Ty, again

[irishgo8]

you know what lyght.. I am actually starting to understand your arguement alittle more, but the only part of your arguement I can not find validity to is that Ty is a "solid coach", its just not true.
But i guess it has to do with what you consider "solid". in no way does he fall into the "solid coach" area for me. (and im guessing a lot of other people, including the people that fired him)

Does this mean i am #1 rival with lyght? No dont want to be it but BMF I think i am losing a great fellow debator .

 

[NDLyght37]

lol...I can have more than one rival. But seriously, i've been sick as a dog & I had a basketball game to call last night, so I'm just now responding.

Because as I have said before there aren't enough to hire and not take a chance. With so few black coaches you can't take a chance because if you do and it doesnt work out then look what ESPN will do to you. You have to wait until he is solidly proven as a GREAT assistant coach before you hire him as a head coach.

And that's part of the problem. The system is almost construed that a minority assistant coach has to be damn-near Spurrier/Bowden/Holtz good just to get the same type of job offers that a guy like Orgeron or Mike Shula would get. So they have to accept terrible gigs (like San Jose State), and in turn they get fired after 3-4 years because they fielded a bad team. And once a minority coach (or any coach for that matter) gets that label as a "bad coach", it's hard to get a second chance.

No but it has ALOT to do with the matter - I would say it is about 60-70% of the reason he has a job. Look at Ron Zook - he was a better recruiter - in fact one of the best recruiters in the nation and was one of the last coaches to be hired. If i remember right it took Ty 2 weeks to find a job and it took Zook about 3-4 months.

I disagree. It has a lot to do with perception & situations. The perception was that Zook was damaged goods, he'd been beat on by the zealots in Gainesville almost since Day 1. Whereas Willingham really only faced vocal criticism this past season. As for the situation, remeber Ty is a Pac-10 guy...2 Pac-10 schools had job openings, it makes sense that he was hired first.. Zook on the other hand is harder to place. Is he a Florida guy, an SEC guy, a Spurrier disciple, what is he? It was much harder for Zook to find the right situation than Willingham.

I personally hated his character in press interviews, on the sidelines, etc. If you want more info ill write back again because I think it is pretty obvious that not all of us liked his character.

In what way? If anything that was his greatest asset. That he is a stand-up guy in a profession where that is becoming rarer by the minute. I know he's not the most exciting guy, or the best interview to watch...but I'd take him over davie any day of the week (and the proverbial twice on Sundays). I think Davie was a lot more of a self-promoter than Ty was/is, and I think O'Leary was/is a great coach...but he still gave the University a huge black eye because he wasn't honest with the school.

you know what lyght.. I am actually starting to understand your arguement alittle more, but the only part of your arguement I can not find validity to is that Ty is a "solid coach", its just not true.
But i guess it has to do with what you consider "solid". in no way does he fall into the "solid coach" area for me.

Yeah, I just mean "solid" as in a serviceable coach who can give you great games just as easily as a blowout loss. He can be both above-average & below-average...and it all adds up to him being an average coach, IMO. I don't actually think we are as far apart as some would think. I'm just hesitant to continue pulling the trigger on coaches. The only way to build a program is with consistency...and 4 caoches in 10 years is not very stable.

 

[GoinIrishSince85]

I have to agree with Lyght on a few points here. First off, the number of minority coaches out there are low and the number of minority candidates is pretty high. If you pick almost and college football team, you will find at least one or two minoirty candidates on each team. Yes, they're position coaches, but they're never given the opportunity to move up out of those positions and those who are, go to non-football schools and they don't do well. The bias is evident, especially in the NFL. Look how long it took Marvin Lewis to get a head coaching job. He was much more deserving then some of the boneheads that were hired up there (Spurrier, Erickson) and he's done better than both of those gentlemen. Romeo Crennel deserved to be hired long ago and he wasn't until this year. I'll be honest, but I don't know many minority assistants at the NCAA level, but the point is that there are good minority candidates to look at and no one really does.

