Cougar Sports Weekly On Utah Loss, Apple Cup 2011
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 22, 2011 10:21 AM PST
in 2011 WSU Football News
Email
PrintHere's a little bit of the most recent Cougar Sports Weekly newsletter, which included this main piece as well as a 2011 Apple Cup preview. Subscription info here.
I think there's folly in disregarding progress -- basing analysis and decisions off of the black-and-white proposition of wins and losses. A game can swing on any one of dozens of decisions by coaches, players, and even referees. For example, there are those who will vigorously argue that WSU did win the game, that Marquess Wilson was in the end zone, but that the officials on the spot blew the call. What if it's called a TD? Are you feeling different today? Of course you are, because winning is what it's all about.
Is that logical, though? I realize sports are sort of fundamentally illogical -- consider the very definition of the word "fanatic" -- but stay with me for a second. If you remove the referee's decision from the equation, you've got the same throw, the same catch and the same piles of mistakes that preceded them. It's perfectly logical to me that people are disappointed in the outcome, but it seems equally illogical to me that something as unpredictable and random as the whims of Pac-12 referees (especially because they are Pac-12 referees) are the catalyst for some people making sweeping conclusions about the state of the program. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.What if Jared Karstetter makes one more catch against UCLA -- specifically, the one he dropped in the end zone? What if, instead of hauling in that long, game-winning TD against Colorado, Marquess Wilson drops it? With a few good breaks, this team could be 6-5 and we're partying in the streets. With a bad one, it could be 3-8, and we're all but telling Wulff not to let the door hit him on the backside on the way out. This is the thin line between winning and losing that is the plight of a middling program.
It's this viewpoint, coming on the heels of a fun win the week before against Arizona State, that allowed me to walk out of Martin Stadium disappointed, but satisfied.
The newsletter also included a recap of the end of soccer's season, a look at where the basketball team stands after three games, a sweep around the Pac-12 and a summary of the week that was in WSU's non-revenue sports.
68 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I would say the coach's biggest job is putting the team into a position where the 'what-ifs' don't matter
when the what-ifs matter, you’re just making excuses for not getting your job done.
So Sabin didn't get his job done
Preparing for LSU? In any close game, the losing team is going to have what-ifs. And close games happen when teams are evenly matched.
by tclaus on Nov 22, 2011 11:56 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
i don't understand what Saban has to do with this.
you can chalk up one or two games to an abberation. WSU has a large enough sample size to have developed a pattern.
He was just the coach to came to mind in that he coached a team that lost close to closely matched oppenent
To illustrate the point that any close game is going to have what-ifs and no amount of coaching is going to change that.
by tclaus on Nov 22, 2011 2:13 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Saban also has a 53-12 W/L record. Historically, he’s getting the job done.
By contrast, the current power(s)-that-be have a 9-39 record, and however close, just lost another one. Historically, they’re not getting the job done.
Saban also lost to the undefeated #1 in OT with bad kicks. Wulff lost to then #40-something (RealTimeRPI) Utah in OT, and in 4 years has no Saban-like record at WSU to fall back on.
Did you ever really feel like the Saban thing was a valid contention?
by chipdouglas on Nov 22, 2011 12:18 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Please use titles.
It’s a thing here.
That aside, great first comment.
#CougHarmonyOnTwitter #teamnopants
by TiltingRight on Nov 22, 2011 1:45 PM PST up reply actions
I'll also be making the point at some point this week
That “historically” should have next to nothing to do with whether Wulff keeps his job.
What do you mean by "historically?"
Like, the last 4 years, or how WSU has performed as a program over it’s existence?
Streamin' and Threadin' and Shellin
That's what I figured you meant.
I agree that the programs current standing should have much, much more weight in the decision, but I don’t think his overall record should be ignored (not that I think you’re saying we should ignore it). The only reason I believe this is because of fan perception toward Wulff due to his record here.
If Moos decides that WSU has improved enough and the future is bright enough that Wulff deserves an extension, and then we go 5-7 next season and miss another bowl game with Wulff at the helm, everyone in the world that hasn’t already turned against Wulff will. On the flip side, if a new coach is hired and goes 5-7 and misses a bowl game, sure there will be vast disappointment in the fan base but nothing as bad as Wulff would get (fair or foul). Obviously a very tough decision for Moos either way. I’m looking forward to reading your thoughts “at some point this week.”
