WSU & Having a Competitive Pac-12 Roster

[Cougatron]

So while I've watched people debate expectations on here and other sites I wanted to take some time to show what happened at WSU and Where it is today.

So first up is explaining the 4/5 year cycle of class structure.

Basically the class you recruit today (2016) for the most part won't really come to fruition UNTIL about 4 years down the line meaning (2019-2020) the reason this is important is it plays an important role in the future of the program. Now of course there are certain anomalies like Freshmen playing and Jucos to patch up a lack of depth, but ideally a program would want to start only upper classmen and every year after graduations start a new level of upper classmen.

The reason why this is ideal is because Juniors/Seniors are physically bigger (strength & conditioning), experience they've seen some live action and know what to expect.

Recruiting plays an important role in your level of play in the future, and here is how things were going for us.

Back when Wulff started in 2008 he inherited a team that may or may not have been on a competitive pac 12 level. The rankings say they were, but I myself will even give some concessions that perhaps they weren't.

But the issue isn't just about what he was handed, but what he did with what was handed and what he recruited while he was here for the future.

That is pretty much what all coaches should be graded on. What have you done with what you were given, and where are you taking us in the future?

Wulff obviously made a lot of errors in managing what he was given fielding some very bad teams, but his recruiting was also very poor leaving big holes in certain areas and also the overall talent level. Yes there were a few gems. A travis long, a d buc, etc. But when less than 10% of the over 100+ kids brought in are considered Pac-12 caliber that is very poor for the future.

So what are the long term ramifications of poor recruiting?

Let's say everyone in the Pac 12 is recruiting Pac 12 caliber player BUT you. And this goes on for 4 years.

What happens is that even when you start to correct this and start bringing in Pac 12 players you still are fighting an uphill battle. Allow me to explain.

2008 - 10% Pac-12
2009 - 10% Pac 12
2010 - 10% Pac 12
2011 - 10% Pac 12

Now in 2012 season you are starting the 2008 class as upper classmen (10% Pac 12)
vs
Opponents upper classmen that are %90 Pac 12

Now you can bring in some jucos and start some freshmen but still that may bring you up to 40% Pac 12. Still playing 90% Pac 12 teams.

Coaching scheme etc play a factor, but really you shouldn't do well. It's foolish for people to expect you to do well. This is something that A LOT of people don't get. Because the games are in the present, but the pieces were picked 4 years prior.

Now as you bring in players. Let's say

2012 class 50% Pac 12
2013 class 90% Pac 12
2014 class 90% Pac 12
2015 class 90% Pac 12

In the 2013 season you still are being reloaded with the next class 2009 upper classmen as your new senior class. So no matter what you are still fighting against the past. Because the reload is bringing in still not adequate talent. So you start more freshmen and more jucos to get by.

This process will continue UNTIL you get to the 4/5th year of your 1st true class. In Leach's case class of 2013. Which 4 years later will be ready at 2016.

Not until then will you start 90% pac 12 upper classmen vs 90% pac 12 upper classmen. until that happens you are always reloaded by the previous staff. That's why you constantly hear the phrase "We are a young team". We will always be a young team working in freshmen over and over again until we have the talent that matches the competition.

Now coaching is a part of it, but still a disadvantage is constantly thrown at you every single year. This is why so many bad programs stay down for so long. People don't understand that 4 years of bad recruiting turns into 8 years total of setback.

 

[Coug95man2]

So while I've watched people debate expectations on here and other sites I wanted to take some time to show what happened at WSU and Where it is today.

So first up is explaining the 4/5 year cycle of class structure.

Basically the class you recruit today (2016) for the most part won't really come to fruition UNTIL about 4 years down the line meaning (2019-2020) the reason this is important is it plays an important role in the future of the program. Now of course there are certain anomalies like Freshmen playing and Jucos to patch up a lack of depth, but ideally a program would want to start only upper classmen and every year after graduations start a new level of upper classmen.

The reason why this is ideal is because Juniors/Seniors are physically bigger (strength & conditioning), experience they've seen some live action and know what to expect.

