All right, I must vent on that just a little more ... I've been getting the expected responses when I tweeted out something similar, citing the blowout losses, the Apple Cup problems, and so on. We're complaining about a WSU team firmly in the mix for conference championships until the last game (or two, in the case of a couple years ago). Let me say that again ... a WSU team, not too long after we all would have given just about anything for a bowl game of any kind, seeing its fans bitch and moan about 9-win years. How do people think WSU has won almost 3/4 of its conference games the past few years, and do they appreciate how freaking meaningful that is, especially when Leach started without much talent in the program? The only schools not to have a "bad" year in the past three are UW, Stanford, USC, and ... WSU. (This assumes we call Utah's 3-6 year in conference last year "bad.") One of those isn't like the others ... WSU has the worst situation in the conference and some of the best overall results. Most coaches go into places with better situations and still fail in the competitive world of Power 5 football.
So what do people really expect? Do they think a WSU coach realistically should be out there beating out UCLA, USC, UW, and Oregon (or even ASU, Cal, Stanford, etc.) for recruits with any regularity? That's not going to happen. If not, how are you supposed to beat those schools when you don't have the same athletes or talent? Better assistants? It's not easy to get them in the first place, and even if you do, what happens when those coaches keep getting poached, as we've seen (even if you hired the right ones in the first place), since other schools have more money and better recruiting situations? Better training? Let me guess, because we have a FOB that was expensive, our kids are getting better training, right? Oh, that's right -- everyone else has the same thing. It's required to stay in the game, it's not a differentiator. Better in-game coaching or scheming? Yeah, that's valuable, but that's only worth so much. Training table? Alkaline water? Pixie dust? How do you take players who aren't as good, in the aggregate, and beat those who are, and who have the same or better level of coaching, facilities, training staffs, and so on? Magic? Every conference win we get should be appreciated, let alone winning almost 3 out of 4 of them in the past few years. I'd love to hear what the realistic expectations are in terms of, at a nuts and bolts level, building a consistent top-25 kind of team at WSU. Good luck.
It's amazing what Price was able to do in the peaks, but other than that, WSU pretty much has been the kind of school that goes 3-8 or 4-7 (or 3-9 or 4-8 in the current era) most years and shows up in a rivalry game once in a while. Yet many people scoff at what Leach has done like it means nothing. To be absolutely clear, we shouldn't be content with Leach's results, and he's not beyond reproach for some of his decisions/behavior, but it's worth quite a bit to have the level of success he's had in the context of the situation at WSU, even if it hasn't been perfect.
