SI: How a 'Moneyball' Approach Drives Wazzu's Kyle Smith

[SaveFerris]

Article on what Smith's doing at WSU.

How a 'Moneyball' Approach Drives Wazzu's Kyle Smith

At one of the hardest places to win in the sport, can a strategy built around analytics and camaraderie revive the Cougars?

www.si.com

 

[Coug1990]

Not too bad of an article. In my opinion, they overstate a few things. Harshman, Raveling, Sampson, and Bennett have rolled through Pullman and have done well. I don't think a lot of places can say they have had coaches that good. The number one issue to win anywhere is the quality of the coach. A bad coach loses everywhere, even at blue blood schools.

The floor just happens to be lower in Pullman because you don't get a great local player that always wanted to attend the school.

Plus, just think if any of the coaches listed above would have stayed in Pullman until they retired. They all would have had continued great success and articles like this would not have been written. That is what is missing in a lot of analysis, good coaches get raided for bigger paydays. That does not happen as often at a lot of schools.

 

[SaveFerris]

It gets old but I think the challenges were properly stated. Pullman all on it's own is a big challenge. All the coaches that have won at WSU that you listed in your post either are already in the HOF or have a shot to get there (Bennett/Sampson). There's no getting around WSU being a really tough gig.

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion though. On the other board when resources and facilities would come up while I agreed we need "more" my response was it's always been about the coach at WSU over all else. Probably not so coincidentally once Smith arrived those posts no longer seem to come up.

 

[Glad Cougar]

It gets old but I think the challenges were properly stated. Pullman all on it's own is a big challenge. All the coaches that have won at WSU that you listed in your post either are already in the HOF or have a shot to get there (Bennett/Sampson). There's no getting around WSU being a really tough gig.

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion though. On the other board when resources and facilities would come up while I agreed we need "more" my response was it's always been about the coach at WSU over all else. Probably not so coincidentally once Smith arrived those posts no longer seem to come up.

It drove me nuts on the other board when at least one regular poster kept insisting, when so many of us wanted Kent canned, that no good coach would ever come to WSU until a large investment in infrastructure was made. He even stated that we'd be better off keeping Kent. I think several of us felt that a really good coach could still produce a winning program. Smith is proving it.

Coaching matters.

Glad Cougar

 

[Coug1990]

It gets old but I think the challenges were properly stated. Pullman all on it's own is a big challenge. All the coaches that have won at WSU that you listed in your post either are already in the HOF or have a shot to get there (Bennett/Sampson). There's no getting around WSU being a really tough gig.

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion though. On the other board when resources and facilities would come up while I agreed we need "more" my response was it's always been about the coach at WSU over all else. Probably not so coincidentally once Smith arrived those posts no longer seem to come up.

I am not saying there isn't challenges. I am just saying it is not as relevant as they make it out to be. It takes a commitment to winning. Then, going out and hiring and keeping the best coaches.

Ralph Miller was a great coach for a long time at OSU, and the arena was a dump.

There is no reason that Gonzaga is a top five program every year except for a commitment from the leadership and that Few has chosen to stay longterm and not leave at first chance.

I have zero doubt that if Kelvin Sampson had stayed, WSU would have been a dominant program not only in the conference, but in the NCAA every year. He was beginning to dominate in-state recruiting, and he would not have had to cheat to do it.

When WSU hires a bad coach that cannot recruit, the lows get lower. Hire a good coach like Smith, and we see the results. The first class they were signing players that hadn't even seen the campus because Kent had used most of the campus visits.

Anyway, I could go on. But, this particular post is getting long and I am not mik.

 

[7ICoug]

Agree, pretty funny they think that 80 miles is so remote from Spokane and that is such a big deal. Hard to believe.

 

[SaveFerris]

I am not saying there isn't challenges. I am just saying it is not as relevant as they make it out to be. It takes a commitment to winning. Then, going out and hiring and keeping the best coaches.

Ralph Miller was a great coach for a long time at OSU, and the arena was a dump.

There is no reason that Gonzaga is a top five program every year except for a commitment from the leadership and that Few has chosen to stay longterm and not leave at first chance.

