Stanford did well initially under Shaw, but has steadily slipped. From my distant view, it looks more like a recruiting problem than anything else. They appear to have become a bit lazy in that area.
If you needed another example of our programs growth...
- Thread starter CougPatrol
- Start date
Stanford did well initially under Shaw, but has steadily slipped. From my distant view, it looks more like a recruiting problem than anything else. They appear to have become a bit lazy in that area.
Stanford got in on Borghi late. Imagine if they had worked as hard for his signature as Mastro did. He'd likely be a Tree.
For the most part, I feel like "blue bloods" are already established. By the very definition of the term, it's something almost grandfathered in. Programs like Notre Dame, Michigan & USC are "blue bloods" despite anything they've done (or haven't done) in recent years.
Certainly programs can play their way out of this status. Thinking Army, Nebraska. Very hard for programs to play their way in. Would you consider Oregon a "blue blood"? Virginia Tech? Is K-State?
Fab, outside of maybe at most 20 schools...and maybe 12-15...there are no blue blood football programs. What is the next lighter blue color? Lavender, maybe? Lots of lavender candidates, depending upon recent performance. Fab, I'd call the ones you mentioned "lavender bloods".
The Cougs bleed crimson.
The Cougs bleed crimson.
Teams with history and or money or talent resources are probably what I would consider blue bloods
Honestly? FSU is close, imho. I think, at least in my mind, there's still a bit of a stigma surrounding Miami, enough to preclude them from being a blueblood.
In this decade, they are definitely a blue blood. They have 2 national championships and lost in the title game in 2015.
You could make an argument that they are a blue blood based on their tradition, won/loss record (ranked #15 all time in FBS), 3 national titles, 44 bowls, multiple conference titles, numerous all-Americans, and their phenomenal facilities.
Oregon is buying their way in with nike but that's an exception, agree its mainly historical.
Yes, they've skyrocketed into one of if not the best program in the last decade. But before that, do they have the long term body of work, so to speak, that puts them on a pat with the Alabama's and (hate to say it) Notre Dames of the world?
Tough call, in my opinion.
If you’re basing it strictly on total number of national titles, then one could not say that Clemson is a “blue blood.” In my previous post, I had indicated that you could “make” the argument that they are a blue blood based on their history, tradition, total wins, etc; etc. Personally, I would place them into a second tier of teams that could be “considered” blue bloods.
One thing for certain is that Swinney has a powerhouse at Clemson that isn’t going away anytime soon. He’s a monster recruiter at a school that is arguably the preeminent program in college football. There is no telling how many more titles that he will win.
Because of Nike money and their success from 2005 to 2015.....Oregon was very close to becoming a member of the blue bloods. Unfortunately for them, they couldn't get over the hump and win a national championship. They are a great example (along with Stanford) of how extended success can still put a school in the position where they get the benefit of doubt when it comes to expectations of success. Oregon is the best example of a team that was close to being a new age blue blood.
K-State was never in the position to become a blue blood because they couldn't win their conference until they were actually in decline. If they hadn't seen the score of the UCLA game in 1998 (and subsequently lost because they lost focus), they would have been playing for the national championship. Two years later, they were three points short of an upset win in the Big 12 championship. Between 1997 and 2003, they had one of the great programs in the country but lost to the other truly great teams on their schedule. That keeps them from being in the conversation as well. The Wildcats were a handful of games away from becoming a blue blood....but they are proof of how hard it really is to make that leap.
At least he’s more likable than Saban, but I’m sure folks will eventually start rooting for someone to knock Dabo off the top.
You’re right about that. I live in SEC country, and there is some serious hatred for Swinney and Clemson.
Your phrase, "In this decade," is a problem when you use the term "blue bloods." Too short of time to become a blue blood. And check out the origins of the term, which are somewhat racist.
They definitely don’t like him because he has dominated the SEC in head-to-head match-ups in the last few years. He’s beaten LSU, Alabama, Auburn, and Texas A&M (the latter three twice).
The personal dislike stems mostly out of jealousy for what he has accomplished in terms of wins and his recruiting prowess. He regularly goes into GA, AL, TN, and FL to land top recruits. Much of this from fans is petty if you ask me.
Since 2010, only Bama and Ohio St. have more wins than Clemson. The latter has only one more win and one less title than the Tigers.
