Canard pillow fight ...
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
Comments
-
Not the case.topdawgnc said:I got to thinking.
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong. -
You lost me at 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a Power 5 school.
-
-
yeah well, Oregon had 9 players taken in the first 2 rounds. Boise State only had 8
9 > 8 Oregon wins again -
Your data must be flawed. Otherwise, 0regon should have done better against Boise on the field of play.
-
Only six of the current 16 NFL truck school alumni players are on the offensive side of the ball, Peterman's specialty. Next to none of them have posted meaningful stats this season.
50 of Peterman's wins at spud state holds a clipboard for Detroit. Your draft effect is also explicable by increased TV exposure drawing a greater quantity of marginal NFL talent to BSU as anything The Process can lay claim to. -
Canard, oh nevermind. I just realized I don't care enough.
-
This post is half right.topdawgnc said:I got to thinking.
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
You can't compare 1994-2006 BSU to 2007-2013 BSU. They were in the Big Sky and Big West until 2001.
If ya wanna go 2001-2006 then so be it.
The big thing is that Peterman had the HUGE advantage of recruiting the talented academic dumpster fires that couldn't get in to Pac 12 schools. His player development is good. But so is just about every other Pac 12 coaches'.
And As you mentioned, he only had 1-2 tough games to get ready for every year.
Koetter set the plate for Hawkins who served up a 37-3 program for Petersen.
Petersen took that and ran with 2 BCS wins.
But Petersen is just one of about 9 or 10 quality coaches in the Pac 12 now. Given the Dubs recent history, it will be an accomplishment to get consistently much more over the hump than Sark got.
You all hate to hear it but it's true.
Those that think Peterman is the ticket to the 2-4 Rose Bowl per decade years are in for disappointment.
It's equivalent to thinking the Cougs will now be auto-perennial 8-10 game winners every year because Mike Leach is the coach.
Things have changed dramatically in the years since both of our Rose bowl appearances. With the emergence of Oregon, Stanford and the recent resurgence of the Pac 12 South, it will be tough for either Washington schools to be REAL title contenders more than once per decade.
It's the new normal whether you like it or not. -
Let me understand you.salemcoog said:
This post is half right.topdawgnc said:I got to thinking.
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
You can't compare 1994-2006 BSU to 2007-2013 BSU. They were in the Big Sky and Big West until 2001.
If ya wanna go 2001-2006 then so be it.
The big thing is that Peterman had the HUGE advantage of recruiting the talented academic dumpster fires that couldn't get in to Pac 12 schools. His player development is good. But so is just about every other Pac 12 coaches'.
And As you mentioned, he only had 1-2 tough games to get ready for every year.
Koetter set the plate for Hawkins who served up a 37-3 program for Petersen.
Petersen took that and ran with 2 BCS wins.
But Petersen is just one of about 9 or 10 quality coaches in the Pac 12 now. Given the Dubs recent history, it will be an accomplishment to get consistently much more over the hump than Sark got.
You all hate to hear it but it's true.
Those that think Peterman is the ticket to the 2-4 Rose Bowl per decade years are in for disappointment.
It's equivalent to thinking the Cougs will now be auto-perennial 8-10 game winners every year because Mike Leach is the coach.
Things have changed dramatically in the years since both of our Rose bowl appearances. With the emergence of Oregon, Stanford and the recent resurgence of the Pac 12 South, it will be tough for either Washington schools to be REAL title contenders more than once per decade.
It's the new normal whether you like it or not.
Putting more first rounders in the NFL in Oregon over comparable periods ...
Academic dumpster fires ... those kids could only go to Boise State? Why couldn't they get into Wazzu? BSU has one of the highest academic ranks in the country ... so these kids suddenly learn ... that is great coaching too!
Mike Leach was a one eyed king in the land of the blind ...
You're dribble is nothing but sour grapes that your one eyed king sucks balls. -
disagreesalemcoog said:
This post is half right.topdawgnc said:I got to thinking.
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
You can't compare 1994-2006 BSU to 2007-2013 BSU. They were in the Big Sky and Big West until 2001.
If ya wanna go 2001-2006 then so be it.
The big thing is that Peterman had the HUGE advantage of recruiting the talented academic dumpster fires that couldn't get in to Pac 12 schools. His player development is good. But so is just about every other Pac 12 coaches'.
