Question For Biggs?

[OrangeGravy]

You're of the opinion that the WSU job is a desirable job. What specific attributes in your mind make it a desirable job compared to other P5 programs when we eventually have to hire a new coach?

In my opinion, all of the things the school has done in regards to facilities and Leach's salary got us to a point of not being severely behind in those categories, but no where near a point that would be considered a tick in our favor. I also don't believe the University will continue to keep up with those things in the next decade+. If they ever get the IPF done, I could see them sitting on things for another 15 years. Attendance will never be something to point to no matter what the product on the field is like. I don't see the appeal for a coach that is coveted by other programs. Help me see it!

 

[CougPatrol]

I’ll give a brief response. I don’t think our job is for everyone, but there are certain candidates out there who will covet the opportunity. It takes a certain personality type to embrace our job, but they’re out there.

WSU offers a P5 opportunity that’s removed from the limelight and big city, big booster media scrutiny. We don’t have a massive stadium or booster network, but our fan base is passionate. Pullman is a safe, livable town to raise a family without distractions. The football program has great facilities, pays very well, and has developed a nice tradition over the past 25 years.

I’ll say it again, Pullman is an ideal job for certain small town personality types, but it isn’t for everyone. It won’t be easy identifying candidates for the job, but I genuinely believe that WSU could one day become the Gonzaga of West Coast football.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

I've lived in 5 widely dispersed cities in the US which included 3 of the P5 home areas. I'd say Patrol got the answer right, but I'll add a few things.

HC's in expensive urban environments can't pay most of their staff well enough that they could buy a house, and staff usually have to trade a brutal commute for living in a halfway decent school district. Neither of those things are an issue in Pullman. Clearly, this is more of an issue for some potential staff than for others, but it is attractive in enticing the right staff to come to Pullman. That is a definite plus for a HC.

Some people prefer the college town vibe. Not everybody, but not a small number, either. The most important task in selling anything is differentiating the product/service you are selling. WSU can sell "college town" better than most.

Most HC candidates who are married (particularly with children) will find Pullman to be an easy sell on the domestic front.

 

[OrangeGravy]

Is a good college football coach whether an established name or an up and coming guy really gonna give a rip about any of that if it's not going to give him a good chance to win football games? None of those things have anything to do with winning football games. You're not trying to recruit a nice family guy with a type B personality. What type A coach that is gonna be swayed by that stuff over other places that will give him a better advantage ON THE FIELD?

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Orange, unlike many on this board I don't usually respond in a negative or condescending manner. Therefore I won't say the first three or four things that come to mind and simply point out a couple of things in response to your post that IMHO should be obvious.

Coaches have a good chance to win football games in Pullman. That is pretty clear.

Coaches need good staff in order to win football games anywhere, and I'd argue that it is more important in Pullman than in many locations, because we face more recruiting challenges than most. Few staff are both superb recruiters and superb teachers. So if we get some really good recruiters, we have to have some really good teachers to balance it out. Fortunately, as I noted, we have advantages when it comes to getting the right staff.

Your type A and type B analogies are about 30 years past tense, but I understand the point you try to make. Long story short, I don't care if the HC is a nice family guy, or not. But as anyone who has run businesses at this level understands, the guy running the show has to have a secure home front in order to be fully effective. Pullman offers an environment that is conducive to that actually taking place. The bulk of the football factories do not.

All of the above translates to advantages on the field, for the right kind of HC.

 

[Tx64]

You're of the opinion that the WSU job is a desirable job. What specific attributes in your mind make it a desirable job compared to other P5 programs when we eventually have to hire a new coach?

In my opinion, all of the things the school has done in regards to facilities and Leach's salary got us to a point of not being severely behind in those categories, but no where near a point that would be considered a tick in our favor. I also don't believe the University will continue to keep up with those things in the next decade+. If they ever get the IPF done, I could see them sitting on things for another 15 years. Attendance will never be something to point to no matter what the product on the field is like. I don't see the appeal for a coach that is coveted by other programs. Help me see it!

There is no doubt WSU will be able to find a coach after Leach. TT did. The question is can they win.

 

[Tx64]

I’ll give a brief response. I don’t think our job is for everyone, but there are certain candidates out there who will covet the opportunity. It takes a certain personality type to embrace our job, but they’re out there.

WSU offers a P5 opportunity that’s removed from the limelight and big city, big booster media scrutiny. We don’t have a massive stadium or booster network, but our fan base is passionate. Pullman is a safe, livable town to raise a family without distractions. The football program has great facilities, pays very well, and has developed a nice tradition over the past 25 years.

I’ll say it again, Pullman is an ideal job for certain small town personality types, but it isn’t for everyone. It won’t be easy identifying candidates for the job, but I genuinely believe that WSU could one day become the Gonzaga of West Coast football.

Maybe in the Mountain West.

 

[royhobbs2]

There is no doubt WSU will be able to find a coach after Leach. TT did. The question is can they win.

