Leach will be a disaster...

[Spiderman]

What? Franklin testified that if it was wide spread and occurred before and after Bassett and that the administration was complicit and wanted it all to fall on Bassett. Mumme state’s that Bell and the Admin wanted everything tied to Bassett and it was in the university’s best interest. The NCAA cut a bunch of deals with Ark, TN, GA, and Kentucky to nail the Albert Means case. Even with that they still got hit hard losing 19 scholarships and bowl eligibility. And it wasn’t a few athletes but over a dozen listed in the NCAA report and we know how that goes and how many there really were.

It's Mumme that was the HC. Why are you saying Leach is tainted? Again, name a player on that 98 team they "paid" that made them winners.

Leach hasn't had a hint of major NCAA problems since he has been a HC in 18 years.

So how has he won at 2 bottom feeding P5's at 60%? He been cheating ?

If so, he is a master at it by not getting caught

[smootness]

It's Mumme that was the HC. Why are you saying Leach is tainted? Again, name a player on that 98 team they "paid" that made them winners.

Leach hasn't had a hint of major NCAA problems since he has been a HC in 18 years.

So how has he won at 12 bottom feeding P5's at 60%? He been cheating ?

If so, he is a master at it by not getting caught

He's also a master at getting the recruiting services to underrate his studs, too, apparently.

[Really Clark?]

Regardless, they weren't able to make the players they had work nearly as well either before or after Leach.

I mean yeah,it was a bad team before they got there, cheated to get them to 7 and 6 wins tops. I’ve never said he hasn’t put up points but the actual wins and losses, with them cheating and putting up offensive numbers, still was 5, 7, 6, 2 wins. And Morriss was still running it but the NCAA investigating them during that time hurt, of course he wasn’t near as good. And I’ve never included Morriss in the discussion about his offense in the SEC like with Franklin, Brown, Sumlin with Spavtial, etc. because the investigation really hurt anything Morriss and Kentucky was trying to do at that time.

[smootness]

I mean yeah,it was a bad team before they got there, cheated to get them to 7 and 6 wins tops. I’ve never said he hasn’t put up points but the actual wins and losses, with them cheating and putting up offensive numbers, still was 5, 7, 6, 2 wins. And Morriss was still running it but the NCAA investigating them during that time hurt, of course he wasn’t near as good. And I’ve never included Morriss in the discussion about his offense in the SEC like with Franklin, Brown, Sumlin with Spavtial, etc. because the investigation really hurt anything Morriss and Kentucky was trying to do at that time.

So did the cheating start with Mumme?

And once again, tell me these players they cheated to get.

BTW: Players drafted each year at UK:
87 - 3
88 - 4
89 - 4
90 - 3
91 - 2
92 - 0
93 - 4
94 - 3
95 - 1
96 - 2
97 - 2
98 - 1
99 - 2
00 - 1
01 - 3

Man, they really loaded up those years.

[Really Clark?]

It's Mumme that was the HC. Why are you saying Leach is tainted? Again, name a player on that 98 team they "paid" that made them winners.

Leach hasn't had a hint of major NCAA problems since he has been a HC in 18 years.

So how has he won at 2 bottom feeding P5's at 60%? He been cheating ?

If so, he is a master at it by not getting caught

Whoa. I never said that but everybody keeps touting his time with Kentucky, forgetting all the other coaches from his tree that has come in trying to make it work, and how great Mumme and Leach were. I always said they put up great numbers but the wins and losses wasn’t as great and the turn around has to be contributed to them cutting corners and paying recruits as well. At no time have I said that was tied to Leach. Like I said in the very first post, that time has to have context and Kentucky was cheating massively enough to get 3 years probation, loss of a postseason and 19 scholarship reductions and this is after cutting a deal and testifying in the Bama, Logan Young, Means deal. That’s bad and you have to acknowledge that it helped. But I agree I honestly don’t think Leach was wrapped up in that at all and has never had that taint.