I have zero doubt that if Kelvin Sampson had stayed, WSU would have been a dominant program not only in the conference, but in the NCAA every year. He was beginning to dominate in-state recruiting, and he would not have had to cheat to do it.

When WSU hires a bad coach that cannot recruit, the lows get lower. Hire a good coach like Smith, and we see the results. The first class they were signing players that hadn't even seen the campus because Kent had used most of the campus visits.

Anyway, I could go on. But, this particular post is getting long and I am not mik.

The article basically says we are the hardest program in the country to win at. I think that's potential accurate but definitely for a P6.

We haven't committed any more to winning than we did when Tony was in town. We just made a better hire this time around which is huge. You could probably say "If they had stayed" with Raveling and Tony as well. Raveling was starting to recruit at a different level before he left. Our issue has been they don't stay because of resources, location, etc.

"There is no reason that Gonzaga is a top five program every year except for a commitment from the leadership and that Few has chosen to stay longterm and not leave at first chance."

We haven't been able to make the same kind of commitment, play in a P6, and Few is a bit of an anomaly. He found his fit, decided he could win at any level, and stuck. Hoping of course that we can keep Smith around. I do think he could produce a consistent winner in Pullman. I don't think our conclusions are that far apart.

 

[7ICoug]

Agree, and I have always found it funny that it is much faster to drive from WSU to Spokane Airport than from LAX to either UCLA or USC! Much faster.

 

[Coug1990]

The article basically says we are the hardest program in the country to win at. I think that's potential accurate but definitely for a P6.

We haven't committed any more to winning than we did when Tony was in town. We just made a better hire this time around which is huge. You could probably say "If they had stayed" with Raveling and Tony as well. Raveling was starting to recruit at a different level before he left. Our issue has been they don't stay because of resources, location, etc.

"There is no reason that Gonzaga is a top five program every year except for a commitment from the leadership and that Few has chosen to stay longterm and not leave at first chance."

We haven't been able to make the same kind of commitment, play in a P6, and Few is a bit of an anomaly. He found his fit, decided he could win at any level, and stuck. Hoping of course that we can keep Smith around. I do think he could produce a consistent winner in Pullman. I don't think our conclusions are that far apart.

And I am saying that is not true. If Mike Price had stayed, I have zero doubt that WSU would have gone bowling every year from what he began to build. If any of those coaches I mentioned would have stayed, WSU would have been a consistent winner and nobody would be writing stories about how hard it is to win at WSU. We certainly do not see that regarding soccer, volleyball, crew, etc.

Gonzaga and Few being an anomaly kind of proves my point. It is about the coach. It's not because Gonzaga was an easy destination for players to want to attend.

What we do see is that when we hire a bad coach, our lows are lower. So, it gives the impression that we are always horrible. Honestly, if Graham, Kent, etc., would have been hired by the uw instead of WSU, they still would have bad, but because a few local players wanted to play for the uw, their lows would be better than WSU's lows.

 

[SaveFerris]

And I am saying that is not true. If Mike Price had stayed, I have zero doubt that WSU would have gone bowling every year from what he began to build. If any of those coaches I mentioned would have stayed, WSU would have been a consistent winner and nobody would be writing stories about how hard it is to win at WSU. We certainly do not see that regarding soccer, volleyball, crew, etc.

Gonzaga and Few being an anomaly kind of proves my point. It is about the coach. It's not because Gonzaga was an easy destination for players to want to attend.

What we do see is that when we hire a bad coach, our lows are lower. So, it gives the impression that we are always horrible. Honestly, if Graham, Kent, etc., would have been hired by the uw instead of WSU, they still would have bad, but because a few local players wanted to play for the uw, their lows would be better than WSU's lows.

That the problem though. Nobody really sticks around. Once Price started to win he was always looking around before finally leaving. He wanted more money. Look at the Harshman years. He consistently had higher finishes in conference than the UW from the mid-60's on. After retiring he was asked about WSU and the first thing he said was "it never got easy". He said he never got a player that the UW wanted even though based on finishes he had the better program. I have heard there was more than the usual "stuff" to him leaving WSU but he left for the UW. The only reversal I can remember is Daugherty and she wasn't nearly as successful in Pullman and it was after being fired at the UW.

