I’m surprised David hasn’t posted about this yet, but perhaps he’s too busy celebrating. :) Anyway… on the same day that Charlie Weis suffered his biggest loss since coming to Notre Dame, former Irish coach Ty Willingham earned perhaps his most important victory since being hired by the University of Washington, as the Huskies beat Fresno State, 21-20. Washington’s previous wins under Ty were against lowly Idaho, Arizona and San Diego State, but Fresno State — despite being 1-2 this season, having lost a squeaker to Oregon last week — is a legit team, and the Huskies beat them. Washington is now 2-1, equalling their total number of wins last season, and with Stanford looking godawful, the Huskies have an excellent chance of beating that total by season’s end. Moreover, Oregon State and Arizona certainly appear beatable, and a 17-15 win over Baylor isn’t a huge vote of confidence for Washington State. Could the Huskies beat the Cougars in the Apple Cup… and earn their sixth win in the process, becoming bowl-eligible? It’s probably a long shot, but I suspect David and his fellow Huskies are daring to dream tonight, and who can blame them?
BTW, I still don’t think Ty is a good coach. :) But congrats to Washington on a win that will hopefully start their program on the road back to respectability.
UPDATE: I just got off the phone with David. Turns out, he was at the game, and he said it was a very exciting, awesome atmosphere. He also said Ty’s stated goal for the season is being bowl-eligible, and he (David) thinks it’s very much attainable.
Anyway, as long as we’re on the topic of stunning upsets… Southern Illinois became the latest Division I-AA team to shock a I-A foe, beating Indiana 35-28 in Bloomington. So much for Nick’s theory that the Hoosiers could become bowl-eligible by “defending the rock” against Western Michigan, Ball State, Southern Illinois, UConn and Illinois, and then pulling one upset against the rest of their schedule (Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota, Michigan, Purdue). It’d take two upsets now. Or really, three, since UConn’s gonna beat ‘em next Saturday. GO HUSKIES! :)
Speaking of UConn, they lost to Wake Forest, 24-13. D’oh! Another team of personal interest losing on Saturday: Buffalo. Not that that’s a surprise. :)
In terms of near-shockers, how about South Carolina almost losing to I-AA Wofford? (Oh, but that SEC schedule is a war! A war, I tell you!) And how about Army almost beating Texas A&M? I caught the end of that one, and it was a thriller. Pity the Army boys couldn’t pull it out. They almost, almost did. (Meanwhile, as I alluded to earlier, the Navy boys had no trouble winning against lowly Stanford, which is in serious jeopardy of a winless season.)
|
Categories: College Football
|
September 17th, 2006 at 3:03:06 am
Brendan, Washington can perhaps make a bowl this year precisely because Ty is a good coach. Washington’s talent is so sub-par for the Pac-10 right now, but Ty has them more disciplined and productive as a team. I can definitely see them winning against OSU, WSU, Stanford, and possibly Arizona. And without a doubt, all four of those teams are more talented than the Huskies at this point.
September 17th, 2006 at 4:42:40 am
Andrew, you clearly haven’t seen this team play. We do indeed have some sub-par talent, we alos have some great talent. We might not be USC or Oregon, but we are recovering from some major traumas over the past well decade football wise. And sorry but Stanford and Arizona haven’t got us beaten on talent, I doubt WSU does, maybe OSU. But I’ll let the season speak for itself.
September 17th, 2006 at 4:43:22 am
Of note Brendan is this quote from the ESPN wrap up article on the Michigan/ND game:
In his 15th game on the job, Charlie Weis’ Notre Dame honeymoon came to an abrupt end, just as it did three years ago for Tyrone Willingham. Both Notre Dame coaches entered their 15th game 11-3, both left them after embarrassing losses to Michigan.
September 17th, 2006 at 4:43:45 am
here’s the story in question
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2590714
September 17th, 2006 at 11:32:23 am
Was at the uconn game. 50 yard line (section 100) 7 rows back.
September 17th, 2006 at 4:44:02 pm
I always liked Ty Willingham and thought he really knew what it meant to be a college coach — that athletic programs are part of a university’s educational mission. I think it was a mistake to dump him so unceremoniously and I thought he was an excellent representative of the university (well, in most respects — I do wish he’d won more games). I’m also glad to see a coach with a reasonable expectation and an achievable goal.
September 17th, 2006 at 5:31:24 pm
Brendan,
What’s your connection to Buffalo?
