ADVERTISEMENT

Leach shows commitment to grades

Coug95man2

Hall Of Fame
Dec 7, 2011
6,681
783
113
PAC 12 single year APR is out. Go Cougs!

1. Stanford 989
2. Utah 981
3. WSU 973
4. UW 972
5. UO 969
6. CO 966
7. ASU 964
8. USC 963
9. UCLA 958
10. OSU 949
11. CAL 946
12. UA 943
 
Men's basketball was in jeopardy needing a 950 and ended up at 963. Volleyball was at 929 last year and posted a perfect 1000. All sports were above 930.
 
PAC 12 single year APR is out. Go Cougs!

1. Stanford 989
2. Utah 981
3. WSU 973
4. UW 972
5. UO 969
6. CO 966
7. ASU 964
8. USC 963
9. UCLA 958
10. OSU 949
11. CAL 946
12. UA 943

Great to see us moving up the list. I hope it means that we have guys that can start being sharper mentally on the field as well.
 
Great to see us moving up the list. I hope it means that we have guys that can start being sharper mentally on the field as well.
You know, while that would be great, I'm just glad this isn't a detriment to the program. Regardless of all the positives in regards to all these students getting good grades, it's nice to not have this, of all things this, be a reason for penalties towards our programs.
 
Like the Bennetts, I knew Leach would make this happen.

I think Ernie is big on academics as well, so I expect that to continue to improve.

Now if we can just starting winning...(but if we don't, at least our opponent fan bases can respect this, as opposed to losing AND being at the bottom end of the academic rankings).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Coug95man2
The biggest thing with APR is being in good standing when you leave. Individual GPA's help, but it seems more guided to keeping players eligible than anything else to me. Like most things NCAA, it is a nice thought that gets screwed up in processing.
 
You just don't get it. Leach isn't going to get it done.
Well, finishing 3-9 and having to fire 3 coaches, not being able to get the DC they wanted, and no discernable speed on D does not tell me we are trending upward.

I do find your obsession with my quote, that I said nearly 3 yrs ago, in a thread I'm not even involved in to be pretty hilarious as well as consistent with your stalker persona.
 
Last edited:
the handwriting has been on the wall since halftime of his first game
EDITED ...but doesn't change the question....I do have to ask LTC...did you really believe Leach would be 3-9 in his first season? And he would be 3-9 in his third season and did you really believe his defense would be statistically worse in points allowed than 2009, one of the worse seasons on recrod?
 
Last edited:
I do have to ask LTC...did you really believe Leach would be 3-9 in his first season, with a worse record than the guy he took over for? And he would be 3-9 in his third season which was only one better then the guy he took over for had in his year three? And did you really believe his defense would be statistically worse in points allowed than 2009?
LTC, you can answer this because Ed did not actually use Wulff's name, although that is who was brought up. So, Ed still has plausible deniability about never being the first to bring up Wulff in a thread.
 
I do have to ask LTC...did you really believe Leach would be 3-9 in his first season, with a worse record than the guy he took over for? And he would be 3-9 in his third season which was only one better then the guy he took over for had in his year three? And did you really believe his defense would be statistically worse in points allowed than 2009?
Is this your version of, "I don't bring up his name.", Ed? Just because you don't spell his name out, doesn't mean you don't bring him up… FYI.
 
1990 and 95, nice diversion tactics.

I would be curious to hear your answers as well as LTC's.
 
1990 and 95, nice diversion tactics.

I would be curious to hear your answers as well as LTC's.
It is not an accident that both of us independently came up with the same thought regarding your brother. It was not a diversion tactic on my part at all.

We have discussed what your brother brought up on many occasions. Nothing has changed since the billion other times...
 
  • Like
Reactions: YakiCoug
Well, finishing 3-9 and having to fire 3 coaches, not being able to get the DC they wanted, and no discernable speed on D does not tell me we are trending upward.

I do find your obsession with my quote, that I said nearly 3 yrs ago, in a thread I'm not even involved in to be pretty hilarious as well as consistent with your stalker persona.

Your obsession with Leach failing is pathetic. Get a life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YakiCoug
1990 and 95, nice diversion tactics.

I would be curious to hear your answers as well as LTC's.
Diversion… You obviously haven't read the Round Robin of conversations that you and your brother have continually, cyclically devolved over the past several years. Talk about "diversion tactics". Neither of you know how to stay on point so pot (you) shouldn't be calling anyone black.

I'm actually going to do this… I can't believe I'm going to do this… :confused:

No, I didn't expect any of that to happen. That answers all of the questions. Happy?
 
