What does Chun need to do to turn "competitive" ship around?

[Cougsocal]

I know, some of you contrarians will argue that "all's well" on the "competitive" front for Cougar athletics. But here are some sobering facts. In the last 10 years we haven't won a conference championship. It worse than that. During that period, we have rarely been in the hunt. With 14 sports competing at the conference level, in the last 10 years how many "upper division" finishes do you think we have had? By "upper division" I mean in the top half of the standings. That is 140 opportunities, only having to be average or better. 50 times, 40, 30, 20? Would you believe less than that. Soccer and football account for the overwhelming majority, 5 each. Golf, rowing, men's and women's, cross country and basketball have not had a single upper division finish. Track has had only one each, the same with women's tennis.

If you are the AD, Chun, do you try to fix it? Do you take the approach that the only sports that matter are football and men's basketball? "Ludism." If not, what would you do? I love the the fact that Chun is finally canning failing non-revenue coaches, demonstrating that the "Rick Sloan" pension coaches era is over. I'm not too keen on his execution, thus far. Is he starting to come across like Mike Garrett 2.0? Thoughts.

If you can only think of dropping a snide comment, don't bother. Can we have a truly thoughtful discussion?

 

[YakiCoug]

I know, some of you contrarians will argue that "all's well" on the "competitive" front for Cougar athletics. But here are some sobering facts. In the last 10 years we haven't won a conference championship. It worse than that. During that period, we have rarely been in the hunt. With 14 sports competing at the conference level, in the last 10 years how many "upper division" finishes do you think we have had? By "upper division" I mean in the top half of the standings. That is 140 opportunities, only having to be average or better. 50 times, 40, 30, 20? Would you believe less than that. Soccer and football account for the overwhelming majority, 5 each. Golf, rowing, men's and women's, cross country and basketball have not had a single upper division finish. Track has had only one each, the same with women's tennis.

If you are the AD, Chun, do you try to fix it? Do you take the approach that the only sports that matter are football and men's basketball? "Ludism." If not, what would you do? I love the the fact that Chun is finally canning failing non-revenue coaches, demonstrating that the "Rick Sloan" pension coaches era is over. I'm not too keen on his execution, thus far. Is he starting to come across like Mike Garrett 2.0? Thoughts.

If you can only think of dropping a snide comment, don't bother. Can we have a truly thoughtful discussion?

How many conference championships had WSU won prior to this last 10 years goal post you set up? I'll begin your research with the '97 and 2002 football squads, but both achievements stem in part from the fact UW was on the heels of probation, and Phil Knight was not quite in the throes of a billionaire's mid-life crisis.

 

[425cougfan]

Worthy topic. If forced to choose between A and B below, I'd go with A.

A: Competitive, title-contending (but not necessarily conference champion) football program; at least a decent men's hoops program; non-revenue sports not of great concern as long as they aren't embarrassing, but with some decent investments here and there like we've seen

B: Bad football program (e.g., the current Oregon State); at least a decent men's hoops program; two or three upper division, title-contending, but not necessarily conference champion non-revenue sports, with more resources to non-revenue sports and facilities

I respect all of our student athletes and their contributions, and in the general sense, want all to do well. I would never want millions of dollars to go to a golf course re-do, a field for women's soccer, a diving tank, etc., at the expense of football or men's BB, though. Baseball is a bit different from some other non-revenue sports in my (biased) view, both due to many perceiving it as of greater importance and due to some targeted fundraising for baseball that has allowed it to pursue the clubhouse. Women's BB also is more visible, and therefore more important, than some of the other stuff like golf and cross country (IMO).

 

[FnuLnu]

WSU Men's cross country qualified for national's three years in a row and finished 14th in the nation in 2016.
Pac 12 while just 9 teams have men's teams (no USC, Utah or Oregon State) it is more important to finish high in West Regional and Pre-Nationals than Pac 12 - because Pac 12 oddly enough is actually good in Men's Cross.

Women's team? Less said the better. Phipps qualified the Idaho's womens team once for Nationals though.

Phipps now in charge for more teams than Sloan is btw (Sloan just track no cross). Probably not much more $ though.
A post-doc student was the last Cross Country coach before Phipps

 

[Loyal Coug]

I know, some of you contrarians will argue that "all's well" on the "competitive" front for Cougar athletics. But here are some sobering facts. In the last 10 years we haven't won a conference championship. It worse than that. During that period, we have rarely been in the hunt. With 14 sports competing at the conference level, in the last 10 years how many "upper division" finishes do you think we have had? By "upper division" I mean in the top half of the standings. That is 140 opportunities, only having to be average or better. 50 times, 40, 30, 20? Would you believe less than that. Soccer and football account for the overwhelming majority, 5 each. Golf, rowing, men's and women's, cross country and basketball have not had a single upper division finish. Track has had only one each, the same with women's tennis.

