College Football Week 13: THE BORDER WAR!!!!!!!!

[flounder]

Originally Posted by Celeval

*sigh* Put me down as thinking that firing Gailey is a mistake. Here's hoping for Paul Johnson.

I think Gailey is a good guy and a lot of the problems GT had weren't his fault. Still it's clear that whatever success the Jackets have had for the last few years has been a result of their excellence on defense. Without Jon Tenuta, Gailey would have been gone a long time ago.

[Celeval]

Agreed. Losing Tenuta will be a serious blow. I expect he'll get an interview for HC, but I don't think he'll get it.

Other names in the rumor mill:
- Jimbo Fisher (FSU OC) - tied to our AD from when he was at LSU, was supposedly choice #1 last year if Gailey had gone to Miami
- Terry Bowden - looking to get back into coaching from all accounts

[flounder]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Agreed. Losing Tenuta will be a serious blow. I expect he'll get an interview for HC, but I don't think he'll get it.

Other names in the rumor mill:
- Jimbo Fisher (FSU OC) - tied to our AD from when he was at LSU, was supposedly choice #1 last year if Gailey had gone to Miami
- Terry Bowden - looking to get back into coaching from all accounts

If they hire Terry Bowden I will drive to Atlanta and self-immolate in front of the Athletic Center.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by flounder

If they hire Terry Bowden I will drive to Atlanta and self-immolate in front of the Athletic Center.

+1

But the name is out there.

[Celeval]

On the Gailey line... classy move, as with a press conference scheduled for 2pm to announce his firing, he still shows up at noon for a "lunch bunch" weekly lunch for GT fans - typically a different Tech coach or personality every week, and he was scheduled for this one.

[Butter]

AWKWARD!

[st.cronin]

I have not heard Nick Saban's name linked to any of these jobs, my internet must be broken.

[digamma]

The two names I heard over the weekend were Charlie Strong and Joker Phillips.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Dola... a left-field candidate would also be Randy Edsall - he's done a hell of a job at Connecticut, and was the Defensive Coordinator at Georgia Tech back in '98.

Watching him since he came into the Big East, I think Edsall is a really good gameday coach, but his recruiting leaves a lot to be desired. He had Dan Orlovsky fall into his lap when he first got there, and didn't surround him with much talent. But Orlovsky was good enough to carry them to a bowl pretty much by himself. Once he was gone, they struggled a lot with very little on the team that could compete in the BE even in the lean year before the new schools joined. Then he was able to snag Tyler Lorenzen as a JUCO and again he's been able to lead the team pretty much by himself, with some help from a couple decent RBs and a good player here and there on D. If Lorenzen didn't come, they'd still be using D.J. Hernandez at QB and would be dreadful.

[Cringer]

Former Packer coach Mike Sherman has been hired by Texas A&M to be their head coach. Congrats to Sherman. This may make me an Aggie fan. I have never picked a college team here in Texas and this may make me more interested in them while he is there.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...lbE&refer=home

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Geez, that went quickly. Mizzou sold out their entire allotment for the B12 title game(nearly 10,000 seats) in 1 1/2 hours this morning. Sounds like there are still tickets available on Ticketmaster as well, but those will likely be gone today or tomorrow.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Geez, that went quickly. Mizzou sold out their entire allotment for the B12 title game(nearly 10,000 seats) in 1 1/2 hours this morning. Sounds like there are still tickets available on Ticketmaster as well, but those will likely be gone today or tomorrow.

Sounds like the Texas DPS is going to make a ton of money on I-35 this weekend.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

AWKWARD!

LOL!

Oh, to be a fly on the wall there .

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by cartman

Sounds like the Texas DPS is going to make a ton of money on I-35 this weekend.

Oh shit, it's in Texas? Great, going to be an extra special week driving I-35.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

Sounds like the Texas DPS is going to make a ton of money on I-35 this weekend.

I'm sure Oklahoma state troopers will be doing their best work on I-35 and I-44 to make sure that a lot of those tourist dollars are spent unwillingly on the Oklahoma interstates before they even make it to Texas.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Cringer

Oh shit, it's in Texas? Great, going to be an extra special week driving I-35.

Yep. it is in San Antonio.

[Butter]

Anyone else watch that Missouri-Kansas game and think to themselves: "these are 2 of the top 5 teams in the country? Yuck."

Anything similar also counts as a match.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Anyone else watch that Missouri-Kansas game and think to themselves: "these are 2 of the top 5 teams in the country? Yuck."

Anything similar also counts as a match.

I can definitely see where the sight of a high-octane offense would cause a person in B10 country to feel somewhat ill, given that you don't see good offenses in that neck of the woods all that often.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

LOL!

Oh, to be a fly on the wall there .

