinks of ignorance. That is, IMO, part of the issue in all of this. Friedman comes off as a sycophant playing to an audience.

 

[goldenhurricane2]

That article was from a while back... and the guy who wrote it is an ass. I bet he gives out black licorice to trick or treaters because it’s economically savvy.

 

[jerandlaur]

It's funny that the only response anyone can give is that the guy is an ass. He gives a reasoned response to the question of athletics and gets called an ass. I am not saying that we need to drop football but it is an ongoing concern and there has to be a discussion about dropping academic programs versus dropping athletics programs. No one one this board is happy with the current idea to become Tulsa Tech 2.0 so but is what is happening. What is the other solution?

 

[TU_BLA]

That article was from a while back... and the guy who wrote it is an ass. I bet he gives out black licorice to trick or treaters because it’s economically savvy.

The article was from 1 year ago. It is slanted. Professors don't understand the free marketing a successful athletic program with successful football and basketball brings to the university. Obviously this Friedmann guy doesn't either.

Want some useful numbers...go and find out the # of applications and students who matriculated each year from 2003 onward (from the time Kragthorpe was hired). Look at the immediate results years after going to a bowl game or NCAA tournament and see the uptick. And a simple response to Friedmann is, there are professors on every campus with an FBS program that despises football and college athletics for "taking resources away from students and academic depts." OU has them, Texas has them, Ohio State has them, Stanford has them...every single one has professors who feel this way.

And I actually don't think he is right about attendance numbers being inflated. I think we legit get the game figures (vs just reporting tickets sold). We may fluff the number at the end of the season when we have a number of season ticket holders not show up for games. And it appears to me anyway that attendance this year is up a bit game to game (not necessarily including the OSU game that was up quire a bit). The east side just looks like it has more fans this season.

 

[TheGoldenTulsas]

It's funny that the only response anyone can give is that the guy is an ass. He gives a reasoned response to the question of athletics and gets called an ass. I am not saying that we need to drop football but it is an ongoing concern and there has to be a discussion about dropping academic programs versus dropping athletics programs. No one one this board is happy with the current idea to become Tulsa Tech 2.0 so but is what is happening. What is the other solution?

It's the lazy old ad hominem attack. If you can't/won't clearly argue their points, just call them a name.

TU_BLA did respond well though.

 

[TheGoldenTulsas]

Want some useful numbers...go and find out the # of applications and students who matriculated each year from 2003 onward (from the time Kragthorpe was hired). Look at the immediate results years after going to a bowl game or NCAA tournament and see the uptick. .

Do they have those numbers? How has that changed over the last 7 years?

In the last 7 years, TU's win percentage is 33% (It was 67% over the previous 7). TU is the laughing stock of the conference. I doubt there's a significant number of students coming here because of football. Sure having a football program is a bonus for many, but having a team known to be a losing team might even be a net negative. Sure people seeing TU get beat on TV every week might find out that Tulsa exists, and maybe that'll pique their curiosity to look into it and maybe even apply, but hard to believe that is a very large number.

TU's football has gone down while the other teams it used to beat regularly have gone up and their recruiting ranks are mostly in the 60s or better while Tulsa's is around 85-110th each year. Furthermore, the American Conference excluded many of the easier wins like UTEP, Rice, UAB. Other teams view TU like that now. This decline spans two head coaches. The issues at hand are bigger than the head coach and might be bigger than the AD or administration can fix.

I like the optimism from so many on here believing a new head coach might fix it. Besides the fact that a new hire is always a gamble, I wonder how TU can afford to buyout Montgomery and a much more expensive candidate who has any potential to be a home run hire. I also wonder how many excellent candidates would be willing to risk their reputation at TU after the last 2 HCs' careers fizzled out here. Sure Kragthorpe came on when TU was in a bad state, but that was a different era and he was QB coach at the Buffalo Bills before.