If you are the AD, Chun, do you try to fix it? Do you take the approach that the only sports that matter are football and men's basketball? "Ludism." If not, what would you do? I love the the fact that Chun is finally canning failing non-revenue coaches, demonstrating that the "Rick Sloan" pension coaches era is over. I'm not too keen on his execution, thus far. Is he starting to come across like Mike Garrett 2.0? Thoughts.

If you can only think of dropping a snide comment, don't bother. Can we have a truly thoughtful discussion?

Good topic, and i'll bite for thoughtful conversation. But let's get our facts straight first. First off we have 15 sports, not 14. You don't mention Baseball, who finished 3rd in 2010 (2nd in 2009, but that's beyond 10 seasons). Volleyball has been in the upper half in 2016 and 2018. So how about we start with the actual statistics (10 year or whatever).

That said, I don't think there is a silver bullet. 2 thoughts though. First, quit with any negative about WSU's remoteness. CML made a big deal from the get go about the "anthill of students". In the non-revenue sports, you aren't going to move on to a pro career, with few exceptions (soccer?). So sell being a Coug.

Second, look for coaches who want hat we have to offer. Chaplin had a spread out in the country, on a gravel road. So did Bobo. These people aren't going to get rich. So find coaches who want what we offer. Jen Greeny seems like our latest example.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

I have a little different perspective...I know, that has never happened before!

To quote Biggs, "Coaching Matters". Too often we've picked coaches who just were not a great choice. Our good choices have pretty much all been successful. A few made it their life's work (Brayton comes to mind). Most of the good ones did not get the salary or support required to keep them, and that has been just as true in "minor" sports as "major" sports.

I will take Biggs' quote a step farther and say that "Hiring of Coaches Matters". Too often we've had somebody who clearly was not qualified to hire coaches making those sorts of decisions. That has been compounded by nitwit decisions on contract extensions & buy out numbers for coaches who were not performing. Hiring coaches is the most important job function of an AD, IMHO. It is certainly not the only job function, but it is the one that cannot be delegated, and for which history will most closely judge the AD.

Most private companies would long since have been out of business if run by the succession of dim bulb AD's that we've had since Jankovich. During that time some have been better than others, and several have at least one good decision on their resume...but virtually all of them have more really putrid decisions than anybody who was held responsible for performance could justify.

At this point if I was giving Chun a performance review, it would be mostly positive. A little tone deaf on occasion, but overall not bad, and clearly moving in an accountability-related direction. That gives me hope for coaching decisions. This year will be a watershed from a visibility standpoint; a new hoops and baseball coach within months of each other.

Cross your fingers and let's see who we get to lead baseball.

 

[kayak15]

Worthy topic. If forced to choose between A and B below, I'd go with A.

A: Competitive, title-contending (but not necessarily conference champion) football program; at least a decent men's hoops program; non-revenue sports not of great concern as long as they aren't embarrassing, but with some decent investments here and there like we've seen

B: Bad football program (e.g., the current Oregon State); at least a decent men's hoops program; two or three upper division, title-contending, but not necessarily conference champion non-revenue sports, with more resources to non-revenue sports and facilities

I respect all of our student athletes and their contributions, and in the general sense, want all to do well. I would never want millions of dollars to go to a golf course re-do, a field for women's soccer, a diving tank, etc., at the expense of football or men's BB, though. Baseball is a bit different from some other non-revenue sports in my (biased) view, both due to many perceiving it as of greater importance and due to some targeted fundraising for baseball that has allowed it to pursue the clubhouse. Women's BB also is more visible, and therefore more important, than some of the other stuff like golf and cross country (IMO).

Wait a minute, 45. Soccer is the fastest growing sport in the country by far. I know that money is tight but that spent upgrading the soccer facilities was well spent.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I know, some of you contrarians will argue that "all's well" on the "competitive" front for Cougar athletics. But here are some sobering facts. In the last 10 years we haven't won a conference championship. It worse than that. During that period, we have rarely been in the hunt. With 14 sports competing at the conference level, in the last 10 years how many "upper division" finishes do you think we have had? By "upper division" I mean in the top half of the standings. That is 140 opportunities, only having to be average or better. 50 times, 40, 30, 20? Would you believe less than that. Soccer and football account for the overwhelming majority, 5 each. Golf, rowing, men's and women's, cross country and basketball have not had a single upper division finish. Track has had only one each, the same with women's tennis.

If you are the AD, Chun, do you try to fix it? Do you take the approach that the only sports that matter are football and men's basketball? "Ludism." If not, what would you do? I love the the fact that Chun is finally canning failing non-revenue coaches, demonstrating that the "Rick Sloan" pension coaches era is over. I'm not too keen on his execution, thus far. Is he starting to come across like Mike Garrett 2.0? Thoughts.

If you can only think of dropping a snide comment, don't bother. Can we have a truly thoughtful discussion?

My only quibble with your post is the inference that the past 10 years is a meaningful measure of athletic performance in our conference for WSU. The vast majority of WSU fans in 1997 were not alive the last time that our team won the conference. If you look at all of our sports over the past 100 years, it's very rare to see WSU at the top. It's a tough league that spent the better part of a century making sure to keep WSU beat down with scheduling. So, I don't think that our current situation is a result of people not doing things right. It's more of a case of systemic discrimination that is difficult to overcome. Back when Wulff was coach, he ended up getting cropped out of a Pac-12 media photo. People like to believe it was because of Wulff, but the reality is that it's because WSU isn't relevant in the minds of many outside the Palouse.

I agree with Loyal's comment that WSU needs to spend more time embracing what WSU and Pullman represents and less time thinking it's a negative. In today's highly connected age, distance is not the issue that it used to be. It's still an issue, but the positives of the WSU experience outweigh the distance aspect.

 

[wazzubruce]

CPW was not a victim. He was a very poor head coached. The end.

 

[Loyal Coug]

Another commentary on how tough the Pac-12 is in those non-revenue sports.

The league fields 9 teams in softball. 3 of them are going to the 8 team CWS.

Edit:
WSU is currently 78th in the Learfield Cup (all sports) standings, I believe last in the Pac-12. All 181.5 points were scored in the Fall sports. Know what's funny? Clemson is 81st. Talk about a one trick pony. The worst Power 5 school appears to be Kansas State at 131. List below...….

https://s3.amazonaws.com/nacda.com/documents/2019/5/14/May16DIOverall.pdf

P.S. With only 15 sports, WSU is of course hamstrung out of the gate.

 

[kougkurt]

41 colleges are adding women’s sand volleyball next year, including Oregon State. WSU needs men’s soccer and women’s softball.

 

[dgibbons]

41 colleges are adding women’s sand volleyball next year, including Oregon State. WSU needs men’s soccer and women’s softball.

Men’s and women’s lacrosse.

WSU could become a power. Close to BC. The Seattle area is producing D1 talent.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

CPW was not a victim. He was a very poor head coached. The end.

I wasn't saying that Paul Wulff was a victim. If you actually read the message instead of trying to just be clever about Wulff, you'd realize that what I said was the opposite of trying to make Wulff a victim. What I said was that Wulff was cropped out because WSU is so easy for the rest of the conference to ignore overall. Now, it's a testament to how powerful of a force that Mike Leach is that it's impossible to imagine that happening today but that's a statement about Leach's impact and has nothing to do with Paul Wulff.

It's obviously unlikely that WSU is going to find one of the greatest minds of every sport who happened to have gotten fired over an overblown controversy and build our programs that way. All that Chun can do is to work to get all of our facilities up to the highest standards that we can reasonably afford and hire good coaches with a vision how to win in Pullman. As mentioned above, WSU needs to build a consistent vision that our campus remoteness is not a liability but an asset. WSU is an incredible place to go to school BECAUSE of it's remote location. The complete immersion in WSU is a unique experience that most college students just don't get to have. We have spent a century being treated as a second class citizen and it's going to take time to dig out of that role. Frankly, we'll likely never shed that role completely.

 

[dgibbons]

I see the mods had the decency to delete Yaki's post (and my response).....but I'll reiterate my response in a more restrained fashion here. People need to quit assuming that every time Wulff's name is mentioned, someone is trying to make excuses for him. Instead of dipping your toes into the cesspool of Wulff hate or support (I know that he needed to be fired).....focus on the actual message being delivered.

I wasn't saying that Paul Wulff was a victim. If you actually read the message instead of trying to just be clever about Wulff, you'd realize that what I said was the opposite of trying to make Wulff a victim. What I said was that Wulff was cropped out because WSU is so easy for the rest of the conference to ignore overall. Now, it's a testament to how powerful of a force that Mike Leach is that it's impossible to imagine that happening today but that's a statement about Leach's impact and has nothing to do with Paul Wulff.

