|
Post by showcase on Dec 29, 2004 17:23:10 GMT -5
Hoya82VA: If you caught every game in the last three years, then you must be quite a ND fan, because ND's stock had been dropping like a lead balloon for several years before that. I don't think anyone disagreed that Willingham was inheriting a cupboard that was quite a bit barer than those inherited or passed on by his predecessors.
Look, Willingham wasn't making anyone forget Holtz in his first three years, but then again, his record wasn't all that different than Holtz's was, and was better than Davie's: Holtz went 25-10, Davie 21-16, and Willingham 21-15. Or consider ND's record against ranked teams as a reliable measure of whether an ND coach is living up to his obligation to keep ND in the NCAA elite for football:
Holtz: 27-14-2 (8-6 first 3 seasons) Davie: 5-15-0 (3-8 first 3 seasons) Willingham: 7-8
I may be off a bit on those numbers, and Willingham wasn't making anyone forget Holtz, but few ever will. If Davie got 2 more years to make his case as Holtz's successor, shouldn't Willingham have been measured by the same standards and afforded the same opportunity? My opinion is that this firing was about ND politics rather than x's and o's. EVERY coach who isn't winning is a bad x's and o's coach in the mind of every fan taking in the game from the sideline; winning covers up all manner of tactical sins.
Ultimately, I think it can just as easily (and reasonably) be said that those who think ND was totally justified in firing Willingham will never be convinced otherwise. The passions (and, to be fair, the prejudices) regarding ND football generally run too deep.
All of the above notwithstanding, welcome to the board, and thanks for sharing your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Hoya82VA on Dec 29, 2004 23:04:49 GMT -5
I was just pointing out that many of those who criticize ND don't seem to have followed the program closely enough to make a fair assessment of Ty's performance. Holtz improved from year 1 to year 3, as did Ara and Dan Devine. The problem isn't that they fired Ty after 3; they should never have kept Davie or Faust for 5 years apiece.
It's not a fair comparison to compare Ty to Holtz or Davie on won-loss alone. You have to look at progress over the first three years and the individual games -- the team just quitting against Syracuse, the inexcusable losses to BYU and BC this year, the misuse of Julius Jones his senior year (oh, yeah, that lack of talent again!), and other huge coaching mistakes.
Further, Davie never racked up the number of blowout losses Ty did - nor did Davie have a recruiting class ranked outside the Top 25, as Ty did this past season (the first time in ND history). There are plenty of cold, hard facts that justify letting Ty go after 3 years, including the performance clauses in his contract - why agree to them if they can't be enforced if needed? Ty knew what he was getting into when he took the ND job, and he'll be okay. He's a fine man, and I wish him well.
One more thing-the "bare cupboard" argument doesn't hold water when Ty had his best season - his first - when the majority of ND players were recruited by Davie. The bottom line is, ND couldn't afford two more years of sliding under Ty. Had Ty followed Holtz, he'd probably would have gotten five. Ty and his family weren't happy in South Bend, showcase, and I think the mutual parting of the ways was in both parties' best interest.
My point about watching the games was simply to say that one's perspective on ND might vary depending on how closely one watched their progress game to game and season to season. That's all.
Thanks for the welcome!
|
|
|
Post by Hoya82VA on Dec 29, 2004 23:23:50 GMT -5
One other thing worth noting about Ty's dismissal that you may not know, and someone above referenced it - Ty's horrible OC, Bill Diedrick. Ty was told after the USC blowout this year that he had to let BD go or else. Ty refused to make any changes to his coaching staff (which Davie and Faust both did after their third seasons), and this was one of the many reasons he was canned.
When Washington hired TW, they stipulated he could not bring BD along as his OC. Guess what - Ty agreed!
Think he might have wanted to get fired by ND?
Showcase, in case you were wondering where my ND interest originates - 6 of my 9 siblings are ND grads, and I grew up watching the era of Ara and Dan Devine.
I enjoy GU sports a great deal and am happy my nephew is taking an interest in Hoya football. We'll be seeing quite a few games next season, I expect.
Thanks again for the exchange.
|
|
FormerHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,262
|
Post by FormerHoya on Dec 30, 2004 10:32:36 GMT -5
Welcome Hoya82VA. Thank you for your well thought out, and well expressed views on the Willingham firing. The final point I'd like to add is that if Willingham had come before Davie, Willingham would have had 5 years and Davie 3. Notre Dame just recognized that they could not have another 2 years on a downward trend.
Again, welcome, and it is nice to see someone posting on the Football Board again.
