So I got to thinking about firing

[mount lefroy]

Coaches prematurely and the effects it has.

So, I keep going back to OM firing Cuttcliff. MANY did not buy the excuses OM made when they pushed him out. And wha la....Orgeron. That coaching search was painful too.should have been fired so did OM recover with a big name? Well yes and no. They got a Nutt. Was that who they wanted? Eh...Nope. But he did get them to two cotton bowls in 08 and 09. Then the bottom fell out in 10 &11. He did need to be fired. So now we come to Freeze. Was it a good hire? Absolutely. But was it the kind of hire they were looking for? Perhaps. But would Ole Miss pass up a proven HC if given the choice? Not back then. Freeze was what they NEEDED, not what they wanted. And now we are at Luke.

I cannot help but wonder with the series of hires: has Ole Miss struggled to make hires because of the perception the country got when Cutcliff was fired? Will their disfunctional athletics department cause them to struggle again to find a splash hire?

Should we be a bit cautious ?

 

[PBRME]

Ole Miss fans didn’t like Cutcliffe because he shows no emotions. We made fun of them for firing a solid coach for an idiot full of emotions.

This season reminded me of this as I listened to people wanting to get rid of Joe because he doesn’t show emotions. All you can really do is shake your head in disbelief.

 

[paindonthurt_]

They fired cutcliff bc of recruiting. Plain and simple.

 

[BiscuitEater]

Think Luke us perfect for Ole Miss. He is 'one of them!'

 

[mount lefroy]

They fired cutcliff bc of recruiting. Plain and simple.

They fired Cutcliff because of the PERCEPTION of poor recruiting. They replaced him with a good recruiter who couldn’t coach.

My point is that Cutt wasn’t a bad coach and has continued to prove that.

And I think om has a reputation they can’t shake.

 

[WutheringDawg]

wah la : voila :: premadonna : prima donna

 

[StillTbonewannabe]

They fired cutcliff bc of recruiting. Plain and simple.

Cutcliff didn't work with the Network so they fired him.

 

[RocketDawg]

I was wondering what "wah la" meant ....

 

[anon1787432961]

Cut also fired partially for having their Lord and savior son of Manning gift to college football and not winning the West.

 

[RutherfordBHayes]

How you fire your coach is an integral part in the process of hiring his replacement. Fire him prematurely, and you’ll struggle getting the attention of candidates with options.

Cutcliffe is a perfect example. He was a well respected coach in the business that was perceived as doing a good job. Olemiss fires him, and nobody wanted the job. They panicked and hired a DL coach from SC.

Hot take, but the same thing happened with Stansbury. We ended up with an assistant from a lower tier ACC school.

 

[L4Dawg]

How you fire your coach is an integral part in the process of hiring his replacement. Fire him prematurely, and you’ll struggle getting the attention of candidates with options.

Cutcliffe is a perfect example. He was a well respected coach in the business that was perceived as doing a good job. Olemiss fires him, and nobody wanted the job. They panicked and hired a DL coach from SC.

Hot take, but the same thing happened with Stansbury. We ended up with an assistant from a lower tier ACC school.

Ole Miss/Cut Us/Stans were pretty much equal in national perception. MSU folks will never agree with that but it's the truth, at least in the effects on the subsequent hire. Now on killing potential upside I don't think it's close. Stans is a decent coach. Lord knows I didn't want to see him run off when we did it because of what I saw (rightly) as the downside effect on the next hire. That being said his upside wasn't much more than what he had already done. That's still better than where we are now. Cutcliff on the other hand is a DAMN good coach. If the Confederates had kept him there is no telling where they would be now. Look at what he has done at DUKE, in FOOTBALL. He was their REAL next Vaught, not Freeze. They fired him because he wouldn't play their game in recruiting.

 

[wtw2400]

Hot take, but the same thing happened with Stansbury. We ended up with an assistant from a lower tier ACC school.

Not a hot take. It's what happened. It's taken us 6 years to get to that point again. We should've given Stansbury another year for him to clean up the mess. But it is what it is now. We've lost a generation of Mississippi State Basketball fans as a result.

 

[BigDog72.sixpack]

I had a family member married to a coach at Ole Miss (not football) and he told me back then that Cut. did not allow the games to be played as Ole Miss had been playing them i.e. Billy Brewer. He threw the boosters out of the dressing room and restricted G.A.'s and managers from funneling "funds" into the dressing rooms after games. This did not sit well with the plantation. Cutcliffe was a good guy that was trying to do things the right way, but the plantation is dirty and so he was removed and replaced with one who would "go along" with the plantation. Plain and simple. I live in Birmingham and worked with an individual who grew up with David C. and had nothing but honorable things to say about him as well. Unfortunately, you can't change things at the plantation! You just insert a new master who plays to the owners wishes.

 

[Clarence Boddicker]

That is why Freeze was so perfect for them. Good coach who portrayed the public perception of being good but also let the boosters operate in the background. I'll never understand how they manage to screw that up. All they had to do was slightly curb their greed. Let Alabama and Georgia fight over Tunsil.

