Stability the key? AD/President?

[Coug95man2]

So I was reading an article about UO (Oklahoma) and they were talking about how Stoops was making some offensive changes, yadda yadda (how I found the article. Mentions CML) but how Stoops has been at UO for 16 years. Only Beamer at V Tech has been in one place longer (26 years… wow).

But it also mentions an interesting point. Stoops has had 1 AD and 1 school president to deal with his entire tenure there. That's incredible. But it's hard to dig up too much on this kind of statistic when looking at other schools… How long has Ohio State had that stability in those key positions? How long at Texas, how long at… you get my point.

While I know that is a portion of how a school can start to build, is it the first domino to a successful program? Is the idea of shuffling the AD around, bring in new ideas, etc. etc. more of a detriment? Coaching aside, just the AD and Prez… Can it be fluid or does a foundation (not changing a whole bunch) have to be in place for optimal success?

Article made the old gears think about the foundation of a successful program and what WSU needs to do. Don't know if Moos/Floyd are it but it just got me thinking.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Honestly, as long as the new AD is supportive of the coach, I don't think it matters one bit. In terms of building an elite program, the following factors are what makes the difference:

1) Coach
2) Location
3) Facilities
4) Conference affiliation

The most important thing to have a successful program is having the right guy driving the bus. Nothing else matters if you don't have the right guy. It's why coaches are paid stupid money today.

Next is location. Everything else aside, location is the next critical item in building a program. It's one of the reasons why WSU is always going to have some down years. We can get to the point where we rarely miss bowl games and we might get to the point where we contend for the conference title on occasion, but there are always going to be kids that want to be in a more glamorous location and that will hold us back.

Facilities are third. This is the area where a great AD can have an impact. WSU can't fight the location issue, but we have great facilities for our location. In the long run, this is important in building a program that has sustained success because you want prospective athletes to be excited and you want your current players to have the equipment and facilities to maximize their capabilities. After a certain point though, facilities only matter so much. I will say that if you can have the most elaborate facilities in the country like UO has.....it can over-ride location.

Conference affiliation is the final cog. WSU is blessed to be part of the Pac-12. We get recruits that normally wouldn't consider a non-BCS school. Boise State is the one exception where they've ignored conference affiliation while achieving consistent success, but the reality is we all know that they would not survive the grind of a real conference. Ask Utah how easy it is. Of course, Utah is the example that shows how conference affiliation is a curse. Being involved in the Pac-12 has increased their revenues and their overall exposure, but they've struggled to win games. If you ask a Ute fan, I think you'll find that they are still happy losing their old 10-3 seasons in favor of playing with the big boys. When a BCS team finishes 10-2, they are probably in a major bowl game. If you are in the MWC at 10-2, you usually have to face the 5th best team from the Pac-12 in the Las Vegas Bowl.

 

[Coug95man2]

Honestly, as long as the new AD is supportive of the coach, I don't think it matters one bit. In terms of building an elite program, the following factors are what makes the difference:

1) Coach
2) Location
3) Facilities
4) Conference affiliation

The most important thing to have a successful program is having the right guy driving the bus. Nothing else matters if you don't have the right guy. It's why coaches are paid stupid money today.

Next is location. Everything else aside, location is the next critical item in building a program. It's one of the reasons why WSU is always going to have some down years. We can get to the point where we rarely miss bowl games and we might get to the point where we contend for the conference title on occasion, but there are always going to be kids that want to be in a more glamorous location and that will hold us back.

Facilities are third. This is the area where a great AD can have an impact. WSU can't fight the location issue, but we have great facilities for our location. In the long run, this is important in building a program that has sustained success because you want prospective athletes to be excited and you want your current players to have the equipment and facilities to maximize their capabilities. After a certain point though, facilities only matter so much. I will say that if you can have the most elaborate facilities in the country like UO has.....it can over-ride location.

