What grade would you give Scott Woodward as a football AD?

::swoon::

BabsGilbyTawdTy said:

AZDuck said:

Your AD is still pretty much a complete fucktard. He got lucky with Sark, and made a good right decision hiring Peterman. I wonder if Peterman sought the job out rather than vice-versa. Financing facilities is what any competent AD should be able to do.

Let it fucking play out with your basketball corch before you anoint this guy.

Your opinion means less here than Ken Griswold's.

GFY Duck.

He_Needs_More_Time said:

Fire_Marshall_Bill said:

He_Needs_More_Time said:

Sark leaving to USC was total luck.

However, some of you aren't giving him nearly enough credit for snatching up Petersen or getting the stadium deal done.

It probably wasn't 100%, gee-I-won-Publisher's-Clearinghouse luck. Sark was probably talking to HADENFS In October, or their people were talking to each other, and Woodward probably knew about it.

It was luck that USC who could hire any coach they want and had plenty of months to get a head start settled on Sark.

That was luck. Now the rest of what Woodward did he deserves credit. Deserves credit for never giving Sark an extension and obviously stealing Petersen deserves a lot of credit.

No AD has stolen him, many have tried and failed. That alone earns him a passing grade.

possibly disagree

The effects of the reduced starships don't go away until 2017 or 2018. If you're Jack Del River or Kevin Sumlin, you're looking at some struggles for a few years. Some yrs. you might do fairly well if there aren't injuries, but eventually there will be since it's football. Some of those guys might have hesitated.

On the other hand, Sark probably thinks he's hot shit, wants to move home, is eager to please, and is excited to just be at the West Coast fball power. We probably don't know what his salary is since its a private school, but he probably didn't demand shitkickin' $$$$$$EC $.

SarkFS was a bad hire and Petersen on paper looks to be a good one so it evens itself out. Would have probably been a B if the MVP or the UW AD wasn't Pat Haden.

I'd say a solid B. The embarrassing moments preclude him from the A-range, but trending upwards.

DerekJohnson said:

HoustonHusky said:

D

Positives:
Stadium...hadn't seen it but the response has been positive.
Wasn't sold on Peterman considering the last 2 Boise St. coaches that moved on, but coming around.

Negatives:
Hired Sark for outrageous sums of unnecessary money in 2008...absolutely idiotic hire at the time, and even dumber considering how much he paid him.
Extended Sark in 2010 for even larger sums of money after a 7-6 season.
Put up with Sark's crap for 5 years.
Paid Nick Holt god knows how much money for being incompetent.
Part of the group of ADs that brought in Utah and Colorado (per his bio) to the Pac 10.
Was acting AD starting in Jan '08, full-time AD starting Sept '08, yet Ty still had a job till the end of Oct @‌ when everyone and their mother saw it was a cluster from year 1 (2005). The team quit on Ty from day 1 of that season, yet little Woody either didn't see it or knew and didn't act on it. Either case is damning to him.
Number of Rose Bowls in his tenure: 0
Number of Top 20 finishes in his tenure: 0
Number of times we have finished winless in a season under him: 1 (first time in Pac since '80 Beavers?)

Win baby...we do that and he might start looking better. If not maybe he can be a stunt double for Peter Dinklage on Game of Thrones.

-HH

When I was interviewing people for my Willingham book, several players told me that Woodward and Jen Cohn in the athletic department were apologizing profusely throughout the 2008 season for Willingham's behavior toward the players. But they were scared to not let him finish out the season for fear of being called racist. I don't know for 100% sure, but I do believe that it was an edict handed down by Emmert.

That may explain part of it for some (not me...just shows he doesn't have the balls for the job if he thought he should fire him but didn't do everything he could to do it), but it does not explain the absolutely bizarre decision of firing Ty while still letting him coach out the season. And if he did know how bad it was and was apologizing to everybody for it then its an even more damning fact.

He followed that up by overpaying for a college coordinator that he couldn't even convince to start working for 3 or 4 weeks, and we became his training gig for the type of jobs he really wanted (anyone really surprised Sark bolted and really thought he was going to be here for 20 years? I'm in the minority here, but I think he's going to do ok at USC...we were his training school. He should have learned a lot of what to do and not do while he was here...I'm actually kinda interested to see if any of it stuck).

Piss-poor managing by Pool Boy...its a big hole to climb out of. But hey, we win a Rose Bowl and I'll change my tune.

-HH

Not really that related to whether Woodward is a good AD or not, but did he offer Mora the job before Petersen? Or was Petersen actually the #1 the whole time?

I bet Mora was definitely #1 but they probably had Petersen as #1b, thinking Mora would be hard to get. I wonder if Nussmeier was really #3 or just a smoke screen.

HoustonHusky said:

DerekJohnson said:

HoustonHusky said:

D

Positives:
Stadium...hadn't seen it but the response has been positive.
Wasn't sold on Peterman considering the last 2 Boise St. coaches that moved on, but coming around.

Negatives:
Hired Sark for outrageous sums of unnecessary money in 2008...absolutely idiotic hire at the time, and even dumber considering how much he paid him.
Extended Sark in 2010 for even larger sums of money after a 7-6 season.
Put up with Sark's crap for 5 years.
Paid Nick Holt god knows how much money for being incompetent.
Part of the group of ADs that brought in Utah and Colorado (per his bio) to the Pac 10.
Was acting AD starting in Jan '08, full-time AD starting Sept '08, yet Ty still had a job till the end of Oct @‌ when everyone and their mother saw it was a cluster from year 1 (2005). The team quit on Ty from day 1 of that season, yet little Woody either didn't see it or knew and didn't act on it. Either case is damning to him.
Number of Rose Bowls in his tenure: 0
Number of Top 20 finishes in his tenure: 0
Number of times we have finished winless in a season under him: 1 (first time in Pac since '80 Beavers?)