Actually, it apparently went very well.. .from a report:

"Chan Gailey was the scheduled speaker today. Considering the news of the impending news conference where it is expected that DRad would annouce that Gailey was fired, Frank had arranged for Greg Garrett to give his thoughts on the program. So, we are waiting for Greg to show up when there is Chan standing at the podium - no warning, no one saw him coming. Considering what is happening today, no one expected it - the crowd gave him a standing ovation for showing up. For the next few minutes, Chan spoke to the crowd. He said that he wanted to tell this crowd in particular thank you for supporting him and the football team. He said he was sorry for the game this weekend, that it was not the outcome he or anyone else at GT wanted. He said that he hopes he left the program in as good or better shape than when he got here. He was very emotional. He re-iterated that he was sorry and thanked the fans. Said that he was proud to have been a coach at Georgia Tech. Chan wished the program and the players the best. Very classy move from Chan. Standing ovation from the crowd on his way out as well."

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Logan

Watching him since he came into the Big East, I think Edsall is a really good gameday coach, but his recruiting leaves a lot to be desired.

With that being said, New England is not exactly a fertile recruiting ground. BC usually gets first dibs on the few high profile recruits in the region. He's done well with the talent he's had.

[timmynausea]

I have mixed feelings about Edsall. I think UConn got an incredible amount of breaks this year to get some of the wins they did, though I did always get the impression that they were fairly well coached on top of that. The beating WVU laid on them this week kind of confirmed my suspicions, though - UConn's success this year is a bit of a fluke, I'm afraid, and not a good indicator of the real strength of their program. In my opinion, Brian Kelly is a much better coach, and the Cincinnati program was built better by Dantonio. I mean, UConn has had an extra couple years in a BCS conference, but I really think Cincinnati's program has blown by Connecticut in a rocket ship if they can hang on to Kelly a while. It wasn't long ago that Rutgers and Uconn were seemingly on equal footing either, and clearly Schiano has way more talent at Rutgers, even if the Huskies did beat the Scarlet Knights this year.

As far as New England's recruiting situation, don't forget that Syracuse is way down right now. The past few years have been a great opportunity for Connecticut, and I feel like Edsall has done a pretty mediocre job. I think he realizes that and will parlay this year's success into a better job.

[Atocep]

Be thankful Colin Cowherd doesn't carry a meaningful vote. His poll for ESPN's power 16:

1. USC
2. Georgia
3. WVU
4. Mizzou
5. LSU
6. Florida
7. Oklahoma
8. Ohio State
9. Hawaii
10. Kansas
11. Tennessee
12. Virginia Tech
13. Arizona State
14. Illinois
15. BYU
16. Clemson

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I can definitely see where the sight of a high-octane offense would cause a person in B10 country to feel somewhat ill, given that you don't see good offenses in that neck of the woods all that often.

Insults aside, this is the most mediocre season of college football I can remember. Lots of exciting games, yes. Not a lot of outstanding teams. Every top team has a blemish, and not a small one. Usually, there is at least one team that looks unbeatable, and a couple others that are virtually unbeatable except by the other top teams. This year? YUK. And that includes my beloved Buckeyes.

[Cringer]

Forget all your stinky college teams, they will be nothing once Mike Sherman crushes them all with his Aggies.

[st.cronin]

I think Mike Sherman will do well at A&M. He's not a young man, but he was both HC AND GM of the Packers, and they did pretty well, making the playoffs almost every year.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Washington was 1-10 when he took the job. It's not upper-tier and everyone knew that. It's why he was offered the gig, because it wasn't a mess many people wanted to clean up.

Yeah, they went 1-10 in 2004. And like I said, that followed 27 years of no losing seasons. UW was #3 in the country as recently as the 2000 season. Contrary to Ty apologists, the UW was not in a horrible state in 2004. Yes, the talent level had dropped, and yes, the chaos of players having the coach that recruited most of them (Neuheisel) abruptly fired in the summer of 2003 and then on trial in a civil lawsuit with basically an interim coach (Gilbertson) put in place and then fired put the UW in a tough spot.

But was it really that much worse than Illinois, which went 1-11 in 2003 and then 3-8 in 2004? And that's a program with nowhere near the history of success that the UW has.

Was it worse than Cal which went 1-10 in 2001, hadn't had a winning record in 9 years, hadn't had back to back winning years in 11 years and also doesn't have as rich a tradition as the UW?

Ron Zook was hired at the same time as Ty, has out-recruited him and now in his 3rd season has Illinois at 9-3 and 2nd in the Big-10.

Jeff Tedford took over a sorry Cal program and hasn't had a losing season yet.

Was it a top-level job? No, but it was still a job that any hungry, up-and-comer would've taken (kind of like Don James in 1975). Following on the heels of that shocking 1-10 season, a new coach would've gotten a grace period the following year (like we gave Ty for going 2-9). But rather than do an exhaustive search for that next great coach, our administration settled for a just fired coach with a mediocre record. Did Ty get jobbed at Notre Dame? Yeah, probably - but that doesn't make him a great coach.

