What is an reasonable subsidary for WSU to provide to Athletics...

[Flatlandcoug]

No once again what I said just went WHOOOOOOSH right over your head.

The fab 5 showed that Basketball can be played by freshmen players at the highest level.

To continue this point to show you that what happened with them wasn't an anomaly, but where the sport was heading at the collegiate level.

Who do you think is a a great basketball program? Duke? Kentucky?

Golly I bet they have lots of seniors...

Oh wait... they don't.


And you have people like Omari Spellman who played 1 and done at Villanova won the championship and was a 1st round pick by the Hawks.

Kid was a 1st round pick playing his freshmen year and is drafted after winning the championship.

THAT IS THE COLLEGE BASKETBALL CLIMATE TODAY.

It's not some 4 year we are going to school to go to school thing for those athletes.

It's an I'll give you a year or maybe 2 at most by the good players.

So given that type of climate it is an absolute must to hire someone who can win and win immediately with talent in almost a pick up game scenario because you only gonna have the talent for 2 years.

When I referenced the Fab 5 I that was when college basketball changed. And it changed in a big big way.

You have the Lebrons, Kobes, etc. who can come right out of highschool so what is the incentive to go to WSU for them, or any of the top tier talent?

None. There is ZERO incentive to come play at WSU, because they are of a mindset of if I am going to play basketball it'll be for 1-2 years tops and I want to compete at a high level.

So for WSU to caputre those player they have to go WITH the current instead of against it, which means short term evaluation of coaches going after agressive young ones trying to make a name for themselves.

Which absolutely matches the mindset of the top tier talent. Young aggressive players wanting to make a name for themselves chasing a buck.

You match that up and you will see WSU basketball turn around in a big way.

Coach I am only going to play for two years. Great I only have a contract for 3 so let's do this kids grab this guy and this guy and let's go have some fun.

Everybody in basketball is chasing a bigger better deal. Everybody. The players, the coaches. This let's pay this guy 1.5 million and after 4 years we will evaluate does not match the mindset of college basketball.

Football it's different. Basketball it is basically organized pickup games for two years, and if you aren't modeling the program to excel in that arena you are wasting money and time.

You can fantasize about the Fab 5 all you want but there is no frickin' way that you can reasonably suggest that the best plan for building a program is to hope that some cheap young coach from a small college is going to magically draw in all the elite talent because they think he's cool. Duke and Kentucky are more likely to have guys leaving early so hell yes, they are young. But they get 2-3 players every year that WSU is lucky to get once every 10-15 years.

I don't disagree with your premise that college basketball players have a different mindset than football players and I agree that a football team takes time to develop just because of the more intense physical requirements and the difficulty of getting 22 guys that can play cohesively vs 5 for basketball. You are absolutely right on that.

The suggestion about going cheap, young and cool with the hopes that they are going to land elite talent ahead of the basketball powers of the world is just a fantasy. I don't think we need to find another retread like Ernie Kent, and I think we should look at some of the young guys you suggested, but it's foolish to think that a top level talent is going to pick WSU with a no name $600k coach over any school with a heartbeat today. Ernie needs to go, and we may go with a young coach, but it's going to be a 3-4 year project again. Anyone who thinks otherwise is dreaming. We need another coach like Bennett who gets guys to believe in a system and commit to playing it. We need a guy like Gregg Marshall who's done the same thing at Wichita State. He had the Shockers winning 25 games without NBA talent and made it to the Final Four after he finally started getting that talent and developing it......6 years in. And it took him three years to get his first decent team built. There are cases where young guys make a huge impact immediately, but that doesn't usually happen at a place like WSU.

 

[etowncoug]

Correct Flatland. Winning in Pullman will look a lot more like winning at a mid major than it will at a traditional power. And if we go cheap in this endeavor, someone will just hire him away once we start looking productive.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

I can only assume that the above is meant to be a joke, so I will keep it short. Link below is a 10 year summary of key stats on new freshmen at WSU. Lots of other data at ir.wsu.edu. Lots.

Freshman enrollment in Pullman continues to grow, but interestingly enough total Pullman enrollment has only gone up 297 students in 10 years - including a 13% (393) drop in grad students. Exactly the opposite of what is needed in the "Drive for 25". Student quality, overall retention and graduation rates are all slipping. I am surprised we are doing as well as we are as enrollment statewide and nationwide continues to decline. It will likely get worse with the low unemployment rates. I could go on but bottom line is there is not some mountain of semi-quality students waiting to troop into Pullman. To boost enrollment significantly would mean a (further and) BIG drop in quality, followed by drops in retention, graduation, etc. All counter to the "Drive to 25". If we could even get them with the highest tuition and fee rate in the state for public institutions (yes still higher than uw). I could go on all day, but this should be sufficient.
Oh one other footnote - our instate student % has dropped from 86% to 78%.