I realize that one decade does not make a team a “blue blood;” however, their results on the field certainly speaks for itself and are comparable to what two programs many experts believe are “blue bloods” (OSU & Bama).
With regard to the origin of the word, “blue blood,” I’ll avoid the politics and stick to discussing football.
everybody has good athletes, this won't be close
I sooo badly wanna share this opinion with you. WSU is not transitioning into a blue blood school. Moving up the ladder for sure. Just not anywhere near a blue blooded school.
The unfortunate truth is that you aren't a blue blood program if you have to ask if you are a blue blood program.
The true "blue blood" programs talk about firing their coach if they don't win the conference championship every couple years and in the mix every year. They don't get excited if they flipped one or two guys over the course of a recruiting season. If they don't have at least a handful of 4 star recruits, it means that the world is ending. If most of the nation doesn't express happiness when you lose.....you aren't a blue blood.
As Biggs is saying, we are moving up the ladder in terms of program recognition....but we have a long way to go. For those of you that played EA Sports NCAA Football back in the day, our program is a 2 star program historically. Enough wins to keep us from the bottom tier, but too many losses to get the middle. For reference, here's my interpretation of star ratings for programs:
1 star: expected to lose to everyone on a weekly basis
2 star: might make a bowl game occasionally, but loses more often than not.
3 star: make a bowl game most years, occasionally will look good against the elite teams.
4 star: make a bowl game every year and wins a conference title occasionally. Expected to be in conference title contention most years. rarely loses to teams below them in stature.
5 star: favorite to win conference title every year and wins conference titles routinely. In the national title hunt just about every year
Mike Price stayed around long enough and had enough success that we were looking like a legit 3 star program when he left. Doba's tenure dropped us back down into the 2 star level by the time he retired. Wulff's tenure dropped us solidly into the 1 star range for the first time since the late 60's.
Just hiring Leach put us back into the 2 star range in terms of prestige but we were still a 2 star team through 2015. Our success in 2015 and 2016 pulled us back into the bottom end of the three star range and 2017 put us solidly in the middle of that grouping. Getting manhandled by Michigan State was a big hit to our prestige though. Our surprising success last year with a finishing win over a decent Iowa State team has pushed us to the top end of the 3 star rating and you can make the argument that we are a low end 4 star program at the moment.
As mentioned by others above, long term history is more important than recent success. A team like Miami is still a 4 star program despite their relative mediocrity in the past decade. For anyone who thinks that WSU is a blue blood, you need to realize that a "blue blood" program is almost never picked to finish 4th in their own conference division like WSU was in this preseason. You could make the argument that WSU is still a 3 star program based on that perception. Looking at the Power 5 conferences:
5 star programs: Clemson, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas (barely clinging), USC (barely clinging), Georgia, Alabama, Notre Dame (back from the dead!)
4 star programs: Florida, LSU, Texas A&M, Auburn, UW, Stanford, Oregon, Penn State, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa, Nebraska, West Virginia (dropping fast), Miami, Virginia Tech (fading fast), Florida State (fading)
3 star programs: Boston College, Louisville (fading), Syracuse, NC State, Pitt, GT, Iowa State (new to this level), TCU (dropped down), Baylor, KSU, Ok State, Texas Tech, Maryland, Purdue, Northwestern, Minnesota, WSU, Cal, ASU, UCLA (on history alone), Arizona, Utah (close to a 4 star), South Carolina, Missouri, Tennessee, Miss. State, Ole Miss, Kentucky
2 star programs: Arkansas, Vanderbilt, Colorado, Indiana, Illinois, Wake Forest, Duke, UNC, Virginia
1 star programs: KU, Rutgers, Oregon State
As you would expect, the top and bottom tiers are lighter than the middle. Also, by virtue of having Group of 5 teams in the mix, the skew is towards 3 and 4 star programs. Utah is a team that would be a solid 4 star program if they hadn't struggled so much to actually win the Pac-12 south. You could make the argument that they deserve to be bumped up. When you look at the other programs in the 3 star list, it's clear that WSU is better than most of them over the past four years. Of course, when you look at the 4 star list, it's pretty obvious that WSU has a lot of work to do to really become a true blue blood program.
What's interesting is seeing programs like West Virginia, Virginia Tech and Florida State that have really struggled to remain relevant as coaches retired and conference realignment has occurred. Anyway...post is too long but thought that some might find it interesting.
