One person's reflections on the Stoops era and the steep odds he now faces
Mark Stoops is in uncharted territory. At least for him.
Just one game into the 2016 college football season Stoops is facing the kind of widespread criticism that no coach ever wants to see.
Let's be clear. Kentucky is only one game into the 2016 season. But, man, that was one really important game.
Because it was the first game. Because it was a winnable game. Maybe not a "must win" game, but probably the closest thing there was to one for fans and coaches looking up and down the schedule last week. It was a really important game because it was a tone-setter for the team and a test for many fans on the fence.
Link: Stoops says team will be ready, but will fans buy it?
Some fans just checked out. Not coming back. Nope. Unless UK beats Florida in the Swamp. That doesn't happen every day.
Some fans will never check out. Stoops doesn't have to worry about losing these fans. The number of those fans is small (for a good estimate check photos of Commonwealth Stadium in 2012 during the UK-Vanderbilt game). They probably congregate, disproportionately, at the House of Blue - this site's premium forum.
Before I try to articulate what I believe about Stoops' present position, let me try to paint a picture of where I'm at. Let me describe my background, since I haven't at great length before, so it's clear where I'm coming from.
In some respects, whether he knows it or not, Mark Stoops and I have been tied at the hip since he arrived in Lexington. We're not buddies, although I'm sure we'd get along. He's busy - a family, a job, high expectations. I'm busy - a family, a job, high expectations. Our paths don't really cross directly very often unless I'm asking him an occasional question in a post-game press conference. Or, over the summer, as when I almost bumped into him walking briskly through Commonwealth Stadium to cover his program's Sunday Night Lights' Camp. Though that's about the extent of my personal relationship with Stoops, if you can call it that, I'm sure if we sat down in a room for a few hours - no cameras, no microphones, just the two of us talking - we'd be able to relate quite well.
Link: Three takeaways from Stoops' Monday press conference
Link: 3-2-1 - Defensive line issues, finding offensive consistency
After all, following Stoops' movements, and those of his staff, have become the most time consuming part of my professional life.
I joined Cats Illustrated in mid-late 2012 (thanks to the graciousness of former publisher Brett Dawson, who is now covering the NBA's New Orleans Pelicans as well as a person can).
At first I was very much a part-time helper on the site's team. I wrote stories on this Kentucky target or that Wildcat commitment. I did that for roughly a dozen different team sites on Rivals.com and the Yahoo! Sports network. I started covering recruiting when I was only 16 years old, so I started covering Kentucky at 27. Right before Mitch Barnhart hired Mark Stoops.
Call it a stroke of luck, call it luck favoring a guy with a Type A personality and almost 15 years worth of recruiting connections and experience; call it what you will. But upon Stoops' arrival my part-time job with Cats Illustrated quickly became the most time consuming venture as a contract employee working for a dozen sites in a dozen markets all over the country.
How did that happen?
For starters, I had the good fortune of becoming pretty plugged in with what was happening in Lexington in those early days, when optimism was unbridled and that so-called low ceiling seemed to rise by an inch with every Rivals250 commitment.
I also easily took to the work. Since I've started covering recruiting, college football - sports in general - I've had to divorce myself from any rooting interest in any college program. For starters, if I were a "fan" then I'd qualify as a "booster," and that's a no-no when you're interviewing recruits. It's also about appearances. I have a duty to not only be as objective as possible in all my reporting, but I also have to avoid the appearance of bias or rooting interest.
Still, all that said, in full disclosure your publisher did grow up as a fan of Kentucky's football program. Believe it or not, it hasn't been difficult to separate those early days with rooting interest (how did a child growing up in North Carolina, the son of a UNC grad during the Michael Jordan era, become so enthralled by Kentucky football? I've often asked myself, never to find a satisfactory answer). Anything that's work takes on a different dynamic. And furthermore, when you get to know more of the people who make up "the program," it becomes less about the program you once liked or disliked and more about the people, who really do become the face of "Kentucky" or "Louisville."
Premium link: Upon further review - What went wrong with UK's defense?