Has the TU administration considered C-USA might've been a better fit? It would certainly be less TV money, but if TU wants to win, they need to play their peers instead of a conference full of schools with many inherent, geographical and financial advantages (e.g. being in Dallas or being in Florida with 55k+ students).
If I had the option of 2005-2012 football vs 2014-2019 football, I'd pick the C-USA days hands down. I'd rather an 8-5 TU team year in year out than 3-9 most seasons. The other option is to accept TU as a bottom-tier sleeper team that might awake for a 8+ win season about once or twice a decade or so when all the cards line up (like 2016). Fans should be realistic as should the administration. If it is the better financial option to be the Kansas of the American conference, we should accept/embrace that. If it would be about the same financially to go be the Tulsa of C-USA again, I'd strongly prefer that.

 

[HuffyCane]

Do they have those numbers? How has that changed over the last 7 years?

In the last 7 years, TU's win percentage is 33% (It was 67% over the previous 7). TU is the laughing stock of the conference. I doubt there's a significant number of students coming here because of football. Sure having a football program is a bonus for many, but having a team known to be a losing team might even be a net negative. Sure people seeing TU get beat on TV every week might find out that Tulsa exists, and maybe that'll pique their curiosity to look into it and maybe even apply, but hard to believe that is a very large number.

TU's football has gone down while the other teams it used to beat regularly have gone up and their recruiting ranks are mostly in the 60s or better while Tulsa's is around 85-110th each year. Furthermore, the American Conference excluded many of the easier wins like UTEP, Rice, UAB. Other teams view TU like that now. This decline spans two head coaches. The issues at hand are bigger than the head coach and might be bigger than the AD or administration can fix.

I like the optimism from so many on here believing a new head coach might fix it. Besides the fact that a new hire is always a gamble, I wonder how TU can afford to buyout Montgomery and a much more expensive candidate who has any potential to be a home run hire. I also wonder how many excellent candidates would be willing to risk their reputation at TU after the last 2 HCs' careers fizzled out here. Sure Kragthorpe came on when TU was in a bad state, but that was a different era and he was QB coach at the Buffalo Bills before.

Has the TU administration considered C-USA might've been a better fit? It would certainly be less TV money, but if TU wants to win, they need to play their peers instead of a conference full of schools with many inherent, geographical and financial advantages (e.g. being in Dallas or being in Florida with 55k+ students).
If I had the option of 2005-2012 football vs 2014-2019 football, I'd pick the C-USA days hands down. I'd rather an 8-5 TU team year in year out than 3-9 most seasons. The other option is to accept TU as a bottom-tier sleeper team that might awake for a 8+ win season about once or twice a decade or so when all the cards line up (like 2016). Fans should be realistic as should the administration. If it is the better financial option to be the Kansas of the American conference, we should accept/embrace that. If it would be about the same financially to go be the Tulsa of C-USA again, I'd strongly prefer that.

Love the avatar!!!

 

[HuffyCane]

Do they have those numbers? How has that changed over the last 7 years?

In the last 7 years, TU's win percentage is 33% (It was 67% over the previous 7). TU is the laughing stock of the conference. I doubt there's a significant number of students coming here because of football. Sure having a football program is a bonus for many, but having a team known to be a losing team might even be a net negative. Sure people seeing TU get beat on TV every week might find out that Tulsa exists, and maybe that'll pique their curiosity to look into it and maybe even apply, but hard to believe that is a very large number.

TU's football has gone down while the other teams it used to beat regularly have gone up and their recruiting ranks are mostly in the 60s or better while Tulsa's is around 85-110th each year. Furthermore, the American Conference excluded many of the easier wins like UTEP, Rice, UAB. Other teams view TU like that now. This decline spans two head coaches. The issues at hand are bigger than the head coach and might be bigger than the AD or administration can fix.

I like the optimism from so many on here believing a new head coach might fix it. Besides the fact that a new hire is always a gamble, I wonder how TU can afford to buyout Montgomery and a much more expensive candidate who has any potential to be a home run hire. I also wonder how many excellent candidates would be willing to risk their reputation at TU after the last 2 HCs' careers fizzled out here. Sure Kragthorpe came on when TU was in a bad state, but that was a different era and he was QB coach at the Buffalo Bills before.