I agree with your "if they stayed" argument in the sense that I do believe multiple coaches could have built WSU into a consistent winner. The problem has been for all the reasons that makes it difficult to win in Pullman they don't stay.

I'm a Coug through and through but there isn't another P5/6 that has as many obstacles to winning as we do. That's why I really like Chun so much. Every coach who has won in hoops at WSU (maybe save Harshman) was a bit outside of the box type of hire. Smith has been awesome but for whatever reason it doesn't appear schools were exactly beating his door down to hire him.

I think we agree on the important piece. We have to make really good hires and fortunately we have at times over the years

 

[COCoug]

Well there is a huge difference between Gonzaga and WSU. Based on the structure of the NCAA tournament, they have had essentially a guaranteed NCAA bid for the past 20 years. They have been able to leverage this into attracting transfers, knowing that they will be in the tournament. I think in general, year-in/year-out they have for the most part underperformed in the tournament, but their formula is working and its probably just a matter of time. They have been very successful in scheduling big time early season games, and getting a lot of exposure, because they knew they had an automatic bid. They have also weirdly been able to maintain their "underdog, mid-major" label, even though probably 95% of the time they are the favorite. Anyway, the point is that what worked for them is not an option for us, unless we switch leagues with them.

 

[SaveFerris]

It drove me nuts on the other board when at least one regular poster kept insisting, when so many of us wanted Kent canned, that no good coach would ever come to WSU until a large investment in infrastructure was made. He even stated that we'd be better off keeping Kent. I think several of us felt that a really good coach could still produce a winning program. Smith is proving it.

Coaching matters.

Glad Cougar

We have had enough good coaches to feel if and when another came along they would figure it out. The Kent hire was a bit of a joke. Smith hasn't won yet but what he's done recruiting is really impressive.

 

[Coug1990]

That the problem though. Nobody really sticks around. Once Price started to win he was always looking around before finally leaving. He wanted more money. Look at the Harshman years. He consistently had higher finishes in conference than the UW from the mid-60's on. After retiring he was asked about WSU and the first thing he said was "it never got easy". He said he never got a player that the UW wanted even though based on finishes he had the better program. I have heard there was more than the usual "stuff" to him leaving WSU but he left for the UW. The only reversal I can remember is Daugherty and she wasn't nearly as successful in Pullman and it was after being fired at the UW.

I agree with your "if they stayed" argument in the sense that I do believe multiple coaches could have built WSU into a consistent winner. The problem has been for all the reasons that makes it difficult to win in Pullman they don't stay.

I'm a Coug through and through but there isn't another P5/6 that has as many obstacles to winning as we do. That's why I really like Chun so much. Every coach who has won in hoops at WSU (maybe save Harshman) was a bit outside of the box type of hire. Smith has been awesome but for whatever reason it doesn't appear schools were exactly beating his door down to hire him.

I think we agree on the important piece. We have to make really good hires and fortunately we have at times over the years

That WSU doesn't keep good coaches is a different argument than it is so hard to win in Pullman. If you want to say WSU has underpaid coaches and therefore, they left. You would not have an argument from me. But, a good coach can win anywhere, even Pullman. A bad coach can lose anywhere whether it be in Seattle, Tucson, etc.

 

[Coug1990]

Well there is a huge difference between Gonzaga and WSU. Based on the structure of the NCAA tournament, they have had essentially a guaranteed NCAA bid for the past 20 years. They have been able to leverage this into attracting transfers, knowing that they will be in the tournament. I think in general, year-in/year-out they have for the most part underperformed in the tournament, but their formula is working and its probably just a matter of time. They have been very successful in scheduling big time early season games, and getting a lot of exposure, because they knew they had an automatic bid. They have also weirdly been able to maintain their "underdog, mid-major" label, even though probably 95% of the time they are the favorite. Anyway, the point is that what worked for them is not an option for us, unless we switch leagues with them.

All true. But again, if Few had left after 3-4 years, I think the history of the program would be a lot different.

