ADVERTISEMENT

Toughest job in the Pac

COUGinNCW said:
Point taken Chip. Let’s talk football.

Cant say that I disagree with this list much. Possibly swap Oregon and uw.

www.spokesman.com

Pac-12 football: Ranking the coaching jobs, from easiest to most challenging

We considered recruiting, budgets, admissions, tradition and more in compiling the list
www.spokesman.com www.spokesman.com
Click to expand...
I think their rationale for slotting OSU behind us is weak. The fact that the campuses are so close together means that they share the recruiting pool, and neither can really use location as a factor. Our facilities may be better, but they are just over an hour from Portland (and closer than UO is, by the way), so I think those two come close to a wash.

Overall though, I think it's reasonably accurate.
 
I dont understand how you can put WSU at #11 when there are 2 rose bowls and other bowls and 9+ win seasons. You can point to facilities and location and proximity all you want, wins matter.

Arizona, Cal, Oregon State and Colorado are the toughest jobs in the conference.

WSU, UCLA, ASU, Utah are the middle class.

SC, Stanford, Oregon have the most going for them.

The uw is a trash can.
 
BiggsCoug said:
I dont understand how you can put WSU at #11 when there are 2 rose bowls and other bowls and 9+ win seasons. You can point to facilities and location and proximity all you want, wins matter.

Arizona, Cal, Oregon State and Colorado are the toughest jobs in the conference.

WSU, UCLA, ASU, Utah are the middle class.

SC, Stanford, Oregon have the most going for them.

The uw is a trash can.
Click to expand...
I don't think a couple of rose bowl losses ~20 years ago count for much. Most recruits probably aren't impressed by a cheez-it bowl or blowout losses in a couple holiday bowls either
 
Its a weird concept. I don't disagree, but it assumes that we have generally had superior coaching that overcame the disadvantages. This may be true, and in last 25 years we have had a fair amount of stability at HC, which does help. I guess the question I would ask is, for any given recruit with multiple PAC12 offers, which school can we beat out most of the time. Probably OSU is the only one...
 
95coug said:
I don't think a couple of rose bowl losses ~20 years ago count for much. Most recruits probably aren't impressed by a cheez-it bowl or blowout losses in a couple holiday bowls either
Click to expand...

The fact that WSU got there matters. How many schools in the conference have been there in the last 25 years? Or been to 2 Rose Bowls?

If you are gonna make a list ranking schools from best to worst, maybe schools that cant sniff a league title in the past 25 years shouldn't be ranked ahead of those that have?
 
To support Bigg's point, WSU is a hard team to judge. It's certainly one of the hardest places to win consistently but at the same time, we've experienced more high level success than many of the other teams in our conference in the past 30 or so years.

When it comes to ranked seasons, Top 10 seasons and conference championships over the past 30 years, the following conference teams look up to us in all of those categories (Wazzu (7, 5, 2)):

Arizona (4, 2, 0)
ASU (6, 1, 1)
Cal (6, 2, 0)
OSU (5, 1, 0)

UCLA and Colorado have both had less high level success in the past two decades than WSU even though their overall profile is higher. Of course, none of the above were worse than WSU during the worst of the Paul Wulff years. Last year I looked at what happened to coaches at WSU and Wulff is the only coach in something like 50 years that was fired from the job. The rest either retired (Doba) or were hired away by other schools. No other conference school treated their coaches as well from a loyalty standpoint than WSU (that's not saying much....but still).

Leach proved that the right coach can be consistent and Price proved that you can win championships at Wazzu. WSU isn't the best job in the conference by a long shot, but it's a better job than people give it credit for sometimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikalalas
Flatlandcoug said:
To support Bigg's point, WSU is a hard team to judge. It's certainly one of the hardest places to win consistently but at the same time, we've experienced more high level success than many of the other teams in our conference in the past 30 or so years.

When it comes to ranked seasons, Top 10 seasons and conference championships over the past 30 years, the following conference teams look up to us in all of those categories (Wazzu (7, 5, 2)):

Arizona (4, 2, 0)
ASU (6, 1, 1)
Cal (6, 2, 0)
OSU (5, 1, 0)

UCLA and Colorado have both had less high level success in the past two decades than WSU even though their overall profile is higher. Of course, none of the above were worse than WSU during the worst of the Paul Wulff years. Last year I looked at what happened to coaches at WSU and Wulff is the only coach in something like 50 years that was fired from the job. The rest either retired (Doba) or were hired away by other schools. No other conference school treated their coaches as well from a loyalty standpoint than WSU (that's not saying much....but still).

