On Cristobal, I don't think he needs to be a good play caller. I think the head coach these days needs to be a good recruiter and a good leader. You can hire coordinators to do the play calling.
You're reasons is because we "utilize" things to our advantage and you believe we have a sense of entitlement. This is what you said: The "one huge donor" is more impactful and meaningful for athletes than any of UWs donors. Phil Knight is as impactful to their recruiting as any one head coach. The "never wear the same thing twice" crap just screams rich and entitled. Phil Knight utilizes his business operations to advance Oregon in the college sports world, just like the Lakers utilize their market to advance their roster. I can't think of a comparable example for the Phil Knight-Oregon comnection in regards to college football. With Phil Knight, Washington would be the best team in the country. Laker fans also have a sense of entitlement, much like Oregon fans have had for years. I continuously see Oregon fans acting entitled to recruits because of their Nike connections and the "world class" facilities it's given them. Do you think Chris Peterson utilizes the Seattle advantage, the market all the giant multi-billion dollar businesses that call seattle home? I'd agree Seattle is closer to Portland than LA, but University of Oregon is also 3 hours away from Portland, in Eugene. The ducks have toned down the uniform thing a lot, and I'll agree it was getting a little stupid. I brought up the tech scene because technology is a big deal do younger people. Seattle has a crazy amount of awesome stuff to show off technologically compared to Portland. I don't agree that the Ducks are all that comparable with the Lakers. I wouldn't even really say that Washington is like the Lakers, though which one is 'more' like the Lakers of course as a duck fan I'd argue it's washington and as a Washington fan you'd argue it's the ducks lol. Both fan bases have it's share of douche bags. It's share of rich people, and snobs. The Huskies have many advantages the Ducks don't have and vice versa and yeah they both utilize those.
I wish we had hired Peterson, washington got themselves a heck of a leader, recruiter, and play caller all in one. That dude is so good. I'm convinced when they get a more 'steady' qb than browning they're going to wreck the pac 12 for a couple years, the ducks and usc might be able to keep up but Peterson is so good he has those guys so disciplined and in the right spot almost all the time.
How does CP directly utilize the businesses? Not talking about the money trail, but to say Oregon doesn't get a good amount of donation money is disingenuous.
Oh I realize Phil Knight puts a ton of money into Oregon, I’m not saying he doesn’t. He’s a huge advantage that I think most schools would love to have. http://www.washington.edu/150/sponsor-microsoft/ This is just an example I found quickly. I’m sure there are more, this doesn’t really have much to do with recruiting (I realize that). Just showing that they do utilize the local big businesses.
I'm talking about utilizing directly to help the programs perception with athletes and to land more recruits. How does this apply?
It doesn’t necessarily, but I suppose we could concoct a way it may. If you have an athlete who wants to work in technology be a developer or software engineer. Have them do a recruiting visit that weekend and have them run elbows with the right people. I don’t really spend that much time looking at university of Washington recruiting... How do you think they do recruit though? They’re utilizing more than a scholarship offer and football, they have to find advantages other teams won’t have or they wouldn’t do so hot at recruiting.
@BonesJones here's a couple things where the university of washington was donated money from local big businesses for things that could help with recruiting. https://www.geekwire.com/2016/amazo...versity-washington-computer-science-building/ https://c21.washington.edu/our-programs/uw-amazon-mentors-program https://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2017/03/paul_allen_gives_40_million_to.html also Alaska airlines is based in Seattle and their name is on the field. It's literally called Alaska Airlines field at husky stadium. It's similar to Phil giving Oregon a crap ton of money for renovations, a library, a field. My point is just that all these universities have unique advantages, and they all use them or try to.
Do you think recruits are coming to Washington because "Alaska Airlines" is on the teams field?.... Cmon man.
No, but Alaska Airlines helped pay for a nice field, do I think recruits might come there because of that being part of their facilities, sure. Just like I think they might come to oregon because of a nike symbol on a building. The question was if Washington / CP utilizes the businesses of seattle as an advantage for recruiting. The real difference is Oregon is kind of the university of nike (I get it), and University of washington has a lot of different donors, but they still benefit from it the same as oregon does.
