Rick Neuheisel's recruiting created the foundation for UCLA's success

The metrics show that Neuheisel is/was a terrible coach. At UCLA he went 81-49-65-71. Mora takes that to 30 and 6. No fucking way would UCLA be as good as they are with Mora.

Vanilla double post.

doogsinparadise said:

Rick's seven receiver class says otherwise.

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

HeretoBeatmyChest said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

HeretoBeatmyChest said:

The metrics show that Neuheisel is/was a terrible coach. At UCLA he went 81-49-65-71. Mora takes that to 30 and 6. No fucking way would UCLA be as good as they are with Mora.

How many Rose Bowls have the metrics won, smart guy?

The predictability of the metrics is stronger than that of anything else. He won 1 Rose Bowl. Big fucking deal. He took over 3 programs and they were all worse by the time he left.

Disagree completely on Colorado. UW was a push. UCLA...too lazy to check, but you're probably right.

Kinda sounds like Sark.

But with a Rose Bowl win.

HeretoBeatmyChest said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

HeretoBeatmyChest said:

The metrics show that Neuheisel is/was a terrible coach. At UCLA he went 81-49-65-71. Mora takes that to 30 and 6. No fucking way would UCLA be as good as they are with Mora.

How many Rose Bowls have the metrics won, smart guy?

The predictability of the metrics is stronger than that of anything else. He won 1 Rose Bowl. Big fucking deal. He took over 3 programs and they were all worse by the time he left.

Are you old enough to remember when Neu coached at CU (that's "Colorado").

Pop quiz: who took over when he left?

That proves Boob's point - look it up

"He won 1 Rose Bowl. Big fucking deal."

Whoa there.

Comprehensive list of acceptable metrics:























SCOREBOARD BABY!!!!!!!!!!!

doogsinparadise said:

dnc said:

HeretoBeatmyChest said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

HeretoBeatmyChest said:

The metrics show that Neuheisel is/was a terrible coach. At UCLA he went 81-49-65-71. Mora takes that to 30 and 6. No fucking way would UCLA be as good as they are with Mora.

How many Rose Bowls have the metrics won, smart guy?

The predictability of the metrics is stronger than that of anything else. He won 1 Rose Bowl. Big fucking deal. He took over 3 programs and they were all worse by the time he left.

UW's record his last year was better than it's record the year before he arrived. So obviously you're not using last season record to determine "worse by the time he left".

UCLA's record the year after he left was better than it's record the year before he arrived, so obviously you're not using the year after he left record to determine "worse by the time he left".

And if you're saying "the metrics" say his last team at UW was worse than Lambo's last team than "the metrics" you are using are wrong.

7-6 > 6-6 Is that what you're saying? I'll never understand the Rick defenders around here.

7-6 > 6-6
+56 point differential > -40 point differential
Sun Bowel > Oahu Classic

By any measurement 2002 was a better team than 1998.

More importantly Chest made the claim that everyone of Rick's teams was WORSE than what he took over, which is just not arguable in the case of UW. You could maybe argue it was equally mediocre (though I'd disagree), but there's no argument that it was worse.

doogsinparadise said:

Sark is better than Ty, everyone says so.

I was countering the claim that UW was worse when RN left than when he came. It wasn't.

hth

doogsinparadise said:

dnc said:

doogsinparadise said:

Sark is better than Ty, everyone says so.

I was countering the claim that UW was worse when RN left than when he came. It wasn't.

hth

Sounds pretty hypothetical, on the scoreboard they were 7-5 in Rick's first year, and 6-6, 1-11 under Gilby. What improvement?

Pay attention this time:

I pointed out that if you go by year before he arrived to final season he was there they didn't get worse at UW, or if you go by year before he arrived to first season after he was gone he didn't get worse at UCLA.

My point was that Chest's claim that all three programs got worse doesn't hold up no matter how you define "got worse".

But if you want to define a program's improvement/decline by the first year of RN to the first two years of the next coach than obviously UCLA improved greatly under Rick as they are much better after him than before he got there.

Again, the point is that no matter which measure you choose to define improvement/decline you can't argue that all three programs got worse. If Rick's responsible for the Gilby debacle than he's equally responsible for the Mora success. Which is a FS way of looking at it, but you're welcome to that viewpoint if you want it.

doogsinparadise said:

My point, which you seem to be missing, is that the degree of change under Rick was so minimal that it's silly to defend him.

I get your poont. You're looking at the micro view of his time at UW. I'm discussing the macro statement of his time at all three schools.