And that was just two years ago.

Actually he was hired in December of 2004 - he's at the end of his 3rd season.

College football has changed a lot since UW was a power in the Pac-10. And even if it hadn't, I think the program is on the rise. Or does he not get credit for that?

Program on the rise? They finished last in the Pac-10 in 2004, the year before Ty arrived. Since then they've finished tied for last place in 2005, 2nd from last in 2006 and no better than tied for last this year.

The offense is better this year under phenom Jake Locker, but the UW loses nearly all of their WR corps to graduation - Jake will be throwing to a RS-So, a true So, 2 RS-Fr and whatever true Fr earn playing time. So far, it appears this staff is only pursuing 1 JC guy to try and step in, and he's a longshot - someone that Florida, LSU, Cal, Oregon and others are pursuing as well.

One of Ty's problems has been a poor job of recruiting JC talent - he couldn't do it at Stanford and Notre Dame, and doesn't seem to have the hang of it. The JC guys he brought in his first 2 years, they didn't do a good job of vetting their academic situations and lost a lot of them to insufficient grades. Since then he's thrown up his hands and basically decided to ignore the JC ranks; meanwhile, coaches like Tedford and Erickson skillfully use the JC ranks to quickly bolster their programs.

His recruiting of the H.S. ranks is a little better, but each season he's been here he's failed to land multiple top in-state talents - Jonathan Stewart and Anthony Felder in 2005; Steve Schilling, Taylor Mays (whose dad was a Husky) and Andy Mattingly in 2006; Kellen Kiilsgaard and Jake Gelakoska last year; and already David DeCastro and Trevor Guyton this year, with the strong possibility the top-2 guys (and at positions of extreme need as well) Kavario Middleton and Jermaine Kearse are headed to Oregon and Cal respectively. These are the kinds of homegrown talent that the UW always used to land and were the foundations of Don James, Jim Lambright and Rick Neuheisel. Ty got the biggest fish in Jake Locker, and I'll give him credit for that, but he was likely to pick the UW regardless due to proximity.

The improvements the offense has made this year have been matched by declines in the defense. The defense wasn't very good last year, but with all of the top DL returning and 3 of the top 4 LB returning, it was expected to remain steady, if not improve. Instead, the defense is on track to post the worst numbers in UW history, topping the woeful numbers from 2005 (Ty's first year). Adding insult to injury, 5 of the top 7 DL will be lost to graduation next year, leaving a RS-So DE with experience, a RS-Fr DT with limited experience and a whole bunch of RS-Fr with no experience to step into the void.

This is a program that, under Ty, always seems to lose multiple games to teams they should beat every season. Air Force, UCLA, Oregon State and WSU were all winnable games in 2005 that the Huskies lost.

The Oregon State and Arizona State games last year were winnable, but the Huskies couldn't get the job done. The loss to Stanford was inexcusable.

Losses this year to UCLA and Oregon State were games the UW could've and arguably should've won, and the losses to Arizona and WSU were major failures.

And in all that time, the only unexpected wins Ty can point to is maybe Boise State and Cal this year. Boise State, a WAC team with guys most Pac-10 schools didn't sniff at. And Cal, a team in freefall this year. In this most wacky of college football seasons where Appalachian State knocks off Michigan and Stanford knocks off USC, the UW can't post a big upset in Ty's 3rd season? It should've been the Huskies upsetting USC this year - they were ripe for the picking, but Ty and his staff couldn't get it done.

I'll ask you - look at all the Pac-10 coaches and rank them, and tell me how you could rank Ty any higher than 6th on that list? Hell, he might be as low as 9th. For a school with the resources and history of the UW, that simply isn't good enough.

The UW can and should do better than Ty.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Insults aside, this is the most mediocre season of college football I can remember. Lots of exciting games, yes. Not a lot of outstanding teams. Every top team has a blemish, and not a small one. Usually, there is at least one team that looks unbeatable, and a couple others that are virtually unbeatable except by the other top teams. This year? YUK. And that includes my beloved Buckeyes.

What would truly be bad is if Mizzou lost to OU in the B12 championship. You'd then have arguably the two worst BCS conference champions (WVU and OSU) advancing to the national championship game, mainly because neither of their teams have to play a conference championship. They can just sit back while the other teams have to face a quality opponent at the end of the season, resulting in one more chance to get knocked from their perch.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I'll ask you - look at all the Pac-10 coaches and rank them, and tell me how you could rank Ty any higher than 6th on that list? Hell, he might be as low as 9th. For a school with the resources and history of the UW, that simply isn't good enough.

The UW can and should do better than Ty.

Id rank him higher then 6th...though even if you dont, like i said with Dorrell, who are you going to get thats an upgrade?

[JHandley]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Ron Zook was hired at the same time as Ty, has out-recruited him and now in his 3rd season has Illinois at 9-3 and 2nd in the Big-10.