Leach proved that the right coach can be consistent and Price proved that you can win championships at Wazzu. WSU isn't the best job in the conference by a long shot, but it's a better job than people give it credit for sometimes.
Click to expand...
The WSU job is like getting to pick from a room full of Super models. If if you don’t get first pick it’s still a pretty damn good gig.
 
Last edited:
Toughest job is a somewhat relative term. Yes, some schools have some recruiting advantages, but it comes down to making the right hires. Look know further than our men's and women's basketball programs. The women were Oregon State of the basketball world. The Men now have more talent than at any time since Raveling. Bad and mediocre coaches make things appear tougher than they actual are.
 
Flatlandcoug said:
To support Bigg's point, WSU is a hard team to judge. It's certainly one of the hardest places to win consistently but at the same time, we've experienced more high level success than many of the other teams in our conference in the past 30 or so years.

When it comes to ranked seasons, Top 10 seasons and conference championships over the past 30 years, the following conference teams look up to us in all of those categories (Wazzu (7, 5, 2)):

Arizona (4, 2, 0)
ASU (6, 1, 1)
Cal (6, 2, 0)
OSU (5, 1, 0)

UCLA and Colorado have both had less high level success in the past two decades than WSU even though their overall profile is higher. Of course, none of the above were worse than WSU during the worst of the Paul Wulff years. Last year I looked at what happened to coaches at WSU and Wulff is the only coach in something like 50 years that was fired from the job. The rest either retired (Doba) or were hired away by other schools. No other conference school treated their coaches as well from a loyalty standpoint than WSU (that's not saying much....but still).

Leach proved that the right coach can be consistent and Price proved that you can win championships at Wazzu. WSU isn't the best job in the conference by a long shot, but it's a better job than people give it credit for sometimes.
Click to expand...

My theory is that the challenges we face with regard to recruiting and program management actually benefit us in many respects. As the article points out, when we make a bad hire, the bottom falls out almost instantaneously. Unlike a lot of programs in our league, there isn't a middle ground. Recruiting misses at WSU translate to massive depth holes, where programs like UCLA, ASU, Arizona, Cal, etc. can attract talent because of their geographies.

While that seems like a negative, I've actually come to realize it as a positive. Why? Because in order for a coach to have success at WSU, he needs to have comprehensive plan for the program. Rather than chase our tails targeting 4 & 5 star recruits, we build our program by marrying a system with specific types of recruits. The "almost" kids, who often times come in hungrier and with a higher ceiling than other players. Half the teams in our conference seem to do nothing more than troll for the best recruits they can attract, and from there, assemble a roster. How many times have I witnessed UCLA, ASU, and Arizona trot teams onto the field that were talented, but they had no idea what their identity was?

At WSU, we have to put it all together, and because of that, our coaches are more well rounded. System, types of recruits, roster management, player desire all have to be on point. It's easy to be lazy in LA, Scottsdale, and the Bay Area.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATACFD, HCoug and cr8zyncalif
Flatlandcoug said:
To support Bigg's point, WSU is a hard team to judge. It's certainly one of the hardest places to win consistently but at the same time, we've experienced more high level success than many of the other teams in our conference in the past 30 or so years.

When it comes to ranked seasons, Top 10 seasons and conference championships over the past 30 years, the following conference teams look up to us in all of those categories (Wazzu (7, 5, 2)):

Arizona (4, 2, 0)
ASU (6, 1, 1)
Cal (6, 2, 0)
OSU (5, 1, 0)

UCLA and Colorado have both had less high level success in the past two decades than WSU even though their overall profile is higher. Of course, none of the above were worse than WSU during the worst of the Paul Wulff years. Last year I looked at what happened to coaches at WSU and Wulff is the only coach in something like 50 years that was fired from the job. The rest either retired (Doba) or were hired away by other schools. No other conference school treated their coaches as well from a loyalty standpoint than WSU (that's not saying much....but still).

Leach proved that the right coach can be consistent and Price proved that you can win championships at Wazzu. WSU isn't the best job in the conference by a long shot, but it's a better job than people give it credit for sometimes.
Click to expand...
I did like the acknowledgement that we "punch above our weight" more often than others.
 
Some of the attempts to reframe this are really reaching. They are similar to what someone would come up with to rationalize being at an underfunded inner-city school with a glaring lack of resources as opposed to teaching in the cushy gifted kids' private school in the wealthy suburb. "Oh, but it just forces me to explore innovative learning methods and allows me to work on maximizing resources. It's so much more rewarding and fulfilling when we have some measure of success, and I'm not under pressure from helicopter parents."

It's all crap. The job still is worse. That still allows the possibility of fulfilling experiences there, growth through dealing with those challenges, and the possibility of outstanding performers doing well, which we have been fortunate to experience twice, first in the context of an outstanding recruiter who had some good peaks and who took advantage of the environment at the time, and second, in a borderline HOF coach, probably the best overall coach we've ever had, who was available due to unusual circumstances and who also benefited to a certain extent from the Pac-12's situation during his tenure.