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Dec 30, 2004 13:41:02 GMT -5
Hoya82VA: I didn't mean to suggest that there was but one benchmark for coaching performance, or that Willingham's performance while at ND was above reproach. I simply pointed out that Willingham compares favorably with his immediate predecessors at the same stage of their tenures in the category that should matter most. While there are other considerations, the # of blowout losses is a bit of an odd statistical category to add to data pool. Why not count the number of blowout wins, or the number of Gold victories in the Blue and Gold Game, or the number of victories on Sundays in July? Also, based on personal experience, I take the rankings of recruiting classes with as large a helping of salt as possible, given that their predicated on the already highly subjective rankings of individual recruits. Finally, I doubt that Willingham wanted to leave ND so badly he forced ND to fire him; from the sound of things, if he'd wanted to go, the powers that be would have been only too happy to have helped him go. Just having contractual "outs" doesn't mean that its wise or fair for the employer to exercise them. Re: the "barer cupboard" point -- for what it's worth, I said it was "barer," not completely bare. And pointing out that Willingham went 10-2 with mostly Davie's recruits cuts against the argument that he was a dubious x's and o's coach, since Davie himself only had 5-6 record with most of those same kids. Rather than getting side-tracked in tit-for-tat, however, I should reiterate my main point, which is that there's always something to gripe about in a coach's resume. I mean, heck, didn't ND's seven-bowl-game losing streak begin under Holtz? Finally, thanks for all the non-football details about Willingham. Personally, I think they actually underscore my opinion that his firing was about politics and pressure from boosters rather than football, although Willingham's failure to be Parsegian (or Rockne, or Holtz, or Devine) incarnate certainly provided all the encouragement they needed. For what it's worth, I rail against Willingham's firing not just because I happen to dislike ND, but because I believe ND fired a coach whose final grade after three years was no worse than "Incomplete." I mean, if Wise does worse in his second year than his first, shouldn't he should be shown the door too? After all, if ND can't afford 2 more years of decline now, it certainly won't be able to run that risk 2 years down the road. Basically, the justifications offered here and elsewhere for Willingham's firing are such that Wise HAS to be Holtz incarnate. I wish him luck. The final point I'd like to add is that if Willingham had come before Davie, Willingham would have had 5 years and Davie 3. Notre Dame just recognized that they could not have another 2 years on a downward trend. Do you have anything other than your opinion to back this fine bit of rationalization up? As I pointed out before, under the "ND couldn't continue on a downward trend for two more years" logic as the deciding factor, Wise is cooked if there's even a HINT of failure in his first two years. Nor is it an answer to the charge that ND failed to give Willingham an adequate opportunity to acquit himself. It amounts to holding Willingham responsible for the AD's mistake in hiring Davie in the first place. What kind of justification is that?
|
|
|
Post by Hoya82VA on Dec 30, 2004 14:01:13 GMT -5
Showcase, Willingham was given an adequate opportunity to prove himself. His recruiting class this year was the worst in Notre Dame history. He made coaching mistake after coaching mistake over the past three years, and unlike Davie and Faust, refused to make any changes to his coaching staff when asked when it was clear at least two - Bill Diedrick and Buzz Preston - were incompetent.
There was ZERO evidence to show that there would be any improvement over the next two years and ample evidence things would worsen. Also, I don't understand the hangup over five years when there were performance clauses in the contract. Why have them if you get five years no matter how bad you are?
Nobody was going to give Notre Dame nobility points for keeping a worse than mediocre coach for two more years. The same folks who were laughing over ND's decline are the ones who are criticizing them for putting an end to the failure that Ty's regime is and was. It's an amazing double standard.
By the way, are you upset that Ron Zook got fired after 2 1/2 years? What about Dave Cutcliffe? Where's your outrage over those firings? Why isn't Notre Dame allowed to expect that its football coach can actually coach and win ball games?
Can you show me where you saw any sign in ND's performance over the last three years that demonstrated Ty would do better over the next two years? I wish you luck in finding any.
BTW, Holtz won a national championship in year three. And yes, if Weis does no better than Ty in three years, he should go, too. A white coach who did what Ty did over the last three years would've also been fired, no question.
This wasn't about politics; it was solely about Ty's performance. I never ever want to see an ND team quit the way Ty's did against Syracuse - in all the years I've watched ND football, I never saw an ND team do that. That alone is enough reason to justify his firing.
