Washington settles for mediocrity

[dawgfan]

Ty Willingham will be officially announced as the new UW head coach tomorrow. I'm less than thrilled - we've settled for a coach that was just dumped by a Notre Dame program that has gone 56-40 (.583) over the last 8 years. By comparison the UW is 54-42 (.563) over that same span.

Sure hope this works out, but I'm not that optimistic that the UW will be challenging USC and Cal for the Pac-10 title on a regular basis under Ty...

[MrBug708]

Ty's a good coach and no offense, if you are the average UW fan, you don't deserve him

[dawgfan]

Ah yes, I should be happy with a guy that averages just over 6 wins per year and was just dumped by a down Notre Dame program.

We could've done better than Ty - Dan Hawkins, Mike Leach, Randy Edsall or combing the coordinator ranks for the next Jeff Tedford or Bob Stoops (Chuck Long, Brett Bielema, Randy Shannon, Bob Gregory, Jimbo Fisher). No, we settle for a guy who's greatest accomplishment was leading Stanford to the Rose Bowl. Never mind that Stanford was one of the weakest Pac-10 champions in a long time. Never mind that despite recruiting classes that regularly were ranked in the top-25 he struggled to win consistently (his Rose Bowl team was bookended by 3-8 and 5-6 seasons). Never mind that despite landing 2 top-rated QB prospects in Randy Fasani and Chris Lewis, neither one developed worth a crap. Never mind that he had the same winning percentage at Notre Dame as Bob Davie, yet nobody talks about what a great coaching prospect Davie is. Never mind that Stanford had absolutely no interest in bringing him back, unlike Oregon State who welcomed Mike Riley back with open arms.

What exactly makes Ty Willingham so great? Why should a school that has won a MNC in college football, that until this last year had gone 27 straight seasons without a losing record, that has been to the Rose Bowl in every decade from the 1920's onward should be happy with a coach that has proven to be only slightly better than average?

[MrBug708]

Where to start. At Stanford he's hands were tied with academics. He managed to win the PAC-10 with kids who needed a 3.8 and 1280's on their SAT's! How many kids go to UW with that kind of GPA? About 3 a class on the positive end? Randy Fasani was considered the Top QB at his position coming out of HS, this is true and he only led them to a Rose Bowl appearance. How many Rose Bowl's did John Elway go to at Stanford? *waits* Ya, not as many as that one appearance. Casey Paus was considered a Top 10 QB coming out of HS, so how come you aren't clamoring for him to be the next Cody Pickett or whoever you want? Lots of QB's don't end up very highly ranked. Coaching plays a heavy part into it but let's face it, some players just don't pan out. The skill players at UW should be much better then he had at Notre Dame without the out of touch alumni who want 12-0 seasons every year. Notre Dame sucked because of Bob Davie's pathetic recruiting, not Ty's ineptness to coach.

Face it though, coaches just didn't want to go to Washington. The glamor of the Seattle job just wasn't as great as everyone thought it should have been. I mean, when Boise State's coach is turning you down, you have bigger issues. Ty was the best coach that wanted to go to Washington. UW didn't settle for Ty, they are lucky he wanted to go to a team that finished with a crappy record.

[dawgfan]

Where to start. At Stanford he's hands were tied with academics. He managed to win the PAC-10 with kids who needed a 3.8 and 1280's on their SAT's!

Um, earth to MrBug708 - recruits don't need anywhere near that high of an academic resume to gain a football scholarship to Stanford. They need higher grades and test scores than other Pac-10 schools, but nowhere near that level. His hands were tied? Funny, but both Ty and his predecessors had top-25 recruiting classes at Stanford - his hands couldn't have been too tied.

I don't know how long you've been following recruiting, but I have been for several years and I can tell you that if any kid with good academics and a desire for a good education that is offered by Stanford is probably going to take it. Kids that both Washington and Stanford are going head-to-head for as often as not choose Stanford, so I fail to see how Stanford is at any serious disadvantage in recruiting when compared with the UW.