Conference affiliation is the final cog. WSU is blessed to be part of the Pac-12. We get recruits that normally wouldn't consider a non-BCS school. Boise State is the one exception where they've ignored conference affiliation while achieving consistent success, but the reality is we all know that they would not survive the grind of a real conference. Ask Utah how easy it is. Of course, Utah is the example that shows how conference affiliation is a curse. Being involved in the Pac-12 has increased their revenues and their overall exposure, but they've struggled to win games. If you ask a Ute fan, I think you'll find that they are still happy losing their old 10-3 seasons in favor of playing with the big boys. When a BCS team finishes 10-2, they are probably in a major bowl game. If you are in the MWC at 10-2, you usually have to face the 5th best team from the Pac-12 in the Las Vegas Bowl.

While I agree that the above points are important, you really don't think the relationship between AD and coach isn't a part of the nucleus? And because of that, if the President isn't supporting the AD, isn't that whole relationship the core of any program? I'm asking for clarity here.

 

[ttowncoug]

If the president and AD are happy (to a large extent) if the boosters are happy.

What you have at WSU, in my opinion, is largely supportive boosters that "go with the flow." Much of our current improvements have been funded by our Pac-12 TV agreement, not boosters.

As long as WSU funds it's athletics with TV revenue, and the boosters don't pony up more cash (my increasing # of donors, amount per donor) I see the AD/Prez at WSU really calling all the shots. Frankly its been that way for years.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Wow. This thread is deja vu all over again. Was it a year ago, or two? Flat, your response was (as usual) pretty well thought out. Then I started to recognize parts of it. I wonder how many times you've had to make pretty much the same post?

I'll chime in with what I think was my response last time. If you include media market in with location, then I agree. But I'd be inclined to list them separately, since sometimes they are the same (UCLA, USC good examples) and sometimes not (Nebraska, for example, or Auburn; or perhaps Penn State). And that is one item that deserves equal recognition with your other points.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

While I agree that the above points are important, you really don't think the relationship between AD and coach isn't a part of the nucleus? And because of that, if the President isn't supporting the AD, isn't that whole relationship the core of any program? I'm asking for clarity here.

The relationship between the AD and coach is important and having a president that supports athletics is important too. Maybe I'm simplistic in my viewpoint but I've seen situations where an AD and President destroyed programs, but I can't think of one where they built a program up without the help of a great coach. UNLV is a great example of how a university that isn't focused on football can be a disaster. Years ago, UNLV's president said that they didn't feel that football was worth keeping around. Bobby Hauck coached with one hand tied around his back while he was there. It's a clear case of how a university can cripple its own chances. WSU losing Price is also an example of a university blowing it by not supporting a coach.

So, I think having a supportive administration is important in maintaining success, I don't think I'd advocate for changing the AD because a football program is struggling. There are times when that is the right thing of course. The biggest issue with changing athletic directors is when you have a school that's been struggling. Oftentimes, changing AD's will prompt a change in head coach when it isn't well advised. Michigan is a great example of this. David Brandon fired Rich Rodriguez because he wasn't getting things done fast enough. Brady Hoke went 11-2 in his first year and everyone hailed both Hoke and Brandon as geniuses. Fast forward to 2015 and both of them have been fired. RichRod had started building a good thing but the new AD torpedoed it. This is a case that makes your argument that having the right AD is critical.

Of course, where this gets really complicated is when you look at Iowa State under Dan McCarnery. They were incredibly patient with him and suffered through five losing seasons before the big payoff with a 9-3 season in 2000. There was a lot of talk about the value of patience. Unfortunately, they regressed and had four 7 win seasons in six years before they fired him. Patience didn't lead them to any long term success. On the flip side, considering that they've had only one season with 7 wins since he left.....maybe they should have just accepted 7 wins as good enough.

 

[Coug95man2]

The relationship between the AD and coach is important and having a president that supports athletics is important too. Maybe I'm simplistic in my viewpoint but I've seen situations where an AD and President destroyed programs, but I can't think of one where they built a program up without the help of a great coach. UNLV is a great example of how a university that isn't focused on football can be a disaster. Years ago, UNLV's president said that they didn't feel that football was worth keeping around. Bobby Hauck coached with one hand tied around his back while he was there. It's a clear case of how a university can cripple its own chances. WSU losing Price is also an example of a university blowing it by not supporting a coach.