 

[SaveFerris]

That WSU doesn't keep good coaches is a different argument than it is so hard to win in Pullman. If you want to say WSU has underpaid coaches and therefore, they left. You would not have an argument from me. But, a good coach can win anywhere, even Pullman. A bad coach can lose anywhere whether it be in Seattle, Tucson, etc.

I don't think I have said a good coach can't win in Pullman. In fact exactly the opposite. If we could get all the coaches mentioned on the record my bet is they would say Pullman is/was a different beast.

 

[Cougsocal]

WSU won a national title in track when they did even have a track to run on. The Moosian notion that it is all about facilities was about personal legacy building, not about winning. When Smith leaves, which he will, like Leach and Bennett before him, remember that having cash in reserve to counter coach poachers is far more important to long term success than a over the top FOB, a FOB that completely failed in its intended purpose, to take recruiting to the next level (did I mention the mountains of debt on top of it).

 

[FnuLnu]

WSU won a national title in track when they did even have a track to run on. The Moosian notion that it is all about facilities was about personal legacy building, not about winning. When Smith leaves, which he will, like Leach and Bennett before him, remember that having cash in reserve to counter coach poachers is far more important to long term success than a over the top FOB, a FOB that completely failed in its intended purpose, to take recruiting to the next level (did I mention the mountains of debt on top of it).

The WSU's national title was for indoor track and their "facilty" was the Field House.

It is not a good example.
Wayne Phipps coaches 6 teams men's & women's XTC, indoor and outdoor and doesn't much money at all. Track & XTC due to scholarship limitations (especially on the men's side) requires athletes to pay back WSU quite a bit in tuition money for those on partial scholarship.

 

[SaveFerris]

The WSU's national title was for indoor track and their "facilty" was the Field House.

It is not a good example.
Wayne Phipps coaches 6 teams men's & women's XTC, indoor and outdoor and doesn't much money at all. Track & XTC due to scholarship limitations (especially on the men's side) requires athletes to pay back WSU quite a bit in tuition money for those on partial scholarship.

Chaplin and Bobo were 2 examples of coaches with options that stayed in Pullman. Unfortunately they ran into the scholarship allocation deal and both programs all but received the death penalty. Regardless, they were basically WSU lifers that were usually competitive and in the mix nationally especially on the Track side (rules violations of course of note?).

 

[mikalalas]

WSU won a national title in track when they did even have a track to run on. The Moosian notion that it is all about facilities was about personal legacy building, not about winning. When Smith leaves, which he will, like Leach and Bennett before him, remember that having cash in reserve to counter coach poachers is far more important to long term success than a over the top FOB, a FOB that completely failed in its intended purpose, to take recruiting to the next level (did I mention the mountains of debt on top of it).

Agree with everything you said, except Smith leaving, or leaving early.

1. Smith's HC gigs at USF, Columbia, WSU, have shown that like Leach, he likes the Texas Techs, WSU's, Mississippi States, USF, Columbia's, etc, and is probably better suited to those places, just like Leach.

2. Smith's Wife, and her family are from the Chelan, coug country area, and are, were big Coug Fans, before Smith became HC at WSU.

3. Smith really likes it here at WSU.

4. Smith really likes WSU president, AD Chun.

5. Smith has been successful at WSU so far, especially in recruiting.

6. Smith Probably realizes that over the next about 3 to 6 to 9+ years that he can probably build WSU into something extremely special, maybe just as special, more special then what Tony Bennet did at WSU.

7. If Smith cared more about bigger programs, more money, etc, he probably could have skipped WSU, instead of using WSU as a stepping stone

8. Smith strikes me as more of a Mark Few type that would might probably stay 6 to 12 to 17 years before retiring, leaving, moving on to a bigger program, more money.

9. Smith doesn't seem to have the things that would cause him to leave like Tony Bennet. Example, his wife doesn't hate Pullman, like Tony's wife did.

10. Smith loves Pullman. He is raising, wants to raise his kids here.

I'm not saying Smith will not leave. I am saying that he will EITHER not leave until he has been here at WSU for about 6 to 11 to 16 years, or he might retire here.