Very true. A lot of similarities with lubbock

 

[Flatlandcoug]

going to repost with better formatting

 

[Flatlandcoug]

You're of the opinion that the WSU job is a desirable job. What specific attributes in your mind make it a desirable job compared to other P5 programs when we eventually have to hire a new coach?

In my opinion, all of the things the school has done in regards to facilities and Leach's salary got us to a point of not being severely behind in those categories, but no where near a point that would be considered a tick in our favor. I also don't believe the University will continue to keep up with those things in the next decade+. If they ever get the IPF done, I could see them sitting on things for another 15 years. Attendance will never be something to point to no matter what the product on the field is like. I don't see the appeal for a coach that is coveted by other programs. Help me see it!

Well, it's important to understand that WSU is not going to compete with Oregon, USC, UCLA and UW for coaches. In general, those schools have the money, location and/or tradition that makes it difficult for WSU to compete against them. As you said, our facility improvements are only an attempt to keep up with the Joneses rather than getting ahead of them. Now, if ASU, UA, Utah, CU, Cal, Stanford and OSU are looking for a coach, would a prospective coach pick WSU instead if we were in the market at the same time?

I think it's obvious to everyone that the WSU job is more desirable than the OSU job. No offense to the Beavers, but the OSU job is clearly the least desirable in the conference. When you think about the potential for success, it's pretty easy to make the argument that the WSU job is one of the more desirable of the remaining jobs. Since 1980, here are some stats for each school:

Team............9+ Win Seasons..........Top 10 Finishes...........Coaches to NFL...........Coaches to other CFB...........Coaches Fired/Resigned
Arizona:.................4...................................3...................................0...................................1................................................4
ASU:......................9...................................3...................................1...................................1.................................................4
Cal:........................5...................................2...................................1...................................1.................................................6
CU:........................9...................................6...................................0...................................1.................................................5
OSU:.....................5...................................1...................................2...................................1.................................................5
Stanford...............10.................................6...................................2...................................1.................................................5
Utah:....................12..................................3...................................0...................................1.................................................3
WSU:.....................9...................................5...................................0...................................3.................................................2

Colorado had their glory days run from 1989 to 2001. That success, combined with a desirable location north of Denver, should make that job desirable. However, nearly 20 years of mediocrity has really put a damper on them. The dysfunction of CU takes a job that should be great and makes it questionable. Utah looked like it was going to struggle in the Pac-12 initially but Whittingham has gotten things going. I personally wasn't impressed with SLC itself when I went there this year....but the mountains are pretty awesome and it's hard to argue with their ability to crank out 9+ win seasons. An objective observer would say that the Utah job is a more desirable job than WSU.

I was actually surprised that OSU has had more 9+ win seasons than Arizona, although when Arizona has been good....they've been very good. Still, it's pretty obvious that 40 years of data suggests that the Arizona job should be a tough sell. It's also interesting that Mike Riley and Dennis Erickson both went to the NFL from OSU......but all the rest of their coaches were fired.

Cal falls into the same category as Arizona. Although their location should make that job desirable, their proximity to Stanford means that they miss out on the "smart" guys that want to play in the Bay area and they obviously have struggled to have high success. Plus....they are where coaching careers go to die with six coaches getting fired in the past 40 years.

If I were to rank the coaching jobs in the Pac-12 in desirability, they'd be as follows:

1) USC
2) Oregon
3) UCLA
4) UW
5) Utah
6) Stanford
7) CU
8) ASU
9) WSU
10) Cal
11) Arizona
12) OSU

For an up and coming coach who is not looking at their next college job as their final one, it would be pretty easy to argue that WSU is the best choice. Walden, Erickson and Price were able to parlay their time at WSU into another job and Mike Leach could get a job in a snap if he was really interested. I was actually surprised that I couldn't find another Pac-12 school other than WSU who lost multiple coaches to other NCAA coaching jobs. I had not expected that. You could argue that WSU should be in the #7 spot behind Stanford and frankly, if you ignore Stanford's recent success and relative lack of fan support, you could make the argument that the WSU job should be #6 on the list. Again, for a coach who is wanting to go places, WSU is actually an attractive gig overall.

Anyway, I know that this falls into the TL;DR category, but thought I'd put some time into it just to see what I found.

 

[OrangeGravy]

Well, it's important to understand that WSU is not going to compete with Oregon, USC, UCLA and UW for coaches. In general, those schools have the money, location and/or tradition that makes it difficult for WSU to compete against them. As you said, our facility improvements are only an attempt to keep up with the Joneses rather than getting ahead of them. Now, if ASU, UA, Utah, CU, Cal, Stanford and OSU are looking for a coach, would a prospective coach pick WSU instead if we were in the market at the same time?

