Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Breaking news...

CFetters_Nacho_LoverCFetters_Nacho_Lover Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 30,379 Founders Club
In looking through the comments for our last few podcasts, I've noticed that there have been requests and/or disappointments that we didn't talk or discuss this topic or that topic or whatever. As the podcast has been drifting towards 2 hours as it is (probably about 30 minutes longer than ideal) given the large number of topics/interest in the program, it's just impossible to get through everything.

While texting today about the latest developments at Cal today, I thought it'd be a good idea to put out a topic that quite honestly we likely won't get into on the pod anytime in the near future (if at all) but is interesting enough that I'm sure that @CokeGreaterThanPepsi, @Dennis_DeYoung and I will have very strong, and potentially very different opinions on. So on with the topic ... "Progams Exploiting Market Inefficiencies to Fast Track Competitiveness."

Both Cal and Oregon have made coaching changes this offseason and while you could argue that both of them have made reasonable, but not necessarily inspiring, head coaching hires, it's very difficult to argue against the fact that they are putting together high end assistant staffs.

One of the topics that we've collectively been very adamant about is how important recruiting is in building up the foundation of the program. Simply put, if you don't recruit at a high level, barring insane development levels, you've already lost on the field 2-3 years down the road.

Going back historically with Oregon about 10+ years ago, two areas where they outpaced the competition and it allowed it to really get a leg up in recruiting were tied to being one of the first programs to really embrace the arms race with respect to facilities and then the variety in their uniforms. As time has progressed, almost every program has upgraded their facilities and so many programs have different uniforms that those "advantages" for Oregon have fallen back.

Another prevalent theme that those that remember the Don James era and now are seeing similar with Chris Petersen, and then comparing that to what we see around the country with the elite level coaches like Saban, Meyer, etc. is that there are only a handful of those elite coaches in place. Make no mistake, when you have an elite level coach in place, while the assistants are important, the stability at the top of your program with consistent messaging, vision, and way that work is done is almost impossible to duplicate. The resume build that assistants get from being on your staff is tremendous which allows the HC to have the ability to get high end assistants on a fairly consistent basis. The vulnerability though is that the turnover in assistants can be high as those positions are stepping stones to bigger/better jobs.

What I see in what Cal and Oregon doing is that they looked at the market and their own situations and decided that since they will not be able to get an elite level HC now (or likely anytime in the future), that instead of wasting resources on an above average HC, they would go after HC candidates that may over time develop into that on the cheap while devoting the resources to securing as deep and talented of an assistant staff as they could get. The idea behind that is that the splashes made by pulling ace recruiters together will allow the staff to increase their recruiting ability and down the road that will increase their on field performance ... if everything plays out right then the HC develops during that period and by the time all the pieces come together you get magic.

On the surface, this isn't a terrible idea. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again ... and in the case of programs like Cal and Oregon, trying to operate in the same manner as the power schools in the PAC like USC or Washington operate is a recipe for falling in line behind them. The down side of this though is the part that nobody is talking about. Right now, it's a bunch of free pub and offseason natty talk because the staffs are great. There's no question that there will be recruiting upticks. The downside though is that the assistants that are being hired are being lured with more money and responsibility than what they could get from their existing elite schools for one reason or another. It's not so much that these coaches are in a position that they can't do the jobs that they are being hired to do, but more that they've made it extremely clear through their actions that their expectation is that they are using this new job to jump somewhere else as soon as possible. And that's the problem ...

The problem with what Cal and Oregon are doing is that 2-4 years down the line, the balance of the assistant staffs that they are hiring today will be looking at either taking HC jobs elsewhere or using the positions that they have to leverage lateral moves to bigger programs with more established HC and more $$$ to finish out their resumes. These schools will perpetually be in a position where they are turning over staffs with one massive problem ... they are ultimately operating with a HC that will fall behind those of the national elite unless they get extremely lucky with their hire and that HC turns into a national elite ... at which point he likely gets plucked away anyway. Some of that is just what it is anyway ... but if the HC is what the HC is, to retain the HC the resources start to get shifted away from the assistants and towards the HC ... if the $$$ isn't there for the assistants then the recruiting base starts to crumble which leads to results starting to crumble, etc.

