Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Excuses are for losers + "coaching stability" fallacy
Gladstone
Member Posts: 16,419
Excuses are for Doogman losers and their mental midget overlords. It’s clear why we haven’t won anything of note since Rick's 2nd year. Bad coaches! Nothing more. Gilby, Willingham, Sarkisian. Same reason Oklahoma was bad before Stoops, Stanford was bad before Harbaugh, USC was bad before Carrol and why Tennessee has been bad lately. Alabama was in the mud before Saban.
Coaching is everything.
Sometimes we see moron doogs throw out the 'coaching stability' bullshit, which precedent has shown to be completely fallacious. Let's see:
Oklahoma had four coaches in ten years ( Switzer, Gibbs, Schnellenberger, Blake) before finally landing Stoops, who won a national championship in year two.
USC prior to Carroll had John Robinson for five years, Paul Hacket for three. They were terrible. Carroll won a Rose Bowl in year 2 and a national title in year three. Once Carroll left, they immediately fell back into the oblivion with another shit coaching hire. Amazing how all of that other bullshit like tradition, talent (and they've always had talent), location, etc. all went out the window if the coach couldn't coach for shit.
ND prior to Brian Kelly suffered from Bob Davie for five years, Willingham for three, and Weis for five. You can't win at ND in the current CFB landscape, they said. You can't recruit at ND anymore, they said. The winter is too cold, they said. Kids don't care about academics, they said. Kelly went 12-0 his third year, losing to Alabama in the national championship.
Stanford was at a place similar to Ty's UW in 2006. Their 1-11 2006 team was every bit as bad as our 0-12 2008 team, probably worse. Try this for coaching instability: Buddy Teevens from 2002-2004, Walt Harris 2005-2006. Recruiting was ** by far** the worst of the Pac-10. Enter one Jim Harbaugh. He beat USC as a 41 point underdog in year 1. By year three, were blowing teams out and had built a reputation as tough sons of bitches. By year four, they were Orange Bowl Champions and one of the most feared teams in the land.
I love the Stanford example. Emphasize the lines, be tough as nails, and find the right QB. Top 10. If the UW administration really cared -- this process wouldn't take very long. The doogs and their excuse-laden mantra try their best to set our program back as far as possible, but precedent facts stare right back at their dumb faces.
Coaching is everything. Water is wet.
- Urban Meyer won the NC in his 2nd year at Florida.
- Mack Brown was hired at Texas in 1997. He won a NC in his 8th year there.
- The 2003 NC went to Pete Carroll at USC who was in his 3rd year at the helm.
- 2003, Nick Saban, LSU, 4th year
- 2002, Jim Tressel, Ohio State, 2nd year
- 2001, Larry Coker, Miami, 1st year
- 2000, Bob Stoops, OU, 2nd year.
Since the turn of the century, there hasn't been a single BCS NC won by a Coach who had coached at his respective school for a decade. The longest tenured coach was Mack Brown who coached at Texas for 8 years before he won one.
The average tenure for a coach to produce a NC at their school is a little over 3 years.
It doesn't appear that stability and long coaching tenures have been fundamental to success of recent. Stability is nice and comfortable. It's a lot less stressful than change. Of course stability doesn't address ambition and drive to become the best.
The real question comes down to whether or not you believe Coaching makes a big difference. If you do, you compete in the Market as it is. If you don’t, you imagine nice facilities alone will take you to the promised land.
I for one think coaching makes a huge difference. All the difference. Everything.
Coaching is everything.
Sometimes we see moron doogs throw out the 'coaching stability' bullshit, which precedent has shown to be completely fallacious. Let's see:
Oklahoma had four coaches in ten years ( Switzer, Gibbs, Schnellenberger, Blake) before finally landing Stoops, who won a national championship in year two.
USC prior to Carroll had John Robinson for five years, Paul Hacket for three. They were terrible. Carroll won a Rose Bowl in year 2 and a national title in year three. Once Carroll left, they immediately fell back into the oblivion with another shit coaching hire. Amazing how all of that other bullshit like tradition, talent (and they've always had talent), location, etc. all went out the window if the coach couldn't coach for shit.
ND prior to Brian Kelly suffered from Bob Davie for five years, Willingham for three, and Weis for five. You can't win at ND in the current CFB landscape, they said. You can't recruit at ND anymore, they said. The winter is too cold, they said. Kids don't care about academics, they said. Kelly went 12-0 his third year, losing to Alabama in the national championship.