In any case Smith will probably leave WSU in a good spot, place, situation, when he retires, leaves after staying awhile. And Smith will probably help find a good replacement, help with transition, etc, so that there could be a high chance of a continuance of the excellence of Smith.

I just don't think Smith is your typical Dennis Erickson, Tony Bennet, etc, that leave after 2,3,4 years.

I think at a minimum Smith will see the Gueye Class to their senior year, and won't leave until at least a NCAA Tourny birth.

 

[Coug1990]

I don't think I have said a good coach can't win in Pullman. In fact exactly the opposite. If we could get all the coaches mentioned on the record my bet is they would say Pullman is/was a different beast.

I am guessing the would. But, they all had to build it from scratch, which is really the different beast. Yet, each one were able to turn around the program relatively quickly. If it were so hard, that would not be the case. Understand, my thinking on this has evolved.

WSU has had successful soccer coaches one after another. I don't think any of them would say it was so hard to win in Pullman. Are their schools that have advantages in all sports because they have millions of people living within 30 minutes of campus, yes. And yet, many of those underperform year after year.

By far, the most important aspect of winning in any sports is having a quality coach. For continued success, it is keeping that coach.

 

[Cougsocal]

The WSU's national title was for indoor track and their "facilty" was the Field House.

It is not a good example.
Wayne Phipps coaches 6 teams men's & women's XTC, indoor and outdoor and doesn't much money at all. Track & XTC due to scholarship limitations (especially on the men's side) requires athletes to pay back WSU quite a bit in tuition money for those on partial scholarship.

Did you know that Chaplin helped fund his programs indoor/outdoor/XC through donations he beat the bushes to get, thanks to a deal with the Athletic Department that if he agreed to accept lower school funding than budgeted, any donations he solicited he got to keep. Phipps might be a nice guy, but he is as bad as Sloan as a track coach. Neither had/has the intellectual spark to know how to be successful on the Palouse.

Here are the facts, unlike other sports, track is very black or white.

To be successful in track, everyone you give a partial ride to, must have the talent, at a minimum, to score at the Pac-12 meet from day one. To win the conference, you need to score at least 140 points, with only 12 1/2 rides, 10 points for a win and only 21 events. As a result, you don't have the luxury to allow someone "time to develop" into a contributor. Look at a kid's best mark, if he isn't in the top 8 in the conference already, you can't offer him any money until he produces, that is if you expect to compete for championships. In Chaplin's day, the choices for most in-state kid was to take money from the UW, and accepted the fact that you were going to get boat raced by the Cougs at every turn for four years or swallow your pride and walk on at WSU. Many did.

We have had the equivalent of Ernie Kent coaching the track team since Chaplin left. And Baseball has been only marginally better.

 

[COCoug]

Bobo lived his entire life in Washington State, and was a 3 sport varsity athlete at WSU. He also bought a pretty large spread out by Albion, I believe.

Chaplin was the first track coach to recruit Kenya, based on an exchange program with the School of Agriculture. His international recruiting was hugely controversial and criticized by every coach in the conference, until they also started to get some international recruits. He also built a huge house out by Kamiak Butte, that had its own tennis court.

I don't think either is the blueprint for hiring future coaches, unless Smith actually does like Eastern Washington.

 

[mikalalas]

Bobo lived his entire life in Washington State, and was a 3 sport varsity athlete at WSU. He also bought a pretty large spread out by Albion, I believe.

Chaplin was the first track coach to recruit Kenya, based on an exchange program with the School of Agriculture. His international recruiting was hugely controversial and criticized by every coach in the conference, until they also started to get some international recruits. He also built a huge house out by Kamiak Butte, that had its own tennis court.

I don't think either is the blueprint for hiring future coaches, unless Smith actually does like Eastern Washington.

Smith does actually like Eastern WA and Pullman, before he even became HC at WSU, because his wife is from Chelan, and her and her family are big Coug Fans, even BEFORE Smith became HC at WSU.

 

[kougkurt]

Smith does actually like Eastern WA and Pullman, before he even became HC at WSU, because his wife is from Chelan, and her and her family are big Coug Fans, even BEFORE Smith became HC at WSU.

