I never said that Buck was overpaid, you said that we under pay administrators by at least 50% and I disagreed. Buck makes the same, if not more, than administrators at similar and larger institutions. You said look at Creighton, Drake, Marquette so I did. We don’t underpay administrators. My point is simply that you are once again talking out of you *** and have no idea what you are talking about.
Monty staying.
- Thread starter jerandlaur
- Start date
I never said that Buck was overpaid, you said that we under pay administrators by at least 50% and I disagreed. Buck makes the same, if not more, than administrators at similar and larger institutions. You said look at Creighton, Drake, Marquette so I did. We don’t underpay administrators. My point is simply that you are once again talking out of you *** and have no idea what you are talking about.
Are you Rick James? you (and others) said he made significantly more than his peers four years ago, without knowing the context of that payment (cash out retirement perhaps) and you said we have no idea what he made last year.
So, forgive me for stating SMU pays their guy 50% more when it’s actually 28% and I haven’t looked at the numbers in years as I disclosed at that time. I suspect you found similar numbers at Tulane and others but didn’t bother to post those. That doesn’t make the overall point any less correct, which I thank you for taking time to prove. Have a good day
Revolving coaches means inevitably that one of the new hires won't turn out the way you desire. A-La Bill Blankenship. I'm hoping that Monty can be Tulsa's version of Jay Wright in basketball... meaning he starts off slowly, but the extra time we gave him really helped build a program.
BINGO! Someone needs to call into Pop's show to throw this out there to Gragg. Maybe Monty's 1st year you want to see an improvement to where the team is competitive. After that it's all about the W's and L's.
Hell, Kragthorpe came in and simply said that the team needed to learn how to win again and find some success. If there was ever a team where the coaching deficiencies of the staff before it were thrust in front of everyone, it was Kragthorpe's 1st team. Still all the same players in key roles from Burns' consecutive 1-11 teams, and yet Kragthorpe coaches them to an 8-4 regular season. Coaching matters in those close games. This team won 4 games and, IMO (and I've said it since the 2nd week of the season), this team probably should have won 9-10 games. Coaching inadequacy, and mostly because his attention is divided and he doesn't value special teams, is the reason we only won 4.
I disagree that this team should have won more games. Look at our recruiting. I am not saying that this is the fault of kids, I am saying that our recruiting is terrible. Seriously, look at the number of players we have whose only other offers were DII and FCS schools. Monty can't recruit, he just can't.
You should change your name to Trump, neither of you can admit when you are wrong and you are both always talking out go your ***.
Just for fun, here's the trend line for win%. The orange is Blankenship. Not a lot of difference there
And 7 point games
We fired Blankenship, an alum, after two losing seasons. We are on three with Monty.
My guess is your chart would match for Rader and Burns. Also fired.
You know who won't match that? Krag and Graham.
Ratings are fun, but we have seen lots of misses. It is clear we have the talent capable of a winning season, but we do not have the results to match the offensive and defensive talent.
People talk about the three phases of the game but really there are four. Offense, defense, special teams, and coaching. We are deficient in two of those and special teams can be attributed to coaching. Monty does not treat it as important, has not committed the necessary resources (coaching/recruiting) and the results show. The same can be said of his game management decisions.
That is why we are losing, not because of talent, our budget, etc.
Guys like Zaven Collins, Cooper Edmiston and Trevis Gipson?
Yep I was agreeing with you. Just wanted to show visually what the trend actually looks like right now vs a guy that we fired (not unfairly) after two fewer seasons.
If you notice on your chart: Monty has had one season of regression with improvement in every other season (albeit minor improvement). Moreover, Monty wasn't handed the quality of team Blankenship was. Blankenship tanked a good program and had two consecutive seasons of regression and Blankenship ate quite a few losses to straight up bad teams and his teams weren't at all competitive in his final two seasons.
Also, if you look at our average margin of victory each season, Blankenships' two worst seasons were far worse than Monty's.
In Blank's two losing seasons we had average MOV's of -12.8 and -14.6. We were just getting our heads kicked in.
In Monty's losing seasons (not including the bowl loss season) we've had -8.2, -7.0, -4.9.
Please remember that in Blanks' -12.8 season, he returned his entire starting offense from an 11-3 team. That's when we realized he couldn't run an offense to save his life and it was Graham's defense that saved him early on. Monty, during his worst seasons had to deal with serious QB injuries and his teams still performed better than Blank's teams did against a much tougher conference slate.
Not saying Monty's performance has been acceptable... but he's had a lot of bad luck in terms of major blown officiating calls He's not nearly as bad as Blank was.
In Blank's two losing seasons we had average MOV's of -12.8 and -14.6. We were just getting our heads kicked in.
In Monty's losing seasons (not including the bowl loss season) we've had -8.2, -7.0, -4.9.