Jeff Tedford took over a sorry Cal program and hasn't had a losing season yet.

How big of a name was Tedford when Cal hired him? He was a solid QB coach and OC before Cal.

Zook had been railroaded out of Florida.

This is the point that people are trying to make. UW fans think they should be poaching head coaches who are currently employed in *much* better situations than the UW program is in. The only employed coach that UW could get is Mora.

I'm not debating the job that Ty has done. I think his first priority was to get the NCAA the hell out of Seattle and he has done that. I think it's a solid argument that the program is still floundering and should improve, but it really was an awful situation for someone to walk into over there.

[st.cronin]

dawgfan, do Washington fans want Jim Mora?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

What would truly be bad is if Mizzou lost to OU in the B12 championship. You'd then have arguably the two worst BCS conference champions (WVU and OSU) advancing to the national championship game, mainly because neither of their teams have to play a conference championship. They can just sit back while the other teams have to face a quality opponent at the end of the season, resulting in one more chance to get knocked from their perch.

What? Seriously, you're turning this into the console thread with Mizzou football playing the role of PS3.

Mizzou: 11-1 SOS (34)
WVU: 10-1 SOS (35)

The fact that the big 12 chooses to play a title game to make more money is well known to create more risk in getting to the BCS title game. However, to act like Mizzou is the last chance of a quality team getting into the championship game is insane.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

What would truly be bad is if Mizzou lost to OU in the B12 championship.

No, that would be truly wonderful.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

What would truly be bad is if Mizzou lost to OU in the B12 championship. You'd then have arguably the two worst BCS conference champions (WVU and OSU) advancing to the national championship game, mainly because neither of their teams have to play a conference championship. They can just sit back while the other teams have to face a quality opponent at the end of the season, resulting in one more chance to get knocked from their perch.

That seems to be the trade-off that the conferences make. A Championship Game is a license to print money. In exchange, two of your best teams are given one more chance to lose when they play each other.

If I were a conference, I'd rather have the money that a championship game generates annually than the ability to "sit back." Seems like that would help (facilities, recruiting, paying coaches, etc.) winning more in the long run.

Also, I have no dog in this fight, but I would note that, say, Ohio State has played 12 games this season, so the idea of "sitting back" is really just a matter of frontloading a schedule. Also, there will be years when two teams are separated by hundreths of a decimal point in the BCS and in which playing a championship game will give one of the teams a "quality win" and increase their computer ranking while the other team is forced to "sit back" and can do nothing to help itself.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Atocep

What?

Mizzou: 11-1 SOS (34)
WVU: 10-1 SOS (35)

The fact that the big 12 chooses to play a title game to make more money is well known to create more risk in getting to the BCS title game. However, to act like Mizzou is the last chance of a quality team getting into the championship game is insane.

No, my point is that if they want to stick with this system, they should have all of the BCS conferences play a championship game. Without championship games in each BCS conference, the system is severely flawed, but I doubt that comes as a surprise to most people.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

No, that would be truly wonderful.

Ah, true.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think Mike Sherman will do well at A&M. He's not a young man, but he was both HC AND GM of the Packers, and they did pretty well, making the playoffs almost every year.

Well, he wasn't the best GM. I would have really like to see him have more then 1 year as just a head coach though. (Two years actually, his first and last, so maybe more then 1 year at a time I should say)

I am just excited because I may have a college team to actually cheer for now. I have never had any reason to be a major fan for one team or another, so I usually just look for good games and take the underdog. I like Sherman a lot and he can be a pretty good coach I think.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

No, my point is that if they want to stick with this system, they should have all of the BCS conferences play a championship game. Without championship games in each BCS conference, the system is severely flawed, but I doubt that comes as a surprise to most people.

No, the teams chose to make conference championship games because they wanted more money. Thats it. There was no other reason at all. The ACC added 3 teams so they could get a conference championship game and by the end they would have taken just about any team that could get 11 guys on the field in order to make it happen.

Its a choice the Big 12, SEC, and ACC made. A team doesn't get to play every other team in the conference like they do in the Big East and Pac-10. Those conferences determine their champion over the course of the season. Why would you have a rematch to determine who the best team is if you're either of those conferences? WVU just beat UConn 66-21 and you'd want them to turn around and play again to determine the conference championship?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

No, my point is that if they want to stick with this system, they should have all of the BCS conferences play a championship game. Without championship games in each BCS conference, the system is severely flawed, but I doubt that comes as a surprise to most people.

The system is severely flawed, but not for that reason. The conferences willingly accept that risk for the extra money. I think it would be silly to force a conference to play a championship game and I doubt the Big 12/SEC are willing to give their title game up, so I don't think anything can be done about that.

[Vegas Vic]

This is getting good already.