And you're not going to try and tell me it's harder to recruit at Notre Dame than at the UW are you?

Randy Fasani was considered the Top QB at his position coming out of HS, this is true and he only led them to a Rose Bowl appearance. How many Rose Bowl's did John Elway go to at Stanford? *waits* Ya, not as many as that one appearance.

Randy Fasani was considered by some to be the #1 QB prospect in the country when he was a H.S. Sr. He may have been the QB on Stanford's Rose Bowl team, but he was hardly the star he had been projected to become, whereas John Elway more than lived up to his potential. Oh, and you forgot Chris Lewis, another highly rated QB prospect that failed to develop in any meaningful way under Ty.

Casey Paus was considered a Top 10 QB coming out of HS, so how come you aren't clamoring for him to be the next Cody Pickett or whoever you want? Lots of QB's don't end up very highly ranked. Coaching plays a heavy part into it but let's face it, some players just don't pan out.

Funny you should bring up Casey Paus - the poor player development we've had at the UW recently is something we were hoping to get rid of, not continue.

The skill players at UW should be much better then he had at Notre Dame without the out of touch alumni who want 12-0 seasons every year. Notre Dame sucked because of Bob Davie's pathetic recruiting, not Ty's ineptness to coach.

You're kidding right? You seriously think the UW has better skill players right now than Notre Dame? Can I have some of what you're smoking please?

Ty was fired at Notre Dame because he didn't win enough, that is correct. And yes, many ND alumni have unrealistically high expectations, but Ty didn't need to go 12-0. What he needed to do was be better than 13-15 in his last 28 games after starting 9-0 with Bob Davie's recruits.

Oh, and Bob Davie's pathetic recruiting? He had higher ranked recruiting classes than Ty did at Notre Dame.

Face it though, coaches just didn't want to go to Washington. The glamor of the Seattle job just wasn't as great as everyone thought it should have been. I mean, when Boise State's coach is turning you down, you have bigger issues. Ty was the best coach that wanted to go to Washington. UW didn't settle for Ty, they are lucky he wanted to go to a team that finished with a crappy record.

Considering you don't live in the area and probably paid very little attention to the UW coaching search, I'll forgive you your ignorant, incorrect comments. Hawkins didn't turn down the UW - he was never contacted by the UW. He left his contract extension with Boise State sit on his desk a couple of days and made it clear that he was waiting for someone to call him, and when that didn't happen he signed his extension.

Of the 2 known candidates for the UW job - Ty Willingham and Tom O'Brien - I think O'Brien's record is more impressive. He rebuilt a Boston College program devastated by a bad gambling scandal, and after a couple of years of rebuilding he's had them winning as often as any coach has at BC. Other potential candidates included Joe Glenn at Wyoming, Randy Edsall at Conneticut, Pat Hill at Fresno State and Mike Leach at Texas Tech, all of whom I am more impressed with than Ty and all of whom would've taken the UW job if asked. Pretty much any coordinator around college football would've jumped at the chance to coach at UW regardless of our 1-10 record last year.

[Sharpieman]

dawgfan frankly you don't know what your talking about. Ty is a very good coach. Remember that he had only medicore teams at Stanford and still lead them to the Rose Bowl. Willingham is a very good coach and he's going to quickly prove you wrong.
BTW, MrBug is right, when did Washington become a high profile coaching job??

[MrBug708]

Which site would you like me to list? Real Dawg? Dawgman? Seattle Times? The Bootleg?

Um, earth to MrBug708 - recruits don't need anywhere near that high of an academic resume to gain a football scholarship to Stanford. They need higher grades and test scores than other Pac-10 schools, but nowhere near that level. His hands were tied? Funny, but both Ty and his predecessors had top-25 recruiting classes at Stanford - his hands couldn't have been too tied.

