As long as Washington's pathetic fanbase continues to accept mediocrity, they'll keep getting 7-6. And since they continue to accept said mediocrity, they really deserve another 0-12.
My sense at the time of Tyrone's 0-12 masterpiece is that UW's "pathetic" fanbase was very close to cratering or coogin-it in 2008 and perhaps going from 40,000 to 10,000 or less season ticket sales the following Spring had not Willingham been fired. The simple act of UW replacing the 4-year fraud with anyone kept a lot of us pathetics who were then in almost total burnout mode around for one more season. And voila! Jake Locker with a QB coach (what a concept!) rejuvenated enough excitement to keep us wasting our hard-earned coin awhile longer until UW regents shockingly stepped up to a $250M stadium renovation after demurring for twenty plus years. And here we are in 2013 purchasing perhaps 50,000 season tickets or more and working on getting even more pathetic by expecting 9 wins instead of Sark's customary 7. Why not expect 11 or 12?
As long as Washington's pathetic fanbase continues to accept mediocrity, they'll keep getting 7-6. And since they continue to accept said mediocrity, they really deserve another 0-12.
My sense at the time of Tyrone's 0-12 masterpiece is that UW's "pathetic" fanbase was very close to cratering or coogin-it in 2008 and perhaps going from 40,000 to 10,000 or less season ticket sales the following Spring had not Willingham been fired. The simple act of UW replacing the 4-year fraud with anyone kept a lot of us pathetics who were then in almost total burnout mode around for one more season. And voila! Jake Locker with a QB coach (what a concept!) rejuvenated enough excitement to keep us wasting our hard-earned coin awhile longer until UW regents shockingly stepped up to a $250M stadium renovation after demurring for twenty plus years. And here we are in 2013 purchasing perhaps 50,000 season tickets or more and working on getting even more pathetic by expecting 9 wins instead of Sark's customary 7. Why not expect 11 or 12?
Look, at hardcore Husky we pride ourselves out here as having the most passionate and knowledgeable subscribers out there. There are a lot of really bright people out here. We've all heard those guys on dm.com who post. scream, rant, go off, and sound like they have a beard, wear a tank top, had 4 beers and a Red Bull. Nobody hears a word they say other than they're just crazy.
Don't be that guy out here. If sark doesn't improve this year, his seat will get hot. I don't think there's any question about that. Those who post he needs to win 7 games or he gets fired, the no excuses mantra, .........put on a shirt, put down the beer and no more caffine while posting here. If you can't......there's always the vent board
The logo has just been placed at the 50 yard-line and as expected, the southside (yeh) got the "W" while the northside (boo) gets the "M". Just to be picky which is what Dawgs are, why can't Husky Stadium afford two logos on the new field turf, one for each sideline? Do we need to come up with some symbolic meaning for the "M"....... such as Meat or Montlake? Mediocre, Monster, Middling.......... any ideas?
Posts like this remind me why it is so important for another well deserved 0-12 to happen as soon as possible.
Is 0-12 the only thing that makes you hard? You bring it up more than Cougs and Ducks combined.
Morons like you didn't learn from the first 0-12, which is why UW needs and thoroughly deserves another one.
Fuck that. Too much is made of UW's pathetic fanbase. Just like in any walk of life, the majority are going to be idiots. That's just the way the world is, but another 0-12 would torture my soul. 7-6 is bad enough as it is.
As long as Washington's pathetic fanbase continues to accept mediocrity, they'll keep getting 7-6. And since they continue to accept said mediocrity, they really deserve another 0-12.
The tolerating of mediocrity is what happens AFTER you go 1-11 and 0-12.
And how has the fanbase tolerated it? It actually hasn't because after 2003 season attendance plummeted and it hasn't come back. If anyone deserves blame its boosters like Fleenor, Crockett, Dempsey, that allowed Turner to be AD and Gilby and Willingham to be hired.