https://ir.wsu.edu/documents/2018/04/new-freshmen-profile-pullman-fall-2017.pdf/

On Tron's contention that Kent is overpaid for his performance (agree) and position (not so much): Per below, Kent's salary is 11th in the league (adding in Stanford and USC), and 62nd in the country. Take it down to a million and find long-term success rotating in those lower profile gem coaches? Uh, sure, let's do that.

https://www.seattletimes.com/sports...ist-of-pac-12-coaching-salaries-at-4m-a-year/

Loyal, thanks for the stats. Lots of interesting things there. There is something missing that I would like to know, though. The "academic qualifications" are dropping as the out of state admits is doubling, but there is no way to know if those two trends are related. I wonder if the out of state kids are more, less or the same level of "academically qualified"? I know several California kids who could not get into the UC system school of their choice and went to WSU, OSU or Oregon. All those schools were happy to make money from the out of state tuition. In every case, one of the appeals of those schools was their PAC membership. I am not implying that those kids were a drag on our "academically qualified admit" status. For all that I know, they may have improved it. But the stats you cited unfortunately don't break down the academic info of in state admits vs. others. When I was at Wazzu we had a lot of international students. The school REFUSED to break out the academic performance of the international kids at that time...you can speculate as to the reasons. I don't know if the info I'm mentioning is publicly available, or not. Unless things have changed a great deal, the administration will hold onto all the info that they can, to avoid charges of taking out of state kids just for the money and disadvantaging in state kids.

The trend toward more female/less male admits is interesting. I am not sure what to make of that.

 

[Loyal Coug]

Loyal, thanks for the stats. Lots of interesting things there. There is something missing that I would like to know, though. The "academic qualifications" are dropping as the out of state admits is doubling, but there is no way to know if those two trends are related. I wonder if the out of state kids are more, less or the same level of "academically qualified"? I know several California kids who could not get into the UC system school of their choice and went to WSU, OSU or Oregon. All those schools were happy to make money from the out of state tuition. In every case, one of the appeals of those schools was their PAC membership. I am not implying that those kids were a drag on our "academically qualified admit" status. For all that I know, they may have improved it. But the stats you cited unfortunately don't break down the academic info of in state admits vs. others. When I was at Wazzu we had a lot of international students. The school REFUSED to break out the academic performance of the international kids at that time...you can speculate as to the reasons. I don't know if the info I'm mentioning is publicly available, or not. Unless things have changed a great deal, the administration will hold onto all the info that they can, to avoid charges of taking out of state kids just for the money and disadvantaging in state kids.

The trend toward more female/less male admits is interesting. I am not sure what to make of that.

Well I didn't want to be un-PC, but if you look at our minority population, it has skyrocketed %-wise (starting with when Floyd came, who then hired a Hispanic Student Affairs (recruiting) VP. That is a good thing, societally. The flip side is that it hurts a bit on the academic stat side.

Whether the out of state increase was a factor too I don't know.

And it is not like academic stats have plummeted. But WSU can't lure thousands of additional students in without the stats really falling.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Well I didn't want to be un-PC, but if you look at our minority population, it has skyrocketed %-wise (starting with when Floyd came, who then hired a Hispanic Student Affairs (recruiting) VP. That is a good thing, societally. The flip side is that it hurts a bit on the academic stat side.

Whether the out of state increase was a factor too I don't know.

And it is not like academic stats have plummeted. But WSU can't lure thousands of additional students in without the stats really falling.

Don't feel bad about the PC issue. It is an on-going debate in California. A civil debate, but a debate none the less. When my older son got out of high school 11 years ago he really wanted to go to Cal. He didn't get in, so he took his second choice (Davis). When he notified Davis that he was coming there, they told him that since he was in the top 4% of his admitted class, they wanted him in the honors program. Think about that for a minute. The top 4% at Davis, which along with UCSD is generally perceived to be the next most desirable behind the two PAC UC schools (apologies to UCI, UCSB and UCSC) does not get admitted to Cal. Let's just say that this is not an unusual situation, and there has been a debate for years about whether the most selective schools should be increasing their out of state admits (or not), and to what extent affirmative action admits should be given preferred status (or not). I think that there is a role for both, and I can't tell you how happy I am at the results of his going to Davis, so this is not a gripe session. But a free society should be able to have civil debate regarding the priorities of the society, and that includes college admission. Personally, I am happy to see WSU reflect the demographics of society as a whole. In the long run that will be good for both the campus and the student body. But the reality of significant increase in some of those areas can be reflected in academic entrance qualifications. It is then the school's job to adapt. All of our nation's kids deserve good K-12 schools, and some don't get it. The role of the university system in helping with that is open for debate, but in general I don't see UW doing much other than mouthing platitudes and leaving it to WSU. And you know what? I think most Coug alums would consider WSU to be the sort of place that puts its effort where its mouth is, even if some of that is non-PC.