Though I long ago traded in a fan card and any emotional stake in the outcome of college football games, it would be impossible to divorce my personal history entirely from who I am. In short, I know quite a bit about Kentucky's football history; about the challenges the program faces, the great and the infamous moments, and everything else. I didn't play the game at the school, like Freddie Maggard, now a media figure covering Kentucky who I greatly respect. But I was a college football nerd, watching 12 hours of ESPN coverage from the time I was five years old through, well, today (or as much as my kids and wife will allow). My parents begrudgingly, but lovingly, took me on eight-hour treks from the RDU area of North Carolina to Commonwealth Stadium - for reasons they probably understood less than me - and usually those 16 total hours of driving amounted to three hours of devastation at the hands of Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee or some other SEC foe, and a restless night's sleep at a hotel. But every year I subjected myself to it, and thus also my innocent parents, in the same inexplicable pattern that categorizes the completely unjustifiable but altogether noble and praiseworthy optimism of every diehard Kentucky football fan.
Even now, while I have rejected the right to cheer or become interested beyond the interest of someone doing his job, with a bottom line, a website and lots of people like you paying my salary, I can't get it entirely out of my blood. The anticipation for football season, and a season of covering Kentucky football, is an exercise in imagining that that program, these games and this season could really change things; everything, even though few outside of Lexington, and maybe few in it, would agree.
The purpose of that personal history outlined above is simply to help explain what shaped my attitudes and outlook on the subject in question - the football program you're reading about now.
When Barnhart hired Stoops my initial reaction was something akin to, "Oh, he's got a good last name. That's probably the best anyone could have hoped for." I knew he wasn't Bob Stoops; he had a national championship, but not as a head coach. I knew he was inexperienced and I knew all the challenges that have forever confronted Kentucky would be no respecter of persons, be they Stoops, Phillips, Brooks or any other.
I had long believed that Kentucky should hire a "system" coach. The "system" tag isn't really fair, because all offenses are systems. But I believed Barnhart would have been wise to open up the checkbook for Mike Leach, Paul Johnson or maybe even - yes, I'll admit it - Bobby Petrino (who has now blocked me on Twitter, in spite of the respect I have long voiced for him as a coach, and my reluctance to criticize him in the same manner some other media figures do).
Premium link: Grading Drew Barker's season opener
I didn't think it was possible for Kentucky to recruit well. I really didn't. And I knew recruiting if I knew anything else. I knew rankings, the ranking system, how the process worked, what the challenges and advantages were (and are) for every Power Five and some Group of Five programs. And, back then, I really believed it was impossible for Kentucky to consistently recruit classes ranked in the Top 30 (or so) of the national charts. And, even looking back now, proven wrong by Mark Stoops, I believe that was a completely rational skepticism. History, perception, the northernmost school in a southern league, lack of local talent, being behind in the facility arms race, the administration's historic reluctance to "pony up" for football, at least to the level of other schools in the league.
Mark Stoops shattered that long-held belief of mine. It was a conviction. And he proved me a fool.
Of course, rankings are rankings. They're not real results. But when everybody is saying you're getting better players, better talent, better speed and size than your program has at any point in recent (or not so recent) history, then that's not insignificant.
Video: Darin Hinshaw on Drew Barker's season opener
It hasn't been because Stoops is, well, a Stoops. I don't think one recruit has picked Kentucky because of the coach's last name. From my vantage point Kentucky's dramatically improved recruiting -- by the rankings, yes -- has been due to several other factors: Vince Marrow, an entire staff that has usually done well when players have visited, the unprecedented prestige level of the SEC (making UK's brand in Ohio and elsewhere stronger than it would have been in, say, the late 1990's when the SEC was not by far the strongest conference), the newfound financial and facility commitment to success and a new willingness to make Kentucky cool, from new jerseys to social media savvy.
Kentucky fans love recruiting. They've always loved basketball recruiting. I know it because I remember the AOL fan board days when the fortunes on the program's future seemed to hinge on the ridiculous saga of Darius Rice. But they hadn't had much reason to fall in love with football recruiting.