PS Aside from feelings of pride, I suspect Ty wouldn't resign in part because of how his contract was written in terms of what he would be paid by ND. There's no other explanation for his hanging on to a crummy OC at ND and then not taking that same OC with him to Washington. Maybe loyalty only goes so far.
|
|
|
Post by Hoya82VA on Dec 30, 2004 14:30:27 GMT -5
Former, thanks for your comments - I expect I'm one of the few women graduates of Georgetown who has this in-depth knowledge of ND football, but I'll proudly hold this spot!
Hope to see you all at future Hoya fb and hoops games!
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Dec 30, 2004 15:18:38 GMT -5
By the way, are you upset that Ron Zook got fired after 2 1/2 years? Yup -- I think that sacking was just as transparent and silly as Willingham's. "Ohmigosh - our guy might not be the quick fix; maybe there's someone better out there...?" On the other hand, I have to confess that I don't take the same guilty pleasure in watching Florida shoot itself in the foot over the long term. After all, if you've only got two or three years to prove you're a lengendary coach in the making, not too many quality coaches are going to want that job. Maybe I'm wrong about Zook, but I suspect that if given the opportunity, he'll do fine with the Illini. Let me expose my ignorance by saying I have no idea who he is or where he coached. However, unless he was worse than ND's own Kuharich, he probably deserved at least 4 years to make or break his name too. Honestly, off the top of my head, I cannot, other than his upsets of my beloved Wolverines and Tennessee this season, and the fact that he had a 10-2 record in his first year. Is a coach to be fired anytime his record suggests a possible downward trend? Even if that 'trend' is just three years, and contains roughly as much 'up' as it does 'down'? I understand that as an ardent fan, your position grows from your own impression of how the team performs, and I respect that. My objections here are based on the general principle that, absent obvious circumstances, a coach cannot fairly or adequately be measured until he's had a chance to make his bed and lie in it. By all accounts, that takes 4 years, whether it's Zook at Florida, Willingham at ND, or whatshisface at whereeverhewas. I honestly respect your consistency on this point. We'll just have to disagree on that, and I think there's plenty on which each of us can rest. Not having seen the game, I'll defer comment. Or maybe Washington couldn't offer the OC as much as he was making at ND. Or maybe his family didn't want to move. Or maybe the OC was burned out after how he was treated by the ND faithful. Or maybe you're correct. I doubt we'll definitively resolve the matter on this board, however, so I'll close by thanking you for your contribution and wishing you and yours a very happy New Year.
|
|
|
Post by Hoya82VA on Dec 30, 2004 16:53:09 GMT -5
Michigan was the only legitimate big upset this season - ND only beat Tennessee because Tenn's starting qb was hurt in the first half; ND beat a third-string qb in that one. See what I mean re individual games? On Diedrick, my understanding is that UW stipulated he could not come with TW, and Willingham agreed to that.
Happy New Year to you and yours as well and thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by NickHoya215 on Jan 3, 2005 21:09:52 GMT -5
I heard that Willingham was arrogant and couldn't recruit at ND or Stanford. Granted that both are top notch schools but to say he couldn't recruit at Notre Dame shows how they have fallen and want to brush it off likes it nothing. Besides being a Die Hard Georgetown fan i'm also Michigan State and Michigan fan (I know it sounds weird but my dad went to both) and i hate ND so to see it crumble would make me happy
|
|
|
Post by Hoya82VA on Jan 3, 2005 21:31:00 GMT -5
That's too bad, Nick - I would think a true fb fan wants their opponents to be competitive. I feel that way re Michigan and Michigan State and in fact, about all of ND's opponents. Blowouts aren't fun to watch.
I don't think Ty not being able to recruit at ND shows "how far they have fallen" - yeah, look how awful Julius Jones and David Givens are - but shows that Ty wasn't all that committed to ND or understood it, and recruiting suffered as a result. Charlie Weis "gets" Notre Dame far more than Ty and will do much better in recruiting as a result.
All best for next season except for when UM and MSU play ND.
|
|
FormerHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,262
|
Post by FormerHoya on Jan 3, 2005 22:36:27 GMT -5
The reports on Willingham's recruiting troubles all indicate that his inability to recruit was the direct result of his lack of effort in that arena. Numerous recruits, the difference making types that could get into ND, mentioned that they were interested in ND, but that after a few quick calls and a recruiting trip the staff didn't seem interested in them. That lack of effort is inexcusable.
I am now done dwelling on the past. Too many posts about Ty from me.
|
|
|
Post by Hoya82VA on Jan 3, 2005 23:09:25 GMT -5
Former, from what I read on ND's boards, Weis and staff are going full tilt after recruits - a real change from before. I think the ship will be turned around more quickly than people think.
|
|