Streamin' and Threadin' and Shellin
The only reason his overall record should come into play
Is if Moos subscribes to a “poison well” theory with regards to Wulff.
I don't think the overall record should come into play at all
08 needs to be thrown out. The AD at the time bought off on the plan. Burning the house down to the foundation was part of the plan.
I might even toss out 09 due to the same reason.
10 and 11 records count. and 11 is the fourth year. If that makes sense.
At this point any time you post, and it’s NOT a picture of black pants, I get confused. - Kyle Rancourt
Right, I think that is pretty much the heart of what I was attempting to get at
Streamin' and Threadin' and Shellin
Putting 'historically' in quotations is part of the problem.
The current staff’s W/L record is not now, and never will be, contingent on your ability to put “historically” in quotations.
Does it bother any of the Wulff boosters—and I don’t say that derisively—that, even assuming an improbable win in the AC, Wulff & Co would have to win every game for the next two and a half years just to get back up to .500? We’re talking a national championship in Year 2, and 2-3 conference titles. Even if they could string together a few agreeable 8-4 seasons, we’re then talking 8 more years to get out of the hole, or 10-11 more total to match the downright mediocre records of Erickson or Price.
I know the Wulffians are as beat down as the rest of us at not being able to tout the “black and white” of a solid W/L record, but this aversion to the reality of a 9-39 record, and condescension/contempt for those of us who recognize (and harp on the fact) that the primary objective of contests such as football is to win—and yes, that’s even more important than improving for a half-decade or more—is grating.
Nope, doesn't bother me in the slightest.
As you state, the primary objective is to win. The first two years have absolutely no bearing on whether he can do that going forward, unless you’re convinced that the first two years are a true reflection of his coaching ability. Perhaps you are, in which case he should have just been fired after those two seasons. Maybe you advocated for that. I don’t know you, so I don’t know if that’s how you felt.
Put to you another way
If WSU wins the conference next year at, say, 10-2, do you care that he’ll still be 22 games under .500? What if he posts two 10-win seasons in a row? Do you really care, about the overall record? Or are you just ecstatic about the two great seasons?
I suspect it will be the latter. Which is why it’s silly to take the first two years into account unless, again, you’re just convinced that’s the coach he actually is — a conclusion that doesn’t really jive with what’s happened on the field this year.
After being so pissed off about the hire, I’ll bet all those Auburn fans were still really worried now about how many games Gene Chizik needed to win to get his career record up to .500 as they were on their way to the national championship …
Sorry for the multiple response
But I just wanted to clarify something: This isn’t about me being in or out of Wulff’s corner, by the way. This is about what the best way is to evaluate him going forward. If Moos decides that he didn’t show enough this year, I’m fine with that. I’m just pointing out that I think overall record is a silly criteria for evaluation at this point. It’s a sunk cost. And making decisions based on sunk costs is bad business.
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 23, 2011 7:08 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
You put way too much emphasis on the first part.
My argument applies to any coach that lost a close game.
Unless a team goes undefeated for eternity, there are going to be what ifs and no amount of coaching is going to change that.
by tclaus on Nov 22, 2011 3:22 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I know you've read the whole piece
But for the benefit of everyone who hasn’t, it does go on to make the point that “what-ifs” matter for everyone except the very top and the very bottom. Whether you want to acknowledge it is up to you.
disappointed but satisified with the "Thriller"
Having read this excerpt and the full article in Cougar Sports Weekly, I am amazed at how much Jeff’s sentiments leaving the stadium mirrored mine. My initial response was the disappointment that came with such a bitter defeat and the loss of bowl hopes. But, as leaving, I noticed the band was playing “Thriller” and I stopped to think about how it was only two years ago that all I wanted to see was at least one “Thriller” or meaningful fourth quarter (or second half for that matter). 2009 was only 2 years ago, we really have come a long way.
at this point last year, we were 2-9 playing the #1 schedule in the country
this year, we’re two games better playing the #42 schedule in the country.
the difference between this year and last year is Idaho State, UNLV and Colorado.
are we better than we were last year? Of course. But to pretend we’ve made this monumental jump when we’re still making the same dumb mistakes as last year and our defense is just as terrible is ridiculous. Let’s not be satisfied with baby steps in year four.
