The farther Tennessee distances itself from the 2005 football season, the better coach Phillip Fulmer understands what went wrong.

History professors should applaud. Fans must wonder.

For example, take Fulmer’s recent comments on the Big Orange Caravan, which is rolling across the state.

A Memphis Commercial Appeal sportswriter asked Fulmer about the contributions of new offensive coordinator David Cutcliffe.

"David has improved the toughness of our team," Fulmer said. "We’re fundamentally better. He has been very demanding of tempo and execution.

"The daily practice habits improved. Not that we were practicing poorly, but not the cross-your-t’s-and-dot-your-i’s extent that we are now."

Those comments came on the heels of his spring-game press conference in which Fulmer said, "I think you could describe the spring as a success probably for one reason — the kids learned how to work again, as hard as they’re supposed to and at the tempo they’re supposed to."

If a 5-6 season were a crime, that quote would be a confession. And if Fulmer keeps bringing up his team’s recently discovered work ethic, someone is going to charge him with stealing about $2 million from the athletic department last year.

Wouldn’t you think that a coach as experienced and successful as Fulmer would emphasize toughness, fundamentals and details every year? Why did he need a new offensive coordinator to remind him?

It also makes you wonder what Fulmer was telling the troops last year. Maybe something like: "We’re not leaving the practice field till we get this half-right."

Finally, five months after the season, you know what the team’s motto must have been: "Don’t sweat the small stuff." And you also know what the next team’s motto should be: "Back to work."

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe Fulmer meant to be self-critical. That’s not his style.

A few weeks after last season, he characterized the 5-6 disaster as a "perfect storm" in an interview with News Sentinel sportswriter Mark Burgess.

"It really was kind of like the ‘Perfect Storm,’ " Fulmer said. "Really, it took a lot of different variables to happen at kind of the same time. Whether it be schedule, whether it be injuries, or quarterbacks, or inconsistencies of the receivers or offensive front, or penalties — we just never ended up doing much."

In that paragraph’s worth of an explanation, he covered just about everything except bad coaching. But when you perform your job in front of 105,000-or-so witnesses, word gets around. Fans figured out that a $2 million coach had produced a two-bit team.

Fulmer’s comments about Cutcliffe are even more illuminating. He credits Cutcliffe with improving the offense’s toughness, fundamentals and practice tempo in the spring. So don’t think of Cutcliffe as merely a play caller and quarterbacks coach. Think of him as the head coach for offense, or the equivalent of what coordinator John Chavis is for defense.

What’s left for Fulmer? Recruiting and cheerleading?

There’s nothing wrong with delegating authority. If Chavis fields another ornery defense and Cutcliffe makes sure the offense crosses every "t," this could work out for the best. But where would that leave Fulmer?

Suppose UT bounces back from a 5-6 season to win the SEC championship — thanks, in part, to an improved offense. Cutcliffe, not Fulmer, would get the credit.

Then, take it a step further. After a dramatic turnaround, Cutcliffe gets head-coaching offers from other schools.

Whom would athletic director Mike Hamilton and the UT power brokers deem more valuable: the head coach or the offensive coordinator who helped "the kids learn how to work again"?

Sports editor John Adams may be reached at 865-342-6284 or adamsj@knews.com.