Rating the Pac-12 Conference Coaches Part I (first edition)
by JazzyUte on Jul 12, 2011 11:31 PM MDT
in Football
Email
PrintSince 2007, I've been ranking the coaches of Utah's current conference. Up until this year, that included all of the Mountain West.
Of course, the Utes no longer belong to the Mountain West and ranking those coaches would be a bit ridiculous. We've got a new batch of coaches to rank and the list a great deal more impressive than what we've seen recently. Their resumes are deeper and their career success far stretching. Summing it up: the Pac-12 is filled with a great deal of coaching talent - even if a few are past their prime.
You can view my past ratings here: 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007.
This year's list will be different because Kyle Whittingham doesn't have much history with these other coaches. In the Mountain West, prior to 2010, he had an overall winning record against every coach except Bronco Mendenhall and Bobby Hauck - who had yet to coach his first season at UNLV.
However, in this year's ranking, Whittingham has only met four Pac-12 coaches: Mike Stoops (1-0), Mike Riley (1-1), Chip Kelly (0-1) and Jeff Tedford (1-0), so certainly not near the sample size.
We're also basing Whittingham's success on what happened in a different conference as opposed to the Pac-12. Should he be docked a spot or two because of that?
The rankings after the jump...
1. Chip Kelly (2 seasons, 22-4)
Forget what might happen to Kelly in the future, the guy took a very good football program and in two-short years turned them into a legitimate national championship contender. No disrespect to Mike Bellotti, who laid a fantastic foundation for Kelly, but Kelly has elevated the Ducks football program to pretty impressive heights. Even in defeat, they clearly proved to be the class of the Pac-12 with their national championship appearance.
This is a guy who, in two seasons, has won two Pac-12 titles outright, played for a Rose Bowl and a national championship. And to think, his career started with a lopsided road loss to Boise State, and two near-defeats at home against Purdue and Utah.
2. Kyle Whittingham (6 seasons, 58-20)
Homer pick? Maybe. But Kyle Whittingham is the only current Pac-12 coach to win a BCS game with his current team. If you want to get technical, he's also credited, along with Urban Meyer, for the 2005 Fiesta Bowl. So, that's two BCS bowl wins.
But it goes beyond just BCS bowl wins for Coach Whittingham. He's sustained success, has had a winning record in all six seasons, won nearly 75% of his games and became the first coach in Utah football history to produce three consecutive ten-win seasons. It remains to be seen how that will transition into the Pac-12 - but for now, the only coaches who have seen the same success as Whittingham haven't done so with their current teams (I'm looking at you Rick Neuheisel and Dennis Erickson).
3. Mike Riley (10 seasons, 69-54)
The guy can coach. He might not have a gaudy overall record or conference titles to show for his ability - but make no mistake about it, he can coach.
It's not easy winning at Oregon State. Go check their history and you'll see why. Prior to his arrival in 1997 (however brief his first stint there was), the Beavers were pretty much the dogs of the conference. Now, though, they are consistently one of the most difficult teams to beat. Utah fans saw first hand their grit in 2008 when they gave the Utes everything they could handle in a last second, heartbreaking (for them, at least) loss.
That's just how it is, though. They're never a gimmie - even in down years. This is a team that finished 5-7 last season and still went down to Tucson and upset Arizona. They took SC behind the woodshed and played Oregon tough late.
You know this is a program that won't stay on the losing end of .500 for long. They'll be back.
4. Jeff Tedford (9 seasons, 72-42)
Tedford certainly has dropped a peg or two the past couple of seasons with Cal's struggles - but you can't deny what he's done in Berkeley. This is a guy who inherited an awful program that was run into the ground by current BYU athletic director Tom Holmoe and yet, in his first season, he finished 7-5. A year later, they had their coming out party with an unexpected upset of SC.
Though he's yet to reach a Rose Bowl or win an outright Pac-12 title, Tedford has changed the culture in Berkeley. Now their fans expect to win. It's not just a hope anymore. And while his last few seasons have been underwhelming, he's secured by what he's been able to accomplish at a once anemic program.
5. Steve Sarkisian (2 seasons, 12-13)
I hesitate to rank Sarkisian here because he hasn't been coaching for all that long. However, it's hard to ignore how quickly he's made Washington relevant again. He did, after all, inherit a losing team and, in one season, had them contending for a bowl game.
Last season marked their first return to a bowl game in eight years. That's a pretty big drought for a program that had been so good for so long. Sarkisian deserves a lot of the credit for that. Of course, so does Jake Locker - regardless of how erratic he was throughout his career in Seattle.