But that's distinct from whether the job is better or not by conventional metrics, including those cited by Wilner as used in his analysis.

Not saying there aren't any good aspects of the WSU job; not at all. For the right coach who highly values things like a relative lack of pressure and a good place to have your family at, a low COL, no income tax, etc., that's all good. The negatives, though, in terms of virtually zero natural recruiting territory, the purple stain, the most arduous travel for recruiting in the conference, and consistently battling uphill in terms of finding, recruiting, and keeping talent, only to find the other side still having better talent about 75% of the time, weigh extremely heavily, leading to that ranking being pretty fair, even if we legitimately can love WSU and Pullman and point to some of the positives of the job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mitchf350
COUGinNCW said:
The WSU job is like getting to pick from a room full of Super models. If if you don’t get first pick it’s still a pretty damn good gig.
Click to expand...

OK. But some of them have lopsided boob jobs and collagen injections that went wrong.
 
My rank of easiest to toughest in the conference:

1) USC- Tempted to boot them off the top spot due to issues in the AD's office but it's really hard for a coach to be bad with all the local talent.
2) Oregon- Every resource you could want at your fingertips.
3) Stanford- They are hard to out recruit for the kinds of kids who see the value of a Stanford education. They'll always have talent, expectations of the fanbase are reasonable, and kids stick around and graduate.
4) UW- The reputation and facilities are enough for the shady recruiting activities to push you into a competitive spot.
5) UCLA- The Amber Heard of college football. Looks great but you get blamed for her poop in the bed. Despite this there is a line around the block of people hoping to make it work.
6) ASU- they put more effort in than UCLA but sustained success has been elusive. Probably hard to maintain focus.
7) Utah- Good enough facilities. Plenty of local talent. Growing area. Hard to recruit talent from outside the state.
8) WSU- expected us to be lower but we have stable leadership and good enough facilities. Coaches get the time they need to build their plan and it's a place where a good coach can succeed.
9) Colorado- If they played smash mouth option football they'd be a nightmare at home. They are recruiting against the Big-10 for the farm boys they need for an effective style.
10) Cal- Athletic department is a dumpster fire. Education is good but doesn't have the draw of Stanford. Disaster potential high.
11) Arizona- Nothing compelling about the location. They drop the axe quickly. Hard to build a team with enough talent to win consistently.
12) OSU- Fights for scraps in an area lacking top talent.
 
etowncoug said:
My rank of easiest to toughest in the conference:

1) USC- Tempted to boot them off the top spot due to issues in the AD's office but it's really hard for a coach to be bad with all the local talent.
2) Oregon- Every resource you could want at your fingertips.
3) Stanford- They are hard to out recruit for the kinds of kids who see the value of a Stanford education. They'll always have talent, expectations of the fanbase are reasonable, and kids stick around and graduate.
4) UW- The reputation and facilities are enough for the shady recruiting activities to push you into a competitive spot.
5) UCLA- The Amber Heard of college football. Looks great but you get blamed for her poop in the bed. Despite this there is a line around the block of people hoping to make it work.
6) ASU- they put more effort in than UCLA but sustained success has been elusive. Probably hard to maintain focus.
7) Utah- Good enough facilities. Plenty of local talent. Growing area. Hard to recruit talent from outside the state.
8) WSU- expected us to be lower but we have stable leadership and good enough facilities. Coaches get the time they need to build their plan and it's a place where a good coach can succeed.
9) Colorado- If they played smash mouth option football they'd be a nightmare at home. They are recruiting against the Big-10 for the farm boys they need for an effective style.
10) Cal- Athletic department is a dumpster fire. Education is good but doesn't have the draw of Stanford. Disaster potential high.
11) Arizona- Nothing compelling about the location. They drop the axe quickly. Hard to build a team with enough talent to win consistently.
12) OSU- Fights for scraps in an area lacking top talent.
Click to expand...

I like your list overall but I'd put Stanford a couple spots lower. ASU at #6 is another tough one to judge. Tempe should be an easy place to win yet they've finished 0.500 or lower in half of the past 22 seasons. I like the spot that you put them in, but their actual performance has been a bit of a letdown.

Utah is in the right spot too but it's easy to forget that some of their fans wanted to fire Whittingham a couple years into their time with the Pac-12. They had gone 18-19 (9-18) in their first three seasons in the conference and a lot of folks wondered if he was up to the task.

Colorado should be higher but that state just doesn't give a damn about college football at all. Too many people have moved to the Denver area and it has diluted the people that have any kind of allegiance to the Buffs. I'd put them at #6 if not for that, but #9 is about right considering what we've seen.