I think it's obvious to everyone that the WSU job is more desirable than the OSU job. No offense to the Beavers, but the OSU job is clearly the least desirable in the conference. When you think about the potential for success, it's pretty easy to make the argument that the WSU job is one of the more desirable of the remaining jobs. Since 1980, here are some stats for each school:

Team............9+ Win Seasons..........Top 10 Finishes...........Coaches to NFL...........Coaches to other CFB...........Coaches Fired/Resigned
Arizona:.................4...................................3...................................0...................................1................................................4
ASU:......................9...................................3...................................1...................................1.................................................4
Cal:........................5...................................2...................................1...................................1.................................................6
CU:........................9...................................6...................................0...................................1.................................................5
OSU:.....................5...................................1...................................2...................................1.................................................5
Stanford...............10.................................6...................................2...................................1.................................................5
Utah:....................12..................................3...................................0...................................1.................................................3
WSU:.....................9...................................5...................................0...................................3.................................................2

Colorado had their glory days run from 1989 to 2001. That success, combined with a desirable location north of Denver, should make that job desirable. However, nearly 20 years of mediocrity has really put a damper on them. The dysfunction of CU takes a job that should be great and makes it questionable. Utah looked like it was going to struggle in the Pac-12 initially but Whittingham has gotten things going. I personally wasn't impressed with SLC itself when I went there this year....but the mountains are pretty awesome and it's hard to argue with their ability to crank out 9+ win seasons. An objective observer would say that the Utah job is a more desirable job than WSU.

I was actually surprised that OSU has had more 9+ win seasons than Arizona, although when Arizona has been good....they've been very good. Still, it's pretty obvious that 40 years of data suggests that the Arizona job should be a tough sell. It's also interesting that Mike Riley and Dennis Erickson both went to the NFL from OSU......but all the rest of their coaches were fired.

Cal falls into the same category as Arizona. Although their location should make that job desirable, their proximity to Stanford means that they miss out on the "smart" guys that want to play in the Bay area and they obviously have struggled to have high success. Plus....they are where coaching careers go to die with six coaches getting fired in the past 40 years.

If I were to rank the coaching jobs in the Pac-12 in desirability, they'd be as follows:

1) USC
2) Oregon
3) UCLA
4) UW
5) Utah
6) Stanford
7) CU
8) ASU
9) WSU
10) Cal
11) Arizona
12) OSU

For an up and coming coach who is not looking at their next college job as their final one, it would be pretty easy to argue that WSU is the best choice. Walden, Erickson and Price were able to parlay their time at WSU into another job and Mike Leach could get a job in a snap if he was really interested. I was actually surprised that I couldn't find another Pac-12 school other than WSU who lost multiple coaches to other NCAA coaching jobs. I had not expected that. You could argue that WSU should be in the #7 spot behind Stanford and frankly, if you ignore Stanford's recent success and relative lack of fan support, you could make the argument that the WSU job should be #6 on the list. Again, for a coach who is wanting to go places, WSU is actually an attractive gig overall.

Anyway, I know that this falls into the TL;DR category, but thought I'd put some time into it just to see what I found.

Now take that Pac12 rank you have and expand to the entire P5, because you have to compete with everyone who's looking for a coach at the time.

I think my larger point is that WSU doesn't have any of the qualities that are needed to move from bad/mediocre to consistently good year after year. They have many of the qualities that keep you bad/mediocre with a few good years mixed in. Nothing is gonna ever change that. The only thing that could would be an Oregon like cash infusion and I don't see that ever happening.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Now take that Pac12 rank you have and expand to the entire P5, because you have to compete with everyone who's looking for a coach at the time.

I think my larger point is that WSU doesn't have any of the qualities that are needed to move from bad/mediocre to consistently good year after year. They have many of the qualities that keep you bad/mediocre with a few good years mixed in. Nothing is gonna ever change that. The only thing that could would be an Oregon like cash infusion and I don't see that ever happening.

There are probably 40 programs that are clearly better destinations than WSU in terms of money, location, recruiting and potential success where we simply can't compete against them if they want the same guy as us. That primarily applies to coaches who have already had some success and are looking for their "dream job".

Where WSU can compete is when we are looking at the guys who have had success at a lower level, but aren't ready to take a Top 25 job. Over the past 40 years, WSU has shown that any good coach can lead a team to bowl eligibility. Walden, Erickson, Price, Doba and Leach all have led teams to 8+ wins. Three of them had Top 10 teams (kind of cheating with Doba...but still). Leach has had WSU within one win of the north title in 4 out of 5 seasons. Chun can point to the past 40 years and say that if a coach comes to WSU, we can compete for conference titles and be in the conversation for a national title.

Now, you are 100% correct that we aren't like a lot of the truly elite programs where 8-4 is a bad season and this year is evidence that losing seasons will still happen. Next season will tell us a lot about Leach. Can we win 8+ games with Cooper or Cruz running our offense? Do we "need" to bring in another grad transfer QB? Can we find a defensive coordinator that can revive our defense? Was this year an aberration or are we reverting to our mean? I look back at this season and I see a team that was a handful of plays away from 11-2 again. Leach made some really questionable decisions at times that cost us games. In other years, that aggressiveness paid off....this year we paid for it.

WSU is a pretty easy sell compared to a lot of programs. My list above shows that a coach is far more likely to get fired from any of the other jobs in the conference than they are at WSU. Can we get to the point where this season at 6-6 is a "bad" season? I don't know. I will say that we definitely need to get the right coach if we don't want to revert to the Wulff years, but given the past 40 years, there's no reason for a coach to assume that they can't be successful at WSU. Outside of Wulff, it's been the opposite of that. Heck, Jim Walden had WSU bowl eligible in a stretch of 3 out of 4 seasons at one point.