And guess what? When you win 1 or 0 games, how can you expect to hire a top flight coach? You can't. Sark was Woodie's 5th or 6th choice. They tried to get other guys (offered Muschamp) but they weren't interested. Tedford in 04 said he didn't want another rebuilding job. Even if you offer a good guy $10M, he's does not want a fucking rebuilding project.
Sark has been a decent transitional coach and has 1-2 years left to show if he can be a championship coach or not. They've given him a blank check to get top flight assistants and now they've given him a new stadium. The good news is now the UW job would attract top flight coaches and they've given Sark everything he needs, therefore making it easier to fire him.
And no school would fucking fire a coach that goes 5-7-7-7, following 1-2-5-4-0. That's just not feasible pal, at least not until year 5 or 6. But, given that they gave him a blank check to get new coaches and a new stadium, its clear they want to be successful and compete for championships and won't tolerate mediocrity for long.
Keep parroting your 0-12 and outdated talking points douchefuck. They may give the high priests here a hardon but they aren't based on any reality.
The logo has just been placed at the 50 yard-line and as expected, the southside (yeh) got the "W" while the northside (boo) gets the "M". Just to be picky which is what Dawgs are, why can't Husky Stadium afford two logos on the new field turf, one for each sideline? Do we need to come up with some symbolic meaning for the "M"....... such as Meat or Montlake? Mediocre, Monster, Middling.......... any ideas?
Posts like this remind me why it is so important for another well deserved 0-12 to happen as soon as possible.
Is 0-12 the only thing that makes you hard? You bring it up more than Cougs and Ducks combined.
Morons like you didn't learn from the first 0-12, which is why UW needs and thoroughly deserves another one.
Fuck that. Too much is made of UW's pathetic fanbase. Just like in any walk of life, the majority are going to be idiots. That's just the way the world is, but another 0-12 would torture my soul. 7-6 is bad enough as it is.
As long as Washington's pathetic fanbase continues to accept mediocrity, they'll keep getting 7-6. And since they continue to accept said mediocrity, they really deserve another 0-12.
The tolerating of mediocrity is what happens AFTER you go 1-11 and 0-12.
And how has the fanbase tolerated it? It actually hasn't because after 2003 season attendance plummeted and it hasn't come back. If anyone deserves blame its boosters like Fleenor, Crockett, Dempsey, that allowed Turner to be AD and Gilby and Willingham to be hired.
And guess what? When you win 1 or 0 games, how can you expect to hire a top flight coach? You can't. Sark was Woodie's 5th or 6th choice. They tried to get other guys (offered Muschamp) but they weren't interested. Tedford in 04 said he didn't want another rebuilding job. Even if you offer a good guy $10M, he's does not want a fucking rebuilding project.
Sark has been a decent transitional coach and has 1-2 years left to show if he can be a championship coach or not. They've given him a blank check to get top flight assistants and now they've given him a new stadium. The good news is now the UW job would attract top flight coaches and they've given Sark everything he needs, therefore making it easier to fire him.
And no school would fucking fire a coach that goes 5-7-7-7, following 1-2-5-4-0. That's just not feasible pal, at least not until year 5 or 6. But, given that they gave him a blank check to get new coaches and a new stadium, its clear they want to be successful and compete for championships and won't tolerate mediocrity for long.
Keep parroting your 0-12 and outdated talking points douchefuck. They may give the high priests here a hardon but they aren't based on any reality.
So you like to think that the fifth year of mediocrity will somehow disprove everything that came before it? You do that?
Its not a doog talking point, its pointing out how the state of the program in 08 guaranteed the next coach 5 years. Its recognizing how the AD and fan base would view him. And even hardcore fans would have to give him a B or B+ for the first two years which was enough to guarantee him another 2-3 years. I've already seen enough to know he's not the long-term answer and the sooner he's gone the better. But, given what Woodward has done (new stadium & money for better assistants) its clear expectations are returning to normal.
Saying fans need another 0-12 is not relevant to anything. Many fans have already left. Ultimately, the big money guys need to force Woodward's hand (if there isn't substantial improvement this year) the way they did in 98 after Hedges gave Lambo a vote of confidence. The average fan can't do anything. Its the insiders and money guys who have an impact.
