Auburndawg believes the following: (deserves its own thread)
Comments
-
GFY, you fucking retard. I don't give a FUCK what you think. Among the many reasons I'm here now instead of Doogman is because I was worn out reading the mindless drivel that you and other similarly empty-headed posters rehash year after year. Even among all the other fucktarded fucktards on Doogman, your fucktardedness has singularly stood out over the years. The main problem, as I see it, is that you are too fucking stupid to understand how fucking stupid you really are. Even on Cougfarm I've seen you described as Doogman's "village idiot."Auburndawg said: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.
This is not a fucking whoosh. If you're looking for humor in this post, you won't find any. Go back to Doogman and Coogman and wherever else it is you normally post your stupid power rankings and all the other retarded shit you think anybody cares about (they don't), you stupid fuck. LEAVE!!! Seriously. -
^ You're aware that the harder you curb stomp aubbiedoog, the more he loves it, right?
-
Bump.Auburndawg said:
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.
You would have retained Sark for Year 6.
-
When he lost to UCLA I said he should be fired.
-
Thank god that posts don't vanish like they never happened after 27 pages in the North Renton offices of Kim Jong Vino
And Aubbie, we know what you believe in ... it's higher than the standards that most in North Renton have but lower than those that most around here have.Auburndawg said: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.
[Teq: Or found them a strength and conditioning coach that could help them get bigger and faster]
If the kids don't execute the coach should havetrainedCOACHED 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.
[Teq: By your rules Aubbie, Sark should still be hanging out w/ Nansen at Joey's downing tequila shots while taking the boat out on the water with a sorority house like it's one big frat party ... if you have flat metrics that hide the details (which Sark was sorely lacking in) from your decision making process, then you're bound to make ill-informed decisions. Only PatHadenFS is too FS to realize that Sark's "lack of performance" had everything to do with his "skill" as a coach and not tied to the school he coached for. I'm looking forward to the 2016 USC trip up to Seattle when we're the beneficiaries of Sark getting blown out of the fucking water in yet another road game. I'll actually be disappointed if he's shitted on himself enough by that point to not make it to that game in Seattle]
I offer this so perhaps people will stop misrepresenting what Auburndawg believes. -
Sark only won 8 games.PurpleJ said:
Bump.Auburndawg said:
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.
You would have retained Sark for Year 6.
We would've lost against BYU since Ross wouldn't have returned the KO for a TD and four of our players would've had ACL tears. -
Auburndawg starting this thread
-
So what did you say after ASU then!? You think Sark should have been let back on the plane after that one?Auburndawg said:When he lost to UCLA I said he should be fired.
-
bump