And As you mentioned, he only had 1-2 tough games to get ready for every year.
Koetter set the plate for Hawkins who served up a 37-3 program for Petersen.
Petersen took that and ran with 2 BCS wins.
But Petersen is just one of about 9 or 10 quality coaches in the Pac 12 now. Given the Dubs recent history, it will be an accomplishment to get consistently much more over the hump than Sark got.
You all hate to hear it but it's true.
Those that think Peterman is the ticket to the 2-4 Rose Bowl per decade years are in for disappointment.
It's equivalent to thinking the Cougs will now be auto-perennial 8-10 game winners every year because Mike Leach is the coach.
Things have changed dramatically in the years since both of our Rose bowl appearances. With the emergence of Oregon, Stanford and the recent resurgence of the Pac 12 South, it will be tough for either Washington schools to be REAL title contenders more than once per decade.
It's the new normal whether you like it or not.
-
salemcoog said:
This post is half right.topdawgnc said:I got to thinking.
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
You can't compare 1994-2006 BSU to 2007-2013 BSU. They were in the Big Sky and Big West until 2001.
If ya wanna go 2001-2006 then so be it.
The big thing is that Peterman had the HUGE advantage of recruiting the talented academic dumpster fires that couldn't get in to Pac 12 schools. His player development is good. But so is just about every other Pac 12 coaches'.
And As you mentioned, he only had 1-2 tough games to get ready for every year.
Koetter set the plate for Hawkins who served up a 37-3 program for Petersen.
Petersen took that and ran with 2 BCS wins.
But Petersen is just one of about 9 or 10 quality coaches in the Pac 12 now. Given the Dubs recent history, it will be an accomplishment to get consistently much more over the hump than Sark got.
You all hate to hear it but it's true.
Those that think Peterman is the ticket to the 2-4 Rose Bowl per decade years are in for disappointment.
It's equivalent to thinking the Cougs will now be auto-perennial 8-10 game winners every year because Mike Leach is the coach.
Things have changed dramatically in the years since both of our Rose bowl appearances. With the emergence of Oregon, Stanford and the recent resurgence of the Pac 12 South, it will be tough for either Washington schools to be REAL title contenders more than once per decade.
It's the new normal whether you like it or not.
Stanford is starting to fade and it's extremely hard to stay elite (say top ten) every year. See USC, LSU, OU, Ohio St, Florida for a few examples. There's more parity, but there's also opportunity. It's not as difficult as you make it out to be to go from good to really good or great with the right coach when there's money, resources etc.salemcoog said:
This post is half right.topdawgnc said:I got to thinking.
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
You can't compare 1994-2006 BSU to 2007-2013 BSU. They were in the Big Sky and Big West until 2001.
If ya wanna go 2001-2006 then so be it.
The big thing is that Peterman had the HUGE advantage of recruiting the talented academic dumpster fires that couldn't get in to Pac 12 schools. His player development is good. But so is just about every other Pac 12 coaches'.
And As you mentioned, he only had 1-2 tough games to get ready for every year.
Koetter set the plate for Hawkins who served up a 37-3 program for Petersen.
Petersen took that and ran with 2 BCS wins.
But Petersen is just one of about 9 or 10 quality coaches in the Pac 12 now. Given the Dubs recent history, it will be an accomplishment to get consistently much more over the hump than Sark got.
You all hate to hear it but it's true.
Those that think Peterman is the ticket to the 2-4 Rose Bowl per decade years are in for disappointment.
It's equivalent to thinking the Cougs will now be auto-perennial 8-10 game winners every year because Mike Leach is the coach.
Things have changed dramatically in the years since both of our Rose bowl appearances. With the emergence of Oregon, Stanford and the recent resurgence of the Pac 12 South, it will be tough for either Washington schools to be REAL title contenders more than once per decade.
It's the new normal whether you like it or not.
It's true that it's not 1986 when established programs could stockpile 120 kids and roll over the Cougs and Beavers with second stringers. -
Nice spouting of an incorrect myth as always.
BSU has the same admittance requirements as almost everyone else. Most schools use the NCAA minimums. The only exceptions in the Pac 12 are Stanford and (I think) UCLA.