Recruiting plays an important role in your level of play in the future, and here is how things were going for us.

Back when Wulff started in 2008 he inherited a team that may or may not have been on a competitive pac 12 level. The rankings say they were, but I myself will even give some concessions that perhaps they weren't.

But the issue isn't just about what he was handed, but what he did with what was handed and what he recruited while he was here for the future.

That is pretty much what all coaches should be graded on. What have you done with what you were given, and where are you taking us in the future?

Wulff obviously made a lot of errors in managing what he was given fielding some very bad teams, but his recruiting was also very poor leaving big holes in certain areas and also the overall talent level. Yes there were a few gems. A travis long, a d buc, etc. But when less than 10% of the over 100+ kids brought in are considered Pac-12 caliber that is very poor for the future.

So what are the long term ramifications of poor recruiting?

Let's say everyone in the Pac 12 is recruiting Pac 12 caliber player BUT you. And this goes on for 4 years.

What happens is that even when you start to correct this and start bringing in Pac 12 players you still are fighting an uphill battle. Allow me to explain.

2008 - 10% Pac-12
2009 - 10% Pac 12
2010 - 10% Pac 12
2011 - 10% Pac 12

Now in 2012 season you are starting the 2008 class as upper classmen (10% Pac 12)
vs
Opponents upper classmen that are %90 Pac 12

Now you can bring in some jucos and start some freshmen but still that may bring you up to 40% Pac 12. Still playing 90% Pac 12 teams.

Coaching scheme etc play a factor, but really you shouldn't do well. It's foolish for people to expect you to do well. This is something that A LOT of people don't get. Because the games are in the present, but the pieces were picked 4 years prior.

Now as you bring in players. Let's say

2012 class 50% Pac 12
2013 class 90% Pac 12
2014 class 90% Pac 12
2015 class 90% Pac 12

In the 2013 season you still are being reloaded with the next class 2009 upper classmen as your new senior class. So no matter what you are still fighting against the past. Because the reload is bringing in still not adequate talent. So you start more freshmen and more jucos to get by.

This process will continue UNTIL you get to the 4/5th year of your 1st true class. In Leach's case class of 2013. Which 4 years later will be ready at 2016.

Not until then will you start 90% pac 12 upper classmen vs 90% pac 12 upper classmen. until that happens you are always reloaded by the previous staff. That's why you constantly hear the phrase "We are a young team". We will always be a young team working in freshmen over and over again until we have the talent that matches the competition.

Now coaching is a part of it, but still a disadvantage is constantly thrown at you every single year. This is why so many bad programs stay down for so long. People don't understand that 4 years of bad recruiting turns into 8 years total of setback.

I would also submit, expectations can be skewed. One of the things that is constantly overlooked is geography. There are examples of schools that have bumped up in 2 or 3 years. First, all analogies are off, it's just how analogies work and I just don't see a "perfect" analogy out there. But second, the geography. We are on the West Coast. While there are some schools that have jumped up faster, many of them weren't in the hole we were in, but most, and the most accurate analogy of K-State, is in the mid-west. Where God, Family and Football are the priorities, in that order. There's probably days where #2 and #3 get mixed, too. So long way around the bush… Being on the West Coast affects the "rebuild" when comparing to other schools, especially those in the mid-west... for those that do that…

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I agree with the overall concept of your post but I hope you realize that your percentages are highly subjective. The fundamental reality for WSU that is always been there is that we will most likely NEVER field a team that is truly 90% Pac-12 talent. It's the reason that so many of our teams over the decades have fallen off the radar as soon as a couple guys are hurt. Leach may eventually get us close and with some success, his name alone will make some difference but the reality is that ASU, UCLA, USC, UW, Cal and Stanford have locations that we simply cannot replicate in Pullman and cannot compete with when it comes to the guys that crave that. Oregon has money and facilities that we will be hard pressed to compete with (we won't).

