Your right a big name coach wouldn't have came here. However when Rich Brooks retired UK was in good shape as a program, and would have been an attractive job for a hot up and coming assistant possibly at a bigger school looking for his first head coaching gig. .

 

You are correct, for a four year span, Brooks had UK looking decent. I just wonder, was that something being built that would have continued under a better coach or was it a case where for a four year span, UK had the right kids in the program for that success and mediocrity was coming back once those kids (Woodson primarily) graduated? I can't answer that.

 

While UK did it completely wrong when they decided to just hand the job to Joker.

 

I often joke that Woodson deserves the credit for giving Joker the Coach in Waiting position. When Woodson really started to shine was close to when Joker got the OC position and many were giving Joker alot of credit for the Offensive turn around and UK was worried other programs were looking at Joker so he got the Coach in Waiting position. After Woodson left and things started to no look so rosey, I think many concluded that UK success was more due to Woodson than Joker but UK had already been promised him the job. UK made the wrong decision obviously promising him the head coaching job but I would bet numerous other AD would have done the same thing.

Realistically, who does everyone think would replace Joker if he was ousted? I'm not talking about the pipe-dreams most on here bring up (Petrino, Leach, etc.)....I'm talking about realistic options...

 

Hard to say. Depends on how serious the athletic department searches for a coach. Wasn't Parcells rumored to be taking the job at one time? I think they could get most coaches they went after IF they went after football coaches the way they went after Calipari. They can't settle. They need to go hard and make a serious play and commitment to excellence on the football as an SEC school.

Hard to say. Depends on how serious the athletic department searches for a coach. Wasn't Parcells rumored to be taking the job at one time? I think they could get most coaches they went after IF they went after football coaches the way they went after Calipari. They can't settle. They need to go hard and make a serious play and commitment to excellence on the football as an SEC school.

 

I agree. Along with a serious pay package, I think they would have to present a serious plan in how in the up coming years facilties will be improved.

You are correct, for a four year span, Brooks had UK looking decent. I just wonder, was that something being built that would have continued under a better coach or was it a case where for a four year span, UK had the right kids in the program for that success and mediocrity was coming back once those kids (Woodson primarily) graduated? I can't answer that.

 

 

 

I often joke that Woodson deserves the credit for giving Joker the Coach in Waiting position. When Woodson really started to shine was close to when Joker got the OC position and many were giving Joker alot of credit for the Offensive turn around and UK was worried other programs were looking at Joker so he got the Coach in Waiting position. After Woodson left and things started to no look so rosey, I think many concluded that UK success was more due to Woodson than Joker but UK had already been promised him the job. UK made the wrong decision obviously promising him the head coaching job but I would bet numerous other AD would have done the same thing.

 

That is why I am completely against the whole coach in waiting thing. I don't care if UK looked bad by telling Joker he was the coach in waiting, but then by the time Brooks did retire deciding to open up the search knowing they may be able to get someone better for them. UK looked bad for the firing of Billy G only after just two years, and it was the best thing they could have done. Yes UK would have looked bad changing their mind on Joker, but it would have been the best thing for the program. You could have still interviewed him, and even made him the top candidate, this way it would have taken someone to have blown them away to decide not to hire Joker. As I said Joker might have been the best candidate still after interviews, but they should have at least opened it up to see.

Realistically, who does everyone think would replace Joker if he was ousted? I'm not talking about the pipe-dreams most on here bring up (Petrino, Leach, etc.)....I'm talking about realistic options...

 

I don't think it is as much of a pipe dream as you think with those guys. Especially someone like Petrino would probably be jumping with job if a SEC team like UK would still give him a head coaching gig. From the sounds of it from what I hear Petrino has a long way to go for teams to give him another shot when it comes to a high level. So if UK did go after him, I do think UK would have a shot.

 

Now as for other people I have no idea. Right now the job wouldn't be that attractive of a job. Back when Brooks retired it would have been, and could have gotten a top up and coming assistant from a big program, or a top up and coming head coach from a smaller conference. Now who knows, who they could get.

That is why I am completely against the whole coach in waiting thing.

 

Sometimes it works, sometimes it blows up in your face. For Mitch, it blew up in his face.

 

I don't care if UK looked bad by telling Joker he was the coach in waiting, but then by the time Brooks did retire deciding to open up the search knowing they may be able to get someone better for them. UK looked bad for the firing of Billy G only after just two years, and it was the best thing they could have done. Yes UK would have looked bad changing their mind on Joker, but it would have been the best thing for the program. You could have still interviewed him, and even made him the top candidate, this way it would have taken someone to have blown them away to decide not to hire Joker. As I said Joker might have been the best candidate still after interviews, but they should have at least opened it up to see.

