dethbylt
09-16-2012, 07:32 PM
First things first: the source of my information is a print copy of ESPN The Magazine and I have been unable to find an online copy for linking. I will keep looking. It is the "Franchise" issue.
The article ranked all college football teams over the expected lifetime of the average fan using multiple criteria: football income, recruiting, championship potential, facilities, and player development to name a few.
UK was squarely in the 60's in the recruiting and facilities but the thing that struck me was that player development and performance was in the 90's. It seems that the development of players below their potential is the difference from the Brooks to CJP tenures. I realize that this span includes both the CRB and CJP tenures among others. I would wager that a breakdown of both tenures would show CRB developing players above their talent level and CJP doing the opposite.
If the coaches don't push the players to play above their level, the players won't feel challenged or motivated. They become timid. I always remembered CRB having hard hitting fired up teams even when they were outmatched. I just don't see that any more. Am I missing something? Even with poor recruiting (UK is consistently in the middle of the pack nationwide or higher), you can't win if the players don't play above their level.
Bottom line, I think UK players aren't being pushed to outperform expectations and it leads to a timid team.
The article ranked all college football teams over the expected lifetime of the average fan using multiple criteria: football income, recruiting, championship potential, facilities, and player development to name a few.
UK was squarely in the 60's in the recruiting and facilities but the thing that struck me was that player development and performance was in the 90's. It seems that the development of players below their potential is the difference from the Brooks to CJP tenures. I realize that this span includes both the CRB and CJP tenures among others. I would wager that a breakdown of both tenures would show CRB developing players above their talent level and CJP doing the opposite.
If the coaches don't push the players to play above their level, the players won't feel challenged or motivated. They become timid. I always remembered CRB having hard hitting fired up teams even when they were outmatched. I just don't see that any more. Am I missing something? Even with poor recruiting (UK is consistently in the middle of the pack nationwide or higher), you can't win if the players don't play above their level.
Bottom line, I think UK players aren't being pushed to outperform expectations and it leads to a timid team.