Has the TU administration considered C-USA might've been a better fit? It would certainly be less TV money, but if TU wants to win, they need to play their peers instead of a conference full of schools with many inherent, geographical and financial advantages (e.g. being in Dallas or being in Florida with 55k+ students).
If I had the option of 2005-2012 football vs 2014-2019 football, I'd pick the C-USA days hands down. I'd rather an 8-5 TU team year in year out than 3-9 most seasons. The other option is to accept TU as a bottom-tier sleeper team that might awake for a 8+ win season about once or twice a decade or so when all the cards line up (like 2016). Fans should be realistic as should the administration. If it is the better financial option to be the Kansas of the American conference, we should accept/embrace that. If it would be about the same financially to go be the Tulsa of C-USA again, I'd strongly prefer that.

You wanna make $1 million to win or $7 million to lose? Your call.

 

[HuffyCane]

It's funny that the only response anyone can give is that the guy is an ass.

I get that a lot too.

 

[TulsaGrad07]

You wanna make $1 million to win or $7 million to lose? Your call.

I'll take $7 million to lose and a new football coach for the win Alec

 

[TU_BLA]

Do they have those numbers? How has that changed over the last 7 years?

In the last 7 years, TU's win percentage is 33% (It was 67% over the previous 7). TU is the laughing stock of the conference. I doubt there's a significant number of students coming here because of football. Sure having a football program is a bonus for many, but having a team known to be a losing team might even be a net negative. Sure people seeing TU get beat on TV every week might find out that Tulsa exists, and maybe that'll pique their curiosity to look into it and maybe even apply, but hard to believe that is a very large number.

TU's football has gone down while the other teams it used to beat regularly have gone up and their recruiting ranks are mostly in the 60s or better while Tulsa's is around 85-110th each year. Furthermore, the American Conference excluded many of the easier wins like UTEP, Rice, UAB. Other teams view TU like that now. This decline spans two head coaches. The issues at hand are bigger than the head coach and might be bigger than the AD or administration can fix.

I like the optimism from so many on here believing a new head coach might fix it. Besides the fact that a new hire is always a gamble, I wonder how TU can afford to buyout Montgomery and a much more expensive candidate who has any potential to be a home run hire. I also wonder how many excellent candidates would be willing to risk their reputation at TU after the last 2 HCs' careers fizzled out here. Sure Kragthorpe came on when TU was in a bad state, but that was a different era and he was QB coach at the Buffalo Bills before.

Has the TU administration considered C-USA might've been a better fit? It would certainly be less TV money, but if TU wants to win, they need to play their peers instead of a conference full of schools with many inherent, geographical and financial advantages (e.g. being in Dallas or being in Florida with 55k+ students).
If I had the option of 2005-2012 football vs 2014-2019 football, I'd pick the C-USA days hands down. I'd rather an 8-5 TU team year in year out than 3-9 most seasons. The other option is to accept TU as a bottom-tier sleeper team that might awake for a 8+ win season about once or twice a decade or so when all the cards line up (like 2016). Fans should be realistic as should the administration. If it is the better financial option to be the Kansas of the American conference, we should accept/embrace that. If it would be about the same financially to go be the Tulsa of C-USA again, I'd strongly prefer that.

I don't have numbers now, but I used to get updates when I worked on staff at TU. I believe 2004 was one of the bigger application pools (right after the Humanitarian Bowl). 2006 as well. If memory serves me correctly, 2001 or 2002 was a really really bad year for admissions. We always talked about weathering the 4 years of budget impact that the class would mean on our dept.

I can also tell you without hesitation that when TU does institutional research on a lot of things, they include in their top 6 peer institutions Rice, SMU, TCU & Tulane were always included. I believe Baylor was used for some surveys (especially those regarding student life). I want to say WashU in StL was used many times, a They fit the bill for small to med comprehensive universities in midwest cities who TU considered itself competitive for the same types of students. Whether or not they were over-shooting, who knows. I used to get upset at Baylor admin because they always only wanted to compare themselves with Big XII schools, which they have little to nothing in common with except for athletics. You can't do a student life survey on costs comparing your product with what OU/OSU charge. It was ridiculous.