Absolutely. Clemson is an ACC program, but like Tennessee and many others in the SEC, they can withstand years of bad coaching hires, lousy results on the field, etc., because their tradition and fan base loyalties run so deeply. South Carolina is an example here. A program that averaged 80K fans/game during an 0-12 season.
WSU is performing on the field of play like a blue blood now, but our PROGRAM is still a house of cards in the grand pyramid of collegiate football. We're one of, if not the lowest game attended P5 conference programs, we're last in CAF donations in the P12, we play in one of the worst TV viewing markets among P5 conference schools.
Leach is helping us turn things around more so than any other coach in program history, but we are still miles away from becoming a blue blood program. Enjoy this ride, donate and attend games as much as you can, and try to encourage the tens of thousands of "go cougs" yelling, flag waving alumni who don't give a penny to the program to dig deep. We all need to beat the fundraising drum.
Last edited:
IMO, blue bloods are programs that decided to spend the money decades ago. Some may not have had the success they want, but they still have tons of money, tons of fans, etc.
Oregon is trying to play their way in. I think Clemson has always flirted with it but now they are full blue blooded.
If I were making a list... SC, uw, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Georgia, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Miami, Michigan...
Schools I think that are knocking on the door or could one day get in... North Carolina, Oklahoma State, Wisconsin, Oregon...
Oregon is trying to play their way in. I think Clemson has always flirted with it but now they are full blue blooded.
If I were making a list... SC, uw, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Georgia, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Miami, Michigan...
Schools I think that are knocking on the door or could one day get in... North Carolina, Oklahoma State, Wisconsin, Oregon...
I'd make a slight adjustment to the definitions, but this is a good thought.
0 star: program is a complete tire fire and lacks all hope week to week. Programs in this stage often fire the HS which instantly upgrades them to one star. Think WSU under Wulff, OSU under Anderson (final year)
1 star: boom and bust. Selling the fans on building a program which makes it to a bowl game every few years. WSU has spent most of our history in this range. This group lacks the depth to be a consistent winner but can always promise early playing time on the recruiting trail.
2 star: bowl game most years. Teams who make lower tier bowls primarily, with the occasional 8-9 win season and 4-5 win stinker. Talented true freshman still play a ton but you can recruit more based on field results.
3 star: bowl game every year. Down years don't keep you from bowl games and expectations move to 8 wins per year. Good years see the team in conferences top tier bowls games and ranked. Toughest tier to recruit out of because you aren't truly elite but can't recruit based on playing time the way lower tier schools can.
4 star: Perennially ranked. Teams that live in the top 25, finish ranked most years and win the conference title occasionally. Program prestige starts to generate its own recruiting momentum at this point.
5 star: Perennial NC contenders. Teams who are in the playoff discussion into November most years and are still top 25 teams in down years. These are the schools who dont so much recruit as invite.
That's a pretty inclusive definition of blue blood, but if we're going with a "big tent" approach, I think your list is dead-on. I've seen blue-blood purists who would exclude Miami, UW, Tennessee, and Nebraska.
As far as schools knocking on the door, I don't see how North Carolina is all that close, unless that's speculation based on growth in that region or something like that. UNC has had one double-digit win season in the past 20 years, and a lot of under .500 seasons. Basketball school.
Great thread! 79, I particularly liked your question about Clemson and the discussion that has followed. Here is an analogy that I think fits the conversation.
WW1 nearly bankrupted Britain. It also cost them a big part of a generation of male nobility. As a result, something that had already been happening to a limited extent (for close to 100 years at that point) accelerated in the 20's and became so common in the 30's during the depression that it became essentially a punch line. People bought themselves into nobility. Titled daughters of financially stressed parents were "sold off" to wealthy commoners and foreigners (including many Americans). The remaining broke males with titles married commoner wives that brought money. The fortunate ones had love in the relationship, but for many there was simply a degree of hope at the outset and a clear business transaction. There was a level of acceptance of this in upper British society; after all, the alternative was generally considered to be worse; but often the interlopers were not treated as complete equals by the blue bloods. The interlopers that tried the hardest to be viewed as nobility generally had the hardest time being accepted by the others. By the way, if you google the term "blue bloods" you may find the background to be fascinating; one of the things upon which it hinges was the incest between European royal families, which over time created specific physical appearances...including pronounced blue veins on light skin. Hence, "blue bloods".