"Hopefully we can luck out again.” - OU defensive coordinator Brent Venables

[Young Drachma]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/colum...9&sportCat=ncf

Mostly because of what he says about delusional people who defend the BCS. But there are other gems in there, too.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by JHandley

How big of a name was Tedford when Cal hired him? He was a solid QB coach and OC before Cal.

Zook had been railroaded out of Florida.

This is the point that people are trying to make. UW fans think they should be poaching head coaches who are currently employed in *much* better situations than the UW program is in. The only employed coach that UW could get is Mora.

I don't necessarily disagree about poaching top-level coaches - we're not going to get a guy like Tedford. At this point, after 4 consecutive losing seasons, the UW situation could be viewed as a tough one.

On the other hand, a new coach will get at least 3 years to start showing real progress (i.e. not finishing last or next to last in the Pac-10 every year) and will have a phenomenal talent at QB to build around, not to mention the tremendous resources that a re-energized UW fanbase can provide.

I think if Ty is fired that a thorough search should be undertaken to find the next great coach. I'd prefer someone with head coaching experience, even if it's Division 1-AA experience over a coordinator, but that's not a deal-breaker.

As for "better situations", you think that Paul Johnson, Brian Kelly and Chris Peterson are in better situations? It all depends on their priorities. If any of those guys want a good shot at BCS bowls and maybe National Championship contention, the UW provides a much better shot at those goals than Navy, Cincinnati or Boise State. They'll make a lot more money at the UW. It is not at all inconceivable that one of those guys would take the UW job if offered - the bigger issue is the number of other teams that the UW will be competing with for a new coach (if Ty is fired).

The Huskies have struggled for the last 4-5 years, but this is a program that has enough advantages to be a consistent top-20 team contending for Rose Bowls and every once in a while being in the National Championship picture. People thought that USC's time had come and gone too, but they hired the right guy and all of a sudden USC is one of the top programs in the country again.

I'm not debating the job that Ty has done. I think his first priority was to get the NCAA the hell out of Seattle and he has done that. I think it's a solid argument that the program is still floundering and should improve, but it really was an awful situation for someone to walk into over there.

I agree that part of hiring Ty was about the UW being tired of and paranoid about NCAA investigations. Unlike places like Ohio State and Oregon where the athletic administrations actively defend their coaches and programs and end up getting minimal punishment, the UW has a history of capitulating before the NCAA and getting reamed. Hiring Ty was partly an attempt to avoid NCAA controversy.

But I disagree that the situation he stepped into was really that bad. That 1-10 season in 2004 could've been a blip on the radar, but with Ty following that up with 2-9, 5-7 and 4-9/5-8, it makes it look like it was a bad situation. I disagree - the UW underachieved in all of those seasons, 2004 included. The talent level was down from what the UW usually had, but these were still guys recruited mostly by multiple other Pac-10 schools.

Yes, the chaos of firing Neuheisel in the summer of 2003 (a huge mistake - the UW should've kept him for the 2003 season, fired him and then conducted a proper coaching search) and having essentially an interim coach in Gilbertson who was fired after imploding in 2004 made for an unstable situation for the players. But it's not like the UW didn't have a recent history of success and a lot of stud recruits in-state to build off of. By year 3 this program should've been back into a bowl and competing for the upper half of the conference. The UW situation in 2005 wasn't worse than Cal in 2002 or Illinois in 2005.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

dawgfan, do Washington fans want Jim Mora?

Yeah, he's the obvious candidate for most fans who want a change.

Personally, I have some reservations. He has next to no experience coaching at the college level (1 year of grad assistant work under Don James at the UW), which is a major question mark for me. That's not to say that he won't be smart enough to surround himself with good, experience collegiate level assistants to help him transition into the college game, but it's a major concern.

On the positive side, he's a charismatic guy that the Seahawks used as their primary free agent "recruiter" this last off-season, which speaks well to his ability to be a recruiting salesman for the UW. Add in his obvious passion for the program and he's a guy that should re-energize the fanbase and should do well selling the program to recruits. His defensive background also appeals to a fanbase that revered the Don James focus on tough players, strong running game, stout defense and strong special teams. His ties to the Don James era (he was a walk-on player for James at the UW from 1980-83) also appeal to the fanbase.

If Ty gets the boot after this season, it seems likely that Mora will be the guy they target.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

No, my point is that if they want to stick with this system, they should have all of the BCS conferences play a championship game. Without championship games in each BCS conference, the system is severely flawed, but I doubt that comes as a surprise to most people.

I know I'm the third person to jump on you for this, but I really, really can't believe you expected anyone to buy this giant piece of shit you're peddling.

[larrymcg421]

It should be noted that when Butch Davis started at Miami, his first three seasons (95-97) featured the schools worst record since 1977-79. A school that hadn't had consecutive seasons with 3 or more losses since 1979-80 had four such seasons to start Butch's career. The teams seemed to constantly underperform and had some embarassing losses (66-13 to Syracuse, 47-0 to FSU, two losses to East Carolina). They certainly could have fired him at this point, but their patience paid off with a stellar 2000 season and an eventual national title the year after he left.