 

[Cougsocal]

You are out of your mind if you think the FOB is a waste of money. Same goes if you think a basketball facility would be a waste of money. Leach isn't doing what he has been doing if we still had the facilities we had before 2012.

Recruiting under Leach has been a follows according to Rivals: 12th 10th 12th 10th 11th 11th and 8th, That indicates that the FOB has done "jack all" in improving recruiting, its prime purpose, i.e. getting those 4 and 5 star kids to come to Pullman. Three straight bowls and 25 wins better explains the uptick in recruiting last year than a 4 year delay on receiving seeing any recruiting returns on the FOB. Leach can win bottom rung recruits because he is a great coach and his win with less system. If there some measurable/observable effect that the FOB has produced, please point it out. Because we could have recruited the same "low interest from other schools" kids with a FOB that was half that price.

Did anyone ever think that recruiting in Eugene may have improved dramatically, not because of their FOB, but because Uncle Phil started paying kids under the table?

 

[random soul]

Don't feel bad about the PC issue. It is an on-going debate in California. A civil debate, but a debate none the less. When my older son got out of high school 11 years ago he really wanted to go to Cal. He didn't get in, so he took his second choice (Davis). When he notified Davis that he was coming there, they told him that since he was in the top 4% of his admitted class, they wanted him in the honors program. Think about that for a minute. The top 4% at Davis, which along with UCSD is generally perceived to be the next most desirable behind the two PAC UC schools (apologies to UCI, UCSB and UCSC) does not get admitted to Cal. Let's just say that this is not an unusual situation, and there has been a debate for years about whether the most selective schools should be increasing their out of state admits (or not), and to what extent affirmative action admits should be given preferred status (or not). I think that there is a role for both, and I can't tell you how happy I am at the results of his going to Davis, so this is not a gripe session. But a free society should be able to have civil debate regarding the priorities of the society, and that includes college admission. Personally, I am happy to see WSU reflect the demographics of society as a whole. In the long run that will be good for both the campus and the student body. But the reality of significant increase in some of those areas can be reflected in academic entrance qualifications. It is then the school's job to adapt. All of our nation's kids deserve good K-12 schools, and some don't get it. The role of the university system in helping with that is open for debate, but in general I don't see UW doing much other than mouthing platitudes and leaving it to WSU. And you know what? I think most Coug alums would consider WSU to be the sort of place that puts its effort where its mouth is, even if some of that is non-PC.

The admissions landscape has probably altered a bit in the 20 years since I went to WSU. My HS GPA was decidedly mediocre but my test scores got me a small scholarship. I sometimes wonder, in the age of 4.3 GPAs, if I would've been gotten a spot at all now. Though the range of ability among incoming frosh I taught in English comp was huge. Some made me wonder how they got in at all, and 2 to 6 per class were ready to handle upper level stuff when they walked in the door. The resources for those who came in less prepared certainly existed while I was there, and I suspect that students that actively made use of stuff like the writing center were better off when they left WSU than they were when they arrived. I'm all for actively recruiting students whose metrics aren't necessarily top flight, but the criteria need to be carefully implemented and continually revisited. More students might mean more $, but if they're being set up to fail then that will hurt the school in all sorts of ways long term

 

[random soul]

Recruiting under Leach has been a follows according to Rivals: 12th 10th 12th 10th 11th 11th and 8th, That indicates that the FOB has done "jack all" in improving recruiting, its prime purpose, i.e. getting those 4 and 5 star kids to come to Pullman. Three straight bowls and 25 wins better explains the uptick in recruiting last year than a 4 year delay on receiving seeing any recruiting returns on the FOB. Leach can win bottom rung recruits because he is a great coach and his win with less system. If there some measurable/observable effect that the FOB has produced, please point it out. Because we could have recruited the same "low interest from other schools" kids with a FOB that was half that price.

Did anyone ever think that recruiting in Eugene may have improved dramatically, not because of their FOB, but because Uncle Phil started paying kids under the table?

Uncle Phil would never do that directly, and only the dumbest ass't coaches do it directly or in a way that conquers plausible deniability, especially after the Lache Seastrunk affair. Find that college football news story about bagmen in the SEC.

 

[BiggsCoug]

I have seen kids with great academic performance in high school flunk out in a year. I have seen kids with terrible academic performance in high school graduate with 3.0+ gpas.

I understand wanting to have the best and brightest. I also understand paying bills.

I would have reasonable requirements for admission. I would maintain the level of performance required once enrolled. I would push getting kids coached up once there. Whatever help they need, I would find a way to give the students. Get students into the process and help them achieve. If they can’t handle the work and leave, that’s disappointing. If they flourish, awesome.