What does this have to do with the thread?
Oregon is a good example of a program that has attempted to buy themselves into blue blood ranks. They have had some success; it is not like they got nothing at all from Phil's money. But despite the big check book, they have not really succeeded in achieving blue blood status. They have elevated their program somewhat, no doubt. But not to blue blood levels. Oklahoma State is a similar sort of story. I liked Patrol's use of consistent home game attendance as a metric for assessing blue blood status. It is obviously not the whole story, but it is hard to claim blue blood status if your fan base does not sell out your stadium regularly. I thought Flat's and Bigg's lists were reasonable, and the most interesting thing for me is the longer term trends. I am one of those who believes that CML will choose to retire at WSU, probably at some point approaching age 70. If I am right about that, I suspect that our consistent attendance will at some point along the way require a stadium expansion. While going to the effort to expand, it would be dumb to go for a number lower than 50K seating. And with consistent success, I see no reason why we would not sell out a 50K stadium for any competitive game. Will we ever be a "blue blood" on the order of Alabama, as an example? I doubt it. But will we work our way up to the level that Biggs refers to as 4 stars? I think that is possible...maybe even likely. That would require more years of consistent success, but as long as we have Mike Leach, I think that is also likely. What Mike Leach does even better than identify playing talent and develop offensive schemes is IDENTIFY COACHING TALENT (I don't normally capitalize, but in my view this is CML's greatest talent). Mike Leach gets the right assistants in place. As Biggs has noted several times, and IMHO it is his best point he has ever made..."coaching matters". CML gets the right coaches on the bus. A side benefit is that as they spin off to different locations, he has an almost unparalleled network (with just a few notable exceptions) of other coaches to feed him input on transfer opportunities, scheme thoughts, and most critically, rising coaching stars early in their career. And CML has no ego problems with listening to what they have to say. His offensive belief system is not rigid, but at this point in his life he requires a good reason to revise it....and I think that is fair.
I'll finish with what I said last time. WSU will not be a blue blood...or even lavender...if for no other reason, because Cougs always bleed Crimson.
WW1 nearly bankrupted Britain. It also cost them a big part of a generation of male nobility. As a result, something that had already been happening to a limited extent (for close to 100 years at that point) accelerated in the 20's and became so common in the 30's during the depression that it became essentially a punch line. People bought themselves into nobility. Titled daughters of financially stressed parents were "sold off" to wealthy commoners and foreigners (including many Americans). The remaining broke males with titles married commoner wives that brought money. The fortunate ones had love in the relationship, but for many there was simply a degree of hope at the outset and a clear business transaction. There was a level of acceptance of this in upper British society; after all, the alternative was generally considered to be worse; but often the interlopers were not treated as complete equals by the blue bloods. The interlopers that tried the hardest to be viewed as nobility generally had the hardest time being accepted by the others. By the way, if you google the term "blue bloods" you may find the background to be fascinating; one of the things upon which it hinges was the incest between European royal families, which over time created specific physical appearances...including pronounced blue veins on light skin. Hence, "blue bloods".
What does this have to do with the thread?
Oregon is a good example of a program that has attempted to buy themselves into blue blood ranks. They have had some success; it is not like they got nothing at all from Phil's money. But despite the big check book, they have not really succeeded in achieving blue blood status. They have elevated their program somewhat, no doubt. But not to blue blood levels. Oklahoma State is a similar sort of story. I liked Patrol's use of consistent home game attendance as a metric for assessing blue blood status. It is obviously not the whole story, but it is hard to claim blue blood status if your fan base does not sell out your stadium regularly. I thought Flat's and Bigg's lists were reasonable, and the most interesting thing for me is the longer term trends. I am one of those who believes that CML will choose to retire at WSU, probably at some point approaching age 70. If I am right about that, I suspect that our consistent attendance will at some point along the way require a stadium expansion. While going to the effort to expand, it would be dumb to go for a number lower than 50K seating. And with consistent success, I see no reason why we would not sell out a 50K stadium for any competitive game. Will we ever be a "blue blood" on the order of Alabama, as an example? I doubt it. But will we work our way up to the level that Biggs refers to as 4 stars? I think that is possible...maybe even likely. That would require more years of consistent success, but as long as we have Mike Leach, I think that is also likely. What Mike Leach does even better than identify playing talent and develop offensive schemes is IDENTIFY COACHING TALENT (I don't normally capitalize, but in my view this is CML's greatest talent). Mike Leach gets the right assistants in place. As Biggs has noted several times, and IMHO it is his best point he has ever made..."coaching matters". CML gets the right coaches on the bus. A side benefit is that as they spin off to different locations, he has an almost unparalleled network (with just a few notable exceptions) of other coaches to feed him input on transfer opportunities, scheme thoughts, and most critically, rising coaching stars early in their career. And CML has no ego problems with listening to what they have to say. His offensive belief system is not rigid, but at this point in his life he requires a good reason to revise it....and I think that is fair.
