Taking a program off the scrap heap

I remember when Kevin O'Sullivan went to Florida and let a ton of players go. On this site, some people called him all sorts of names.

Now everyone wants to play at UF.

I could give some other examples but I won't.

@TPM posted:

I remember when Kevin O'Sullivan went to Florida and let a ton of players go. On this site, some people called him all sorts of names.

Now everyone wants to play at UF.

I could give some other examples but I won't.

 

 

He took over a 48-23 (.676) program. While it won’t get you to the CWS it’s hardly the scrap heap. About 275 programs would settle for this every year. 

@RJM posted:

He took over a 48-23 (.676) program. While it won’t get you to the CWS it’s hardly the scrap heap. About 275 programs would settle for this every year. 

If I'm correct - that 48-23 team was playing in the National Championship game

I didnt say that he he took over a losing program.

I posted that when he took over he let kids go and parents were mad. Should have posted in the other topic. My bad.

There is something to be said for coaches and players taking a bottom feeder or middle of the road conference team who never won anything to a conference champion.  Team chemistry, hard work and taking chances on people can really pay off.  I'm a huge believer that chemistry can overcome talent in the short term.  I've seen it happen too many times.

When a coach is brought in to turn around what has been an under-performing program, he's not hired to repeat the performance of the past. The roster he inherited is rarely adequate to take the team to the level that the AD has in mind when he/she hires the new coach.

Significant changes are invariably required in a number of areas. Criticism from those associated in the past is predictable. Only improvement from the new staff's changes wins everyone over with time.

It's not for the faint of heart or for those who lack confidence in the decisions they make.

Imo a program is just a name and any program can be turned around given the right resources and people. In reality that is not always possible of course especially due to financial resources, available facilities, location but in theory for example the 2014 Vanderbilt team has nothing to do with the 2020 Vanderbilt team except that the tradition gives them an edge in recruiting.

Don't get me wrong, there is a reason why some teams are  consistently successful but that doesn't really have anything to do with the "legacy" of the program other than that legacy creating financial resources as well as attracting good players and coaches.

One of the worst examples of this is when there is a soccer world cup and the announcers try to interpret stats from past tournaments. Like when germany plays England and they say Germany leads the head to head in world cups 4 to 1 over England. That really means nothing since none of the players who contributed to the 4-1 record is still active.

Winning last year doesn’t mean you win this year. But legacy and reputation absolutely impact recruiting the kind of players that make winning a possibility.