Breaking: Leach's contract extended 1 yr through 2023; Claeys given new contract through 2021

[ScottHood]

WSU just announced a short time ago. Here is the press release:

"Washington State University Athletics announced Monday that Head Coach Mike Leach and the University have agreed in principle to a provision in Leach's contract that extends the agreement an additional year through the 2023 season, bringing it to a five-year contract. Additionally, Defensive Coordinator Tracy Claeys has agreed to a three-year contract through the 2021 season.

"Coach Mike Leach has built a nationally prominent football program at Washington State and our student-athletes continue to excel athletically and academically under his leadership," said WSU Director of Athletics Pat Chun. "His ability to create and steward a winning culture, combined with his vision and expertise, make him one of the elite coaches in the entire sport of football. Few coaches could have accomplished what Coach Leach did in 2018. There is no greater head football coach for WSU than Mike Leach and we are happy to have him leading our program for many years to come."

The 2018 season saw Leach guide Washington State to an 11-2 record, a No. 10 final ranking in both the Associated Press and Coaches Polls, and a victory in the Valero Alamo Bowl over Iowa State. The 11 wins in 2018 set a single-season school record, and he is the first Cougar head coach to lead Washington State to four straight bowl games.

Additionally, Leach was named the American Football Coaches Association (AFCA) National Coach of the Year, the first in WSU history. The Cougar Air Raid offense led the nation in passing while the defense led the conference in sacks and tied for second in takeaways.

"It has been a great run here at Washington State over the last seven years, but I still believe that our best days are ahead of us," said Leach. "I am just as excited to be the head coach at WSU as I was the day that I was hired here and I look forward to leading this program to big things in the future."

Under Leach's current agreement, his 2019 compensation will be $3.75 million, while the following four years he is scheduled to make $4 million per year. Following the 2020 season, Leach will also receive a one-time retention bonus of $750,000. Details of Claeys' contract were not released.

In his seven seasons leading the Cougars, Leach has amassed 49 victories, which ranks third in program history, He has guided the Cougars to five bowl games in the past six years, also a first for a Cougar coach, and over the past four seasons WSU has the second-most conference wins of any program in the Pac-12."

 

[roses04]

In 5 more years he could have 100 wins at WSU, and have the place named after him.

 

[NMBRCRNCHR]

uge

 

[PINGDUDE4]

Gotta love the Claeys part of that story as well.

You have to really like the pairing of those 2 coaching veterans .

 

[HHusky]

In 5 more years he could have 100 wins at WSU, and have the place named after him.

Yeah, what did George Washington ever win?

 

[95coug]

Yeah, what did George Washington ever win?

Realistically? Not much.

He won skirmishes here and there, and the battles at Trenton - which were more important to morale than they were to tactical advantage (and, admittedly, probably prevented the collapse of the Continental army). Even the eventual victory at Yorktown was more attributable to the French (and Cornwallis) than it was to Washington. But with few exceptions, he lost when he faced the British in force, and his most important achievement was that while he didn't often win, he never surrendered - but even that was part luck, as he should have been surrounded, overwhelmed, and completely defeated a couple times early in the war, but British generals failed to follow up on successes and let him escape.

But, the winners get to write the history books, and as the titular head of the Continental army, he got the credit for the win.

 

[HHusky]

Realistically? Not much.

He won skirmishes here and there, and the battles at Trenton - which were more important to morale than they were to tactical advantage (and, admittedly, probably prevented the collapse of the Continental army). Even the eventual victory at Yorktown was more attributable to the French (and Cornwallis) than it was to Washington. But with few exceptions, he lost when he faced the British in force, and his most important achievement was that while he didn't often win, he never surrendered - but even that was part luck, as he should have been surrounded, overwhelmed, and completely defeated a couple times early in the war, but British generals failed to follow up on successes and let him escape.

But, the winners get to write the history books, and as the titular head of the Continental army, he got the credit for the win.

He was just lucky it snowed.

 

[mikalalas]

Some Revisionist History, flawed logic going on here about George Washington, Revolutionary War.

Yes George lost Napoleanic head to head battles against the British.

BUT ALMOST ANY, EVERY GENERAL OF Continental Army, would have suffered the same fate, except maybe Cornwallis(Probably even he to), and The Ghost General of South Carolina.

The USA was lucky to win. It was outmanned, out gunned, etc. The Continental Army was little more then a half trained, new MILITIA, with LESSER guns, supplies, Ammo, etc.