One could argue we were making baby steps from 1998-2000.
But like I said, I really do see where you’re coming from. I can’t fault anyone on either side of this.
so if this is our 2000, does that mean we're going to lose by seven touchdowns on Saturday?
i kid, i kid…
SHUT YOUR STUPID MOUTH, YOU!
#CougHarmonyOnTwitter #teamnopants
by TiltingRight on Nov 23, 2011 11:53 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Remind me...
Did we play last year with one QB or three?
Think we would have won any more games if Tuel were running the show and playing at a level at least equal to last year?
by All Cougar all the time on Nov 23, 2011 12:10 PM PST up reply actions
How many of those QBs play safety?
Our offense has rarely been the issue this year, but it has been the biggest source of excuses.
You didn't answer the question, though...
Do you think we would’ve won more games this year w/ Tuel as QB?
Or, maybe if you want to look at it another way and keep the YOY improvement in an apples to apples kind of perspective, how many wins do we get last year if we have the same kind of QB rotation that we had this year? How many more games do we get blown out of instead of having close losses?
by All Cougar all the time on Nov 23, 2011 1:03 PM PST up reply actions
i've said i think we win the UCLA and San Diego games with Tuel
we might not win the ASU game with Tuel, though.
I also happen to think it’s completely irrelevant. Injuries will likely happen next year and the year after that and the year after that and the year after that and the year after that
You were looking at YOY win/loss records
in order to make a case that improvement has been of the “baby step” variety.
Of course it’s relevant to look at the major elements of both seasons when you’re making that kind of comparison.
by All Cougar all the time on Nov 23, 2011 4:16 PM PST up reply actions
I'd give Wulff another year.
I’m seeing progress. Wins with three different quarterbacks. I’m excited to watch football again. That means he’s doing something right.
The problem with this is
you can’t just give him another year. You either fire him or give him an extension. No coach in the history of ever coaches out a lame duck final season.
So it’s not a matter of, “Well, he’s got one year left, let’s wait and see”, it’s a matter of do you want him around for 4 more years? Do you want to gamble and pay him to go away a year into a new deal? Or do you just want to cut bait and walk away now?
by Kyle Rancourt on Nov 22, 2011 12:50 PM PST up reply actions
I don't see it exactly like that
The thing is that if they bring Wulff back next season he starts out day 1 on the hot seat again. I don’t think someone on the hot seat would necessarily be a lame duck. If things start out bad, they should look to part ways with him sometime during the season and hire on a coach in time to not miss any recruiting just like AZ did this year.
You may be right. I have heard others that share your opinion. I am just saying that at this juncture, I don’t feel comfortable either extending him or firing him. I am 60% for keeping him and 40% for firing him. I think that next year I would feel more decisive.
by PullManiac on Nov 22, 2011 1:03 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I am with this guy
if you are right and Wulff has to be extended, why not give him a two year extension and see how it goes (like what Moos is doing with Daugherty, granted her coaching track record is way better then Wulff’s)
Attractive, Intelligent, Smart A**
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Nov 22, 2011 1:08 PM PST up reply actions
But he would be a lame duck
The issue is recruiting. It’s hard to walk into a kid’s living room and sell a kid on playing at WSU. It’s nearly impossible to do so when the coach’s contract is up after the next season.
Potential solution? Extend him but negotiate the living hell out of the buyout. It’s not like Wulff is in a position to turn down a mutli-year extension with a low buyout.
But Fractal
don’t you think that it is just as hard now to recruit with all the press and speculation that is out about him being fired? I don’t think that much will change.
The lack of an extension entering a final year...
is a serious “vote of no confidence.” It would be seen as the school biding time, looking for the next HC.
Even a one year extension (perhaps with school options for further years), would show recruits that they can expect two years with “their coach.” Not an insignificant impact. A two year extension means they spend most of their college career (or even their whole career if they declare early) with that coach.
Aim High - GO COUGS
by 89Coug in FL on Nov 22, 2011 1:50 PM PST up reply actions
A year off...
A one year extension means “their coach” is still there when they arrive on campus; a three year extension would get them to the declare early point.
Aim High - GO COUGS
by 89Coug in FL on Nov 22, 2011 1:54 PM PST up reply actions
Most of the kids currently committed
made their commitment when?