 

[Rip Rap]

I have to agree with Lyght on a few points here. First off, the number of minority coaches out there are low and the number of minority candidates is pretty high. If you pick almost and college football team, you will find at least one or two minoirty candidates on each team. Yes, they're position coaches, but they're never given the opportunity to move up out of those positions and those who are, go to non-football schools and they don't do well. The bias is evident, especially in the NFL. Look how long it took Marvin Lewis to get a head coaching job. He was much more deserving then some of the boneheads that were hired up there (Spurrier, Erickson) and he's done better than both of those gentlemen. Romeo Crennel deserved to be hired long ago and he wasn't until this year. I'll be honest, but I don't know many minority assistants at the NCAA level, but the point is that there are good minority candidates to look at and no one really does.

By that logic, Ty Willingham had white coordinators at America's premier school, and apparently wouldn't give black coaches a shot at being his coordinators (even if they would have been better than Wild Bill and could have saved his job).

Yet we now have Haywood, promoted after only a few years as a running backs coach at Texas. So the hiring of Weis at ND was more progressive than the hiring of Willingham at Washington!

Golly, I feel better about myself now. This calls for a bumper sticker.

 

[NDLyght37]

Goinirish, that's the key...opportunity. It just isn't there for those coaches (Minority or otherwise) outside of the "Good Old Boys Network". And it's almost as if a minority caoch has to go above & beyond the call of duty just to be on an equal playing field when it comes to hirings. A coach shouldn't have to be the second coming of Eddie Robinson just to get a call from San Jose State and schools of their ilk.

And Rip, the true test will be to see if Haywood will get a shot at a good head coaching job in 3-4 years.

 

[the_voidoid]

Goinirish, that's the key...opportunity. It just isn't there for those coaches (Minority or otherwise) outside of the "Good Old Boys Network". And it's almost as if a minority caoch has to go above & beyond the call of duty just to be on an equal playing field when it comes to hirings. A coach shouldn't have to be the second coming of Eddie Robinson just to get a call from San Jose State and schools of their ilk.

And Rip, the true test will be to see if Haywood will get a shot at a good head coaching job in 3-4 years.

i think he'll get a shot at a head coaching job, especially since he is, by all accounts, a good coach and GREAT recruiter, and a few years from now he will have been under the tutelage of weis and absorbed a killer offensive system. however, what defines a "good" first head coaching position? i think it is necessary for a head coach to start low and prove he can win at a couple of places prior to being handed a top-notch HC position. look at parseghian (ND via miami of ohio and northwestern), holtz (william and mary), or bo schembechler (also miami of ohio)... even urban meyer from bowling green to utah to florida. a coach needs time out of the intense spotlight to develop, and if a coach can win consistently at a lower-echelon school he will typically win consistently once he's signed on at bigger program.

 

[NDLyght37]

however, what defines a "good" first head coaching position?

Personally, I think a"good" head coaching job is a "name" program that has been down, but where the coach has an opportunity to win if he's given a reasonable amount of time. A place where the coach can begin to build a tradition, his name...or both. If Haywood suceeds in South Bend; I would think of schools like Syracuse, Baylor, Tulane, Indiana, or Houston as a good coaching job. San Jose State is not a good coaching job, IMO. It's a high risk-low reward situation. And unfortunately it's a stituation that too many minority coaches find themselves in...either hone your craft in obscurity (D-II), or get the head job at a terrible situation.

 

[bmf175]

Yeah, I just mean "solid" as in a serviceable coach who can give you great games just as easily as a blowout loss. He can be both above-average & below-average...and it all adds up to him being an average coach, IMO. I don't actually think we are as far apart as some would think. I'm just hesitant to continue pulling the trigger on coaches. The only way to build a program is with consistency...and 4 caoches in 10 years is not very stable.

Yeah and thats the problem giving great games and then losing blow outs isnt exactly "solid" its "inconsistant" NOW if you want to say he is a "Solid inconsist coach" which what to me is what you just said, I wouild back you. Somebody that is above average and then turns around and is below average = Inconsistant.

If i was to make the statement,Bob is a good "solid" man. And knowing that Bob is sometimes a great guy and sometimes an asshole. that would make him an "inconsistant" man not a "solid" man. a rock on the ground is SOLID because it does not change. Something thats changes or flip flops every other day is not and can not be "solid". Solid is unchanging and consistant.