Again I'm not talking about the utilization of donation money. All schools gets donation money. I'm talking about the direct over-utilization of a global brand to advance the program. Nike benefits Oregon more than anything. Do you realize how many recruits commit there because it's the "flashy" school? And why do you think it's considered the flashy school?
Ok sure, Oregon's a "flashy" school. It's considered a flashy school, because a.) they had a period of winning (it's not a flashy school right now), b.) facilities (but almost every school now has those), c.) the pace of play with chip kelly (a few years ago). Sure I understand they get the nike benefits. Theres nothing really 'wrong' with being flashy. Even Washington has followed suit with the flashy uniforms. https://www.huskiesnewera.com/uniforms They just signed a big contract with Addidas. https://www.seattletimes.com/sports...idas-uniforms-look-like-here-are-a-few-ideas/ So yeah I completely understand the perception of the University of Oregon. The whole thing was about who's more like the lakers, I don't believe were gonna see eye to eye on that. It's just part of being a fan, and also were both Blazer fans which basically implies a very strong distate for the Lakers...
No, that's not the only reason why. Nike has worked hard in cooperation with Oregon (different than donating) to create an aura around the program that attracts recruits. I'm trying to explain to you why they catch so much flack for it. But you're trying to tell me that Microsoft creating some sort of tailgate experience for fans compares.... Or that the "Alaskan Airlines" attracts recruits... Hah. Donation money is large enough for Pac-12 schools to be considered a constant.
I hear taggarts complaining about VTech faking injuries to slow FSU down. The way Taggart left the ducks and all that went on around that makes it hard for me to feel bad for him. Also that playcalling was pretty awful... he’s a heck of a recruiter but I don’t think he’s a very good coach. Maybe this thread should be the ‘official’ college football thread?
I don't think it's debatable that UO being affiliated with Nike provides them a unique advantage. However, considering the situations they're trying to compete with--UW in the heart of Seattle, USC/UCLA in Los Angeles, Cal/Stanford in the bay area--UO needs something unique in order to be anywhere close to on even footing. Without the advantages provided by the Nike connection, UO would be no different than WSU or OSU. I don't know why a UW fan would criticize UO for benefiting from the one advantage it has, considering the numerous other advantages they have over UO.
And it's not like they have ever have the top recruiting classes in the Pac 12. They rarely finish in the top 3 in recruiting. So how much of an advantage can it actually be? Recruiting always comes down to who the coaches are and if they are winning. Chip got to the NC game with Bellotti's recruits. (Which were not top classes) His top RB was a 3* recruit, his top NT was a 280 lb converted 2* TE coming off a Mormon mission, and his top receiver was a converted 3* safety. Mariota, Herbert ... barely got 3 *s Helfrich got fired because he lost and was not a good recruiter. None of which had a damn thing to do with Nike. Yes the Nike connection has been beneficial, just not as much as fans of other teams like to suggest. The top recruits will visit because of it, but they sure won't commit because of it. They haven't so far anyways.
The Huskies have always recruited just as well as Oregon regardless of Nike. Seattle is a much larger draw than Duck nation, 50K versus 80K seat stadiums. Yeah, records help for sure but their recruiting in Seattle over the years has been very good. I would bet they have more 4&5 star recruits for the last 15 years than the Ducks.
Kiffin, Sarkisian, Hoke, Rich Rod, and Taggart were all good recruiters that were considered “CEO types”. It’s not all just recruiting and leadership. Especially in this conference, you can get out schemed on any Saturday. Too many brilliant football minds in coaching today to be bad with x’s and o’s. That’s how you get down 24 pts at half vs. Boise State. What do Peterson, Leach, and Kelly all have in common? They’re brilliant football minds that made their name in the industry with innovative schemes and game planning. The “PJ Fleck era” of coaching will die quick. Gotta have substance or you’ll be exposed.
Then you have the Mike Bellotti's (Who was inducted into the College football Hall of Fame) He was more of the CEO type who let his offensive coordinators run the show. Some of his hires: Chip Kelly, Jeff Tedford, Dirk Koetter, Chris Peterson. We don't know how smart Mario is yet, but I don't care how brilliant of a coach you are, you better have good assistants. And a lot of them.