LTC, you can answer this because Ed did not actually use Wulff's name, although that is who was brought up. So, Ed still has plausible deniability about never being the first to bring up Wulff in a thread.
Good grief 1990...it goes to expectation. It has to do with expectation, and nothing to do with Wulff.Wulff just happened to be the guy before hand.

See, I would have laid my season tickets if you gave me the over under of 4 wins in 2012 and I would have taken the over that year. If you asked me in 2012 what Leach's record would have been, I would have figured 5 wins at minimum in 2012, but with onboarding etc, totally get how 3-9 came about. I would have figured in December of 2011 that they would 6-6 and 6-6 in 2013 and 2014. I would have not expected his team to regress so much.

So my question stands, is this what you expected LTC?
 
Diversion… You obviously haven't read the Round Robin of conversations that you and your brother have continually, cyclically devolved over the past several years. Talk about "diversion tactics". Neither of you know how to stay on point so pot (you) shouldn't be calling anyone black.

I'm actually going to do this… I can't believe I'm going to do this… :confused:

No, I didn't expect any of that to happen. That answers all of the questions. Happy?
With all due respect 95...LTC was the diversion talking about this was destined since the first game of 2012. It was a simple question to his smarmy remark. I agree with you, I didn't expect it to play out this way either.

So to give a smarmy remark as LTC did, it is fair to question him about his expectations in only that he acted like a winning season is a lock. And I thought when Leach took over that was the case.
 
With all due respect 95...LTC was the diversion talking about this was destined since the first game of 2012. It was a simple question to his smarmy remark. I agree with you, I didn't expect it to play out this way either.

So to give a smarmy remark as LTC did, it is fair to question him about his expectations in only that he acted like a winning season is a lock. And I thought when Leach took over that was the case.
I'm going to say this is a result of the new CRAPPY format here (hint, hint Rivals/Yahoo).

I wasn't using the "diversion" comment towards you, specifically, although I did clump you in with Sponge… But the comment was towards Sponge, hence the reason I quoted him. He called what I said a diversion. I found that "the pot calling the kettle black" considering how some of the threads have completely fallen apart due to the "rabbit trails" they've gone down, the lack of focus and how easily these "rabbit trails" could be seen as diversions due to inability to support statements.

I WAS commenting prior on your continual "I don't bring him up". Yet you always do, just like you did here. You just don't type his name. No one "archives" or screen shots all of your posts so when you've said this in the recent past, no one can say anything. Now that you've done it again, it's obvious 1990 and I saw the conflict of actions. We called you out on it.

I also answered your questions.
 
It is not an accident that both of us independently came up with the same thought regarding your brother. It was not a diversion tactic on my part at all.

We have discussed what your brother brought up on many occasions. Nothing has changed since the billion other times...
It actually is a diversion when you sidestep the main point of the post to play msg board hall monitor to say "Ed is bringing up Wulff again!"
 
Ah, the old "I know you are but what am I?" response.

Sadly, such a simple response from you is expected.
Well, not going to go back and forth with a nameless ,faceless troll who only appears every now and then to throw his 2 cents in and disappears.
 
It actually is a diversion when you sidestep the main point of the post to play msg board hall monitor to say "Ed is bringing up Wulff again!"

This was a thread about APR. Not sure how you bringing up 3-9, firing coaches and not hiring a certain DC has to do with me diverting the topic at hand. I don't see how Ed bringing up expectations of if we all saw 3-9 coming is me diverting the topic at hand.

It is you to once again diverting this to Leach is bad and your brother bringing up Wulff without typing his name.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wulffui
LTC, you can answer this because Ed did not actually use Wulff's name, although that is who was brought up. So, Ed still has plausible deniability about never being the first to bring up Wulff in a thread.

Yet another thread has been spammED by the Paulie Annas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wazzucougs96
Well, finishing 3-9 and having to fire 3 coaches, not being able to get the DC they wanted, and no discernable speed on D does not tell me we are trending upward.

I do find your obsession with my quote, that I said nearly 3 yrs ago, in a thread I'm not even involved in to be pretty hilarious as well as consistent with your stalker persona.

It sucks being you, having your own idiotic words wrapped around your neck like a noose. I don't blame you for not wanting to see your infamous line again. As for the original point in this thread, do you disagree the APR is on the upswing? Try to stay focused, boy.
 
This was a thread about APR. Not sure how you bringing up 3-9, firing coaches and not hiring a certain DC has to do with me diverting the topic at hand. I don't see how Ed bringing up expectations of if we all saw 3-9 coming is me diverting the topic at hand.

It is you to once again diverting this to Leach is bad and your brother bringing up Wulff without typing his name.
Umm..I brought it up because I was indirectly mentioned/quoted by Yaki and LTC even though they didn't mention me by name...so I responded.