Actually they do. A few kids have been turned away with a 1200+ SAT score. UCLA and Stanford are the two lone schools in the PAC-10 who do not take the minimum academic requirements. UCLA doesn't take anyone lower then a 890 SAT score for athletes. USC also did, but once Pete Carroll took over, it went to the bottom to get kids like Darnell Bing and Manny Wright Jr in. The allure of playing for Stanford is quite wonderful for kids with those kind of grades and gives them an advantage no other school has.

Kids that both Washington and Stanford are going head-to-head for as often as not choose Stanford, so I fail to see how Stanford is at any serious disadvantage in recruiting when compared with the UW.

That's just it. I'd say 80% of football players probably wouldn't get into Stanford even with the lower requirements and that takes out a lot more kids you have that are recruitable. Plus Washington fights with WSU, Oregon, and OSU only for the Northwest kids with Boise State just trying to come in.

And you're not going to try and tell me it's harder to recruit at Notre Dame than at the UW are you?

Not harder, but way different. In the midwest, Notre Dame doesn't have a central recruiting grounds. They need to recruit the nation while UW can just stick to the West. You have 10 major schools in the West with Utah, Boise, and Colorado and to some degree, UNLV. In the area ND dwells in, they have the Big-11, Big-12, Big East, Conf USA, and the ACC and SEC just down south about 300 miles. Ya, I'd say the competition is quite a lot. Notre Dame also suceeded in it's history with the son's of steel workers who were generally Irish as well as had strong Catholic beliefs. They don't have that advantage either.

You're kidding right? You seriously think the UW has better skill players right now than Notre Dame? Can I have some of what you're smoking please?

UW has talent, they just have had bad coaching the last 5 years or so. EVen as a UCLA homer, Slick Rick wasn't taking you guys anywhere, he's teams get worse every year. But lets look at this team? Whose been the RB's for you guys? Were they ranked in the TOp 15 for their position? I mean, you talk about Chris Lewis and Randy Fasani sucking and yet, you also have talent. What about your QB's? Whose better on Notre Dame then UW's Charles Fredrick?

Ty was fired at Notre Dame because he didn't win enough, that is correct. And yes, many ND alumni have unrealistically high expectations, but Ty didn't need to go 12-0. What he needed to do was be better than 13-15 in his last 28 games after starting 9-0 with Bob Davie's recruits

If Davie's recruiting were so good, why did Ty need to start a freshmen QB last year? When ND goes 17-7 in the next 2 years is it because Weiss is such a great coach with crappy recruits? Or did Ty actually do a good job recruiting?

Considering you don't live in the area and probably paid very little attention to the UW coaching search, I'll forgive you your ignorant, incorrect comments. Hawkins didn't turn down the UW - he was never contacted by the UW. He left his contract extension with Boise State sit on his desk a couple of days and made it clear that he was waiting for someone to call him, and when that didn't happen he signed his extension.

That's funny, I didn't know you knew that I didn't pay attention to recruiting? I am very aware of players in the NW and regardless of Reese pimping the hoops program up there, I tend to follow dawgman and realdawg, as stated before. I know that Bellevue has a heck of a team right now and has two great prospects who are seniors and a top junior that's ready to break out. I read a lot of message boards, probably the same ones you read and hear all of the rumors.

Pretty much any coordinator around college football would've jumped at the chance to coach at UW regardless of our 1-10 record last year.

Why wouldn't a coordinator want to make the leap to a BCS conference team? Obviously if Tedford would take Cal, I'd imagine that another unknown would have taken UW. Look at UCLA. They went after Dorrell with mixed results. I'm sure you azre aware of him as he coached at UW as their OC back under the 2001 season. UCLA went after the unknown and the fans are unhappy.

Bottomline is that if you hire Joe Schmoe from Unknown U, you'd be pissed because they couldn't lure someone like Hawkins to your school.

[MrBug708]

dawgfan frankly you don't know what your talking about. Ty is a very good coach. Remember that he had only medicore teams at Stanford and still lead them to the Rose Bowl. Willingham is a very good coach and he's going to quickly prove you wrong.
BTW, MrBug is right, when did Washington become a high profile coaching job??