 

[Glad Cougar]

There are probably 40 programs that are clearly better destinations than WSU in terms of money, location, recruiting and potential success where we simply can't compete against them if they want the same guy as us. That primarily applies to coaches who have already had some success and are looking for their "dream job".

Where WSU can compete is when we are looking at the guys who have had success at a lower level, but aren't ready to take a Top 25 job. Over the past 40 years, WSU has shown that any good coach can lead a team to bowl eligibility. Walden, Erickson, Price, Doba and Leach all have led teams to 8+ wins. Three of them had Top 10 teams (kind of cheating with Doba...but still). Leach has had WSU within one win of the north title in 4 out of 5 seasons. Chun can point to the past 40 years and say that if a coach comes to WSU, we can compete for conference titles and be in the conversation for a national title.

Now, you are 100% correct that we aren't like a lot of the truly elite programs where 8-4 is a bad season and this year is evidence that losing seasons will still happen. Next season will tell us a lot about Leach. Can we win 8+ games with Cooper or Cruz running our offense? Do we "need" to bring in another grad transfer QB? Can we find a defensive coordinator that can revive our defense? Was this year an aberration or are we reverting to our mean? I look back at this season and I see a team that was a handful of plays away from 11-2 again. Leach made some really questionable decisions at times that cost us games. In other years, that aggressiveness paid off....this year we paid for it.

WSU is a pretty easy sell compared to a lot of programs. My list above shows that a coach is far more likely to get fired from any of the other jobs in the conference than they are at WSU. Can we get to the point where this season at 6-6 is a "bad" season? I don't know. I will say that we definitely need to get the right coach if we don't want to revert to the Wulff years, but given the past 40 years, there's no reason for a coach to assume that they can't be successful at WSU. Outside of Wulff, it's been the opposite of that. Heck, Jim Walden had WSU bowl eligible in a stretch of 3 out of 4 seasons at one point.

Good rundown, Flat. It's really easy to think (and fear) that WSU will revert to Wulff Days if and when Leach leaves Pullman. I think it's more likely a good hire is made, especially assuming the salary is roughly the same as Leach's. What I don't expect is a program that will win 9-11 games consistently year after year. Hopefully the 6-win season is the new nadir for this program instead of the 3-win seasons that were interspersed with Price's great teams. In order for that to happen, I do think Leach (or his successor) will need to recruit better than the past couple of years and will need to evolve as other teams figure out ways of stopping the current version of Air Raid.

Y'know, as you said, we were a few plays from 11-2, but this team this year never felt remotely close to being that good. They ended up with the record they deserved, IMO.

Glad Cougar

 

[chipdouglas]

There are a million things one could say about job attributes, but that doesn’t mean they’re all equally important. They matter, but commutes, school districts and safety all sound like the things an accountant is looking for; I doubt they are THE factors for talented coaches, even when many are combined.

I suspect it largely comes down to pay + prestige. Pretend you have no connection to WSU or eastern Washington: is Pullman, right now, a place that has a better-than-P5-average reputation for taking care of staff financially? And is it a place where great assistant coaches hope to end their careers, or is it a springboard to better schools?

Taking off the crimson shades, I don’t see how serious answers to those questions favor Pullman as a competitive coaching destination.

 

[royhobbs2]

It comes down to if you can win there and how much they are willing to pay. Period

 

[Cougsocal]

Mike Leach is a great X and Os coach, and can win more with less than virtually any coach in the business. However, having to win with consistently bottom rung/"off the shelf" recruiting isn't the only way in Pullman, even though Leach is damn good at it. We won championships with a coach who combined a "win with less" offense and defense, "recruiting," player development, and a strong ground game to find hidden NW gems. Remember this was a man who could not hold a candle to Leach on the football mind front.

We hired a disaster of a coach on the cheap because Sterk et al did not do their home work, not realizing that a can of Simoniz could win at EWU. We did a lazy/cheap hire with an aging career assistant also. I just don't see Chun doing that, not with 3-4 million per to offer and extended contracts. There are no guarantees, and a "perfect fit" coach might bomb out, but there is no reason to be defeatist simply because a bad AD, who treated Price like crap, then doubled down on the bad with his dreadful hiring. By modern standards Walden would have taken us to three bowls, and Price 7 (a cup cake instead of Michigan on the road), there is no reason to believe that this level of "success" is no longer possible without Leach, in the worst P-5 conference, with three cup cakes on the schedule every year, instead on tOSU, Michigan etc.