Meanwhile the British were a SEASONED well trained, well outfitted, large, etc, fighting force.

And the British were used to fighting Napoleanic tactics style.

It's no wonder then that the British won almost all the head to head Napoleanic style battles.

The only way in the beginning to win was to not fight the British way, and fight battles like the crossing of the Deleware, and the battles The Ghost fought in South Carolina.

The Ghost was a Militia General in South Carolina, the British struggled against.

He used Gorrilla warfare tactics to cut British supply lines, Ambush, hit and run, targeted British officers, destroyed command and control, couldnt be corralled caught.

This made it so that the Continental Army had time to train, recover from losses, win a few, raise Morale, until they with French help could defeat the British.

Time they would not have had, if the Ghost of South Carolina had not been there, and the Southern British Army had march north to join forces with the Northern British Army.

If the Ghost had been in Charge instead of George Washington, He could have bogged the British down, not lost devasting losses head to head, until the French arrived to help beat the british permanently.

Blaming it all on George Washington, or giving George Washington all the credit is Not right, when any, all Generals, except the Ghost, Cornwallis would have done tge same

And it is only a Miracle that the USA won, and didnt lose at the beginning, but not because of just George Washington.

If gave George Washington numbers, better equipment, gear, guns, cannons, supplies, training, experience, etc, like the British, and George Washington would have destroyed the Brtish based on the battle of the crossing of the Deleware, other battles, etc.

 

[95coug]

Some Revisionist History, flawed logic going on here about George Washington, Revolutionary War.

Not really. GW didn't win many major battles. When he did, it was typically because of major mistakes by the British or because he had much larger forces (which usually meant he was reinforced by the French).

BUT ALMOST ANY, EVERY GENERAL OF Continental Army, would have suffered the same fate, except maybe Cornwallis(Probably even he to), and The Ghost General of South Carolina.

Problem there is that Cornwallis wasn't a general of the Continental Army, he was British. And the "Ghost general" was at a disadvantage in that Mel Gibson wasn't born yet, so he didn't exist. Unless you mean the "Swamp Fox", Francis Marion (who Gibson's character was partially and loosely based on). More on that later.

.
The USA was lucky to win. It was outmanned, out gunned, etc. The Continental Army was little more then a half trained, new MILITIA, with LESSER guns, supplies, Ammo, etc.

Meanwhile the British were a SEASONED well trained, well outfitted, large, etc, fighting force.

Mostly true. In the beginning, the Continentals weren't even half trained. That's one area where Washington was a success, he managed their transition into an organized army pretty well. And the British started out better supplied And had more heavy guns, but both sides used the same primary weapons (brown bess muskets), and both had to rely heavily on local support. Much easier for the side that didn't have a 3,000 mile supply train...especially once the Continental Army started getting materials from the French (and Spanish and Dutch).

The only way in the beginning to win was to not fight the British way, and fight battles like the crossing of the Deleware, and the battles The Ghost fought in South Carolina.

True...And this approach started at Lexington & Concord, without Washington or Marion.

The Ghost was a Militia General in South Carolina, the British struggled against.

He used Gorrilla warfare tactics to cut British supply lines, Ambush, hit and run, targeted British officers, destroyed command and control, couldnt be corralled caught.

This made it so that the Continental Army had time to train, recover from losses, win a few, raise Morale, until they with French help could defeat the British.

Time they would not have had, if the Ghost of South Carolina had not been there, and the Southern British Army had march north to join forces with the Northern British Army.

If the Ghost had been in Charge instead of George Washington, He could have bogged the British down, not lost devasting losses head to head, until the French arrived to help beat the british permanently.

Yeah I saw that movie too. Too bad it wasn't real.
The war had been going on in the north for a couple years before the British bothered much with the south. They quickly took Savannah and Charleston, routed Horatio Gates and had the organized continental army thrown out of the south by mid-1780. Clinton went back to New york, and Cornwallis decided to invade the north, leaving occupation forces in the south along with Loyalist militia. These are the units Marion acted against. He didn't delay Cornwallis' move north. The British decision to focus on the south gave Washington a relatively quiet 1780 to regroup, resupply, and train. That, combined with the presence of the French fleet, bad choices And poor coordination by the British created the scenario that led to the surrender at Yorktown. Washington fell into victory, he didn't seize it.