One of the university’s I worked for had a sliding scale. The better the grades, the less you paid. The worse the grades, the more you paid. Don’t fool yourself. There are some very high academic schools out there you can buy your way into. Even the best schools in the nation know they need kids whose parents write checks for full boat.

 

[Cougatron]

You can fantasize about the Fab 5 all you want but there is no frickin' way that you can reasonably suggest that the best plan for building a program is to hope that some cheap young coach from a small...
We need another coach like Bennett who gets guys to believe in a system and commit to playing it. .

Bennet coached the North Harbor Kings before becoming a Wisconsin assistant then WSU assistant then HC.

He also brought Klay Thompson to WSU.

Where did Dwayne Wayde go to school oh Marquette coach was Tom Crean who had success at Indiana he wasn’t paid much at Marquette but somehow he landed great players...

It’s no fantasy you see it all the time in basketball.

Kids that want to go pro want to a) start immediately and b) have their skills show cased.

Young aggressive coaches are willing to do exactly that. And they can recruit much better than well you need to be patient dinosaur way of thinking. That is not what those kids want to hear.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Bennet coached the North Harbor Kings before becoming a Wisconsin assistant then WSU assistant then HC.

He also brought Klay Thompson to WSU.

Where did Dwayne Wayde go to school oh Marquette coach was Tom Crean who had success at Indiana he wasn’t paid much at Marquette but somehow he landed great players...

It’s no fantasy you see it all the time in basketball.

Kids that want to go pro want to a) start immediately and b) have their skills show cased.

Young aggressive coaches are willing to do exactly that. And they can recruit much better than well you need to be patient dinosaur way of thinking. That is not what those kids want to hear.

We might be waving our hands in different directions but thinking the same overall. I agree that we need to be looking at exciting new coaches instead of retreads for basketball. I agree that high school athletes want to play right away and getting a coach who can land guys capable of doing that is important.

Where we differ, at least on the surface, is how that is going to play out. It took the Bennetts four years to drag WSU out of the mess we were in and it took Tony three years to get that done at Virginia. It took Tom Crean three years at Marquette to get more than 1 game above 0.500 and four years at Indiana. Speaking of Marquette, Tom Crean took over in 1999 and he didn't lead his team into the NCAA tournament until the 2001-02 season despite the fact that they had been to the NCAA tournament just three years before he got there. In my lifetime (and prior to Tom Crean), Marquette had won a national championship, made it to two final fours, an elite eight appearance, four sweet sixteens, and had nine other NCAA appearances. In other words, they had the tradition of excellence before Crean got there so it's not like he was bringing unknown success and talent to Marquette. I still point to Gregg Marshall as the best example of the kind of coach that WSU needs to be successful. Guy who had success at Winthrop and built up the school over a handful of years.

So, I do agree with you that we need to look at a young guy. I just think that you are wrong if you think that hiring a young coach means that young, elite talent will suddenly flock to WSU. Every one else is trying to win and land young, elite talent too, and hiring someone doesn't change the order of the basketball world in an instant. My son participated in the basketball camps at Wichita State right about the time that the Shockers were getting good and I can tell you that they didn't win games because of elite talent. I was up close and personal with those kids at the camps, and they were definitely not an "airport team" in the same way that we weren't an "airport team" when Tony was coach. When I was talking to Gregg at one of the camps and he said that he thought the team was going to be pretty good (they were coming off a 17 win season), I looked at the team and couldn't help but think, "ummmmmm, ok, about that, uhhhhh, have you seen these guys?". I obviously didn't say anything negative, but there was no obvious NBA talent visible on the floor that day. They won 25 games that year based on being a good team.....not talented. So I do agree that we need to explore our options and I don't have a problem with hiring someone from a lower level, but you've got to be sure. As someone else mentioned above, Wulff had lead EWU to the NCAA football playoffs in three of his final four seasons at EWU. It's easy to be wrong if you don't look deeper.

We need to be patient and give a coach 3-4 years before we get too pissed off about things. Again, Tom Crean is a good coach....but Indiana went 28-66 in his first three seasons. Success was not instant.

 

[Cougatron]

We might be waving our hands in different directions but thinking the same overall. I agree that we need to be looking at exciting new coaches instead of retreads for basketball. I agree that high school athletes want to play right away and getting a coach who can land guys capable of doing that is important.

Where we differ, at least on the surface, is how that is going to play out. It took the Bennetts four years to drag WSU out of the mess we were in and it took Tony three years to get that done at Virginia. It took Tom Crean three years at Marquette to get more than 1 game above 0.500 and four years at Indiana. Speaking of Marquette, Tom Crean took over in 1999 and he didn't lead his team into the NCAA tournament until the 2001-02 season despite the fact that they had been to the NCAA tournament just three years before he got there. In my lifetime (and prior to Tom Crean), Marquette had won a national championship, made it to two final fours, an elite eight appearance, four sweet sixteens, and had nine other NCAA appearances. In other words, they had the tradition of excellence before Crean got there so it's not like he was bringing unknown success and talent to Marquette. I still point to Gregg Marshall as the best example of the kind of coach that WSU needs to be successful. Guy who had success at Winthrop and built up the school over a handful of years.