I think TU fits fine in the AAC and they do want to maintain athletic alliances with geographic and historical ties like Memphis, Houston, and SMU. Wichita State makes it even more of a place they want to be. Now the admin and donors need to make that commitment.

 

[TheGoldenTulsas]

Of all of TU's commits this year, not a single one has even an offer from another American Conference school. During his best 2 seasons, the rankings were 109th and 95th. Those players from those classes are starters now and it shows on the field.

Not sure how the next head coach will be able to turn around that sort of a deficit, where the only players interested are deciding between TU and places like Incarnate Word or Texas Abilene. Tulsa had a bit of a buzz around a decade ago, but newer recruits will have no memory of Tulsa being good and in the spotlight (whereas UH, SMU, UCF, Navy, Memphis have been in the national spotlight lately).

The best Tulsa class ever was 58th. Tulsa had mostly in the 70s and 80s through the best years of 2007-2014. They used to beat SMU, Tulane, Memphis and Houston for at least some recruits. Why would you pick Tulsa if any those teams offered you? No head coach can answer that convincingly and truthfully. You're absolutely better off at those programs if you have any desire to play for a championship or go pro (and those are all in the middle of much richer recruiting grounds). The education at TU might be better than some of those for certain degrees, but probably not enough to make a difference. TU's best thing is that it is close to Tulsa area high schools which produce a lot of talent, but TU doesn't even seem to be winning on those fronts either.

 

[TheGoldenTulsas]

Love the avatar!!!

Thank you!

I love the old Huffy the Cane. Hate the new "Captain Cane" which Todd Graham somehow thought was an improvement.

 

[goldenhurricane2]

It's the lazy old ad hominem attack. If you can't/won't clearly argue their points, just call them a name.

TU_BLA did respond well though.

hi. Thanks

 

[goldenhurricane2]

It's funny that the only response anyone can give is that the guy is an ass. He gives a reasoned response to the question of athletics and gets called an ass. I am not saying that we need to drop football but it is an ongoing concern and there has to be a discussion about dropping academic programs versus dropping athletics programs. No one one this board is happy with the current idea to become Tulsa Tech 2.0 so but is what is happening. What is the other solution?

didn’t realize a dissertation was needed. Will do better next time.

 

[goldenhurricane2]

The article was from 1 year ago. It is slanted. Professors don't understand the free marketing a successful athletic program with successful football and basketball brings to the university. Obviously this Friedmann guy doesn't either.

Want some useful numbers...go and find out the # of applications and students who matriculated each year from 2003 onward (from the time Kragthorpe was hired). Look at the immediate results years after going to a bowl game or NCAA tournament and see the uptick. And a simple response to Friedmann is, there are professors on every campus with an FBS program that despises football and college athletics for "taking resources away from students and academic depts." OU has them, Texas has them, Ohio State has them, Stanford has them...every single one has professors who feel this way.

And I actually don't think he is right about attendance numbers being inflated. I think we legit get the game figures (vs just reporting tickets sold). We may fluff the number at the end of the season when we have a number of season ticket holders not show up for games. And it appears to me anyway that attendance this year is up a bit game to game (not necessarily including the OSU game that was up quire a bit). The east side just looks like it has more fans this season.

I can tell you for a fact that applications went up after 2005 and again after 2007.

 

[jerandlaur]

The article was from 1 year ago. It is slanted. Professors don't understand the free marketing a successful athletic program with successful football and basketball brings to the university. Obviously this Friedmann guy doesn't either.

Want some useful numbers...go and find out the # of applications and students who matriculated each year from 2003 onward (from the time Kragthorpe was hired). Look at the immediate results years after going to a bowl game or NCAA tournament and see the uptick. And a simple response to Friedmann is, there are professors on every campus with an FBS program that despises football and college athletics for "taking resources away from students and academic depts." OU has them, Texas has them, Ohio State has them, Stanford has them...every single one has professors who feel this way.

And I actually don't think he is right about attendance numbers being inflated. I think we legit get the game figures (vs just reporting tickets sold). We may fluff the number at the end of the season when we have a number of season ticket holders not show up for games. And it appears to me anyway that attendance this year is up a bit game to game (not necessarily including the OSU game that was up quire a bit). The east side just looks like it has more fans this season.