That is, until Stoops arrived and started landing recruits that nobody expected Kentucky to land - at least en masse. It started with players like Jojo Kemp, Alex Montgomery, Jeff Badet and Regie Meant in Florida, and Kyle Meadows, Jaleel Hytchye and, most famously, Marcus McWilson in Ohio.
Then there was the ripping Drew Barker from Steve Spurrier and the Gamecocks, landing then-No. 1 ranked all-purpose back Boom Williams, and Kentucky's improbable rise to the top spot nationally in the recruiting rankings for the Class of 2014. That lasted, you might remember, until September, and that class' 17th-ranked finish is still a program record (and, this skeptic says, may forever be the highest-ranked class Kentucky signs - or at least for a very long time).
Link: By the numbers - Analyzing UK's 44-35 loss to Southern Miss
Kentucky's recruiting momentum has not returned to the level of that 2014 class since then, when the Cats landed ten recruits ranked as four-star prospects -- more than doubling the next-highest total the program had ever seen in a year. But the subsequent 2015 and 2016 classes would also rank among the best in modern school history, according to the numbers.
It's probably safe to say that if recruiting services (other than Max Emfinger's) were around in the 1990's, 1980's and maybe even the 1970's, these Stoops classes would still probably rank as the program's best. If you don't believe me, just look at the results - in particular, no winning seasons in the SEC since 1977 (that's always been the most staggering statistic in Kentucky football for me).
Truth be told I can probably say that I've contributed to a fair amount of the recruiting hoopla and the hype machine that's been erected during the Stoops era. That's not to give myself credit for it. But that's the work I did for close to 15 years, from the time I got my license until today. I've made generous use of social media, message boards and whatever platform I can find to spread the word whenever there's been a significant development or a commitment. Recruits follow me, coaches follow me, the program's most devout fans follow me, until recently Bobby Petrino followed me - and given my background covering college football recruiting, I probably approached the whole issue a little differently than fans might have been used to (i.e. rarely sleeping, allowing it to be my life's work).
Premium link: Four-star UNC commit planning UK official visit
In mid-June of 2013 one writer for an Ohio State website told me that I "should send Mark Stoops a fruit basket or something."
It's true that Stoops' recruiting success has certainly helped to enhance my profile and has given my work a bigger platform than, say, in that brief time covering recruiting at the end of the Joker Phillips era. And, in turn, my work has contributed to the 24/7 coverage of football recruiting and the latest "Yahtzee!" that is so crucial, though not my goal, to a program building momentum in the world of fans and recruits interacting on social media.
I'll tell on myself. At one point, a couple of years ago, I did say that I didn't believe Louisville would be able to keep up with Kentucky if Stoops' program kept recruiting at the rate it had been. In my defense, I don't think they have quite recruited at the level that they did in 2014. But to my discredit, in humility I must acknowledge that history has not borne that prediction out. Louisville is a Top 25 program and will play high profile games of national interest against Florida State, Clemson and Houston this year. Kentucky has yet to reach the postseason.
I was operating under the assumption that improved recruiting rankings -- not just rankings for one class, but rankings for several classes -- was bound to markedly improve the Cats' product on the field. Even now, that was a reasonable assumption.
Premium discussion link: What single play most impacted the outcome of the game?
I do believe that the better recruiting (by rankings, offer lists, hype, etc. - you pick the measure) is reflected in some measurements. Namely, the eye test at the skill positions. It has not been reflected in the most important metric (wins and losses) or at the positions that matter most in the SEC, besides quarterback (offensive and defensive line). At times it has (Za'Darius Smith, C.J. Johnson, Melvin Lewis -- all good players), but on the whole it has not.
So what are the reasons for Stoops' inability, 'til the present date, to translate those improbable recruiting classes -- those history-defying classes -- into a football program that wins games?
At first I thought it was mostly because it took a very long time to build depth, or enough depth, to be competitive with everyone in the SEC. And along the way there were enough milestones -- beating South Carolina, beating South Carolina again, starting 4-2, starting 5-1, almost beating Auburn, almost beating Florida, etc. -- to believe that the program was getting close even if it wasn't there yet. So I don't fault myself for believing that Stoops was well on his way to better records, and Kentucky on its way to brighter days.