In your words sometimes average, sometimes below average. does not equal Solid. It equals inconsistancy
And good coaches are not inconsistant.

 

[irishgo8]

lol...I can have more than one rival. But seriously, i've been sick as a dog & I had a basketball game to call last night, so I'm just now responding..

I am sorry to hear it - hope you feel better now. I dont know what it is but seriously i am not lying either that i was sick last weekend.

lAnd that's part of the problem. The system is almost construed that a minority assistant coach has to be damn-near Spurrier/Bowden/Holtz good just to get the same type of job offers that a guy like Orgeron or Mike Shula would get. So they have to accept terrible gigs (like San Jose State), and in turn they get fired after 3-4 years because they fielded a bad team. And once a minority coach (or any coach for that matter) gets that label as a "bad coach", it's hard to get a second chance.

Ok have to agree with my rival on that. But as far as getting a second chance - no bad head coach black or white would get a second chance - look at Ron Turner - i compare him to Ty Willie.

I disagree. It has a lot to do with perception & situations. The perception was that Zook was damaged goods, he'd been beat on by the zealots in Gainesville almost since Day 1. Whereas Willingham really only faced vocal criticism this past season. As for the situation, remeber Ty is a Pac-10 guy...2 Pac-10 schools had job openings, it makes sense that he was hired first.. Zook on the other hand is harder to place. Is he a Florida guy, an SEC guy, a Spurrier disciple, what is he? It was much harder for Zook to find the right situation than Willingham. .

I disagree. Zook didnt get an offer or contact until the Illini offer so obviously Ty willie was hired so quickly cause he was black.

In what way? If anything that was his greatest asset. That he is a stand-up guy in a profession where that is becoming rarer by the minute. I know he's not the most exciting guy, or the best interview to watch...but I'd take him over davie any day of the week (and the proverbial twice on Sundays). I think Davie was a lot more of a self-promoter than Ty was/is, and I think O'Leary was/is a great coach...but he still gave the University a huge black eye because he wasn't honest with the school..

Well he was just so unmotivating - i mean i went and said ND will suck after watching that clown. I mean at least zook would get emotional and you could think there might be improvement.

Yeah, I just mean "solid" as in a serviceable coach who can give you great games just as easily as a blowout loss. He can be both above-average & below-average...and it all adds up to him being an average coach, IMO. I don't actually think we are as far apart as some would think. I'm just hesitant to continue pulling the trigger on coaches. The only way to build a program is with consistency...and 4 caoches in 10 years is not very stable.

Ty is not solid - look at BMF's post above

 

[Guest]

I disagree. Zook didnt get an offer or contact until the Illini offer so obviously Ty willie was hired so quickly cause he was black.

Do you seriously think that? Washington is a very good program, there's no reason they would have to stoop to that.

Totally disagree with that, I think they were looking for a clean cut, straight forward kinda guy, and that guy happens to be Ty. That program desperately needed to clean up its act so they hired one of the most respected ( he ain't a good coach in my opinion, but the guy is respected by alot of people) coaches around. Ty will eventually win 6 or 7 games on a regular basis there. The fans will eventually not be happy with the 6 or 7 wins and they'll call for his head, but something tells me he'll overachieve one year and quickly leave for the NFL.

Paul Hackett????

 

[the_voidoid]

I disagree. Zook didnt get an offer or contact until the Illini offer so obviously Ty willie was hired so quickly cause he was black.

tell me you're not serious. are you serious?? "ty willie was hired so quickly cause he was black"??

 

[irishgo8]

tell me you're not serious. are you serious?? "ty willie was hired so quickly cause he was black"??

Not 100%. About 50-80% of the reason he was hired so quickly and was contacted by a major program while he was failing at a major program was because he was black. Take closer to 50% or closer to 80% whatever you wish but its in between that i think. My opinion anyway......

 

[Aerosmith777]

Not 100%. About 50-80% of the reason he was hired so quickly and was contacted by a major program while he was failing at a major program was because he was black. Take closer to 50% or closer to 80% whatever you wish but its in between that i think. My opinion anyway......