All in all, what Cal and Oregon are doing right now is a house of cards play that while the in the short term is exploiting some existing market inefficiencies, as the bigger programs become victims of this, they will continue to build ways to protect themselves from this kind of behavior going forward just like they did in the arms races for facilities and destroying the multi-uniform cool factor. These schools may have won this round ... but ultimately, college football has long proven that if you have the right Head Coach in place, that's the school that will ultimately win.
«1

Comments

  • AZDuckAZDuck Member Posts: 15,381
    power schools in the PAC like USC or Washington
    so much credibility just evaporated with that dependent clause

    image

    Washington's football "history" is maybe two notches better than Oregon's, overall. 1991 was a great achievement, but I wish that we? had only had to play 2010 Wisconsin to get a crystal football.

    Taggart may be awesome, he may suck. LIFPO.

  • CFetters_Nacho_LoverCFetters_Nacho_Lover Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 30,379 Founders Club

    Christ. I'm all for repetitive jokes, but this reposting tequila bullshit is getting stupid. Seriously guys, this is 4th grade shit.

    Disagree.
  • whlinderwhlinder Member Posts: 4,803 Standard Supporter
    edited January 2017
    AZDuck said:



    Washington's football "history" is maybe two notches better than Oregon's, overall.

    How many notches was 1917 through 2000 worth for us* against you*?
  • Mad_SonMad_Son Member Posts: 10,179

    Christ. I'm all for repetitive jokes, but this reposting tequila bullshit is getting stupid. Seriously guys, this is 4th grade shit.

    Why?
  • AZDuckAZDuck Member Posts: 15,381
    edited January 2017
    whlinder said:

    AZDuck said:



    Washington's football "history" is maybe two notches better than Oregon's, overall.

    How many notches was 1917 through 2000 1994 worth for us* against you*?
    Fixed that for you.

    UW = 16 Conference titles
    UO = 12 Conference titles

    Rose Bowl wins:

    UW = 7
    UO = 3

    BCS National Championship Appearances:

    UW = 0
    UO = 1

    National Championships:
    UW: 1 (2 claimed)
    UO: 0 (0 claimed)

    CFB Playoff Record:

    UW = 0/1
    UO = 1/1

    Heisman winners:

    UW = 0
    UO = 1

    Overall bowl record:

    UW: 18-18-1
    UO: 14-17

    The series record between the schools:

    59-45-5

    1900-1917:
    5-6-2 (UW)

    1918-1993:
    47-23-3 (UW)

    Of those, 38 games were played in Seattle, 16 in Eugene, and 20 in Portland.

    1994-2016:
    17-5 (UO)

    So yeah, that 73-year span where most of Oregon's "home" games were played in neutral site Portland made a difference. The comparison of games played in either Seattle or Eugene makes things interesting:

    Seattle: UW (25-11-2)
    Eugene: Tie (8-8)
    Portland: UW (14-5-1)

    Couple of notches seems about right.


    image
  • PurpleJPurpleJ Member Posts: 37,258 Founders Club
  • UWhuskytskeetUWhuskytskeet Member Posts: 7,113
    AZDuck said:

    whlinder said:

    AZDuck said:



    Washington's football "history" is maybe two notches better than Oregon's, overall.

    How many notches was 1917 through 2000 1994 worth for us* against you*?
    Fixed that for you.

    UW = 16 Conference titles
    UO = 12 Conference titles

    Rose Bowl wins:

    UW = 7
    UO = 3

    BCS National Championship Appearances:

    UW = 0
    UO = 1

    National Championships:
    UW: 1 (2 claimed)
    UO: 0 (0 claimed)

    CFB Playoff Record:

    UW = 0/1
    UO = 1/1

    Heisman winners:

    UW = 0
    UO = 1

    Overall bowl record:

    UW: 18-18-1
    UO: 14-17

    The series record between the schools:

    59-45-5

    1900-1917:
    5-6-2 (UW)

    1918-1993:
    47-23-3 (UW)

    Of those, 38 games were played in Seattle, 16 in Eugene, and 20 in Portland.

    1994-2016:
    17-5 (UO)

    So yeah, that 73-year span where most of Oregon's "home" games were played in neutral site Portland made a difference. The comparison of games played in either Seattle or Eugene makes things interesting:

    Seattle: UW (25-11-2)
    Eugene: Tie (8-8)
    Portland: UW (14-5-1)

    Couple of notches seems about right.


    image
    Sounds like you care.
  • QuietcowskeeQuietcowskee Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 3,350 Swaye's Wigwam
    AZDuck said:

    whlinder said:

    AZDuck said:



    Washington's football "history" is maybe two notches better than Oregon's, overall.

    How many notches was 1917 through 2000 1994 worth for us* against you*?
    Fixed that for you.