Now, however, it's evident that some of the old justifications (or rationalizations, excuses, reasons - whatever you want to call them probably depends on your general temperament and outlook) simply don't hold water.
Recently, a long-time member of the site reached out to me and said that he believes the local media has been far too easy on Mark Stoops. I pointed out that I had reported the High Performance program was unpopular, that I had asked him, putting him on the spot, whether he was confident in Shannon Dawson after the Louisville game, and most recently that I asked how much the USM loss would hurt recruiting. Those aren't softballs, I suggested.
Premium link: Depth chart shakeups after USM loss
No, they weren't softballs. But on a certain level the man was right. He is right. Mark Stoops was given a very nice pass for a very long time, and for very good reasons at the time. Joker Phillips, remember? 40-0 against Vanderbilt? Kentucky's history in the SEC?
Last year the first real and sustained criticism came during the skid on the back half of the schedule. Although I defended the defense, the defensive coordinator and took some other unpopular positions, it was undeniable that there were problems related to game management and even program management.
And that brings us to one of the problems Kentucky has faced under Mark Stoops, which has led to the recruiting rankings not leading to better results. Attrition. Recruiting attrition -- think of all the decommitments in the 2015 and 2017 classes -- transfers, players quitting the program and school, off-field incidents, failures to qualify, etc.
Remember the hype that surrounded players like Jason Hatcher, Lloyd Tubman, Nick Richardson, Jarrett LaRubbio, recruits Derrick Kelly and a host of talented line prospects, et cetera? Players like that never made a real impact. Some did, to various degrees, but there have been seemingly countless players who arrived with hype and didn't amount to much. Some of that was off field stuff that Stoops can't be blamed for. Whether you want to blame him for off field stuff "big picture" is your call. I won't speculate.
But even beyond the attrition there has been a lack of development at some key positions. We'll define development very broadly. On the defensive line, for instance, developing long-term quality depth has proven problematic. Kentucky has recruited JUCO defensive linemen well, and they've played well. But they've been gone seemingly as quickly as they've arrived. And when you're recruiting that many JUCO's, and relying on them, you'd better evaluate them well year after year. And that also makes your high school recruiting efforts more difficult.
Premium link: Reaction from three recruits (or families) following USM loss
On the offensive line, we'll wait and see how 2016 plays out. There's still a reasonable reason to believe that the line could be good in 2016. It wasn't good in 2013, 2014 or 2015.
The inability, 'til now, to develop a quality SEC-caliber quarterback (well, some years SEC-caliber isn't great), has been the greatest hindrance. But, then again, even with Drew Barker's 300-plus yards and four first half touchdowns, Kentucky lost to Southern Miss at home in Stoops' fourth year.
That member of our site, who made the point about the media taking it too easy on Stoops, pointed out a couple of uncomfortable truths in forceful language.
"I think that Year Four is the time to ask questions regarding how Southern Miss is beating our (edited) on the line of scrimmage when they were 1-11 in the same year we were 2-10," he wrote me. "Also, you let the (offensive coordinator) hang 500 (yards) on you and he was the scapegoat for last year."
There are answers to those questions, but whether you think they're legitimate reasons or unacceptable excuses will have to be your call. I do think he's right in saying the questions need to be asked, and to date, they haven't been asked all that often (pointing the finger at myself, too).
Most troubling may be the mental weakness of a team that lost to Southern Miss in virtually the same fashion it lost to Louisville in the last game of 2015. Stoops couldn't have dreamed a worse nightmare.
If you had been told Barker would pass for 300 yards and four touchdowns, that Nick Mullens would throw three interceptions, that Kentucky would be leading the game 35-10 and that USM would look completely lost and out of sorts - you would have had to assume that it was a great start to UK's season.
What's devastating is that in spite of very good quarterback play, in spite of Mullens' struggles, in spite of having four years to recruit players to an SEC program, the Cats still lost at home to Southern Miss -- and by two scores, no less. Kentucky was absolutely dominated, physically and in every way, over the game's final two quarters.