If gave George Washington numbers, better equipment, gear, guns, cannons, supplies, training, experience, etc, like the British, and George Washington would have destroyed the Brtish based on the battle of the crossing of the Deleware, other battles, etc.

thank you, Captain Obvious. I'm pretty confident you can say that about anyone who's lost a war, a battle, or a fight on the playground.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Some Revisionist History, flawed logic going on here about George Washington, Revolutionary War.

Yes George lost Napoleanic head to head battles against the British.

BUT ALMOST ANY, EVERY GENERAL OF Continental Army, would have suffered the same fate, except maybe Cornwallis(Probably even he to), and The Ghost General of South Carolina.

The USA was lucky to win. It was outmanned, out gunned, etc. The Continental Army was little more then a half trained, new MILITIA, with LESSER guns, supplies, Ammo, etc.

Meanwhile the British were a SEASONED well trained, well outfitted, large, etc, fighting force.

And the British were used to fighting Napoleanic tactics style.

It's no wonder then that the British won almost all the head to head Napoleanic style battles.

The only way in the beginning to win was to not fight the British way, and fight battles like the crossing of the Deleware, and the battles The Ghost fought in South Carolina.

The Ghost was a Militia General in South Carolina, the British struggled against.

He used Gorrilla warfare tactics to cut British supply lines, Ambush, hit and run, targeted British officers, destroyed command and control, couldnt be corralled caught.

This made it so that the Continental Army had time to train, recover from losses, win a few, raise Morale, until they with French help could defeat the British.

Time they would not have had, if the Ghost of South Carolina had not been there, and the Southern British Army had march north to join forces with the Northern British Army.

If the Ghost had been in Charge instead of George Washington, He could have bogged the British down, not lost devasting losses head to head, until the French arrived to help beat the british permanently.

Blaming it all on George Washington, or giving George Washington all the credit is Not right, when any, all Generals, except the Ghost, Cornwallis would have done tge same

And it is only a Miracle that the USA won, and didnt lose at the beginning, but not because of just George Washington.

If gave George Washington numbers, better equipment, gear, guns, cannons, supplies, training, experience, etc, like the British, and George Washington would have destroyed the Brtish based on the battle of the crossing of the Deleware, other battles, etc.

Hate to agree with Malakas, but he's more correct on this than 95Coug. I don't believe the Washington was a great tactician, but he was a great leader. He kept the Continental Army together when others would have failed and he did a pretty good job overall of avoiding the fights he knew he couldn't win. Sounds like Leach needs to write his next book about GW.

 

[mikalalas]

95. Long Before the movie came out, and ever since I was a kid, I learned about "The Swamp Fox" "The Ghost".

He was a REAL, TRUE figure, person, commander of militia in tge revolutionary war, in the South Carolina, southern states.

He did use Gorrilla tactics, disrupted British supply lines, Ambushed the enemy, Targeted British officers.

Several times ge should have been surrounded, captured, but he miraculously kept on escaping. That is why he was called The Swamp Fox. The Ghost, and why there was the Legend of the Swamp Fox, Legend of the Ghost.

And if not for him. The British would have won. If for no other reason then he bogged down, slow downed the British, gave the Continental Army time, hope, lifted Morale.

The movie was LOOSELY based on his character. A little, some, it got right. A lot it got wrong. A lot was fiction, exaggeration, Hollywoodization.

But despite that, what I am saying about The Swamp Fox, The Ghost of South Carolina is true.

You can say different, say otherwise, say its only a wrong movie, not a real true character of the war, but your wrong, and I know what I am talking about, and have read so much material about on this since I was a kid, long before the movie ever came out.

 

[FnuLnu]

Hate to agree with Malakas, but he's more correct on this than 95Coug. I don't believe the Washington was a great tactician, but he was a great leader. He kept the Continental Army together when others would have failed and he did a pretty good job overall of avoiding the fights he knew he couldn't win. Sounds like Leach needs to write his next book about GW.

So what you're saying is that even in the 18th century Washington was avoiding scheduling tough opponents?

 

[Cougatron]

So what you're saying is that even in the 18th century Washington was avoiding scheduling tough opponents?

No he’s saying that the 1774 class was a total disaster and never accomplished anything.

 

[dgibbons]

95. Long Before the movie came out, and ever since I was a kid, I learned about "The Swamp Fox" "The Ghost".

He was a REAL, TRUE figure, person, commander of militia in tge revolutionary war, in the South Carolina, southern states.

