When Pat Hill first arrived he took over a team that was for all purposes technically on life support. The Bulldogs had endured some awful seasons at the end of Jim Sweeney's career and looked to be going absolutely no where. Pat Hill stepped in and revived this team sending them to a bowl game seven years in a row starting with the Las Vegas Bowl behind Billy Volek. Hill brought the idea to the forefront that the Bulldogs should be a national player with respect to college football. Soon the Bulldogs began beating BCS teams and looking to play anyone, anywhere, anytime. Hill led Fresno State to wins over Wisconsin, Oregon State, and Colorado to begin the 2001 season and for the first time in recent memory the Bulldogs had become a household name across the nation. Unfortunately we all know how that season ended and the following five seasons have all run the same tragic route. But did Pat Hill actually lead this team to these great wins, or is it all smoke and mirrors that in the end are fooling the nation into believing Hill has accomplished much more than he truly has?
When you take a look at our Big BCS wins we have only beaten one team that finished the season ranked: Colorado in 2001. Wisconsin fell apart, as did Oregon State in 2001. Washington and Kansas State were horrible teams in 2004 with Washington going 1-11 with a win over San Jose State. While many believe Hill to be a great coach I tend to see things quite differently. Since David Carr left the Bulldogs offense has turned into a predictable run first offense that lacks creativity. Year after year it does not matter who the offensive coordinator is, the Bulldogs run, run, and they run some more. If the plan doesn't work it does not matter, the Dogs continue to run without hesitating. Pat Hill does not make adjustments to what the offense and defense of the other teams are doing. If the Dogs were to come out in a cover 2 defense with little blitzing that is exactly what they would do the entire game. If the offense was going to come out with a run first mentality then that is what they would do the entire game regardless of the score. Making adjustments to the other team's strengths and weaknesses is what makes a coach great. Last night Greg Schiano (The coach of Rutgers) devised a scheme in the second half that held Louisville scoreless. The reason this happened is because Schiano adjusted the way the team played in the second half and did all he could to pressure Brohm into throwing the ball earlier than he wanted to. The result: Rutgers comes back from 18 down to beat Louisville 28-25. To me that is a great coach. To me that is not what Pat Hill is today.
To further prove my point let me use Arkansas as an example. USC pounded Arkansas to begin the season 50-14. Since that day the Hogs are 9-0 and in first place in the SEC with a shot at a BCS game. Why did Arkansas rebound from the USC loss so well while Fresno State has fallen apart since we lost a close one to the Trojans? Because Arkansas used the USC game as a springboard for the rest of the season. Arkansas knows how great of a team USC is and has built on that loss. How many times have you heard Pat Hill use the excuse that the Dogs just suffered a post USC letdown because they had nothing left to play for? I am tired of hearing that reason to justify a four game losing streak to end the 2005 season. If Pat Hill were a great coach he would not have let a season slip away like he did last season. Just so everyone knows, the Bulldogs had plenty to play for after the USC loss, and here is what I mean by that. If the Dogs had defeated Nevada, La Tech, and Tulsa they would have finished the season 11-2 and in the top 12 in the nation. This year they would have began the season in a much better position with some momentum. Unfortunately that did not happen because Pat Hill said the Bulldogs played for everything that night when they lost to USC and there was nothing left to play for after.
Now I understand how many of you can support Pat Hill because the times of Bulldog football before him were not necessarily the greatest. But I keep hearing a question along the lines of: Who would do better at Fresno State? Well my question to all of you readers is this: Better than what? All we need to do is find a coach that leads us to wins over bad WAC teams and occasionally beats a mid to bottom tier BCS team. At the same time if this new coach allows us to endure a losing streak of at least three games a season then he will fit right in. So you honestly don't feel there is a coach out there that could do the same job Pat Hill is doing right now? The academic game plan is already in place. If a new coach came in that plan would not get scrapped and the academics would be fine. It is now time to focus on football. What is best for the Bulldogs football program is finding a leader the team wants to play for. The best thing for the team is finding a man who will change things up and makes the adjustments needed to give his team a chance to win. The Bulldogs have the talent to win this year and aren't doing so. You can't tell me it is the players who are failing week in and week out. When you lose three games in a row and all of them are blowouts something is wrong with the system. I am sure I will receive quite a bit of disagreement with respect to my opinion on Pat Hill but he has gone his course. It is time to move on and find the next Bulldog leader.