OU, Texas, Ohio State and Stanford aren’t cutting their Professors retirements benefits in order to continue underwriting the athletics program. That’s a stupid comparison.

In another comparison, Baylor much more closely compares to Big 12 schools than it does to TU. Baylor’s enrollment of 17,000 is larger than TCU is much closer to all but UT, Iowa Sate and Tech than it is to TU.

Tulsa is not Rice academically and with the reduction of humanities and liberal arts programs not Tulane. We are less than half the size of SMU and don’t have the academic bones to compete with the aforementioned Rensselaer Polytechnic, whose football is DIII.

A winning program that bring national recognition does help the University but it has to be sustained. After being invited to the Big 12 TCU has seen an increase in the numbers of applications and in the quality of applicants and has seen a significant increase in donations to athletic and non-althetic programs. OU and OSU will never let us in the Big 12 but if we could get a coach who would commit to TU and win year after year it could pay off big time.

 

[TheGoldenTulsas]

Recently admissions have been down substantially, thus the budget cuts. They said it's partially demographics and decrease in international students. If TU being good made that much of a difference, maybe the football team being down has hurt that as well. TU has been very bad in 5 of the last 7 seasons.

I guess $7 million to be a punching bag is pretty good and TU should just be thankful they're in a conference that can bring in that kind of money. It will raise the bar equally across the board for the AAC though. A new head coach hasn't helped recruiting either time recently (After Graham rankings dipped into the 80s and lower, after Blankenship it dipped to 109th). TU has always done more with less, but this is a much improved conference full of schools that have far more donors and have made all the upgrades and more than TU made to get a boost in the 2000's. I'm not sure TU has the capacity to do any more than what they've been doing, just keeping the programs going.

 

[chito_and_leon]

I can tell you for a fact that applications went up after 2005 and again after 2007.

Nobody can seriously argue that TU can't be successful at this level in athletics. We've done it plenty of times. We just need reasonable investment and competent leadership and we'll be fine.

That said, keep in mind the admin made up data about the philosophy department that showed its revenue being half of what it really was in order to justify cutting the department. If the powers that be want something gone, the lack of factual support for the decision, or the impact of athletics on enrollment, certainly won't stop them.

The biggest threat to athletics isn't whether athletics can compete (it can) but rather whether the university can compete. Athletics won't drag down the academic side but the academic side might very well drag down athletics. But in the "you'll believe what we tell you to believe" world of TU, they've done a great job of marketing it the other way.

 

[chito_and_leon]

TU has always done more with less, but this is a much improved conference full of schools that have far more donors and have made all the upgrades and more than TU made to get a boost in the 2000's. I'm not sure TU has the capacity to do any more than what they've been doing, just keeping the programs going.

This is the same "we're poor little TU, woe is us, we're just lucky to be here" BS that we have on the academic side, too. It's Doug Wojick. And yet we manage to succeed when we have the right people who believe we can and focus on finding ways to do it rather than whining about how hard it is.

 

[TheGoldenTulsas]

What if Montgomery is actually a great coach and is doing as good or better job at keeping competitive than most any other coach would? He's kept them in games vs now 5 top-25 caliber opponents this year (and 1 win vs a borderline top-25 Wyoming team). TU has had by far their toughest Strength of Schedule this year of any time in recent history and it's not even close. For the first time in recent history, TU played OU and OSU decently under him.

It is possible to get worse than this. Ask KU fans and see the hype when they brought in Turner Gill. Imagine instead of losing because of missing a chip-shot field goal (twice lately and a number of times recently), you get blown out 56-13 week-in week-out. That's what could happen if TU splurges on the flavour of the week coach. Or maybe they are extremely successful and get TU to 0.500 in year 1 and bowling and maybe 10 wins the next year! Just like Montgomery did! He has been a legitimately good coach. If he could've recruited a decent kicker, he might even look like a great coach. An average coach would have the 90th-109th ranked classes playing just like that. Montgomery has them playing 85th! Slightly better!