 

[coach66]

Yep, boosters had unprecedented access under Freeze and it had a lot to do

with them going down.

 

[vhdawg]

I had a family member married to a coach at Ole Miss (not football) and he told me back then that Cut. did not allow the games to be played as Ole Miss had been playing them i.e. Billy Brewer. He threw the boosters out of the dressing room and restricted G.A.'s and managers from funneling "funds" into the dressing rooms after games. This did not sit well with the plantation. Cutcliffe was a good guy that was trying to do things the right way, but the plantation is dirty and so he was removed and replaced with one who would "go along" with the plantation. Plain and simple. I live in Birmingham and worked with an individual who grew up with David C. and had nothing but honorable things to say about him as well. Unfortunately, you can't change things at the plantation! You just insert a new master who plays to the owners wishes.

I also know someone from Birmingham who grew up with Cutcliffe and has the same things to say about him as your guy.

 

[VegasDawg13]

Cutcliff on the other hand is a DAMN good coach. If the Confederates had kept him there is no telling where they would be now. Look at what he has done at DUKE, in FOOTBALL. He was their REAL next Vaught, not Freeze.

This is overkill.

"Look at what he has done at DUKE, in FOOTBALL..."

He's turned them into a solid program that never even remotely approaches greatness. The consistency is impressive, and I agree he's a good coach. You're overstating what he's accomplished at Duke, though. They're in a truly trash division, and have only finished better than 4th twice in his 11 years.

 

[L4Dawg]

Turning Duke FOOTBALL into a solid program IS greatness. The only other one to do it in recent memory is Steve Spurrier.

 

[johnson86-1]

Ole Miss/Cut Us/Stans were pretty much equal in national perception. MSU folks will never agree with that but it's the truth, at least in the effects on the subsequent hire. Now on killing potential upside I don't think it's close. Stans is a decent coach. Lord knows I didn't want to see him run off when we did it because of what I saw (rightly) as the downside effect on the next hire. That being said his upside wasn't much more than what he had already done. That's still better than where we are now. Cutcliff on the other hand is a DAMN good coach. If the Confederates had kept him there is no telling where they would be now. Look at what he has done at DUKE, in FOOTBALL. He was their REAL next Vaught, not Freeze. They fired him because he wouldn't play their game in recruiting.

Cutcliffe and Duke are a perfect match. The same type of players that aren't interested in playing the recruiting games are the types of players that would really be intrigued by the value of Duke being on their degree. It also helps that he is at a basketball school. Most places would eventually want to see the program take the next step. Duke will be happy being respectable as long as Cutcliff wants to coach.

That said, while Ole Miss was dumb for firing Cutcliffe after just one losing season, I don't think he was going to turn it around at Ole Miss. A guy who played for him said the players didn't respect him at all, and would do things like walk away from him while he was talking to them, and he was too passive to stop it. Said he could clearly coach, but that a lot of the type players that Ole Miss had (and probably exist on most SEC teams) simply would not respond to somebody that treated them like a responsible adult. Also said recruiting was dropping off a cliff. So he was basically going to have clean recruiting without the draw of a duke degree, and competing in the SEC west. I can see how Ole Miss thought that was going to be a disaster and panicked.

Also, the guy said that Boone was not actually intending to fire Cutcliffe. They had a plan to hire some assistants to help with the recruiting and enforce discipline and told Cutcliffe who he was going to fire to make room, and Cutcliffe refused. Boone was a moron and didn't consider that Cutcliffe would just refuse, and felt like he had to fire him. This part was obviously not first hand info, so it might not have been true, but he would have the contacts that would have known, so it seems plausible to me that it was true.

 

[maroonmadman]

Not too many weeks ago there was a very vocal contingent on this board that wanted to do worse to dear old State and fire Jo Mo at the halfway point of his first season.

Maybe this thread will open the eyes of the knee jerk reactionaries on here as to what an unmitigated disaster that would have been. No coach worth half a sack of wet **** would have been willing to come here had we followed through on such bad advise. We'd have been lucky to hire a Croom clone had we fired Jo Mo in his first season.

 

[Clarence Boddicker]

Not too many weeks ago there was a very vocal contingent on this board that wanted to do worse to dear old State and fire Jo Mo at the halfway point of his first season.

Maybe this thread will open the eyes of the knee jerk reactionaries on here as to what an unmitigated disaster that would have been. No coach worth half a sack of wet **** would have been willing to come here had we followed through on such bad advise. We'd have been lucky to hire a Croom clone had we fired Jo Mo in his first season.

Really. You're going to base the pulse of the fanbase off a few idiots here.

Maybe you're the real idiot.

 

[DudyDog]

Yep, boosters had unprecedented access under Freeze and it had a lot to do with them going down.

Wait. ****! All this time I thought Leo and Kobe brought them down.

 

[maroonmadman]

Really. You're going to base the pulse of the fanbase off a few idiots here.

Maybe you're the real idiot.