Washington IS a high profile job, but they are coming off a 1-10 season which they got burned on their last coordinator job they gave out. It was going to be a secure pick and Ty was fired a year too soon.

[dawgfan]

dawgfan frankly you don't know what your talking about.

Trust me, on this issue I would love to be proven wrong.

Ty is a very good coach. Remember that he had only medicore teams at Stanford and still lead them to the Rose Bowl. Willingham is a very good coach and he's going to quickly prove you wrong.

Really? He's a real good coach that was just fired by a mediocre Notre Dame program. If he's so good and did such a bang-up job at Stanford, how come they didn't give a 2nd thought to bringing him back? Those mediocre Stanford teams had a lot of top-25 recruiting classes, but for every 8-4 Rose Bowl year there was a 3-8 flop. He was just 44-36-1 at Stanford, a 54.9% winning percentage.

For comparison's sake, let's look at Jeff Tedford - he inherited a team that had gone 4-7, 3-8 and 1-10 prior to his arrival. He's since led them to 7-5, 8-6 and 10-1 records, an overall 25-12 mark (67.6%). That's a great coach.

BTW, MrBug is right, when did Washington become a high profile coaching job??

Washington is in the top-15 all-time in both wins and winning percentage. They are the 2nd most succesful team in the Pac-10 to USC. They've won a national championship and finished #2 and #3 in the last 20 years. Until this past season, they had gone 27 seasons without a losing record and in that span had been to 22 bowls including 7 Rose Bowls and 1 Orange Bowl. The fan base is big and supportive, with the UW leading the Pac-10 in attendence in all but 3 seasons since Husky Stadium was expanded in 1987.

Is the Washington job on par with Notre Dame, USC, Florida, Nebraska, Texas, etc? No, but it's just a notch down. Yeah, the 1-10 season we just had has knocked some of the lustre off the program, but it's still a very good job, and as Don James and Jim Owens before him have proven, the UW can compete with USC for Pac-10 dominance and national contention.

[Sharpieman]

Um, earth to MrBug708 - recruits don't need anywhere near that high of an academic resume to gain a football scholarship to Stanford.
Your absolutely wrong. I live in Palo Alto and actually know a good number of players on the football team. Almost all of these guys scored extremely well on their SAT's and they had ridiculously high gpa's. Not only that, but whenever recruiting season comes along, in media and the word on the street is that a lot of their targets don't have the academic record to be admitted to Stanford.

BTW, Chris Lewis had a great sophomore year, he didn't reach is potential in his Junior or Senior year, maybe it was because he peaked too early or maybe it was Ty's fault. However, under Ty, Stanford has always had capable to very good QB's. Randy Fasani was always underrated, he single handedly beat teams in some of the more memorable games at the farm.

Also, there has been a significant increase in Stanford players going to the NFL when Ty was coaching. Chad Huchinson, Kwame Harris, Tank Williams, Greg Comella, Kaillee Wong, Chris Draft, Teyo Johnson among others.

Also, lastly, one player no one would even think had the ability to go to the NFL. Troy Walters- the 5'7'' WR and KR/PR. Ty gave him a chance on the team because he was friends with Denny Green. Troy Walters development was directly contributed to Ty. Just ask anyone within the organization or Troy himself. Troy was a walk on who had a great career at Stanford. He probably caught a few touchdowns or ran back a few kicks for TD's against UW. I envy Washington right now. They now have a great coach. It just takes time for Ty to implant his system-time was something ND didn't give him. 2 more years and they would have been contending for the National Championship.

[Sharpieman]

The thing is, I shouldn't even be arguing this point right now. Just wait and see, thats all I have to say.

[ISiddiqui]

Washington is a high profile job? News to me.

[GrantDawg]

Washington is a high profile job? News to me.
Depends on what you mean by "high profile." It is not an "elite" program, but it is large school in a major conference who could/should be competitive yearly and even contend for a MNC under the right conditions. That is pretty high.

[clintl]

Washington was a high profile job when Don James was there. Not since then.

