The Monday Morning Wash
So who exactly is responsible for Washington going 0-11 and seemingly on the road to a perfect 0-12 season? Tyrone Willingham seems to think he is only partly to blame and the blame must be shared with Gilbertson and Neuheisel.
You can make the honest point that once Barbara Hedges was hired the program started to slide downhill despite an early national championship during her tenure. Obviously she can take absolutely no credit since it was the final result of the machine that Don James and Mike Lude created at Washington.
The plan was never to completely destroy the football program because 85% of all athletic department funding is dependent on revenues from football. The ultimate plan was to make it answer directly to President William Gerberding who had grown jealous of it's arrogance, autonomy, and success.
Hedges not so secret agenda was to dismantle the machine over time and de-emphasize football. She made Jim Lambright's life a living hell, and he retaliated by showing her no respect as he tried to battle what nobody else was seeing, or willing to admit they were seeing. The truth was she was totally incompetent. She was just not de-emphasizing the program. Her inept management skills were unwittingly destroying it.
The firing of Lambright followed by the hiring of Neuhesiel is when the program truly headed in a new unstable direction. He won, he made things fun, but he also skirted the rules, lied, and publicly embarrassed the university enough that they finally decided to fire him. Even that firing was mishandled as he won a judgment against the NCAA and UW for around $5 million on the way out the door.
The hiring of Keith Gilbertson who never really wanted or was really suited for the job was her final fiasco. Insiders all knew it was a mistake. We all hoped for the best because everyone liked Gilby but an underachieving 6-6 season followed by a lame duck season such as this one sealed his fate under the new AD Todd Turner.
Turner was a much better administrator than Hedges. He balanced the books, got the program compliant, and fixed most of the things that were wrong in the department. What he also did was decide to change the culture of the athletic department. Losing was suddenly OK if you did it the right way. He had some sort of antiquated, Olympian, Vanderbiltonian ideal that he wanted to imprint on Washington athletics.
Turner brought in a man he admired in Ty Willingham to run the football program. He was well acquainted with Willingham and had bought his shtick earlier in his career when he tried to hire him at Vanderbilt. In Willingham Turner thought he had the perfect man to run the football program.
In reality he was an unmotivated coach on the downside of his career coming off a big pay check at Notre Dame who had lost most of his fire. He wasn't an aggressive recruiter even though he sold himself to Emmert and Woodward as one. He wasn't a hard worker preferring to spend his afternoons on the golf course rather than getting ready for his next opponent or on the road recruiting the next star player.
Willingham's philosophy was simple. He thought he was special enough that every kid in the country would knock on his door rather than it being the other way around. Some such as Chris Polk did but they were few and far between.
The writing for his failure was on the wall that first recruiting season when he decided to coach in an all star game in Hawaii, and stay late to golf rather than assemble a staff, and hit the road recruiting. The writing became indelible his second year when he whiffed on such in state recruits as UW legacy Taylor Mays, and Bellevue's Steve Schilling who went elsewhere because he waited for them rather than aggressively recruiting them.
I think four years is more than enough to turn around any college football program no matter what kind of shape it is in. I am not talking about winning a national championship or going to the Rose Bowl. I am just saying that after four years it is reasonable to expect that you would have a winning record when most of the players on the squad were the players you personally recruited and developed.
Willingham whiffed his first two years on the job as far as recruiting goes and that coupled with Jake Locker's broken thumb are the biggest reasons this team is 0-11 right now. Even without the loss of Locker it is hard to believe the team would have won more than 3-4 games this season.
Washington simply hasn't developed football players very well over the last 6-7 years. UW's players don't pass the eye test physically. They don't get better, they don't get stronger, and they haven't developed a winning attitude. Willingham has had four years to turn that around and the failure clearly belongs to him since he has had total control of the football program to this very day since he was hired.
Willingham right or wrong insisted on doing everything his way. The "W" on the helmet meant Willingham not Washington over the last four years. Perhaps the record books such have an asterisk to note that fact.
Willingham should take total responsibility for not getting it done because he had 100% control over the past four years. You can make a point like I did that everything was not rosy when he took over but what football program is when there is a coaching change? Whenever you take over a program chances are you are going to be in rebuilding mode even if it is Alabama, Notre Dame, or Michigan.
Willingham will go out the door in two weeks pointing fingers at everyone but himself for his failure at Washington. He needs to remember the old adage that when you point a finger at someone else there are four more pointing back at you.
0 recs |
24 comments
|
Comments
Where are the Willingham Boosters Now????
Well written…..
How many posters were saying 14-51 weeks ago that we were bowl bound this year?
Willingham didn’t have much of a problem pulling the wool over their eyes.
Switching defensive coaches didn’t help much.
I thought with a healthy Locker that we would finish 8th in the Conference with 3-4 wins but even the 4th year didn’t seem to motivate Willingham at all.
and I’ve no faith in Emmert to do any better than his choice of 4 years ago.