September 17th, 2006 at 5:59:59 pm
Becky grew up in Amherst, NY, and several of her close friends went to UB.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:21:48 pm
I know you like to take potshots at the SEC, but Wofford isn’t actually in the league. That’s like saying the Big Ten is easy because Indiana played Southern Illinois. In a couple of weeks, Florida starts a run of Alabama, LSU, Auburn, and Georgia in consecutive games. Notre Dame will be gearing up to face Army, Navy, Air Force (what, no coast guard?) and North Carolina. That’s after playing Tennessee, and with Florida State waiting for them.
September 17th, 2006 at 8:08:11 pm
David, here are the Scout.com and Rivals.com rankings of the Pac-10 teams over the past four years (note: Scout.com ranking numbers are national rankings, and the ranking is derived on quality of players and quantity of recruits; Rivals’ ranking numbers are Pac-10 only and are based on player quality only):
scout.com
USC: 1, 16, 1, 1; Total 19
Cal: 23, 9, 29, 24; Total 85
UCLA: 20, 24, 24, 36; Total 104
Washington: 38, 47, 22, 18; Total 125
ASU: 32, 41, 23, 38; Total 134
Arizona: 19, 15, 64, 40; Total 138
Oregon: 52, 30, 15, 44; Total 141
Stanford: 38, 38, 46, 26; Total 148
WSU: 45, 55, 21, 58; Total 179
OSU: 41, 51, 34, 56; Total 182
Rivals.com
USC: 1, 1, 1, 1; Total 4
Cal: 4, 2, 4, 2; Total 12
ASU: 5, 6, 7, 3; Total 21
UCLA: 2, 4, 8, 8; Total 22
Arizona: 3, 3, 9, 7; Total 22
Washington: 6, 10, 3, 4; Total 23
Oregon: 10, 5, 2, 6; Total 23
OSU: 7, 8, 6, 9; Total 30
Stanford: 9, 7, 10, 5; Total 31
WSU: 8, 9, 5, 10; Total Total 32
Observations: First off, David is right about Washington having similar or better talent than Stanford, OSU, and WSU. On Arizona, I’ll call it a draw, as Arizona has had very good recruiting classes recently, but had very poor classes before that. On seniority, though, Washington should be the better team because Arizona’s talent is younger and more raw. Another stat in Washington’s favor is that their 2005 class, which was arguably the worst in the Pac-10 that year, was a very small class, so they certainly did not load up on bad players.
But David has set himself up here: On talent alone, U-Dub ought to be between 4th and 6th this year in the Pac-10. Anything less ought to be a clear disappointment on the coaching.
Another thing I’d note is the massive disparity between USC and the rest of the Pac. Whichever statistical ranking method you prefer, USC is a couple magnitudes better than every other Pac-10 team in talent level. Cal has separated itself in talent level, but the other eight teams are quite close. WSU and OSU ought to bring up the rear of the Pac-10 this year, and their play so far this season suggests that’s an accurate expectation, but Stanford is playing below even their talent level — a reflection of poor coaching (as bad as I thought Buddy Teevens was, I didn’t think Walt Harris would be much better, so their poor start in 2006 doesn’t surprise me at all).
Bottom line: This year ought to be a good crucible for whether Ty is a good coach or not. His team’s talent is in the middle of the Pac, and he has more experienced talented players than some other teams. If Ty’s team finishes less than 6th, that’s not a good sign in his favor.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:37:51 pm
Davie is correct on the talent level, and he has set himself up. But I disagree, Andy. We already know Ty Willingham is a below average coach. He was slightly above .500 at Stanford in an era in which the Pac-10 was in decline, and slightly above .500 at ND, a place with so many inherent advantages that it is downright criminal to win less than 65% of your games over a career. So, whether Ty is able to cobble together a bowl eligible season this year is meaningless. That ship has sailed. He’s a below average coach who might steal a few wins here and there against better teams, but he lacks the acumen to consistently perform on the level required to build a successful program (are you aware that he was never a coordinator? - he went straight from position coach to HC, which would explain his deficiencies with x and o’s.)
September 18th, 2006 at 11:02:17 pm
Leahy, I might be willing to accept your hypothesis that Ty’s been a bad coach since he arrived at Stanford except for the fact that Stanford was so atrocious under Teevens and now under Harris, I can’t possibly buy that premise. I don’t know if he would’ve ever been able to utilize the talent he assembled at Notre Dame as effectively as Weis has, but I don’t think he was given a fair shot either. The fact is, Ty had to transition Notre Dame from an option-oriented offense to a West Coast-style offense. Weis on the other hand inherited a passing offense and merely changed it slightly to fit his style. Ty needed another year or two before his transition would show fruit; Weis, however, had his table prepared for him.