[dawgfan]

Actually they do. A few kids have been turned away with a 1200+ SAT score. UCLA and Stanford are the two lone schools in the PAC-10 who do not take the minimum academic requirements. UCLA doesn't take anyone lower then a 890 SAT score for athletes. USC also did, but once Pete Carroll took over, it went to the bottom to get kids like Darnell Bing and Manny Wright Jr in. The allure of playing for Stanford is quite wonderful for kids with those kind of grades and gives them an advantage no other school has.

OK, you're proving my point - Stanford doesn't have a real hard time recruiting. They are the real-life version of how to succeed in TCY - they are able to land many of the top student-athletes around the nation. Recruiting to Stanford wasn't Ty's problem - it was what he did with those recruits once they got there.

That's just it. I'd say 80% of football players probably wouldn't get into Stanford even with the lower requirements and that takes out a lot more kids you have that are recruitable. Plus Washington fights with WSU, Oregon, and OSU only for the Northwest kids with Boise State just trying to come in.

The bottom line is it's not much harder to recruit to Stanford than it is to Washington. Despite having higher academic requirements, Stanford is able to counter that with their outstanding academic reputation as well as their favorable location and weather.

Not harder, but way different. In the midwest, Notre Dame doesn't have a central recruiting grounds. They need to recruit the nation while UW can just stick to the West. You have 10 major schools in the West with Utah, Boise, and Colorado and to some degree, UNLV. In the area ND dwells in, they have the Big-11, Big-12, Big East, Conf USA, and the ACC and SEC just down south about 300 miles. Ya, I'd say the competition is quite a lot. Notre Dame also suceeded in it's history with the son's of steel workers who were generally Irish as well as had strong Catholic beliefs. They don't have that advantage either.

But Notre Dame still has tremendous recruiting advantages over Washington - the NBC contract is a big one, the built-in pipeline from Catholic H.S. all across the country - just like Washington often loses top students to Stanford, they also often lose top kids from Catholic schools to Notre Dame.

UW has talent, they just have had bad coaching the last 5 years or so. EVen as a UCLA homer, Slick Rick wasn't taking you guys anywhere, he's teams get worse every year. But lets look at this team? Whose been the RB's for you guys? Were they ranked in the TOp 15 for their position? I mean, you talk about Chris Lewis and Randy Fasani sucking and yet, you also have talent. What about your QB's? Whose better on Notre Dame then UW's Charles Fredrick?

Rhema McKnight is as good or better than Frederick, and in any case Frederick is graduating.

None of our RB's were top-15. Kenny James was well-thought-of, but he wasn't held in the same regard as Lorenzo Booker (or Reggie Bush the year after). Louis Rankin was a pretty good recruit, but not top-15 either.

The UW has some talent, no question - if Ty can either get the current QB situation sorted out or bring in a top JC guy, and if he can find enough healthy, decent CB's to play the Huskies could be a 6-win team next year.

If Davie's recruiting were so good, why did Ty need to start a freshmen QB last year? When ND goes 17-7 in the next 2 years is it because Weiss is such a great coach with crappy recruits? Or did Ty actually do a good job recruiting?

Ty's done a pretty good job of recruiting in the past, but his recruiting classes at Notre Dame weren't measuring up to Bob Davies. As to why Brady Quinn started last year, it's because Ty was bound and determined to run his west-coast offense at Notre Dame and he didn't feel the kids Davie had recruited could run that offense to his satisfaction, hence moving Carlyle Holiday to WR.

That's funny, I didn't know you knew that I didn't pay attention to recruiting? I am very aware of players in the NW and regardless of Reese pimping the hoops program up there, I tend to follow dawgman and realdawg, as stated before. I know that Bellevue has a heck of a team right now and has two great prospects who are seniors and a top junior that's ready to break out. I read a lot of message boards, probably the same ones you read and hear all of the rumors.