Manson

 

[Cougsocal]

Bobo lived his entire life in Washington State, and was a 3 sport varsity athlete at WSU. He also bought a pretty large spread out by Albion, I believe.

Chaplin was the first track coach to recruit Kenya, based on an exchange program with the School of Agriculture. His international recruiting was hugely controversial and criticized by every coach in the conference, until they also started to get some international recruits. He also built a huge house out by Kamiak Butte, that had its own tennis court.

I don't think either is the blueprint for hiring future coaches, unless Smith actually does like Eastern Washington.

Bobo and Chaplin are examples that sustained long term success can be had on the Palouse. Their situations were the ideal. WSU grads who cracked the win in Pullman code. Chaplin even came from money and didn't need it. However, it starts with hiring and retaining code breaker coaches. You don't start with $61 million of concrete and steel you can't afford. If you do, you severely limit your options and capacity to hire and retain coaches.

Sadly, we are left hoping that Smith and his wife loves Pullman so much they are willing to turn down more lucrative job offers, instead of being able to match them.

Moos' tenure started great with Leach and some other great hires, but his misplaced insistence that success is dependent having the trappings of success, was amongst the worst calls in school history. I liken the guy to Douglas MacArthur. At their best, they were great, if not better, but they combined it with some of the worst decisions in school and US military history, respectively.

 

[mikalalas]

Bobo and Chaplin are examples that sustained long term success can be had on the Palouse. Their situations were the ideal. WSU grads who cracked the win in Pullman code. Chaplin even came from money and didn't need it. However, it starts with hiring and retaining code breaker coaches. You don't start with $61 million of concrete and steel you can't afford. If you do, you severely limit your options and capacity to hire and retain coaches.

Sadly, we are left hoping that Smith and his wife loves Pullman so much they are willing to turn down more lucrative job offers, instead of being able to match them.

Moos' tenure started great with Leach and some other great hires, but his misplaced insistence that success is dependent having the trappings of success, was amongst the worst calls in school history. I liken the guy to Douglas MacArthur. At their best, they were great, if not better, but they combined it with some of the worst decisions in school and US military history, respectively.

The right kind of Facilities, PR, advertising, and the right HC that can sell those facilities, can help recruiting, and can help a coach to be successful

That's true even at WSU.

The thing is tho, that the money, needs to goto getting Saban level coaches to WSU first, and then having those coaches, recruit, win, build the program to HELP GENERATE more income, to then retain the coach, which will generate more income, and then at the same time as that, try to save a little tiny bit, budget some money for SLOW, GRADUAL facilities improvement.

When, if do that, then will eventually, after a semi long while, will eventually have both good coaching, good facilities, and good retention.

Can't or shouldn't do just either focus on coaching and neglect facilities, or neglect coaching and focus on facilities.

You have to focus on both.

It's like how if you only focus on 1 of either Special Teams, or Defense, or Offense, your going to lose.

I know that in the past there has been success with the focus only on coaching, retention approach.

But that success mostly happened in non football, non bball sports, which is different.

And things were different back then, as you could get away without putting money into facilities, as facilities back then didn't help recruiting that much.

Today, you need facilities to help with recruiting.

Also part of the reason why putting money into facilities didn't help recruiting as much when Leach was coach, is that altho Leach had more 3.5 stars, 4 stars then any past WSU coach, he was still only getting about 46th rated to 63rd rated recruiting classes.

Leach wasnt going to recruit better then that, even if WSU had Oregon's money, and glitzy facilities.

Now if WSU had had a a better recruiting coach the Leach, then those facility improvements may have helped

Also Part of the problem was that Moos tried to improve everything all at once facilities wise.

That's just the wrong thing to do.

What he MOOS should have done is budgeted the money out, so that he could slowly, gradually, eventually improve, upgrade the facilities.

If he had done that, WSU would have eventually upgraded the facilities, and had money to retain Leach's Assistant Coaches, and maybe Leach himself, and that would have probably caused a better result, and probably would have had better, longer, sustained success, really built WSU's program long term.