So, I do agree with you that we need to look at a young guy. I just think that you are wrong if you think that hiring a young coach means that young, elite talent will suddenly flock to WSU. Every one else is trying to win and land young, elite talent too, and hiring someone doesn't change the order of the basketball world in an instant. My son participated in the basketball camps at Wichita State right about the time that the Shockers were getting good and I can tell you that they didn't win games because of elite talent. I was up close and personal with those kids at the camps, and they were definitely not an "airport team" in the same way that we weren't an "airport team" when Tony was coach. When I was talking to Gregg at one of the camps and he said that he thought the team was going to be pretty good (they were coming off a 17 win season), I looked at the team and couldn't help but think, "ummmmmm, ok, about that, uhhhhh, have you seen these guys?". I obviously didn't say anything negative, but there was no obvious NBA talent visible on the floor that day. They won 25 games that year based on being a good team.....not talented. So I do agree that we need to explore our options and I don't have a problem with hiring someone from a lower level, but you've got to be sure. As someone else mentioned above, Wulff had lead EWU to the NCAA football playoffs in three of his final four seasons at EWU. It's easy to be wrong if you don't look deeper.

We need to be patient and give a coach 3-4 years before we get too pissed off about things. Again, Tom Crean is a good coach....but Indiana went 28-66 in his first three seasons. Success was not instant.

Paul Wulff was a football coach which is why it doesn't translate to Power 5. Completely different world that is more structured in the traditional 4 year cycle.

Basketball is one of the most janky sports in college athletics because of the NBA's easy go pro rules.

I think 3 years is plenty to evaluate somebody for basketball. Hell it would have told the story on Wulff too, but 3 years for basketball is great. Within the first 3 years you can tell if they know what they are doing and lock them up for a respectable contract.

But until you find that person. Go cheap in Men's basketball and just go after young up and comers because you can get away with it. Because the cycle in basketball is so quick, you can have quick turnover in coaches too looking for the next bennet.

I have no idea what Moos was thinking with Kent. He was great at everything except that hire, I give him an F- for that. Way too expensive, not a good track record as of late in his career, older coach... That stupid rolloever contract for him (Leach I get so you don't have to reneogtiate often, but Kent? wtf) Yuck yuck yuck.

Whole thing hosed Men's BBall. Ken Boone was no good either and so we've spent
5 years with Boone (waste)
we on 5 years with Kent now (mega waste)

That's a decade of waste.

Dick Bennet coached 3 years
Tony Bennet coached 3 years

I'm telling you 3 year cycle is best.

Could have saved millions of dollars and gotten some exciting basketball, instead....yuckville.


Witchita State coach is getting paid 3 million per year. That's more than what we hired Leach we should just pay 1 million give up and comers a shot on a 3 year evaluation, untli we find a guy that is special because we've spent a decade burning for cash hoping someone could "turn into the next bennet" instead of going out and finding them and making a quick eval if we did or didn't.

 

[Observer11]

Paul Wulff was a football coach which is why it doesn't translate to Power 5. Completely different world that is more structured in the traditional 4 year cycle.

Basketball is one of the most janky sports in college athletics because of the NBA's easy go pro rules.

I think 3 years is plenty to evaluate somebody for basketball. Hell it would have told the story on Wulff too, but 3 years for basketball is great. Within the first 3 years you can tell if they know what they are doing and lock them up for a respectable contract.

But until you find that person. Go cheap in Men's basketball and just go after young up and comers because you can get away with it. Because the cycle in basketball is so quick, you can have quick turnover in coaches too looking for the next bennet.

I have no idea what Moos was thinking with Kent. He was great at everything except that hire, I give him an F- for that. Way too expensive, not a good track record as of late in his career, older coach... That stupid rolloever contract for him (Leach I get so you don't have to reneogtiate often, but Kent? wtf) Yuck yuck yuck.

Whole thing hosed Men's BBall. Ken Boone was no good either and so we've spent
5 years with Boone (waste)
we on 5 years with Kent now (mega waste)

That's a decade of waste.

Dick Bennet coached 3 years
Tony Bennet coached 3 years

I'm telling you 3 year cycle is best.

Could have saved millions of dollars and gotten some exciting basketball, instead....yuckville.


Witchita State coach is getting paid 3 million per year. That's more than what we hired Leach we should just pay 1 million give up and comers a shot on a 3 year evaluation, untli we find a guy that is special because we've spent a decade burning for cash hoping someone could "turn into the next bennet" instead of going out and finding them and making a quick eval if we did or didn't.