I am not sure Norm.
I tend to try to think positive every summer before camp begins.
I have to admit that I am beginning to think that they will screw with pooch on this hirin if they don’t end up with Mora. I don’t think they have an adequate plan b in place and they just might b in complete scramble mode at this point.
Only time will tell.
Boy I hope not John...
This hire will make or break the program for the next decade. I don’t think I can watch 10 more years of horrible football. The nice thing about this year is it is going to be pretty hard to screw this hire up. With Leach, Petersen. Whittingham, Kelly, Grahm & Christensen all seemingly still willing to listen to what UW has to offer I’d think anyone of those guys would be a solid hire (although I do like some more than others).
Gekko
will find some way to defend her fraudulent head coach.
He did it to himself….nothing to defend or excuse
I continue to find humor in this
… because the only argument that I have ever made on this forum regarding the head coach was that it did not make sense to fire him mid-season IF the guy we wanted to replace him was currently employed somewhere else.
I guess I have also tried to keep a more broad perspective on the failings of the program. I do get amused because there seems to be this blind belief that there are no other warts on the program other than the head coach. I was reminded of that today when I read the love-fests about the assistants. If Husky Nation believes that only the Head Coach stood between us and a decent season, then you are walking through life with blinders on fully unaware of a) how bad things got during Rick’s era and b) how many others share blame in this fiasco. After reading this post, I am heartened to see that JB has not failed to record this chronology of events.
I’ve tried to assess the situations as they’ve come up with an analytical mind and a strict adherence to the philosophy that things are never as good or bad as they may seem. I’ve advocated since last season that Ty had to find a new job .. BUT … after the decision was made, I became (and still am) of the mind that the best situation had to be spun out of the decision. I’ve yet to see or hear a reasonable argument (based on fact and not misguided emotion) that leads me to believe that mid-season changes ever work in college football. This has been reinforced by the fact that every coach that got fired mid-season was kept around to finish the season – so I’m not repentant for maintaining that point of view.
This is a good blog with good posters and I give thanks for the continuing source of amusement in what is otherwise a long and dreary season.
"Greed is Good."
So is Rudy.
For argument sake
Tell me you still don’t think keeping him for the rest of the season was a bad idea? Could things have turned out any worse?? I am positive that any of the assistant coaches could have beat Wazzu, they are that bad.
Here is your reasonable argument for mid season changes: Syracuse 24 – Notre Dame 23, the very first week after firing Robinson. Hhmm, don’t you think getting rid of him mid season would be better than LOSING TO THE COUGARS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Open your eyes, keeping him around for the rest of the year has backfired, it did ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
Yes, for sure..............
Another cowardly Emmert decision…….
Emmert
Let’s give Dr. Emmert a little slack. The final judgement on him will be THIS upcoming hire. Once he make the hire then we can endlessly debate his manangement of the football program.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
I like your optimism
… but I fail to see why you think that any of our assistants could have “sparked” a W. Oh yeah .. its the personality argument again. I love that one.
Unfortunately, you and I will never know the benefit of:
1) keeping your word in terms of attracting the next coach
2) keeping the kids out of trouble
3) keeping the kids going to class
4) keeping Ty in place to be the lightning rod for criticism
But, I’m going to bet that those benefits outweigh any benefit of having an assistant coaching the team. The argument is absurd, really. What is to stop these assistants that you place so much faith in from DOING THEIR JOB and coaching up their kids right now? Not much, as far as I can tell.
"Greed is Good."
So is Rudy.
I don't buy it
I don’t buy any of it Gecko. It is all a fairy tale.
by John Berkowitz on Nov 24, 2008 11:17 PM PST up reply actions
I know you don't -
we’ve been down this road and I don’t wish to rehash. We don’t agree – that is fine.
"Greed is Good."
So is Rudy.
Personality
Although I don’t care about the coaches personality from a fan stand point. I do care how they interact with players. Telling players to play football with out emotion??? Last time I checked emotion is a HUGE party of football.
John’s right, its a fairy tale
1 – Coaches know that it’s a put up, or shut up profession, win or get fired.
2 – Do you honestly think all of these guys are listening to Ty right now? Does he tuck them in at night? What’s he going to do, kick them off the team? The new coach could reinstate them just as fast. Anybody in the program can keep them out of trouble, not just the head coach. Why is it that Chris Tormey wouldn’t be able to enforce the disciplinary policies any differently than Ty can?????
3 – See #2
4 – It’s actually easier to critize him when he’s not there to give his side of the argument. If there is criticism, uhh it’s . . . Ty’s fault., by golly he wouldn’t be around to throw the players under the bus instead.
Wake up and smell the coffee, he’s doing more harm than he is doing good, it IS THAT SIMPLE!!!
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
I agree Lear...