Here's the problem for Mark Stoops. So far at Kentucky he has won two times of the year: The offseason and early in the season. He's won the offseason, even following rough seasons, because his recruiting was perceived to be very good.
But Stoops is at the point now where recruiting is not going to save him. In fact, I'm fairly confident that if I were to post several recruiting updates today (that will happen soon, by the way), for the first time the majority reaction would be some form of apathy, such as, "Well we see where that's got us," or, "What's that done for us so far?"
And you know what? Right now those responses are not unreasonable.
You can keep putting talented players into the program, but until you develop a proven, consistent quarterback, develop the lines, develop the linebackers and break your losing habits, what does it matter? Better talent puts you in a better position on that one metric, but it says nothing of attrition, development, attitude and many of the other formative aspects of roster management and program-building. That's to say nothing of the game management issues that plagued Kentucky in losses last year.
So here is Stoops, with 11 of 12 games remaining in 2016. He's one game behind where most everyone believed he needed to be after one game. He probably needs to win at least two games that Kentucky will be the underdog in to break the program's growing bowl drought.
Would he get 2017 even if Kentucky doesn't go bowling this year? I think so, although I can't say for certain. Should he? I'll let fans debate that.
But right now the morale of the team is the foremost concern. If the bottom falls out this year -- and this is a team that just lost to Southern Miss at home -- then it's difficult to see the ship being salvaged. Stoops has defied the odds before in recruiting, finishing classes well even after the season hasn't ended well. But right now recruiting doesn't matter to most people. It's a complete afterthought and maybe even a symbol of expectations that haven't been met. And thus far Stoops' teams have not defied the odds on the field over the course of a season, nor have they defied the odds in key game situations when things aren't going well.
I think there's a lot to like about Mark Stoops. He seems like a good man. He arrived at Kentucky with an ambitious vision that wasn't held hostage by the same set of "can'ts" that even a lot of diehard Kentucky football fans operated under. Maybe that outsider mentality contributed to his reaching higher when it comes to recruiting.
I can't help but let my heart go out to his family a bit when I see his wife and children in the postgame press conferences that have, recently, become so difficult to listen to. No matter how the Stoops era plays out this year, next and maybe (or maybe not) beyond that, he'll have still accomplished some things, like shattering the false low expectations I had set for the program when it comes to recruiting.
I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that Stoops wants Kentucky to succeed now as much or more than anyone who follows Kentucky. After his post-game press conference on Saturday night as Stoops sat down with Tom Leach, the Voice of the Wildcats, to record a recap of the game, he burned with -- what was it? -- anger? Frustration? Sadness? He sat there quietly, almost silently, waiting for his next media responsibility to begin, red-faced and obviously mulling over what had just transpired. It was killing him. It looked like he wanted to punch the wall in front of him, and at that moment I felt like his hand would probably get the better of the wall.
What can he say at this point? Nothing. Nothing Stoops says following a loss will quiet the criticism, reverse the narrative or rebuild the fan base's confidence and even hope that was lost on Saturday. Only winning matters. It matters not that the opponent is Florida, a team with a three decade-long winning streak against Kentucky. The only acceptable outcome, for most Kentucky fans, will be to win. Those three decades aren't Stoops' doing, and he's coached well against the Gators in the past. Credit him for narrowing the talent gap with the Gators, which he has clearly done at certain positions. He just can't say anything to make the situation better and he knows it. That's why he very humbly apologized to the fan base and acknowledged the seriousness of the defeat and its impact on everything from attendance to recruiting. He couldn't say anything to make the angry or apathetic fan hopeful, but he at least implicitly acknowledged, beyond the usual coach speak, that this was no ordinary loss. It mattered more.
For the first time it's really not looking good. You could argue it didn't look good after last year, but truthfully Stoops still had a lot of supporters. It's very difficult for a coach who is currently in Stoops' position to reverse the tide of momentum. Because from here on out he'll be dealing with more empty seats, more critical columns, more hot seat rumors, more negative recruiting and more of everything you don't want to see that makes your job more difficult. And at Kentucky you don't need more hurdles. You're always going to have enough.