Assuming he’s brought back without an extension, with some nebulous “if the year progresses well we’ll give an extension” how many of those early commitments would you REALISTICALLY expect?
#CougHarmonyOnTwitter #teamnopants
by TiltingRight on Nov 22, 2011 1:50 PM PST up reply actions
I agree
extend him with little to no buy out
We will call him Zatara.....sounds fearsome....It means driftwood.
What does this do?
Kids are smart enough to know exactly what this means. If they’re not, the adults recruiting against WSU sure are.
Here’s the problem as it stands right now: WSU is already screwed for this recruiting year. I can tell you it just is. They’re having problems and facing tough questions about Wulff’s status, and that’s not going to change. Even with an extension, it’s not going to change — the added year or two or whatever doesn’t mean a thing unless he comes out and starts winning right away next year.
So with an extension, you’re still screwed through signing day and likely through the early recruiting periods this next year. The only way you get unscrewed is winning, which puts the fear of a coaching change to rest, so you’re gambling with that extension anyway.
I see where you are coming from
And I agree, but if they totally flop next year it won’t matter and the school will be one the hook for a buyout. If they win 6 or 7 games then kick in a bonus and put a normal buyout for the last two or three years. I think Wulff should be back but he has no leverage at all. If they are winning next year the recruiting will come.
Also I don’t follow recruiting as close as I should, but I thought they were getting decent commits?
We will call him Zatara.....sounds fearsome....It means driftwood.
This class has either 17 or 18 commits
depending on which service you cite. Leaving the quality of those recruits aside (honestly, we won’t know until they develop over the next few years anyway), that’s a pretty decent class considering the year’s not over.
Next year would look more like 07’s, where there were 3 commits in December, unless the team is absolutely tearing up the Pac leaving absolutely NO doubt about Wulff’s job.
This isn’t to advocate one way or the other, but if we assume the 2012 Cougs are a 6 or 7 win year where we’re up and down, recruiting could be horrid, even if most everyone were content enough to keep Wulff around. We’re then in the same position the following year.
#welcometomynightmare
#jumprightinthewatersfine
#yourewelcome
#CougHarmonyOnTwitter #teamnopants
by TiltingRight on Nov 22, 2011 8:26 PM PST up reply actions
Mike Stoops was under contract through 2013
two years beyond this one.
Wulff would be in his FINAL year. Most kids commit to the school, not the coach, but the coach is your lead salesman. If you know the guy you’re about to get a used car is SCHEDULED to be gone before you finish signing the paperwork, do you buy? (I say used because it implies a certain level of risk, and requirement for trust, not because WSU is a used car compared to other schools)
#CougHarmonyOnTwitter #teamnopants
by TiltingRight on Nov 22, 2011 1:58 PM PST up reply actions
Based on the number of commits that stay committed after the coach is fired
I’d say most do. But what do I know?
#CougHarmonyOnTwitter #teamnopants
by TiltingRight on Nov 22, 2011 3:49 PM PST up reply actions
I would point out Arizona.
Stoops was fired, and three verbals went “soft” out of 14. It’s not a done deal, obviously, but I’d say this is probably somewhere near par for the course. If a recruit makes a commitment in August (for example) over the next few weeks/months they make an emotional investment in the school, and are more likely to go there than not, even if the coach is replaced.
You could say that’s making a commitment to the coach, which morphs into love for the school, but it’s close enough to be the same thing in my mind.
#CougHarmonyOnTwitter #teamnopants
by TiltingRight on Nov 22, 2011 5:43 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think you understand what a lame duck is
it’s not a subjective term. It’s the final year of his contract. Without an extension, he’s a lame duck. There is no way to dispute this.
by Kyle Rancourt on Nov 22, 2011 4:40 PM PST up reply actions
He's a lame duck with the extension, too...
An extension doesn’t mean a damn thing when people know he’s still being evaluated.
Yeah I agree
but his response to my original lame duck comment was “I don’t think someone on the hot seat would necessarily be a lame duck.” He was suggesting that the term lame duck was a subjective thing. It’s not. It’s objective. This was basically all I was trying to get across.
by Kyle Rancourt on Nov 22, 2011 7:13 PM PST up reply actions
No coach in the history of ever coaches out a lame duck final season.
