2010 Cougar Football Team vrs. 2014 Cougar Football Team

[CPtheCoug]

The last few threads on this here forum have seemed to have been high jacked by the Wulff vs Leach debate crowd (NOT blaming anyone specifically, I think we can all agree it takes two to tango). All this debate about success vs progress, progress vs W/L column, Price vs Leach vs Wulff vs Walden, etc... got me thinking.... Which 3rd year Cougar team would beat the other?

Specifically, Leach's 2014 squad vrs. Wulff's stout 2010 team.

Who would win? Also, this is a hypothetical universe (also brought up in another thread), so yes... the freshman version of a player would be going up against their senior/junior 2014 counterpart clone.

Have at thee!

 

[dgibbons]

The last few threads on this here forum have seemed to have been high jacked by the Wulff vs Leach debate crowd (NOT blaming anyone specifically, I think we can all agree it takes two to tango). All this debate about success vs progress, progress vs W/L column, Price vs Leach vs Wulff vs Walden, etc... got me thinking.... Which 3rd year Cougar team would beat the other?

Specifically, Leach's 2014 squad vrs. Wulff's stout 2010 team.

Who would win? Also, this is a hypothetical universe (also brought up in another thread), so yes... the freshman version of a player would be going up against their senior/junior 2014 counterpart clone.

Have at thee!

2014 would crush 2010.

 

[CPtheCoug]

2014 would crush 2010.

Yeah, but that squad only went 3-9 though...

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I'm not sure if there is a rational way to discuss a comparison of the two teams. I think a more important thing for Cougar fans to focus on when it comes to evaluating Leach (who really cares about Wulff anymore?) is whether or not they can envision WSU experiencing high level success with Leach on the sidelines. When you look at the successful coaches around the country, it never took more than five years to experience high level success. Most of them had much improved teams in their 2nd or 3rd season with a minor regression before things took off. We certainly hope that is what happened to us last year. Going into year four, I think it's important for us to see a team that looks ready to compete with everyone, even if the win total isn't where we'd like. More important than how Leach compares to Wulff, I think it's incredibly important that we field a bowl team in the next two years and see progress that the rest of the country (and potential recruits) will notice.

 

[SaveFerris]

I'm not sure if there is a rational way to discuss a comparison of the two teams. I think a more important thing for Cougar fans to focus on when it comes to evaluating Leach (who really cares about Wulff anymore?) is whether or not they can envision WSU experiencing high level success with Leach on the sidelines. When you look at the successful coaches around the country, it never took more than five years to experience high level success. Most of them had much improved teams in their 2nd or 3rd season with a minor regression before things took off. We certainly hope that is what happened to us last year. Going into year four, I think it's important for us to see a team that looks ready to compete with everyone, even if the win total isn't where we'd like. More important than how Leach compares to Wulff, I think it's incredibly important that we field a bowl team in the next two years and see progress that the rest of the country (and potential recruits) will notice.

Wanted to get my 2 cents in before it goes the way it will go.

I agree with most of your post and have thought about whether I see Leach getting WSU to "success" however one defines it. One of the things I look at is the roster in year 4 and while we can debate whether a lot of the players would play, start, or star for other programs in the conference we appear to have legit Pac 12 talent thru all the units on both sides of the ball. That doesn't mean there aren't also legit questions marks like the secondary, QB, special teams, etc. but the talent looks closer to where we were under Price than at any time since he left WSU.

 

[wazzucougs96]

Who cares? Both teams sucked.

 

[Coug95man2]

I'm not sure if there is a rational way to discuss a comparison of the two teams. I think a more important thing for Cougar fans to focus on when it comes to evaluating Leach (who really cares about Wulff anymore?) is whether or not they can envision WSU experiencing high level success with Leach on the sidelines. When you look at the successful coaches around the country, it never took more than five years to experience high level success. Most of them had much improved teams in their 2nd or 3rd season with a minor regression before things took off. We certainly hope that is what happened to us last year. Going into year four, I think it's important for us to see a team that looks ready to compete with everyone, even if the win total isn't where we'd like. More important than how Leach compares to Wulff, I think it's incredibly important that we field a bowl team in the next two years and see progress that the rest of the country (and potential recruits) will notice.

Here's why I can legitimately look at CPW to compare. I want to make sure I see progress, in whatever form.

With every year that passes, I see less and less reason to compare. It doesn't become useful. Data basically becomes outdated.

So when I look at the hard numbers and other things that I can… like the ranking of the classes of those years, and the 2 or 3 years prior, I don't see how anyone could say 2010 would beat out 2014. Just trying to keep it as "analytical" as possible.