 

[TheGoldenTulsas]

This is the same "we're poor little TU, woe is us, we're just lucky to be here" BS that we have on the academic side, too. It's Doug Wojick. And yet we manage to succeed when we have the right people who believe we can and focus on finding ways to do it rather than whining about how hard it is.

It's not BS when it is true. When has the basketball succeeded recently? When has the football succeeded in the American Conference? 1 season under Montgomery and nothing since... (Haith is doing no better than Wojik win percentage wise) TU fan support is severely lacking and almost always has been (Mostly that Tulsans do not show up to support TU). I remember Graham complaining about how sad it was to be undefeated only to come home to a half empty stadium.

TU is lucky to be in the American Conference when you consider how few people attend games and how little money C-USA teams get along with how watered down that conference has become. TU would have trouble competing in that conference with the quality of recruits they've gotten over the last 6 years. And maybe fan support would be even worse (already bottom in conference). It's nice how Navy fans show up so that someone gets to enjoy the nice Chapman stadium.

 

[chito_and_leon]

What if Montgomery is actually a great coach and is doing as good or better job at keeping competitive than most any other coach would? He's kept them in games vs now 5 top-25 caliber opponents this year (and 1 win vs a borderline top-25 Wyoming team). TU has had by far their toughest Strength of Schedule this year of any time in recent history and it's not even close. For the first time in recent history, TU played OU and OSU decently under him.

It is possible to get worse than this. Ask KU fans and see the hype when they brought in Turner Gill. Imagine instead of losing because of missing a chip-shot field goal (twice lately and a number of times recently), you get blown out 56-13 week-in week-out. That's what could happen if TU splurges on the flavour of the week coach. Or maybe they are extremely successful and get TU to 0.500 in year 1 and bowling and maybe 10 wins the next year! Just like Montgomery did! He has been a legitimately good coach. If he could've recruited a decent kicker, he might even look like a great coach. An average coach would have the 90th-109th ranked classes playing just like that. Montgomery has them playing 85th! Slightly better!

I lived through Burns. You don't have to tell me about things getting worse. We've had too much success in the recent past for me to believe that suddenly it isn't possible.

 

[TulsaGrad07]

It's not BS when it is true. When has the basketball succeeded recently? When has the football succeeded in the American Conference? 1 season under Montgomery and nothing since... (Haith is doing no better than Wojik win percentage wise) TU fan support is severely lacking and almost always has been (Mostly that Tulsans do not show up to support TU). I remember Graham complaining about how sad it was to be undefeated only to come home to a half empty stadium.

TU is lucky to be in the American Conference when you consider how few people attend games and how little money C-USA teams get along with how watered down that conference has become. TU would have trouble competing in that conference with the quality of recruits they've gotten over the last 6 years. And maybe fan support would be even worse (already bottom in conference). It's nice how Navy fans show up so that someone gets to enjoy the nice Chapman stadium.

You know why most Tulsans aren't interested in TU sports? It's because they find a sense of identify in rooting for OU (even if they never made it to college). I think the only people who cheer for OSU are alumni, similar to TU, since OSU hasn't had any really prominent national attention since Jimmy and Barry were tearing it up in the early 80s. One of my oldest friends who I grew up with in Tulsa, went to OSU and he cheers for friggin Oklahoma! How the hell do you attend OSU and then cheer for OU? I could convince him to go to a few TU games with me before I moved away, and he'd talk about going to games as a kid because his dad spent a year at TU, but he had zero interest in cheering for TU unless they were on TV and it wasn't conflicting with watching OU. Not sure how this can be fixed. Apathy and bandwaggon dip$hits are a massive force to overcome.

 

[chito_and_leon]

It's not BS when it is true. When has the basketball succeeded recently? When has the football succeeded in the American Conference? 1 season under Montgomery and nothing since... (Haith is doing no better than Wojik win percentage wise) TU fan support is severely lacking and almost always has been (Mostly that Tulsans do not show up to support TU). I remember Graham complaining about how sad it was to be undefeated only to come home to a half empty stadium..

