I don't think it's that they don't want to work hard. I think they feel like they've invested a lot into Sark and into high-priced assistants and renovations to help assist and/or prop him up, depending on your point of view. There also might be an element of ego involved, in not wanting to admit that hiring Sark may have been a mistake.
You may be right Derk, about the hard work point. I'm being cynical; a decade of lousy/poor performance does that.
I hope you're wrong about the "invested a lot part." If they feel like they can overcome weak, ineffective leadership by investing, we're really screwed.
I probably should step away from the keyboard for several years........
I don't think it's that they don't want to work hard. I think they feel like they've invested a lot into Sark and into high-priced assistants and renovations to help assist and/or prop him up, depending on your point of view. There also might be an element of ego involved, in not wanting to admit that hiring Sark may have been a mistake.
Your " critical and thoughtful analysis" ignores 2 salient facts. Willinghams first recruiting year came off a decent program left to him and part of that recruiting was built off neuheisels recruiting efforts. Sark's firt year was just 2 months and built off Willingham's ugly program. So be a real analysis you should just compare both coaches last 4 years. Sark for those 4 years scores 1724 compared to Mr. W's 1429 points. Clearly your critical and thoughtful numbers ignore those points
You act like 1-10 never happened
What happened to all the FREE PUB from the rose bowl game?
Willingham took over after two years of Gilby (not Nuehiesel) and the successful 2008 recruiting class was one of the reasons used to keep Willingham around for another year. So Willingham had an advantage because he could continue Nuehiesels 7 WR class recruiting success from 3 years prior but Sark gets a mulligan because he couldnt continue Willinghams recruiting success from the year before?
There is no statistical evidence to suggest that a coach's first year of recruiting is significantly lower or different than the following years. I looked at 25 different pac10 coaches and compared their first year to the following years recruiting (up to 4) and there was no evidence that the first year a coach is hired they have significantly lower recruiting "success" or scores. Simply because Sarks first year sucked doesnt mean you get to just throw out the first year because you feel like it, if you are going to remove data you have to prove why, not because "mulligan!".
Regardless, this is the real world. Every year counts, every day their are 11 other coaches trying to do better than Sark. There is no mulligan because you are a new coach, if Sark sucks at recruiting OL because his only experience was 2 years as offensive coordinator then it was probably a poor hire, not lets just pretend this year never happened.
Sark's OL recruiting during his tenure is nearly the same as Willingham's, there is nothing subversive or deceitful in that, it is the truth and reality that is going on in our program. You can justify it or make excuses, that doesnt change our reality.
invested a lot in hiring an inexperienced head coach who wasn't on anyone's top 25 list of candidates... Woody's woody for Sark was no different than Hedges hiring Neu because he was so good looking... interestingly, Hedges' pheromone hire is going to haunt Woody.
Anybody paying attention who knows even a moderate amount about football would have figured this out at least three recruiting seasons ago and without the science. Why on earth Sarkisian and his recruiters have under-emphasized OL (and DL) recruiting is at minimum a head scratcher.
Given his poor to mediocre OL recruiting, it's perhaps a wonder that Sark is now working on his fourth straight 7-6 season. How can he have even one winning season without at least competing for control of the line of scrimmage....... which Sark obviously is not?
The answer requires no science and is right under your nose if you think about it. There's nothing more certain for producing a winner in football than outworking the competition in recruiting, player development, and everything else required to kick butt on the gridiron.
Anybody paying attention who knows even a moderate amount about football would have figured this out at least three recruiting seasons ago and without the science. Why on earth Sarkisian and his recruiters have under-emphasized OL (and DL) recruiting is at minimum a head scratcher.
Given his poor to mediocre OL recruiting, it's perhaps a wonder that Sark is now working on his fourth straight 7-6 season. How can he have even one winning season without at least competing for control of the line of scrimmage....... which Sark obviously is not?
The answer requires no science and is right under your nose if you think about it. There's nothing more certain for producing a winner in football than outworking the competition in recruiting, player development, and everything else required to kick butt on the gridiron.
I may be wrong, but KP seemed to scramble and run more against the ducks last Saturday than he typically has against anybody. Was it because he couldn't find receivers open..... or because some big motherfucking duck was getting through the line to apply heavy pressure in a rush...... or because KP was desperately trying to make something work..... or all of these things that seem to be too hard against the best? Does it matter? No, it doesn't.
Comments
I hope you're wrong about the "invested a lot part." If they feel like they can overcome weak, ineffective leadership by investing, we're really screwed.
I probably should step away from the keyboard for several years........
What happened to all the FREE PUB from the rose bowl game?
Willingham took over after two years of Gilby (not Nuehiesel) and the successful 2008 recruiting class was one of the reasons used to keep Willingham around for another year. So Willingham had an advantage because he could continue Nuehiesels 7 WR class recruiting success from 3 years prior but Sark gets a mulligan because he couldnt continue Willinghams recruiting success from the year before?
There is no statistical evidence to suggest that a coach's first year of recruiting is significantly lower or different than the following years. I looked at 25 different pac10 coaches and compared their first year to the following years recruiting (up to 4) and there was no evidence that the first year a coach is hired they have significantly lower recruiting "success" or scores. Simply because Sarks first year sucked doesnt mean you get to just throw out the first year because you feel like it, if you are going to remove data you have to prove why, not because "mulligan!".
Regardless, this is the real world. Every year counts, every day their are 11 other coaches trying to do better than Sark. There is no mulligan because you are a new coach, if Sark sucks at recruiting OL because his only experience was 2 years as offensive coordinator then it was probably a poor hire, not lets just pretend this year never happened.
Sark's OL recruiting during his tenure is nearly the same as Willingham's, there is nothing subversive or deceitful in that, it is the truth and reality that is going on in our program. You can justify it or make excuses, that doesnt change our reality.
Given his poor to mediocre OL recruiting, it's perhaps a wonder that Sark is now working on his fourth straight 7-6 season. How can he have even one winning season without at least competing for control of the line of scrimmage....... which Sark obviously is not?
The answer requires no science and is right under your nose if you think about it. There's nothing more certain for producing a winner in football than outworking the competition in recruiting, player development, and everything else required to kick butt on the gridiron.