Elite Coaches of the BCS Era (1998-2014) and Year 2
USC the previous 3 years: 19-18
Carroll year 1: 6-6, 5th in P12, L in Las Vegas Bowl
Carroll year 2: 11-2, 1st in P12, W in Orange Bowl
Bob Stoops
Oklahoma the previous 3 years: 12-22
Stoops year 1: 7-5, 4th in B12, L in Independence Bowl
Stoops year 2: 13-0, 1st in B12, W in BCS NCG
Urban Meyer
Florida the previous 3 years: 23-14
Meyer year 1: 9-3, 3rd in SEC, W in Outback Bowl
Meyer year 2: 13-1, 1st in SEC, W in BCS NCG
Jim Tressel
Ohio State the previous 3 years: 25-11
Tressel year 1: 7-5, 3rd in B10, L in Outback Bowl
Tressel year 2: 14-0, 1st in B10, W in BCS NCG
Nick Saban
LSU the previous 3 years: 15-18
Saban year 1: 8-4, 3rd in SEC, W in Peach Bowl
Saban year 2: 10-3, 1st in SEC, W in Sugar Bowl
Nick Saban
Alabama the previous 3 years: 22-14
Saban year 1: 7-6, 6th in SEC, W in Independence Bowl
Saban year 2: 12-2, 1st in SEC, L in BCS NCG
Chip Kelly
Oregon the previous 3 years: 26-13
Kelly year 1: 10-3, 1st in P12, L in Rose Bowl
Kelly year 2: 13-1, 1st in P12, L in BCS NCG
Chris Petersen
Washington the previous 3 years: 22-16
Petersen year 1: 8-6, 6th in P12, L in Cactus Bowl
Petersen year 2: ???????????????
--------
So by looking at the elite coaches that entered a program during the BCS era, it takes a full season and offseason to start to yield success and show signs of greatness. If Petersen is who we hope he is -- then next year will tell us a lot.
Comments
-
Really cool stuff, but I personally don't see it happening this year. Well done on that research though, some great coaches there.
-
I also don't see it happening next year. The lines are a big question mark, especially on offense. As is QB. We could be really good in year 3, though.
-
I agree that we should see something this year. This doesn't necessarily mean winning big, but it should mean improvement (see: Jim Harbaugh).
-
Pete Pudwacker doesn't belong on this list. HTH.
-
I'm not as pessimistic as some. They may go 9-3. The only big losses were on the o line. I agree that 2016 should be the breakout yr.
-
It will take the Huskies about 25 years to dig themselves out of the cavernous hole they're in. Oregon stands in between them and the fertile recruiting ground of California. Why would a skilled recruit from California want to go the extra 350 or so miles to rainy ass Seattle and become part of a dreckfest when they can compete for the chance to get to the championship every year if they become a duck?
-
Our Hawaiian born NT says hello.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:I'm not as pessimistic as some. They may go 9-3. The only big losses were on the o line. I agree that 2016 should be the breakout yr.
-
Because they can?oregonblitzkrieg said:It will take the Huskies about 25 years to dig themselves out of the cavernous hole they're in. Oregon stands in between them and the fertile recruiting ground of California. Why would a skilled recruit from California want to go the extra 350 or so miles to rainy ass Seattle and become part of a dreckfest when they can compete for the chance to get to the championship every year if they become a duck?
-
Or because they're Buddah Baker dumb.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:
Because they can?oregonblitzkrieg said:It will take the Huskies about 25 years to dig themselves out of the cavernous hole they're in. Oregon stands in between them and the fertile recruiting ground of California. Why would a skilled recruit from California want to go the extra 350 or so miles to rainy ass Seattle and become part of a dreckfest when they can compete for the chance to get to the championship every year if they become a duck?
-
Ok?oregonblitzkrieg said:
Or because they're Buddah Baker dumb.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:
Because they can?oregonblitzkrieg said:It will take the Huskies about 25 years to dig themselves out of the cavernous hole they're in. Oregon stands in between them and the fertile recruiting ground of California. Why would a skilled recruit from California want to go the extra 350 or so miles to rainy ass Seattle and become part of a dreckfest when they can compete for the chance to get to the championship every year if they become a duck?
-
I think year 3 might be optimistic. We should be pretty good by then, but the program has a long way to go. We will get a better sense after the season.
I think when the QB, OL, and DL are upperclassmen is when it should happen. -
I might just be depressed from that experiment survey we are doing.RoadDawg55 said:I think year 3 might be optimistic. We should be pretty good by then, but the program has a long way to go. We will get a better sense after the season.
I think when the QB, OL, and DL are upperclassmen is when it should happen. -
The key next year will be less about the record and more about the eye test.
There will be a lot of question marks and who really knows what to think of what we'll see. I'm not necessarily thinking that we can't be better next year despite some of the losses as there are also a number of areas where we are losing guys where I just have a hard time believing that an offseason of getting coached up won't give comparable (or even better) performance.