Honestly, I hate to do this, but I actually have to agree with Lyght on something that is Willingham related. If he were hired because he was black, why are there only 3 Div-I black coaches, and why was he the first one ever to be fired and then re-hired?

I don't think he was hired b/c he is black (at Washington OR Notre Dame), and I don't think he was fired at Notre Dame b/c he is black. I think he was hired at Notre Dame b/c they needed a stand-up, moral kind of guy (or at least someone who's percieved that way) to get through the O'Leary debacle, and I think he was fired b/c he's just not a good enough coach or recruiter to be the Head Football coach at Notre Dame. And I think he was rehired at U-Dub for the same reason Steve Spurier was hired at South Carolina, Ron Zook was hired at Illinois, and Solich was hired over in Ohio. Div I college football simpy recycles coaches at an alarming rate. One Rose Bowl berth 2 jobs ago is enough to get you like 8 strikes before no one will hire you anymore. plain and simple, & has nothing to do w/ skin tone.

And as far as Davie goes, I agree w/ what some have already said, I think he knows he can't coach a big program, so if he wants to be successful he can either go back to being a coordinator (which he's good at, but would be nuts to do now and give up all that ESPN $) or stay on ESPN and be a mini-celebrity, get paid, & still feel a little important to college football. He chose the later, and I would too.

 

[irishgo8]

Honestly, I hate to do this, but I actually have to agree with Lyght on something that is Willingham related. If he were hired because he was black, why are there only 3 Div-I black coaches, and why was he the first one ever to be fired and then re-hired?

Because as i have said before there are not enough blacks in positions to get head coaching jobs. You cant expect 30-40 schools to take chances on Position Coaches.

I don't think he was hired b/c he is black (at Washington OR Notre Dame), and I don't think he was fired at Notre Dame b/c he is black. I think he was hired at Notre Dame b/c they needed a stand-up, moral kind of guy (or at least someone who's percieved that way) to get through the O'Leary debacle, and I think he was fired b/c he's just not a good enough coach or recruiter to be the Head Football coach at Notre Dame. And I think he was rehired at U-Dub for the same reason Steve Spurier was hired at South Carolina, Ron Zook was hired at Illinois, and Solich was hired over in Ohio. Div I college football simpy recycles coaches at an alarming rate. One Rose Bowl berth 2 jobs ago is enough to get you like 8 strikes before no one will hire you anymore. plain and simple, & has nothing to do w/ skin tone.

Spurrier was a succesful College Head Coach unlike Willie; Zook was a succesfull recruiter unlike Willie; and Solich was a succesfull college head coach unlike willie. Where are the similarities. As for the one Rose Bowl i agree with you.

And as far as Davie goes, I agree w/ what some have already said, I think he knows he can't coach a big program, so if he wants to be successful he can either go back to being a coordinator (which he's good at, but would be nuts to do now and give up all that ESPN $) or stay on ESPN and be a mini-celebrity, get paid, & still feel a little important to college football. He chose the later, and I would too.

He could probably get a job like what Willie should have gotten a head coach position at a Mac or Wac or Mountain West, etc school. What i am complaining about is this - Would Davie have been hired by a FOOTBALL school like florida after he was fired by ND. No. But Willie was. He did no better had the same winning percentage wasnt recruting, etc. at ND and was hired by a major football program. Thats why i am saying that Willie was hired cause he was black. I think if you think about it like that you will understand what i am saying. Anyway i think all of us ND fans need to forget the past and look forward to a possible National Championship in the next few years!

 

[Aerosmith777]

He could probably get a job like what Willie should have gotten a head coach position at a Mac or Wac or Mountain West, etc school. What i am complaining about is this - Would Davie have been hired by a FOOTBALL school like florida after he was fired by ND. No. But Willie was.

This is where I'd have to disagree w/ you again. Willingham was hired by a school who's team went 1-10 last year. 1-10. I know Washington has a winning tradition, but that school has fallen WAY WAY WAY too far to even mention w/ a school like Florida in the same breath. If Davie had wanted a job when he was fired by Notre Dame, and had Washington been THAT bad back then, I think he'd of had a great shot at the job.

