Interesting quote from coach W

[IAA Fan]

“If you look at the big picture, we’re gonna do what’s best for the program,” Wolford said. “If things are even and you’ve got a guy that’s going to be around here three or four years and another guy that’s only going to be here for another year or two, he’s had his opportunity. “If you’re gonna let someone come in and take your job, then that’s on you. You’ve got to live with it.”

What is your opinion? I absolutely do not agree with this statement. If two people are even ...you go with the seniors (then work your way down). Anything else can be misinterpreted as favoritism to your recruits over the previous coach. If you have a player that has been "busting his backside" for 4 or 5 years ...he deserves something in return. One loyal deed deserves another. Again this is only if the two in question are 'even'. Because what will happen is that you will lose players & will have no depth. Tressel and Heacock had 8 starting guards/tackles, and two centers on offense. They even rotated starters many times. Sure skilled positions are different, but if you expect to attract players away from larger program offers ...you had better be prepared to hand over the "keys to the city". To put this ins NFL terms ...No one is going to take a signing bonus in lieu of a salary. Do you think Pat Devlin transferred to Delaware, or Bo Levi transferred to Eastern Washington for "a chance" to play? That football was in their hand before they even set foot in camp the first time.

Am I seeing this incorrectly?

[guinpen]

Need to ponder this one.

[penguinpower]

Don't read into it so much.  He is creating competition.  The Sr athlete or Jr athlete will likely be better than an equal athlete that is Jr to him.  He is just not eliminating a younger athlete that show potential.  exercise common sense.
 

[Wick250]

You have to consider the context of this answer.  A media person asked him about last year's starters on defense who are now buried on the depth chart.  No coach is going to tell a veteran that you lost your job because the guys I brought in are much better football players than you are.  No. Wolford called them "even" and politely gave this convoluted answer.  In fact, the demoted starters are not "even" with their replacements.  To many of us it was clear that many of the returning starters on the worst defense in YSU history would not survive. 

[nova75]

He is paid to win football games and nothing less. He owes no kid anything and owes his employer and fans to put the best product on the field. Loyalty and emotion will get him fired or run out of town.

If they win, no one will give a crap what he says.

[Pizza]

He has recruited better players. His talent level has gone up. His legacy will be determined by "his" guys.
He's not here to win a popularity contest. Although I agree that being "empathetic" and being "tough" are not mutually exclusive character traits. Most great coaches manage "both". Many a wise man would say that you can "catch more bees with "honey" than you can with "vinegar".

Let's hope that "piss and vinegar" translates to on-field production. I think it will. I hope it happens. Coach Reno at Steubenville (who has had a pretty nice career) always said......"Their are those that are humble......and those who are about to be humbled".

Let's go Guins!!!

[ysubigred]

“If you look at the big picture, we’re gonna do what’s best for the program,” Wolford said. “If things are even and you’ve got a guy that’s going to be around here three or four years and another guy that’s only going to be here for another year or two, he’s had his opportunity. “If you’re gonna let someone come in and take your job, then that’s on you. You’ve got to live with it.”

What is your opinion? I absolutely do not agree with this statement. If two people are even ...you go with the seniors (then work your way down). Anything else can be misinterpreted as favoritism to your recruits over the previous coach. If you have a player that has been "busting his backside" for 4 or 5 years ...he deserves something in return. One loyal deed deserves another. Again this is only if the two in question are 'even'. Because what will happen is that you will lose players & will have no depth. Tressel and Heacock had 8 starting guards/tackles, and two centers on offense. They even rotated starters many times. Sure skilled positions are different, but if you expect to attract players away from larger program offers ...you had better be prepared to hand over the "keys to the city". To put this ins NFL terms ...No one is going to take a signing bonus in lieu of a salary. Do you think Pat Devlin transferred to Delaware, or Bo Levi transferred to Eastern Washington for "a chance" to play? That football was in their hand before they even set foot in camp the first time.

