To those who advocate keeping Sark I always ask them(assuming they have jobs) in your field of work do you think your boss would put up with the same level of inconsistencies? Where you annually every year just take 3 weeks in a row off with piss poor performance.
Where you are so up and down week to week they can't keep track and overall you are just an average worker?
You wouldn't have even made it through one year let alone five years.
So I don't get why Doogs feel sorry for Sark if he's fired. He's made a lot of money and will make millions for not coaching the next two years so that's also stupid.
I agree with you guys on 0-12 needs to stop and to be fair like Chest pointed out Sark/Minions didn't really go to 0-12 his first two years.
I first really started to notice 0-12 during his slide in after HOUSE MONEY! in 2011 then it was all over the place.
When does 0-12 stop to these guys? So in 2020 if we suck ass are they going to continue to bring up one time we went 0-12 so we shouldn't bitch?!
We are trying to prevent the next 0-12 by wanting Sark gone. In 2007 you kept hearing about how Rick left him a mess and the program did go 1-10 you know. With retaining Ty they went 0-12. Even though I'm a Huskies fan I say they as those fucks who wanted Ty got their wish.
If you bring Sark back you will be risking what UW did in 2008/2003 while firing Rick you can do what UW did in 1998 when the warning signs were there for a coach with a much better resume than Sark/actual ties to the program but they chose to party ways.
To those who advocate keeping Sark I always ask them(assuming they have jobs) in your field of work do you think your boss would put up with the same level of inconsistencies? Where you annually every year just take 3 weeks in a row off with piss poor performance.
Where you are so up and down week to week they can't keep track and overall you are just an average worker?
You wouldn't have even made it through one year let alone five years.
So I don't get why Doogs feel sorry for Sark if he's fired. He's made a lot of money and will make millions for not coaching the next two years so that's also stupid.
I agree with you guys on 0-12 needs to stop and to be fair like Chest pointed out Sark/Minions didn't really go to 0-12 his first two years.
I first really started to notice 0-12 during his slide in after HOUSE MONEY! in 2011 then it was all over the place.
When does 0-12 stop to these guys? So in 2020 if we suck ass are they going to continue to bring up one time we went 0-12 so we shouldn't bitch?!
We are trying to prevent the next 0-12 by wanting Sark gone. In 2007 you kept hearing about how Rick left him a mess and the program did go 1-10 you know. With retaining Ty they went 0-12. Even though I'm a Huskies fan I say they as those fucks who wanted Ty got their wish.
If you bring Sark back you will be risking what UW did in 2008/2003 while firing Rick you can do what UW did in 1998 when the warning signs were there for a coach with a much better resume than Sark/actual ties to the program but they chose to party ways.
The problem when you ask if this performance would be tolerated ...
7-6 is the new 11-1
People think it is OK.
They can't see the actual performance for the "record".
The sense of entitlement is strong in this thread.
You clearly do not understand the difference between entitlement and trying to make a change for the better because you have standards. The idiot who expects to sit back with a loser head coach and get big wins from nothing is the entitled person.
To those who advocate keeping Sark I always ask them(assuming they have jobs) in your field of work do you think your boss would put up with the same level of inconsistencies? Where you annually every year just take 3 monthsweeks in a row off with piss poor performance.
Where you are so up and down week to week they can't keep track and overall you are just an average worker?
You wouldn't have even made it through one year let alone five years.
So I don't get why Doogs feel sorry for Sark if he's fired. He's made a lot of money and will make millions for not coaching the next two years so that's also stupid.
I agree with you guys on 0-12 needs to stop and to be fair like Chest pointed out Sark/Minions didn't really go to 0-12 his first two years.
I first really started to notice 0-12 during his slide in after HOUSE MONEY! in 2011 then it was all over the place.
When does 0-12 stop to these guys? So in 2020 if we suck ass are they going to continue to bring up one time we went 0-12 so we shouldn't bitch?!