I seriously think it all comes down to his one rose bowl appearance at Stanford. That season has gotten him labelled as this good coach, and he has milked that season for all its worth when getting looked at for other jobs. And I wasn't saying Zook and Spurrier (and even Solich) weren't better coaches, I was just saying they got hired for past success that there's no particular reason to think they can duplicate in their new jobs. Especially for Solich and Zook, who are moving from big time programs where its at least very easy to recruit, if not coach, to smaller ones that we're gonna get to see their true recruiting ability. That's the nature of NCAA football, a little success will buy you a lot of second chances.

 

[irishgo8]

This is where I'd have to disagree w/ you again. Willingham was hired by a school who's team went 1-10 last year. 1-10. I know Washington has a winning tradition, but that school has fallen WAY WAY WAY too far to even mention w/ a school like Florida in the same breath. If Davie had wanted a job when he was fired by Notre Dame, and had Washington been THAT bad back then, I think he'd of had a great shot at the job..

Ok but they should be thinking of the future - what is their goal. A 6-5; 7-4 once in a lifetime rose bowl? No they want a 9-2; 10-1 season EVERY YEAR. Is Willie going to do that no. He didnt do it at ND he didnt do it at Stanford.

I seriously think it all comes down to his one rose bowl appearance at Stanford. That season has gotten him labelled as this good coach, and he has milked that season for all its worth when getting looked at for other jobs. And I wasn't saying Zook and Spurrier (and even Solich) weren't better coaches, I was just saying they got hired for past success that there's no particular reason to think they can duplicate in their new jobs. Especially for Solich and Zook, who are moving from big time programs where its at least very easy to recruit, if not coach, to smaller ones that we're gonna get to see their true recruiting ability. That's the nature of NCAA football, a little success will buy you a lot of second chances.

Zook already has a top 50 recruiting class at Illinios - something Ron Turner NEVER did. So that proves he is a solid recruiter. Spurrier well a National Championship winning the SEC at Florida going to the NFL - i think that is enough proof that he should do good again - maybe not as great of success but he should have good success. Solich had good success at Nebraska (i believe 9-3 at the end of his last season) so he should do alright at miami of ohio (which is in the Mac i believe where a option system should do good). Anyway i hope you all understand my position so we do not have to :swordfigh lol

 

[Aerosmith777]

Ok but they should be thinking of the future - what is their goal. A 6-5; 7-4 once in a lifetime rose bowl? No they want a 9-2; 10-1 season EVERY YEAR. Is Willie going to do that no. He didnt do it at ND he didnt do it at Stanford.

While I'd agree with you here, you have to remember, when you're 1-10, and 7-4 season really doesn't seem that bad...Maybe after 3 or 4 7-4/6-5 seasons in a row the Husky fans will get a little stir crazy, but right now most Husky fans would probly sell their first born for a 7-4 year next year.

Zook already has a top 50 recruiting class at Illinios - something Ron Turner NEVER did. So that proves he is a solid recruiter. Spurrier well a National Championship winning the SEC at Florida going to the NFL - i think that is enough proof that he should do good again - maybe not as great of success but he should have good success. Solich had good success at Nebraska (i believe 9-3 at the end of his last season) so he should do alright at miami of ohio (which is in the Mac i believe where a option system should do good). Anyway i hope you all understand my position so we do not have to :swordfigh lol