[sandwolf]

Napier, Sark, or Leach would all be great hires

Agreed.

[Spiderman]

I mean yeah,it was a bad team before they got there, cheated to get them to 7 and 6 wins tops. I’ve never said he hasn’t put up points but the actual wins and losses, with them cheating and putting up offensive numbers, still was 5, 7, 6, 2 wins. And Morriss was still running it but the NCAA investigating them during that time hurt, of course he wasn’t near as good. And I’ve never included Morriss in the discussion about his offense in the SEC like with Franklin, Brown, Sumlin with Spavtial, etc. because the investigation really hurt anything Morriss and Kentucky was trying to do at that time.

You keep saying they cheating to get to 7 wins. Who did they cheat to bring in that helped them win gameson offense BEFORE Leach left?

[smootness]

Whoa. I never said that but everybody keeps touting his time with Kentucky, forgetting all the other coaches from his tree that has come in trying to make it work, and how great Mumme and Leach were. I always said they put up great numbers but the wins and losses wasn’t as great and the turn around has to be contributed to them cutting corners and paying recruits as well. At no time have I said that was tied to Leach. Like I said in the very first post, that time has to have context and Kentucky was cheating massively enough to get 3 years probation, loss of a postseason and 19 scholarship reductions and this is after cutting a deal and testifying in the Bama, Logan Young, Means deal. That’s bad and you have to acknowledge that it helped. But I agree I honestly don’t think Leach was wrapped up in that at all and has never had that taint.

I do not have to acknowledge that any cheating helped because I can't identify the players they apparently got with all this cheating. And who cares what any other coaches in the tree did? We are talking about Leach. Sumlin did have some offensive success in the SEC, and it's not like he's done nearly as well in the Pac-12 as Leach has, either. You conveniently leave off Kingsbury as well.

[Really Clark?]

So did the cheating start with Mumme?

And once again, tell me these players they cheated to get.

BTW: Players drafted each year at UK:
87 - 3
88 - 4
89 - 4
90 - 3
91 - 2
92 - 0
93 - 4
94 - 3
95 - 1
96 - 2
97 - 2
98 - 1
99 - 2
00 - 1
01 - 3

Man, they really loaded up those years.

Your right. The paying of recruits didn’t happen. Kentucky didn’t turn themselves in for over a dozen of violations because they were about to get ripped with the Albert Means situation and needed a scape goat with Bassett (who was extremely dirty), and it was ridiculous they got 19 scholarship reductions.

They cheated, brought in more talent than they had, rather if they were drafted or not, they also did a good job with what was left, especially with Couch. It got them 5, 7, 6, and 2 wins.

And none of that has anything to do with how good I think Leach is. He is good. His offense has been in the league multiple times in some fashion and it’s mostly, at best, looked like it did them. Lots of points put up, get beat by a lot of points a lot as well. Or in some cases horrid. It has to be brought up has a huge question mark and study. A & M with athletes growing up running this or a version of this, recruiting at a high level and it didn’t work like they thought it would.

[Spiderman]

I do not have to acknowledge that any cheating helped because I can't identify the players they apparently got with all this cheating. And who cares what any other coaches in the tree did? We are talking about Leach. Sumlin did have some offensive success in the SEC, and it's not like he's done nearly as well in the Pac-12 as Leach has, either. You conveniently leave off Kingsbury as well.

And Lincoln Reily

Sumlin isn't half as smart as Leach. It is what it is. Here is a problem the Sumlin's, Holgo's and even Kingsbury has.... they start monkeying with the system. They keep adding to it. And that defeats the purpose of Leach's system, it's simplicity.

When you complicate things, as Leach says, you start thinking instead of playing. His deal, as I heard him say, is that the coaches should be the only ones thinking.

Holgo is famous for saying "Leach don't change shit"

What he means is if a coach comes up with a new concept Leach likes, or he does himself, they have to take an existing play out. Never over complicate things.

Another thing I heard him say is " if you practice a whole lot of stuff, you aren't practicing a whole lot."

