Quote:
Originally posted by amycat412
Pete Carroll won Nat'l Champ at USC in his 3rd year. UCLA has been getting clobbered by us for years now--they will never stand for that. Look at USC's program in the 90s when we were down. It was often losses to UCLA and Notre Dame that prompted the revolving door of coaches we had for awhile there.
I think a coach needs more than 3 years, he needs time for the players HE recruited to mature. But huge programs like UCLA, USC, Notre Dame, Florida, etc will not stand for a long tradition of losing.
|
Carroll also walked in with a shit ton of talent, and the immortal Norm Chow (how the f- he's not on top of everyone's list is the silliest thing ever).
Willingham walked in with a bunch of low-grade 'tweeners', and a nation of high school athletes who
simply don't buy the notre dame mystique.
Notre Dame used to recruit itself, but those days are long past. Not giving Ty Willingham the time to let his guys move through the system is a grave error. Now, Urban Meyer has walked into situations and performed, but so did Willingham - and he might be a "ND guy" but the nation doesn't give the same benefit of the doubt to ND anymore like in the 70s or 80s, or even the early 90s . . . specifically, recruits. ND, USC, etc may have a storied tradition, but the recruiting figures make it clear: you get recruits when you have performed
lately (see: UF - which was simply terrible until Spurrier came, and really had no history to speak of), and have created a
solid environment for these recruits to come into. USC and OU typify these right now, and I'll posit this is why they've returned to glory - not because of a reliance on the past.
The coach is the single most important part of a college football team - not the mystique. Why is Ty Willingham suddenly not a great college football coach? What is different from his time at Stanford?
It's just that - Time.
ND is in for a rude awakening, I think - even beyond any racial implications.
I completely think it's a terrible move.