The one thing that you have with all of those programs that have been put on that list (with Oregon being somewhat debatable of where you put them on this list), is that each of those programs are definitive blue blood programs. Washington has never been a blue blood program. They are a program that has the ability to perform at a blue blood level by taking comparable talent and using superior development and coaching to beat the blue bloods. Even though people like KJV and the LPT would lead you to believe that we've had great recruiting under Seven, the reality is that there are a boatload of holes in the recruiting (notably at the QB position). I really think that you're really looking at Years 3-4 for when the program under Petersen will take off.
That being said, those that claim that we didn't see progress this year are sorely mistaken. Oregon was Oregon ... and that was what it was. UCLA turned a bit with Kikaha's injury and being the week of Peters getting kicked off the team. It was a game where we got 2 scores down and never really were able to get back on track. If you look at the other games, everything was a 1 score game. Stanford was even in the 4th quarter with the game turning on the failed fake punt. ASU was a tie game in the 4th quarter and the 2-score margin came with the pick 6 with 2 minutes to go in the game. Arizona was a game we controlled and should have won. And even with the Okie Lite bowl game, we lost by 1 score. This was all in a season where you were transitioning with culture and hard arguably one of the worst starting QBs in the history of Husky Football.
The above paragraph is what we need to be looking into again next year. The ability to compete. The ability to put ourselves in position to win games. Narrowing the gap against us and the top teams in the conference. Whether that turns out to be 4, 5, 6, or 7 conference wins whatever. As TCU showed this year, if you have the right pieces in place, you can go from 4 wins to Top 3 in the nation. -
The difference here is that CP inherited the worst roster, by far, and he is at a historically just okay recruiting school (relative to SC Florida Ohio St and oklahoma). Save Oregon, those were all "blue-blood" iconic programs they always have a high level of talent.
I believe UW has the fewest returning starters in the Pac12 next year and they appear to have a major QB issue with a brand new OL and DL. That's not a recipe to make a turnaround like those guys listed above did. Carroll in year 2 had a 5th yr senior QB who would go on to win the Heisman.
I think CP will succeed, and retake the North from the ducks eventually, but breaking .500 in 2015 will be a solid effort given what he inherited. If he goes 8-4 or 9-3 I will be impressed. -
CHRIST. Really looking forward to exhibition season #12 in a row.
So fucking young.
Lather, rinse, repeat. -
Stop plagiarizing my shit fuckoBallSacked said:The difference here is that CP inherited the worst roster, by far, and he is at a historically just okay recruiting school (relative to SC Florida Ohio St and oklahoma). Save Oregon, those were all "blue-blood" iconic programs they always have a high level of talent.
I believe UW has the fewest returning starters in the Pac12 next year and they appear to have a major QB issue with a brand new OL and DL. That's not a recipe to make a turnaround like those guys listed above did. Carroll in year 2 had a 5th yr senior QB who would go on to win the Heisman.
I think CP will succeed, and retake the North from the ducks eventually, but breaking .500 in 2015 will be a solid effort given what he inherited. If he goes 8-4 or 9-3 I will be impressed. -
Teq,
LSU football was decidedly unremarkable before Saban got there and certainly wasn't blue blood. Ditto Oregon before Kelly. -
Fucking this. They've been young since 2003. Every god damn year most teams take a hit at a position group. It's not like they have bad talent. They didn't have bad talent in 2009 He had his transition year. While expecting a RB is asking a lot, expecting the team to gel isn't.TierbsHsotBoobs said:CHRIST. Really looking forward to exhibition season #12 in a row.
So fucking young.
Lather, rinse, repeat. -
Not sure if you were aware, but UW went 0-12 in '08.
Can't judge Peterman until '18, at LEAST -
Love is a battlefield.
-
Their track record historically is as strong as ours and their recruiting area is far stronger.Gladstone said:Teq,
LSU football was decidedly unremarkable before Saban got there and certainly wasn't blue blood. Ditto Oregon before Kelly.
Their historical problem has been more tied to terrible coaching hires during the 90s than it has been player talent. -
I would say not just young, but not very talented either.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Fucking this. They've been young since 2003. Every god damn year most teams take a hit at a position group. It's not like they have bad talent.They didn't have bad talent in 2009 He had his transition year. While expecting a RB is asking a lot, expecting the team to gel isn't.TierbsHsotBoobs said:CHRIST. Really looking forward to exhibition season #12 in a row.
So fucking young.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Miles is probably the best QB. Dwayne Washington the best RB. Pettis the best WR. Entirely new OL. No excuses, that's simply a shit sandwhich of talent to expect a 10 win season from. None of those guys start at half the teams in the Pac12. In Miles Case the over/under is probably 2.5.
