SacRat said:
He replaced a semi-decent football coach with one who practically ran the program into the ground.
As much as I enjoyed the Big Cat era, his teams found ways to repeatedly lose big games and he had lost that team by his last year. Yes, Moosh had losing seasons but under his watch he brought in some pretty good players, especially on defense. I thought the offense under his guidance woefully underperformed. I had expected much more in that category from him. Run it into ground? I don't know. Run off people near and dear to Sac State alumni, probably.
Moosh was SUPPOSED to be an offensive specialist, which makes the inadequate offense even more glaring. Volek had SEVERAL winning seasons, particularly when Charles Roberts was in town. I don't believe that Moosh had a single one. Run into the ground? DEFINITELY.
SacRat said:
He's failed to do anything about the WBB and baseball situations.
He let Carolyn Jenkins go and and hired Muscatell who took the girls to the Big Sky Tournament for the first time since 1997 and his team last year had the best record in the last ten years. In regards to Muscatell, is Wanless suppose to fire him for those improvements? As for John Smith, someone correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't he have tenure. How can Wanless fire him? Should he try and bribe Smith to retire? Where is the overwhelming demand from students, alumni and fans to justify and go to such length to get rid of Smith? His hiring of Katz, on paper, looks like a good decision too.
Muscatell's overall record REALLY whomps. Sure, he fired the even worse Jenkins. But Muscatell was CLEARLY a mistake. Wanless had a golden opportunity to replace him with a proven winner in Gina Johnson, but failed to pull the trigger. Tenure doesn't prevent removal of a coach. So he can't be flat-out fired? Move him to a bogus position within the Athletic Department or in the Kinesiology Department and bring in a REAL baseball man. Wanless has failed to do this. Yet another nail in his coffin.
SacRat said:
Sure, it seems that he kinda-sorta made up for the football hire with Sperbeck, but the jury is still out. If Sperbeck does great, and I think he will, Gonzalez and the old school Stinger boosters will get the credit. If Sperbeck bombs, it will be Wanless' fault.
He also takes FOREVER to make decisions of this nature. Other programs have made monumental coaching decisions in much less time. Decisions of what nature? Am I to assume that because YOU want coaches fired and he hasn't done it yet that he is taking forever?
Not so much the decision to make the fire, although the fact that he still hasn't dumped Muscatell and Smith rubs the wrong way. It's the extremely long process in filling positions once a fire has occurred, adversely affecting the recruiting process. Other schools have filled their positions with quality personnel in two weeks or less. Why does it take Wanless three or four months or more? I believe that it's his incompetence.
SacRat said:
Wanless has proven himself time and again to not be capable of handling a D-I program.
Can you please name all the times that he is not capable of handling a D-1 program? If so, how do you explainSports Illustrated ranking the athletic department as 36th out of 300 plus in the nation? Do you not like his negotiating with "that school across the causeway" for the Causeway Cup? Do you not think the coaches he has hired in track, tennis and soccer had anything to do with Sac State winning 8 conference titles last year? Or, the women winning the Big Sky All Sports trophy?
That stuff was bound to happen, anyway. Kim Hughes has run a quality gymnastics program at Sac for decades, certainly before Wanless came in. Debby Colberg has been producing outstanding volleyball teams for decades. The crew program's success predates Wanless as well. Track's success goes back to the previous coach, too. Hardly ANY of this has anything to do with Wanless' influence, IMO. The success on the women's side goes back to BEFORE Wanless.
SacRat said:
Heck, we've discussed it here before. It's time for Wanless to go.
Discussing something does not make something true and therefore doesn't mean its time for Wanless to go.
I'll grant you that. However, given the fact that dedicated people like GCM and SHA have expressed opinions similar to these for over a year (particularly regarding the Smith situation), where there's smoke, there's fire, SacRat. Wanless has done almost no good. He should be replaced NOW.
SacRat said:
He doesn't have that "Winless" moniker for nothing.
Maybe the moniker should be dropped due to the successes the department has had under his watch.
Again, what successes? Just about EVERYTHING good that has happened since Wanless got here had seeds if not actual fruit going back before he got here. That's like a US president claiming credit for economic success taking place just after he took office that were due to policies set forth by his predecessor. Wanless is worthless as a D-I AD.
Just my opinion, however. There are others here that share that sentiment to some degree. If you don't, that's OK because it makes for a good board discussion.
