Midfield Logo
Comments
-
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.DerekJohnson said: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.
-
Saying no good coach would take the job is absolutely a Doog taking point. And a bullshit one at that.ACSlaterDawg said: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+ for the first two years only.Mad_Son said:
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.DerekJohnson said: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.
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:ACSlaterDawg said:
B+ for the first two years only.Mad_Son said:
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.DerekJohnson said: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.
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. -
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?MikeDamone said:
Saying no good coach would take the job is absolutely a Doog taking point. And a bullshit one at that.ACSlaterDawg said: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.
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."
-
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.RoadDawg55 said:
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?MikeDamone said:
Saying no good coach would take the job is absolutely a Doog taking point. And a bullshit one at that.ACSlaterDawg said: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.
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. -
Take a look at the history of South Carolina football before Holtz. They sucked and they sucked for a long time.DerekJohnson said: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."
0-12 might scare people off but money reassures them.
-
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.DerekJohnson said: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."
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.
-
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!"MikeDamone said:
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.RoadDawg55 said:
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?MikeDamone said:
Saying no good coach would take the job is absolutely a Doog taking point. And a bullshit one at that.ACSlaterDawg said: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.
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.
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.