Well, if you were following the coaching search you'd know we never offered Dan Hawkins, so we weren't 'turned-down' by him. And if you follow recruiting, you should already know that Stanford has recruited quite well in the past and that Notre Dame's recruiting was slipping under Ty in comparison to Bob Davie.

Why wouldn't a coordinator want to make the leap to a BCS conference team? Obviously if Tedford would take Cal, I'd imagine that another unknown would have taken UW. Look at UCLA. They went after Dorrell with mixed results. I'm sure you azre aware of him as he coached at UW as their OC back under the 2001 season. UCLA went after the unknown and the fans are unhappy.

So you agree with me - we could've hired a good coordinator instead.

Bottomline is that if you hire Joe Schmoe from Unknown U, you'd be pissed because they couldn't lure someone like Hawkins to your school.

The fact of the matter is that after all the obvious candidates either stayed put or went elsewhere (Tedford, Meyer, Petrino) and it became clear that Jim Mora wasn't going to bolt on the Falcons in the middle of his first season there, there were no remaining candidates that had the Husky nation united in support for. Had we hired some hotshot coordinator there would've been some grumbling about how we didn't go for a guy like Hawkins or Hill or Glenn or Leach (or even Willingham or O'Brien). My whole point is that I'd rather the UW had rolled the dice trying to get the next Tedford than settle for Ty who's shown himself to be just slightly better than average.

[ISiddiqui]

I consider a high profile job to be one that many high-profile candidates to be interested in. Even though UW wanted Mora, that was a pipe dream. That's also why I consider Notre Dame not to be a high profile job anymore.

[dawgfan]

Your absolutely wrong. I live in Palo Alto and actually know a good number of players on the football team. Almost all of these guys scored extremely well on their SAT's and they had ridiculously high gpa's. Not only that, but whenever recruiting season comes along, in media and the word on the street is that a lot of their targets don't have the academic record to be admitted to Stanford.

BTW, Chris Lewis had a great sophomore year, he didn't reach is potential in his Junior or Senior year, maybe it was because he peaked too early or maybe it was Ty's fault. However, under Ty, Stanford has always had capable to very good QB's. Randy Fasani was always underrated, he single handedly beat teams in some of the more memorable games at the farm.

Also, there has been a significant increase in Stanford players going to the NFL when Ty was coaching. Chad Huchinson, Kwame Harris, Tank Williams, Greg Comella, Kaillee Wong, Chris Draft, Teyo Johnson among others.

Also, lastly, one player no one would even think had the ability to go to the NFL. Troy Walters- the 5'7'' WR and KR/PR. Ty gave him a chance on the team because he was friends with Denny Green. Troy Walters development was directly contributed to Ty. Just ask anyone within the organization or Troy himself. Troy was a walk on who had a great career at Stanford. He probably caught a few touchdowns or ran back a few kicks for TD's against UW. I envy Washington right now. They now have a great coach. It just takes time for Ty to implant his system-time was something ND didn't give him. 2 more years and they would have been contending for the National Championship.

So if Ty was so great, why didn't Stanford have any interest in re-hiring him?

Talent wasn't the big issue with Ty at Stanford - he recruited pretty well. The knock is that the results on the field didn't measure up to the talent he had on hand. All those NFL players he had there prove my point, as do the fact that neither Lewis nor Fasani live up to their reputations as H.S. recruits.

Why does it take Ty more time to implement and be successful with his system than Jeff Tedford or Bob Stoops? Maybe he's just not on their level, hmmm?

[dawgfan]

Washington was a high profile job when Don James was there. Not since then.

Not quite true - for all his faults, the UW job was 'high-profile' under Rick Neuheisel.

[MrBug708]

A few points since I'm not gonna go through and highlight every single reply to my statements.

1. Stanford has a recruiting advantage, yes. However, their advantage goes to a certain amount of kids, not the unlimited mosts schools get and not the low rung that other schools will take. As much as I would have loved to have gone to Stanford, even with the "lowered" requirements, I wouldn't be able to go there. I'm a typical middle class kid who very little football skill. NOw how do you expect a kid whose taken a football cirriculum program at a school and is eligble to play football and meet the requirements, get into Stanford? He won't succeed there. Most kids will not make it to Stanford.

