[teejers1]

I don't think we have to worry much about UW selecting Wilcox. Whether he is a good coach or a bad coach totally set aside, the idea of poaching a coach from Kal who never won anything just wouldn't make it with the UW fan base. There would also be a buyout to UCB (although not a real big one). I just don't see how the UW "brain trust" could justify that to their fans. That isn't to say nobody would take Wilcox, just that UW won't.

Well said.  

If you were Fickell (or some other coach-in-demand), which job would you rather have:  USC or UW?  I don't think it's that crazy a question because UW has real program history and a fan base that is solid (as opposed to . . . well . . .LA-ish).  Still, I'd probably take the former, if only because I think the prospect of beating Utah/winning the south regularly is much greater than beating Oregon/winning the north.  And you have to win the division before you can do BIG THINGS.

[teejers1]

I don't think we have to worry much about UW selecting Wilcox. Whether he is a good coach or a bad coach totally set aside, the idea of poaching a coach from Kal who never won anything just wouldn't make it with the UW fan base. There would also be a buyout to UCB (although not a real big one). I just don't see how the UW "brain trust" could justify that to their fans. That isn't to say nobody would take Wilcox, just that UW won't.

Well said.  

If you were Fickell (or some other coach-in-demand), which job would you rather have:  USC or UW?  I don't think it's that crazy a question because UW has real program history and a fan base that is solid (as opposed to . . . well . . .LA-ish).  Still, I'd probably take the former, if only because I think the prospect of beating Utah/winning the south regularly is much greater than beating Oregon/winning the north.  And you have to win the division before you can do BIG THINGS.