Win baby...we do that and he might start looking better. If not maybe he can be a stunt double for Peter Dinklage on Game of Thrones.

-HH

When I was interviewing people for my Willingham book, several players told me that Woodward and Jen Cohn in the athletic department were apologizing profusely throughout the 2008 season for Willingham's behavior toward the players. But they were scared to not let him finish out the season for fear of being called racist. I don't know for 100% sure, but I do believe that it was an edict handed down by Emmert.

That may explain part of it for some (not me...just shows he doesn't have the balls for the job if he thought he should fire him but didn't do everything he could to do it), but it does not explain the absolutely bizarre decision of firing Ty while still letting him coach out the season. And if he did know how bad it was and was apologizing to everybody for it then its an even more damning fact.

He followed that up by overpaying for a college coordinator that he couldn't even convince to start working for 3 or 4 weeks, and we became his training gig for the type of jobs he really wanted (anyone really surprised Sark bolted and really thought he was going to be here for 20 years? I'm in the minority here, but I think he's going to do ok at USC...we were his training school. He should have learned a lot of what to do and not do while he was here...I'm actually kinda interested to see if any of it stuck).

Piss-poor managing by Pool Boy...its a big hole to climb out of. But hey, we win a Rose Bowl and I'll change my tune.

-HH

There is a gigantic flaw in this theory. Sark thinks he did a great job at UW. He thinks he is a great coach that was weighed down by 0-12 and a program that wasn't big enough for him. I don't think Sark learned a single thing that has any actual value. You can't learn if you think you already know it all.

This is very true.

DerekJohnson said:

RoadDawg55 said:

Not really that related to whether Woodward is a good AD or not, but did he offer Mora the job before Petersen? Or was Petersen actually the #1 the whole time?

Many people within the UW athletic department thought Mora had been hired, just 2-3 days prior to Petersen being announced as the new head coach.

allpurpleallgold said:

HoustonHusky said:

DerekJohnson said:

HoustonHusky said:

D

Positives:
Stadium...hadn't seen it but the response has been positive.
Wasn't sold on Peterman considering the last 2 Boise St. coaches that moved on, but coming around.

Negatives:
Hired Sark for outrageous sums of unnecessary money in 2008...absolutely idiotic hire at the time, and even dumber considering how much he paid him.
Extended Sark in 2010 for even larger sums of money after a 7-6 season.
Put up with Sark's crap for 5 years.
Paid Nick Holt god knows how much money for being incompetent.
Part of the group of ADs that brought in Utah and Colorado (per his bio) to the Pac 10.
Was acting AD starting in Jan '08, full-time AD starting Sept '08, yet Ty still had a job till the end of Oct @‌ when everyone and their mother saw it was a cluster from year 1 (2005). The team quit on Ty from day 1 of that season, yet little Woody either didn't see it or knew and didn't act on it. Either case is damning to him.
Number of Rose Bowls in his tenure: 0
Number of Top 20 finishes in his tenure: 0
Number of times we have finished winless in a season under him: 1 (first time in Pac since '80 Beavers?)

Win baby...we do that and he might start looking better. If not maybe he can be a stunt double for Peter Dinklage on Game of Thrones.

-HH

When I was interviewing people for my Willingham book, several players told me that Woodward and Jen Cohn in the athletic department were apologizing profusely throughout the 2008 season for Willingham's behavior toward the players. But they were scared to not let him finish out the season for fear of being called racist. I don't know for 100% sure, but I do believe that it was an edict handed down by Emmert.

That may explain part of it for some (not me...just shows he doesn't have the balls for the job if he thought he should fire him but didn't do everything he could to do it), but it does not explain the absolutely bizarre decision of firing Ty while still letting him coach out the season. And if he did know how bad it was and was apologizing to everybody for it then its an even more damning fact.

He followed that up by overpaying for a college coordinator that he couldn't even convince to start working for 3 or 4 weeks, and we became his training gig for the type of jobs he really wanted (anyone really surprised Sark bolted and really thought he was going to be here for 20 years? I'm in the minority here, but I think he's going to do ok at USC...we were his training school. He should have learned a lot of what to do and not do while he was here...I'm actually kinda interested to see if any of it stuck).

Piss-poor managing by Pool Boy...its a big hole to climb out of. But hey, we win a Rose Bowl and I'll change my tune.

-HH

There is a gigantic flaw in this theory. Sark thinks he did a great job at UW. He thinks he is a great coach that was weighed down by 0-12 and a program that wasn't big enough for him. I don't think Sark learned a single thing that has any actual value. You can't learn if you think you already know it all.

Agree. A lot of talk about learning on the job. What good coach showed as little as Sark in his first five years? I think the learning on the job shit has been mentioned enough times that some people think it is true.

Saban- 10 win season in year 5. Probably the best example the learning on the job guys can use, but Saban is pretty different than Sark.

Meyer- success at Bowling Green, and won a BCS bowl at Utah.

Stoops- national title in year 2.

Petersen- BCS bowl win in year 1.

Malzahn- title appearance in year 1.

I think what we've seen out of Sark is all there is to him. His team this year really isn't that talented either. UW might have more talent than USC. A great coach can overcome sanctions, but there is no way Sark will.

I would say a B+. I agree that Haden came to the rescue, Scott might have been talking with Peterson prior, but that is speculation. Retaining the basketball coach is dumb, I thought he should have moved on that one two years ago. The stadium, getting Peterson, be willing to spend what it takes, and potential. He is young so I'm giving him some points for future potential. He has improved on the job. I can't think of any PAC 12 AD I would trade him for.

I love all the explanations of people's votes. (Sarcasm)

:-@