So it's not a either or thing.

You really need to have both, and be smart about in getting both.

That didn't happen at WSU, and WSU paid the price because of it, that

 

[SaveFerris]

Bobo and Chaplin are examples that sustained long term success can be had on the Palouse. Their situations were the ideal. WSU grads who cracked the win in Pullman code. Chaplin even came from money and didn't need it. However, it starts with hiring and retaining code breaker coaches. You don't start with $61 million of concrete and steel you can't afford. If you do, you severely limit your options and capacity to hire and retain coaches.

Sadly, we are left hoping that Smith and his wife loves Pullman so much they are willing to turn down more lucrative job offers, instead of being able to match them.

Moos' tenure started great with Leach and some other great hires, but his misplaced insistence that success is dependent having the trappings of success, was amongst the worst calls in school history. I liken the guy to Douglas MacArthur. At their best, they were great, if not better, but they combined it with some of the worst decisions in school and US military history, respectively.

Cracking the "Pullman code" seems to strike a good balance between WSU's inherent challenges and how good coaches can still win at any level. Chaplin's strategy was groundbreaking and pretty brilliant. He wasn't the most popular but brought a lot of national and international exposure to WSU. He will always be one of my favorites Coug personalities. Bobo as well. Both Cougar Greats for sure.

 

[7ICoug]

Currently Volleyball and Soccer seem to be pretty darn good.

 

[Rich Lewis]

Bobo and Chappy were not just WSU coaches. They were Pullmanites. They stayed here all those years because Pullman was their home. They were in the mold of Bohler, Bailey and Friel. Rare among todays coaches. Eileen Brayton (Bobo's wife) just passed away a couple of months ago. Chappy still lives in the same place. He just got over a rough bout with COVID.

 

[Cougsocal]

The right kind of Facilities, PR, advertising, and the right HC that can sell those facilities, can help recruiting, and can help a coach to be successful

That's true even at WSU.

The thing is tho, that the money, needs to goto getting Saban level coaches to WSU first, and then having those coaches, recruit, win, build the program to HELP GENERATE more income, to then retain the coach, which will generate more income, and then at the same time as that, try to save a little tiny bit, budget some money for SLOW, GRADUAL facilities improvement.

When, if do that, then will eventually, after a semi long while, will eventually have both good coaching, good facilities, and good retention.

Can't or shouldn't do just either focus on coaching and neglect facilities, or neglect coaching and focus on facilities.

You have to focus on both.

It's like how if you only focus on 1 of either Special Teams, or Defense, or Offense, your going to lose.

I know that in the past there has been success with the focus only on coaching, retention approach.

But that success mostly happened in non football, non bball sports, which is different.

And things were different back then, as you could get away without putting money into facilities, as facilities back then didn't help recruiting that much.

Today, you need facilities to help with recruiting.

Also part of the reason why putting money into facilities didn't help recruiting as much when Leach was coach, is that altho Leach had more 3.5 stars, 4 stars then any past WSU coach, he was still only getting about 46th rated to 63rd rated recruiting classes.

Leach wasnt going to recruit better then that, even if WSU had Oregon's money, and glitzy facilities.

Now if WSU had had a a better recruiting coach the Leach, then those facility improvements may have helped

Also Part of the problem was that Moos tried to improve everything all at once facilities wise.

That's just the wrong thing to do.

What he MOOS should have done is budgeted the money out, so that he could slowly, gradually, eventually improve, upgrade the facilities.

If he had done that, WSU would have eventually upgraded the facilities, and had money to retain Leach's Assistant Coaches, and maybe Leach himself, and that would have probably caused a better result, and probably would have had better, longer, sustained success, really built WSU's program long term.

So it's not a either or thing.

You really need to have both, and be smart about in getting both.

That didn't happen at WSU, and WSU paid the price because of it, that

Smith proves that the coach is the meat and potatoes when it comes to recruiting, facilities are no more than the sauce. Stars are virtually meaningless when it comes to recruiting these days, almost everybody is 3 or 4 star. Its all about who really wants you and who doesn't. Bottomline is Leach was a bottom division recruiter despite the FOB. His recruiting was as good or better before it was built. He never recruited the talent that Mike Price did. Hell, if he had ever recruited the talent like we had in 2002, we'd have been in the playoffs. Mike Leach with upper division talent on both sides of the ball ... think about it!