The reality is that we are competing for 8th place in the conference in terms of overall talent that we are going to get. Just as always, in order for WSU to win a championship, we have to do more with less. I agree with you 100% that Wulff mismanaged the first couple teams as badly as anyone in the history of college football. Whether he was bringing in 10% Pac-12 talent or 40% Pac-12 talent is highly subjective and not really worth the discussion. It wasn't good enough.

In terms of your recruiting commentary, four years of bad recruiting CAN create a situation where it takes 8 years to build a program. That raises an important question. What are we rebuilding for and what are the expectations until then? If it takes 8 years to build a championship team, how long does it take to build a team that isn't projected to finish below 0.500? Do we go from a team that sits at home and transform magically to a 10-2 team? That has happened in the past for WSU. Is that what we should expect? Or do we see a gradual transition where we start with bowl appearances, maybe step back a year and then see a championship level team?

The fallacy that I see on this board is the idea that just because we have a coach named Leach, we are guaranteed success in 2019 if we just wait. If he puts together sub 0.500 teams in years 3 and 4 after making a bowl game in year 2, what kind of indicator is there to suggest that by 2019, we will be in the position to win the conference, or at least be in conversation? What should our expectations be and if they aren't met, how should Moos react? We are spending crazy amounts of money every year right now on football and the results weren't there last year and there are those that say that we shouldn't be upset if they aren't there this year. If we can't beat the 8th best team in the Big 10 and can't beat OSU, CU and UW teams that are expected to be below average, at what point should we expect that? BTW, one dropped pass against Michigan would have been the difference between Rutgers being 8th last year and 11th. That's how fickle college football is. If Leach is truly the great coach that we hope he is, we should expect more than 4-8 this year.

All this talk about recruiting and such is valid, but all it really proves is that we need a coach who can raise his players above their hypothetical talent level instead of relying on talent alone to save the day. If we rely on talent alone, history suggests that we have a lot of 4-8 and 5-7 seasons ahead of us for decades to come. The message of patience is valid, but the real question is what are we waiting for?

 

[Cougatron]

I would also submit, expectations can be skewed. One of the things that is constantly overlooked is geography. ,

The major geography setback that makes things slow for us is the lack of a recruiting ground next door and in the surrounding areas. It's easy to bounce back if you are in SoCal (see UCLA), or Florida (see UCF), or deep south (See Ole Miss/Miss. St)

When the bulk of the premiere talent is all around you it's not as hard to hit the ground recruiting and rebuild a competitive roster, but when you in the upper Northwest and the closest city is 250,000 and is an hour and a half away.... that is rough.

Now there are numerous wonderful things about Pullman and the Palouse but football recruiting wasn't in the game plan for Three forks. Price practically went to Long Beach Poly and offered everybody in the inner cities of SoCal.

Leach is doing an excellent job bringing the talent to Pullman. Every class he brings in that is on a competitive Pac 12 level will pay dividends later and set us up nicely.

 

[Cougatron]

In terms of your recruiting commentary, four years of bad recruiting CAN create a situation where it takes 8 years to build a program. That raises an important question. What are we rebuilding for and what are the expectations until then? If it takes 8 years to build a championship team, how long does it take to build a team that isn't projected to finish below 0.500? Do we go from a team that sits at home and transform magically to a 10-2 team? That has happened in the past for WSU. Is that what we should expect? Or do we see a gradual transition where we start with bowl appearances, maybe step back a year and then see a championship level team?

These are good questions. How long and exactly where are we at.

As to the all of a sudden 10-2.. I don't think we are at that stage, and it is more than likely a gradual ramp up. using Leach at Texas Tech as a measuring stick it was 9 years when he went 11-1 in the regular season. The team slowly started to win 7 games. Then 8. Then 9. then 11.

So it looks like he is the slow ramp up builder. Right now we look to be in a flux getting to that .500 stage. We could do it this year, and next year looks promising as well, and even after that we have Falk/Bender still as a RS Senior. so the current trajectory is being a .500 team and then trending higher after that stabilizes.