A three year contract with heavy incentives is best. Except your visionary AD gave an ease-into-retirement rollover contract to his homeboy Ernie and hamstrung the basketball program before bailing out of town.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

You were singing the praises of Tom Crean earlier.....you apparently missed my comment where I pointed out that he was 28-66 after three years at Indiana. If they had fired him after the Hoosiers went 12-20 in his third year, they would have missed out him leading them to the NCAA tournament in 4 out of the next 5 seasons. Sometimes, three years is enough, sometimes you need four.

 

[etowncoug]

Sometimes a coach needs five years...

I'm not the biggest Ernie fan, but he hasn't been given much of an opportunity to compete here. A nice paycheck and time, yes, but the resources needed to have a shot to win? No. This year he's going to spread the floor with shooters and attempt to beat teams by hitting more threes. If they can shoot a decent percentage (which we know they can), prevent turnovers (unproven), and play decent D (unproven) they have a shot at winning. The team just needs to execute.

You were singing the praises of Tom Crean earlier.....you apparently missed my comment where I pointed out that he was 28-66 after three years at Indiana. If they had fired him after the Hoosiers went 12-20 in his third year, they would have missed out him leading them to the NCAA tournament in 4 out of the next 5 seasons. Sometimes, three years is enough, sometimes you need four.

 

[Cougatron]

You were singing the praises of Tom Crean earlier.....you apparently missed my comment where I pointed out that he was 28-66 after three years at Indiana. If they had fired him after the Hoosiers went 12-20 in his third year, they would have missed out him leading them to the NCAA tournament in 4 out of the next 5 seasons. Sometimes, three years is enough, sometimes you need four.

3 years he improved every year although the first was terrible. Probably would have given him 1 more year but he had better deliver ultimatum.

3 years is enough in basketball to evaluate continued employment these days.

 

[Cougatron]

A three year contract with heavy incentives is best. Except your visionary AD gave an ease-into-retirement rollover contract to his homeboy Ernie and hamstrung the basketball program before bailing out of town.

Yeah I am fine with the incentives if they deliver. Pay them 1 mil base 100k if they win conference 250k bonus if they make the tournament 500k bonus for sweet 16
1 mil bonus for final 4.

But only 1 mil base. We shouldn’t be in the business of throwing money away on unprovens in a revolving talent door sport. If they can really coach we’ll know in 3 years.

The visionary AD completely pulled off one of the biggest program turnarounds in pac 12 football history.

If you read what I wrote about Kent you will see that I didn’t pull any punches on Moos Kent failure hire. Moos should absolutely get credit for what he did well and should be criticized where it is warrant. I am a fair person. I don’t carry agendas I evaluate based on merit and only merit.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

3 years he improved every year although the first was terrible. Probably would have given him 1 more year but he had better deliver ultimatum.

3 years is enough in basketball to evaluate continued employment these days.

Did you just argue for Paul Wulff getting a fourth year?

 

[Observer11]

Yeah I am fine with the incentives if they deliver. Pay them 1 mil base 100k if they win conference 250k bonus if they make the tournament 500k bonus for sweet 16
1 mil bonus for final 4.

But only 1 mil base. We shouldn’t be in the business of throwing money away on unprovens in a revolving talent door sport. If they can really coach we’ll know in 3 years.

The visionary AD completely pulled off one of the biggest program turnarounds in pac 12 football history.

If you read what I wrote about Kent you will see that I didn’t pull any punches on Moos Kent failure hire. Moos should absolutely get credit for what he did well and should be criticized where it is warrant. I am a fair person. I don’t carry agendas I evaluate based on merit and only merit.

Then you’ll agree Moos is also responsible for 100 million demerits.

 

[etowncoug]

Did you just argue for Paul Wulff getting a fourth year?

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Maybe for Wulff getting a fifth year too. I mean, they were showing improvement the last two years he was our coach...

 

[Cougatron]

Did you just argue for Paul Wulff getting a fourth year?

No. Because the program ****ing regressed. 3 years 2 wins maximum. FIRE THAT IDIOT. Jesus do you understand merit.

 

[Cougatron]

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Maybe for Wulff getting a fifth year too. I mean, they were showing improvement the last two years he was our coach...

He took over a 5 win program his ceiling at year 4 was 4 wins, so no. The program did not improve.

 

[Cougatron]

Then you’ll agree Moos is also responsible for 100 million demerits.

The only mistake I saw was Kent. That's it. Terrible hire, terrible contract for a terrible hire. Basketball hires he gets an F. He gets an A in everything else.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

No. Because the program ****ing regressed. 3 years 2 wins maximum. FIRE THAT IDIOT. Jesus do you understand merit.