 

[Coug1990]

Smith proves that the coach is the meat and potatoes when it comes to recruiting, facilities are no more than the sauce. Stars are virtually meaningless when it comes to recruiting these days, almost everybody is 3 or 4 star. Its all about who really wants you and who doesn't. Bottomline is Leach was a bottom division recruiter despite the FOB. His recruiting was as good or better before it was built. He never recruited the talent that Mike Price did. Hell, if he had ever recruited the talent like we had in 2002, we'd have been in the playoffs. Mike Leach with upper division talent on both sides of the ball ... think about it!

I generally agree. But, I think that doesn't tell the entire story. Price and his staff's recruiting got better after around a decade. Before then, it was a lot of hit and miss. One thing about Price was that his staff was more stable. He had to replace coaches here and there, but Leach was continually having to replace a revolving door of coaches. Stability and relationship building is a large part of recruiting.

Even though there was a revolving door of coaches, he was still able to recruit for his offense. What really hurt was the turnover of defensive coordinators. Leach is extremely hands off when it comes to defense and gives his DC autonomy. They are able to recruit who they want. More than anything, the recruiting for the defense was bad because there was not one voice recruiting to one style of defense.

 

[COCoug]

Yes- I agree that stability was the secret sauce for Price. He was Washington native and after 8 or 9 years, it was widely believed that he would finish his career in Pullman. I remember a major piece in the Times or PI that basically said that Pullman was the perfect fit for Price (and visa versa). He had the deep ties to high school programs, a vast network of past, present and future assistant coaches, and a real offensive identity that fit well with the talent WSU could recruit. Although CML had good success, he had none of the above- no ties, no expectations he would stay, and a gimmick offense that didn't alway fit the talent of the players.

 

[mikalalas]

Smith proves that the coach is the meat and potatoes when it comes to recruiting, facilities are no more than the sauce. Stars are virtually meaningless when it comes to recruiting these days, almost everybody is 3 or 4 star. Its all about who really wants you and who doesn't. Bottomline is Leach was a bottom division recruiter despite the FOB. His recruiting was as good or better before it was built. He never recruited the talent that Mike Price did. Hell, if he had ever recruited the talent like we had in 2002, we'd have been in the playoffs. Mike Leach with upper division talent on both sides of the ball ... think about it!

Leach had more 4 stars and more 3.5 stars at WSU then any past WSU coach, including Price.

The sad thing is that only 1,2 of the 4 stars developed. Most of the 4 stars didn't develop, etc

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

The article basically says we are the hardest program in the country to win at. I think that's potential accurate but definitely for a P6.

We haven't committed any more to winning than we did when Tony was in town. We just made a better hire this time around which is huge. You could probably say "If they had stayed" with Raveling and Tony as well. Raveling was starting to recruit at a different level before he left. Our issue has been they don't stay because of resources, location, etc.

"There is no reason that Gonzaga is a top five program every year except for a commitment from the leadership and that Few has chosen to stay longterm and not leave at first chance."

We haven't been able to make the same kind of commitment, play in a P6, and Few is a bit of an anomaly. He found his fit, decided he could win at any level, and stuck. Hoping of course that we can keep Smith around. I do think he could produce a consistent winner in Pullman. I don't think our conclusions are that far apart.

Seems like we always make at least one bad hire after a very good coach leaves. Some are just lazy hires (Kent) and some are just head scratches (Eastman, Graham).

I honestly don't understand why we consistently the clunkers. It doesn't seem like rocket science.

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

Bobo and Chappy were not just WSU coaches. They were Pullmanites. They stayed here all those years because Pullman was their home. They were in the mold of Bohler, Bailey and Friel. Rare among todays coaches. Eileen Brayton (Bobo's wife) just passed away a couple of months ago. Chappy still lives in the same place. He just got over a rough bout with COVID.

I had no idea Chappy still lives in the Pullman area. Interesting.