I would be surprised if we make a big jump, but 2016,2017 look to be those years where we make A LOT of progress, and go from a team that might beat you...to a team where WSU is going to be a problem and they can / probably will beat you.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I don't believe that we are close to the big jump either. Honestly, an 8-4 finish qualifies as a big jump considering where we've been. I don't "expect" that this year even though it is my best case scenario for this season. As a fan, I'd be happy with 6-6 this year, a slight regression next year, with a bump in 2017. Realistically, there is a chance that we finish 5-7 this year and 4-8 next year and still be improving overall. That's where it becomes tough as a fan (and an administrator). We live in a world of instant gratification and it's hard to be patient. We see so many other teams experiencing success and we continue to struggle. Our one season in 10 years that wasn't a complete mess still ended with a turd in the New Mexico punch bowl. Given the now 11 years of disappointment at the end of each season, any further struggles just reinforce the idea that we really aren't getting anywhere.

The one irony of the Doba era is that even though we had bad teams, there was a sense that we were a couple plays away from being good. I don't know if it's the passage of time since we've tasted real success, the stark reality that we truly stink or something in between, but there isn't that sense that we are close. I'm not sure what is going to happen to our team, but for the sake of the program, we really need a bowl win sooner than later. We are reaching the point where I truly worry about the future of our football program. If we don't make a bowl game this year, I will not be surprised to see CAF membership drop towards 5,000. I expect game attendance to average in the low 20's and much wailing and gnashing of teeth. When you hear me complaining about how Leach is doing, that's the viewpoint I'm coming from. It's arguably unrealistic to gauge our program by how impatient fans react to it, but from a monetary standpoint, it's the 800 pound gorilla.

 

[Cougatron]

We are reaching the point where I truly worry about the future of our football program. If we don't make a bowl game this year, I will not be surprised to see CAF membership drop towards 5,000. I expect game attendance to average in the low 20's and much wailing and gnashing of teeth. When you hear me complaining about how Leach is doing, that's the viewpoint I'm coming from. It's arguably unrealistic to gauge our program by how impatient fans react to it, but from a monetary standpoint, it's the 800 pound gorilla.

Well what fans don't realize is that the ONLY thing they can control is their support. What fans don't get is that not donating and not supporting only hurts the program more because you are punishing the program instead of trying to help it along in its weakened state.

While we are spending more money we are making more as well. As of the last filing in 2014 we spent 15.7 M on football and we brought in 26.9. A profit of 8.2 Million. Now the other sports operate at a loss, but that 8.2 million is enough to cover those losses. We had an athletic budget of 60 M and we spent 60 M.

By comparison UW made 100 M in revenue and spent 86 banking 14 M in total athletic profit. So while they are making more money we are breaking even.

Colorado which is their state's flagship school makes 64 M and spends 64 M. So little ole Wazzu is actually on par with CU who has a 56k stadium. Double what we have.

Utah is bringing in 59 M and spending 57 so they are earning a very small profit. But still they are doing that with with a stadium capacity of 45k in Salt Lake City.

So from a money standpoint we are actually okay. Our fan base is pretty apathetic though and in a lot of ways is more of hindrance than a help. I know of plenty of people that said "I'll show up when we win" when Leach was first hired. That's a crappy situation for a coach to show up in. Yeah there were a lot of people excited early, but far far far too many didn't want to back up the investment.

The CU game in 2012 we were up by 20 points and then half of martin left thinking the game was over. CU kept playing and our players thought it was over as well. This was similar to the bowl game. It's the Coug attitude and it really sucks because you have to take nothing for granted and stay and fight to the end. Players and fans.

One thing I like about Leach is that he never quits. Down to Oregon (keep slinging it), Down in Apple Cup comeback for the biggest comeback in history. Down to Utah...fight back and win the game. Beating Idaho...get in there starters and preserve the shutout. I think on a psychological level he's trying to teach them that it's the team that never gets complacent, never gives up, and finishes to the end that will succeed, and we need that. We need a lot of that. And we as fans need that too.

Every year he brings in a class with competitive players whether it be Vince Mayle, Gabe Marks, lineman, or a Gauta, Sagote, Allison, etc. is a step closer. And many of the talented players he's brought in we still haven't seen yet like Tapa, or Leniu, etc. As a team we are upgrading but it's slow, and people want it now.