B or B+ over the first couple years? Absolutely not. C is more like it. Mora would have won 8 games that first year, 8-9 the second, with a healthy Polk. If I thought Sark was B+ material I would be fully supporting him.
B or B+ over the first couple years? Absolutely not. C is more like it. Mora would have won 8 games that first year, 8-9 the second, with a healthy Polk. If I thought Sark was B+ material I would be fully supporting him.
I am not sure I'd fully support someone I evaluated as a B+ but I'd certainly understand giving him a 5th year. I don't see why a C (which I think is about right for Sark) gets year 5 though.
Its not a doog talking point, its pointing out how the state of the program in 08 guaranteed the next coach 5 years. Its recognizing how the AD and fan base would view him. And even hardcore fans would have to give him a B or B+ for the first two years which was enough to guarantee him another 2-3 years. I've already seen enough to know he's not the long-term answer and the sooner he's gone the better. But, given what Woodward has done (new stadium & money for better assistants) its clear expectations are returning to normal.
Saying fans need another 0-12 is not relevant to anything. Many fans have already left. Ultimately, the big money guys need to force Woodward's hand (if there isn't substantial improvement this year) the way they did in 98 after Hedges gave Lambo a vote of confidence. The average fan can't do anything. Its the insiders and money guys who have an impact.
Saying no good coach would take the job is absolutely a Doog taking point. And a bullshit one at that.
B or B+ over the first couple years? Absolutely not. C is more like it. Mora would have won 8 games that first year, 8-9 the second, with a healthy Polk. If I thought Sark was B+ material I would be fully supporting him.
I am not sure I'd fully support someone I evaluated as a B+ but I'd certainly understand giving him a 5th year. I don't see why a C (which I think is about right for Sark) gets year 5 though.
B+ for the first two years only.
Derek, I don't think another coach would have done a whole better in years 1 & 2. Better coaching and recruiting especially would have a greater impact on years 3 & 4. Sark has had some good wins and you cant just assume a different coach would win every close game he lost. The problem is consistency.
B or B+ over the first couple years? Absolutely not. C is more like it. Mora would have won 8 games that first year, 8-9 the second, with a healthy Polk. If I thought Sark was B+ material I would be fully supporting him.
I am not sure I'd fully support someone I evaluated as a B+ but I'd certainly understand giving him a 5th year. I don't see why a C (which I think is about right for Sark) gets year 5 though.
B+ for the first two years only.
Derek, I don't think another coach would have done a whole better in years 1 & 2. Better coaching and recruiting especially would have a greater impact on years 3 & 4. Sark has had some good wins and you cant just assume a different coach would win every close game he lost. The problem is consistency.
Disagree. I think there's coaches out there who wouldn't have blown the following games:
2009 - @ UCLA, @Arizona St 2010 - @ BYU, vs. Arizona St 2011 - @ Oregon St, vs. Baylor 2012 - @WSU, vs. Boise St.
Its not a doog talking point, its pointing out how the state of the program in 08 guaranteed the next coach 5 years. Its recognizing how the AD and fan base would view him. And even hardcore fans would have to give him a B or B+ for the first two years which was enough to guarantee him another 2-3 years. I've already seen enough to know he's not the long-term answer and the sooner he's gone the better. But, given what Woodward has done (new stadium & money for better assistants) its clear expectations are returning to normal.
Saying fans need another 0-12 is not relevant to anything. Many fans have already left. Ultimately, the big money guys need to force Woodward's hand (if there isn't substantial improvement this year) the way they did in 98 after Hedges gave Lambo a vote of confidence. The average fan can't do anything. Its the insiders and money guys who have an impact.
Saying no good coach would take the job is absolutely a Doog taking point. And a bullshit one at that.
How are you so sure? I agree we could have done better than Sark, but I have a hard time believing 0-12 didn't scare coaches away. Why would a proven coach leave a nice gig for UW in 2008?