I'll finish with what I said last time. WSU will not be a blue blood...or even lavender...if for no other reason, because Cougs always bleed Crimson.
I think this whole "blue blood" conversation is misplaced when it comes to WSU (WSU is never going to be a "blue blood," but can build a very good program), but in terms of programs making the leap from mediocrity or worse to national relevance, it seems like there have been three in the past 20 years: Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Oregon. Two of those three have a massive benefactor who changed the game for them in terms of facilities and other resources. The other one had a legendary coach. I think it's possible for WSU to follow a path similar to Kansas State, and maybe even to eclipse it, but it's a very tough leap to make.
People forget how many other programs have had big runs to national relevance, only to fade back away. Stanford is a great example. It's not like they were good for three or four years. Here's their record over the past 10 years:
2009: 8-5
2010: 12-1
2011: 11-2
2012: 12-2
2013: 11-3
2014: 8-5
2015: 12-2
2016: 10-3
2017: 9-5
2018: 9-4
They had 6 out of 7 pretty huge years from 2010 through 2016, including two Rose Bowl wins and an Orange Bowl win, among some other wins in more minor bowls. Yet all it has taken is a bit of a resurgence from UW and Oregon, as well as the Cougs, and now they're pretty much forgotten and irrelevant after a couple of decent but unspectacular years in 2017 and 2018.
The Cougs may be able to make the leap but it's really, really tough, especially without a big source of cash.
But the issue is how they play, they run the ball, and that burns clock, keeps WSU from getting the touches they normally get. I could see it easily be 27-17 with a late score giving WSU 7 more.
The term blue-blood isn't necessarily related to rankings or National Championships. For me, as Biggs said, it has to do with the commitment level of the University, the alumni, their boosters and corporate sponsors.
Now, many of the bluest blood programs are perennial NC contenders, as commitment and winning are closely linked; but there are blueblood programs that have been absent on the NC stage for years.
Texas A&M is a good example. Despite a revolving door of bad coaching hires, they still rank 5th in attendance and draw an average of 99K fans/game. Mississippi is maybe the best example I'm trying to make here. They're barely a winning program in many years, but they still draw over 60K fans/game. Arkansas and VA Tech are in that category as well.
In the P12, USC, UW, and Oregon are the only programs that I would consider to be blue bloods. As for WSU, we rank approximately 75th in attendance, behind every other P12 program, as well as the likes of Boise State and Army.
While I'm not a huge champion for making a Martin Stadium expansion a priority, it would certainly help increase our attendance numbers, as there are typically 3 games a year where we could probably draw near 40K fans in Pullman (Oregon, USC, UW, Homecoming, Dads weekend, etc.)
Now, many of the bluest blood programs are perennial NC contenders, as commitment and winning are closely linked; but there are blueblood programs that have been absent on the NC stage for years.
Texas A&M is a good example. Despite a revolving door of bad coaching hires, they still rank 5th in attendance and draw an average of 99K fans/game. Mississippi is maybe the best example I'm trying to make here. They're barely a winning program in many years, but they still draw over 60K fans/game. Arkansas and VA Tech are in that category as well.
In the P12, USC, UW, and Oregon are the only programs that I would consider to be blue bloods. As for WSU, we rank approximately 75th in attendance, behind every other P12 program, as well as the likes of Boise State and Army.
While I'm not a huge champion for making a Martin Stadium expansion a priority, it would certainly help increase our attendance numbers, as there are typically 3 games a year where we could probably draw near 40K fans in Pullman (Oregon, USC, UW, Homecoming, Dads weekend, etc.)
I would maybe include Va Tech in your list above. They kind of fall into the KState "legendary coach" bucket.