Hiring bad coaches and being tied into long, bad contracts isn't the same as not being able to compete - that's bad university and athletics department leadership. Texas sucked recently. Does that mean they can't compete at the D1 level? USC has sucked lately. Should they go to the WAC? Bad admin uses their own incompetence to attack athletics. It's the same old thing. They either say "we screwed up" or they say "it can't be done." If you're interested in nothing but old #1, you'll get the second answer every time. Might as well hire Wojick as athletic director.

 

[TulsaGrad07]

I'd start with canning this redneck loser of a coach from Fart Water Gulch, TX who can't recruit his own testicles to try and win a football game, let alone convince good players to join his gang of lovable losers. Second, I'd stop making every week a lottery of what the uniforms are going to look like. It's a retarded gimmick!! Be consistent!!! Gold pants, blue shirt, gold helmets. Done! No ******ry with all white jerseys, or black helmets with blue lettering, or any of that crap. Teams that have national prominence don't have a jersey lottery from week to week (the only exception being Oregon, and they suck again thankfully). Lastly, hold coaches accountable. Make the contract based on your ability to WIN GAMES. Just like the rest of us in the real world, if we don't get the job done, we get fired. If we exceed expectations, we get bonuses. Why the HELL doesn't that apply to college football coaches?

 

[HuffyCane]

We won’t get any legitimate candidates but I won’t mind looking at a candidate who is a proven fundraiser as an assistant and giving him a substantial percentage of funds raised where he is the procuring cause and it’s a first time donor to TU.

 

[maverickfp]

What if Montgomery is actually a great coach and is doing as good or better job at keeping competitive than most any other coach would? He's kept them in games vs now 5 top-25 caliber opponents this year (and 1 win vs a borderline top-25 Wyoming team). TU has had by far their toughest Strength of Schedule this year of any time in recent history and it's not even close. For the first time in recent history, TU played OU and OSU decently under him.

It is possible to get worse than this. Ask KU fans and see the hype when they brought in Turner Gill. Imagine instead of losing because of missing a chip-shot field goal (twice lately and a number of times recently), you get blown out 56-13 week-in week-out. That's what could happen if TU splurges on the flavour of the week coach. Or maybe they are extremely successful and get TU to 0.500 in year 1 and bowling and maybe 10 wins the next year! Just like Montgomery did! He has been a legitimately good coach. If he could've recruited a decent kicker, he might even look like a great coach. An average coach would have the 90th-109th ranked classes playing just like that. Montgomery has them playing 85th! Slightly better!

Whats the difference in losing by 1 or 40?

Its still an L. And this coach is an L.

 

[Li'l Eric Coley]

I'd start with canning this redneck loser of a coach from Fart Water Gulch, TX who can't recruit his own testicles to try and win a football game

lol, went camping at Fart Water Gulch one time. Nice place.

 

[Tulsa76]

I think TU fits fine in the AAC and they do want to maintain athletic alliances with geographic and historical ties like Memphis, Houston, and SMU. Wichita State makes it even more of a place they want to be.

Funny you mention Wichita State! They dropped football years ago and review restarting it again every few years but, as yet, see no net benefit to the university. They developed a consistent top tier D1 basketball program partially due to the financial stability created by addressing their football problems.

 

[Raisin_Cane]

I will go to my grave reminding anyone who will listen that Tulsa will never out recruit the conference. It’s like saying we’re going to have more students and a higher revenue than the rest of the conference.

Tulsa’s chance at success as an athletic department is to be the most efficient department possible. Spend money correctly. Invest in proven winners in Olympic sports (Track, Soccer, Softball, Tennis etc.). Focus on coaches who are great talent evaluators and teachers in revenue sports (Football, Basketball). And most importantly - Retention. You need to hit on diamonds in the rough in recruiting but you also need to make sure you’re not losing important depth from kids who fail out or are character risks. Quality depth becomes more important when you can’t rely on out-athleting everyone else.

 

[texcane1982]

Losing close games; especially due to missed FG's is a coaching problem, not a level competetion problem. It only takes a competent HC to thrive at TU.

TX