Some schools are prime destinations for JC transfers because they offer a major that allows them to accept credits for dumb JC electives (usually PE classes). I haven't looked, but I don't believe BSU leaned heavily on JC recruiting.salemcoog said:
This post is half right.topdawgnc said:I got to thinking.
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
You can't compare 1994-2006 BSU to 2007-2013 BSU. They were in the Big Sky and Big West until 2001.
If ya wanna go 2001-2006 then so be it.
The big thing is that Peterman had the HUGE advantage of recruiting the talented academic dumpster fires that couldn't get in to Pac 12 schools. His player development is good. But so is just about every other Pac 12 coaches'.
And As you mentioned, he only had 1-2 tough games to get ready for every year.
Koetter set the plate for Hawkins who served up a 37-3 program for Petersen.
Petersen took that and ran with 2 BCS wins.
But Petersen is just one of about 9 or 10 quality coaches in the Pac 12 now. Given the Dubs recent history, it will be an accomplishment to get consistently much more over the hump than Sark got.
You all hate to hear it but it's true.
Those that think Peterman is the ticket to the 2-4 Rose Bowl per decade years are in for disappointment.
It's equivalent to thinking the Cougs will now be auto-perennial 8-10 game winners every year because Mike Leach is the coach.
Things have changed dramatically in the years since both of our Rose bowl appearances. With the emergence of Oregon, Stanford and the recent resurgence of the Pac 12 South, it will be tough for either Washington schools to be REAL title contenders more than once per decade.
It's the new normal whether you like it or not. -
Stanford offered Jameis Winston.chuck said:Nice spouting of an incorrect myth as always.
BSU has the same admittance requirements as almost everyone else. Most schools use the NCAA minimums. The only exceptions in the Pac 12 are Stanford and (I think) UCLA.
Some schools are prime destinations for JC transfers because they offer a major that allows them to accept credits for dumb JC electives (usually PE classes). I haven't looked, but I don't believe BSU leaned heavily on JC recruiting.salemcoog said:
This post is half right.topdawgnc said:I got to thinking.
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
You can't compare 1994-2006 BSU to 2007-2013 BSU. They were in the Big Sky and Big West until 2001.
If ya wanna go 2001-2006 then so be it.
The big thing is that Peterman had the HUGE advantage of recruiting the talented academic dumpster fires that couldn't get in to Pac 12 schools. His player development is good. But so is just about every other Pac 12 coaches'.
And As you mentioned, he only had 1-2 tough games to get ready for every year.
Koetter set the plate for Hawkins who served up a 37-3 program for Petersen.
Petersen took that and ran with 2 BCS wins.
But Petersen is just one of about 9 or 10 quality coaches in the Pac 12 now. Given the Dubs recent history, it will be an accomplishment to get consistently much more over the hump than Sark got.
You all hate to hear it but it's true.
Those that think Peterman is the ticket to the 2-4 Rose Bowl per decade years are in for disappointment.
It's equivalent to thinking the Cougs will now be auto-perennial 8-10 game winners every year because Mike Leach is the coach.
Things have changed dramatically in the years since both of our Rose bowl appearances. With the emergence of Oregon, Stanford and the recent resurgence of the Pac 12 South, it will be tough for either Washington schools to be REAL title contenders more than once per decade.
It's the new normal whether you like it or not.
They have no standards. -
He didn't want to fuck Condi right between the gap in her teef?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Stanford offered Jameis Winston.chuck said:Nice spouting of an incorrect myth as always.
BSU has the same admittance requirements as almost everyone else. Most schools use the NCAA minimums. The only exceptions in the Pac 12 are Stanford and (I think) UCLA.
Some schools are prime destinations for JC transfers because they offer a major that allows them to accept credits for dumb JC electives (usually PE classes). I haven't looked, but I don't believe BSU leaned heavily on JC recruiting.salemcoog said:
This post is half right.topdawgnc said:I got to thinking.
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
You can't compare 1994-2006 BSU to 2007-2013 BSU. They were in the Big Sky and Big West until 2001.
If ya wanna go 2001-2006 then so be it.
The big thing is that Peterman had the HUGE advantage of recruiting the talented academic dumpster fires that couldn't get in to Pac 12 schools. His player development is good. But so is just about every other Pac 12 coaches'.
And As you mentioned, he only had 1-2 tough games to get ready for every year.
