The problem with Sarkisian is Sarkisian. There is no amount of lipstick - up tempo offenses, kick-ass pressers - you can put on that pig to make him a beauty queen.
'94 Apple Cup....wasn't on tv (except for Fleenor's private feed) but they lost 23-6. Rondeau didn't say it but you could sense it. Also, see '95 Sun Bowel and a couple games in '98.
Even his "good" teams got plunger raped like in 1996 at Notre Dame, 1997 at UCLA, 1998 he had a few including the Nebraska one.
From 1984-2013 the Cougars have only defeated the Huskies by more than a touchdown one time and that was the 26-6 win in 1994.
Enoch Bagshaw (c. 1884 – October 3, 1930) was an American football player and coach. From 1921 to 1929, he served as the head football coach at the University of Washington, compiling a 63–22–6 record. His 1923 and 1926 squads went 10–1–1, equaling the best marks of his career. Despite his success, Bagshaw was fired in 1929 after his team went 2–6–1.
First bad year he had and he got DAO.
Actually, he was under pressure starting in '27. The fan base did not respect his win-loss record because of a weak schedule. True story, no joke.
He is what we feared Ty was going to be. Nobody thought Ty was going to be the disaster that he was when he was hired. Most were pissed because we feared Ty would be just good enough to keep our idiot Doogs happy but never good enough to lead us to a Rose Bowl.
That is what Sark is. I can't see the Huskies going through a bowl drought under him but I honestly can't ever picture him leading us to a Rose Bowl. This year he might win 9 games or 10. Next year he might win 10 or 11 only because our schedule is a joke. Both years we'll get plunger raped 2-3 times if not more. Not even come close to winning the conference title.
When Sark gets a 6th year he'll be the first Husky coach to see a year six without winning a conference title since Ralph Welch did who coached from 1942-1947. He did however lose a Rose Bowl in 1943.
I guess Sark is hoping to be on the James Phelan plan who coached at UW from 1930-1941 and didn't win a conference title until 1936 when he lost the Rose Bowl to finished the season ranked 5th in the nation.
You have to go back almost 80 years the last time a UW coach received a sixth year who didn't win a conference title or go to a Rose Bowl within his first five years on the job.
We know what we have in Sark. He's not "learning on the job" still. His mistakes in year one are still here. He still doesn't know how to take the 3 points, instead goes for it on fourth and short out of the shot gun so it's stuffed, his OL is actually worse the longer he's been here, the defense has been shaky to downright terrible during his tenure.
Why are we "letting it play out" ? We know Sark fucking blows. This team at best will go 8-4 in the regular season. Fans wanted Lambo fired for going 8-4 in 1997, fans weren't jacked up when Rick went 8-4 in 2001 either.
Sark is what we all feared Ty was going to be. I can't believe so many of you are falling I
3-0 and who gives a fuck if you see Sark leading us to a rose bowl. I, and anyone with a clue, gave this year for Sark to at least win the North. Now you've got the 2 best teams in the country in your division. A better division than both SEC splits.
It is what it is. I want Sark to put up or hit the fucking soup line, but just look at the schedule. Alabama would lose two with UW's slate. IT IS WHAT IT IS. Put UW in the south and its a different story altogether
Comments
The problem with Sarkisian is Sarkisian. There is no amount of lipstick - up tempo offenses, kick-ass pressers - you can put on that pig to make him a beauty queen.