 

I don't know about UK screwing over Joker by opening up the job to the public. That would be a HUGE PR nightmare and frankly a slap in the face to Joker. I am assuming Joker was given the Coach in Waiting position because at that time, other schools were contacting him so he agreed to stick around if the job was his once Brooks retired. That would almost leave the message, "All we care about is winning, the hell with the integrity of the program." If I were a coach and a school did that and then I was one of the coaches they asked to talk to, I probably wouldn't return the call, I wouldn't want to work for an AD who can't keep his commitments to his coaches.

 

I don't think you can compare this to Billy Clyde. Not only was Billy Clyde losing, story after story was leaking out about how he was treating his players, he wasn't living up to commitments to the school in meeting with alumni groups, etc., etc., etc.. Billy's own behavior justified his early dismissal.

If they did get rid of Joker, any chance they try and get Petrino?

 

Not as long as Mitch Barnhart is AD.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it blows up in your face. For Mitch, it blew up in his face.

 

 

 

I don't know about UK screwing over Joker by opening up the job to the public. That would be a HUGE PR nightmare and frankly a slap in the face to Joker. I am assuming Joker was given the Coach in Waiting position because at that time, other schools were contacting him so he agreed to stick around if the job was his once Brooks retired. That would almost leave the message, "All we care about is winning, the hell with the integrity of the program." If I were a coach and a school did that and then I was one of the coaches they asked to talk to, I probably wouldn't return the call, I wouldn't want to work for an AD who can't keep his commitments to his coaches.

 

I don't think you can compare this to Billy Clyde. Not only was Billy Clyde losing, story after story was leaking out about how he was treating his players, he wasn't living up to commitments to the school in meeting with alumni groups, etc., etc., etc.. Billy's own behavior justified his early dismissal.

 

It is a comparison that is fair when it comes to Billy G. Yes more stories kept coming out about how he treated player in this area, but not really nation wide. From a national perspective it probably looked like we just got rid of the guy because we were losing, and did only care about winning and didn't give him a chance to build the program like he wanted. However UK did the right thing because it was what was best for the program, even though it did look bad doing it after just two years.

 

So yeah it would have looked bad if they opened it up for interviews after Brooks retired, but if it what was best for the program then that is what matters. I mean schools have had coaches in waiting who still end up leaving to take another job, so why can't a school change their mind too?

The school needs to do what was best for the program, which if they went out an interviewed and got someone who actuall did a good job unlike Joker. I guarntee then not many people would have cared about UK doing that.

I just want them to be competitive with whomever the coach is. Losing by 30 & 40 to teams on the same level is just plain embarrassing.

 

Regardless, I'm a life-long fan.

A bowl game and not losing games 54-3 or 48-10 like last year. If he loses to WKU, Samford, Kent State then I will jump back on the Mike Leach wagon.

I want Joker to stay forever:popcorn:

Isn't Leach the coach that made an injured player stay in a shed during a Texas Tech practice? Billy Clyde made Harrelson stay in a bathroom stall during halftime of an away game, and then made him ride back to campus in an equipment van. UK doesn't need Leach and his draconian ways no more than they needed Billy Clyde.

It is a comparison that is fair when it comes to Billy G. Yes more stories kept coming out about how he treated player in this area, but not really nation wide. From a national perspective it probably looked like we just got rid of the guy because we were losing, and did only care about winning and didn't give him a chance to build the program like he wanted. However UK did the right thing because it was what was best for the program, even though it did look bad doing it after just two years.

 

So yeah it would have looked bad if they opened it up for interviews after Brooks retired, but if it what was best for the program then that is what matters. I mean schools have had coaches in waiting who still end up leaving to take another job, so why can't a school change their mind too?

The school needs to do what was best for the program, which if they went out an interviewed and got someone who actuall did a good job unlike Joker. I guarntee then not many people would have cared about UK doing that.

 

 

From a nation wide perspective maybe it did look like UK was screwing over Billy G but from the perspective that really mattered (ie coaches UK was looking at), they all knew Billy G. screwed himself and it was not UK's fault. On the other hand, if UK had pulled the offer of coach in waiting from Joker, potential coaches would absolutely look at that as screwing over Joker and I would think be leery of having much trust in Barnhart. While looking back, giving the coach in waiting to Joker was not a good idea, sticking with the agreement after the fact was the honorable thing to do and in the long run, probably the best thing to do from a perspective of future coaches having trust in any commitment Barnhart would make to them. That is why I would assert the two really cannot be compared. The only way to get out of giving Joker the head coaching job would be to give him a very rich severance package. That would give future coaches some degree of comfort that the UK athletic department either keeps its commitments to coaches or offers a compensatory package in its place.

If Joker doesn't produce this year... go gove James Franklin whatever it takes to get him from Vandy. His kids play hard!