Please remember that in Blanks' -12.8 season, he returned his entire starting offense from an 11-3 team. That's when we realized he couldn't run an offense to save his life and it was Graham's defense that saved him early on. Monty, during his worst seasons had to deal with serious QB injuries and his teams still performed better than Blank's teams did against a much tougher conference slate.
Not saying Monty's performance has been acceptable... but he's had a lot of bad luck in terms of major blown officiating calls He's not nearly as bad as Blank was.
This isn't a Blankenship/Monty team strength comparison. By pretty much every metric Monty's terrible teams have been better than Blankenship's terrible teams. The point is that they're still terrible football teams and we've lost 2/3 or more of our games for 3 years straight.
I wouldn't call this year a garbage team. I would call them mediocre. They under performed their overall talent level. But they were by no means "bad". Most of our conference mates all recognized us as dangerous due to our performance on the field.
We went 4-8 and whether you look at SP+ or Sagarin or any other rating we are bottom 1/3 of D1. We weren't embarrassingly bad, but we were still bad.
We'll probably win 7 or so next year with all our seniors, but no one thinks of us as a team that's going to compete for the conference and that's kind of the problem. Next year seems like it might be our high point for a while.
Last edited:
Depending on which metric you use we're in the range of 75-63 out of 130. If it's 63, that's pretty middle of the pack. And those numbers likely tick up a bit if a kick is made in the SMU or Memphis games, or if SMU doesn't get awarded a fake first down to keep their desperate drives going. Or if we don't have a phantom overturn on a 99 yd TD against Navy that completely changed the momentum of the game.
And we won two close games that we nearly gave away as well. We were awfully close to a 2 win season. I grant you that we have been worse and could be worse, but there's no way to spin 4-8 into anything but bad.
2015 was very nearly a 4-8 season. That 10 win team could easily have finished at 6-6. Monty has 4 wins against teams that have finished with winning records in his 5 years as coach (he had 2 in his first 4 years). Sure there have been some bad beats and bad calls but there's also been plenty of luck (double-doink field goal) to balance it out.
How could anyone possibly argue with this point?? Generally when you suck, you get the other team's worst performance. And even so the best we can do is "in moral victories, we were 6-6". Sheesh.
LOL, Huffy is a lot of fun to argue with but he has a PhD in "playing fast and lose with the facts." It's a lot of work to debate him because you have to fact check the hell out of everything.
I believe the study showed that administration costs in total at TU were among the highest in the country and the % of funding spent on education was among the lowest. The use of percentages automatically adjusts for size/revenue. It says we do less with more. That can obviously mean way too many administrators (from leaders who care more about building fiefdoms than helping the university) as well as high salaries for person X or Y relative to all other schools.
Buck responded to the study and did not raise Huffy's points (unlike Huffy, he can't say "what, I forgot to carry a 1, I looked at the wrong column, it was in euros, it's not my fault!"). In fact, he did not dispute it at all other than to say the data weren't current - while refusing to provide current numbers. Moving from the 5th worst in the country to, say, the 3rd worst in the country is "the numbers aren't current", too. I have no doubt that if the new numbers helped the administration, they would have published them. And they did not. Feel free to read a lot into that.
Last edited:
To take a page out of the late Dennis Green:
"They are who we thought they were, and Gragg let 'em off the hook!"
Wow. 4 wins against teams with winning records in five years.
Hard to argue that statistic. More powerful than any conjecture, excuse or musing.
Bill Blankenship is no longer the Head Football Coach at The University of Tulsa. Many of you argued that two losing seasons were unacceptable and he needed to be terminated and he was.
Phillip Montgomery is the Head Coach of The University of Tulsa. He has had three consecutive losing seasons. He never won a conference championship or division championship. He has made numerous very bad coaching decisions. If his name were Bill Blankenship you would be calling for his termination. Bottom line take the name out of the decision, the record warrants a termination!
Phillip Montgomery is the Head Coach of The University of Tulsa. He has had three consecutive losing seasons. He never won a conference championship or division championship. He has made numerous very bad coaching decisions. If his name were Bill Blankenship you would be calling for his termination. Bottom line take the name out of the decision, the record warrants a termination!
Theres a saying about those little white specks in bird crap... they are bird crap too..
As I pointed out with the MOV’s there’s more to the story than just record. Bill’s momentum with the program was bad and was trending worse as he was let go. Monty’s has been improving albeit slowly.
It's true that there's more to it than record. For example in 2017 we were 103 in S/P+ and in 2018 we were 107. In Sagarin we went from 108 to 113. So seems we were trending worse until this season.
The only reason those numbers increased this year is the level of competition which multiplies any positives in those sort of metrics. Never mind there is little statistical difference in moving 3-5 spots.