2. Stanford has nice weather, about half the time, which is better then rain, all of the time, like in Seattle. But Washington can offer better boosters, a program where football is first, a recruiting area where they have every advantage, and superior facilities.

3. Do you really think that kids pick Notre Dame because it's a catholic school? Sure, there some that do. We'll even pick a High School. Do you really think that 1/3 of the kids that go there are even catholic? We all pretty much know that BYU is the most religious div 1 school and you don't need to be of LDS faith to go there, just abide by their rules. I'd be curious to see the religious background of the African American players on the team. You would probably be hard pressed to find any. Look at skydogs's former youth. I seriously doubt he's catholic.

3. You say Ty can't recruit yet in the same breath you say Rhema McKnight is quite good. He was the number 3 ranked WR who went to ND because of Ty. As for Brady Quinn, obviously he'll be better suited for the WCO, but why on earth would Ty sit someone who is better? You don't think he doesn't know he needs to win fast?

4. As for Dan Hawkins, my semantics were off. So there was no offer, but obviously there are overtures and boosters talking. Do you think ND offered Jon Gruden? No, they didn't, but he still said he wasn't interested. You don't need an official offer or even an interview to be turned down.

Ok, so it was a bit longer then I thought

[dawgfan]

1. Stanford has a recruiting advantage, yes. However, their advantage goes to a certain amount of kids, not the unlimited mosts schools get and not the low rung that other schools will take. As much as I would have loved to have gone to Stanford, even with the "lowered" requirements, I wouldn't be able to go there. I'm a typical middle class kid who very little football skill. NOw how do you expect a kid whose taken a football cirriculum program at a school and is eligble to play football and meet the requirements, get into Stanford? He won't succeed there. Most kids will not make it to Stanford.

I guess I'm not understanding your point. I'm saying that I don't think it's much harder (if at all harder) to recruit to Stanford compared to Washington. You seem to agree with me that Stanford's academic rep enables them to offer a certain recruiting advantage.

2. Stanford has nice weather, about half the time, which is better then rain, all of the time, like in Seattle. But Washington can offer better boosters, a program where football is first, a recruiting area where they have every advantage, and superior facilities.

Well, I hate to break the myth, but it doesn't rain here all the time - it's actually quite nice here in the Summer and early Fall.

Yes, Washington has more enthusiastic boosters, more of a focus on football success and superior facilities. But I still don't think we have a big advantage over Stanford in recruiting. We've lost quite a few guys out of this state to Stanford that the Huskies really wanted (Amon Gordon, Teyo Johnson, Bobby Dockter, David Beall are recent examples) and we have an even harder time competing with them for California recruits. Stanford's academic rep also ennables them to be much more of a national recruiting school than the UW.

When you consider all the pluses and minuses of each school, I just don't see Stanford being significantly harder to recruit to than Washington, if at all.

3. Do you really think that kids pick Notre Dame because it's a catholic school? Sure, there some that do. We'll even pick a High School. Do you really think that 1/3 of the kids that go there are even catholic? We all pretty much know that BYU is the most religious div 1 school and you don't need to be of LDS faith to go there, just abide by their rules. I'd be curious to see the religious background of the African American players on the team. You would probably be hard pressed to find any. Look at skydogs's former youth. I seriously doubt he's catholic.

Yeah, I do think if you're a catholic kid, especially one in a catholic H.S. you're probably going to at least consider Notre Dame. If you're a particularly devout catholic, they're probably at or near the top of your list. Add to that the fact that Notre Dame also carries a very strong academic reputation, they have their own network TV deal that puts them on national TV every game and they have the biggest nationwide network of boosters of any school in the country and you have a school that has a lot of recruiting advantages. Maybe not on the level of Texas, USC or the Florida schools, but certainly superior to the UW.

