Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Options
Early Pete > Early Dabo
YellowSnow
Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 33,990
Dabo Year 3.5 (2011)
- 10 & 4 overall; 6- 2 in ACC
- 2nd place in ACC
- plungered in Orange Bowl 33- 70 by WVU
- #22 final ranking
Pete Year 3
-12 & 2 overall; 8- 1 in PAC;
- win conference title
- lose CFP semi-final by 17 pts to (soon to be) #2 Alabama
- #4 Final AP rank
2016 Washington > 2011 Climpson
Dabo is obviously an elite coach and has a Natty (after only 8 seasons for trying for crying out loud) in the trophy case, but Pete's early returns are objectively better. And I would argue Pete stepped into a harder "return a program to dominance" job than Dabo.
- 10 & 4 overall; 6- 2 in ACC
- 2nd place in ACC
- plungered in Orange Bowl 33- 70 by WVU
- #22 final ranking
Pete Year 3
-12 & 2 overall; 8- 1 in PAC;
- win conference title
- lose CFP semi-final by 17 pts to (soon to be) #2 Alabama
- #4 Final AP rank
2016 Washington > 2011 Climpson
Dabo is obviously an elite coach and has a Natty (after only 8 seasons for trying for crying out loud) in the trophy case, but Pete's early returns are objectively better. And I would argue Pete stepped into a harder "return a program to dominance" job than Dabo.
Comments
But still...
There are better comps for Pete than Dabo.
If it's a national championship, that's a slippery slope ... are we prepared to call coaches like Larry Coker or Gene Chizik elite because they won national championships?
This is how it's done, full on Electric Hulk Mega Doog style
1) Sustained Level of Success - e.g., Dabo's had 6 x 10 + win seasons in a row now and 5 straight bowl wins. 2 back to back title game appearances.
2) Raising a program of above its normal historical level of success - Dabo has done this at Clemson. Chip never won a NT but he took Oregon to a level they'd never dreamed of, and, I, for one don't seem them being able to return to.
3) Winning big time games against other "Elite" coaches and programs - Dabo took down Meyer and Saban in back to back games this year. Beat Stoops last year and almost knocked off Saban last year.
I think it's important to define what success looks like ...
Dabo's results speak for themselves ... for some reason I don't view him as elite (probably because he's got too much cheerleader in him) ... but again, hard to argue.
I do think Dabo benefits a lot from being in an area where there are a number of high end recruits ...
I do think Dabo benefits from South Carolina definitely being down, the SEC East generally being viewed as shit, the North Carolina schools not being in a spot where they lock down key recruits in the state, Virginia Tech in the last few years of Beamer struggling a bit creating some recruiting voids, Miami largely being down over the last 5-10 years opening up some areas of Florida, and Georgia Tech running an option program that targets a specific kind of player opening the door potentially to a handful of recruits out of Georgia that maybe they wouldn't have gotten 20 years ago. I definitely haven't studied it in full to determine how much of that is real or perception.
But in a lot of ways, Clemson has a lot of similar attributes to Washington from a football playing perspective. Usually when our high end has been achieved it has been due to having the right caliber coach in place with some kind of void being present in the PAC (right now the void is looking like UCLA). I think Clemson's in a similar position right now where they have the right coach for them and some significant voids around them allowing them to build themselves up.
One thing I think is also important to keep in mind is that the ACC as a whole is getting more and more competitive ... sneaky opinion alert is that I would say that the ACC may have been the best conference this year top to bottom. This will test Dabo going forward.
PAC12
USC
Washington
UCLA
Big 12
Oklahoma
Texas
Big 10
Ohio St
Michigan
Penn St
Michigan St
Wisconsin
SEC
Alabama
LSU
Florida
Georgia
Texas A&M
Auburn
Tennessee
ACC
Florida St
Notre Dame
Clemson
Miami
Virginia Tech
It's possible for some other programs to jump in from time to time, but at this point, these are the programs that I see as having some combination of the requisite size, support, recruiting capabilities, etc. to be National Championship caliber programs on a consistent basis. Toughest calls for me were leaving Georgia and Clemson off of being blue bloods as they have a lot of things going for them but they need a good amount to go right for them to be legit national championship caliber programs.
As shitty as they've been, and they have been butt stink shitty, they routinely throw first, second and third round guys into the NFL, and those guys blow the fuck up when they get there.
How is it that you can't perceive a scenario where THAT program, with all its history and accomplishment, can't consistently compete for a title, but Texas can???????? Texas has all the shit you listed, and has always had it, and look at them. Before 2005, nobody under the age of 40 knew that they had ever been good. And 2005 was 12 years ago and they haven't done shit since.
It ain't about the money dummy. Oregon has proven that. It ain't about the size of your stadium and how many asses are in the seats. Michigan has proven that. Nebraska has proven that.
It's about who you can recruit and who is coaching them. Alabama has proven that. USC has proven that. LSU has proven that. Florida State has proven that.
For the reasons you mentioned is why I have them on the list as one of the approx 20 programs where national championships aren't surprising ...
There are a lot of really good programs that I don't have on the list
There has been nothing consistent about Notre Dame since the late 80s.
Texas, putting them there is 100% on potential, and you know it, because there is simply nothing else to point to. And once you go there, Miami HAS to be included because of their history and because of who they can get in the door w/o even trying.
Of that list, if "consistent national player" is the standard, whatever the fuck that means, you really only have Alabama, LSU, Ohio State and, stretching a bit, Oklahoma and Florida State. That is it.
I actually don't mind these topics, but you bumble fucked this one with the stupid "blue blood" thing. It's not real. It doesn't translate on the field. It's a fan thing.
Texas always has the talent and resources ... when everything is working right with them they have as high of a ceiling as anybody.
Penn St has a very fertile recruiting ground and insane levels of support.
All 3 have had SIGNIFCANT periods of success throughout history ... their success is a question of not IF but WHEN ...
Miami had about a 20 year run from the early 80s through early 00s where they were at an elite level ... before that nothing and after that above average. I wouldn't claim that anybody that thinks Miami is a blue blood is insane ... but it's certainly very debatable.