When I was interviewing people for my Willingham book, several players told me that Woodward and Jen Cohn in the athletic department were apologizing profusely throughout the 2008 season for Willingham's behavior toward the players. But they were scared to not let him finish out the season for fear of being called racist. I don't know for 100% sure, but I do believe that it was an edict handed down by Emmert.
Last edited:
HoustonHusky
New Fish
That may explain part of it for some (not me...just shows he doesn't have the balls for the job if he thought he should fire him but didn't do everything he could to do it), but it does not explain the absolutely bizarre decision of firing Ty while still letting him coach out the season. And if he did know how bad it was and was apologizing to everybody for it then its an even more damning fact.
He followed that up by overpaying for a college coordinator that he couldn't even convince to start working for 3 or 4 weeks, and we became his training gig for the type of jobs he really wanted (anyone really surprised Sark bolted and really thought he was going to be here for 20 years? I'm in the minority here, but I think he's going to do ok at USC...we were his training school. He should have learned a lot of what to do and not do while he was here...I'm actually kinda interested to see if any of it stuck).
Piss-poor managing by Pool Boy...its a big hole to climb out of. But hey, we win a Rose Bowl and I'll change my tune.
-HH
I wasn't disagreeing with your entire argument, but merely pointing out an important detail that I believe you had wrong.
D
[Deleted User]
Guest
I think pinning Ty on Woodward is a bit unfair.
Remember Ty was retained by Emmert not Woodward and Derek in his book has quoted Woodward as saying he would have fired Ty.
Woodward was just an interim AD then became the real AD in August of 2008. He walked into a shitty situation that his boss handed him. He had no AD experience prior so he probably didn't handle the Ty firing well(Once you announce he's fired don't let him coach anymore) as he was inexperienced.
Now if you want to argue he should have never been hired that is a fair argument but that's not to be put on Woodward. I think Woodward has grown into a good football AD over the last few years. He still has his warts but stealing Petersen will be his legacy.
He allowed Sark to leave to a rival school and came out looking like a genius in the process. He deserves credit for that.
Remember Ty was retained by Emmert not Woodward and Derek in his book has quoted Woodward as saying he would have fired Ty.
Woodward was just an interim AD then became the real AD in August of 2008. He walked into a shitty situation that his boss handed him. He had no AD experience prior so he probably didn't handle the Ty firing well(Once you announce he's fired don't let him coach anymore) as he was inexperienced.
Now if you want to argue he should have never been hired that is a fair argument but that's not to be put on Woodward. I think Woodward has grown into a good football AD over the last few years. He still has his warts but stealing Petersen will be his legacy.
He allowed Sark to leave to a rival school and came out looking like a genius in the process. He deserves credit for that.
Not really that related to whether Woodward is a good AD or not, but did he offer Mora the job before Petersen? Or was Petersen actually the #1 the whole time?
D
[Deleted User]
Guest
I don't know if we'll ever know for sure but if I had to guess Mora was option #1. In Derek's book about Ty in that book Woodward said he went to Mora first before he declined then he settled on Sark.
I don't know if you can ever prove it but I do believe the rumors that Woodward met with Mora when UW played UCLA that week has some truth to it. I don't know if those two directly talked but I bet Woodward spoke to a representative of Mora that week.
HeretoBeatmyChest
New Fish
I bet Mora was definitely #1 but they probably had Petersen as #1b, thinking Mora would be hard to get. I wonder if Nussmeier was really #3 or just a smoke screen.
I never believed the Nussmeier rumor. There was no way we would stoop that low. Woodward knew he had to get someone. You would think that was common sense. You don't hire a coordinator when you are a legitimate top 25 team.
D
[Deleted User]
Guest
I don't believe it either as Woodward would have put himself on the hot seat. You can't let your head coach leave to your rival and hire another coordinator. That is WSU status right there.
It's still laughable that Kim would rather have had an OC who was let go of his OC duties to be head coach over a guy who is 92-12. Yet that little sack of shit has the gall to say we have the agenda even though his only fucking question to Petersen was about access.
allpurpleallgold
New Fish
Peterman is the coach. Everything else is bullshit to me.
allpurpleallgold
New Fish
There is a gigantic flaw in this theory. Sark thinks he did a great job at UW. He thinks he is a great coach that was weighed down by 0-12 and a program that wasn't big enough for him. I don't think Sark learned a single thing that has any actual value. You can't learn if you think you already know it all.
Many people within the UW athletic department thought Mora had been hired, just 2-3 days prior to Petersen being announced as the new head coach.
CokeGreaterThanPepsi
New Fish
This is very true.
TTJ
New Fish
Rose Bowls are the gold standard, no doubt. But in most cases, credit is owed more to the coach than the AD. Easy example: How many here would give high marks to Hedges, just because James and Neuheisel won roses on her watch?
If Petersen wins roses soon, I'd probably elevate Pool Boy from an F to a D.
Agree. A lot of talk about learning on the job. What good coach showed as little as Sark in his first five years? I think the learning on the job shit has been mentioned enough times that some people think it is true.
Saban- 10 win season in year 5. Probably the best example the learning on the job guys can use, but Saban is pretty different than Sark.
Meyer- success at Bowling Green, and won a BCS bowl at Utah.
Stoops- national title in year 2.
Petersen- BCS bowl win in year 1.
Malzahn- title appearance in year 1.
I think what we've seen out of Sark is all there is to him. His team this year really isn't that talented either. UW might have more talent than USC. A great coach can overcome sanctions, but there is no way Sark will.
HeretoBeatmyChest
New Fish
Regarding wanting Nuss...Kims gonna Kim.
Saban had an SRS breakthrough in year 3 (I think 20th ranked team) and I think it was year 4 when he beat the #1 team late in the season as well as beating another top 10 team. Year 5 he was top 10.
So a very careful evaluation of Saban would have showed that was very close to breaking through in year 3.
Saban had an SRS breakthrough in year 3 (I think 20th ranked team) and I think it was year 4 when he beat the #1 team late in the season as well as beating another top 10 team. Year 5 he was top 10.
So a very careful evaluation of Saban would have showed that was very close to breaking through in year 3.
Vegasdawg
New Fish
I would say a B+. I agree that Haden came to the rescue, Scott might have been talking with Peterson prior, but that is speculation. Retaining the basketball coach is dumb, I thought he should have moved on that one two years ago. The stadium, getting Peterson, be willing to spend what it takes, and potential. He is young so I'm giving him some points for future potential. He has improved on the job. I can't think of any PAC 12 AD I would trade him for.
Saban, Meyer and Malzahn never had to face a ranked Oregon State. HTH.