Even if Stanford isn't great, they might still be one of the 5 best teams Pete has played against

EsophagealFeces

uzi said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

uzi said:

TTJ said:

We've gone over this...

So has he played 5 teams better than Stanford?

He might play five teams better than Stanford THIS YEAR.

That wasn't the question. Which 5 teams before yesterday has he faced that are better than Stanford?

Your question is completely irrelevant. Art Briles and Gus Malzahn were high school coaches, and look at them now. Nick Saban was the coach at Toledo at one point. Don James- Kent State. Jim Tressel- Youngstown State. Brian Kelly- some directional Michigan school(Central, I think), then Cincinatti. Jim Harbaugh was at USD. Urban Meyer- Bowling Green. Kevin Sumlin- Houston. Coaches get jobs at better schools in better conferences all the time. Good coaches win. Bad coaches lose. 96-13.

uzi

EsophagealFeces said:

uzi said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

uzi said:

TTJ said:

We've gone over this...

So has he played 5 teams better than Stanford?

He might play five teams better than Stanford THIS YEAR.

That wasn't the question. Which 5 teams before yesterday has he faced that are better than Stanford?

Your question is completely irrelevant. Bad coaches lose. 96-13.

Okay, well at least you responded to the content.

How long does he get to win more than 6 Pac-12 games a year?

TierbsHsotBoobs

uzi said:

EsophagealFeces said:

uzi said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

uzi said:

TTJ said:

We've gone over this...

So has he played 5 teams better than Stanford?

He might play five teams better than Stanford THIS YEAR.

That wasn't the question. Which 5 teams before yesterday has he faced that are better than Stanford?

Your question is completely irrelevant. Bad coaches lose. 96-13.

Okay, well at least you responded to the content.

How long does he get to win more than 6 Pac-12 games a year?

Three years, at best.

RaceBannon

uzi said:

EsophagealFeces said:

uzi said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

uzi said:

TTJ said:

We've gone over this...

So has he played 5 teams better than Stanford?

He might play five teams better than Stanford THIS YEAR.

That wasn't the question. Which 5 teams before yesterday has he faced that are better than Stanford?

Your question is completely irrelevant. Bad coaches lose. 96-13.

Okay, well at least you responded to the content.

How long does he get to win more than 6 Pac-12 games a year?

Sark never won more than 5. Were you all butthurt the last five years?

uzi

RaceBannon said:

uzi said:

EsophagealFeces said:

uzi said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

uzi said:

TTJ said:

We've gone over this...

So has he played 5 teams better than Stanford?

He might play five teams better than Stanford THIS YEAR.

That wasn't the question. Which 5 teams before yesterday has he faced that are better than Stanford?

Your question is completely irrelevant. Bad coaches lose. 96-13.

Okay, well at least you responded to the content.

How long does he get to win more than 6 Pac-12 games a year?

Sark never won more than 5. Were you all butthurt the last five years?

Way to aim for the low bar. As usual.

EsophagealFeces

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

uzi said:

EsophagealFeces said:

uzi said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

uzi said:

TTJ said:

We've gone over this...

So has he played 5 teams better than Stanford?

He might play five teams better than Stanford THIS YEAR.

That wasn't the question. Which 5 teams before yesterday has he faced that are better than Stanford?

Your question is completely irrelevant. Bad coaches lose. 96-13.

Okay, well at least you responded to the content.

How long does he get to win more than 6 Pac-12 games a year?

Three years, at best.

I hope this is correct, but I'm still not overly confident in Pool Boy. This probably deserves its own thread, but I think that Woodward would have tried to keep Sark if not for all his off the field bullshit. I could be wrong, but I think he was satisfied with the "progress" Sark was making on the field.

WilburHooksHands

EsophagealFeces said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

uzi said:

EsophagealFeces said:

uzi said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

uzi said:

TTJ said:

We've gone over this...

So has he played 5 teams better than Stanford?

He might play five teams better than Stanford THIS YEAR.

That wasn't the question. Which 5 teams before yesterday has he faced that are better than Stanford?

Your question is completely irrelevant. Bad coaches lose. 96-13.

Okay, well at least you responded to the content.

How long does he get to win more than 6 Pac-12 games a year?

Three years, at best.

I hope this is correct, but I'm still not overly confident in Pool Boy. This probably deserves its own thread, but I think that Woodward would have tried to keep Sark if not for all his off the field bullshit. I could be wrong, but I think he was satisfied with the "progress" Sark was making on the field.

No way Pete gets fewer years than Sark or Ty. The athletic department also sees Pete as how they want to represent the university value wise, regardless of performance. Don't underestimate that.

RaceBannon

uzi said:

RaceBannon said:

uzi said:

EsophagealFeces said:

uzi said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

uzi said:

TTJ said:

We've gone over this...

So has he played 5 teams better than Stanford?

He might play five teams better than Stanford THIS YEAR.

That wasn't the question. Which 5 teams before yesterday has he faced that are better than Stanford?

Your question is completely irrelevant. Bad coaches lose. 96-13.

Okay, well at least you responded to the content.

How long does he get to win more than 6 Pac-12 games a year?

Sark never won more than 5. Were you all butthurt the last five years?

Way to aim for the low bar. As usual.

You didn't answer the question

uzi

RaceBannon said:

uzi said:

RaceBannon said:

uzi said:

EsophagealFeces said:

uzi said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

uzi said:

TTJ said:

We've gone over this...

So has he played 5 teams better than Stanford?

He might play five teams better than Stanford THIS YEAR.

That wasn't the question. Which 5 teams before yesterday has he faced that are better than Stanford?

Your question is completely irrelevant. Bad coaches lose. 96-13.

Okay, well at least you responded to the content.

How long does he get to win more than 6 Pac-12 games a year?

Sark never won more than 5. Were you all butthurt the last five years?

Way to aim for the low bar. As usual.

You didn't answer the question

I wasn't in favor of hiring Sark -- promoting an OC from another school as our HC. If he hadn't left, he should have been fired. USC did us a favor taking him off our hands.

But Pete isn't a promoted OC, he is 100 and 13 as a HC with 2 BCS wins. I expect even more of him.

How long does he get?

EsophagealFeces

WilburHooksHands said:

EsophagealFeces said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

uzi said:

EsophagealFeces said:

uzi said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

uzi said:

TTJ said:

We've gone over this...

So has he played 5 teams better than Stanford?

He might play five teams better than Stanford THIS YEAR.

That wasn't the question. Which 5 teams before yesterday has he faced that are better than Stanford?

Your question is completely irrelevant. Bad coaches lose. 96-13.

Okay, well at least you responded to the content.

How long does he get to win more than 6 Pac-12 games a year?

Three years, at best.

I hope this is correct, but I'm still not overly confident in Pool Boy. This probably deserves its own thread, but I think that Woodward would have tried to keep Sark if not for all his off the field bullshit. I could be wrong, but I think he was satisfied with the "progress" Sark was making on the field.

The athletic department also sees Pete as how they want to represent the university value wise, regardless of performance. Don't underestimate that.

I meant to mention that in my poast, but forgot to. I think you're exactly right. I fear that the current administration is far more concerned with that than they are with winning.