Sark's problems becoming clear
Comments
-
All you Sark bashers I would like to see you put on a fucking headset and grab a clipboard.
-
This. Sark and his staff think they did a great job at UW. Why exactly are they going to change?Tequilla said:Why is USC fucked?
Sure, they may get kids that are better "talent" than what Dude Brah was getting at UW. However, it's not like Dude Brah and his staff (hello Johnny Nansen) are going to all of a sudden learn organizational skills, put down the tequila bottle, and stop banging out cocktail sluts every opportunity long enough to make those kids better than what they were when they came into the program.
That talent may be enough to get Dude Brah out of the 5-4 every fucking year dreckfest, but I think that he'll rather easily establish the annual 6-3 dreckfest. -
Ken Griswold rolls his eyes at criticism of the old staff, dismissing it as hurt feelings from high school coaches and recruits who simply weren't good enough to get an offer from Sarkisian.
(You know, like Scott Crichton).
Scott Eklund debunks the notion Sarkisian didn't do a good job in state, making it clear there was nothing anyone could have done to get Garnett, Banner, Russell, Jack, Browne, et al to sign with Washington.
(Plus, the Dawgman guys always assured us, Sark and his staff were on better guys from Cali like Garrett Gilliland, Dezden Petty, Matthew Lyons, Antavius Sims, Dameon Turpin, Darien Washington, Erich Wilson, Taylor Hindy, Blake Rogers and on and on).
In-state recruiting — and the time it would take to build those relationships with high school coaches in the state — wasn't a priority for Sarkisian at UW.
-
USC has averaged a conference title every 2.5 years while UW about 6.
That needs to be taken into context when evaluating Sark at USC. Theres no chance he wins two in his first 3-4 years. He may win 1 in his first 3 or 4 years and Kim and other sycophants will use it to boost their opinion of Sark and throw it in our face when in reality 1/3 or 1/4 is below average for U$C. -
Sark will win 9 a year at SCHeretoBeatmyChest said:USC has averaged a conference title every 2.5 years while UW about 6.
That needs to be taken into context when evaluating Sark at USC. Theres no chance he wins two in his first 3-4 years. He may win 1 in his first 3 or 4 years and Kim and other sycophants will use it to boost their opinion of Sark and throw it in our face when in reality 1/3 or 1/4 is below average for U$C.
He will feast on the losers ... be average against the runner ups ... and be crushed by the real deals
Lather, Rinse, Repeat -
One of the problems for Sark is this first year will be rough. A 7-6 season and negativity will take over the program. I don't think they are very good. Add in Sark coaching and I predict a rough first season.HeretoBeatmyChest said:USC has averaged a conference title every 2.5 years while UW about 6.
That needs to be taken into context when evaluating Sark at USC. Theres no chance he wins two in his first 3-4 years. He may win 1 in his first 3 or 4 years and Kim and other sycophants will use it to boost their opinion of Sark and throw it in our face when in reality 1/3 or 1/4 is below average for U$C.
-
i think the big question each year will be how many wins each year vs how many pounds he gains.
-
"Nation's shittiest academics and low overall budget" ? And you know this how aside from sarcasm....... are you a BSU alum or envious vandaloser? And what does "low overall budget" have to do with football? Bronco stadium has had luxury suites and club boxes for years. Unlike UW, Boise State didn't waste five years begging a university hating state legislature for public money to upgrade it's football stadium.sarktastic said:Peterman was recruited away from one of the nations most successful programs he built over an 8 year span, in spite of the nations shittiest academics and low overall budget.
-
I agree he's going to have a bad first year. He'll have to win it his 2nd or 3rd year or he will be fired after three years. UCLA will definitely win the south next year. USC, ASU & UA are all rebuilding. Without Hundley it will be open in 2015 but UCLA should still win it. Funny thing is I could see Sark playing UW in the Pac-12 title game with his job on the line at somepoint.RoadDawg55 said:
One of the problems for Sark is this first year will be rough. A 7-6 season and negativity will take over the program. I don't think they are very good. Add in Sark coaching and I predict a rough first season.HeretoBeatmyChest said:USC has averaged a conference title every 2.5 years while UW about 6.
That needs to be taken into context when evaluating Sark at USC. Theres no chance he wins two in his first 3-4 years. He may win 1 in his first 3 or 4 years and Kim and other sycophants will use it to boost their opinion of Sark and throw it in our face when in reality 1/3 or 1/4 is below average for U$C. -
I think by year three it was pretty evident to those following recruiting that Sark was working hard to keep Cali pipelines open to the detriment of in-state players. Talia Crichton? Seriously we went to Cali to get this kid who's whole career yielded the amount of tackles a good player does in 6 games. I'm so happy Petersen is a NW guy. Best thing ever for us. Sark is where he wants to be and I figure he'll last 5 years there before getting canned like Kiffin. Petersen is where he wants to be and I figure he'll be here a decade.