Stoops is in the most vicious part of an executive's career cycle. Every movement, every statement, every decision is going to be scrutinized, justifiably or not, in light of the things that have not yet been accomplished. Phillips faced that much earlier in his tenure than Stoops has in his, and understandably so, given the relative state of the program when each coach assumed their position.
There are examples of coaches defying the odds, breaking free from the cycle of endless negativity and second-guessing, and living to fight many more days. Those are the exceptions. Usually, when the tone of a fan base gets to this point, things don't end well.
Stoops has made a living at Kentucky by winning the offseason and by rekindling that familiar flame of hope that UK football fans cling to so dearly. But now the only thing that matters are results. Is the Florida game a "must win" situation for Kentucky? For Stoops? Probably not. But staring at 0-2 will only amplify the voices that have increasingly turned against him. The more that clamor grows, the harder it will be to reverse the narrative.
Stoops has already spoken of a kind of fortress mentality when he referred to the team "barricading" themselves in after the Southern Miss loss. That's the only appropriate response to the circumstances he now faces. He'll put on the right face, he'll try to say the right things, he'll communicate with the fan base and recruits however he can. But right now he has to build walls to shield his players from the brunt of the criticism that he can't avoid. He'll take plenty of it until the players inside that barricade do something different.
For the longest time I've been of the opinion that Mark Stoops is Kentucky's best opportunity to really - and I mean really - get it right. There may be other more proven head coaches who have stellar track records of teaching fundamentals on one or both sides of the ball, of developing less talented players to perform above their expected abilities, and to maximize what they bring into the program. But I have always felt as though the highest ceiling attainable with that approach is relatively low. Missouri had to be very happy with Gary Pinkel's two SEC East championships, which came from that very same method. However, there's a reason Pinkel was so widely respected and rare. Guys like that - great coaches who are the perfect fit at this or that place, who build, scrap, finally succeed and then stay - well, they're very rare. Not to diminish the accomplishments of coaches like that, that method usually takes a significant amount of luck, too (i.e. the SEC East being very, very down during those years).
I think on the surface Stoops brings some very unique and positive attributes to the table. He and his staff recruit very well. And while they've proven my old 'ceiling' talk in recruiting false, I'd credit them on step beyond that and say that I don't think that even now, even after their recruiting success, many potential successors would be able to duplicate or approach their success in the recruiting rankings. There is no guarantee another staff could approach this staff's success in Ohio; there is no guarantee that another staff would be so successful with a very targeted approach in the South. I think the most likely scenario, the default position for most coaches who would approach the UK job, would be to revert back to a "southern strategy" of recruiting that could succeed to some degree but is a much more difficult path to a deep and talented roster.
I also think Stoops brings the same positive quality that Phillips brought when Barnhart made him the program's head coach in waiting. The Stoops clan is loyal. Mark Stoops' family is in Ohio, just north of the border. He appreciates the university's trust in him and the break they gave him. I think it's likely that if he were to succeed, to really break through these next two years, that he'd be more likely to stay in Lexington than some other coaches.
Stoops has also, in my mind, made more good coaching hires than bad hires in filling out his staff. His previous offensive coordinators have landed on their feet (head coach at Troy, OC at Southern Miss). His defensive backs coach has the same title at Alabama. His safeties and special teams coach, Bradley Dale Peveto, is at LSU. His linebackers coach Andy Buh is the defensive coordinator at Maryland. There's reason to believe that UK's hires this past offseason will prove to be wise moves, even if a bit later than would be ideal.
Among the aspects that remain unproven are game management, overall roster retention and player development at the most crucial positions on the field. The biggest thing Stoops still has to prove - and now it will be harder than ever - is that he can grab a team on life support and will them to new life when the deck is stacked against them; that he can pilot a ship through adversity in the game and in the season, and that the force of his personality will come to be expressed in the leaders and performers that represent him on the field.