Now comes the tough part: not only sustaining that success, but building on it.
6. Mike Stoops (7 seasons, 40-45)
There is no denying Stoops has made Arizona a far better program than what he inherited back in 2003. Yet, they're nowhere near the highest of the highs seen under former coach Dick Tomey.
Last season really summed up the Stoops era at Arizona: there was a lot of hype, some decent success early, but in the end, like always, it fell a bit flat. Stoops is a good coach, no doubt, but his team is no better than just good and sometimes, they're just average.
Though he's entering his eighth year, the fact he's not been able to really have that breakout season kinda leads you to believe it's just not going to happen. He'll be good for 6-7 wins most years, but as it was the year before and the year before that, they'll come up just short.
7. Lane Kiffin (2 seasons, 15-11)
Maybe Kiffin doesn't deserve to be this high. He certainly hasn't done anything spectacular at either SC or Tennessee. However, he also hasn't face-planted and I guess, if you're going to be considerate, that's a win. This is a guy who has been set up to fail by many in the media since day one and that hasn't happened. SC was respectable last year and the Vols, who had pretty low expectations heading into 2009, were competitive under his watch.
Does that make him a good coach? No. It just doesn't make him a bad one and we need a bit more time before really figuring out the Kiffin enigma. And make no mistake, this guy is an enigma. He's not done a whole helluva lot on the football field, yet he's been a head coach in the NFL and led two of the most prestigious programs in college football.
Hell, it took Urban Meyer a few stops before finally taking over at Florida. Not Kiffin, though. He surged up the career ladder and now has a great gig - even if it's bogged down by sanctions at the moment.
8. Rick Neuheisel (11 seasons, 81-52)
If you ignore his three seasons at UCLA, Neuheisel certainly has a resume better than 8th on this list. But it's hard to overlook his stint with the Bruins. It hasn't been successful and though there have, at times, been promise, overall, UCLA looks less competitive on the field today than they did when he took over from the embattled Karl Dorrell.
That's damning for any coach.
Which means this season is about as close to a must-succeed as you can get. I don't know if Neuheisel will get the ax if he fails to get the Bruins to a bowl game, but it's hard to imagine he comes back from three losing seasons in four years.
9. Dennis Erickson (22 seasons, 173-89-1)
Erickson, like Neuheisel, had a pretty substantial resume when he made his return to the Pac-12. But resume alone doesn't equal results and he pretty much needs to win substantially to have any hope of returning for a 24th season.
Who knows why it's gone south the way it has at Arizona State. He came in with a bang, going 10-3 and winning a share of the Pac-10 title. However, since that great first year, Erickson's Sun Devils have hardly lived up to their hype. In 2008, after being picked to finish 2nd in the Pac-10, they limped to a 5-7 record and fell even further back in 2009. Last season, though much more competitive, they still failed to finish with a winning record and two of their six wins came against FCS teams - leaving them ineligible for a bowl game.
Similar to Neuheisel, Erickson has yet to really outproduce the guy he replaced. Dirk Koetter was fired after a 7-6 season. Erickson might see a similar fate if his team can't at least win 8 games.
10. Paul Wulff (11 seasons, 58-72)
By all accounts, Wulff is a pretty upstanding guy. You hate to see good guys fail and, unfortunately, that's exactly what's happened in Pullman. Though he inherited a mess of a program and there have been some signs they're moving in the right direction, five wins in three years is just not going to cut it.
Wulff needs to show the Wazzu faithful he's the guy to take the program to the next level and another two-win season won't do that.
I don't think Wulff needs to get to a bowl game to save his job, but he certainly needs to contend for one. Anything less than 4 wins and I think he has a losing argument on why he should remain the Cougars' head coach.
Jon Embree (Colorado) & David Shaw (Stanford) are not listed because both coaches are in their first years.
60 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Honestly, Sark above Erickson?
How many national titles does Sark have?
How about his overall winning percentage?
I understand Sark has had less time, but he has taken a four win team (no matter that they were 0-12 under Willingham…but still they were not as bad as that record in terms of talent)…and made them a 6 win team in two seasons…all with a #8 pick QB in the recent NFL draft.
I think Sark needs more time to evaluate his coaching. Remember, he got pummeled by a few teams last season too.
by westsidecougar1 on Jul 18, 2011 1:56 AM MDT up reply actions
And what has Erickson done for ASU
It’s pretty evident that these rankings put a lot more emphasis on what the coach has done for their current team, over what they did many many moons ago.