What is strange about WSU is that on paper, there's no reason that we should have had the limited success that we have had. Our recent facility upgrades and salary bumps have eliminated most of the deficit that we used to have, but still, there are real challenges. I think a great level of self awareness combined with a unique location has often counterbalanced a lot of our negatives over the years.
 
Flatlandcoug said:
I like your list overall but I'd put Stanford a couple spots lower. ASU at #6 is another tough one to judge. Tempe should be an easy place to win yet they've finished 0.500 or lower in half of the past 22 seasons. I like the spot that you put them in, but their actual performance has been a bit of a letdown.

Utah is in the right spot too but it's easy to forget that some of their fans wanted to fire Whittingham a couple years into their time with the Pac-12. They had gone 18-19 (9-18) in their first three seasons in the conference and a lot of folks wondered if he was up to the task.

Colorado should be higher but that state just doesn't give a damn about college football at all. Too many people have moved to the Denver area and it has diluted the people that have any kind of allegiance to the Buffs. I'd put them at #6 if not for that, but #9 is about right considering what we've seen.

What is strange about WSU is that on paper, there's no reason that we should have had the limited success that we have had. Our recent facility upgrades and salary bumps have eliminated most of the deficit that we used to have, but still, there are real challenges. I think a great level of self awareness combined with a unique location has often counterbalanced a lot of our negatives over the years.
Click to expand...

I think the exercise shows the lack of programs really set up for success. USC and UCLA have a ton of talent in their backyard. So does Stanford and Cal but their admission standards eliminate plenty of it. Utah is going to continue to be a hotbed but its still necessary to go out of state to build a winner.

When you add this to poor leadership from presidents and Ad's, factor in unrealistic expectations, and stingy fanbases... it's tough.

Good point about us being self aware. The fan base is patient enough to give a coach a chance. Our president and AD understand the advantages Pullman has. The facilities aren't a liability. If we had even a decent local pipeline of talent we could really be an attractive spot.
 
etowncoug said:
My rank of easiest to toughest in the conference:

1) USC- Tempted to boot them off the top spot due to issues in the AD's office but it's really hard for a coach to be bad with all the local talent.
2) Oregon- Every resource you could want at your fingertips.
3) Stanford- They are hard to out recruit for the kinds of kids who see the value of a Stanford education. They'll always have talent, expectations of the fanbase are reasonable, and kids stick around and graduate.
4) UW- The reputation and facilities are enough for the shady recruiting activities to push you into a competitive spot.
5) UCLA- The Amber Heard of college football. Looks great but you get blamed for her poop in the bed. Despite this there is a line around the block of people hoping to make it work.
6) ASU- they put more effort in than UCLA but sustained success has been elusive. Probably hard to maintain focus.
7) Utah- Good enough facilities. Plenty of local talent. Growing area. Hard to recruit talent from outside the state.
8) WSU- expected us to be lower but we have stable leadership and good enough facilities. Coaches get the time they need to build their plan and it's a place where a good coach can succeed.
9) Colorado- If they played smash mouth option football they'd be a nightmare at home. They are recruiting against the Big-10 for the farm boys they need for an effective style.
10) Cal- Athletic department is a dumpster fire. Education is good but doesn't have the draw of Stanford. Disaster potential high.
11) Arizona- Nothing compelling about the location. They drop the axe quickly. Hard to build a team with enough talent to win consistently.
12) OSU- Fights for scraps in an area lacking top talent.
Click to expand...
I think you miscalculate on Stanford. Yes, people see the value of the education, but they usually don't slack their admission standards as much as others, so it's harder to get a good player to qualify.

I also think you miscalculate the appeal of Amber Heard.

I don't really get ASU. Seems like they should do better than they do. Great weather, lots of parties, lots of tanned coeds, and situated right between the California & Texas recruiting grounds. Why don't they land recruits? Is it just too hot? Probably doesn't help that they're generally awful at picking coaches.

Utah is the opposite, I think they have to work against the Mormon stigma and the concept of 5 months of winter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M-I-Coug

The latest from Jon...

Replies
2
Views
665
The Beasley Baseline
Coug90
C
M-I-Coug

Pac-12 commissioner blames schools for lacking patience, takes credit for football success

Replies
17
Views
788
The Cougar Lair
ttowncoug
T
M-I-Coug

AC in the news...

Replies
2
Views
525
The Beasley Baseline
Loyal Coug1
L
M-I-Coug

GK is out....

Replies
8
Views
755
The Cougar Lair
Loyal Coug1
L
M-I-Coug

COUGS/BEAVS playing cards right while monitoring potential ACC breakup

Replies
67
Views
3K
The Cougar Lair
Loyal Coug1
L
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back