My point is that it would be a shame if Washington fires Willingham, because it would be the 2nd time he only got 3 seasons at a school, and also the 2nd time he'd leave his successor to reap the benefits of a blue chip QB.

[JHandley]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I don't necessarily disagree about poaching top-level coaches - we're not going to get a guy like Tedford. At this point, after 4 consecutive losing seasons, the UW situation could be viewed as a tough one.

On the other hand, a new coach will get at least 3 years to start showing real progress (i.e. not finishing last or next to last in the Pac-10 every year) and will have a phenomenal talent at QB to build around, not to mention the tremendous resources that a re-energized UW fanbase can provide.

I think if Ty is fired that a thorough search should be undertaken to find the next great coach. I'd prefer someone with head coaching experience, even if it's Division 1-AA experience over a coordinator, but that's not a deal-breaker.

As for "better situations", you think that Paul Johnson, Brian Kelly and Chris Peterson are in better situations? It all depends on their priorities. If any of those guys want a good shot at BCS bowls and maybe National Championship contention, the UW provides a much better shot at those goals than Navy, Cincinnati or Boise State. They'll make a lot more money at the UW. It is not at all inconceivable that one of those guys would take the UW job if offered - the bigger issue is the number of other teams that the UW will be competing with for a new coach (if Ty is fired).

The Huskies have struggled for the last 4-5 years, but this is a program that has enough advantages to be a consistent top-20 team contending for Rose Bowls and every once in a while being in the National Championship picture. People thought that USC's time had come and gone too, but they hired the right guy and all of a sudden USC is one of the top programs in the country again.

See, this is where you lose me. You (meaning the UW fans that I know and listen to when they call Softy and/or Groz, so I apologize for the generalization) want a big name hire. A guy who can turn the program around in 3 years. The kind of guy that other big name schools will be going after. Then you bring up examples like Tedford (zero head coaching experience prior to Cal), Zook (Run out of Florida, tarred and feathered), Carroll (A disaster coaching in the pros, fired twice). UW needs to find a guy like that and that's really luck of the draw. Additionally, I'm not sure how it can be assessed that Ty isn't one of those guys. One great recruiting class and it's a completely different story.

Paul Johnson, Brian Kelly and Chris Peterson are in situations where they control their own fate. Say what you will about the desire to make more money and win Pac-10 championships, that's a much better situation than moving to UW where you have three years to hit lofty goals or you're canned. UW has exactly one player who'd compete for a starting job at USC. Maybe three that might play at Oregon. That's a bad situation to walk into, certainly not one that becomes more attractive when you know you're not going to get to see the freshmen you recruit become seniors if you don't win by year three.

Are the goals attainable? Sure. Are you going to get someone who can write their own ticket to another program? No.

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I agree that part of hiring Ty was about the UW being tired of and paranoid about NCAA investigations. Unlike places like Ohio State and Oregon where the athletic administrations actively defend their coaches and programs and end up getting minimal punishment, the UW has a history of capitulating before the NCAA and getting reamed. Hiring Ty was partly an attempt to avoid NCAA controversy.

But I disagree that the situation he stepped into was really that bad. That 1-10 season in 2004 could've been a blip on the radar, but with Ty following that up with 2-9, 5-7 and 4-9/5-8, it makes it look like it was a bad situation. I disagree - the UW underachieved in all of those seasons, 2004 included. The talent level was down from what the UW usually had, but these were still guys recruited mostly by multiple other Pac-10 schools.

Yes, the chaos of firing Neuheisel in the summer of 2003 (a huge mistake - the UW should've kept him for the 2003 season, fired him and then conducted a proper coaching search) and having essentially an interim coach in Gilbertson who was fired after imploding in 2004 made for an unstable situation for the players. But it's not like the UW didn't have a recent history of success and a lot of stud recruits in-state to build off of. By year 3 this program should've been back into a bowl and competing for the upper half of the conference. The UW situation in 2005 wasn't worse than Cal in 2002 or Illinois in 2005.

Not only was Ty UW's third coach in 4 years, USC, Oregon and Cal were all on tremendous upswings and rolls. There was zero talent on either the D-Line or O-Line, Stanbeck could play but once he figured out the system he got hurt. The defense had been awful for 3 years when he got there. I don't think it was necessarily worse than the Cal and Illinois situations were, but it was just as bad.

I don't think it's unreasonable to give a coach five years instead of three to try and get it back on track considering where it came from. I think this is a case similar to everyone wanting the backup QB to play when the starter struggles.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/colum...9&sportCat=ncf

Mostly because of what he says about delusional people who defend the BCS. But there are other gems in there, too.