Gotta Disagree with Wulff
I think ranking him last is looking at record only. Considering the mess of the program he received, as well as the changes in atmosphere that he has started to instill last year. His team is more on an uprise than say a UCLA.
I think you’re giving Neuheisel and Erickson credit for things in the very past. Truthfully Wulff has had a harder task and done a better job than at least Neuheisel. Also Erickson should be ahead of Neuheisel if only because, even though they’ll probably fail to live up to the Hype, The Sun Devils are considered a favorite in the South, while I believe UCLA is about the only team given no shot at the South Title.
I would put Erickson ahead of Neuheisel
I keep accidentally eating my pets. Maybe I should get something less appetizing, like a cat instead of a Twinkie.
Sort-of-daily sort-of-funny sort-of-thoughts at danoftheday.com
I think they're interchangeable.
Really, you could make the case for either at the spot they’re at. I guess I put Neuheisel where he is because I think he’s more likely to turn it around than Erickson due to age.
People have been talking about Neuheisel's upside since he showed up
in westwood. So far he has shown an amazing lack of just that. He recruited well for a couple of years but that has fallen off. He has had more talent than 2/3rds of the conference since the day he has shown up and can’t get past 8th place. The only question is who had done a worse job, Neuheisel or Wulff.
Wulff is out in the middle of nowhere, and his team is getting better.
Neuheisel is in the center recruiting nirvana, and his team is getting worse.
Agree
Anyone who thinks that Wulff is not making a change there, isn’t really paying attention. It hasn’t necessarily reflected in record, but, especially at the end of last year, there is definitely a change in mentality forming there.
WSU will finish with 5 or 6 wins this year.
Not as far fetched.
WSU’s OOC Schedule is Idaho State, UNLV, and SDSU. The only one of those 3 they won’t be favored is SDSU, and I’m not sold that SDSU can keep it up post Hoke.
That gives them 2, possibly 3 wins.
Considering they Beat the beavers last year, as well gave scares to both Washington, and Cal, and made Arizona uncomfortable during their game 2 or 3 conference victories aren’t out of the question.
It'll be interesting to see how Rocky Long does with actual talent...
We were led to believe he won at New Mexico despite of talent…so he should keep it up. I’m not so sure, though.
Not so sure Talent is much different
I wouldn’t say that the Talent at SDSU is all that much different than the talent that he had while at UNM in his hey day.
I'm in with Jazzy on this one
It’s hard to not have great talent when you’re in San Di-freaking-ego. Besides being a recruiting Mecca, it’s beautiful 70-degree-all-year weather on the beach. Those guys for years have had great talent that just wouldn’t gel on the field (until last year, arguably).
Long’s success in New Mexico was built on the back of a few very talented kids with a bunch of well-coached role players. Albuquerque was never an easy sell for recruits, and Long said on several occasions that recruiting was his least favorite part of the job.
I keep accidentally eating my pets. Maybe I should get something less appetizing, like a cat instead of a Twinkie.
Sort-of-daily sort-of-funny sort-of-thoughts at danoftheday.com
Care to make it interesting?
5 is the number.
by spencer peaty on Jul 19, 2011 8:04 PM MDT up reply actions
How is it absurd?
Age is always a factor when dealing with coaches. Some coaches just don’t adapt well to the times. Erickson was great in the 80s and 90s. But since? Not so much. His best season since his return to college football was 11-1…in 2000. 11 years ago.
I think it’s far harder for an older coach to turn it around than someone who is still relatively young. Kinda like when Johnny Majors originally turned Pitt into a power, moved on to Tennessee for 16 years and then returned to Pitt, much older mind you, and completely flopped.
Did he forget how to coach between ‘76 and ’93? Of course not. But he was 38 when he became Pitt’s coach in 1973. The second time around? Roughly 60 – about the age of Erickson when he returned to ASU.
Basically, I think coaches can have a bit more difficulty adapting when they’re older. I think Erickson is trying to build ASU into his Miami teams. Load up on talent and hope that talent can overcome his lack of discipline as a coach and maybe mask the deficiencies that brings to the program.
Only problem is that ASU today is NOT Miami. Those ‘Cane teams in the 90s were sickly talented. ASU has talent – but compared to its current opposition, it’s not nearly as dominant.
So yeah, I think age does play a role. How else do you explain a coach who won 72% of his games prior to his third return to the game where he’s produced an overall losing record?