Koetter set the plate for Hawkins who served up a 37-3 program for Petersen.
Petersen took that and ran with 2 BCS wins.
But Petersen is just one of about 9 or 10 quality coaches in the Pac 12 now. Given the Dubs recent history, it will be an accomplishment to get consistently much more over the hump than Sark got.
You all hate to hear it but it's true.
Those that think Peterman is the ticket to the 2-4 Rose Bowl per decade years are in for disappointment.
It's equivalent to thinking the Cougs will now be auto-perennial 8-10 game winners every year because Mike Leach is the coach.
Things have changed dramatically in the years since both of our Rose bowl appearances. With the emergence of Oregon, Stanford and the recent resurgence of the Pac 12 South, it will be tough for either Washington schools to be REAL title contenders more than once per decade.
It's the new normal whether you like it or not.
They have no standards. -
Da fuck? Does that sound like "right in the pussy" to you?topdawgnc said:
He didn't want to fuck Condi right between the gap in her teef?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Stanford offered Jameis Winston.chuck said:Nice spouting of an incorrect myth as always.
BSU has the same admittance requirements as almost everyone else. Most schools use the NCAA minimums. The only exceptions in the Pac 12 are Stanford and (I think) UCLA.
Some schools are prime destinations for JC transfers because they offer a major that allows them to accept credits for dumb JC electives (usually PE classes). I haven't looked, but I don't believe BSU leaned heavily on JC recruiting.salemcoog said:
This post is half right.topdawgnc said:I got to thinking.
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
You can't compare 1994-2006 BSU to 2007-2013 BSU. They were in the Big Sky and Big West until 2001.
If ya wanna go 2001-2006 then so be it.
The big thing is that Peterman had the HUGE advantage of recruiting the talented academic dumpster fires that couldn't get in to Pac 12 schools. His player development is good. But so is just about every other Pac 12 coaches'.
And As you mentioned, he only had 1-2 tough games to get ready for every year.
Koetter set the plate for Hawkins who served up a 37-3 program for Petersen.
Petersen took that and ran with 2 BCS wins.
But Petersen is just one of about 9 or 10 quality coaches in the Pac 12 now. Given the Dubs recent history, it will be an accomplishment to get consistently much more over the hump than Sark got.
You all hate to hear it but it's true.
Those that think Peterman is the ticket to the 2-4 Rose Bowl per decade years are in for disappointment.
It's equivalent to thinking the Cougs will now be auto-perennial 8-10 game winners every year because Mike Leach is the coach.
Things have changed dramatically in the years since both of our Rose bowl appearances. With the emergence of Oregon, Stanford and the recent resurgence of the Pac 12 South, it will be tough for either Washington schools to be REAL title contenders more than once per decade.
It's the new normal whether you like it or not.
They have no standards. -
Stanfud lowers standards for football players as they do for regular admits as part of their whole "we try to have a diverse student population" BS. Then again Winston had a 4.0 GPA. Put another way, classroom learning/skills do not translate nor predict intelligence in the real world. Fuck her where?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Stanford offered Jameis Winston.
They have no standards. -
Jameis' 4.0 <<< Jack Lockner's (I presume) 2.0WDWHA said:
Stanfud lowers standards for football players as they do for regular admits as part of their whole "we try to have a diverse student population" BS. Then again Winston had a 4.0 GPA. Put another way, classroom learning/skills do not translate nor predict intelligence in the real world. Fuck her where?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Stanford offered Jameis Winston.
They have no standards. -
If Jake and Jameis took an IQ test, I'm betting on Jameis. I'm not even kidding.
-
For both of them on the Wonderlic, the O/U is 5.RoadDawg55 said:If Jake and Jameis took an IQ test, I'm betting on Jameis. I'm not even kidding.
-
Wonderlic makes me giggle like a fucking baboon. Do baboons giggle?
-
TL; DR version: Stop living in the past.salemcoog said:
This post is half right.topdawgnc said:I got to thinking.
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
You can't compare 1994-2006 BSU to 2007-2013 BSU. They were in the Big Sky and Big West until 2001.
If ya wanna go 2001-2006 then so be it.
The big thing is that Peterman had the HUGE advantage of recruiting the talented academic dumpster fires that couldn't get in to Pac 12 schools. His player development is good. But so is just about every other Pac 12 coaches'.
