Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Options
Auburndawg believes the following: (deserves its own thread)
Auburndawg
Member Posts: 362
A college football coach is 100% responsible for results. No excuses.
A CFB coach recruits the players and hires his own staff.
If the kids are too small or too slow, the coach should have recruited bigger, faster players.
If the kids don't execute the coach should have trained them better.
The job of the CFB coach is to get his school to its proper level of performance- what it should achieve given the Iron Laws: Location, Tradition, Money.
At Washington, that level is as follows:
Winning season and a bowl game every year.
Competing for the league championship most years
Competing for a national championship once or twice per decade
The real debate is how long do you give a new coach to achieve that?
For Sark, to me this means the minimum standard this year is 9 total wins, but 10 is what would show real improvement and progress. Eight wins or less and he should be fired.
I offer this so perhaps people will stop misrepresenting what Auburndawg believes.
A CFB coach recruits the players and hires his own staff.
If the kids are too small or too slow, the coach should have recruited bigger, faster players.
If the kids don't execute the coach should have trained them better.
The job of the CFB coach is to get his school to its proper level of performance- what it should achieve given the Iron Laws: Location, Tradition, Money.
At Washington, that level is as follows:
Winning season and a bowl game every year.
Competing for the league championship most years
Competing for a national championship once or twice per decade
The real debate is how long do you give a new coach to achieve that?
For Sark, to me this means the minimum standard this year is 9 total wins, but 10 is what would show real improvement and progress. Eight wins or less and he should be fired.
I offer this so perhaps people will stop misrepresenting what Auburndawg believes.
Comments
If he wins 9 or 10 games you really think he should be fired? We have only won 10 games 12 times in our history.
LIPO
Winning season and a bowl game every year. Check for the Ducks.
Competing for the league championship most years. Check.
Competing for a national championship once or twice
per decadeevery three years. Check.Your so-called "iron laws" are fucktarded.
That is what gets old.
3 years, which means we're already OVER THE LINE
Regardless, I think we drop 2-3 more conference games and end up 3rd/4th in the north. The fact of the matter is that we aren't able to beat the best teams in the conference. Sark deserves a little credit for getting us back to mediocre, but I don't think he can take us to the next level. That is the issue here. Are we okay with just being in the top half of the conference, or should we expect better?
Look at the conference records instead if you want to judge Sark's ability to fulfill the aspirations of the program:
4-5
5-4
5-4
5-4
1-2
Three years was enough for people with half a brain to know Sark wasn't good enough, and all remaining doubt was removed with that magical Lather, Rinse, Repeat 2012 season.
That's why we all knew the 2013 season was over before it began. The 2014 season is also already over unless Sark gets fired after the 2013 Apple Cup.
UW plays more games per season than they did when the program was strong. That takes the shine off 10 wins. UWs ooc schedule was the softest I can remember. That takes the shine off 10 wins.
I hope Sark wins 10 games. So all you doogs can jizz in your pants and he can get a lifetime contract. And then one day, years from now, we can all look back on career record and see that 10 wins stands out like a sore thumb. Just like when you look at Tys record. Because Sark is Ty and Ty is Sark.
Your "standard" is to accept failure to succeed and now failure to show "real improvement and progress".
You are full of shit, explain away your double speak. IMO the reason you sound like a fusktard is because in a single sentence you yell "NO EXCUSES" all while hedging your expectations.
Everyone says so.
We were also right not to be happy with Lambright because the program was finishing 4th in conference way too much.
This is what Sark is doing now. With Lambright the program probably never misses a bowl game and would have been steady. You also would have never won a Rose Bowl then popped off.
Even though she was a bad A.D. why I have to say Hedges > Pool Boy because she made the decision to sack Lambright then go get a proven, young successful coach from a big school at the time in Neuheisel.
You know how she got him? She made him the 3rd highest paid coach in the nation behind only Bowden and Spurrier. UW won the Rose Bowl in two years after going 6-6.
Until Pool Boy can make a move like that I'll always say Hedges > Pool Boy.
Maybe in light of yours and UCLA's titanic struggles with modern relevancy despite money, location, and tradition, your "iron laws" should perhaps become the following:
Money.
AD COMPETENCE.
COACHING COMPETENCE, &
FACILITIES.
We have all four, you have two. Stanford has all four and UCLA has two. OSU has .75 in coaching and that's it. Wazzu is stuck on one with Moos.
Been to Stillwater, OK? If T. B. Pickens transformed that shithole into a Fiesta Bowl winning program, with cash, hookers and blow, then all Wazzu needs is a Daddy Warbucks. Location and tradition count for squat in the face of truckloads of competently spent cash and world class facilities. Mix in actually good coaching and stand back.
UW will go nowhere near "elite" while missing badly in the competence categories. That you can't see that Woodward and Sark are basically the left tit and right tit of the feminization of your football program, there's no helping you.
http://hardcorehusky.com/news/duckfighter-illustrated