We spent just about as much on our FOB as anyone in the conference. But do you have any idea how much more for the dollar we got paying E. Washington prices for labor/materials, than in Seattle, LA, SF, Phoenix? Other than Oregon, who has a nicer, better situated, facilities than us? And our facilities are far better situated than Oregon. Leach just isn't taking advantage of it. Let's not forget, Price parlayed a new weight room into a top 25 class and a Rose Bowl. If your name isn't Wulff, ANY P-5 coach can/should sign a top 50-60 class by just showing up, because you are P-5 school, and you offer the chance to play in the majors, which is a huge draw. God I'd love to see a recruiting class or 2 more commensurate with Moos' vision of what the FOB would accomplish, before it becomes threadbare. That will never happen with Leach, which is a shame. (The FOB as "merely keeping up with the Jones" is new revisionist history, and not the "recruiting advantage" Moos was selling)

Leach is a great fit for Pullman, I can live with never winning the big game with him, I'm resigned to that, but the idea that he is the only thing keeping us from being the Oregon State of the 80s is ridiculous. Even Oregon State isn't the Oregon State of the 80s any more.

 

[Tx64]

Mike Leach is a great X and Os coach, and can win more with less than virtually any coach in the business. However, having to win with consistently bottom rung/"off the shelf" recruiting isn't the only way in Pullman, even though Leach is damn good at it. We won championships with a coach who combined a "win with less" offense and defense, "recruiting," player development, and a strong ground game to find hidden NW gems. Remember this was a man who could not hold a candle to Leach on the football mind front.

We hired a disaster of a coach on the cheap because Sterk et al did not do their home work, not realizing that a can of Simoniz could win at EWU. We did a lazy/cheap hire with an aging career assistant also. I just don't see Chun doing that, not with 3-4 million per to offer and extended contracts. There are no guarantees, and a "perfect fit" coach might bomb out, but there is no reason to be defeatist simply because a bad AD, who treated Price like crap, then doubled down on the bad with his dreadful hiring. By modern standards Walden would have taken us to three bowls, and Price 7 (a cup cake instead of Michigan on the road), there is no reason to believe that this level of "success" is no longer possible without Leach, in the worst P-5 conference, with three cup cakes on the schedule every year, instead on tOSU, Michigan etc.

We spent just about as much on our FOB as anyone in the conference. But do you have any idea how much more for the dollar we got paying E. Washington prices for labor/materials, than in Seattle, LA, SF, Phoenix? Other than Oregon, who has a nicer, better situated, facilities than us? And our facilities are far better situated than Oregon. Leach just isn't taking advantage of it. Let's not forget, Price parlayed a new weight room into a top 25 class and a Rose Bowl. If your name isn't Wulff, ANY P-5 coach can/should sign a top 50-60 class by just showing up, because you are P-5 school, and you offer the chance to play in the majors, which is a huge draw. God I'd love to see a recruiting class or 2 more commensurate with Moos' vision of what the FOB would accomplish, before it becomes threadbare. That will never happen with Leach, which is a shame. (The FOB as "merely keeping up with the Jones" is new revisionist history, and not the "recruiting advantage" Moos was selling)

Leach is a great fit for Pullman, I can live with never winning the big game with him, I'm resigned to that, but the idea that he is the only thing keeping us from being the Oregon State of the 80s is ridiculous. Even Oregon State isn't the Oregon State of the 80s any more.

That is what TT thought. WSU needs an IPF bad. With that maybe the recruiting goes up. WSU will never bring in lots of 4 stars. They have to get the right high 3 stars, to compete consistently. No character issues. No gambling on recruits that other passed on, because of problems. Leach's early classes had to gamble. His resent classes were better, except for the DB gambles in the 2018 class

 

[royhobbs2]

That is what TT thought. WSU needs an IPF bad. With that maybe the recruiting goes up. WSU will never bring in lots of 4 stars. They have to get the right high 3 stars, to compete consistently. No character issues. No gambling on recruits that other passed on, because of problems. Leach's early classes had to gamble. His resent classes were better, except for the DB gambles in the 2018 class

there are many parallels between Lubbock and Pullman including the debates and comments between fans.

11-2 last season 6 win floor this season was a perfect storm of events, normally the floor will be 8 wins imo. The coaching staff instability has to be fixed. The recruiting is solid enough imo. Iowa is a great case study. They have landed one four star a year very comparable with WSU. Tx is right on the money select targeted 3 star players that fit your system.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Entertaining thread. We all have a different perspective, so it is easy to understand why we don't all interpret the same facts in the same way. I'd argue that some of you don't see the same facts that I see, but that is fine, as well. Parallels have been drawn to OSU, TT and other schools. I'd like to add one that is missing to this point and clearly very relevant. KSU and Bill Snyder.

