CokeGreaterThanPepsi analyzes attrition rates this week and makes a startling conclusion... Things were worse under Sark than we realized.
Read the full story here
Last edited by a moderator:
A few thoughts/research projects for the Pepsi team:
1) I'd recommend changing "no" in the charts to something that more clearly resembles that the player left the program before completing eligibility.
2) It would be interesting to see the results for the entire conference, but I think in particular it will be interesting to see the impact against Oregon (already completed), Stanford, and Oregon State. Oregon and Stanford obviously because they are the top programs in the conference. Oregon State because while they at times lack in talent, they are almost always experienced, well coached squads that require you to beat them instead of beating themselves.
3) I'm a little torn on how to treat JUCO players in the list
4) I'd also like to see listings that compare how many true freshman are playing immediately
5) I'd also recommend breaking out those that leave the program early because they enter the NFL draft (which means that you got at least 3 years in the program with clear contributions to the roster) versus players that left on their own (which generally means that they didn't provide contributions to the program) ... there's a HUGE difference in these kinds of metrics. I'd argue that the latter is much more closely aligned with the "exhaustion of eligibility" measure. In the end, what you're trying to analyze is the % of players that were just flat out recruiting misses that provided limited, if any, contributions to a program.
Good stuff. The attrition and lack of redshirts has hurt the program. Sample, Ducre, Kevin Smith, Pio V, etc. Those guys would really help. That is one thing that excites me about Petersen. I don't think Sark cared about the bottom half of his recruiting classes. Petersen does and he really delves into their character, which hopefully leads to less attrition.
I do disagree with some of the article. This team has talent, but it is lacking it at the most important spot, QB. The RB's are pretty bad too. Talent was only one of the reasons we got plungered by Oregon. As I have stated many times, less talented teams than UW's played tough against Oregon. Arizona even beat them. Jake Fisher returning obviously has been a major boon. However, he was not a 25 point difference.
Nobody expected a great team, just a good one that wins 10 games. Let's not move the goalposts now. The fact that we have flaws and youth/talent deficiencies in places shouldn't be news. It was known all along. 10 wins is still feasible and I think there is enough talent to do that. It won't be easy, but if we don't, I certainly won't blame it all on a lack of talent.
5 stars is a good start. If you asked Greenblood or another logical Duck fan, I doubt they would name more than 5 guys who are stars. I suppose who those star players are also matters. I would trade 3 of our stars for Mariota. I don't blame it all on Petersen, but change can be tough. Some guys have taken to it and gotten better. Danny Shelton, Shaq, and John Ross are examples. Others guys have not. Timu and Feeney haven't gotten any better, and are possibly worse. The OL looks no better than it did last year. Up to this point, I can't say we are over achieving with the talent we have, and we are possibly under achieving. There is still a lot of season left though.
I still think this team can win 9 or 10 games if all goes right. But I also don't think there is much talent on this team.
I still think this team can win 9 or 10 games if all goes right. But I also don't think there is much talent on this team.
I still think this team can win 9 or 10 games if all goes right. But I also don't think there is much talent on this team.
We should expect to win games against Colorado and Washington State.
We have 4 toss up games remaining with ASU, UCLA, Arizona, and Oregon State - 3 of which are at home.
We may be looking at another 5-4 season in conference ...
There's enough talent on this roster that if we got reasonable QB play I think we could be expecting to see 6-3 or 7-2 in conference this year. Probably don't lose to Stanford if we had it.
If there has been a massive disappointment to me this year, and an area where I tremendously missed, it was thinking that we'd get more out of Miles than we are. He's just not an upper end PAC QB in my mind.
I still think this team can win 9 or 10 games if all goes right. But I also don't think there is much talent on this team.
We should expect to win games against Colorado and Washington State.
We have 4 toss up games remaining with ASU, UCLA, Arizona, and Oregon State - 3 of which are at home.
We may be looking at another 5-4 season in conference ...
There's enough talent on this roster that if we got reasonable QB play I think we could be expecting to see 6-3 or 7-2 in conference this year. Probably don't lose to Stanford if we had it.
If there has been a massive disappointment to me this year, and an area where I tremendously missed, it was thinking that we'd get more out of Miles than we are. He's just not an upper end PAC QB in my mind.
Oregon State at home should not be a toss-up. You lose that game your head coach isn't the right guy.
It would be interesting to check attrition for Boise State while Petersen was there. I bet Stanford is low but I'd best Boise St is even lower.