I didn't mind the Sark hire at the time. Coordinators are always a gamble, but I liked it better than hiring Mike Leach, Pat Hill, Tom O'Brien, or any other coaching journeyman we probably could have gotten. I can see why the AD went with Sark. They liked that he was a part of a winner (USC), they know he would attack the job with energy (in other words, the opposite of TW), and they had to like his So Cal recruiting connections from being at USC. To me, the hire made sense.
I hope the AD won't put up with mediocrity any longer. I hope there is some truth to this being "A New Era" of Husky Football with the reopening of the stadium. If Sark can't get take us to the next level (he won't), we need to find a new coach. It will be much easier to get a proven coach now then it was in 2008. With a new coach in 2014, I see no reason why we won't be a top team in the conference.
As Race and iDawg once said in a long lost podcast... "How do you get a Lou Holtz or Steve Spurrier to go to some God-forsaken place like South Carolina? YOU PAY THEM A LOT OF MONEY, that's how."
Its not a doog talking point, its pointing out how the state of the program in 08 guaranteed the next coach 5 years. Its recognizing how the AD and fan base would view him. And even hardcore fans would have to give him a B or B+ for the first two years which was enough to guarantee him another 2-3 years. I've already seen enough to know he's not the long-term answer and the sooner he's gone the better. But, given what Woodward has done (new stadium & money for better assistants) its clear expectations are returning to normal.
Saying fans need another 0-12 is not relevant to anything. Many fans have already left. Ultimately, the big money guys need to force Woodward's hand (if there isn't substantial improvement this year) the way they did in 98 after Hedges gave Lambo a vote of confidence. The average fan can't do anything. Its the insiders and money guys who have an impact.
Saying no good coach would take the job is absolutely a Doog taking point. And a bullshit one at that.
How are you so sure? I agree we could have done better than Sark, but I have a hard time believing 0-12 didn't scare coaches away. Why would a proven coach leave a nice gig for UW in 2008?
I didn't mind the Sark hire at the time. Coordinators are always a gamble, but I liked it better than hiring Mike Leach, Pat Hill, Tom O'Brien, or any other coaching journeyman we probably could have gotten. I can see why the AD went with Sark. They liked that he was a part of a winner (USC), they know he would attack the job with energy (in other words, the opposite of TW), and they had to like his So Cal recruiting connections from being at USC. To me, the hire made sense.
I hope the AD won't put up with mediocrity any longer. I hope there is some truth to this being "A New Era" of Husky Football with the reopening of the stadium. If Sark can't get take us to the next level (he won't), we need to find a new coach. It will be much easier to get a proven coach now then it was in 2008. With a new coach in 2014, I see no reason why we won't be a top team in the conference.
It's simple. They fucked up the last three hires. When Sark was hired most of is here said it was a bad hire. They masses (sounds like you were in this group) were smitten with a kick ass presser, sark "gets it," and enjoying the "FREE PUB!" that came with him continuing to coach at USC. The coach didn't have to be Pat Hill or obrien. That's a myth that doogs like to repeat. Money talks. They went cheap and covered it with some rah rah bullshit spin.
As Race and iDawg once said in a long lost podcast... "How do you get a Lou Holtz or Steve Spurrier to go to some God-forsaken place like South Carolina? YOU PAY THEM A LOT OF MONEY, that's how."
Take a look at the history of South Carolina football before Holtz. They sucked and they sucked for a long time.
0-12 might scare people off but money reassures them.
As Race and iDawg once said in a long lost podcast... "How do you get a Lou Holtz or Steve Spurrier to go to some God-forsaken place like South Carolina? YOU PAY THEM A LOT OF MONEY, that's how."
The difference is Holtz and Spurrier didn't have jobs before going to South Carolina. I don't remember any jobless candidates back in 2008. There could have been a guy or two, but I can't remember any.
Not to mention, Spurrier didn't take over an 0-12 team, he took over a .500 team, kind of like UW right now. Holtz got them to that point (like Sark), and Spurrier has now taken them to a new level. The only difference is I hope we play in BCS bowls every few years with our next coach, which is something Spurrier has yet to do at South Carolina.