We are trying to prevent the next 0-12 by wanting Sark gone. In 2007 you kept hearing about how Rick left him a mess and the program did go 1-10 you know. With retaining Ty they went 0-12. Even though I'm a Huskies fan I say they as those fucks who wanted Ty got their wish.
If you bring Sark back you will be risking what UW did in 2008/2003 while firing Rick you can do what UW did in 1998 when the warning signs were there for a coach with a much better resume than Sark/actual ties to the program but they chose to party ways.
Anyone with side businesses or investment properties etc. etc. understands this notion.
Not making a decision is one itself. Just like sitting on a turd of a property that has peaked and/or loses equity.
Take the emotion out of it, write off the loss and move on. A good business man (AD) knows they will make any loss back and then some on the next deal.
To those who advocate keeping Sark I always ask them(assuming they have jobs) in your field of work do you think your boss would put up with the same level of inconsistencies? Where you annually every year just take 3 monthsweeks in a row off with piss poor performance.
Where you are so up and down week to week they can't keep track and overall you are just an average worker?
You wouldn't have even made it through one year let alone five years.
So I don't get why Doogs feel sorry for Sark if he's fired. He's made a lot of money and will make millions for not coaching the next two years so that's also stupid.
I agree with you guys on 0-12 needs to stop and to be fair like Chest pointed out Sark/Minions didn't really go to 0-12 his first two years.
I first really started to notice 0-12 during his slide in after HOUSE MONEY! in 2011 then it was all over the place.
When does 0-12 stop to these guys? So in 2020 if we suck ass are they going to continue to bring up one time we went 0-12 so we shouldn't bitch?!
We are trying to prevent the next 0-12 by wanting Sark gone. In 2007 you kept hearing about how Rick left him a mess and the program did go 1-10 you know. With retaining Ty they went 0-12. Even though I'm a Huskies fan I say they as those fucks who wanted Ty got their wish.
If you bring Sark back you will be risking what UW did in 2008/2003 while firing Rick you can do what UW did in 1998 when the warning signs were there for a coach with a much better resume than Sark/actual ties to the program but they chose to party ways.
Fixed to accurately depict the analogy.
I almost put 3 months instead of 3 weeks to depic the analogy but we've had a new batch of fucktards in here so I figured they wouldn't get it.
Anyone with side businesses or investment properties etc. etc. understands this notion.
Not making a decision is one itself. Just like sitting on a turd of a property that has peaked and/or loses equity.
Take the emotion out of it, write off the loss and move on. A good business man (AD) knows they will make any loss back and then some on the next deal.
Excellent post.
The investment in Sark to this point has earned a good return. You have top 25 talent. You have 4 straight bowls (assuming 1 more W). You have a new stadium. There is a good foundation here and Sark deserves some credit for that. However, if you keep Sark for next season then that return becomes smaller and smaller over time. Its clear that the return has peaked or hit its maximum.
Anyone with side businesses or investment properties etc. etc. understands this notion.
Not making a decision is one itself. Just like sitting on a turd of a property that has peaked and/or loses equity.
Take the emotion out of it, write off the loss and move on. A good business man (AD) knows they will make any loss back and then some on the next deal.
Excellent post.
The investment in Sark to this point has earned a good return. You have top 25 talent. You have 4 straight bowls (assuming 1 more W). You have a new stadium. There is a good foundation here and Sark deserves some credit for that. However, if you keep Sark for next season then that return becomes smaller and smaller over time. Its clear that the return has peaked or hit its maximum.
Totally disagree. A lot of coaches, a ton of coaches, could have come in here in 2009 and produced the same results as Sark has done. Many coaches could have in fact done better. Mora, for example, would have run Jake 20+ times a game in 2009 and we would have ended up in a fucking bowl game.
When you consider that we're paying Sark more than any other Pac-12 coach, how is it that he's been a good investment.
Anyone with side businesses or investment properties etc. etc. understands this notion.
