USCe students hold a ‘Fire Mike Shula’ rally:

[Bamabuzzard]

It's amazing that he continues to get these OC jobs. His track record is poor. I think he's a decent QB coach, but shouldn't be calling plays...

I think he has benefited from his last name for most of his career. Especially seeing all the coordinator jobs he's held. I think he is a better QB's coach than coordinator, but he's kept getting coordinator jobs his entire career. Don's last name has carried Mike.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I think Shula took the job out of loyalty and probably knew he wasn't the best person for the job.

Was his tenure largely a mess? Absolutely. Was it all his fault? Absolutely not.

He wasn't up to and never should have had the job, but I don't hate on the guy.

I'm in overall agreement with most of these points.

I don't have a real problem with, "Shula was in over his head from day one, probably given his level of coaching acumen and the talent that - yes - was stripped somewhat by the cruel probation, his record could have been a lot worse and probably wouldn't have ever been all that much better."

Mike Dubious inherited a team that had played in four SEC Championship Games in five years and went 24-23 and delivered a package of flaming poo to our front doorstep on his way out of town. Shula's on the field record was substantially better, and the SEC top to bottom was MUCH better than what Dubious faced. And by all accounts, Shula didn't have a zipper problem that undid the other two Mikes.

But where my sensor gets triggered - and you did not make this argument - is the attempts to turn Shula into the best character points of Gandhi, the apostle Andrew, and John Boy Walton. Shula was not some loyal company guy who took a job nobody wanted, he didn't work for free or donate his salary to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, and his presentation had more in common with a low key televangelist than it did a college football coach.

 

[davefrat]

I'm in overall agreement with most of these points.

I don't have a real problem with, "Shula was in over his head from day one, probably given his level of coaching acumen and the talent that - yes - was stripped somewhat by the cruel probation, his record could have been a lot worse and probably wouldn't have ever been all that much better."

Mike Dubious inherited a team that had played in four SEC Championship Games in five years and went 24-23 and delivered a package of flaming poo to our front doorstep on his way out of town. Shula's on the field record was substantially better, and the SEC top to bottom was MUCH better than what Dubious faced. And by all accounts, Shula didn't have a zipper problem that undid the other two Mikes.

But where my sensor gets triggered - and you did not make this argument - is the attempts to turn Shula into the best character points of Gandhi, the apostle Andrew, and John Boy Walton. Shula was not some loyal company guy who took a job nobody wanted, he didn't work for free or donate his salary to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, and his presentation had more in common with a low key televangelist than it did a college football coach.

Kind of crazy that only 20 years ago the HC at Bama was making 10% of what the HC at Bama is making today.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

We got the first Mike because of some sort of raging fanbase that wanted a head coach with ties to Coach Bryant, a guy who had zero relevant experience for the job. I didn't understand this monarchial succession either then or now. (Look how many assistants under Saban were colossal screw-ups as head coaches).

We got the second Mike for a more logical reason: "he's been able to win more with less in rural eastern Washington, and he might be the right guy to see us through on this probation thing. Look at the quarterbacks he's developed!"

We got the third Mike because the first two Mikes were mistakes and the alternative was to get on the wrong side of a sociological issue by hiring the black guy and then getting blistered when he was inevitably fired fighting years with one hand behind his back. The blowback on firing Shula was 1/100 what it would have been had we fired Croom after four seasons (and Croom's petulance and childish ways against us at MSU show our hunch was right).


On a side note, go look at the coaches hired after the 1996 season. It's one of the least distinguished lists of new hires you will ever see. Jim Tressel would never have gotten a look outside of Ohio (not then), and you have names like Bob Davie, Joe Tiller, Bob Toledo, and Fred Miller. Gary Barnett had led Northwestern to the Rose Bowl, so his name was huge when he went to Colorado, and Tommy Bowden had a history with us as he went to Tulane.

But that listing of coaches hired in the offseason is one of the most undistinguished in modern history.

When Stallings stepped down I wanted Rick Neuheisel. I am not proud of that.

 

[RammerJammer14]

Not to hijack this thread, but since you brought his name up, his defense is now showing it's true colors in Oxford. They can't stop anybody. It looks a lot like when he was at Bama.

Now back to the Fire Mike Shula protest!!!!

I was watching a Film Guy preview the other day for this week’s games. In talking about the Ole Miss-OU game, he said that he didn’t understand why Golding was doing all kinds of crazy motions and twists with his linemen and backers at the last second, and not letting the linebackers fit.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

There were a zillion reasons Shula didn't work out in Tuscaloosa. Most of them were his fault. Some were circumstances beyond his control. I supported him until it was undeniable he had lost the team in the 2006 Mississippi State game.

In the end, it came down to a combination of his own stubbornness / refusal to change and bad advice from his father. Mal Moore's book, Crimson Heart, has a fascinating story on how it all happened.

Side note: The book was pressed into publication way too fast and could have used a couple more rounds of editing. But the Shula story is still illuminating.