If I wasn't mentioned(without being mentioned by name) I would not have posted in this thread.
 
It sucks being you, having your own idiotic words wrapped around your neck like a noose. I don't blame you for not wanting to see your infamous line again. As for the original point in this thread, do you disagree the APR is on the upswing? Try to stay focused, boy.
You are the one who veered off topic Nanook.

And so far, I have been proven right...and that really bothers you.

A 9th place overall record that got us a Greg Fawker bowl sandwiched by 3-9 records and a fire sale of coaches proves it.
 
Last edited:
You are the one who veered off topic Nanook.

And so far, I have been proven right...and that really bothers you.

A 9th place overall record that got us a Greg Fawker bowl sandwiched by 3-9 records and a fire sale of coaches proves it.
Took two years to get to a bowl after six wins in four years. Bought him a 3-9 in my eyes.
 
Except, the coaches in Leach's "fire sale" (haha, sure...) could, you know, get other D-1 jobs.
 
Good grief 1990...it goes to expectation. It has to do with expectation, and nothing to do with Wulff.Wulff just happened to be the guy before hand.

See, I would have laid my season tickets if you gave me the over under of 4 wins in 2012 and I would have taken the over that year. If you asked me in 2012 what Leach's record would have been, I would have figured 5 wins at minimum in 2012, but with onboarding etc, totally get how 3-9 came about. I would have figured in December of 2011 that they would 6-6 and 6-6 in 2013 and 2014. I would have not expected his team to regress so much.

So my question stands, is this what you expected LTC?

Consistency Crusade!!!!!
 
You are the one who veered off topic Nanook.

And so far, I have been proven right...and that really bothers you.

A 9th place overall record that got us a Greg Fawker bowl sandwiched by 3-9 records and a fire sale of coaches proves it.

So your solution is to fire the only coach in a decade to get us to a bowl game and start over again?
 
I'm going to say this is a result of the new CRAPPY format here (hint, hint Rivals/Yahoo).

I wasn't using the "diversion" comment towards you, specifically, although I did clump you in with Sponge… But the comment was towards Sponge, hence the reason I quoted him. He called what I said a diversion. I found that "the pot calling the kettle black" considering how some of the threads have completely fallen apart due to the "rabbit trails" they've gone down, the lack of focus and how easily these "rabbit trails" could be seen as diversions due to inability to support statements.

I WAS commenting prior on your continual "I don't bring him up". Yet you always do, just like you did here. You just don't type his name. No one "archives" or screen shots all of your posts so when you've said this in the recent past, no one can say anything. Now that you've done it again, it's obvious 1990 and I saw the conflict of actions. We called you out on it.

I also answered your questions.
I agree with your answer...I didn't remotely see what happened from 2012 to 2014 coming. I didn't bring "him up" on purpose. I think you slightly misquoted me. What I have said is that I never start a thread about Wulff. As for what I just brought up, it is about our expectation of Leach. As I said Sponge was quoted after a couple of cocktails during a crappy game against BYU. Apparently it was brought up again, and LTC made the comment he made. And it goes to the heart of the matter, not Wulff but Leach. DId we expect what happened to happen in 2014. When Leach was hired there was no doubt in my mind he was going to win in Pullman. He crapped the bed in 2012, but it has happened before in transitions. Then he went 6-6 and that was about where i thought they would be. Then in 2014 they not only crapped the bed, they did it in such fashion that I have gone from knowing Leach was going to win to hoping Leach will win.

Nothing is gained by firing the coach. Nothing. But at the same time let's not pretend that he has lived up to his reputation and his previous results. He hasn't. And when I dig further the burning thought in my mind is that he has never had to rebuild a program. And what I mean by that is not just talent, cause I think there has been 6-6 talent on this team, but rebuilding them and helping those teams get over the hump and learn how to win.
 
To be fair, if you'd told me about the Wilson situation, and how quickly it became apparent that the previous coach had spent four years growing a field of pansies, I'd have said he'd be lucky to win three. Guy inherited a poisoned well.
 
So your solution is to fire the only coach in a decade to get us to a bowl game and start over again?
No...I never said that.

He needs to start running the ball a little more so that we keep the D somewhat off guard. He needs to quit pissing games away(see Colorado, Colorado St.), he needs to field a back 7 that shows up in the TV screen when a receiver gets the ball. He needs to get a kicker.

Coming upon yr 4, I don't see anything resembling what Price had in his back 7 in yr 4.

If we go 3-9 or 4-8, his seat gets warm and needs to win in yr 5.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT