What exactly has Leach done to deserve all your support?

[spongebob11]

Good to see you let common sense take a backseat to your distaste for the coach.

Well, who is a better coach, Bob Knight or Coach K?

As much as it pains me to say since I am from Indiana, it is coach K because he was flexible and could adapt...and wasn't married to his ways.

The Air Raid is Mike Leach's baby. His former assistants who are head coaches aren't married to the philosophy and aren't afraid to tweak things...and they have.

If you look at Briles, Holgorson, and Dykes, about the only simliarity is that they run out of shotgun.

You have an offense that strikes fear in no one and was held scoreless in the Applecup at home until garbage time against a defense that gave up north of 50 to Eastern.

Passing the ball 60+ with a young QB is asking for turnovers, sacks, stalled drives, and loses

 

[spongebob11]

Since we are playing hypothetical's here, Doba also went to bowl games in 2006 and 2007.

WTF are you talking about?
If you are squawking because I put 2003 in there, everyone knows Price built that team. And I have no idea what your goofy emoticons mean. The example I used is not atypical for someone who throws the ball far more than anyone else in the country.

 

[Coug95man2]

Mike Price and '92,'94,'97,2001,2002, and 2003 disagree with you

Two points.

That was his record at WSU. He was not PROVEN (notice the "past tense") prior to coming to WSU. I obviously wasn't excruciatingly clear, my bad. We've always hired coaches that were "diamonds in the rough". We FINALLY hired someone that was proven prior to hire.

Second, we have been a stepping stone for waaaaaay too long (hello Erickson). For CML, we are the "destination". He's been nothing but arm-open to Pullman and been vocal about the small town atmosphere he strives to be in. Combine that with being proven prior to hire…

To me, these were foundational issues we all complained about for years and years. Now that we have it, we are treating him like the worst coach in D1 history… not just WSU history… D1 history… awesome.

 

[dgibbons]

So, when Wulff calls to kick a chippy to tie a game- good move, couldn't tell if the ball was closer to the one or the goalline.

When Leach makes that same call, for an outright win... it's bad, and he should have punched it in?

We lost BOTH games, BTW.

Don't bother with facts or logic.

 

[CougEd]

And I think that is the very reason, I for one, have a little more patience. We've NEVER had a coach that is proven for any real length of time in WSU history. We now have a coach that we know can win and knows how to win. And we want to treat him like a coach that is literally the worst coach in D1 history?

THAT part is one of the major points that makes no sense to me in this whole CML vs. CPW debate. This whole, "Not fair" or "Sounds like the same crap 5 years ago" comments pay no attention to the fact the 2 coaches are completely different caliber.

First different caliber, not all that varying results. Second, you ever hear the saying it is easier to get to the top than it is to maintain it? Getting to the top is a different beast than maintaining the top. It is a different task for Leach to rebuild a program than it is to take over one that already knows how to win. For example, in a perfect world, Leach should have taken over for Price, and we wouldn't be discussing any of this. No question he would have maintained what Price had built. He would have parlayed that into probably a 10 year bowl streak, instead of what happened.

But to say he knows how to rebuild a program, and he knows how to win, I am not sure. I truly hope so. But last year has created doubt.

I am of a belief you "learn" how to win. You learn to do the small stuff that really is the difference between a win and a loss. Knowing when to get out of bounds. While you may make them mentally tougher by rolling them in a beach, true confidence, true belief comes from success. And sometimes a coach needs to help that along. What the 2012 team need was a win against CU. They needed something to hang their hats on. They needed something to build upon. Instead of taking the win, he did what he always does. Continues to chuck the ball even though the game was over if he just burned clock. That loss right there help set the tone for 2012.

While rolling a team that already knew how to win might be affective, pushing the right buttons to get them to a win is what that team needed. So it is a different beast from building vs maintaining.

 

[wulffui]

Well, who is a better coach, Bob Knight or Coach K?

As much as it pains me to say since I am from Indiana, it is coach K because he was flexible and could adapt...and wasn't married to his ways.

The Air Raid is Mike Leach's baby. His former assistants who are head coaches aren't married to the philosophy and aren't afraid to tweak things...and they have.

If you look at Briles, Holgorson, and Dykes, about the only simliarity is that they run out of shotgun.

You have an offense that strikes fear in no one and was held scoreless in the Applecup at home until garbage time against a defense that gave up north of 50 to Eastern.

Passing the ball 60+ with a young QB is asking for turnovers, sacks, stalled drives, and loses

I'd be happy with either, personally.

And his numbers (and the makeup of his OL's) at TT tell me both that he'd like to run, but that these aren't the pieces to really do that with.

He's done a good job constructing a line with the little that was left, and actually letting the young guys mature rather than running them out to make an "empty cupboard" point... but there's a reason most of those guys didn't have a single D-1 offer... not even from Coach Wulff.

 

[Coug95man2]

First different caliber, not all that varying results. Second, you ever hear the saying it is easier to get to the top than it is to maintain it? Getting to the top is a different beast than maintaining the top. It is a different task for Leach to rebuild a program than it is to take over one that already knows how to win. For example, in a perfect world, Leach should have taken over for Price, and we wouldn't be discussing any of this. No question he would have maintained what Price had built. He would have parlayed that into probably a 10 year bowl streak, instead of what happened.

But to say he knows how to rebuild a program, and he knows how to win, I am not sure. I truly hope so. But last year has created doubt.

I am of a belief you "learn" how to win. You learn to do the small stuff that really is the difference between a win and a loss. Knowing when to get out of bounds. While you may make them mentally tougher by rolling them in a beach, true confidence, true belief comes from success. And sometimes a coach needs to help that along. What the 2012 team need was a win against CU. They needed something to hang their hats on. They needed something to build upon. Instead of taking the win, he did what he always does. Continues to chuck the ball even though the game was over if he just burned clock. That loss right there help set the tone for 2012.

While rolling a team that already knew how to win might be affective, pushing the right buttons to get them to a win is what that team needed. So it is a different beast from building vs maintaining.

OK. But the other option, the option we've always taken, is to hire someone from a D2 school in HOPES they know what to do? And we should treat both coaches the same?!

 

[dgibbons]

QB? Seems pretty decent. Agre or disagree? Would you rather have Tuel and Halliday or Rodgers for one year, Lopina for two, and JT Levy for 4?

Pole, Rankin and Cooper all seemed pretty functional. Who would I rather have, Laurenzi for one year, Pole ,Cooper and Paulo for three years or Matt E, Ahmu for one, and Toby Turpin for two but ran into academic problems and injuries cut short his career.

Kaufusi Mizel Coen, for three years or Trent, Evans for one? I think I know which way I would go with these comparisons.

On the LBs, Kaufusi and Mizell were not going to last. Grades, weed and attitude were the culprits. So you're actually comparing live bodies to empty locker stalls.

Since Rankin was recruited by Wulff and played only for Wulff, I have no idea how he fits into whatever you're trying to say. The JC DE to Pac-10/12 DT move Wulff tried to pull off was a dismal failure.

 

[spongebob11]

Two points.

That was his record at WSU. He was not PROVEN (notice the "past tense") prior to coming to WSU. I obviously wasn't excruciatingly clear, my bad. We've always hired coaches that were "diamonds in the rough". We FINALLY hired someone that was proven prior to hire.

Second, we have been a stepping stone for waaaaaay too long (hello Erickson). For CML, we are the "destination". He's been nothing but arm-open to Pullman and been vocal about the small town atmosphere he strives to be in. Combine that with being proven prior to hire…

To me, these were foundational issues we all complained about for years and years. Now that we have it, we are treating him like the worst coach in D1 history… not just WSU history… D1 history… awesome.

I see. That part makes sense.

 

[wulffui]

What the 2012 team need was a win against CU. They needed something to hang their hats on. They needed something to build upon. Instead of taking the win, he did what he always does. Continues to chuck the ball even though the game was over if he just burned clock. That loss right there help set the tone for 2012.

While rolling a team that already knew how to win might be affective, pushing the right buttons to get them to a win is what that team needed. So it is a different beast from building vs maintaining.

No, what they needed was to go play hard, not complain to mommy and daddy to fire up their letter writing pens.

You made mention of the Chima play against Hawaii, a lot. That was one guy.

Watching Baca, a fairly slow tight end, lumber 90 yards, without a single guy coming into screen to tackle him, was far more damming to me. It wasn't one guy- it was the WHOLE DEFENSE that Leach "inherited" that couldn't make ground on a 4.9 TE.

 

[Coug1990]

WTF are you talking about?
If you are squawking because I put 2003 in there, everyone knows Price built that team. And I have no idea what your goofy emoticons mean. The example I used is not atypical for someone who throws the ball far more than anyone else in the country.

If Price were there, he likely would have went to a bowl. But, he wasn't. By that logic, you would say that Leach has been terrific. He has coached WSU two years and went a bowl in one of them.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Let me get this straight, you are willing to throw out 2012, but are writing the coach off for having one bowl season in 2 years? At WSU of all places?

Please read what I typed........and think about it........and then post about it.

I said that I wouldn't hold the bad record in 2012 against Leach because most coaches would have struggled in that situation. I said that the goodwill generated in 2013 was nullified by the loss in the New Mexico Bowl. The 3-9 disaster last year with bonehead mistakes costing at least two wins falls right on his shoulders. In the past 40 years, WSU has finished with a winning percentage at 25% or below a total of six times. Five of those are with Wulff or Leach as coach. It is NOT acceptable for us to have the type of season that happened last year. From 1980 to 2007, WSU finished with "bowl eligible" teams a total of 12 times in 28 years or just under half of the available opportunities. Nobody is saying that we should be bowl eligible every year but history suggests that Mike Leach is failing to live up to the legacy established by the coaches prior to Wulff if he can't get us to bowl eligibility by 2016. He will be matching that legacy (and perhaps exceeding it) if he can get us there this year.

I know that many of my comments are early and we all collectively hope that they mean nothing, but this thread was started by someone asking why people are so loyal to Leach. There are those that are willing to say that Leach hasn't done good enough and needs to do better. There are those that believe that 6-7 is meaningful improvement and reason for patience. All I can say is that coaches get fired all the time with winning records (including Leach at Tech) and Leach should thank his lucky stars that he has an AD and a fanbase that is willing to give him five years to surpass 0.500 in a season. Remember that Paul Wulff was not afforded that privilege even though his teams improved their winning percentage every year. Also remember that the bowl team was filled with guys recruited by Wulff. If Leach can't get a team with his own guys into a bowl game.....that's damning stuff. Again, let's hope that the reality is that we get to plan a trip to Vegas at Christmas to watch football.

 

[Coug1990]

First different caliber, not all that varying results. Second, you ever hear the saying it is easier to get to the top than it is to maintain it? Getting to the top is a different beast than maintaining the top. It is a different task for Leach to rebuild a program than it is to take over one that already knows how to win. For example, in a perfect world, Leach should have taken over for Price, and we wouldn't be discussing any of this. No question he would have maintained what Price had built. He would have parlayed that into probably a 10 year bowl streak, instead of what happened.

But to say he knows how to rebuild a program, and he knows how to win, I am not sure. I truly hope so. But last year has created doubt.

I am of a belief you "learn" how to win. You learn to do the small stuff that really is the difference between a win and a loss. Knowing when to get out of bounds. While you may make them mentally tougher by rolling them in a beach, true confidence, true belief comes from success. And sometimes a coach needs to help that along. What the 2012 team need was a win against CU. They needed something to hang their hats on. They needed something to build upon. Instead of taking the win, he did what he always does. Continues to chuck the ball even though the game was over if he just burned clock. That loss right there help set the tone for 2012.

While rolling a team that already knew how to win might be affective, pushing the right buttons to get them to a win is what that team needed. So it is a different beast from building vs maintaining.

I have written this many times. Teaching a team to win is hard. Not every coach can do it. We were fortunate that we had the Bennett's in basketball.

Doba left Wulff a team that knew how to win. They may not have had the talent to win consistently, but they knew how to compete to win.

Wulff left Leach with about the same talent that he inherited, but they had no idea what to do to win. Those that survived had to unlearn their bad habits picked up under Wulff and his coaches.

 

[CougEd]

I have written this many times. Teaching a team to win is hard. Not every coach can do it. We were fortunate that we had the Bennett's in basketball.

Doba left Wulff a team that knew how to win. They may not have had the talent to win consistently, but they knew how to compete to win.

Wulff left Leach with about the same talent that he inherited, but they had no idea what to do to win. Those that survived had to unlearn their bad habits picked up under Wulff and his coaches.

I'll bite. First, anyone associated with winning had left the program. Doba had a team in 2003 that knew how to win. But they certainly did not in 1999 and 2000. It was learned with time and experience.

Second, what bad habits?

 

[Coug1990]

Please read what I typed........and think about it........and then post about it.

I said that I wouldn't hold the bad record in 2012 against Leach because most coaches would have struggled in that situation. I said that the goodwill generated in 2013 was nullified by the loss in the New Mexico Bowl. The 3-9 disaster last year with bonehead mistakes costing at least two wins falls right on his shoulders. In the past 40 years, WSU has finished with a winning percentage at 25% or below a total of six times. Five of those are with Wulff or Leach as coach. It is NOT acceptable for us to have the type of season that happened last year. From 1980 to 2007, WSU finished with "bowl eligible" teams a total of 12 times in 28 years or just under half of the available opportunities. Nobody is saying that we should be bowl eligible every year but history suggests that Mike Leach is failing to live up to the legacy established by the coaches prior to Wulff if he can't get us to bowl eligibility by 2016. He will be matching that legacy (and perhaps exceeding it) if he can get us there this year.

I know that many of my comments are early and we all collectively hope that they mean nothing, but this thread was started by someone asking why people are so loyal to Leach. There are those that are willing to say that Leach hasn't done good enough and needs to do better. There are those that believe that 6-7 is meaningful improvement and reason for patience. All I can say is that coaches get fired all the time with winning records (including Leach at Tech) and Leach should thank his lucky stars that he has an AD and a fanbase that is willing to give him five years to surpass 0.500 in a season. Remember that Paul Wulff was not afforded that privilege even though his teams improved their winning percentage every year. Also remember that the bowl team was filled with guys recruited by Wulff. If Leach can't get a team with his own guys into a bowl game.....that's damning stuff. Again, let's hope that the reality is that we get to plan a trip to Vegas at Christmas to watch football.

Goodwill and improving the program are two different things Flat. Goodwill tells us you feel let down by Leach. That you felt letdown has no real bearing on what is actually happening in the program. You emotion of being letdown is blinding you to what is occurring.

It is not meant to be a lovefest for Leach. I don't really care who is the coach as long as they are ultimately successful. What I see is a program being put together. You will too.

 

[wulffui]

I said that the goodwill generated in 2013 was nullified by the loss in the New Mexico Bowl. Remember that Paul Wulff was not afforded that privilege even though his teams improved their winning percentage every year.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong twice. Five bad minutes at the end of a bowl game don't erase the bowl game and the season that got you there when you averaged two wins a season for the preceding five.

And Wulff went backwards in year two, percentage wise.

 

[wulffui]

I'll bite. First, anyone associated with winning had left the program. Doba had a team in 2003 that knew how to win. But they certainly did not in 1999 and 2000. It was learned with time and experience.

Second, what bad habits?

Calling mommy and daddy when it got tough, for one. Deciding that the time it really needed to happen is right before a showcase game, for another.

 

[CougEd]

The DL/LB comparison- if Wulff wasn't impressed with the talent he inherited, why didn't he go get a Gauta, or a Sagote, to add to his deficient groups, like Leach did?

Leach didn't see a ready unit, obviously.

Wasn't what I asked, now was it?

 

[wulffui]

Wasn't what I asked, now was it?

It really is, though, isn't it?

Why one coach had functional units and the other didn't?

Because one coach fixed the units with HIS guys, and the other complained, brought in the wrong guys, and didn't fix anything.

Pretty easy to say which of those guys went to a bowl.

Also, awful lot of discipline risks you include in the "Leach had this to work with" category. Hell of a job that coach did getting to a bowl game.

 

[CougEd]

Calling mommy and daddy when it got tough, for one. Deciding that the time it really needed to happen is right before a showcase game, for another.

So the disgruntled parents early in the Wulff era weren't called by their kids? Must have read their kids dissatisfaction via cougzone. If you were to ask the general fan who is M Wilson and what did he do, they would have no clue. If you asked the opponents of that showcase game what happened before that game they would be clueless. Wilson was immature. Got booted for it. You act like it is the Craig James deal. It has long been forgotten. No harm other than money lost in the investigation ever game of it.

 

[wulffui]

So the disgruntled parents early in the Wulff era weren't called by their kids? Must have read their kids dissatisfaction via cougzone. If you were to ask the general fan who is M Wilson and what did he do, they would have no clue. If you asked the opponents of that showcase game what happened before that game they would be clueless. Wilson was immature. Got booted for it. You act like it is the Craig James deal. It has long been forgotten. No harm other than money lost in the investigation ever game of it.

Did they write any letters to ESPN?

Or was that just guys coddled by Wulff?

 

[spongebob11]

If Price were there, he likely would have went to a bowl. But, he wasn't. By that logic, you would say that Leach has been terrific. He has coached WSU two years and went a bowl in one of them.

Not really, because getting awarded a bowl game with a 6-6 record doesn't do it for me. Its kinda like when Greg Fawker got a 5th place trophy.

And your comparison is further flawed when you consider Price's worst record going into a bowl game was his 94 team with a 7-4 record.

 

[CougEd]

It really is, though, isn't it?

Why one coach had functional units and the other didn't?

Because one coach fixed the units with HIS guys, and the other complained, brought in the wrong guys, and didn't fix anything.

Pretty easy to say which of those guys went to a bowl.

Also, awful lot of discipline risks you include in the "Leach had this to work with" category. Hell of a job that coach did getting to a bowl game.

So what you are telling me Wulffui is that in 2012 he couldn't make the team functional, then did so by breaking habits of crappy recruits, then when he has his own they are one dropped pass from being 2-10. Are you in sales?

 

[CougEd]

It really is, though, isn't it?

Why one coach had functional units and the other didn't?

Because one coach fixed the units with HIS guys, and the other complained, brought in the wrong guys, and didn't fix anything.

Pretty easy to say which of those guys went to a bowl.

Also, awful lot of discipline risks you include in the "Leach had this to work with" category. Hell of a job that coach did getting to a bowl game.

Sorry, I don't remember 2012 being fixed, nor 2104. And Guata and Sagote played in 2012.

 

[Coug1990]

I'll bite. First, anyone associated with winning had left the program. Doba had a team in 2003 that knew how to win. But they certainly did not in 1999 and 2000. It was learned with time and experience.

Second, what bad habits?

I wrote about it above. Doba left a team that knew how to compete to win. They were close and 2006 at 6-6 shows that. Heck, you keep on giving moral victories to Wulff's 2011 team. Doba's 2007 team lost by three to both ASU and CAL. Heck, they were down by 7 in the fourth quarter at Wisconsin before the Badgers pulled away.

Not all coaches can teach winning. Wulff took over a winning program at Eastern. Why do you give him more benefit of the doubt than Leach continuing and even surpassing what Spike Dykes accomplished? You write as if it were a sure thing Wulff would have been like Price and won. Yet, you question if Leach can.

 

[wulffui]

Sorry, I don't remember 2012 being fixed, nor 2104. And Guata and Sagote played in 2012.

You're leaving a year out.

Can't imagine why the guy who implored me to look at the 2009 improvements would do such a thing.

And hopefully we're good in 2104. I'll be very dead, though.

 

[Coug1990]

Not really, because getting awarded a bowl game with a 6-6 record doesn't do it for me. Its kinda like when Greg Fawker got a 5th place trophy.

And your comparison is further flawed when you consider Price's worst record going into a bowl game was his 94 team with a 7-4 record.

So, you grade Leach on a curve to make an argument. My argument is not flawed. You just cherry picked again. Price did not coach in 2003. What Price's record in a bowl year is irrelevant. They either made a bowl or they didn't. They were either head coach or they aren't.

Anyway. I am out for now, heading to the gym. Piece.

 

[MikeFingLeach]

Level 1 thinkers (Flat, Ed, sponge),

If Leach leads WSU to a bowl game in 2015 will you stfu?

 

[wulffui]

So what you are telling me Wulffui is that in 2012 he couldn't make the team functional, then did so by breaking habits of crappy recruits, then when he has his own they are one dropped pass from being 2-10. Are you in sales?

Yeah, I'm SO MAD about the experience all those freshmen and sophomores got.

On the upside, as long as Leach is more like ANY OTHER COACH, and less like Wulff, those guys will be better this year, and Leach's worst year will be better than 75% of the Wulff tenure.

 

[wulffui]

Level 1 thinkers (Flat, Ed, sponge),

If Leach leads WSU to a bowl game in 2015 will you stfu?

No. I mean, Ed was borderline mad that I brought up 2008, without saying something nice about 2009.

We're all Cougars- I just assume the Leach complainers went to school when Walden coached and Wulff played, and the Wulff era really slaughtered their sacred cows.

 

[spongebob11]

So, you grade Leach on a curve to make an argument. My argument is not flawed. You just cherry picked again. Price did not coach in 2003. What Price's record in a bowl year is irrelevant. They either made a bowl or they didn't. They were either head coach or they aren't.

Anyway. I am out for now, heading to the gym. Piece.

"Piece"?
Weren't you trying to correct me(incorrectly I might add) on my grammar yesterday? Too funny.

Sorry, but this curve nonsense is just that.

8-4 > 6-7

 

[CougEd]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong twice. Five bad minutes at the end of a bowl game don't erase the bowl game and the season that got you there when you averaged two wins a season for the preceding five.

And Wulff went backwards in year two, percentage wise.

And year three Leach rivaled year two in terms of defensive futility. Let me help you out. Flat makes a rational argument. I don't necessarily agree with him. But what I would

Yeah, I'm SO MAD about the experience all those freshmen and sophomores got.

On the upside, as long as Leach is more like ANY OTHER COACH, and less like Wulff, those guys will be better this year, and Leach's worst year will be better than 75% of the Wulff tenure.

" Leach's worst year will be better than 75% of the Wulff tenure" I that the criteria? Personally my numbers have always shown me 4-8 is better than 3-9....so the math might be a bit fuzzy.

 

[CougEd]

"Piece"?
Weren't you trying to correct me(incorrectly I might add) on my grammar yesterday? Too funny.

Sorry, but this curve nonsense is just that.

8-4 > 6-7

Piece...now that is funny. Thanks for the chuckle.

 

[CougEd]

You're leaving a year out.

Can't imagine why the guy who implored me to look at the 2009 improvements would do such a thing.

And hopefully we're good in 2104. I'll be very dead, though.

Well if that is baseball one for three gets you a big contract. No so much in football.

I left it out cause you said they fixed the problem.

 

[wulffui]

" Leach's worst year will be better than 75% of the Wulff tenure" I that the criteria? Personally my numbers have always shown me 4-8 is better than 3-9....so the math might be a bit fuzzy.

And 2, 2 and 1 are worse. And that 3/4= 75%

Second grade math is fuzzy for you?

 

[wulffui]

Well if that is baseball one for three gets you a big contract. No so much in football.

And 0 for 5 gets you a volunteer assistant job at the local high school, if I had to guess.

 

[CougEd]

And 2, 2 and 1 are worse. And that 3/4= 75%

Second grade math is fuzzy for you?

Thank gawd the Utah receiver dropped the pass, then it would have 50% for according to my second grade math.

 

[wulffui]

Thank gawd the Utah receiver dropped the pass, then it would have 50% for according to my second grade math.

Hypothetically making up situations to make the wrong thing you said accurate is so much your thing, you should call the patent office. And shit, it's STILL WRONG. 2 wins would have been equal to three of Wulffs years.

My second grader has math workbooks- should I send them over?

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Level 1 thinkers (Flat, Ed, sponge),

If Leach leads WSU to a bowl game in 2015 will you stfu?

Ummmmm, yeah. What I find hilarious is the "level 1 thinker" comment though. The way that the real world of college football works, level 1 (winning) is the only level that matters in the big picture. You can talk all you want about recruiting, culture, schemes, body types, technique and all that until you are blue in the face but at the end of the day, if the sum of those things don't add up to wins and bowl games on a consistent basis.....you're going to get fired. Not every school uses the same metric. At Nebraska, 9-4 gets you fired.....at WSU, it gets you a statue. but at the same time, you have to win football games to some degree. A bowl game in 2015 (preferably one with a W assigned to it) will shut up the fans that are growing unhappy for a year. A close call makes Mike Leach a glorified Paul Wulff. If you ain't winning today, you ain't winning at all. Call that level 1 thinking if you want, but when you want people to pony up the kind of money that's required to go to football games, results are mandatory or the support wanes. I'm done with platitudes and moral victories. I'm done with juice boxes and participation medals. Anyone who thinks that Leach deserves a free pass if our team stinks this year isn't paying attention to how the real world works. Most of the people supporting Leach right now will be calling for his head in December if we aren't scheduled to be in a bowl game. It's the way that the world works.

 

[wulffui]

I haven't heard anyone say Leach gets a pass this year. I have seen the people who are generally more critical of Leach pretty much write off this year, and behave like 2016 will be make or break, since we sucked in the upcoming year.