So, I think having a supportive administration is important in maintaining success, I don't think I'd advocate for changing the AD because a football program is struggling. There are times when that is the right thing of course. The biggest issue with changing athletic directors is when you have a school that's been struggling. Oftentimes, changing AD's will prompt a change in head coach when it isn't well advised. Michigan is a great example of this. David Brandon fired Rich Rodriguez because he wasn't getting things done fast enough. Brady Hoke went 11-2 in his first year and everyone hailed both Hoke and Brandon as geniuses. Fast forward to 2015 and both of them have been fired. RichRod had started building a good thing but the new AD torpedoed it. This is a case that makes your argument that having the right AD is critical.

Of course, where this gets really complicated is when you look at Iowa State under Dan McCarnery. They were incredibly patient with him and suffered through five losing seasons before the big payoff with a 9-3 season in 2000. There was a lot of talk about the value of patience. Unfortunately, they regressed and had four 7 win seasons in six years before they fired him. Patience didn't lead them to any long term success. On the flip side, considering that they've had only one season with 7 wins since he left.....maybe they should have just accepted 7 wins as good enough.

With your explanation, I think we're on the same page, I'm just zigging while your zagging in our explanations. The reason I think this is, is your explanation is my point. A supportive President allows the AD to do stuff. WIthout that support, the program as you point out, can be torpedoed. A coach, without a supportive AD, is screwed as well, as you state. So while you are looking at the coach as the linchpin, I see the "trickle down" affect. Same point, different ways of looking at it. You're points about Price are exactly my point, as well. I'd also point to why Coach Raveling left as a good example. New AD and he felt exposed and unsupported. He left. A successful, brilliant, innovative and winning coach, with his hands tied at either level, the Pres or AD, is going to be par, at best. The program will be worse than par, long term because a successful, brilliant innovative winning coach won't stick around in that atmosphere very long, either. You explained and expanded my thoughts well. I just sucked at it, obviously.

I did smile a little at your "7 win's are good enough" thing. I gotta tell ya, you gotta start somewhere. And if there's ever a time WSU fans get so spoiled as to start saying "We need to fire, so-and-so because we're stuck at 7 wins a season!"… That'll be the day I croke on the crapper.

 

[chinookpirate]

Mike Price went to a Rose Bowl with Rick Dickson as his AD.

He repeated with Lane Rawlins as his President.

Those two are among the least supportive human beings of college football on the planet.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

With your explanation, I think we're on the same page, I'm just zigging while your zagging in our explanations. The reason I think this is, is your explanation is my point. A supportive President allows the AD to do stuff. WIthout that support, the program as you point out, can be torpedoed. A coach, without a supportive AD, is screwed as well, as you state. So while you are looking at the coach as the linchpin, I see the "trickle down" affect. Same point, different ways of looking at it. You're points about Price are exactly my point, as well. I'd also point to why Coach Raveling left as a good example. New AD and he felt exposed and unsupported. He left. A successful, brilliant, innovative and winning coach, with his hands tied at either level, the Pres or AD, is going to be par, at best. The program will be worse than par, long term because a successful, brilliant innovative winning coach won't stick around in that atmosphere very long, either. You explained and expanded my thoughts well. I just sucked at it, obviously.

I did smile a little at your "7 win's are good enough" thing. I gotta tell ya, you gotta start somewhere. And if there's ever a time WSU fans get so spoiled as to start saying "We need to fire, so-and-so because we're stuck at 7 wins a season!"… That'll be the day I croke on the crapper.

Agree that it's all important when it comes to long term success. In our perfect world, our improved facilities combined with a supportive administration and an innovative coach is going to culminate in success in the near future.

I agree 100% that it's hard to imagine Coug fans complaining about "only seven wins".

 

[BiggsCoug]

Location doesn't matter at all.