Its not a doog talking point, its pointing out how the state of the program in 08 guaranteed the next coach 5 years. Its recognizing how the AD and fan base would view him. And even hardcore fans would have to give him a B or B+ for the first two years which was enough to guarantee him another 2-3 years. I've already seen enough to know he's not the long-term answer and the sooner he's gone the better. But, given what Woodward has done (new stadium & money for better assistants) its clear expectations are returning to normal.
Saying fans need another 0-12 is not relevant to anything. Many fans have already left. Ultimately, the big money guys need to force Woodward's hand (if there isn't substantial improvement this year) the way they did in 98 after Hedges gave Lambo a vote of confidence. The average fan can't do anything. Its the insiders and money guys who have an impact.
Saying no good coach would take the job is absolutely a Doog taking point. And a bullshit one at that.
How are you so sure? I agree we could have done better than Sark, but I have a hard time believing 0-12 didn't scare coaches away. Why would a proven coach leave a nice gig for UW in 2008?
I didn't mind the Sark hire at the time. Coordinators are always a gamble, but I liked it better than hiring Mike Leach, Pat Hill, Tom O'Brien, or any other coaching journeyman we probably could have gotten. I can see why the AD went with Sark. They liked that he was a part of a winner (USC), they know he would attack the job with energy (in other words, the opposite of TW), and they had to like his So Cal recruiting connections from being at USC. To me, the hire made sense.
I hope the AD won't put up with mediocrity any longer. I hope there is some truth to this being "A New Era" of Husky Football with the reopening of the stadium. If Sark can't get take us to the next level (he won't), we need to find a new coach. It will be much easier to get a proven coach now then it was in 2008. With a new coach in 2014, I see no reason why we won't be a top team in the conference.
It's simple. They fucked up the last three hires. When Sark was hired most of is here said it was a bad hire. They masses (sounds like you were in this group) were smitten with a kick ass presser, sark "gets it," and enjoying the "FREE PUB!" that came with him continuing to coach at USC. The coach didn't have to be Pat Hill or obrien. That's a myth that doogs like to repeat. Money talks. They went cheap and covered it with some rah rah bullshit spin.
I hated the Gilby and Ty hires, but will admit I was intrigued by the Sark hire. I was not a guy who said, "Sark gets it," or "FREE PUB!"
UW isn't the only school that has fucked up some hires. Elite schools like Alabama, Oklahoma, Florida, and USC have fucked up hires as well. It happens, although the TW hire was about as bad of a hire as I have ever seen. Anyone who knew anything knows you don't hire a coach fired from Notre Dame for going .500.
What gets lost here is that Sark has not been a disasterious coach, he is a mediocre one. I wish we would have pulled the plug after last year, but we are stuck with (hopefully) one more year.
Maybe I am delusional, but I am hopeful UW won't fuck up our next hire. Woody needs to show balls and fire Sark unless he has a top 15 type season.
Comments
My sense at the time of Tyrone's 0-12 masterpiece is that UW's "pathetic" fanbase was very close to cratering or coogin-it in 2008 and perhaps going from 40,000 to 10,000 or less season ticket sales the following Spring had not Willingham been fired. The simple act of UW replacing the 4-year fraud with anyone kept a lot of us pathetics who were then in almost total burnout mode around for one more season. And voila! Jake Locker with a QB coach (what a concept!) rejuvenated enough excitement to keep us wasting our hard-earned coin awhile longer until UW regents shockingly stepped up to a $250M stadium renovation after demurring for twenty plus years. And here we are in 2013 purchasing perhaps 50,000 season tickets or more and working on getting even more pathetic by expecting 9 wins instead of Sark's customary 7. Why not expect 11 or 12?
