I had so many plans for today's blog...
A mailbag...
A list of my 50 favorite athletes of all-time...
An inevitable bashing of the match-up between my two least-favorite college basketball teams...
An infinite number of Christmas topics I could write about...
But then it happened...
Or I should say--it DIDN'T happen.
Nothing changed yesterday. The sun rose to at the moon's descent, and Tyrone Willingham retained his job as head coach of the University of Washington football team.
In one of the most simple cases of managerial cowardice imaginable, University President Mark Emmert in a written statement, and University Athletic Director Todd Turner in a series of public statements declared their allegiance to a coach, in Tyrone Willingham, that has done nothing to prove that he can win football games at the Division I level and particularly at the University of Washington.
An Issue of Propaganda...
Propaganda as a word has a negative connotation. Much in the way that "fantastic" is commonly perceived to be positive, inordinately negative use of "propaganda" has given the word a very base perception.
But the truth is that propaganda can be a positive thing. It is propaganda which impresses our religions upon us, it is propaganda which motivates us to be patriotic Americans and it is propaganda which makes us believe that our preferred cola is better than the next one.
Similarly, it was propaganda that convinced Husky fans in the fall of 2004 that stability, class and patience were vital for a program that had hit its worst spell in recent history. And it was the same propaganda convinced the same Husky fans that former Stanford and Notre Dame coach Tyrone Willingham was the man who could lead the program from the doldrums to its former glory.
The hire--while not universally loved--made sense. Willingham was bred in programs that demanded graduation rates and a positive public image--and it seemed that he had a history of recruiting at a high enough level to compete in the Pac-10.
In the beginning, the standards were set low. Blame can be assigned in many directions for the collapse--Rick Neuheisel, Keith Gilbertson, or my personal scapegoat, former Athletic Director Barbara Hedges. The talent-pool had been virtually depleted and a truncated recruiting season in '04 meant that the '05 season was going to be a long one--and to no surprise it was. A 2-9 record, with only one Pac-10 win, Washington was mired in the basement of the conference, but promise was high. A respectable recruiting class that fall, coupled with a manageable schedule to start the following season gave the Huskies a quick start, and left the Huskies' fans expecting a return to postseason play in '06.
What followed however was becoming all-too-familiar. Second-half collapses--during games at one level, and for the season at another--left Washington with a 5-7 record and a 9th-place finish in a Pac-10 Conference that was growing increasingly more difficult.
It was improvement--but it wasn't phenomenal improvement. However--the propaganda machine that University of Washington had become left Husky fans feeling like they were champions. An odd pride had returned to the program, as fans who once praised a program for championships had now resided to a sedated, confusing belief that an air of "class" was more important than winning.
But finally the propaganda well emptied. Lofty expectations for the '07 season were overshadowed by ineptitude. Willingham and his coaching staff proved unable to cope with the pressures of a difficult schedule, showing no sign that they could game-plan against the best coaches in the country---highlighted by two catastrophic collapses against Washington State and Hawaii to close the season.
Action Out of Inaction...
With a fan base almost unanimously calling for change, the University decided this week to believe their own propaganda--that winning just isn't important. Todd Turner went so far as to inexplicably say Wednesday that, "judging us by winning is so trite" when you consider "all of the other things that we're doing."
But what else are they doing?
Every strand of logic that Turner and the administration present in Willingham's defense seems to contradict itself.
"You can't trust the media machine."
Sure--it is easier for the Seattle media to emphasize those who are against retaining Willingham----but their main point of emphasis in praising Willingham are his "highly ranked" recruiting classes--which are an imperfect and arbitrary product of that same media.
"We had a tough schedule this year, but we're on the way up."
On the way up to what? The Pac-10 isn't going to get any easier. The only team in the conference (save potentially Washington after losing TWENTY-EIGHT seniors) that is expected to take a step back next year is Oregon with the loss of Dennis Dixon and Jonathon Stewart. So where do they have to go? Their recruiting has improved, but not relative to the conference--they've shown no sign of being able to out-recruit the top six teams in the conference---so even if Washington's talent level is improving, as it no doubt is, it is growing worse in relative terms.
"He hasn't got to coach his own players yet..."
Three years is ample time for that...but let's just say for argument's sake that it isn't. If three years isn't in fact enough time to reload a program, what is to be said of Notre Dame? If these are in fact Keith Gilbertson's players and not Willingham's, then would it not make sense that Notre Dame's current players are Willingham's and not Charlie Weis'? That's an easier place to recruit to than Washington, and those kids were getting browbeat by the military academies this year. What does that say of Willingham's recruiting?
Or my personal favorite...
"We need continuity."
Continuity is a constant problem in college sports because kids have such a short time (3-4 years) to learn a system, and coaches and coordinators are constantly cycling from school to school. However--there is a definitive difference between a program like Alabama that is suffering because their top-flight talent hasn't been able to maintain a system for long enough to develop. Washington however is like that puzzle piece that just doesn't fit---eventually you have to try another piece. Call me crazy--but I don't see the merit in maintaining continuity when continuity isn't leading to success.
And finally...
"Keeping Tyrone is what is best for the program."
But what is the program? The players? Of course. The University? Definitely. The fan base? More than anything. Without the (rapidly diminishing) thousands of fans that flock to Montlake for Washington's six home games every year, the program doesn't exist. And by doing nothing, you've only further-diminished what little support remains for the program. The Willingham supporters are unchanged---because nothing has happened. But the Willingham detractors--the larger of the two groups--are now further enraged in having him as a coach and have the ability to create enough turmoil to ruin the program.
By not replacing Willingham with a more capable--and certainly more popular--candidate, the administration of the University of Washington has sent the Husky Football Team one year deeper into a depression that ten years ago would have been thought to be impossible.
Or so we hope...
Our Biggest Fear...
In 1997, Washington beat Michigan State in the Aloha Bowl. I remember the game because it was played on Christmas Day and I had almost forgotten to watch it because the season had been such a mess (7-4 up until then).
That was only ten years ago.
Today, Washington fans are so starved for wins, that a second-rate bowl game like that one would be a calendar-clearing event.
But that's the problem.
We've set the standards for success so low that Willingham's Huskies could finish the season 7-5 next year, go to a bowl game, and it might be enough to earn him a contract extension---even though his career record would only improve to a dreadful 18-29.
And this is what I'm referring to with the division in the program---the knowledge that this disaster could come to be will almost leave Husky "Fans" rooting against Willingham's teams with dreams of a new era on the horizon.
Conclusion...
I intentionally haven't mentioned the potential replacements for Willingham that I have previously--namely Jim Mora Jr. The reason that I haven't done that is because a change to Jim Mora was not the answer for UW. The answer for UW was change itself.
When I was a young kid, Washington losses used to genuinely bring me to tears. I remember bawling after the "Desert Swarm" loss to Arizona, because the thought of Washington not winning its second straight National Championship was too much for me to bear.
As I have matured in the years since--college football has as well. It is big business, power-marketing and corporate attitudes. And while I have more control of my emotions than I did during the 1992 season, I'm experiencing a similar heartache knowing that the team that I love is being managed by a University that refuses to recognize when administrative change is needed.
___________________________________________________________________
Comments/Questions?
mcflyblogs@gmail.com
1 comment:
I think the best point of the blog is the part about if he wins two more games next year people will think it is a successful season and he is showing improvement. This would put the university in a much more difficult position to fire him even though it would STILL be the right move. Great blog, very well written.
Post a Comment