Again, I'm not saying those guys can't coach. I'm just saying the simple truth is they got their jobs b/c of past success & that that is the easiest way to get a job in div I college football, to have had success somewhere else in the past. And to me, the cases of Zook and Solich (not to mention Willingham) show it doesn't take very much success to get those 2nd and 3rd chances, just a little will do and be enough to get you hired over a promising assistant w/ no head coaching experience. I mean, that's basically what Notre Dame did 3 years ago. They could have hired Urban Meyer then but felt they couldn't hire a guy w/ only 1 year of head coaching experience, and so they went w/ a guy (well 2 guys if you count O'Leary) who had experience a little success elsewhere. Not a lot of success mind you, but a little. And look where it got them. Thankfully they learned their lesson this time around and hired the assistant w/ all the promise rather than some mediocre guy who just happens to have "experience" (like the guy from BC, for example). Point is though, that doesn't happen much in college football. Usually the guy w/ experience & a little past success gets the job. I don't see why its any different for Willingham or why the fact that he's black should be brought into why he got hired. I really don't see it as any different than Zook or Solich getting hired, or for that matter Les Miles getting hired at LSU or Hal Mumme getting hired at New Mexico State or Dick Tomey getting hired at San Jose State. Nobody brings race into w/ those guys, and they didn't exactly have a TON of success at their last jobs, just a little.

 

[irishgo8]

While I'd agree with you here, you have to remember, when you're 1-10, and 7-4 season really doesn't seem that bad...Maybe after 3 or 4 7-4/6-5 seasons in a row the Husky fans will get a little stir crazy, but right now most Husky fans would probly sell their first born for a 7-4 year next year..

Well i agree but again Ty was not the right coach and he will be lucky if he is there for the entire length of his first contract.

Again, I'm not saying those guys can't coach. I'm just saying the simple truth is they got their jobs b/c of past success & that that is the easiest way to get a job in div I college football, to have had success somewhere else in the past. And to me, the cases of Zook and Solich (not to mention Willingham) show it doesn't take very much success to get those 2nd and 3rd chances, just a little will do and be enough to get you hired over a promising assistant w/ no head coaching experience. I mean, that's basically what Notre Dame did 3 years ago. They could have hired Urban Meyer then but felt they couldn't hire a guy w/ only 1 year of head coaching experience, and so they went w/ a guy (well 2 guys if you count O'Leary) who had experience a little success elsewhere. Not a lot of success mind you, but a little. And look where it got them. Thankfully they learned their lesson this time around and hired the assistant w/ all the promise rather than some mediocre guy who just happens to have "experience" (like the guy from BC, for example). Point is though, that doesn't happen much in college football. Usually the guy w/ experience & a little past success gets the job. I don't see why its any different for Willingham or why the fact that he's black should be brought into why he got hired. I really don't see it as any different than Zook or Solich getting hired, or for that matter Les Miles getting hired at LSU or Hal Mumme getting hired at New Mexico State or Dick Tomey getting hired at San Jose State. Nobody brings race into w/ those guys, and they didn't exactly have a TON of success at their last jobs, just a little.

Solich had Plenty of success at Nebraska for Miami of Ohio. Zook had plenty of success for the illini. Miles had plenty of success to keep up Sabans work. I have to disagree had oleary been honest he would have been a perfect fit.

 

[Aerosmith777]

I don't consider Solich having a few 9-3 seasons "plenty" of success. (and I don't think its Miami Ohio he took over either, its Ohio University). Zook had a few 8-4 seasons, again, not what I consider "plenty" of success, and Miles beat Oklahoma a few times (which I understand is huge at OK-State), but finishing the season unranked and 7-5 and getting blown out by OSU in their bowl game is not what I consider a lot of success.

To be considered a trully successful coach to me you have to got like 9-2, 10-1 every year for a good stretch of at least 3-4 years, and have a least a few BCS appearances (not just 1) and maybe even a national title. None of the former head coaches hired this off season have those kind of credentials except Spurrier, which is my point. You don't have to be a trully "successful" coach to get re-hired, you just have to have had "some success" at some point in your career.

 

[irishgo8]

I don't consider Solich having a few 9-3 seasons "plenty" of success. (and I don't think its Miami Ohio he took over either, its Ohio University). Zook had a few 8-4 seasons, again, not what I consider "plenty" of success, and Miles beat Oklahoma a few times (which I understand is huge at OK-State), but finishing the season unranked and 7-5 and getting blown out by OSU in their bowl game is not what I consider a lot of success.