But on the micro level, UW is approaching 25 years with one Rose Bowel win. Shitting on the guy who got that for us makes no sense to me. He certainly wasn't a great coach. He's not "terrible" as Chest claimed, either.

The thread is about RN recruiting laying the foundation for Mora's success, not his winning a Rose Bowl at UW.

I pointed out that Rick's performance at UCLA was awful. He's by far the worst coach they've had in the modern era. Mora took a team that wasn't better than 49th in the previous four years to top 30 in one year and top 10 in two years. Mora deserves 95% of the credit or more. Dorrell had 4/6 teams in the top 30. Rick's best in four years was 49. So he did much worse than what he inherited.

At Colorado Rick inherited a team that went to 4 BCS bowls in the previous 6 years. Their SRS before he took over was 1,3,17,13,13,5. He went 9,7,38,28. They went 32,48 the two years after he left. Much worse after he left.

At UW, he was 36,8,35,31. He only had one top 30 team. Other than 1998 and 1985 UW was in the top 30 for a long time.

The 2000 Rose Bowl is the aberration in his entire record. We can hold him in high regard for winning the Rose Bowl and because his 4-year record was decent. It's a big deal to the view of UW fans. Our perception is altered by the fact that he followed Lambo and was followed by Gilby & Ty. Yet, the Rose Bowl does little to change his overall record.

The overall analysis shows that he's not a good coach. Exclude the Rose Bowl and he's a shitty coach. Subjectively, I don't view the 2000 Huskies as some underdog that performed well because of coaching. There was A LOT of talent on that team. Tui, Ward, Stevens, Triplett, Akbar were AA's or borderline AA's. The OL was the best in the country. The backfield was deep. The secondary was the best in the conference. It was a team that performed well in the big games- credit Rick there but sucked against teams it should have handled by 14-20 points.

As a UW fan I liked Rick a lot and the Rose Bowl was huge. Yet my overall view of him is he's a terrible coach.

HeretoBeatmyChest said:

The thread is about RN recruiting laying the foundation for Mora's success, not his winning a Rose Bowl at UW.

I pointed out that Rick's performance at UCLA was awful. He's by far the worst coach they've had in the modern era. Mora took a team that wasn't better than 49th in the previous four years to top 30 in one year and top 10 in two years. Mora deserves 95% of the credit or more. Dorrell had 4/6 teams in the top 30. Rick's best in four years was 49. So he did much worse than what he inherited.

At Colorado Rick inherited a team that went to 4 BCS bowls in the previous 6 years. Their SRS before he took over was 1,3,17,13,13,5. He went 9,7,38,28. They went 32,48 the two years after he left. Much worse after he left.

At UW, he was 36,8,35,31. He only had one top 30 team. Other than 1998 and 1985 UW was in the top 30 for a long time.

The 2000 Rose Bowl is the aberration in his entire record. We can hold him in high regard for winning the Rose Bowl and because his 4-year record was decent. It's a big deal to the view of UW fans. Our perception is altered by the fact that he followed Lambo and was followed by Gilby & Ty. Yet, the Rose Bowl does little to change his overall record.

The overall analysis shows that he's not a good coach. Exclude the Rose Bowl and he's a shitty coach. Subjectively, I don't view the 2000 Huskies as some underdog that performed well because of coaching. There was A LOT of talent on that team. Tui, Ward, Stevens, Triplett, Akbar were AA's or borderline AA's. The OL was the best in the country. The backfield was deep. The secondary was the best in the conference. It was a team that performed well in the big games- credit Rick there but sucked against teams it should have handled by 14-20 points.

As a UW fan I liked Rick a lot and the Rose Bowl was huge. Yet my overall view of him is he's a terrible coach.

You can't say Mora deserves 95% of the credit for what's happened at UCLA and simultaneously act like its Rick fault Colorado was 32, 48 after he left.

Rick shouldn't get credit for UCLA's success, but he damn sure should for UW's success.

Judge a coach by his record when he was at the school. Anything else and you end up moving the goalposts all over the place to fit your narrative like AuburnDawg.

RoadDawg55 said:

The coach of the current team is the one who should get the credit. Ron Zook doesn't get credit for Meyer's first title. Rick gets credit for the Rose Bowl, not Lambo. If Peterman wins 10+ this year, I'm sure as hell not giving Sark any credit. However, there is a big difference in coaching with Kevin Prince or Brehuit as your QB vs Brett Hundley. Hundley may be overrated by some, but Prince and Brehuit were basically Ronnie Fouch. UCLA made the correct call in firing Rick and Mora was a great hire, but I can't agree that Mora inherited nothing based on Rick's SRS rankings.

Well said