As for WSU matching or exceeding the run KSU had, man, that'd be tough. How long do you think Leach coaches here? Snyder had a run twice as long as Leach's current run, then retired, then came back and had ANOTHER one about equal to Leach's.
Good point on VaTech. Honestly, I didn't realize Beamer was there that long and was responsible for the entirety of that rise to national relevance for that school. I thought he was there something like 18 years, not almost 30, and that VaTech was pretty good for a long time.
The VaTech and KSU examples give me hope for WSU, even though, as mentioned, it's a really hard thing to pull off, and even then is subject to falling apart after the legendary coach leaves. Of course, a 25- to 30-year run of national relevance, or at least pretty solid relevance within a conference, is pretty good at places that were have-nots historically.
Re KSU and Snyder, Leach has said Snyder is his coaching idol and he'd like to have a career like he had. Realistically, I could see Leach here as long as Snyder's first run ... maybe for another 10 years or so, taking him to his late 60s. I don't see Leach coaching until he is in his mid- to late 70s like Snyder did, but that's just a hunch based on my read of his personality and motivations, both of which are pretty tough to read.
Fab, at first glance I'd have to agree with you. But after some thought, if CML decided to coach to the same age that Bill Snyder did (he turned 79 during the season last fall), then we might in fact pull off a similar thing.
Heres a thing. Because of Erickson, Price, Leach installing a PASS HAPPY offense, system, it should be easier to find a GOOD PASS HAPPY replacement coach to replace Leach.
Part of Doba's problem was that he wanted a 2 back, 1 RB, 1 FB, 1,2 TE, 2,3 WR Ball control, run, play action semi dink dunk, offense. He was not a fan of the concept of using the whole field.
Doba was offensively a square peg, in the round hole, at WSU. And WSU is better able to field a Leach offense then any other offensive scheme.
If Leach retires 14 years from now at WSU, WSU would be a easy to PLUG AND PLAY a Leach offense coach and continue winning.
So because of that I dont think there would be a drop off, after, if the LEGENDARY Leach retires.
Part of Doba's problem was that he wanted a 2 back, 1 RB, 1 FB, 1,2 TE, 2,3 WR Ball control, run, play action semi dink dunk, offense. He was not a fan of the concept of using the whole field.
Doba was offensively a square peg, in the round hole, at WSU. And WSU is better able to field a Leach offense then any other offensive scheme.
If Leach retires 14 years from now at WSU, WSU would be a easy to PLUG AND PLAY a Leach offense coach and continue winning.
So because of that I dont think there would be a drop off, after, if the LEGENDARY Leach retires.
Altho some might say that he who shall not be named was a pass happy coach:
Part of the problem, in addition to how bad a coach he was, is that if he had immediatly followed price, he probably would have won about 4 to 7 games a year, instead of 0,1,2 games a year like he did after Doba.
He had to try to go from Doba's run, play action dink dunk, ball control, offense that didnt use whole field to a passing offense.
That meant he had to get different, better, passing recruits, instead of doba's offensive scheme recruits, which he couldnt do, which is part of why he failed.
If he had followed Price, instead of Doba, he probably have had the type of players he needed, and probably would have been able to springboard use that to continue to get the same type of recruits needed for a Pass Happy offense, leading to 4 to 7 wins a season, instead of 0,1,2 wins a season.
So because of that, worst case scenario WSU should be able to get a replacement Leach Offense coach that wins at least 5,6,7,8 games a season.
PLUG AND PLAY both players, coaching wise, because of the WSU Leach system that should be able to continue doing.
Part of the problem, in addition to how bad a coach he was, is that if he had immediatly followed price, he probably would have won about 4 to 7 games a year, instead of 0,1,2 games a year like he did after Doba.
He had to try to go from Doba's run, play action dink dunk, ball control, offense that didnt use whole field to a passing offense.
That meant he had to get different, better, passing recruits, instead of doba's offensive scheme recruits, which he couldnt do, which is part of why he failed.
If he had followed Price, instead of Doba, he probably have had the type of players he needed, and probably would have been able to springboard use that to continue to get the same type of recruits needed for a Pass Happy offense, leading to 4 to 7 wins a season, instead of 0,1,2 wins a season.
So because of that, worst case scenario WSU should be able to get a replacement Leach Offense coach that wins at least 5,6,7,8 games a season.
PLUG AND PLAY both players, coaching wise, because of the WSU Leach system that should be able to continue doing.