To be considered a trully successful coach to me you have to got like 9-2, 10-1 every year for a good stretch of at least 3-4 years, and have a least a few BCS appearances (not just 1) and maybe even a national title. None of the former head coaches hired this off season have those kind of credentials except Spurrier, which is my point. You don't have to be a trully "successful" coach to get re-hired, you just have to have had "some success" at some point in your career.

I understand and hear you. But what i meant by plenty of success is plenty of success for the university that hired him. IE at Illini 7-4; 6-5 for 100 years is a great coach, etc.

 

[NDLyght37]

Back again...I hate sickness & I hate snow/sleet/frozen roads.

Anyways, back to the conversation.

To say that Ty was hired (or fired) because he's a Black coach is just crazy. Granted it probably played a small factor in both cases, but the bottom line is this: ND was disgraced in the public eye by what O'Leary did. Then you have this coach over here that's a quiet, dignified man...and he's got some coaching ability. He was like Sidney Poitier with a Rose Bowl ring. ND thought they had the perfect guy, but it was just a bad fit.

Now, he got hired at Washington for 3 reasons:
- He's a big-name coach coming from a big-name school.
- He brings discipline to a program that sorely needs it.
- He's familiar with the Pac-10.

Not one of those reasons has to do with the color of his skin. And to those that want to just dismiss what he did at Stanford, let's not forget that his record is better than both Denny Green and Bill Walsh during their time at Stanford. Washington is not oblivious to this. As bad as they've been, they will happily take 6-7 wins a season (and 9-10 wins once every 5 seasons). They have the potential to slide into that 3rd spot in a very competitive Pac-10...but only if TyWillie gets it together (and hires a young Jim Mora Jr.-type as his O.C.).

And just to start some stuff...lol. Irish, why should Willingham have gone to a MAC or a WAC school as an assistant, while Zook goes to Illinois. That would be some racist "good old boy network" stuff right there, IMO. To go from head coach of Notre Dame to assistant coach at San Diego State...that's nuts, brother.

 

[irishtexan]

Lyght, I dont agree with some of your views on Ty all the time, but, i think you just did a pretty good job of summing this debate up.

 

[irishgo8]

Back again...I hate sickness & I hate snow/sleet/frozen roads..

Again sorry you were sick and i hope your nothern sleet/frozen roads disappeer. I am glad i dont have to deal with it in Texas but it is very cold here.

Anyways, back to the conversation..

Great idea lol couldnt miss the oppurtunity to tease you Lyght! I have to get you back.

To say that Ty was hired (or fired) because he's a Black coach is just crazy. Granted it probably played a small factor in both cases..

Sorry only in the Washington case lyght.

but the bottom line is this: ND was disgraced in the public eye by what O'Leary did. Then you have this coach over here that's a quiet, dignified man...and he's got some coaching ability. He was like Sidney Poitier with a Rose Bowl ring. ND thought they had the perfect guy, but it was just a bad fit.

Like every true Irish fan said back then Lyght - i watched his rose bowl team and said this is this guys best team?

Now, he got hired at Washington for 3 reasons:
- He's a big-name coach coming from a big-name school.
- He brings discipline to a program that sorely needs it.
- He's familiar with the Pac-10.

Agree. Agree. But again i forgot to mention this before - Zook is a SEC guy. Illinios may not have been the right situation for him. Also one reason is his skin again as ive said before IT MAY NOT BE 100% but it had over 25% with it although as i said before it did have more than that to do with it.

Not one of those reasons has to do with the color of his skin. .

Well look above.

And to those that want to just dismiss what he did at Stanford, let's not forget that his record is better than both Denny Green and Bill Walsh during their time at Stanford. Washington is not oblivious to this. As bad as they've been, they will happily take 6-7 wins a season (and 9-10 wins once every 5 seasons). They have the potential to slide into that 3rd spot in a very competitive Pac-10...but only if TyWillie gets it together (and hires a young Jim Mora Jr.-type as his O.C.). .