Did Erickson just live off talented Miami teams? Na’. I think, at one point, he was an effective coach. I mean, he won at Idaho, won at Washington State, won at Oregon State and hasn’t done much winning at ASU.
Maybe their program is a blackhole, who knows. Then again, maybe he is just over the hill.
I think part of it is motivation.
Young coaches (Urban, Whitt, Peterson, etc) are hungry and willing to work like a dog to be successful. Combine that with talent, skill, charisma, etc. and you have a recipe for a good coach and a good team.
Older coaches may still have all their talent, skill, and charisma that they had when they were winning, but if they’re with a new team they often fail because they’re not willing to out-work the competition to make sure they get a system set up and rolling.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Jul 15, 2011 3:40 PM MDT up reply actions
Yeah, Pete Carroll sure did struggle adapting at USC......
…and that Mack Brown? Total fraud! Speaking of which, Bellotti sure struggled adapting once he cleared 50. Nick Saban – fogey! Cmon man, there is no correlation between age and success.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
You're like a kid who tries to plug a square peg into a circular hole...
What the hell does Mack Brown and Pete Carroll have to do with the point at hand?
Caroll was 49 when he took over at SC – a far cry from the 60 Erickson was when he took over at Arizona State.
Mack Brown was 47 when he took over at Texas.
Mike Bellotti was 45 when he took over at Oregon.
None comparable whatsoever to Erickson’s current situation. These coaches took over the program they rebuilt in the prime of their lives. Bellotti, Brown and Carroll were all under 50 at the time – with Carroll being the oldest.
Erickson, though, is now in his 60s and is rebuilding a program in his 60s.
So I don’t see how any of those coaches compare to Erickson. No one said older coaches automatically FAIL when they reach a certain point – I just was pointing out that you don’t see many old coaches having to start over at a program and there is a reason for that.
As for Saban, you obviously found the one exception to the rule. Doesn’t make your point, however.
I think it’s far harder for a coach who is older to rebuild a program. It can be done, obviously, but it’s not easy. Erickson, Johnny Majors, John Robinson in his second stint with the Trojans & his only with UNLV all failed with their return to football.
All were pushing retirement age.
Let me ask you this: how many 60 year old coaches recently have successfully taken over a program and rebuilt them into a power?
Carroll, Brown and Bellotti don’t count. They weren’t anywhere near retirement age when they took over and rebuild their programs. They aged, certainly, but that came after they had established something good at their current location.
Erickson is not Bellotti. He isn’t Carroll. He’s faced rebuilding a program in his twilight years.
Does age automatically mean you’re going to fail? Of course not. But there is a reason most college football coaches out there are on the better side of 60 and it’s because, for every Saban or Spurrier, you’re looking at a handful of coaches who were just too old, too out of touch, too removed to rebuild a program.
I’m sorry you don’t see the correlation between age and success. Then again, you’re looking at it from a flawed view. We’re not discussing established coaches at the same program aging – we’re talking about aging coaches who take over a struggling program and turn it around.
Erickson hasn’t done that. Why? I think being 64 and at the tail end of his career plays a big role in it. Doesn’t mean it can’t be done, obviously, but it doesn’t happen often. It’s why ADs rarely go after retired and established coaches to rebuild their struggling programs and instead look at up and comers like Urban Meyer and Chris Petersen.
I'm one Ute fan concerned that Chow may be past it...
and is just in it for the money now, but there’s a helluva a difference between a head coach tasked with rebuilding a program and an OC installing a new offensive scheme. Besides, I’m think Chow has plenty of reasons to be motivated for success: returning to his alma mater, doubt over his ability to coach, opportunity to help Utah stick it to BYU on multiple levels, the way he was forced out of both USC and UCLA… After talking with a couple of Ute players recently, I came away with the feeling that Chow is fired up and acting like a man on a mission.
by -FeloniousMonk on Jul 16, 2011 9:36 AM MDT up reply actions
I'm a Norm Chow fan and don't think he is past his prime
Whatever problems he had at UCLA were not his but Rick, too many cooks type thing. That said there is still a lot of debate as to why he was forced out at USC. It goes without saying he was looking for a HC job and there is nothing wrong with that. However when he thinks he has the Stanford job and then tries to get Mark Sanchez to flip it’s kind of crossing the line. Most assistant coaches would be asked to leave under those conditions.
by ev on Jul 16, 2011 9:57 AM MDT up reply actions
Don't Forget
That in the last year, Neuheisel wanted a Pistol offense, and forced that upon Chow. Something he had no familiarity with.