KSU is a better across the board comparison to WSU than almost any other school for the purposes of this discussion, with one major exception. The exception: the other major in-state school in Kansas is a hoops power that has never prioritized football. Hard to avoid that point, but I'd submit that it doesn't matter for the purposes of this comparison. Snyder did not build K State to a consistent football power (and yes, that is a fair term to use) by winning the Kansas in-state recruiting battles. He went elsewhere for most of his recruits, and was simply the right coach in the right place. KSU was the poster child for a program where no coach could win before Snyder took the job, with even fewer competitive advantages than WSU in the eyes of most, but look what happened. I'd also submit that Bill could not have lasted at a Texas, Ohio State, Alabama or USC. Those schools & programs did not fit his personality. He enjoyed being the bigger fish in the smaller pond; he enjoyed walking to work and knowing his neighbors; he chose to duck or even insult the media occasionally and knew that he could get away with that at KSU; and he understood that he was desirable to other schools and occasionally used that to tweak his contract. He also was exceptionally competent and understood that he could have his cake and eat it, too; living where he wanted, in the environment he wanted, and still succeed. He also understood the value of getting along with whom ever was his boss at the time, and their boss, as well. He occasionally told the bosses' boss how the cow ate the cabbage, but did it in a private way that permitted face to be saved and working relationships to continue. A lot of corporate titans who also had a dose of maturity during their ascendancy (sadly, many who decide to conquer the world lack that until too late) have made similar life choices, and that seems likely to continue. Remember, for fully developed leaders, their career choices and goals are inextricably linked to their family and relationship choices and goals. How the inevitable conflicts and challenges are worked out varies as widely as people vary, but (to use an out of date term), a true Alpha wants his or her world on his or her terms, not the terms of others. They find a way to win in all aspects of their life. Identifying that guy amidst the group that would want the WSU job is an art, not a science. Recruiting is hard work. I've probably hired 200 people in my life, and at this point I figure that a 65% success rate is doing well...similar to Leach's completion percentage target for his QB's. It is a little early to be sure, but at this point I'd say that Chun has the potential to be our best AD in 40 years. We also have a president who, coincidentally, understands what KSU did, and is likely to support Chun. Quite a contrast to many of our former presidents & AD's.

The talent is out there and enough of it would like to come to Pullman. Identifying the recruit is the tough part, whether recruiting players for your football team or players for your organization. From what I've seen so far I have pretty good confidence in Leach's choices, as well as high hopes for Chun in HC choices, and therefore have optimism for the near term. And near-to-medium term is the longest time window that any of us can see.

 

[dgibbons]

Mike Leach is a great X and Os coach, and can win more with less than virtually any coach in the business. However, having to win with consistently bottom rung/"off the shelf" recruiting isn't the only way in Pullman, even though Leach is damn good at it. We won championships with a coach who combined a "win with less" offense and defense, "recruiting," player development, and a strong ground game to find hidden NW gems. Remember this was a man who could not hold a candle to Leach on the football mind front.

We hired a disaster of a coach on the cheap because Sterk et al did not do their home work, not realizing that a can of Simoniz could win at EWU. We did a lazy/cheap hire with an aging career assistant also. I just don't see Chun doing that, not with 3-4 million per to offer and extended contracts. There are no guarantees, and a "perfect fit" coach might bomb out, but there is no reason to be defeatist simply because a bad AD, who treated Price like crap, then doubled down on the bad with his dreadful hiring. By modern standards Walden would have taken us to three bowls, and Price 7 (a cup cake instead of Michigan on the road), there is no reason to believe that this level of "success" is no longer possible without Leach, in the worst P-5 conference, with three cup cakes on the schedule every year, instead on tOSU, Michigan etc.

We spent just about as much on our FOB as anyone in the conference. But do you have any idea how much more for the dollar we got paying E. Washington prices for labor/materials, than in Seattle, LA, SF, Phoenix? Other than Oregon, who has a nicer, better situated, facilities than us? And our facilities are far better situated than Oregon. Leach just isn't taking advantage of it. Let's not forget, Price parlayed a new weight room into a top 25 class and a Rose Bowl. If your name isn't Wulff, ANY P-5 coach can/should sign a top 50-60 class by just showing up, because you are P-5 school, and you offer the chance to play in the majors, which is a huge draw. God I'd love to see a recruiting class or 2 more commensurate with Moos' vision of what the FOB would accomplish, before it becomes threadbare. That will never happen with Leach, which is a shame. (The FOB as "merely keeping up with the Jones" is new revisionist history, and not the "recruiting advantage" Moos was selling)

Leach is a great fit for Pullman, I can live with never winning the big game with him, I'm resigned to that, but the idea that he is the only thing keeping us from being the Oregon State of the 80s is ridiculous. Even Oregon State isn't the Oregon State of the 80s any more.

It needs to be pointed out that the FOB is aging. It’s still got plenty of life left, and it moved us up in the arms race, but it’s aging. And we’re in an arms race. The economy has been outstanding for a long period of time, but WSU has essentially been flat in investing in the program since 2015. Our competitors are not standing pat. We have a 2015 BMW that is being compared to 2020 BMWs. That’s why we need the IPF. We also need to up the payroll for assistants, up the recruiting budget and get the coaches access to a private aircraft.

 

[OrangeGravy]

Entertaining thread. We all have a different perspective, so it is easy to understand why we don't all interpret the same facts in the same way. I'd argue that some of you don't see the same facts that I see, but that is fine, as well. Parallels have been drawn to OSU, TT and other schools. I'd like to add one that is missing to this point and clearly very relevant. KSU and Bill Snyder.