As long as he is bringing in competitive classes every single year is another step to even footing competitively with the other teams, but he needs them all to mature and work together. Mostly it's been patched together, and until the 2013/2014 class matures we are going to have to deal with the growing pains. There is no other way for us.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and WSU's resurgence to a consistent Pac 12 won't be built in 1,2,3 years either.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

The problem with fans is that the majority of them only watch for the entertainment value and not out of loyalty. They want to win and be happy after games. It's why we see Gonzaga shirts on our campus. We can talk about loyalty but the reality is that loyalty has to be earned and the football program needs fans more than fans need the football program. If someone wants to enjoy football, they can watch the Seahawks or they can grab whatever other t-shirt that appeals to them. A football team can't just spend $20 and get a new fan. If the football team wants fans back, they have to earn it.....not the other way around. Half a generation of Coug fans have never seen WSU finish with a winning record. That wrecks a fanbase, particularly one that was already used to giving up on a regular basis anyway.

 

[Cougatron]

A football team can't just spend $20 and get a new fan. If the football team wants fans back, they have to earn it......

Right and a program can't just spend 2.5 M a year and instantly get a winning program. It takes development to do that.

Going in this year is it a better feeling than after 2012?. I would say so.
Is it better than after 2013...probably not... but after 2012 we did better
and it's a better team than 2012 so winning 6 games is definitely possible.

If we win 6+ games this year 2 out of 4 years to a bowl game is actually pretty good for a program that hadn't been to one in a decade I would hope that by then people would wake up and realize that the program as a whole has gotten better and that every year we are closer and closer to consistently competing at a high level, and that's something that was earned.

 

[CougPatrol]

The one irony of the Doba era is that even though we had bad teams, there was a sense that we were a couple plays away from being good.

The only reason we had that sense was because we had enough leftover talent on the roster from the glory era to keep us competitive to a certain extent. Behind the scenes, things were fast becoming a dumpster fire. Doba was dealing with the failing health of his wife the best he could, but his assistant coaches were running completely out of control. It was like a bad reality TV series. Coaches sleeping with students, coaches having fist fights with each other, coaches playing golf and marlin fishing during recruiting trips. Training table and strength & conditioning programs went unsupervised.

The Wulff era was can be summarized easily. We cheaped out with the hire and brought in a Big Sky coach who was unqualified and completely over his head. He was a bad recruiter, a bad interview, bad with alumni, and a terrible head coach. What made it the perfect storm for failure was that Wulff's arrival coincided with the rest of the Pac-12 upping their programs by hiring well regarded coaches and by investing in their facilities. To say that Wulff and his staff were over their heads is akin to comparing Joe's computer shop with Microsoft. Still, as I've said before, my anger is directed at WSU, not Wulff. They compounded the decision to hastily promote Bill Doba to succeed Mike Price by puckering up and hiring a Big Sky coach 80 miles up the road for $550K/year.

 

[YakiCoug]

The only reason we had that sense was because we had enough leftover talent on the roster from the glory era to keep us competitive to a certain extent. Behind the scenes, things were fast becoming a dumpster fire. Doba was dealing with the failing health of his wife the best he could, but his assistant coaches were running completely out of control. It was like a bad reality TV series. Coaches sleeping with students, coaches having fist fights with each other, coaches playing golf and marlin fishing during recruiting trips. Training table and strength & conditioning programs went unsupervised.

The Wulff era was can be summarized easily. We cheaped out with the hire and brought in a Big Sky coach who was unqualified and completely over his head. He was a bad recruiter, a bad interview, bad with alumni, and a terrible head coach. What made it the perfect storm for failure was that Wulff's arrival coincided with the rest of the Pac-12 upping their programs by hiring well regarded coaches and by investing in their facilities. To say that Wulff and his staff were over their heads is akin to comparing Joe's computer shop with Microsoft. Still, as I've said before, my anger is directed at WSU, not Wulff. They compounded the decision to hastily promote Bill Doba to succeed Mike Price by puckering up and hiring a Big Sky coach 80 miles up the road for $550K/year.