I'll admit there are some concerns...
I’d be more concerned if he was our head coach, though.
But I’ll wait and see with him. I think most Ute fans realize there is the possibility he’s way past his prime. Then again, even if he’s a bit past his prime, he’s still better than what we’ve had the last few years.
Oh...so old age only affects the quality of the coach when said coach is the head coach?
This argument keeps getting more rational.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
Please pay attention
Age does effect all coaches, but Jazzy’s original point, was he thought Erickson’s age would make it harder for him to turn around the program.
I bolded that last part, because that’s what you seem to be missing. It’s not just about turning around an offense, which Chow will be in charge of.
Erickson must turn around the entire program. Everything. So as difficult as Chow will have it turning around the offense at Utah due to his age. Multiply that exponentially.
That’s why there is a difference between a Coordinator, and a Head Coach.
It's hard to put Wulff ahead of any of those coaches...
I get it’s tough to win at Washington State and maybe it’s unfair to say he’s the worst coach in the conference. But when you’re 5-32, there isn’t a lot there that screams competent.
I’m sure WSU fans will have a different take and I get that – but from an outsiders perspective, even though not much has been expected of the Cougars, 5-32 is still 5-32. Take away wins over FCS teams and it’s 3-32 – even worse.
The only problem with Wulff is you can't rate him any lower
Yes WSU had major issues when he took over, and he promptly made them worse. He has had three years to show a pulse and has failed every test. You look at Mike Stoops who had a large hole to dig out of and three years later had them at .500.
He deserves his ranking but ...
You fail to realize the talent Paul Wulff had for his players when he took over and forced several problem child players to transfer and cleaned up his program. The talent level was crap. The first team was barely better than a community college program. His first recruiting class essentially redshirted and it wasn’t that good primarily because Bill Doba struggled recruiting for WSU and left him with nothing and players in the system who weren’t PAC 10 level. Add to the fact the Doba’s teams ended up getting academic violations which ended up with Wulff losing recruits because of Doba’s mistakes.Bill Stoops didn’t dig out of such a wide and gaping hole that Paul Wulff has finally started to get it to show signs of a real PAC 12 team.
You say there has been no pulse? Beating Oregon State and playing very good against Washington who then beat Nebraska in their bowl game showed that WSU has a pulse. It’s just taken 3 long years to finally show it.
Now with at least 6 starters already showing plenty of promise combined with a bunch of redshirt sophomores and other ready to lead WSU, they finally show some promise and as you would say it, a pulse.
Clearly Wulff had a huge job, Doba had let thr program down
with the best intentions of course. However if you consider going 2-12 improvement, it’s only because Wulff had driven the program even further down. If we are counting moral victories (UW), how about giving one to Montana State who played the Cougs to within one point! When Wulff took over, the program had gone 6-6 and 5-7 the years before. As for having kids not Pac10 level in the program, he didn’t help matters by raiding EWU when he showed up. Better to have kept a half dozen of those scholarships in his pocket to use the next year. My lord what a huge mistake, one that hurts the program for years. Sorry but I don’t agree about Mike Stoops. Arizona was a dead program when he took over. I’m not saying Wulff should have won a Pac10 title by now, but 2-10 after year three with one of those over a D-1AA isn’t showing much.
by ev on Jul 15, 2011 9:47 PM MDT up reply actions
Look at last year's seniors
Doba may have gone 5-7 his last year, but if you look at the quality of this year’s seniors you can clearly tell regardless of who was going to coach them they aren’t going to be littered on the starting roster. Nearly every senior Doba recruited is either off the team or riding the pine.
Last season they improved dramatically during their last 4 games which is the most important part. The early season was a struggle, especially with that damn MSU game which scared the hell out of me.
So yes, he deserves his spot but WSU will surprise some teams this year and possibly reach 5 or 6 wins.
I'd love for WSU to get 5-6 wins, I like the Cougs
their fans are some of the best in the Pac12. However the lack of starting seniors in a coaches 4th year is pretty standard. Happens everywhere as the deadwood is cut out from the prior regime or bad classes from the prior coach. WSU isn’t unique in that regard. Look at what Sark did next door, took a team lacking a depth of talent and won games. A good coach can go into any program and get wins, Wulff hasn’t done that yet.