[Santiago]

Regardless, they weren't able to make the players they had work nearly as well either before or after Leach.

Bob Stoops at the time the DC for Florida - chose Leach as his OC when he took the OU job. So the best SEC DC at the time, wanted Leach to run his offense at his first gig as HC at OU.

[deadheaddawg]

To anyone putting UKs probation on leach......I really hope you are not hypocritical enough to be one of the guys wanting HUD

[smootness]

Your right. The paying of recruits didn’t happen. Kentucky didn’t turn themselves in for over a dozen of violations because they were about to get ripped with the Albert Means situation and needed a scape goat with Bassett (who was extremely dirty), and it was ridiculous they got 19 scholarship reductions.

They cheated, brought in more talent than they had, rather if they were drafted or not, they also did a good job with what was left, especially with Couch. It got them 5, 7, 6, and 2 wins.

And none of that has anything to do with how good I think Leach is. He is good. His offense has been in the league multiple times in some fashion and it’s mostly, at best, looked like it did them. Lots of points put up, get beat by a lot of points a lot as well. Or in some cases horrid. It has to be brought up has a huge question mark and study. A & M with athletes growing up running this or a version of this, recruiting at a high level and it didn’t work like they thought it would.

You just keep saying 'they cheated' as though that clearly means they were at an unfair advantage in 97-98. When in reality, even if this cheating resulted in better players in any way (which there is no indication it actually did), those players would have started having an impact on wins around 99, after Leach left. So you could actually use the cheating in Leach's favor to say that even with better players, Kentucky could not win as much as they did when Leach was OC, which was far more than they won before that as well.

It's still on you to show how they had better players and how those players were making an impact in 97-98. Because from all other measures, it looks like it was the same old Kentucky aside from Leach's short time there.

[Spiderman]

Bob Stoops at the time the DC for Florida - chose Leach as his OC when he took the OU job. So the best SEC DC at the time, wanted Leach to run his offense at his first gig as HC at OU.

yep

[Really Clark?]

I do not have to acknowledge that any cheating helped because I can't identify the players they apparently got with all this cheating. And who cares what any other coaches in the tree did? We are talking about Leach. Sumlin did have some offensive success in the SEC, and it's not like he's done nearly as well in the Pac-12 as Leach has, either. You conveniently leave off Kingsbury as well.

No I’ve mentioned Kingsbury prior but maybe that was another thread. That’s a tough deal to place your finger own because of Manziel a Heisman player and it was the first season. So that’s a question of does he stay and the output stay the same or did it take the defenses a little bit to adjust. We do know that it was not as good with Spavital who is also directly tied to the Leach tree. Also, with how good Leach was at TT, Kingsbury was pretty below average. 35-40. So that’s a mixed bag. And I’ve also stated that Heupel had a really good second year with Mizzou. First year sucked though. I’ve also talked about how he has had a ton of offensive success everywhere he has been but some of the same issues have popped up with while he or his offense puts up a lot of points, they give it up a lot as well. In this league or even today. His record vs the SEC is very sparse so not much we can tell about that. Played UM 3 times, won 2 of those but that was in the Cutcliff days and beat Eli I believe. 0-2 since to Bama and OM (the Cotton Bowl with Nutt). So that’s hard to draw much from.

[smootness]

No I’ve mentioned Kingsbury prior but maybe that was another thread. That’s a tough deal to place your finger own because of Manziel a Heisman player and it was the first season. So that’s a question of does he stay and the output stay the same or did it take the defenses a little bit to adjust. We do know that it was not as good with Spavital who is also directly tied to the Leach tree. Also, with how good Leach was at TT, Kingsbury was pretty below average. 35-40. So that’s a mixed bag. And I’ve also stated that Heupel had a really good second year with Mizzou. First year sucked though. I’ve also talked about how he has had a ton of offensive success everywhere he has been but some of the same issues have popped up with while he or his offense puts up a lot of points, they give it up a lot as well. In this league or even today. His record vs the SEC is very sparse so not much we can tell about that. Played UM 3 times, won 2 of those but that was in the Cutcliff days and beat Eli I believe. 0-2 since to Bama and OM (the Cotton Bowl with Nutt). So that’s hard to draw much from.