True since it is their final season. In the other hand, who said this is Wulff’s final season.
by well you win some and lose others on Nov 22, 2011 1:04 PM PST up reply actions
You're missing the point.
Next year is Wulff’s final year under contract. Without an extension, he will be brutalized on the recruiting trail at every stop by every coach for every player we’re in competition for. Whether it’s his ACTUAL last year or not.
#CougHarmonyOnTwitter #teamnopants
by TiltingRight on Nov 22, 2011 1:49 PM PST up reply actions
We have lots of time between the end of the last game and the signing day of that year.
Some of us are predicting a lame duck final season next year. How would we know? Are we expecting lower results of the next season? Are we to say the team is not going to change?
by well you win some and lose others on Nov 22, 2011 2:27 PM PST up reply actions
It WILL be a lame duck year, until it ISN'T.
It IS his last year under the current contract. He CAN NOT say he will be here as the coach when the prospective student steps foot on campus if he’s not given an extension. It’s not a matter of projecting one way or the other on the progress of next year’s team, it’s objective fact, that until he’s given an extension, next year IS his last year.
When the recruiting timeline is so compressed that we’re getting most of our commits before October, I just don’t see how that type of uncertainty does anything BUT hurt this staff’s ability to recruit.
#CougHarmonyOnTwitter #teamnopants
by TiltingRight on Nov 22, 2011 2:36 PM PST up reply actions
This is reply to the whole thread.
It would not be problem to extend Wulff’s contract. They will just put a small buyout clause and Wulff will agree to it. That way it doesn’t mess with recruiting. How many coaches have you seen get extended then get fired not to long after? It is sad, but it is an business. Recruits will not know his buyout clause so they will still committ. Also, I don’t know why everyone is afraid about the recruits because over 50% of people already complain about the recruiting, so in those people’s eyes it wouldn’t be impacted much. If Moos doesn’t feel he can make a big splash with a big named coach he will sign Wulff to a 3-4 year contract with a small buyout and keep his eyes open for the right coach if this program doesn’t continue in the right direction. The one things I will say about the recruiting is that they have done a good job at the QB position with Tuel, Halliday, Clements and Apocada.
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer anyway.
WSU is a public institution, so any buyout clause would become public information, though using that info on a recruit becomes more dicey and obscured. The hot seat talk would still be there.
WRT the quality of recruiting, I’ve never complained about the recruiting. Last year’s class was a little “meh” for me, but I wouldn’t characterize my attitude about it as a complaint. Recruiting is what got us into the mess we’ve observed the last 4 years, which is why I’m inordinately concerned about it.
#CougHarmonyOnTwitter #teamnopants
by TiltingRight on Nov 22, 2011 4:08 PM PST up reply actions
Just to be clear
I wasn’t saying you were complaining about recruiting, just a lot of other people have. I know it is public information, but it isn’t like recruits out of state are going to be looking into Wulff’s buyout clause (if he gets one with his extension). I don’t think a lot of coaches will be saying “don’t go to WSU because Wulff has a cheap buyout clause and he won’t be there”, plus most of our recruits aren’t players that other Pac12 programs are fighting for.
Don't disagree with anything here.
Like I said, it’s trickier using the contract against him with any extension, but, for example, you can tell a recruit, “he’s not as safe as that extension would make you think. There’s a low buyout so they can let him go for really cheap if they decide he’s not working out. It really wasn’t much of a commitment to him and his staff.” That’s much harder for an 18 year old to wrap his head around than “this is the last year he’s under contract. Until they announce an extension, this IS his last year coaching at WSU.”
#CougHarmonyOnTwitter #teamnopants
by TiltingRight on Nov 22, 2011 6:02 PM PST up reply actions
Well, of course...
no Pac12 coach would say these things….
either that or Pac12 coaches don’t want our recruits… whichever way you wanna run with that….
#CougHarmonyOnTwitter #teamnopants
by TiltingRight on Nov 22, 2011 8:06 PM PST up reply actions
That is a good perspective...
We are clearly a much better team…with more depth.
I was ready to have Wulff and staff fired after the OSU game, but I’ve now swung back to keeping him for another season.
You can certainly call me a “loser fan”, but I guess I just believe that he is so close to turning this thing around.
by westsidecougar1 on Nov 22, 2011 6:10 PM PST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on CougCenter
Related FanShots on CougCenter
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