Again, not apples to apples
Most coaches don’t take on a program that even the greatest of coaches couldn’t have done well with the talent on hand. The first year in Pullman the team was getting smacked around. USC could’ve beat WSU by 100 if they had wanted to. The recruiting at Washington is far superior to the players that Wulff is bringing in terms of “4 and 5 star prospects.” Each year Sark has had a top 25 class, including #11 in 2010. Last year Sark won with plenty of Tyrone Willingham’s players. Willingham had the 14th ranked recruiting class his last year of ‘08. He’ll win even more games this year with someone else’s players, something that’s not a luxury for Paul Wulff.
Even Mike Stoops was pulling in bigger recruits to his school. You have to remember bringing recruits to WSU under the old system i.e. no big TV contract to guarantee millions plus a possible multi-million contract for mobile/internet applications which could eventually be worth way more than the TV, was very difficult and remains to be seen what it will be like in the future with the money.
Unlike the previous schools mentioned as well as the big boys, WSU doesn’t have the luxury of paying their assistants big time contracts thus ensuring the best coaching staffs remain at the big schools. Maybe with this newfound wealth after all the facility upgrades have been completed they’ll finally pay their coaches and really compete with better schools at getting key recruits.
Wulff unfortunately has had to build within and risk his career while doing things the right way. He had to redshirt nearly everyone unless their play exceeded the starter, they would redshirt and build them up through a few years of eating right, working out right, and just becoming decent PAC 12 players. His first two years several players who will be playing the next 3 years redhsirted and played early which caused a lot of confusion and obvious losses. Now these player are bigger and ready to show they have some talent. With Doba the players didn’t condition right or work out enough to get big so Wulff had another couple years of conditioning to get these players ready for the PAC 10.
So yes you can mention Mike Stoops and Sark, but just remember they had existing talent on hand which played plenty of snaps for them. Paul Wulff didn’t get this luxury, Nearly everyone you’ve seen over the past two years have been Wulff’s players. They were so green it was terrible, but the light came on midway through last year and they started playing better.
Wulff is a very fine human being...
… And he’s done a nice job in terms of instilling pride in those kids. However, he has been a mediocre recruiter and he’s been a failure (to date) in game day management. The old saying that even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while is one that we all know to be true. However, it doesn’t seem to apply to blind AND deaf squirrels. Meet Paul Wulff.
I hope he has a good year because he is the kind of human being that anyone ought to pull for. However, I’m skeptical.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
Still way too young
Wulff’s teams have been for every season he’s been here, young. Most teams thrive off of their senior leadership. Usually WSU does as well, but not since Wulff took over and that is at no fault to Wulff. This is the final year that Doba’s players are on the roster and next year Wulff’s seniors will be playing. He’s missed key leadership and talent levels which should’ve been on the team. Instead he took over team with talent level of a JC school because it was loaded with JC players, poor academics, guys who weren’t maximizing their weight room time, and obvious players who shouldn’t have been playing D 1 football.
WSU starts more freshmen, sophomores, and junior players then a lot of schools with a ton of these players only having 2 years of experience. Typically it takes 3-4 years of experience to become PAC 12 caliber player, but we’ll see how they play this year. Eventually playing those players is going to pay off. Does it pay off this season, or is next year the big pay off occurs?
the "youth" of WSU is a cannard
… a majority of their starters last year were upperclassmen – a greater majority were multi-year starters. If you wanted to go “young and injured”, I might go there with you as they’ve been bitten hard with injuries. But they have enough experienced players to have more than two pac 10 wins in Wulff’s tenure.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
A cannard?
If you are going to go out and use a big word like canard which most people don’t normally use in a sentence, make sure it’s at least spelled correctly when it’s your title. But really do you believe it’s a falsehood? If you are basing your belief of this based on who started at the beginning of the year you would be kind of correct, but as the season wore and Wulff finally realized the “established and multi-year” starters sucked and youth should be served, he served it up and threw in several first year starters.
Starters at the end of the season as the season wore on:
QB Jeff Tuel- his second year last season, so not a multi-year player
RB was a mixture of JC transfers
WR other than Karstetter everyone was young
TE
O line- about the only real multi-year “experience” on the offense which included a first year true freshman playing LT and some JC players manning the other slots.
D line- started Travis Long another one year player like Tuel and Rankin another JC transfer in addition to being beset by injuries
LB’s- started out “multi-year experienced” but ended up with green first year starters.
Secondary- 3 first year starters manned the secondary
Unless your idea is JC players count as the experience, you don’t really know what you are talking about.