And As you mentioned, he only had 1-2 tough games to get ready for every year.
Koetter set the plate for Hawkins who served up a 37-3 program for Petersen.
Petersen took that and ran with 2 BCS wins.
But Petersen is just one of about 9 or 10 quality coaches in the Pac 12 now. Given the Dubs recent history, it will be an accomplishment to get consistently much more over the hump than Sark got.
You all hate to hear it but it's true.
Those that think Peterman is the ticket to the 2-4 Rose Bowl per decade years are in for disappointment.
It's equivalent to thinking the Cougs will now be auto-perennial 8-10 game winners every year because Mike Leach is the coach.
Things have changed dramatically in the years since both of our Rose bowl appearances. With the emergence of Oregon, Stanford and the recent resurgence of the Pac 12 South, it will be tough for either Washington schools to be REAL title contenders more than once per decade.
It's the new normal whether you like it or not.
(they've been told this before, but they don't listen. well, some of them do, but most don't) -
topdawgnc said:
Let me understand you.salemcoog said:
This post is half right.topdawgnc said:I got to thinking.
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
You can't compare 1994-2006 BSU to 2007-2013 BSU. They were in the Big Sky and Big West until 2001.
If ya wanna go 2001-2006 then so be it.
The big thing is that Peterman had the HUGE advantage of recruiting the talented academic dumpster fires that couldn't get in to Pac 12 schools. His player development is good. But so is just about every other Pac 12 coaches'.
And As you mentioned, he only had 1-2 tough games to get ready for every year.
Koetter set the plate for Hawkins who served up a 37-3 program for Petersen.
Petersen took that and ran with 2 BCS wins.
But Petersen is just one of about 9 or 10 quality coaches in the Pac 12 now. Given the Dubs recent history, it will be an accomplishment to get consistently much more over the hump than Sark got.
You all hate to hear it but it's true.
Those that think Peterman is the ticket to the 2-4 Rose Bowl per decade years are in for disappointment.
It's equivalent to thinking the Cougs will now be auto-perennial 8-10 game winners every year because Mike Leach is the coach.
Things have changed dramatically in the years since both of our Rose bowl appearances. With the emergence of Oregon, Stanford and the recent resurgence of the Pac 12 South, it will be tough for either Washington schools to be REAL title contenders more than once per decade.
It's the new normal whether you like it or not.
Putting more first rounders in the NFL in Oregon over comparable periods ...
Academic dumpster fires ... those kids could only go to Boise State? Why couldn't they get into Wazzu? BSU has one of the highest academic ranks in the country ... so these kids suddenly learn ... that is great coaching too!
Mike Leach was a one eyed king in the land of the blind ...
You're dribble is nothing but sour grapes that your one eyed king sucks balls.
My post wasn't about sour grapes at all. It's reality. And if you really believe the gem you posted below... I can't help you.
BSU has one of the highest academic ranks in the country -
I was referring to the football team, but ...salemcoog said:topdawgnc said:
Let me understand you.salemcoog said:
This post is half right.topdawgnc said:I got to thinking.
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
You can't compare 1994-2006 BSU to 2007-2013 BSU. They were in the Big Sky and Big West until 2001.
If ya wanna go 2001-2006 then so be it.
The big thing is that Peterman had the HUGE advantage of recruiting the talented academic dumpster fires that couldn't get in to Pac 12 schools. His player development is good. But so is just about every other Pac 12 coaches'.
And As you mentioned, he only had 1-2 tough games to get ready for every year.
Koetter set the plate for Hawkins who served up a 37-3 program for Petersen.
Petersen took that and ran with 2 BCS wins.
But Petersen is just one of about 9 or 10 quality coaches in the Pac 12 now. Given the Dubs recent history, it will be an accomplishment to get consistently much more over the hump than Sark got.
You all hate to hear it but it's true.
Those that think Peterman is the ticket to the 2-4 Rose Bowl per decade years are in for disappointment.
It's equivalent to thinking the Cougs will now be auto-perennial 8-10 game winners every year because Mike Leach is the coach.
Things have changed dramatically in the years since both of our Rose bowl appearances. With the emergence of Oregon, Stanford and the recent resurgence of the Pac 12 South, it will be tough for either Washington schools to be REAL title contenders more than once per decade.