Saban wouldn't get 10wins and a Rosebowl out of that group either.
-
Which players truly excite you next season? I'm not talking about young guys that could be good. There are a bunch of those, but who is a legitimate stud on the roster?
-
Offense: Washington (possibly), Perkins has a shot for a 60 catch 750 yard season with a competent QB, would like to see Daniels in a bigger roleRoadDawg55 said:Which players truly excite you next season? I'm not talking about young guys that could be good. There are a bunch of those, but who is a legitimate stud on the roster?
Defense: Mathis/Qualls, Feeney (can he get consistency - all PAC performer if he can), Budda, Sidney Jones
It's not a huge list. Will need a lot of players to flash and grow into next year. The key next year will be watching how many lumps this team takes and how they learn/grow from it. -
No TE in CFB last year had over 750yrds. And only 2 had 60 or more catches.
cbssports.com/collegefootball/stats/playersort/NCAAF/TE -
How many years to get back to purple and gold? Woody still sizzling recruits at the expense of donators with white lids or black lids or whatever he can think of that mean nothing to the last 100+ years. I know, who cares.
-
I don't see any way that he's not the #1 or #2 target on offense next year. He should get plenty of opportunities.BallSacked said:No TE in CFB last year had over 750yrds. And only 2 had 60 or more catches.
cbssports.com/collegefootball/stats/playersort/NCAAF/TE -
I like all the guys you listed to an extent.Tequilla said:
Offense: Washington (possibly), Perkins has a shot for a 60 catch 750 yard season with a competent QB, would like to see Daniels in a bigger roleRoadDawg55 said:Which players truly excite you next season? I'm not talking about young guys that could be good. There are a bunch of those, but who is a legitimate stud on the roster?
Defense: Mathis/Qualls, Feeney (can he get consistency - all PAC performer if he can), Budda, Sidney Jones
It's not a huge list. Will need a lot of players to flash and grow into next year. The key next year will be watching how many lumps this team takes and how they learn/grow from it.
Washington - Has potential, but also struggles to move the chains. In the Pac 12, there are a lot of backs I would rather have. Oregon - Tyner, Freeman ASU - Foster, probably Richard too UCLA - Perkins USC - Madden. I'm sure they have another too. A couple other are about equal like Wilson from Arizona. McCaffrey from Stanford is going to be good too, but he's kind of a hybrid WR/RB. Anyways, Washington is league average at best right now, but his big play ability is enticing.
Perkins - I like Perkins. He's not really a difference maker though. On a good offense, he's a solid complementary piece. Daniels has potential but hasn't done much to this point.
I will add Pettis to this list, but he fits the young guy who has flashed profile.
Mathis/Qualls - Both guys could be good, but they are unproven. They have flashed, but not against good teams. They have a lot to prove this season that they can handle being the guys on the DL. They are guys to keep an eye on, but nobody knows if they are good or merely average at this point.
Feeney - You nailed it with consistency. He hasn't shown that yet.
Budda - Love him and he should be a stud. He did get burned too often though.
Jones - Same as Budda. He needs to show he can do it as the #1 CB without a great pass rush.
Ross - Great kick returner. Maybe even the best in the country. He has the talent to be All Conference on either side of the ball.
New lines, an unproven and shitty QB, and very few potential all conference guys. The lines need time to mature, the QB likely will as well, and the other best players are mostly underclassmen or entering their first year as starters.
Petersen isn't going to work miracles. His teams at Boise were really, really good with a lot of talent. His entire DL that went to the NFL. The offense had Moore, Martin, Pettis, and Young.
Petersen has proven to know how to evaluate talent and run a disciplined program. The offensive genius label seems to be bullshit. He doesn't seem like the most flexible coach either. He's going to run his shit that he wants to run and run his program his way. We have all waited long enough, but this is going to take awhile. -
"Legit" point.BallSacked said:
I would say not just young, but not very talented either.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Fucking this. They've been young since 2003. Every god damn year most teams take a hit at a position group. It's not like they have bad talent.They didn't have bad talent in 2009 He had his transition year. While expecting a RB is asking a lot, expecting the team to gel isn't.TierbsHsotBoobs said:CHRIST. Really looking forward to exhibition season #12 in a row.
So fucking young.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Miles is probably the best QB. Dwayne Washington the best RB. Pettis the best WR. Entirely new OL. No excuses, that's simply a shit sandwhich of talent to expect a 10 win season from. None of those guys start at half the teams in the Pac12. In Miles Case the over/under is probably 2.5.
Saban wouldn't get 10wins and a Rosebowl out of that group either.
One of, or both of the young quarterbacks will be better than Miles.
As for running backs, I'm not sure. Gaskin might be good if they choose to play him.
I just am not resigned to a 6-6 or 7-5 season right now. -
Chip Kelly couldn't win the big one