    UW = 16 Conference titles
    UO = 12 Conference titles

    Rose Bowl wins:

    UW = 7
    UO = 3

    BCS National Championship Appearances:

    UW = 0
    UO = 1

    National Championships:
    UW: 1 (2 claimed)
    UO: 0 (0 claimed)

    CFB Playoff Record:

    UW = 0/1
    UO = 1/1

    Heisman winners:

    UW = 0
    UO = 1

    Overall bowl record:

    UW: 18-18-1
    UO: 14-17

    The series record between the schools:

    59-45-5

    1900-1917:
    5-6-2 (UW)

    1918-1993:
    47-23-3 (UW)

    Of those, 38 games were played in Seattle, 16 in Eugene, and 20 in Portland.

    1994-2016:
    17-5 (UO)

    So yeah, that 73-year span where most of Oregon's "home" games were played in neutral site Portland made a difference. The comparison of games played in either Seattle or Eugene makes things interesting:

    Seattle: UW (25-11-2)
    Eugene: Tie (8-8)
    Portland: UW (14-5-1)

    Couple of notches seems about right.


    image
    Tuipulotu.
  • Ice_HolmvikIce_Holmvik Member Posts: 2,912
    edited January 2017
    Also would have accepted Molden. And claiming Natty appearances as a thing? GTFO of here.
  • creepycougcreepycoug Member Posts: 23,230
    edited January 2017

    In looking through the comments for our last few podcasts, I've noticed that there have been requests and/or disappointments that we didn't talk or discuss this topic or that topic or whatever. As the podcast has been drifting towards 2 hours as it is (probably about 30 minutes longer than ideal) given the large number of topics/interest in the program, it's just impossible to get through everything.

    While texting today about the latest developments at Cal today, I thought it'd be a good idea to put out a topic that quite honestly we likely won't get into on the pod anytime in the near future (if at all) but is interesting enough that I'm sure that @CokeGreaterThanPepsi, @Dennis_DeYoung and I will have very strong, and potentially very different opinions on. So on with the topic ... "Progams Exploiting Market Inefficiencies to Fast Track Competitiveness."

    Both Cal and Oregon have made coaching changes this offseason and while you could argue that both of them have made reasonable, but not necessarily inspiring, head coaching hires, it's very difficult to argue against the fact that they are putting together high end assistant staffs.

    One of the topics that we've collectively been very adamant about is how important recruiting is in building up the foundation of the program. Simply put, if you don't recruit at a high level, barring insane development levels, you've already lost on the field 2-3 years down the road.

    Going back historically with Oregon about 10+ years ago, two areas where they outpaced the competition and it allowed it to really get a leg up in recruiting were tied to being one of the first programs to really embrace the arms race with respect to facilities and then the variety in their uniforms. As time has progressed, almost every program has upgraded their facilities and so many programs have different uniforms that those "advantages" for Oregon have fallen back.

    Another prevalent theme that those that remember the Don James era and now are seeing similar with Chris Petersen, and then comparing that to what we see around the country with the elite level coaches like Saban, Meyer, etc. is that there are only a handful of those elite coaches in place. Make no mistake, when you have an elite level coach in place, while the assistants are important, the stability at the top of your program with consistent messaging, vision, and way that work is done is almost impossible to duplicate. The resume build that assistants get from being on your staff is tremendous which allows the HC to have the ability to get high end assistants on a fairly consistent basis. The vulnerability though is that the turnover in assistants can be high as those positions are stepping stones to bigger/better jobs.

    What I see in what Cal and Oregon doing is that they looked at the market and their own situations and decided that since they will not be able to get an elite level HC now (or likely anytime in the future), that instead of wasting resources on an above average HC, they would go after HC candidates that may over time develop into that on the cheap while devoting the resources to securing as deep and talented of an assistant staff as they could get. The idea behind that is that the splashes made by pulling ace recruiters together will allow the staff to increase their recruiting ability and down the road that will increase their on field performance ... if everything plays out right then the HC develops during that period and by the time all the pieces come together you get magic.

    On the surface, this isn't a terrible idea. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again ... and in the case of programs like Cal and Oregon, trying to operate in the same manner as the power schools in the PAC like USC or Washington operate is a recipe for falling in line behind them. The down side of this though is the part that nobody is talking about. Right now, it's a bunch of free pub and offseason natty talk because the staffs are great. There's no question that there will be recruiting upticks. The downside though is that the assistants that are being hired are being lured with more money and responsibility than what they could get from their existing elite schools for one reason or another. It's not so much that these coaches are in a position that they can't do the jobs that they are being hired to do, but more that they've made it extremely clear through their actions that their expectation is that they are using this new job to jump somewhere else as soon as possible. And that's the problem ...