It's the new normal whether you like it or not.
Putting more first rounders in the NFL in Oregon over comparable periods ...
Academic dumpster fires ... those kids could only go to Boise State? Why couldn't they get into Wazzu? BSU has one of the highest academic ranks in the country ... so these kids suddenly learn ... that is great coaching too!
Mike Leach was a one eyed king in the land of the blind ...
You're dribble is nothing but sour grapes that your one eyed king sucks balls.
My post wasn't about sour grapes at all. It's reality. And if you really believe the gem you posted below... I can't help you.
BSU has one of the highest academic ranks in the country
Facts suck:
Top 63 very respectable. -
Christ.topdawgnc said:
I was referring to the football team, but ...salemcoog said:topdawgnc said:
Let me understand you.salemcoog said:
This post is half right.topdawgnc said:I got to thinking.
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
You can't compare 1994-2006 BSU to 2007-2013 BSU. They were in the Big Sky and Big West until 2001.
If ya wanna go 2001-2006 then so be it.
The big thing is that Peterman had the HUGE advantage of recruiting the talented academic dumpster fires that couldn't get in to Pac 12 schools. His player development is good. But so is just about every other Pac 12 coaches'.
And As you mentioned, he only had 1-2 tough games to get ready for every year.
Koetter set the plate for Hawkins who served up a 37-3 program for Petersen.
Petersen took that and ran with 2 BCS wins.
But Petersen is just one of about 9 or 10 quality coaches in the Pac 12 now. Given the Dubs recent history, it will be an accomplishment to get consistently much more over the hump than Sark got.
You all hate to hear it but it's true.
Those that think Peterman is the ticket to the 2-4 Rose Bowl per decade years are in for disappointment.
It's equivalent to thinking the Cougs will now be auto-perennial 8-10 game winners every year because Mike Leach is the coach.
Things have changed dramatically in the years since both of our Rose bowl appearances. With the emergence of Oregon, Stanford and the recent resurgence of the Pac 12 South, it will be tough for either Washington schools to be REAL title contenders more than once per decade.
It's the new normal whether you like it or not.
Putting more first rounders in the NFL in Oregon over comparable periods ...
Academic dumpster fires ... those kids could only go to Boise State? Why couldn't they get into Wazzu? BSU has one of the highest academic ranks in the country ... so these kids suddenly learn ... that is great coaching too!
Mike Leach was a one eyed king in the land of the blind ...
You're dribble is nothing but sour grapes that your one eyed king sucks balls.
My post wasn't about sour grapes at all. It's reality. And if you really believe the gem you posted below... I can't help you.
BSU has one of the highest academic ranks in the country
Facts suck:
Top 63 very respectable.
Reading is fundamental.
Your vaunted new Vandy of the west is rated #63...... regionally. -
But still.salemcoog said:
Christ.topdawgnc said:
I was referring to the football team, but ...salemcoog said:topdawgnc said:
Let me understand you.salemcoog said:
This post is half right.topdawgnc said:I got to thinking.
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
You can't compare 1994-2006 BSU to 2007-2013 BSU. They were in the Big Sky and Big West until 2001.
If ya wanna go 2001-2006 then so be it.
The big thing is that Peterman had the HUGE advantage of recruiting the talented academic dumpster fires that couldn't get in to Pac 12 schools. His player development is good. But so is just about every other Pac 12 coaches'.
And As you mentioned, he only had 1-2 tough games to get ready for every year.
Koetter set the plate for Hawkins who served up a 37-3 program for Petersen.
Petersen took that and ran with 2 BCS wins.
But Petersen is just one of about 9 or 10 quality coaches in the Pac 12 now. Given the Dubs recent history, it will be an accomplishment to get consistently much more over the hump than Sark got.
You all hate to hear it but it's true.
Those that think Peterman is the ticket to the 2-4 Rose Bowl per decade years are in for disappointment.
It's equivalent to thinking the Cougs will now be auto-perennial 8-10 game winners every year because Mike Leach is the coach.
Things have changed dramatically in the years since both of our Rose bowl appearances. With the emergence of Oregon, Stanford and the recent resurgence of the Pac 12 South, it will be tough for either Washington schools to be REAL title contenders more than once per decade.
It's the new normal whether you like it or not.