This team would have been MUCH better off if Ty would have packed it up and went home. There are numerous examples of coaches that have left during the year and their team doing better without them. We aren’t the only ones that see threw the Ty mastique. Most of the players are well aware that he is full of hot air and will throw them under the bus at any point. That, I’m sure, isn’t what they signed up for when they came here. Now, they like us, are just waiting for this nightmare to get over and let the healing begin.
Then why wasn't he let go?
on top of that, why wasn’t Prince … or Fulmer … or Robinson (and, please, he was essentially fired long before their last game of the season) … or any other “hot seat” coach replaced mid season. What do ALL OF THOSE professionals who get paid to administer those programs know that you don’t? I’m just curious. I know someone is bound to bring up Dabo Sweeny. How’s that working out? The top ten team that was 3-3 when they fired Bowden is now 3-2 under Dabo with one more game in which they’ll be a clear underdog (by the way, two of those wins were against the two worst teams in the conference). 3-3 under Bowden and 3-3 under Dabo. Yeah, that move really restored them to “top 10 status”.
You know, the state of Washington could save a lot of money if we paid someone on this forum to run the athletic department rather than Woodward. But, hey, what do I know? It’s a fairy tale. You guys have all the answers and dwell in world of reality. I’m just glad I haven’t been banned.
BTW – I do enjoy this forum and wish you all Happy Thanksgiving.
"Greed is Good."
So is Rudy.
Is it just me . . .
or is there a growing trend to let coaches finish the year after they’ve been fired? It seems like programs are going that route far more often this year than any other year in the past. I’m betting it will be a trend that fades out rather quickly thanks to coaches like Willingham who would have been better off being shown the door immediately. Are there any other professions where you’d fire some one and let them finish a month, or a year? Just seems like you’d be asking for trouble.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
I can't speak about the other programs...
as I have no idea how bad things have gotten there. If it were just a case of a coach not winning enough then I can see letting the coach finish the year. What I do know is the situation here where it has become down right ugly. Ty isn’t winning AT ALL, people are hanging “Fire Ty Now” signs all over Husky Stadium, the majority of the players are tired of him, the assistant coaches have had enough of him and he has become a punching bag in the local media including the Husky home station….it’s time to go. They are going to go 0-12 with him here please tell all of us how it could have been worse with him gone?
It was a mistake not to fire Willingham last December and it was a mistake to keep him on the sidelines this year after the decision was made to fire him. In my opinion he is a cancer and needed to be cut out.
by John Berkowitz on Nov 27, 2008 7:09 AM PST up reply actions
As an outside observer who lives in the Seattle area
I’ve been pretty shocked at just how often Willingham, who supposedly preaches accountability, fails to take accountability for his own issues. I about fell out of my chair when I saw that quote about the state of the program when he took over. I mean, really? Four years later you’re still resting on that one?
I’ve come fully around to the ND way of thinking, that Willingham is just a fraud of a coach full of a ton of hot air. People think he’s this upstanding character guy because he uses lots of long words and sounds so matter of fact doing it, but there’s just so very little substance as a coach — never mind the fact that many of his long-winded speeches are pretty nonsensical anyway.
Your spot on Nuss...
I admit I fell for it for the first three years also. But after all the hype from the coaching staff and Ty about this years team and all the privacy they had to have over the summer saying “just wait and see” – they came out looking like a cold uncoached turd in game one this year at Oregon. They had eight months to prepare for it yet the team looked like they just met each other right before the game. = Pathetic.
great use of...
the word nonsensical. I love that word and its perfect for Ty. Everything he does is nonsensical.
Of course Nuss it isn’t like we are anti Coug here.
by John Berkowitz on Nov 27, 2008 7:10 AM PST up reply actions
judgment vs. settlement
First off, great post John. You’ve nailed the downfall of this once-proud program.
One minor quibble though, and it’s something that bugs me every time I see this error repeated (and it happens often): Rick Neuheisel did NOT win a judgment against the NCAA and the UW – he settled with them. This is a subtle but important distinction. Especially when you consider that the primary reason why the UW and the NCAA felt compelled to settle was due to revelations late in the trial that the NCAA attorneys had screwed-up big-time by not disclosing before the trial changes made to key NCAA bylaws that were being argued.
We won’t ever know whether, in the absence of that NCAA screw-up, a settlement still would’ve occurred (and if so, the amount and which side it would favor) or who would’ve prevailed had it gone to judgment. But it’s clear that the NCAA’s position, and by extension the UW’s, was severely compromised by the NCAA’s error and contributed greatly to the desire by both to reach a settlement with Neuheisel rather than risk a mistrial.
Kirk
You make a good point he did settle. The UW and the NCAA were beaten like a drum on this one. Settlements happen because they save costs on both sides once it is obvious that the case is going one way or another.
by John Berkowitz on Nov 24, 2008 10:38 PM PST reply actions

by 