    The problem with what Cal and Oregon are doing is that 2-4 years down the line, the balance of the assistant staffs that they are hiring today will be looking at either taking HC jobs elsewhere or using the positions that they have to leverage lateral moves to bigger programs with more established HC and more $$$ to finish out their resumes. These schools will perpetually be in a position where they are turning over staffs with one massive problem ... they are ultimately operating with a HC that will fall behind those of the national elite unless they get extremely lucky with their hire and that HC turns into a national elite ... at which point he likely gets plucked away anyway. Some of that is just what it is anyway ... but if the HC is what the HC is, to retain the HC the resources start to get shifted away from the assistants and towards the HC ... if the $$$ isn't there for the assistants then the recruiting base starts to crumble which leads to results starting to crumble, etc.

    All in all, what Cal and Oregon are doing right now is a house of cards play that while the in the short term is exploiting some existing market inefficiencies, as the bigger programs become victims of this, they will continue to build ways to protect themselves from this kind of behavior going forward just like they did in the arms races for facilities and destroying the multi-uniform cool factor. These schools may have won this round ... but ultimately, college football has long proven that if you have the right Head Coach in place, that's the school that will ultimately win.

    Jake H. Lockner. I do believe that there may not be a more deluded fan base than the one which cheers for the mighty men of purple. Good fucking Lord.

    Most of you fuckers actually believe this, even though by any measure Washington is the second, arguably third, most successful program in its own conference.

    The part you missed, which @Tequilla tends to miss, is that "elite coaches" are very often not elite when they show up. They get elite and try and maintain it.

    Stoops, Jimmy Johnson, James, Tressel, Harbaugh, Kelly, Carroll ... those guys were not "elite" when they showed up at the gig which made them elite. The Saban and, to a much lesser extent, the Peterman example, tend to be the exception to the rule.

    If there be a pattern, I would say that it's the winning coach at the mid-tier program who's hungry as fuck to do it on the next level stage. See Don James of Kent State.

    Is Willie that guy? Don't know. I'm convinced you gotta get a little lucky, no matter if you're a "blue blood" or whatever the fuck you want to think you are.

    What convinced me of that was the Al Golden fiasco at Miami. I, seriously, I, the creep, could recruit successfully for Miami. Golden did wonders by Temple standards. You'd think that whatever was working for him there would lead to wild success at Miami. And, it did not. There is no way to really understand why, it just didn't.

    Who would've thought that some chubby closet twink from New Hampshire would revolutionize, actually change, the game from the Oregon platform and in such a short amount of time? Not me.
  • FrankBear21FrankBear21 Member Posts: 31
    Washington a power school lmao!
  • whlinderwhlinder Member Posts: 4,803 Standard Supporter
    AZDuck said:

    whlinder said:

    AZDuck said:



    Washington's football "history" is maybe two notches better than Oregon's, overall.

    How many notches was 1917 through 2000 1994 worth for us* against you*?
    Fixed that for you.

    UW = 16 Conference titles
    UO = 12 Conference titles

    Rose Bowl wins:

    UW = 7
    UO = 3

    BCS National Championship Appearances:

    UW = 0
    UO = 1

    National Championships:
    UW: 1 (2 claimed)
    UO: 0 (0 claimed)

    CFB Playoff Record:

    UW = 0/1
    UO = 1/1

    Heisman winners:

    UW = 0
    UO = 1

    Overall bowl record:

    UW: 18-18-1
    UO: 14-17

    The series record between the schools:

    59-45-5

    1900-1917:
    5-6-2 (UW)

    1918-1993:
    47-23-3 (UW)

    Of those, 38 games were played in Seattle, 16 in Eugene, and 20 in Portland.

    1994-2016:
    17-5 (UO)

    So yeah, that 73-year span where most of Oregon's "home" games were played in neutral site Portland made a difference. The comparison of games played in either Seattle or Eugene makes things interesting:

    Seattle: UW (25-11-2)
    Eugene: Tie (8-8)
    Portland: UW (14-5-1)

    Couple of notches seems about right.


    image
    DO MY RESEARCH DUCK!!!ONE!
  • KaepskneeKaepsknee Member Posts: 14,885

    It's amazing how butthurt other teams posters get over a copy/paste tldr Tequilla thread.

    Good Christ you guys have some serious sand in your vaginas.

    1-12 can't be wrong.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,955 Founders Club
    PM to creepy sodbuster

    I'm not reading your novels any more than I'm reading Tequilla novels.

    Same for you AZ

    Get your shit together guys
Sign In or Register to comment.