At no point in my statement did I say this was the pulse of the entire fanbase. I accurately described them as "a very vocal contingent", which is an accurate description. I declined to call them "a few idiots" because childish name calling does not make valid points. It simply reveals lack of maturity. Furthermore I make this point as to thwart any attempts for 'the inmates to run the asylum' as has obviously happened to our loathe some arch rival up north. We should be ever vigilant and on guard so as to prevent this from occurring here.


To take it even further, we are at a cusp of time where we can render immense damage to said arch rival and place a good deal of distance between us and them a long as we don't 17 it up. Allowing said vocal contingents to operate unchecked is to invite, upon us, the same type of cluster 17 that is happening, right now, at ole miss.

 

[paindonthurt_]

Agreed.

 

[mount lefroy]

Cutcliffe and Duke are a perfect match. The same type of players that aren't interested in playing the recruiting games are the types of players that would really be intrigued by the value of Duke being on their degree. It also helps that he is at a basketball school. Most places would eventually want to see the program take the next step. Duke will be happy being respectable as long as Cutcliff wants to coach.

That said, while Ole Miss was dumb for firing Cutcliffe after just one losing season, I don't think he was going to turn it around at Ole Miss. A guy who played for him said the players didn't respect him at all, and would do things like walk away from him while he was talking to them, and he was too passive to stop it. Said he could clearly coach, but that a lot of the type players that Ole Miss had (and probably exist on most SEC teams) simply would not respond to somebody that treated them like a responsible adult. Also said recruiting was dropping off a cliff. So he was basically going to have clean recruiting without the draw of a duke degree, and competing in the SEC west. I can see how Ole Miss thought that was going to be a disaster and panicked.

Also, the guy said that Boone was not actually intending to fire Cutcliffe. They had a plan to hire some assistants to help with the recruiting and enforce discipline and told Cutcliffe who he was going to fire to make room, and Cutcliffe refused. Boone was a moron and didn't consider that Cutcliffe would just refuse, and felt like he had to fire him. This part was obviously not first hand info, so it might not have been true, but he would have the contacts that would have known, so it seems plausible to me that it was true.

Your story is pr bunk. I’m not saying you are. Cutcliff was not trying to run a clean program by any stretch. He just wasn’t going to allow boosters to dictate scheme or coaches. Probably was not good of him to take the hard stand BUT when it all went down he wasn’t the one that looked bad.

They can justify the firing all they want, but I haven’t witnessed them hire anyone of a national brand and they are a school that would seemingly prioritize that very thing.

It could be more that om has the rep of allowing boosters too much control and that threatens potential hires.

Whatever it is, they will be at a crossroads with the next hire:

Same old same old, or get the leadership to turn over a new leaf.

And then again, they may not have much of a choice.

 

[CoastRat.sixpack]

I stopped reading at "wah la."

 

[RutherfordBHayes]

I had a family member married to a coach at Ole Miss (not football) and he told me back then that Cut. did not allow the games to be played as Ole Miss had been playing them i.e. Billy Brewer. He threw the boosters out of the dressing room and restricted G.A.'s and managers from funneling "funds" into the dressing rooms after games. This did not sit well with the plantation. Cutcliffe was a good guy that was trying to do things the right way, but the plantation is dirty and so he was removed and replaced with one who would "go along" with the plantation. Plain and simple. I live in Birmingham and worked with an individual who grew up with David C. and had nothing but honorable things to say about him as well. Unfortunately, you can't change things at the plantation! You just insert a new master who plays to the owners wishes.

Solid truth, here.
It's their culture. Just look at the number of sideline passes they give out to alumni, boosters, kids, etc. There are literally hundreds of non-staff and non-media on the field. Incidentally, I have had sideline passes at MSU (not from AD, but media press-pass because this particular "medium" quit going to games... Croom era). It can be downright dangerous down there. Certainly not kid friendly.

 

[johnson86-1]

Your story is pr bunk. I’m not saying you are. Cutcliff was not trying to run a clean program by any stretch. He just wasn’t going to allow boosters to dictate scheme or coaches. Probably was not good of him to take the hard stand BUT when it all went down he wasn’t the one that looked bad.

To be clear, my friend never said Cutcliff was running a clean program. He just that recruiting was falling off a cliff without giving a reason why other than obviously it had to do with Cutcliffe. The comment about clean recruitng was my editorializing, but I meant clean for an SEC program; I have no illusion that they were really being clean (just like we weren't really being clean during the Crooms years, although we were clean for the SEC). And I don't have any insight into whether they were any cleaner than under other coaches; that was just my guess that Cutcliffe would at the least not want to know about anything, and possibly might not be comfortable with anything obvious even if he didnt' technically have any knowledge of it.

But the story about some of the players openly disrespecting him you can pretty much take to the bank.

They can justify the firing all they want, but I haven’t witnessed them hire anyone of a national brand and they are a school that would seemingly prioritize that very thing.

It could be more that om has the rep of allowing boosters too much control and that threatens potential hires.

Whatever it is, they will be at a crossroads with the next hire:

Same old same old, or get the leadership to turn over a new leaf.

And then again, they may not have much of a choice.