 

[Cougatron]

When you look at the successful coaches around the country, it never took more than five years to experience high level success. Most of them had much improved teams in their 2nd or 3rd season with a minor regression before things took off. We certainly hope that is what happened to us last year. Going into year four, I think it's important for us to see a team that looks ready to compete with everyone, even if the win total isn't where we'd like. More important than how Leach compares to Wulff, I think it's incredibly important that we field a bowl team in the next two years and see progress that the rest of the country (and potential recruits) will notice.

Well let's look at some successful Coaches and see what they were doing.

First off it has to be someone at a similar place like WSU. So those requirements are...small school, not in a natural recruiting base in a strong conference with traditional powers all around to compete against.

A good example might be Duke Football currently. Duke has won 9 and 10 games the past two seasons. So how long did it take for Cutliffe to turn Duke into a program that could compete for the ACC title.

And the answer is year six. He went 4-8, 5-7, 3-9, 3-9, 6-7, 10-4, 9-4.

Now North Carolina where duke is isn't exactly the worst recruiting area by far, and also the high academic standards for duke can be both a blessing and a curse. So let's look at a Pac-12 school like Stanford that did a similar rise to prominence under Jim Harbaugh.

It took Harbaugh 3 years to get to really get it going. 4-8, 5-7, 8-5, then 12-1 much quicker but the result is the same. But Stanford also is in a decent recruiting area so we need to find a school in a BCS conference that rose up after being a doormat.

Okay Kansas State seems to fit that description. Everyone always talks about how great a coach Bill Snyder is so let's see how quickly he was able to turn Kansas State around.
1-10, 5-6, 7-4, 5-6, 9-2-1 so 5 years for him.

It's always going to take some time but the key things to look for is actual progress. So where is that progress for us?
A bowl game, much improved recruiting, leading in certain stats, and a roster that we are growing into.

All signs point to us headed to success. In every aspect weaknesses are being identified (including assistant coaching) and we are upgrading consistently year over year. Yes last year was a down year, but it helped to identify which coaches were dragging behind. Those got removed and we brought in better options (at least recruiting for sure on the field we need a season to evaluate).

So as long as we are growing as a program I am happy. Seasons where we go 3-9 and things don't bother me because I see that as how we identify what is holding us back and as long as we make steps to address it I'm fine with it. Rome wasn't built in a day, and WSU football won't be in just 3 seasons. The key is always to look for the progress indicators. That's roster, wins, and the ability to compete.

In 3 years I've seen an improved roster. The ability to beat USC, Arizona, Oregon State, and Utah at their home, and making Oregon sweat at ours. And the first time we finished the regular season with six wins since 2006. That tells me we are on our way. We just have to keep working on things and getting better.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Here's why I can legitimately look at CPW to compare. I want to make sure I see progress, in whatever form.

With every year that passes, I see less and less reason to compare. It doesn't become useful. Data basically becomes outdated.

So when I look at the hard numbers and other things that I can… like the ranking of the classes of those years, and the 2 or 3 years prior, I don't see how anyone could say 2010 would beat out 2014. Just trying to keep it as "analytical" as possible.

The problem with focusing on Wulff year 3 vs. Leach year 3 is that picking a specific year (or two) of any coach's tenure is arbitrary. Remember when Charlie Weis was a great coach because ND went 19-6 in his first two years? Or how Ty Willingham was a great coach when ND went 10-3 in his first year? Or that Brian Kelly had brought ND back to prominence in his third year when they went 12-1 in 2012 before he started looking ordinary with the Irish going 17-9 in the ensuing two years? That's just looking at Notre Dame. Brady Hoke was incredible in his first year at Michigan with RichRod's guys before the team fell off and he got canned. Karl Dorrell was a rising star in his third season at UCLA but not so much after he got fired after five seasons.

Progress is an amorphous thing. You could argue that if all you were measuring was progress, Wulff shouldn't have been fired in 2011. He had led the team to tremendous improvements from 2009 to 2011. It's possible that WSU might have finished 6-7 in 2013 with Wulff and finished 3-9 in 2014 just like Leach did. Did that mean he should be kept? The consensus here is no. Any attempt to make comparisons between Wulff and Leach is just going to revert into a 5 page, 250 post flame fest that we are all too familiar with.

 

[Cougatron]

Progress is an amorphous thing. You could argue that if all you were measuring was progress.

Well it really is important to define what progress is.

Here's what we know about program building.

Recruiting is critical as it is the lifeblood of your future. The better your recruiting the better your chances are to have a competitive advantage.

- Wins against key opponents tell if you are able to compete on a similar level

- Statistical analysis shows weak points and whether or not things are working correctly.

- Historical review of similar situations provide guidelines and progress indicators for signs of success.

