UW: The Nadir

I was snookered. Consider it the last time I overestimate an 0-10 team. After the Huskies stole defeat from the jaws of victory in a 16-13 double-overtime Crapple Cup loss to the Cougars, it can't get any worse for UW -- except that it can. The Huskies will be heavy underdogs against Cal Saturday in a quest to go 0-12. Wow. The only winless team in major-college football is also one that made a Rose Bowl this decade and won a national championship during the last one, all the while a Top-20 program. The fall from grace is complete. So how did Tyrone Willingham drive this train so far off the rails? It's instructive to look at Willingham's past to see how his present is so bad.

It's hard to remember that four years ago Willingham was a hot coaching prospect. He had success and moral outrage on his side after getting canned by Notre Dame. His ouster after a three-year record of 21-16 caused consternation among some Irish faithful who felt the school debased itself in the name of winning at any cost. Prior to that, Willingham was successful in Palo Alto, where he brought Stanford -- Stanford! -- to a Rose Bowl. (It's also hard to remember a time when USC didn't have a stranglehold on the Pac-10). But what those schools have in common are high academic standards. Willingham was a success working under those circumstances, but apparently doesn't have what it takes to operate outside them.

I imagine Willingham in living rooms coming across as a military recruiter, exuding confidence and integrity, while appealing as much to parents as he does to the athlete. When you're recruiting people considering Stanford or Notre Dame, you're dealing with kids who are real student-athletes, insofar as they exist in major-college football. Presumably they're successful at juggling the rigors of football with long hours of classwork. By and large, they're self-motivated. But at a place like UW -- or most schools, for that matter -- where more external motivation is needed, Coach Ty fell flat.

Willingham clearly failed as a motivator. He has the charisma of dry toast, and his press conferences and interviews are notoriously bland, even by the diluted standards of coachspeak. You don't have to be a quote machine to be successful, but it helps to change your expression once in a while. Pete Carroll, Nick Saban and Mike Leach are different in that they're affable, slick and quirky, respectively, but they all have personality. In addition to being good recruiters, they seem to get through to their players most of the time. But Willingham never got through to his UW teams. (Also, Willingham didn't recruit well early on, but his recent classes have been better. I bet a better motivator has more success with Ty's players next year.) His stoic demeanor looked more distant and icy as the losses mounted. At schools like Stanford and Notre Dame, Willingham could get away with the edict-from-on-high thing, but that didn't cut it at UW. Willingham didn't motivate his players, and if you're not a motivator, you're not really a coach.

Despite all this, I still think Willingham can be successful elsewhere. UW fans probably don't care where Willingham goes, just that he is going. But install Ty at a service academy or a brainy school and he can win again, and some schools fitting this description might soon have openings. It's not hard to picture Willingham at Vanderbilt, where Bobby Johnson has the Commodores poised to go to a bowl for the first time since 1982. Certainly bigger programs will come calling, and Johnson's name has been linked to the Clemson vacancy. Northwestern has won 9 games under hot young coach Pat Fitzgerald, but it's not clear if he wants to leave Evanston; Fitzgerald was a linebacker on the Wildcats team that made the 1996 Rose Bowl. Rice is also uncharacteristically bowl-eligible, and the Owls' fan base might approve of an established name like Willingham if that job were to open up. (Lt. Daniels could weigh in on this). But it's also quite possible that Willingham's reputation is so bruised by his UW failure that he has to take an assistant job somewhere.

Fans might disagree, but I think the UW program is in better shape than when Willingham came on four years ago. That's not saying much because he took over a house in shambles, following a 1-10 season in 2004. The team had little talent and was still dealing with the aftermath of Rick Neuheisel's malfeasance. These days, the program is cleaner, and if you surround Jake Locker with a modicum of talent next year, UW will win at least a few games. Nonetheless, much of UW's failure clearly lies at the feet of its coach. He didn't recruit well enough early on, and his style was a bad fit at a place like Washington. It's almost too bad because it confirms the old adage: nice guys finish last.

Sour Apples

On November 23, 2001, college football fans from Piscataway, NJ to Berkeley, CA -- and nowhere in between -- eagerly awaited the kickoff of the Cal-Rutgers game. Each team hoped the other would cure what ailed them. And that season, there were nothing but ailments for both clubs. Rutgers entered the game 2-8, while Cal sported an 0-10 record, in a contest that featured future NFL underachievers Kyle Boller and L.J. Smith. AND, the hype had been building all season. The game was pushed back to November from mid-September because of the 9/11 attacks. So as fall eased toward winter along the banks of the Raritan, the excuses were over. The Battle of the Beatens was on!

That tilt is the closest I can come to approximating Saturday's Apple Cup. Like Cal, UW comes in 0-10 (I'll get to some more exciting parallels later), while Wazzu is 1-10. While we've documented the Huskies' putrefaction in this space all year, the Cougars might be worse. Aside from beating Jerry Glanville's hapless Portland State squad, WSU hasn't been competitive in a single game. They've given up at least 58 points six times and injuries forced them to hold an open-campus casting call for a quarterback. Consider that Saturday's loss to Arizona State represented the smallest margin of loss since October 4th. Consider that WSU lost 31-0. Since UW "only" bowed to ASU 39-19 last week, give the Huskies the edge. Meanwhile, Dennis Erickson is petitioning the NCAA to let the Sun Devils play WSU seven times next year, and UW the other five.

But unlike that pillow fight seven years ago, this Sour Apple Cup is a rivalry game. You know, you can throw out the records for this brawl. If only we could. Both sides always say that beating the other validates their season. For this year's winner, it'll be like a cherry on top of a triple turd sundae. 

Rivalry or not, is this not the worst game between two BCS schools since Cal-Rutgers? Let's open up the phone lines. Hello? Hello? Um, is this thing on? With a nod to Stanklin, cue the tumbleweeds. When you consider that UW and WSU have both played in Rose Bowls this decade, Saturday's game is even more shocking in its awfulness. 

But a history lesson from The Battle of the Beatens could offer solace to both UW and WSU. Late in 2001, Cal's head coach Tom Holmoe resigned as the season circled the drain, while UW's Tyrone Willingham is also "stepping down" at the end of the season. Cal brought in Jeff Tedford, who has turned the Golden Bears into a winning program, while now being mentioned as an outside candidate for the Husky job. Meanwhile, 2001 was current Rutgers head coach Greg Schiano's first year. Since then, he's brought the Scarlet Knights to unprecedented heights and rebuffed offers from bigger programs. WSU is also led by a first-year coach and former WSU football player Paul Wulff. Coincidence? Of course not. 

On November 23, 2001 in front of 18,111 fans, Cal beat Rutgers 20-10, sending coach Holmoe out a winner and euthanizing a season for two piss-poor teams. Ergo, my Sour Apple Cup prediction: UW 20, WSU 10, with Tyrone Willingham getting a turd sundae shower in place of Gatorade.