Still much better than his predecessor, which is what you just said he was hired to do.
Great… So glad this is in our rear view mirror
- Thread starter Coug95man2
- Start date
Not one single poster in this forum has EVER made this claim.
Everybody who follows WSU in ANY capacity knows Leach has outperformed Wulff.
He was hired to compete favorably and consistently against his peers. Leach was hired because his predecessor didn't.
On any level, no he did not- that's accurate. But I had no misconceptions that Leach's pedigree would immediately overwhelm how fallow things had been left. That has proven true.
One such poster is struggling with the concept in this very thread.
I paint them as equals? Interesting. Leach has a much better and thorough resume. Doesn't mean their processes or results haven't been the same in some areas. So every time you read my post about Leach remember the following. ED does not think they are the same. Say that again. Ed does not think they are the same. They may do some thing similar, some they may not. When Wulff was hired, I have said this many times...he like others will be fired. He was hired to be fired. The job was too extensive for the next guy up. The only person who might have righted the ship by 2011 was Mike Price.
In terms of success and knowledge Leach is greater than Wulff. And if Leach doesn't win the next two years and he is fired, the one thing they will have in common is they got fired by the same university.
Actually it sure looks like you are struggling with it. Re-read LTC's last sentence to which Chinook responded to. Not sure why that is not clear?
Well he is a very good coach, and by definition what you are saying is he may do more with less than less with more to date. It is awful tough to get around the 6-6 season and they lose three more games the following year. But new year, new coaches. We will see if the DB's have grown up.
Last edited:
See, it's not that tough for me, given that there were some really "coaching driven" wins in year two, and some ridiculous losses in year three. But I detailed all that in a 20 paragraph post earlier.
3-9 in 2012 and in 2014 were because of major talent holes that were in place before Leach walked in the door. No O-line to really start with then no DBs from 2011 and the senior leader for secondary was 2010 Tracy clark. Thus freshmen secondary is thrust into action and it was just bad.
But as to the strength of schedule.
2012 - 35th of 124
2013 - 10th of 125
2014 - 6th of 128
in comparison for Wulff
2011 - 61st of 120
2010 - 4th of 120
2009 - 13th of 120
2008 - 25th of 120
2011 was the easiest schedule we've had in a long time SOS wise.
2014 was one of the toughest we've had since 2010 (add in the roster deficiencies and well there you have it)
Overall the Pac-12 conference
2008 - 64-62, .508 W-L%
2009 - 68-59, .535 W-L%
2010 - 68-57, .544 W-L%
2011 - 81-73, .526 W-L%
2012 - 84-70, .545 W-L%
2013 - 92-64, .590 W-L%
2014 - 92-64, .590 W-L%
So is the Pac-12 stronger? Absolutely almost 20-30 more wins stronger.
I get why 3-9 happened in 2012. Adjustments. I get why the bowl game happened. Heck if we had a kicker we win at least one if not two more games despite the defense.
So what is your measurement if the team is improved or stayed the same?
Chinook responded by calling me a liar, I made no mention of pedigree and there is no reason to edit my statement. You have continually compared their results based on "expectations"
Last edited:
Again, delete the last sentence of your original post. You refer to me think Leach and Wulff are one in the same, whether you believe the main context of your post was about expectations, Chinook responded to your last sentence. Happens all the time on this board. The main thrust of a discussion get lost on a meaningless sentence that is written as an aside.
Why is that your comeback. You get that is why he was fired. I don't think coaches are hired and the AD says...just do better than the last guy. I think they really hire new guys to win more than they lose.
That may be true. CU didn't seem like world beaters in 2012. Utah somehow got better, we got worse. ASU was well. I know, ASU didn't have anything to play for.
My experience says it all balances out.
Boy, I was concerned… I thought this thread was going to die a quiet death… So glad I was wrong… 
That does seem like a small sample size, only a handful of specific teams. I am wondering about the conference as a whole, as well as our over all SOS.
This can apply to ANY of the previous 25+ years, but I suppose I was referring to specifically Wullf and Leach years SOLELY because they are relevant history.
So is 2008-2011 tougher than 2012-Present?
My thought process is that WSU could field a team that could be our best EVER. Best grades, best athletes, best on-field competence, etc... but if the rest of the PAC-10/12 is as good/better than you, than WSU's "best team ever" performance wouldn't necessarily show up in the W/L column....
Similar threads