Stanford was at a place similar to Ty's UW in 2006. Their 1-11 2006 team was every bit as bad as our 0-12 2008 team, probably worse. Try this for coaching instability: Buddy Teevens from 2002-2004, Walt Harris 2005-2006. Recruiting was ** by far** the worst of the Pac-10. Enter one Jim Harbaugh. He beat USC as a 41 point underdog in year 1. By year three, were blowing teams out and had built a reputation as tough sons of bitches. By year four, they were Orange Bowl Champions and one of the most feared teams in the land.
I love the Stanford example. Emphasize the lines, be tough as nails, and find the right QB. Top 10. If the UW administration really cared -- this process wouldn't take very long. The doogs and their excuse-laden mantra try their best to set our program back as far as possible, but precedent facts stare right back at their dumb faces.
Coaching is everything. Water is wet.
- Urban Meyer won the NC in his 2nd year at Florida.
- Mack Brown was hired at Texas in 1997. He won a NC in his 8th year there.
- The 2003 NC went to Pete Carroll at USC who was in his 3rd year at the helm.
- 2003, Nick Saban, LSU, 4th year
- 2002, Jim Tressel, Ohio State, 2nd year
- 2001, Larry Coker, Miami, 1st year
- 2000, Bob Stoops, OU, 2nd year.
Since the turn of the century, there hasn't been a single BCS NC won by a Coach who had coached at his respective school for a decade. The longest tenured coach was Mack Brown who coached at Texas for 8 years before he won one.
The average tenure for a coach to produce a NC at their school is a little over 3 years.
It doesn't appear that stability and long coaching tenures have been fundamental to success of recent. Stability is nice and comfortable. It's a lot less stressful than change. Of course stability doesn't address ambition and drive to become the best.
The real question comes down to whether or not you believe Coaching makes a big difference. If you do, you compete in the Market as it is. If you don’t, you imagine nice facilities alone will take you to the promised land.
I for one think coaching makes a huge difference. All the difference. Everything.
Comments
Miami had been a coaching carrousel joke.
Prior to Stoops, OU went through Blake and Captain Kangaroo.
Prior to Tressel, Ohio State had dropped below Northwestern.
Prior to Carroll, USC had dropped to the middle of the pack in the PAC 10.
It wasn't like any of these schools were riding a high tide when the respective coaches took over and won a championship.
I can see an argument that programs like Washington or Oregon (sorry for the comparison but Auburndawg's Iron Laws are fucking joke as applied to UW) that you REALLY need the right coach and you need him in place for a few years before you can expect much.
I don't know how long "a few years" is, and I don't want to look back to James for a guide on that point because the game (both on the field and recruiting) has changed so much that whatever was going on back then isn't terribly instructive for today's task.
I do believe in all honesty that putting together a winner at a place like Miami or USC (and Texas should be on that list but they continually find a way to underperform relative to resources) is a different task than doing it at Georgia Tech or Washington or Penn State or Michigan State or wherever. WHen the talent is truly there in the county in which your school sits (nevermind the state), or when you have a truly iconic name (brand whatever) - Oklahoma - then it's a bit easier to get it done.
Washington is still missing the pieces because it's O and D linemen are average and limited in number.
If you have a great coach you can overcome that as well. The Huskies were a 6-6 mess in 1998 and Rick had us #3 in the nation by year two.
Look at the teams in our conference who have the most "coaching stability" presently. It goes Oregon State, Utah, and then Washington.
Not one of those teams is a serious threat at the Rose Bowl. All three are middling programs. Coaching stability is overrated, we've had this argument for years yet nobody listens.
Doogs hate facts because facts always prove their bullshit Doog propaganda to be wrong.
The right coach could get Washington to the top 15 or even 10 by next year.
2-14 last season
6-0 this year.
What changed??
The head coach.
Otherwise, you get rid of a piece of shit coach like Willingham in year 3 or a mediocre coach like Sark in year 4. Better yet, you don't hire either of those fucksticks.
In reality it's because they are good coaches. You don't need stability to be successful.
Bama will start to have stability and win because they have the best coach in the nation.
Coaching stability is the most fucktarded Doog argument out there. I seriously want to punch every mouth breathing Doog in the fucking face who brings up coaching stability as a reason to keep a shitty coach.
1. Fallacy of believing that because coach X has no ties to Y region, that he will struggle to recruit there.
2. Fallacy that NFL HC failure = CFB HC failure
3. Fallacy that former players automatically make good coaches (e.g., LOL GUYZ LET'S MAKE STEVE EMPTERMAN OUR DL COACH)