Progress is all of those things. And when you evaluate Wulff he failed at that after 4 years. That is why he was let go.

Historically his benchmarks were under the norm.
Recruiting his benchmarks were under a competitive level overall for the future
He had few if any wins illustrating competitive parity.
Statistically he fell short

As I said before his lows were too low and his ceiling not high enough after 4 years.

With where we are now our lows are on par for what others have done in similar situations of a successful rebuild and our highs are on par with what others have done in a successful rebuild after 3 years.

 

[Coug95man2]

The problem with focusing on Wulff year 3 vs. Leach year 3 is that picking a specific year (or two) of any coach's tenure is arbitrary. Remember when Charlie Weis was a great coach because ND went 19-6 in his first two years? Or how Ty Willingham was a great coach when ND went 10-3 in his first year? Or that Brian Kelly had brought ND back to prominence in his third year when they went 12-1 in 2012 before he started looking ordinary with the Irish going 17-9 in the ensuing two years? That's just looking at Notre Dame. Brady Hoke was incredible in his first year at Michigan with RichRod's guys before the team fell off and he got canned. Karl Dorrell was a rising star in his third season at UCLA but not so much after he got fired after five seasons.

Progress is an amorphous thing. You could argue that if all you were measuring was progress, Wulff shouldn't have been fired in 2011. He had led the team to tremendous improvements from 2009 to 2011. It's possible that WSU might have finished 6-7 in 2013 with Wulff and finished 3-9 in 2014 just like Leach did. Did that mean he should be kept? The consensus here is no. Any attempt to make comparisons between Wulff and Leach is just going to revert into a 5 page, 250 post flame fest that we are all too familiar with.

I started writing a response and no matter how I framed it, all I saw was a hijack and another one of those threads. But Tron framed it very well. You have to look at progress and get as close as you can to making it applicable. What other option do you have to determine success?

Now I will say, I understand your point about Weis or Willingham. But regardless of those outcomes, you have to find ways of defining success. And without numbers, statistics, etc., then it turns into, "It feels like he's improving". And that's not good… ever. So for me, at the beginning of any coaches tenure, you have to compare to the previous… there's no other gauge. But with time, those comparisons are moot and not worthy.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Well it really is important to define what progress is.

Here's what we know about program building.

Recruiting is critical as it is the lifeblood of your future. The better your recruiting the better your chances are to have a competitive advantage.

- Wins against key opponents tell if you are able to compete on a similar level

- Statistical analysis shows weak points and whether or not things are working correctly.

- Historical review of similar situations provide guidelines and progress indicators for signs of success.

Progress is all of those things. And when you evaluate Wulff he failed at that after 4 years. That is why he was let go.

Historically his benchmarks were under the norm.
Recruiting his benchmarks were under a competitive level overall for the future
He had few if any wins illustrating competitive parity.
Statistically he fell short

As I said before his lows were too low and his ceiling not high enough after 4 years.

With where we are now our lows are on par for what others have done in similar situations of a successful rebuild and our highs are on par with what others have done in a successful rebuild after 3 years.

I'm with you 100% that Wulff needed to go. As you said, regardless of the team's performance on the field under Wulff as time went on, it's obvious that most of the recruits that Wulff was landing were not going to get WSU to the top of the conference. The good news with Leach is that you see guys being recruited that look like they belong on a Pac-12 team and we are getting attention from guys that few WSU coaches in the past 50 years would have gained access to. I still stand by the idea that trying to pick year 3 of any coach's tenure as an arbitrary comparison point is foolishness.

 

[BiggsCoug]

WSU football has had 3 winning seasons in a row TWICE since WW2. It's NEVER been built. All this talk of comparing this coach to that coach to this coach to that coach is STUPID!

11 bowls, 3 winning seasons in a row twice. There is no history to compare that is worth two damn shits. It's all a load of losing seasons. Invest your energy in the future, not the past 100 years of not winning jack friggin' squat. Move forward. Enough of the rehash.

 

[chinookpirate]

The last few threads on this here forum have seemed to have been high jacked by the Wulff vs Leach debate crowd (NOT blaming anyone specifically, I think we can all agree it takes two to tango). All this debate about success vs progress, progress vs W/L column, Price vs Leach vs Wulff vs Walden, etc... got me thinking.... Which 3rd year Cougar team would beat the other?

Specifically, Leach's 2014 squad vrs. Wulff's stout 2010 team.

Who would win? Also, this is a hypothetical universe (also brought up in another thread), so yes... the freshman version of a player would be going up against their senior/junior 2014 counterpart clone.

Have at thee!

Good little diversionary topic in the offseason. I'll take it another step...

Imagine a tournament of those four teams.

Who would you seed as 1,2,3,4?