Putting more first rounders in the NFL in Oregon over comparable periods ...
Academic dumpster fires ... those kids could only go to Boise State? Why couldn't they get into Wazzu? BSU has one of the highest academic ranks in the country ... so these kids suddenly learn ... that is great coaching too!
Mike Leach was a one eyed king in the land of the blind ...
You're dribble is nothing but sour grapes that your one eyed king sucks balls.
My post wasn't about sour grapes at all. It's reality. And if you really believe the gem you posted below... I can't help you.
BSU has one of the highest academic ranks in the country
Facts suck:
Top 63 very respectable.
Reading is fundamental.
Your vaunted new Vandy of the west is rated #63...... regionally. -
Agree about Oregon, but disagree overall. Stanford is clearly on the demise and if fucking Utah can win in this league, any school can, seeing that they aren't a Pac12 south school in the sense of weather and commitment. Coaching is still the main ingredient, and both Washington schools have shown a willingness to go out and get the required coach. It's obviously easier said than done and both coaches might not pan out, but both schools are trying to win games and are tired of playing second fiddle to the Oregon schools. This is why OSU is afraid to fire Riley; they know they are a Wulff or Willingham away from being in this position.salemcoog said:
Things have changed dramatically in the years since both of our Rose bowl appearances. With the emergence of Oregon, Stanford and the recent resurgence of the Pac 12 South, it will be tough for either Washington schools to be REAL title contenders more than once per decade.topdawgnc said:I got to thinking.
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
It's the new normal whether you like it or not. -
Christ, you're out of your element topdoog.
-
haie said:
Agree about Oregon, but disagree overall. Stanford is clearly on the demise and if fucking Utah can win in this league, any school can, seeing that they aren't a Pac12 south school in the sense of weather and commitment. Coaching is still the main ingredient, and both Washington schools have shown a willingness to go out and get the required coach. It's obviously easier said than done and both coaches might not pan out, but both schools are trying to win games and are tired of playing second fiddle to the Oregon schools. This is why OSU is afraid to fire Riley; they know they are a Wulff or Willingham away from being in this position.salemcoog said:
Things have changed dramatically in the years since both of our Rose bowl appearances. With the emergence of Oregon, Stanford and the recent resurgence of the Pac 12 South, it will be tough for either Washington schools to be REAL title contenders more than once per decade.topdawgnc said:I got to thinking.
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
It's the new normal whether you like it or not.
Why would OSU fire Riley? -
-
I guess that's a matter of expectations. Beaver fans I talk to want more than what Riley is giving them, but that school is deathly afraid they will go the way of UW and Wazzu if they go for another coach and miss. They are afraid to fuck up *one* hire, and UW and Wazzu have already fucked up 3 and 2, respectively. So for me it's easy to look at the Washington schools and make a case that times have changed and they can't be successful. But shitty hires set your school back, and it's much harder to A) Get the right coach first andsalemcoog said:haie said:
Agree about Oregon, but disagree overall. Stanford is clearly on the demise and if fucking Utah can win in this league, any school can, seeing that they aren't a Pac12 south school in the sense of weather and commitment. Coaching is still the main ingredient, and both Washington schools have shown a willingness to go out and get the required coach. It's obviously easier said than done and both coaches might not pan out, but both schools are trying to win games and are tired of playing second fiddle to the Oregon schools. This is why OSU is afraid to fire Riley; they know they are a Wulff or Willingham away from being in this position.salemcoog said:
Things have changed dramatically in the years since both of our Rose bowl appearances. With the emergence of Oregon, Stanford and the recent resurgence of the Pac 12 South, it will be tough for either Washington schools to be REAL title contenders more than once per decade.topdawgnc said:I got to thinking.
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
It's the new normal whether you like it or not.
Why would OSU fire Riley?
Change the culture and personnel of the team into winners, than it is to fuck up once and go into a dark age.
I don't really buy the cold weather argument about the Washington schools; not saying your entire point was based on that though. The schools just need the right coaching to go along with their new facilities and either could be back to competing for the North. And regarding Oregon, yes they mouth fucked UW but they had a lot of guys returning this year just to win a championship, and they are still in jeopardy of not even making the playoffs. Many teams in the south are held back by mediocre coaching, and won't get much better, imo. Either WA schools could certainly come back into the fold.
