Official invite from Softy Mahler via twitter
Comments
-
It would be wrong to ask Softy why he thinks UW is a stepping stone school now.
-
Let me help since Sven does not watch any games.
2012 season you had an awful offense and a top 30 defense, which was a major improvement over previous dreck and unexpected. Had those coaches not come in, you lose to Stanford, OSU and Cal and dont sniff a bowl game. And yes, maybe even SDSU also. -
Classic power bottom line.allpurpleallgold said:
Christ he says 'bottom line' a lot.He_Needs_More_Time said:I brought up 5-4 four years in a row. He changed the subject "bottom line we have Petersen now and Sark left us better off than when he took over. All is good"
-
When I brought up Sark failing by his own goals of competing for a rose bowl and natty's he of course ignored it.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
LOL 0-12!!!!!!He_Needs_More_Time said:I brought up 5-4 four years in a row. He changed the subject "bottom line we have Petersen now and Sark left us better off than when he took over. All is good"
Facts are UW was eliminated from contention in mid October in year five. -
Bottom line, there's 3 primary things that Softy, and other Sark supporters (hi Kim Jong Vino), need to understand:
1) I can't think of many people that don't realize that this program is in a better place today than it was when Sark took over - he should be thanked for that. But at the same time, it was also clear that he wasn't the answer going forward to take this program to the next level.
2) There are a number of people that know what the UW is capable of if properly motivated ... and Woodward proved that by hiring Petersen. It essentially was a giant middle finger to anybody that said "well, who would you hire to replace Sark" ... answer: somebody better.
3) There's not a lot of reason to be afraid of Sark at USC because even though Sark will get good talent (which he also got at Washington), his lack of focus, discipline, and attention to detail will still result in SC under performing. However, because he's at SC he might move up from seven-win Steve to eight-win Steve. Sark's definitely not a coach in the ilk of Petey, John Robinson (the first time around), or John McKay. -
The Wilcox Doogs are almost as bad as the Sark Doogs.
At least they defend an adult though. -
Right on cueTequilla said:Bottom line, there's 3 primary things that Softy, and other Sark supporters (hi Kim Jong Vino), need to understand:
1) I can't think of many people that don't realize that this program is in a better place today than it was when Sark took over - he should be thanked for that. But at the same time, it was also clear that he wasn't the answer going forward to take this program to the next level.
2) There are a number of people that know what the UW is capable of if properly motivated ... and Woodward proved that by hiring Petersen. It essentially was a giant middle finger to anybody that said "well, who would you hire to replace Sark" ... answer: somebody better.
3) There's not a lot of reason to be afraid of Sark at USC because even though Sark will get good talent (which he also got at Washington), his lack of focus, discipline, and attention to detail will still result in SC under performing. However, because he's at SC he might move up from seven-win Steve to eight-win Steve. Sark's definitely not a coach in the ilk of Petey, John Robinson (the first time around), or John McKay.
-
The facts will doom Softy every single time in this argument ... that's the bottom line.
-
Bottom line, the bottom line is the bottom line ...
-
Doogs hate factsTequilla said:The facts will doom Softy every single time in this argument ... that's the bottom line.
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