Sark - it's like that nice little neighborhood retail center you bought in Renton on an extremely low cap rate only looking at upside. Without proper due diligence, you cruise for a while and then find out the anchor tenant (Ernst/Pay-n-Pak) was having difficulties and would go tits up in a couple years.
Time to re-lease that space at top dollar, give away some major concessions in order to save the entire property. Everybody else in the center is suffering due to low traffic counts, trouble paying rent. The opportunity cost of just coasting (renting month-month to Liquidation World) is too high.
Sark's buyout is peanuts in the grand scheme of things
Anyone with side businesses or investment properties etc. etc. understands this notion.
Sark - it's like that nice little neighborhood retail center you bought in Renton on an extremely low cap rate only looking at upside. Without proper due diligence, you cruise for a while and then find out the anchor tenant (Ernst/Pay-n-Pak) was having difficulties and would go tits up in a couple years.
Time to re-lease that space at top dollar, give away some major concessions in order to save the entire property. Everybody else in the center is suffering due to low traffic counts, trouble paying rent. The opportunity cost of just coasting (renting month-month to Liquidation World) is too high.
Sark's buyout is peanuts in the grand scheme of things
I've been a big fan of your baseball writing for years. Unlike most of your local peers, you are informed and thoughtful. You are open to the use of new metrics and seek to report the truth, not just the popular opinion.
I would encourage you to truly reexamine "just how low the program had fallen under Tyrone Willingham." You might be surprised by what you find. Here's a few things to consider:
First, that team certainly wouldn't have gone 0-12 if not for the injury to Jake Locker. Yes, Jake was flawed, but his running and enthusiasm brought real value. His replacement, Ronnie Fouch, brought nothing to the table. NOTHING. The Indianapolis Colts fell apart when Manning went down a couple seasons ago and they had to trot out the worst backup QB's in the league and then they magically bounced back when they drafted Andrew Luck. UW was similar - they were a lock for 3 or 4 wins at an absolute minimum in 2009 with a healthy Locker. Perhaps you can give Sark a little credit for keeping Jake healthy, but anyone who's watched our offensive line "protect" the passer in the Sarkisian era can tell you the difference in Jake's health between 08 and 09 was much more about randomness than it was about coaching.
Next, setting QB aside, how many future NFL players were on the roster Sark inherited? There were probably a lot more than you think. Chris Polk, Mason Foster, Donald Butler, Alameda Ta'amu, Daniel Teo-Nesheim, Jermaine Kearse, Senio Kelemete, Everette Thompson are in the league right now along with Locker - that's nine inherited pros. And there are others like Jonathan Amosa who have had a cup of coffee or at least made a practice squad. The point is, despite the lack of player development under Ty and the often spotty recruiting, there was still plenty of talent around for the new coach to work with. There's a reason Coach Sark was able to win 5 games in his first year and be extremely close in three others, and, as evidenced by the last four seasons, it's not because Sark is a miracle worker. That was not an 0-12 team, talent wise. Yes, Sark infused some confidence and enthusiasm, but don't you think a big chunk of that was simply due to the removal of Ty, no matter who the replacement was? Check out what's going on in Troy since they let Lane Kiffin go. I don't for a second think that Ed Orgeron suddenly became a great head coach. That team has surged because the coach they hated isn't there anymore. 2009 Washington was much the same.
Contrast all that talent Sark inherited, with say, Stanford when Jim Harbaugh arrived for the 2007 season. That was a program that truly had cratered, and a program that has far less historical advantages than UW does. But they hired a great coach, and he was able to turn them around, and quickly. He didn't make a quick surge and then plateau like Sark has done, he made consistent, steady progress, and by his fourth season they were 11-1, won a BCS bowl and finished #4 in the nation. Its year 5 for Sark who inherited, in my opinion, a far superior team. He isn't anywhere close to that type of success this year, and he's given us no real reason to think he will be next year either outside of blind hope. Hope, as you know Mr. Stone, is not a strategy.