I can understand fans of Tennessee or Texas wanting a playoff, but you're a fan of Wyoming - how in the world do you think a playoff will benefit your school? If any of the playoff scenarios that I've seen tossed around actually get implemented, Wyoming will probably drop down to the FCS level within a decade.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Insults aside, this is the most mediocre season of college football I can remember. Lots of exciting games, yes. Not a lot of outstanding teams. Every top team has a blemish, and not a small one. Usually, there is at least one team that looks unbeatable, and a couple others that are virtually unbeatable except by the other top teams. This year? YUK. And that includes my beloved Buckeyes.

I guess you're a Yankee and Patriot fan?

I think it's been a great season and a playoff system would be wonderful - parity is becoming apparent in football just like in basketball.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by JHandley

See, this is where you lose me. You (meaning the UW fans that I know and listen to when they call Softy and/or Groz, so I apologize for the generalization) want a big name hire. A guy who can turn the program around in 3 years. The kind of guy that other big name schools will be going after. Then you bring up examples like Tedford (zero head coaching experience prior to Cal), Zook (Run out of Florida, tarred and feathered), Carroll (A disaster coaching in the pros, fired twice). UW needs to find a guy like that and that's really luck of the draw. Additionally, I'm not sure how it can be assessed that Ty isn't one of those guys. One great recruiting class and it's a completely different story.

The only "big-name hire" I think is realistic is Jim Mora. Peterson, Kelly and Johnson are not "big-names" IMO - they are known quantities to avid college football fans, but not the average fan. What names are being thrown around on KJR, I have no idea. Pretty much the only name thrown around on the premium Dawgman.com forum is Mora.

And I agree about digging around to find the next great coach. Sure, there's some risk in trying to project guys that don't have prior experience, but it's not necessarily rocket science either.

Paul Johnson, Brian Kelly and Chris Peterson are in situations where they control their own fate. Say what you will about the desire to make more money and win Pac-10 championships, that's a much better situation than moving to UW where you have three years to hit lofty goals or you're canned. UW has exactly one player who'd compete for a starting job at USC. Maybe three that might play at Oregon.

I'll agree that I don't know what goals those guys have for their career. I do know that if having a good chance to compete for BCS bowls and possibly a national championship is important to them, the UW is a better job than the ones they currently have. They'll make more money too.

And the talent level at the UW isn't as bad as you make it out to be. There's been little player development as a whole under this staff - the raw material is here to be better than last in the Pac-10 if a better coaching staff is in place.

That's a bad situation to walk into, certainly not one that becomes more attractive when you know you're not going to get to see the freshmen you recruit become seniors if you don't win by year three.

Most coaches, if they're worth a damn, have proven themselves by year 3. Research by Hugh Millen has shown that coaches with records of 36% or less (Ty is at 31.4%) in their first 3 years, only 27.6% get asked back for a fourth year. Of those, only 8.6% achieve a .500 or better record in their 4th and 5th year.

Now, if these guys aren't confident in their ability, then yeah - stay in a lower-pressure situation. But if they're any good, they'll show some tangible progress in the win/loss columns by year 3.

Not only was Ty UW's third coach in 4 years, USC, Oregon and Cal were all on tremendous upswings and rolls. There was zero talent on either the D-Line or O-Line, Stanbeck could play but once he figured out the system he got hurt. The defense had been awful for 3 years when he got there. I don't think it was necessarily worse than the Cal and Illinois situations were, but it was just as bad.

There's enough talent here to win. That 2004 team wouldn't have been 1-10 with Neuheisel as coach - that team simply quit on Gilby, and Gilby wasn't nearly as good a gameday coach as Neuheisel. Criticize Neuheisel all you want about his recruiting and off-the-field stuff, but the man was a very good motivator and made good in-game adjustments.

Oregon has been no better during Gilby and Ty's years than they were during the Lambright and Neuheisel eras. Cal got good, but Arizona got bad. USC improved, but UCLA has fallen back.

I don't think it's unreasonable to give a coach five years instead of three to try and get it back on track considering where it came from. I think this is a case similar to everyone wanting the backup QB to play when the starter struggles.

I would agree if there were more tangible signs of progress. Progress so far under Ty has come at a glacial pace, if at all. People look back on the string of win/loss records since 2004 and proclaim that this downturn was inevitable, that there wasn't enough talent, blah blah blah. What they ignore is that the UW's recruiting lists in 2002-4 was of guys that much of the rest of the Pac-10 was pursuing as well. We got enough talent to finish in the middle of the conference - we just didn't get the coaching to properly develop them or the gameplans to out coach the opposition.

Given the facts presented above, I fail to see what Ty has done to earn the benefit of the doubt that he's one of the 8.6% who will prove he's on the right track after his lousy start at the UW.

[WSUCougar]

Meanwhile, on the other side of the Cascades...