3. You say Ty can't recruit yet in the same breath you say Rhema McKnight is quite good. He was the number 3 ranked WR who went to ND because of Ty. As for Brady Quinn, obviously he'll be better suited for the WCO, but why on earth would Ty sit someone who is better? You don't think he doesn't know he needs to win fast?

I didn't actually say Ty can't recruit - he recruited pretty well at Stanford, and while his classes started to slide at Notre Dame, he started off quite well there.

My main issue with Ty is I don't think he does a great job of developing his players, and I don't think he accomplishes as much as he should given the talent level of his teams.

Regarding Quinn, I think Ty figured he'd get more than 3 years at Notre Dame and figured he had enough time to suffer through the growing pains of starting Brady Quinn. Had Ty instead not been so stubborn about installing the west-coast offense and started Carlyle Holliday he may well have won more than 5 games in 2003.

4. As for Dan Hawkins, my semantics were off. So there was no offer, but obviously there are overtures and boosters talking. Do you think ND offered Jon Gruden? No, they didn't, but he still said he wasn't interested. You don't need an official offer or even an interview to be turned down.

True enough - we'll never really know who the UW tried to contact informally. But I think it was fairly clear from Hawkins' statements prior to signing his extension with Boise that he was open to offers from other schools.

[mgadfly]

I'm happy that we got him. That aside, I can understand why someone from the east whose world extends from the Atlantic to the Rockies wouldn't think the UW job was high profile.

Also, Seattle doesn't get a whole lot of rain (compare it to other northern cities--like NY, and most years NY has more annual rainfall) but is overcast more often.

And as far as the winters go, I'd take Seattle's mild summers + mild winters over most of the countries extreme summers + extreme winters (I can't wait to move back to Seattle).

[Butter]

So if Ty was so great, why didn't Stanford have any interest in re-hiring him?

Because they can't afford him any more. Stanford's AD has said in public they need someone willing to accept a modest salary. (Modest being relative, of course) Willingham also expressed no desire to return to Stanford.

So, whether or not Willingham will work out at UW remains to be seen, but there's an explanation for that at least.

[scooper]

Ty didn't need to go 12-0. What he needed to do was be better than 13-15 in his last 28 games after starting 9-0 with Bob Davie's recruits.

Oh, and Bob Davie's pathetic recruiting? He had higher ranked recruiting classes than Ty did at Notre Dame.
This is in fact, true. And yes, he did bring in the likes of Rhema Mcknight, Brady Quinn, etc, but the offensive line and defensive side of the ball have been absolute failures recruiting-wise under Ty. Three O-linemen in his first two years doesn't produce much depth, especially considering at the point of his firing absolutely ZERO O-linemen counted among a dozen commits. The defensive line is no better.

[HornedFrog Purple]

First of all Ty Willingham who has a great first name, is not mediocre.

UW fans should be glad to have him. Why take a chance on coaches such as Meyer or Petrino and the like who have not led a big time (BCS in this case) program. At least Ty has that experience under his belt.

Add in the fact that Notre Dame under Ty were literally choir boys as far as anything bad going on with the program. That couldn't hurt UW in the least.

[scooper]

First of all Ty Willingham who has a great first name, is not mediocre.

UW fans should be glad to have him. Why take a chance on coaches such as Meyer or Petrino and the like who have not led a big time (BCS in this case) program. At least Ty has that experience under his belt.

Add in the fact that Notre Dame under Ty were literally choir boys as far as anything bad going on with the program. That couldn't hurt UW in the least.
Ty's biggest problem at ND was his staff. He had a predictable impatient OC and a few very lazy recruiters. He was asked after his second season to make changes and didn't. He was asked again after year three and didn't. He was fired.

Despite being happy to see change at ND, I like Ty. I want him to succeed and I think he can, but he is very stubborn and loyal. If he brings Deidrich, UW's screwed. If he opens a search and hires a new competant staff, I think he has the kind of leadership skills and genuine concern for his players that will bring talent to UW. Talent that will play for him and win. But first he really needs to clean his own house. If he doesn't, he will fail.