This year they are still going to be “young” with several two year starters throughout the whole starting roster.
Yes, I should spell better...I WILL master typing on glass someday
I do count JC players as your argument was “youth” which, as I pointed out, was false. In fact, UW fielded a younger starting lineup than WSU and played the highest number of true freshmen in the conference (including TWO true freshman on the starting O-line and one on the D-Line). I also defined multi year year staters as anyone who started games in both 2009 and 2010 … Thus multi year.
On a side note, might I say that you are an engaging and pleasant personality. You wade right into sassy-pants territory when challenged, don’t you?
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
So that's who stole my sassy-pants.
It's spelled "B-I-L-L-M-U-S-G-R-A-V-E-C-O-M-E-B-A-C-K"
"If Lache Seastrunk is the POTG against LSU, I will formally quit ATQ." - Axemen23 on 6/21/2011
JC = Experienced?
A JC player does not equal an experienced PAC 12, three year starter. Youth for that matter if you want to be technical is anyone under 21 therefore most of the the starters midway through the season were under 21. Youth can also be defined as “an early period of development or existence” thus also endearing most of the starters at the end of the year as “youths” because many of the JC players who have been brought in don’t have a lot of experience other than CC ball.
You mention multi-year and define this as players who at the time last year were multi-year players because they had started one year and were playing another? The true definition of multi is it means more than 2. Not 2, not playing one season and then playing games your second season. So last season several of the players on the starting lineup at the end of the season were players with less than 2 years of experience and therefore not multi-year players. Now those same players can be considered multi-year players because they’ve played two complete seasons and will be playing their 3rd.
Either way last year and this year WSU is going to be starting a lot of players who have less than 3 years of starting PAC 12 experience which is going to hurt.
I just wish WSU could have the same freshman recruits that Sark has been able to bring to UW because he certainly would have more than 2 wins.
On your side note I should’ve left the sassiness out. Agreed. I will keep it out next time.
In Sports Youth != Age
When referencing any sports, you cannot judge how “old” someone is, by the number that references their chronological Age. Age is only a small portion of it. Games played, and level those games were played on have a greater effect on the youth of someone.
It's a little funny to me that two of the coaches that have actually been to (and have won) a BCS game, are ranked 8 and 9.
I understand the “past-their-prime” clause, but they appear to be ranked behind people who have yet to prove anything (Kiffin, Stoops, Sark), aside from rebuilding.
It's spelled "B-I-L-L-M-U-S-G-R-A-V-E-C-O-M-E-B-A-C-K"
"If Lache Seastrunk is the POTG against LSU, I will formally quit ATQ." - Axemen23 on 6/21/2011
Not just "past their prime".
They also haven’t done anything with their new schools. I’d actually rank Erickson ahead of Neuheisal and I’d rank both of them ahead of Kiffin, but based on results so far it’s not entirely unfair to put them where Jazzy put them.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Jul 13, 2011 11:05 AM MDT up reply actions
Erickson put together a good team that would have won the Pac-10 in 2007 if he had any offensive line.
But I agree, it isn’t unfair. It was just a funny observation to me.
It's spelled "B-I-L-L-M-U-S-G-R-A-V-E-C-O-M-E-B-A-C-K"
"If Lache Seastrunk is the POTG against LSU, I will formally quit ATQ." - Axemen23 on 6/21/2011
I get that...
And I did say on resume alone, both were definitely better than their rankings. However, I think it’s difficult to rank those two higher when they have five non-winning seasons out of seven between them.
I also brought up how neither have improved, at least in terms of a W/L perspective, on the coaches they replaced. There might be areas of improvement (recruiting for both), but when it comes to actual play on the field, UCLA doesn’t look much better today than they did in 2007 – when they were underperforming then too. Similarly, Arizona State let their head coach go after three consecutive winning seasons and now are working on three non-winning seasons in a row (two of which were 5 and 4 wins).
That has to factor into this and since I, fairly or not, put more emphasis on more recent success, it’s hard to see them ranked above coaches who have, at least right now, not proven to be disappointments.
IMO, Erickson and Neuheisel are both disappointments. That might change this season, of course, but no one above them has been a disappointment yet.
This is an odd position - if BCS game winning is your criteria...
… then Kelly needs to be dropped down a few notches. And, I must defend Sark given that his post season record is superior to Kelly’s and his accomplishments as an OC dwarf Kelly’s. I’m not saying he’s better, but to suggest he’s proven nothing relative to Kelly is not a fair assessment when what they inherited is taken into consideration.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
by Gekko Mojo on Jul 15, 2011 7:05 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
I didn't mean to sound so critical on Sark's accomplishments.