Tron, you like to brag about how you rely on facts and information and don't let emotions and stupidity sway you. Here are the last four seasons at Indiana under Davis and then Sampson (who preceded Tom Crean): 15-14, 19-12, 21-11, 25-8

Indiana was 6-25 in Crean's first year.......the year after they went 25-8. So, Crean took a team that had won 65 games in the prior three seasons and proceeded win 19 fewer games in year one and 28 games in his first three seasons.........that is the very definition of regression. Now, to be fair, his win totals went from 6 to 10 to 12......but then again, his conference record was 1-17, 4-14, and 3-15 so he actually regressed in conference play in year 3. One could argue that he set the bar so low that improvement was inevitable.

For the record, I felt that Wulff needed to be fired at the end of the 2011 season. As you posted back to etown, even given his 4th year, he was unable to get to a bowl game and had proved that his ceiling would likely never approach anything acceptable at WSU. But he did deserve that 4th year, just like Crean did. The difference is that Crean made something of it and Wulff couldn't. And before you say anything else, remember that you've already said that basketball coaches have it easier than football coaches because they only have to find five good players. And also for the record, I'm just messing with you because you think you're so damned superior when you're really just like every one else on the board. Right some of the time, wrong some of the time.

Crean's biggest failure was that he couldn't beat the ghost of Bobby Knight in his prime. Indiana fans are making the same mistake that Nebraska fans have been making since Osborne retired. They are so stuck on their success in their heyday that they can't see a good thing when it's happening to them.

 

[Observer11]

The only mistake I saw was Kent. That's it. Terrible hire, terrible contract for a terrible hire. Basketball hires he gets an F. He gets an A in everything else.

That is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[wazzucougs96]

Recruiting under Leach has been a follows according to Rivals: 12th 10th 12th 10th 11th 11th and 8th, That indicates that the FOB has done "jack all" in improving recruiting, its prime purpose, i.e. getting those 4 and 5 star kids to come to Pullman. Three straight bowls and 25 wins better explains the uptick in recruiting last year than a 4 year delay on receiving seeing any recruiting returns on the FOB. Leach can win bottom rung recruits because he is a great coach and his win with less system. If there some measurable/observable effect that the FOB has produced, please point it out. Because we could have recruited the same "low interest from other schools" kids with a FOB that was half that price.

Did anyone ever think that recruiting in Eugene may have improved dramatically, not because of their FOB, but because Uncle Phil started paying kids under the table?

Holy crap. You really think the 12th ranked conference class we have now is the same level as the 12th ranked conference class we had pre FOB?

 

[CougEd]

3 years he improved every year although the first was terrible. Probably would have given him 1 more year but he had better deliver ultimatum.

3 years is enough in basketball to evaluate continued employment these days.

What's the evaluation based on?

 

[dgibbons]

That is absolutely ridiculous.

Why?

Do you hate winning football games? Do you believe the Athletic Department should have put the TV money under the mattress? Do you want to be left in the dust by other pac-12 schools?

 

[Observer11]

Why?

Do you hate winning football games? Do you believe the Athletic Department should have put the TV money under the mattress? Do you want to be left in the dust by other pac-12 schools?

You can SERIOUSLY sit there with a straight face and say Bill Moos deserves an "A" grade in everything else besides the Ernie Kent hire?

That is almost as ridiculous as tron making the statement in the first place.

Your questions are merely deflections from the poor to mediocre performance of the messiah.

 

[dgibbons]

You can SERIOUSLY sit there with a straight face and say Bill Moos deserves an "A" grade in everything else besides the Ernie Kent hire?

That is almost as ridiculous as tron making the statement in the first place.

Your questions are merely deflections from the poor to mediocre performance of the messiah.

What categories are we grading him on?

 

[Observer11]

Start with Fund-Raising and Fiscal Management.

 

[Observer11]

By the way - color matching - Grade A. The Crimson matches.

Bueno.

 

[CougEd]

Yeah I am fine with the incentives if they deliver. Pay them 1 mil base 100k if they win conference 250k bonus if they make the tournament 500k bonus for sweet 16
1 mil bonus for final 4.

But only 1 mil base. We shouldn’t be in the business of throwing money away on unprovens in a revolving talent door sport. If they can really coach we’ll know in 3 years.

The visionary AD completely pulled off one of the biggest program turnarounds in pac 12 football history.

If you read what I wrote about Kent you will see that I didn’t pull any punches on Moos Kent failure hire. Moos should absolutely get credit for what he did well and should be criticized where it is warrant. I am a fair person. I don’t carry agendas I evaluate based on merit and only merit.

Why?

Do you hate winning football games? Do you believe the Athletic Department should have put the TV money under the mattress? Do you want to be left in the dust by other pac-12 schools?

Well...there will be a cost for the borrowed money, and it is starting to happen. We now have a football operations building, and we have now been to three consecutive bowl games. Leach was out listening to any offer. What is going to keep him in Pullman if say Kansas, Maryland or even Kentucky comes calling and says we will pay you four mil a year for 5 years? The factors that would keep him from looking were the following, Floyd, Moos, and an indoor practice facility. The first two are gone and the last is a pipe dream.

