You want to roll? You want to take off the gloves?
You really think that I believe that SarkFS is in the same league as Petey or John McKay?
If so, you're RaceBannonFS and I should reconsider the kind of people that I hang out with.
The point was to RoadDawg's comment that expecting a USC coach that is worth a damn to win at least 5 conference titles in a 10 year period is ridiculous. Very clearly looking at 2 of SC's more successful coaches, it's not such a reach.
You want to roll? You want to take off the gloves?
You really think that I believe that SarkFS is in the same league as Petey or John McKay?
If so, you're RaceBannonFS and I should reconsider the kind of people that I hang out with.
The point was to RoadDawg's comment that expecting a USC coach that is worth a damn to win at least 5 conference titles in a 10 year period is ridiculous. Very clearly looking at 2 of SC's more successful coaches, it's not such a reach.
If they hired the right coach, 5 out of 10 might be doable, but still very impressive. There's no chance Sark will do it. Mediocre coaches don't win conference titles 50% of the time. The Pac 12 is better now than it was when Carroll was coach. Lots of teams are much stronger now. The only team that has significantly dropped is Cal. Carroll and McKay also did not have to win the conference title game, although Carroll and USC most likely would have won all of those. 5 in 10 years would be a huge feat by anyone.
The sanctions will still bite USC for several years, hurting depth, while the 5 star recruits want to leave early, especially as they have little backup so they tend to play more than with a full roster.
That weakness, plus Sark not organizing, plus Sark calling plays, and USC will be probably Nine Win Steve instead of Seven Win Steve. He starts with a better base, and gets better raw athletes than the UW, so his ceiling is probably two games higher.
Wilcox will bolt after 1-2 years.
In the meantime, Sark will lose twice to UCLA, sometimes to the AZ schools, and lose 2 out of 3 to Stanford, Oregon and Washington.
It won't be pretty in three years. Except to those of us Washington who saw immediately when Sark was hired that he does not have "it". Never has and never will.
When Sark wins at SC because of superior player talent already coached-up in high school ready for college, and with a better staff of assistant coaches than he had the first three years at UW, the price of crow suitable for eating will rise around here. I could say that I believe Sark will fail at SC if I cared which I don't so I won't.
It almost seems like you think I'm disagreeing with you. Sark's got no chance in hell of winning 5 in 10 years at SC. That's why I'd take bets against any Sark lover that thinks he's a good enough coach to do so.
The only part that I disagreed with is that you CAN win at that level at SC if you have the right coach in place. That's unquestionably true. Not saying it's easy ... and you make a good point with the conference title game. But at the same time, to play in the conference title game you only have to be better than 5 other teams in your division and win a single game ... so is it easier or harder to win a conference title? That would actually be a great topic to consider.
You have Coach A and Coach B. Coach A has a 65% winning percentage. Coach B has an 89% winning percentage. If we're talking about the same conference I can only give so much credit for superior players if that's what Coach A has. I'm going with Coach B every time. Winning consistently is a process and Coach B has proven that he knows this process well.
It almost seems like you think I'm disagreeing with you. Sark's got no chance in hell of winning 5 in 10 years at SC. That's why I'd take bets against any Sark lover that thinks he's a good enough coach to do so.
The only part that I disagreed with is that you CAN win at that level at SC if you have the right coach in place. That's unquestionably true. Not saying it's easy ... and you make a good point with the conference title game. But at the same time, to play in the conference title game you only have to be better than 5 other teams in your division and win a single game ... so is it easier or harder to win a conference title? That would actually be a great topic to consider.
No, I didn't think you were disagreeing. That's a good point about the title game possibly making it easier.
Comments
You should pay more attention to others worthless opinions
That weakness, plus Sark not organizing, plus Sark calling plays, and USC will be probably Nine Win Steve instead of Seven Win Steve. He starts with a better base, and gets better raw athletes than the UW, so his ceiling is probably two games higher.
Wilcox will bolt after 1-2 years.
In the meantime, Sark will lose twice to UCLA, sometimes to the AZ schools, and lose 2 out of 3 to Stanford, Oregon and Washington.
It won't be pretty in three years. Except to those of us Washington who saw immediately when Sark was hired that he does not have "it". Never has and never will.
It almost seems like you think I'm disagreeing with you. Sark's got no chance in hell of winning 5 in 10 years at SC. That's why I'd take bets against any Sark lover that thinks he's a good enough coach to do so.
The only part that I disagreed with is that you CAN win at that level at SC if you have the right coach in place. That's unquestionably true. Not saying it's easy ... and you make a good point with the conference title game. But at the same time, to play in the conference title game you only have to be better than 5 other teams in your division and win a single game ... so is it easier or harder to win a conference title? That would actually be a great topic to consider.