He’s improved his team dramatically, and I give him lots of credit for that, but he also has a single winning season under his belt as a Head Coach. I said “aside from rebuilding” as well. That may not have been sufficient enough for you though. I think Sark is taking the program back to relevance, but what he’s yet to accomplish and what he’s “proven” are two different things.
And If I were going to talk about experience as OCs, then Tedford, Kiffin, Sark all have solid BCS resumes. I’m not referring to anyone’s experience as OC (Which Sark only had two years of experience himself)
And finally,, comparing a Holiday Bowl win vs. two BCS games? Apples and Oranges, and post season bowl wins is a bit overstated statistic anyway, though I don’t dismiss the success completely. They are more of a reflection of conference performance. So I personally don’t weigh those very much. However, Kelly has led his team to be the sole Pac-10 champs two years in a row.
Yes, Kelly inherited a better situation than Sark. Sark has proven he can rebuild a team (As sstated). Let’s see him win the Pac-12 and get to a BCS game as a Head Coach. That’s a difficult but tangible goal, I believe, and to my dismay, a goal that I have faith that Sark will eventually accomplish.
It's spelled "B-I-L-L-M-U-S-G-R-A-V-E-C-O-M-E-B-A-C-K"
"If Lache Seastrunk is the POTG against LSU, I will formally quit ATQ." - Axemen23 on 6/21/2011
Hmm… Not sure… I just act this way everywhere I go.
Which is probably why I’m single, and my mom moved out of the house before I did.
It's spelled "B-I-L-L-M-U-S-G-R-A-V-E-C-O-M-E-B-A-C-K"
"If Lache Seastrunk is the POTG against LSU, I will formally quit ATQ." - Axemen23 on 6/21/2011
You'll know you are in bad shape when the mailman decides to boycott you. As long as that hasn't happened, you are golden.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
Just curious where we would all rank Kelly...
if the allegations turn out to be true? Or how about Jim Tressel. Where would you all rank him as a coach knowing that he’s bent quite a few rules? Do you consider any of this as cheating? Are recruitment “short-cuts” a knock against a coach as a coach or as a man? Matter of fact, aren’t these types of recruiting shenanigans actually an example of “good management?” We all know a head coach’s job is about more than just Xs and Os nowadays, but if we look at just their ability to coach football, is that ability diminished or increased by cheating to get the best recruits. In Tressel’s case I’d say he’s actually a lousy coach because he couldn’t contain the egos of his top recruits, keep them focused and get the most out of them. Even with the talent level he cheated to get, he hasn’t won or competed for a NC since 2006. Kelly, on the other hand, has apparently been using his ill-gotten talent to the fullest. Thoughts?
I think Kelly is a fantastic innovator...
…but he’s already demonstrated himself an I’ll-prepared if not naive administrator given his two off-seasons. If he survives the scandal, I expect he’d grow into a true manager of the program as he strikes me as an organized and committed kind of guy. However, you can’t deny his poor off-field performance to date and that, alone, drops him a peg or two.
I really don’t have an issue with where you ranked Whittingham given all he’s done. I think its clear that the top tier of coaches are Whit, Riley and Tedford based on total body of work (on and off the field) and the emerging group is Kelly, Sark, and Stoops. The unknowns are Shaw and Embree. The “risky” picks (potential for upside, potential for destruction) are Wulff, Neu, Erickson, and Kiff.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
I agree with your assessment.
People forget just how relatively “new” Kelly is to head coaching, hopefully you’re right and he’ll become a better manager if he survives all of this. Tressel, on the other hand, isn’t new. Looking at all the reprimands he received in the past for the very same infractions he has been ousted for, I have new appreciation for just how hard a head coach’s job is nowadays, and I can’t help but think that Tressel was either too stuck in his ways to comply, or he was in over his head and couldn’t manage it all.
by -FeloniousMonk on Jul 16, 2011 9:45 AM MDT up reply actions
History says Tressel wasn't in over his head.
Tressel’s history, all the way back to Youngstown State, suggests that Tressel just didn’t care, and wanted to win. Costs be damned.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
- Urban Meyer
"Wow. Wow. Wow."
- Daryl Johnston after Utah took a 21-0 lead on Alabama in the 2009 Sugar Bowl
Related FanPosts on Block U
Related FanShots on Block U
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