TWO INDEPENDENT SOURCES close to the WSU Football program who asked not to be identified have confirmed to Cougfan.com that Bill Doba will not be retained as the head coach at Washington State for next season. A press conference has been scheduled for 4:30 pm this afternoon with A.D. Jim Sterk and Doba in attendance.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

If any of the playoff scenarios that I've seen tossed around actually get implemented, Wyoming will probably drop down to the FCS level within a decade.

You're wrong that Wyoming will get demoted to FCS. Understand that in a state of just over 500,000, they routinely get 3-4% of the state population to drive to Laramie -- which is remote as hell relatively to most of the areas in the state besides Cheyenne with any significant population -- and that highest profile sport the state has.

From a purely practical matter, if the new rules were passed to increase the required attendance to say, 30k per game attendance average to stay in Division 1-A, Wyoming businesses and politicians would do whatever they had to, to make sure that the stadium was packed week in and week out to get to that number.

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I can understand fans of Tennessee or Texas wanting a playoff, but you're a fan of Wyoming - how in the world do you think a playoff will benefit your school?

I'm not a 'fan' of Wyoming really (I grew up less than 15 minutes from Rutgers and was born and raised in New Jersey) but I know why you'd assume that given some of my posts. I went to UW (for a year) and still live in the state, work here and own a business here. And naturally, they're literally in my backyard and so, I like to see them do well...and I criticize them when they make boneheaded decisions, largely because tax dollars fund their silliness.

But...I'll go ahead and answer your question, given my closeness to the situation.

1. I support a playoff in D-1A because it's sensible as hell and all of this stupid rankling about perceived superiority based on region without ever duking out on the field is asinine. Plain and simple. I think teams that have stellar seasons ought to be rewarded for it. I don't give a damn if you think the Sun Belt conference wouldn't even win a playoff game in the FCS, I want to see them get a chance -- even if it's in a Wild Card playoff game -- to play in a game that has some meaning and some implications beyond just useless bowl games that don't mean anything.

The regular season is only interesting if your team plays in a conference people care about and that sucks, because you basically need to go to a football factory or a school with a huge endowment to be able to enjoy the beauty and fun of college football. The rest of us right now are part of a hapless charade that doesn't do anything but edify those chosen few -- and of course -- the pretenders who once in a blue moon get a chance to shine bright (Boise State last year), but it's not as if that lasts, because even in the case of Boise..they had just one loss and forever couldn't get into the polls.

Because no one took their schedule seriously. And with the big boys ducking games, we're supposed to be okay with that? Hawaii could be out of this entire conversation right now, if Michigan had just played them, rather than paying App State to come there and beat them.

I'm all for a system that works and if EVERY OTHER SPORT that's NCAA sanctioned has a playoff, having a system that is blatantly tilted towards so-called power schools with coaches who are ridiculously well paid and who cultivate their craft on the backs of poor rural and urban kids who have illusions of grandeur is something that makes me cringe every time I watch a game between two MWC, MAC or other conference that "no one" cares about, let alone a big college game with 100,000 fans cheering insanely for Ol' U.

So in other words, I could care less about my own interests in this particular case. I know that as a former athlete, it would have sucked to be in a situation where we didn't even get an OPPORTUNITY to play for something more. And that's the system right now. It tells kids that they're not good enough before they even get a chance to prove it on the field.

And if for some reason, Wyoming slipped up and had a great season, went undefeated or had a 1-loss MWC winning season, I think that at least the specter of playing for all of it, seeing how they matchup against teams that are too chicken to play us or that feel they're "superior" would be a spectacle and a story that is far beyond anything we're seeing these days.

Just what I think.

You have no idea who you're dealing with here. These people drove in a blizzard last year -- no, an actual blizzard -- to get to Laramie to the Women's NIT when the Wyoming women's team won the whole thing. We're talking over 16,000 in the arena for three home dates for a tournament that didn't get broadcast on anything other than local TV.

Would they be more successful at a lower level? Hell no. It's hard as hell to recruit here now, if they dropped down a level in football, no one would come here and they'd languish miserably. That's just the truth. Would I like to see them become one of the powers of D-1AA (see: Montana), sure. That'd be pretty neat if they were competing for national championships and ONLY if they were competing for national championships.

The University of Wyoming is the ONLY accredited four year school in the state of Wyoming. There are no state colleges, no in-state rivals. Just seven community colleges and U-Dub. That's it.

The fact that Wyoming college sports exist at the D1 level allow people outside of the state to know where it is. Sad, but true. I work at the largest community college in the state -- that anywhere else would be a state college (along with the CC in Casper) -- and I hear from admissions counselors all of the time that students from Colorado, which is only 90 minutes from Cheyenne, don't have any idea where Wyoming is. Or the think it's "too far" and will look at college in Colorado that are further away.

It's a brand identity problem that the state has for a host of reasons that are largely driven by the small, but ridiculously powerful rancher-dominant legislature and other power brokers who are hellbent on preventing progress from the state's mineral-dominant and otherwise third world economy.