Am I seeing this incorrectly?

I agree with him.  I believe this was one of Heacocks faults.  He had better talent sitting on the bench because he was loyal to his upper class men.  Just because your a SR. that don't mean it's automatic you play.  Football is a team sport.

[Dracula]

Nova is absolutely correct.

[IAA Fan]

I am not trying to create controversy ...I just did not agree with Wolf on this topic and we need something football to talk about for a couple weeks, or we will go crazy. 

I agree with Nova and Red, but only to a point. Most players come in and are pretty beat-up by the end of their career ...there is no pro future for 99% of all players ...they deserve something. Again, the word "equal" was used, and everything else being equal ...rank has to have it's privileges or they will not stick around. Then you lose your back-ups (poor depth). Then word gets out & you lose your recruits (poor team). You do not honor underclassmen on senior day. Good point that coach W could be using the word "equal" for the players, but we need back-ups that are "chompin at the bit" to play. A young guy has reason to wait for his chance to play, a senior does not, and he certainly will not be very "hungry". Not to mention that your upper class-men do most of the coaching on a team, as they have experience that a coach cannot teach. I do not want to be fielding a team of "rookies" every year. We did this last year, and this; we need to take the field with veterans at some point.  Are we trying to build a winning team ...or a winning program?

[ysubigred]

I am not trying to create controversy ...I just did not agree with Wolf on this topic and we need thing to talk about for a couple weeks, or we will go crazy. 

I agree with Nova and Red, but only to a point. Most players come in and are pretty beat-up by the end of their career ...there is no pro future for 99% of all players ...they deserve something. Again, the word "equal" was used, and everything else being equal ...rank has to have it's privileges or they will not stick around. Then you lose your back-ups (poor depth). Then word gets out & you lose your recruits (poor team). You do not honor underclassmen on senior day. Good point that coach W could be using the word "equal" for the players, but we need back-ups that are "chompin at the bit" to play. A young guy has reason to wait for his chance to play, a senior does not, and he certainly will not be very "hungry". Not to mention that your upper class-men do most of the coaching on a team, as they have experience that a coach cannot teach. I do not want to be fielding a team of "rookies" every year. We did this last year, and this; we need to take the field with veterans at some point.  Are we trying to build a winning team ...or a winning program?

If they're that beat up then they need to be on the bench.  I'm not sure what you mean by "they deserve something".  They are paid to perform via scholarships. If all is equal then the under class men should get the nod since he's going to get better.  The JR/SR seems to be peaked out.

[IAA Fan]

If they're that beat up then they need to be on the bench.  I'm not sure what you mean by "they deserve something".  They are paid to perform via scholarships. If all is equal then the under class men should get the nod since he's going to get better.  The JR/SR seems to be peaked out.

On the bench for a rest? That is what the back-up is for. If not, I now have a dejected former starter, that is going to give a little as possible as a back-up. Now you can easily say, then go down to your third-string ...but then what have you accomplished? The former starter at 50% is probably better than the third-stringer at 99%. The better plan is to keep your upper-class starter, then increase your back-ups playing time as needed. Eventually it may become more than the starter, that is the cycle I would like to see on any team.

Again this only general talk on coaching philosophies. I like what I see from coach W so far.

[HappyPenguin]

He said something very similar last year in the pre-season too....don't read too much into it.

If he doesn't win than he is out of a job so I can see his point.

[penguinpower]

Heacock's issue was that he was loyal to a fault.  Upperclassmen didn't have to work once they were upperclassmen in addition to the fact that the best player may not have been on the field most of the time. 

If you are satisfied with one playoff appearance in 10 years, then run the new coach off.  Because this new guy is on a mission to win and I think you will find that he intends to do it in his own style.

[bpcats]

Always put the best players on the field.

MSU's redshirt freshman D. McGhee won the job over returning Sr. Qb Kempt and we couldn't be happier with the results.