Not trying to be a smartass, but the fact you're using those names to put forth a statistical belief that Kirby is doomed due to his 2016 record... Frankly, it's completely nuts.

Only 5 guys in your analysis since Dooley 50+ years ago? And 3 of those were from the mid '80s, over 30 years ago. Only 2 guys from the last 25 years?

College football is such a different animal than it was way back then, but you're damning Kirby after one year because he didn't "equal or better" like some WW2 era coaches? Seriously? More than half that list is 50+ years ago. That's a joke.

Not to mention I can't believe you included Hall, who has no SECC, because he cheated as much as anybody in history. Yet he's one of your shining examples?

Another flaw: Not one of these guys took over a 10-win program. Most took over losing teams. Your biggest achievers on that list took over a 2-win team & a 0-win team. That's a laugh. That's just a little bit easier than getting "equal or better" when the bar is at TEN wins.

Sorry, this whole thing is laughable. It's a very nice, technically correct, statistic. But it's a joke to base an entire concrete belief about Kirby doomed to failure because of it.

Here's a stat for you:

No rookie coach in the SEC, inheriting a 10-win team, and then FAILING to "equal or better" that total, has ever NOT gone on to eventually win the SEC. (I guess we can go ahead and print the T-shirts)