A fact check is in order here: Stanford's new stadium was built while Doba was head coach, and Oregon State's Reser Stadium project also occurred when Doba was coach. Oregon's Autzen Stadium was expanded in 2002.
USC's new McKay Center, and facility/stadium improvements at Cal and Arizona occurred during Leach's early years at WSU.
Moos considered all this in his decision to fire Wulff. As he aptly pointed out, WSU was being left in the dust.

 

[CPtheCoug]

To say that Wulff and his staff were over their heads is akin to comparing Joe's computer shop with Microsoft.

Wasn't Mike Levenseller a part of Wulff's staff? My impression was that coach Levenseller was a "solid" WR coach in terms of coaching the position (not too sure about his recruiting abilities).

Was he better than who we have now? I am not sure, but I do love how almost all of our boys have great hands --- when I watch teams that do not throw as much as we do and see their WR's drop easily catchable throws I am always like "Yea... River wouldn't have dropped that one!"

 

[Cougatron]

Wasn't Mike Levenseller a part of Wulff's staff? My impression was that coach Levenseller was a "solid" WR coach in terms of coaching the position (not too sure about his recruiting abilities).

Was he better than who we have now? I am not sure, but I do love how almost all of our boys have great hands --- when I watch teams that do not throw as much as we do and see their WR's drop easily catchable throws I am always like "Yea... River wouldn't have dropped that one!"

Levenseller was one of the better assistants for sure. I really think Dennis Simmons was a really good receivers coach he coached up Mayle really well for a guy who only had a couple years football experience. Yost does an excellent job with the inside receivers. I am curious to see how Graham Harell does with being WR coach, but I think he's really working with the QBs and is getting help on coaching from that Leach WR who took over his QA job. So that guy isn't an official coach, but he's watching film and telling Harell details to work on with the guys. We have pretty good assistants. Really Volero, Breske, and Russell were the ones that were questionable and they all are out and now we have a bunch of young energetic guys to take their place.

 

[CougPatrol]

A fact check is in order here: Stanford's new stadium was built while Doba was head coach, and Oregon State's Reser Stadium project also occurred when Doba was coach. Oregon's Autzen Stadium was expanded in 2002.
USC's new McKay Center, and facility/stadium improvements at Cal and Arizona occurred during Leach's early years at WSU.
Moos considered all this in his decision to fire Wulff. As he aptly pointed out, WSU was being left in the dust.

You're saying the same thing I am. By the time Wulff was hired, every other school in the Pac-12 had gone all-in with their football program. The Doba era was our biggest swing and miss, because had it succeeded, Paul Wulff never would have been hired in the first place

I often wonder if, looking back on everything, Bill Doba wishes that he could have remained our defensive coordinator instead of succeeding Mike Price. I realize that's not plausible when you bring in a new head coach, but Bill (IMO) never really seemed comfortable as the head man.

Moos made the right decision to fire Wulff; a coach who never should have been hired in the first place. Frankly, I don't understand how Wulff made it through the interview process. It seems that WSU was set on him because he was an affordable alumnus hire who liked Eastern WA.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Wulff was obviously a bad hire in hindsight. Given WSU's history, I don't think that it was a bad hire at the time and I don't believe it was done solely to save a few bucks. We had a history of hiring guys who had been successful after being brought into WSU from lower level schools:

Mike Price - Weber State
Dennis Erickson - Idaho (basically)
Jim Sweeney - Montana State

All three experienced some level of success at WSU. Jim Walden was so downhome that he had honorary small school status. In 2007, hiring a guy who had led his team into the FCS playoffs in 3 out of 4 years who was eager to make a career at WSU seemed like a good idea. In hindsight, that 3-8 finish by EWU in 2006 is a glaring warning of things to come. The Eagles had only one season in 40+ years worse than that one. If only we had known. Given a time machine, I would take a screen shot of our finishes since 2008 and tell Sterk to look elsewhere. It didn't seem bad at the time though.