You're saying Kingsbury's time at TT means it's a mixed bag for Leach's offense? Kingsbury was not a good HC but his offenses did fine...and regardless, we have direct evidence of what Leach himself would do at TT...and it's better than Kingsbury. Even still, Kingsbury's one year in the SEC produced an incredible offense.

This is pretty insane nitpicking over Leach's resume that no other candidate is going to bring. Can we investigate every coach who has come from a similar tree as Napier to see how successful he would be? Because he was an Alabama assistant after all. And the Saban coaching tree has produced Muschamp, McElwain, and Dooley, and they are not good SEC coaches. So that tree is busted, can't hire Napier. Sarkisian is from the Carroll tree, which produced Ed Orgeron, and when he initially left Carroll, he failed majorly in the SEC. Sarkisian now also has the stink of the Saban tree in addition to that, so you can't hire him, either. So who do we hire?

Leach has proven himself at least to the extent to get a shot in the SEC. I'm not saying we have to hire him or that he's even the best possible candidate, but the idea that by looking at others in the coaching tree and his previous, successful stint as an OC in the SEC, we can say that his offense wouldn't work or that it shouldn't be tried is ridiculous.

[Spiderman]

You're saying Kingsbury's time at TT means it's a mixed bag for Leach's offense? Kingsbury was not a good HC but his offenses did fine...and regardless, we have direct evidence of what Leach himself would do at TT...and it's better than Kingsbury. Even still, Kingsbury's one year in the SEC produced an incredible offense.

This is pretty insane nitpicking over Leach's resume that no other candidate is going to bring. Can we investigate every coach who has come from a similar tree as Napier to see how successful he would be? Because he was an Alabama assistant after all. And the Saban coaching tree has produced Muschamp, McElwain, and Dooley, and they are not good SEC coaches. So that tree is busted, can't hire Napier. Sarkisian is from the Carroll tree, which produced Ed Orgeron, and when he initially left Carroll, he failed majorly in the SEC. Sarkisian now also has the stink of the Saban tree in addition to that, so you can't hire him, either. So who do we hire?

Leach has proven himself at least to the extent to get a shot in the SEC. I'm not saying we have to hire him or that he's even the best possible candidate, but the idea that by looking at others in the coaching tree and his previous, successful stint as an OC in the SEC, we can say that his offense wouldn't work or that it shouldn't be tried is ridiculous.

Thanks for posting that. Was gonna post exact sme thing but was too lazy to type it all

[tcdog70]

I refuse to believe Leach is a serious candidate. Maybe Cohen gave him an interview but he has to be option 10 for Cohen. No way those two could co-exist.

DUDE--in the past we have hired Shira-Croom -and JoMo---so Leach would be a vast improvement over these duds.

[FISHDAWG]

Akili King and Ryan Leaf were "NFL" QB's. Couch was a bust in the NFL

and when Couch was in broadcasting he picked Jackson State to upset us ... he was also a bust in the booth

[Percho]

Leach knows people say he can't win in the SEC. If he wants this job he knows what he is up against with the schedule and recruiting..

He would not come here to ride off into the sunset. Especially since he knows this isn't the old MSU. We will fire your ass. Bowl games are not enough. The program has to be going up.

He's a smart guy..I believe he was an attorney before he was a coach.....he knows what people say. He knows what he up against.

I think he will have a chip on his shoulder. I think he wants to prove he can run with the big boys.

I don't know if it will work, but the idea of Mike leach with a chip on his shoulders, maybe coaching with more fire than ever.....the thought of that I can get behind and support

Would he take 3 mil a year to prove himself in the SEC and let us hire him the best defensive and recruiting guys?