Canard pillow fight ...

salemcoog said:

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.

This post is half right.


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:

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.

This post is half right.


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.

topdawgnc said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

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:

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.

This post is half right.


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.

They have no standards.

He didn't want to fuck Condi right between the gap in her teef?