He did use Gorrilla tactics, disrupted British supply lines, Ambushed the enemy, Targeted British officers.

Several times ge should have been surrounded, captured, but he miraculously kept on escaping. That is why he was called The Swamp Fox. The Ghost, and why there was the Legend of the Swamp Fox, Legend of the Ghost.

And if not for him. The British would have won. If for no other reason then he bogged down, slow downed the British, gave the Continental Army time, hope, lifted Morale.

The movie was LOOSELY based on his character. A little, some, it got right. A lot it got wrong. A lot was fiction, exaggeration, Hollywoodization.

But despite that, what I am saying about The Swamp Fox, The Ghost of South Carolina is true.

You can say different, say otherwise, say its only a wrong movie, not a real true character of the war, but your wrong, and I know what I am talking about, and have read so much material about on this since I was a kid, long before the movie ever came out.

IIRC, the Swamp Fox was one of those campy Disney TV movies from the 60s.

 

[dgibbons]

IIRC, the Swamp Fox was one of those campy Disney TV movies from the 60s.

No. It was a TV series.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Swamp_Fox_(TV_series)

 

[AlwaysSpokanesFault]

 

[Flatlandcoug]

So what you're saying is that even in the 18th century Washington was avoiding scheduling tough opponents?

That's the perfect conclusion!

 

[fingerdisco]

95. Long Before the movie came out, and ever since I was a kid, I learned about "The Swamp Fox" "The Ghost".

He was a REAL, TRUE figure, person, commander of militia in tge revolutionary war, in the South Carolina, southern states.

He did use Gorrilla tactics, disrupted British supply lines, Ambushed the enemy, Targeted British officers.

Several times ge should have been surrounded, captured, but he miraculously kept on escaping. That is why he was called The Swamp Fox. The Ghost, and why there was the Legend of the Swamp Fox, Legend of the Ghost.

And if not for him. The British would have won. If for no other reason then he bogged down, slow downed the British, gave the Continental Army time, hope, lifted Morale.

The movie was LOOSELY based on his character. A little, some, it got right. A lot it got wrong. A lot was fiction, exaggeration, Hollywoodization.

But despite that, what I am saying about The Swamp Fox, The Ghost of South Carolina is true.

You can say different, say otherwise, say its only a wrong movie, not a real true character of the war, but your wrong, and I know what I am talking about, and have read so much material about on this since I was a kid, long before the movie ever came out.

It was the Germans, not the British.

 

[Coug95man2]

It was the Germans, not the British.

I heard it was the Brazilians.

 

[TZCoug84]

Hate to agree with Malakas, but he's more correct on this than 95Coug. I don't believe the Washington was a great tactician, but he was a great leader. He kept the Continental Army together when others would have failed and he did a pretty good job overall of avoiding the fights he knew he couldn't win. Sounds like Leach needs to write his next book about GW.

Think about what GW could have accomplished without the Loyalist Deep State . . .

I kid, I kid

 

[Coug90]

Mike leach would approve of this thread

 

[Tx64]

95. Long Before the movie came out, and ever since I was a kid, I learned about "The Swamp Fox" "The Ghost".

He was a REAL, TRUE figure, person, commander of militia in tge revolutionary war, in the South Carolina, southern states.

He did use Gorrilla tactics, disrupted British supply lines, Ambushed the enemy, Targeted British officers.

Several times ge should have been surrounded, captured, but he miraculously kept on escaping. That is why he was called The Swamp Fox. The Ghost, and why there was the Legend of the Swamp Fox, Legend of the Ghost.

And if not for him. The British would have won. If for no other reason then he bogged down, slow downed the British, gave the Continental Army time, hope, lifted Morale.

The movie was LOOSELY based on his character. A little, some, it got right. A lot it got wrong. A lot was fiction, exaggeration, Hollywoodization.

But despite that, what I am saying about The Swamp Fox, The Ghost of South Carolina is true.

You can say different, say otherwise, say its only a wrong movie, not a real true character of the war, but your wrong, and I know what I am talking about, and have read so much material about on this since I was a kid, long before the movie ever came out.

I have never heard of him referred to as "The Ghost". There was one in the Civil War, "Gray Ghost". Marion's knowledge of the swamps and the march tacky horses they rode lead to the "Swamp Fox" name. His greatest feat was keeping many South Carolinian's loyal to the revolution's cause. How major his role was in the overall results of the revolution can be debated, as we are seeing here.