Well really as ive said before - whats Ty's strong point in coaching? It obviously is not recruiting (see Notre Dame, Washington) or motivating his players (look at ND in the 2nd half vs BC, Pitt, Purdue, USC etc just to mention this years games.) Remember Ty is not used to winning - look at his press conferences for his goal for this year: "Well if we go undeafted or lose one a National Championship, If we lose 2 or 3 then a BCS bowl, if we lose 4 or 5 a bowl game, and hopefully we dont lose more" How typicall of Willingham. No goal. Just dont lose more than 5 games. Come on now tell me that he was going to take ND where it wanted to be.

And just to start some stuff...lol. Irish, why should Willingham have gone to a MAC or a WAC school as an assistant, while Zook goes to Illinois. .

I never said that. I simply said that if Ty still wanted to be a head coach go to a Wac or a Mac school. Or else a non-football school like Illinios. Zook was a perfect fit at Illinois - heck they have had perfect player devolopment but no recruiting. So Zook one of the top recruiters is a perfect fit. Also Zook was hired by a team who would be happy with a 6-5, 7-4 season for 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 years. Would Washington? No. if they go 6-5, 7-4 for the next 3 years Fire Wille will be sold at an Auction for a billion $$$$$$. Again i said Willingham should be an assistant at a big time program (he was hired as a head coach too quick) or a head coach at a smaller program.

That would be some racist "good old boy network" stuff right there, IMO. To go from head coach of Notre Dame to assistant coach at San Diego State...that's nuts, brother.

Look above - i agree that nuts but you misunderstood me.

 

[Rip Rap]

The pressure is building:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/huskies/210512_miller03.html

Great quote on Ty's star JUCO:

"Chris Handy, a cornerback from Arcadia, Calif., who arrives via Pasadena Community College, is the only member of the class who already has competed in Husky Stadium. Playing for Nevada in 2003, he returned an interception 37 yards for a touchdown in the Wolf Pack's 28-17 humiliation of the Huskies.

"He also was booted from Nevada because of his involvement in an off-campus assault in July 2003.

"According to police reports, Handy and a buddy severely beat up a young man, kicking him in his face and head after he fell to the ground. The victim apparently had been flirting with the other assailant's 16-year-old girlfriend."

 

[NDLyght37]

"Chris Handy, a cornerback from Arcadia, Calif. Playing for Nevada in 2003, he returned an interception 37 yards for a touchdown in the Wolf Pack's 28-17 humiliation of the Huskies."

Hmmm...I think we'd take that.

 

[Guest]

People say Ty runs a clean program, but what people forget is, Ty has coached the two cleanest programs Stanford, and ND. Anyone could of coached those two programs and it would be clean.

Ty gets alittle too much credit there.

 

[NDLyght37]

People say Ty runs a clean program, but what people forget is, Ty has coached the two cleanest programs Stanford, and ND. Anyone could of coached those two programs and it would be clean.

Ty gets alittle too much credit there.

True, but it takes a special coach in the first place to take those jobs.

 

[irishgo8]

True, but it takes a special coach in the first place to take those jobs.

and to conclude the statements - Ty is a mediocre Coach. He is a special coach because he is black and was fired from ND and took a team about 500 years ago to a Rose Bowl. Everyone jump at this opportunity - you may never get a coach this good in a million year.

 

[Rip Rap]

True, but it takes a special coach in the first place to take those jobs.

??? Explain.

Frankly, I would be happier to let it die, but the media continues to release editorials saying Notre Dame was wrong to fire Ty Willingham and that he is 1.) A 'Molder of Men' of tremendous "integrity," 2.) The greatest academics coach in the history of college sports, 3.) And an "aggressive" offensive genius.

These statements are preposterous and strain credulity. He 1.) Just took a JUCO with a criminal record, 2.) Did nothing to change the graduation rates of either of the two schools he was previously employed by, 3.) And is completely reliant on his coordinators, perhaps to the point of knowing nothing about Xs and Os himself.

His little stunt with the visitations showed a willingness to bend the rules, and he was seeking employment with Washington even before he was fired by ND. This, and he refused to remove Diedrick when it would have saved his job. I am left believing, by his active job search and obstinance before Kevin White, that he wanted to be fired.

As long as the media continues to say he is the best coach in the history of college football, we're going to continue to point out why he isn't.

 

[irishgo8]

I have to say what texan said before good summary to the debate.