KSU is a better across the board comparison to WSU than almost any other school for the purposes of this discussion, with one major exception. The exception: the other major in-state school in Kansas is a hoops power that has never prioritized football. Hard to avoid that point, but I'd submit that it doesn't matter for the purposes of this comparison. Snyder did not build K State to a consistent football power (and yes, that is a fair term to use) by winning the Kansas in-state recruiting battles. He went elsewhere for most of his recruits, and was simply the right coach in the right place. KSU was the poster child for a program where no coach could win before Snyder took the job, with even fewer competitive advantages than WSU in the eyes of most, but look what happened. I'd also submit that Bill could not have lasted at a Texas, Ohio State, Alabama or USC. Those schools & programs did not fit his personality. He enjoyed being the bigger fish in the smaller pond; he enjoyed walking to work and knowing his neighbors; he chose to duck or even insult the media occasionally and knew that he could get away with that at KSU; and he understood that he was desirable to other schools and occasionally used that to tweak his contract. He also was exceptionally competent and understood that he could have his cake and eat it, too; living where he wanted, in the environment he wanted, and still succeed. He also understood the value of getting along with whom ever was his boss at the time, and their boss, as well. He occasionally told the bosses' boss how the cow ate the cabbage, but did it in a private way that permitted face to be saved and working relationships to continue. A lot of corporate titans who also had a dose of maturity during their ascendancy (sadly, many who decide to conquer the world lack that until too late) have made similar life choices, and that seems likely to continue. Remember, for fully developed leaders, their career choices and goals are inextricably linked to their family and relationship choices and goals. How the inevitable conflicts and challenges are worked out varies as widely as people vary, but (to use an out of date term), a true Alpha wants his or her world on his or her terms, not the terms of others. They find a way to win in all aspects of their life. Identifying that guy amidst the group that would want the WSU job is an art, not a science. Recruiting is hard work. I've probably hired 200 people in my life, and at this point I figure that a 65% success rate is doing well...similar to Leach's completion percentage target for his QB's. It is a little early to be sure, but at this point I'd say that Chun has the potential to be our best AD in 40 years. We also have a president who, coincidentally, understands what KSU did, and is likely to support Chun. Quite a contrast to many of our former presidents & AD's.

The talent is out there and enough of it would like to come to Pullman. Identifying the recruit is the tough part, whether recruiting players for your football team or players for your organization. From what I've seen so far I have pretty good confidence in Leach's choices, as well as high hopes for Chun in HC choices, and therefore have optimism for the near term. And near-to-medium term is the longest time window that any of us can see.

BUT, K-State wasn't really ever a power. They were a good solid team, but they were far from a power. Even if you grant them that, it took an old guy who had no interest in using that job to get a better one. Those scenarios present themselves less often than few and far between.

When you don't have talent in your immediate region, have no money, and are in an isolated location (even historical blue bloods with these problems are now down and probably permanently out), your ceiling is intermittent success when you find a really good coach. Keeping him is difficult unless you find an old guy that decides to ride his career out there. The only way out is to somehow secure a HUGE national name (impossible) or find a whale donor (Oregon).
It's not a bad thing. It's just the reality of the situation and always has been. It's what makes me wonder why so many fans get upset when we have a season like this. I get more annoyed with a season like last year when you have a chance to have an historical season, by our standards, and a game like the USC game happens.

 

[OrangeGravy]

It needs to be pointed out that the FOB is aging. It’s still got plenty of life left, and it moved us up in the arms race, but it’s aging. And we’re in an arms race. The economy has been outstanding for a long period of time, but WSU has essentially been flat in investing in the program since 2015. Our competitors are not standing pat. We have a 2015 BMW that is being compared to 2020 BMWs. That’s why we need the IPF. We also need to up the payroll for assistants, up the recruiting budget and get the coaches access to a private aircraft.

Good points. I wouldn't trust WSU to invest in the facilities often enough to keep up. Let's be honest. If they don't hire Leach, none of those things gets done. It took the stars aligning perfectly for all of that to happen. It doesn't guarantee that those in charge will continue that trend once he's gone. The safe bet is that it won't. They'll likely pay more for the next coach than they would have had Leach not been hired, but it will likely be less than what he's making by half.

 

[AncientCoug]

Good points. I wouldn't trust WSU to invest in the facilities often enough to keep up. Let's be honest. If they don't hire Leach, none of those things gets done. It took the stars aligning perfectly for all of that to happen. It doesn't guarantee that those in charge will continue that trend once he's gone. The safe bet is that it won't. They'll likely pay more for the next coach than they would have had Leach not been hired, but it will likely be less than what he's making by half.

Pretty sure that it’s not even possible for the athletic department to invest much in facilities for the foreseeable future. Moos left them with a recurring financial deficit that drew the attention of the state legislature. They passed a law that required WSU athletics to submit a multi year plan to reduce athletic department borrowing from the school general fund to zero. That plan has been submitted and includes no extra money for facility upgrades. At least there were none that I recall seeing. The IPF will be possible if there are sufficient donations earmarked for that project but I think it would be extremely difficult, probably impossible, to get authorization to float any bonds for it.