So while the FOB was a necessity, Mike Leach is the program. He has no one that is ready to take over as he doesn't have an OC. He doesn't have anyone that has the personality needed for the job. On top of that he is a .500 coach in Pullman after 6 years and probably not all that different than Mike Price. Will he be able to get to the next rung without the indoor practice facility? Am I glad they updated the facility yes. Am I glad they had the money to hire Leach, yes. But all of this is built on sand if Leach decides to leave, or at some point wears out his welcome.

 

[WASH ST A&M FAN]

On top of that he is a .500 coach in Pullman after 6 years and probably not all that different than Mike Price.

The guy took over a horrid program 9-40. But you are a cheap shot artist. So Carry On........

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Loyal, thanks for the stats. Lots of interesting things there. There is something missing that I would like to know, though. The "academic qualifications" are dropping as the out of state admits is doubling, but there is no way to know if those two trends are related. I wonder if the out of state kids are more, less or the same level of "academically qualified"? I know several California kids who could not get into the UC system school of their choice and went to WSU, OSU or Oregon. All those schools were happy to make money from the out of state tuition. In every case, one of the appeals of those schools was their PAC membership. I am not implying that those kids were a drag on our "academically qualified admit" status. For all that I know, they may have improved it. But the stats you cited unfortunately don't break down the academic info of in state admits vs. others. When I was at Wazzu we had a lot of international students. The school REFUSED to break out the academic performance of the international kids at that time...you can speculate as to the reasons. I don't know if the info I'm mentioning is publicly available, or not. Unless things have changed a great deal, the administration will hold onto all the info that they can, to avoid charges of taking out of state kids just for the money and disadvantaging in state kids.

The trend toward more female/less male admits is interesting. I am not sure what to make of that.

There are many incidents of out of state students, equally or less qualified, gettting the nod over in state students in the state of Washington. I know there was a big stink at Texas about it too. The stories are out there if you have the time to google them.

 

[CougEd]

The guy took over a horrid program 9-40. But you are a cheap shot artist. So Carry On........

What grade did you say you were in again? What is factually incorrect? That Mike Leach is the face of the program, that the debt we incurred is long lasting, that when he leaves we are back at square one. Which part didn't you like? That his record is .500? Is that not factual?

 

[etowncoug]

Ed

He called you a cheap shot artist. This implies your statements are unfair. If he was saying they weren't factual, he would call you either an idiot or a liar.

 

[CougEd]

Ed

He called you a cheap shot artist. This implies your statements are unfair. If he was saying they weren't factual, he would call you either an idiot or a liar.

He called you a cheap shot artist. This implies your statements are unfair. If he was saying they weren't factual, he would call you either an idiot or a liar.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[dgibbons]

By the way - color matching - Grade A. The Crimson matches.

Bueno.

Football- Grade A, program is out of the toilet. Funny how you omitted that.

 

[dgibbons]

Start with Fund-Raising and Fiscal Management.

Fund-raising- he did better than the guy before him and walked into an Athletic Department that was sucking hind tit on fund raising, in which there was absolutely no reason to be excited about a damn thing. There was improvement in fundraising. I'm not going to say fundraising is an "A", but it's certainly not as poor a grade as you're implying.

Fiscal management- the deficit spending had started before Moos was hired, AND the Athletic Department was a dumpster fire across the board. I assume that a lot of people quit going to football and basketball games by 2009 or just blocked the Wulff era from their memories. The Athletic Department was in awful shape. Football and basketball were both . Moos did exactly what he said he would do- build facilities. The only move to make was to invest in football, and that meant a coach and facilities. Leach has produced on the field. The facilities were built, and needed to be built. The Board of Regents and University President all approved the plan. Other than people like you jumping on the "Moos sucks" bandwagon after he left, there is nothing here. Everyone knew there was going to be deficits, and the facilities were still built. The FOB design approved by the Regents was in fact a scaled back and less costly version of what had been proposed.

What categories do we need to grade here? I gave you an opening to cherry pick some, and you kinda failed. Moos was what WSU needed a time WSU needed it. Moos took over in April of 2010. The basketball team had made the final 4 of the NIT and Thompson and Casto were out of there. There was absolutely nothing to be excited about. Seven years and a half years later we have an FOB, remodeled stadium and three straight bowl games for the second time ever in school history. He's the best AD we've had in a long time, maybe ever. With the new TV deal signed, it was 2011-2012 or never for WSU to become relevant. Guess what- WSU is relevant.

BTW, no mattress is currently available for retail purchase that is big enough to stuff the millions of dollars of TV revenue into. I know you wouldn't want to increase the deficit, so I limited it to mattresses currently available for retail purchase.