Rivals posted a very interesting article about David Cutcliffe.
One particular paragraph stood out to me.
"Cutcliffe, who was Tennessee's offensive coordinator when Duke hired him, already proved in his last head-coaching stint that he knew how to rejuvenate a program. Ole Miss went 44-29 and reached four bowls in six seasons under Cutcliffe. The Rebels have gone 10-25 with no bowls in the three seasons since his departure."
It seems to me like that's not rejuvenating. That's running a program into the ground. I'm not here to bash Cutcliffe. I think he did some good things for Ole Miss. It's just that paragraph made me laugh a little bit and question logic. Let's look at this again. He proved at Ole Miss that he could rejuvenate a program. He went 44-29 at Ole Miss. After he was fired, we went 10-25. Sure seems to me like he left the program better than he found it.
One particular paragraph stood out to me.
"Cutcliffe, who was Tennessee's offensive coordinator when Duke hired him, already proved in his last head-coaching stint that he knew how to rejuvenate a program. Ole Miss went 44-29 and reached four bowls in six seasons under Cutcliffe. The Rebels have gone 10-25 with no bowls in the three seasons since his departure."
It seems to me like that's not rejuvenating. That's running a program into the ground. I'm not here to bash Cutcliffe. I think he did some good things for Ole Miss. It's just that paragraph made me laugh a little bit and question logic. Let's look at this again. He proved at Ole Miss that he could rejuvenate a program. He went 44-29 at Ole Miss. After he was fired, we went 10-25. Sure seems to me like he left the program better than he found it.