 

[OrangeGravy]

Pretty sure that it’s not even possible for the athletic department to invest much in facilities for the foreseeable future. Moos left them with a recurring financial deficit that drew the attention of the state legislature. They passed a law that required WSU athletics to submit a multi year plan to reduce athletic department borrowing from the school general fund to zero. That plan has been submitted and includes no extra money for facility upgrades. At least there were none that I recall seeing. The IPF will be possible if there are sufficient donations earmarked for that project but I think it would be extremely difficult, probably impossible, to get authorization to float any bonds for it.

True. Forgot about that little issue. I still think people gloss over the most important part of the facilities equation and that is what perfect set of circumstances had to come together for it to happen in the first place. Those things don't come together, and we're sitting here with that area of campus looking exactly the same as it did in 1990. The best we can hope for is another upgrade 20-30 years down the road if it's even necessary at that point. There could be a major shakeup in football at the FBS level before then and who knows where we'd end up if that ever happens.

 

[Lollapalousa]

I sort of like our record on the Palouse. It might appeal to some coaches looking to make a living as well

 

[dgibbons]

Pretty sure that it’s not even possible for the athletic department to invest much in facilities for the foreseeable future. Moos left them with a recurring financial deficit that drew the attention of the state legislature. They passed a law that required WSU athletics to submit a multi year plan to reduce athletic department borrowing from the school general fund to zero. That plan has been submitted and includes no extra money for facility upgrades. At least there were none that I recall seeing. The IPF will be possible if there are sufficient donations earmarked for that project but I think it would be extremely difficult, probably impossible, to get authorization to float any bonds for it.

The baseball clubhouse was partially funded with debt. The administration has to raise funds but the IPF will be partially funded with debt too.

 

[AncientCoug]

The baseball clubhouse was partially funded with debt. The administration has to raise funds but the IPF will be partially funded with debt too.

You sure about that?

“What an incredible opportunity for Cougar Baseball and what a tremendous day of accomplishment for Washington State University. It has been a total effort from the administration, past and present Cougar Alumni, coaches, players and supporters,” Green said. “Project: BTO already has and will continue to elevate Washington State Baseball in our efforts of returning the program to its proud state. We are honored and humbled to be here during an incredible time of momentum for the athletic department. We will work tirelessly to ensure that this project makes the impact that we know it can. Go Cougs!”

Private funding
The facility renovation and enhancement will cost approximately $10 million with 100 percent of the project costs covered through donor support.

 

[dgibbons]

You sure about that?

“What an incredible opportunity for Cougar Baseball and what a tremendous day of accomplishment for Washington State University. It has been a total effort from the administration, past and present Cougar Alumni, coaches, players and supporters,” Green said. “Project: BTO already has and will continue to elevate Washington State Baseball in our efforts of returning the program to its proud state. We are honored and humbled to be here during an incredible time of momentum for the athletic department. We will work tirelessly to ensure that this project makes the impact that we know it can. Go Cougs!”

Private funding
The facility renovation and enhancement will cost approximately $10 million with 100 percent of the project costs covered through donor support.

This says $3.5 million in bonds.

https://news.wsu.edu/2019/01/25/reg...ple-authorize-settlement-data-breach-lawsuit/

 

[AncientCoug]

This says $3.5 million in bonds.

https://news.wsu.edu/2019/01/25/reg...ple-authorize-settlement-data-breach-lawsuit/

Sounds like the board of regents agreed to float up to 3.5 million in bonds if guaranteed by future donations. I’m a little surprised they even agreed to that but they probably get to exclude debt service on those bonds from the athletic department budget since it will be paid by donors. They still get to claim the facility is 100% funded by donations with almost a straight face.

 

[Cougsocal]

That is what TT thought. WSU needs an IPF bad. With that maybe the recruiting goes up. WSU will never bring in lots of 4 stars. They have to get the right high 3 stars, to compete consistently. No character issues. No gambling on recruits that other passed on, because of problems. Leach's early classes had to gamble. His resent classes were better, except for the DB gambles in the 2018 class

Hasn't TT been to 6 bowls since firing Leach? Price signed 3 top 100 kids nationally in one class. Leach hasn't signed one yet. No, we will never out recruit USC, but with the right coach we could recruit much better Leach has. However, there is the tendency of guys who can recruit not running a disciplined program on the field, and recruiting without focused coaching is frequently worse than a good coach who struggles to recruit, like Leach. The ideal coach can bond with kids, and governs with tough love.

 

[Cougar_Guy]

Hasn't TT been to 6 bowls since firing Leach? Price signed 3 top 100 kids nationally in one class. Leach hasn't signed one yet. No, we will never out recruit USC, but with the right coach we could recruit much better Leach has. However, there is the tendency of guys who can recruit not running a disciplined program on the field, and recruiting without focused coaching is frequently worse than a good coach who struggles to recruit, like Leach. The ideal coach can bond with kids, and governs with tough love.

I count 5 bowls for TT since Leach, and two of those were the first two years following his departure. Also, ML teams achieved nine wins or better 5 times under his tenure, something they've accomplished exactly zero times since he left.