Don't be that guy out here. If sark doesn't improve this year, his seat will get hot. I don't think there's any question about that. Those who post he needs to win 7 games or he gets fired, the no excuses mantra, .........put on a shirt, put down the beer and no more caffine while posting here. If you can't......there's always the vent board
And how has the fanbase tolerated it? It actually hasn't because after 2003 season attendance plummeted and it hasn't come back. If anyone deserves blame its boosters like Fleenor, Crockett, Dempsey, that allowed Turner to be AD and Gilby and Willingham to be hired.
And guess what? When you win 1 or 0 games, how can you expect to hire a top flight coach? You can't. Sark was Woodie's 5th or 6th choice. They tried to get other guys (offered Muschamp) but they weren't interested. Tedford in 04 said he didn't want another rebuilding job. Even if you offer a good guy $10M, he's does not want a fucking rebuilding project.
Sark has been a decent transitional coach and has 1-2 years left to show if he can be a championship coach or not. They've given him a blank check to get top flight assistants and now they've given him a new stadium. The good news is now the UW job would attract top flight coaches and they've given Sark everything he needs, therefore making it easier to fire him.
And no school would fucking fire a coach that goes 5-7-7-7, following 1-2-5-4-0. That's just not feasible pal, at least not until year 5 or 6. But, given that they gave him a blank check to get new coaches and a new stadium, its clear they want to be successful and compete for championships and won't tolerate mediocrity for long.
Keep parroting your 0-12 and outdated talking points douchefuck. They may give the high priests here a hardon but they aren't based on any reality.
So you like to think that the fifth year of mediocrity will somehow disprove everything that came before it? You do that?
Drink some battery acid.
ACSlaterDoog has obviously never heard of Jim Harbaugh:
http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/fetch-team.pl?team=Stanford
Saying fans need another 0-12 is not relevant to anything. Many fans have already left. Ultimately, the big money guys need to force Woodward's hand (if there isn't substantial improvement this year) the way they did in 98 after Hedges gave Lambo a vote of confidence. The average fan can't do anything. Its the insiders and money guys who have an impact.
Derek, I don't think another coach would have done a whole better in years 1 & 2. Better coaching and recruiting especially would have a greater impact on years 3 & 4. Sark has had some good wins and you cant just assume a different coach would win every close game he lost. The problem is consistency.
2009 - @ UCLA, @Arizona St
2010 - @ BYU, vs. Arizona St
2011 - @ Oregon St, vs. Baylor
2012 - @WSU, vs. Boise St.
I didn't mind the Sark hire at the time. Coordinators are always a gamble, but I liked it better than hiring Mike Leach, Pat Hill, Tom O'Brien, or any other coaching journeyman we probably could have gotten. I can see why the AD went with Sark. They liked that he was a part of a winner (USC), they know he would attack the job with energy (in other words, the opposite of TW), and they had to like his So Cal recruiting connections from being at USC. To me, the hire made sense.
I hope the AD won't put up with mediocrity any longer. I hope there is some truth to this being "A New Era" of Husky Football with the reopening of the stadium. If Sark can't get take us to the next level (he won't), we need to find a new coach. It will be much easier to get a proven coach now then it was in 2008. With a new coach in 2014, I see no reason why we won't be a top team in the conference.
0-12 might scare people off but money reassures them.
Not to mention, Spurrier didn't take over an 0-12 team, he took over a .500 team, kind of like UW right now. Holtz got them to that point (like Sark), and Spurrier has now taken them to a new level. The only difference is I hope we play in BCS bowls every few years with our next coach, which is something Spurrier has yet to do at South Carolina.
UW isn't the only school that has fucked up some hires. Elite schools like Alabama, Oklahoma, Florida, and USC have fucked up hires as well. It happens, although the TW hire was about as bad of a hire as I have ever seen. Anyone who knew anything knows you don't hire a coach fired from Notre Dame for going .500.
What gets lost here is that Sark has not been a disasterious coach, he is a mediocre one. I wish we would have pulled the plug after last year, but we are stuck with (hopefully) one more year.
Maybe I am delusional, but I am hopeful UW won't fuck up our next hire. Woody needs to show balls and fire Sark unless he has a top 15 type season.