In the end though only one set of numbers decide success, wins and losses. Monty doesn't have the numbers to keep the support of fans. Our attendance will reflect the commitment of the school, which is none. This isn't a close call. It wasn't close last year either and they gave excuses and then produced the same results with the extra year. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Monty has stated over and over again he won't change and it's fairly obvious since nearly everything else has changed in his coaching tenure (support staff, players, coaches, etc) that he is the issue.
I was fine giving him this year. He had a good D1 QB and an experienced defense coming back so I thought it was worth showing a little faith, considering I had heard he turned down some job interviews after our 10-3 year. On top of that I'm in the minority of people who think he's a decent coach. It just doesn't seem to me that he's quite good enough for the challenges a coach has to deal with here.
Better record in 2018 and we competed with better teams in terms of USF and Texas in 2018. The only decent games in 2017 that we played were Toledo and Houston. Our margin of victory (or more appropriately margin of loss) was also lower in 2018.
That's fair. I could have seen him being let go this season if TU was in better financial straights, and if we weren't looking at having to replace Frank too at some point.
Finances as they are, I understand the decision to allow him another year. I don't think this is Blankenship / Burns era bad. His team has talent on both sides of the ball. If / when Monty is replaced, the new coach will have some things left in the cupboard to cook with. Hopefully our admin requires him to get an OC to help him manage the games. I don't even care if the new OC doesn't call the plays. I just want someone on the sidelines with him telling him what we're all able to see late in games.
I know you aren’t a fan of my pops and to each his own but seeing you compare them is pretty hard to stomach. I played every game the last two seasons for KB when we went 2-21 and it was misery. We didn’t wear our gear on campus. There hasn’t been anything like that in the modern history of Tulsa football IMO. If you are going to say that BB won with Todd’s players (that he helped recruit) and then torpedoed the program with his own players then fine. But at least hold guys to the same standard. The cupboard wasn’t empty when Monty walked in but if you believe that then that is fine also.
Success is and has always been measured in wins and losses. Everything else is a smokescreen IMO. You either find ways to win or you find ways to lose.
Average wins per season per coach
Rader - 4
Burns - 2.33
Coach K- 7.25
TG - 9
BB - 6
Monty - 5
I know I’m not changing your opinion and also know it’s worthless to respond but I’m bored and my give a **** is busted.
I don’t agree that BB left Monty the quality of talent (overall) that Graham left BB. If Monty is handed the team that BB was in 2011 I think Monty’s numbers go up significantly. Monty’s offense is light years better than BB’s ever was and Monty also had to deal with being given a shite defensive unit by BB. I think if Monty is handed GJ, Clay, Johnson, Douglas, Watts, Burnham, Garrett, Singleton + an established O’line and a special defense with guys like Dexter Mccoill, Shawn Jackson, Jared St. John, D’andre Brown... Monty wins a conference championship in the AAC.
I guess I didn’t realize I said that...
Although Charles Clay was graduated, Damaris never played a down and Keyarris wasn’t on the roster yet but I get your point. You win
Funny thing is we don't have to argue the past or hypotheticals.
We have seen what Monty can do using a ten win season as a spring board and getting his own players, which is give us 3 wins a season on average.
There simply is no excuse, no outside factor, no explanation besides Monty is not a good coach.
This is his team.
He is in a good conference.
He has the talent.
He has a defense.
He got the QB he wanted.
He calls the plays he wants.
He makes the important game decisions.
It is all Monty's.
Rader didn't have the academic programs that players wanted and dealt with a president determined to kill football and operated as an independent.
Burns was awful and didn't have support or programs, fired after two losing seasons.
Kragthorpe got it done, dealt with the dying WAC and the move to CUSA, got some changes made and investment. One losing season.
Graham came in and kept the ball rolling and more programs, investment, and support. One losing season.
BB came in with more to start, some restrictions, the AAC move, was given four years didn't get it done. Got fired after two losing seasons.
Monty came in, more money, more exposure, had one winning season and now three straight losing seasons with the same issues cropping up from year one through five, yet he remains.
We have seen what Monty can do using a ten win season as a spring board and getting his own players, which is give us 3 wins a season on average.
There simply is no excuse, no outside factor, no explanation besides Monty is not a good coach.
This is his team.
He is in a good conference.
He has the talent.
He has a defense.
He got the QB he wanted.
He calls the plays he wants.
He makes the important game decisions.
It is all Monty's.
Rader didn't have the academic programs that players wanted and dealt with a president determined to kill football and operated as an independent.
Burns was awful and didn't have support or programs, fired after two losing seasons.
Kragthorpe got it done, dealt with the dying WAC and the move to CUSA, got some changes made and investment. One losing season.
Graham came in and kept the ball rolling and more programs, investment, and support. One losing season.
BB came in with more to start, some restrictions, the AAC move, was given four years didn't get it done. Got fired after two losing seasons.
Monty came in, more money, more exposure, had one winning season and now three straight losing seasons with the same issues cropping up from year one through five, yet he remains.