It's obviously unlikely that WSU is going to find one of the greatest minds of every sport who happened to have gotten fired over an overblown controversy and build our programs that way. All that Chun can do is to work to get all of our facilities up to the highest standards that we can reasonably afford and hire good coaches with a vision how to win in Pullman. As mentioned above, WSU needs to build a consistent vision that our campus remoteness is not a liability but an asset. WSU is an incredible place to go to school BECAUSE of it's remote location. The complete immersion in WSU is a unique experience that most college students just don't get to have. We have spent a century being treated as a second class citizen and it's going to take time to dig out of that role. Frankly, we'll likely never shed that role completely.

Quit making excuses for Wulff.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

On a completely serious note, if I were looking to add a woman's sport, it would be rugby before I added softball.

Similar numbers to softball from a title IX perspective. Similar equipment costs. Travel costs are probably a push. But we have a club team successful history in rugby, and it is a niche at which we could both differentiate ourselves and excel. And frankly, it is a lot more fun to watch than softball, IMHO.

 

[fingerdisco]

On a completely serious note, if I were looking to add a woman's sport, it would be rugby before I added softball.

Similar numbers to softball from a title IX perspective. Similar equipment costs. Travel costs are probably a push. But we have a club team successful history in rugby, and it is a niche at which we could both differentiate ourselves and excel. And frankly, it is a lot more fun to watch than softball, IMHO.

Something to be said about this part of softball, though

 

[Loyal Coug]

On a completely serious note, if I were looking to add a woman's sport, it would be rugby before I added softball.

Similar numbers to softball from a title IX perspective. Similar equipment costs. Travel costs are probably a push. But we have a club team successful history in rugby, and it is a niche at which we could both differentiate ourselves and excel. And frankly, it is a lot more fun to watch than softball, IMHO.

The NCAA does not sponsor rugby.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Something to be said about this part of softball, though

Looking at softball and rugby teams across the nation, it would appear that yesteryear's softball players have migrated to the rugby field.

 

[dgibbons]

Looking at softball and rugby teams across the nation, it would appear that yesteryear's softball players have migrated to the rugby field.

True.

 

[COCoug]

Well first of all, we won't become more competitive by adding sports. Going from 15 underfunded teams to 17 underfunded team will just mean two more underfunded teams. I would love to see softball and lacrosse, but we would probably need to drop two sports to add them. The decision was made years ago that we would try to be nationally competitive in football and basketball, and regionally competitive in other sports. The success of women's soccer and volleyball has been astounding, when you consider those are probably the most competitive sports in the entire NCAA, based on the number of schools with D1 teams. Overall, we have done pretty well given the budget issues, and the level of competition within the PAC12, especially with women's sports where the conference is probably the toughest top to bottom in the nation. I would say that unless we get a huge infusion of cash, this is where we stay. Occasional years of brilliance, the coach being recruited away, many rebuilding years....

 

[Coug95man2]

Good topic. But it's a question that's a bit ahead of it's time, in my opinion.

This is actually really simple. Follow the money. We are a small school with less money flow. The key to becoming more relevant in any sport is money, period. We have yet to pay for our scholarships. So follow the money... Football. And that is what we are doing. Invest in what can bring in the most cash. Keep our non-revenue sports from being an embarrassment but when we meet certain benchmarks, financially, then more towards those sports. Make that based on financial gain potential... measure that however you want as long as it's consistent throughout the process. That's it.

So really, right now, keep doing what we are doing. Invest in Revenue sports, those that can bring in the most funds. When we are financially stable, move on to the rest of them. Potentially I can see a window for adding other sports but then that WILL insure some other sport gets shafted. That will not be a fun decision.

Now some have told me that this idea of "one step at a time" concept is stupid. "We can walk and chew gum at the same time!" I've yet to see evidence of that. If anyone can show me how WSU, with it's perennial financial issues has ever "walked and chewed" at the same time, and done so without any negative repercussions, let me know and we can discuss.

And to me, while coach hiring is obviously a very big aspect of an AD's job description, so is fund-raising. Actually goes to the heart of your question, SoCal. Some would call it a chicken/egg issue. Maybe but can you, year in-year out... decade in-decade out... hire a quality coach at market value (so they don't ditch us as soon as they have a better financial offer) without stable funds, across the revenue AND non-revenue sports? Nope. Financial stability is the key. And the only way to TRULY fix that is to start bringing in more donations. How vital the CAF is, can't be overstated. Wanna help? Donate.