One of those vocal posters who are out for blood went back and did the research and here's what he found - in nearly 100% of cases, a head coach who did not win 11 games or go to a BCS bowl in his first four years never went to a BCS bowl or won 11 games. Sark has had five years and failed to be within 3 games of either. Three conference wins is a mountain, and it would be foolish to expect Steve Sarkisian to scale that mountain anytime soon. Perhaps if we kept him long enough he would have a perfect storm season and win the conference ala Willingham at Stanford, but he will never be a coach who consistently challenges for the top of the conference.
I would argue that three years is enough to evaluate a coach, but four years is certainly enough. Five years is more than enough. As you can see here, without even addressing his inability to instill discipline or prevent penalties, without mentioning his annually horrific special teams, without discussing his dreadful in state recruiting, we have been able to establish that we know what Steve Sarkisian is, and what he is not. He is not a championship coach. Not because of Tyrone's inadequacies, but because of his own. Washington should aspire to have a coach who at least gives them a chance at a championship any given season. Sark is not, nor will he ever be that guy.
Fire Sark. Every season you wait is another wasted season.
Comments
Those of us with jobs in the real world know that you have to perform or you get the fuck out.
You should lurk around a bit longer and get a feel for the boards. If you have any questions shoot me a PM because I have this board dialed in.
Where you are so up and down week to week they can't keep track and overall you are just an average worker?
You wouldn't have even made it through one year let alone five years.
So I don't get why Doogs feel sorry for Sark if he's fired. He's made a lot of money and will make millions for not coaching the next two years so that's also stupid.
I agree with you guys on 0-12 needs to stop and to be fair like Chest pointed out Sark/Minions didn't really go to 0-12 his first two years.
I first really started to notice 0-12 during his slide in after HOUSE MONEY! in 2011 then it was all over the place.
When does 0-12 stop to these guys? So in 2020 if we suck ass are they going to continue to bring up one time we went 0-12 so we shouldn't bitch?!
We are trying to prevent the next 0-12 by wanting Sark gone. In 2007 you kept hearing about how Rick left him a mess and the program did go 1-10 you know. With retaining Ty they went 0-12. Even though I'm a Huskies fan I say they as those fucks who wanted Ty got their wish.
If you bring Sark back you will be risking what UW did in 2008/2003 while firing Rick you can do what UW did in 1998 when the warning signs were there for a coach with a much better resume than Sark/actual ties to the program but they chose to party ways.
7-6 is the new 11-1
People think it is OK.
They can't see the actual performance for the "record".
They'll never get it.
7-6 is ok ... because it's seattle.
HTH
The trend data speaks for itself.
Anyone with side businesses or investment properties etc. etc. understands this notion.
Not making a decision is one itself. Just like sitting on a turd of a property that has peaked and/or loses equity.
Take the emotion out of it, write off the loss and move on. A good business man (AD) knows they will make any loss back and then some on the next deal.
The investment in Sark to this point has earned a good return. You have top 25 talent. You have 4 straight bowls (assuming 1 more W). You have a new stadium. There is a good foundation here and Sark deserves some credit for that. However, if you keep Sark for next season then that return becomes smaller and smaller over time. Its clear that the return has peaked or hit its maximum.
When you consider that we're paying Sark more than any other Pac-12 coach, how is it that he's been a good investment.
Sark - it's like that nice little neighborhood retail center you bought in Renton on an extremely low cap rate only looking at upside. Without proper due diligence, you cruise for a while and then find out the anchor tenant (Ernst/Pay-n-Pak) was having difficulties and would go tits up in a couple years.
Time to re-lease that space at top dollar, give away some major concessions in order to save the entire property. Everybody else in the center is suffering due to low traffic counts, trouble paying rent. The opportunity cost of just coasting (renting month-month to Liquidation World) is too high.
Sark's buyout is peanuts in the grand scheme of things