Husky Coaches Before, During, After James
In the 18 years of James the Huskies went 153-57-1 (.722)
In the 16 years after James (so this is Neuheisel - Willingham) the Huskies went 95-94-1 (.500)
In the almost 5 years of Sark the Huskies have gone 30-28 (.504)
If you take out the FCS teams (a level of competition that none of the other coaches in this comparison faced) then Sark is 27-28 (.491).
Regardless Sark's record still sucks so we'll let him keep his FCS record.
So Sark's record pretty much is on-par with all of the coaches who have followed James and sub-par for the same time period prior to James. Now lets also keep in mind that other than James, every coach in this time period prior to Sark was fired. Neuheisel was fired for reasons unrelated to his team's performance so we can disregard his record in this comparison (it would be fun in terms of making this point, but also disingenuous). All the rest of the coaches were fired for on-the-field results so lets see how they compare.
Prior to James was Jim Owens (.529) - fired ("resigned").
Then came Coach James...
Following James was Lambright (.629) - fired.
Then came Neuheisel...
Then Gilbertson (.304) - fired.
Then Willingham (.229) - fired.
Now Sarkisian (.504) - ???
.629 > .529 > .504 > .304 > .229
So Sarkisian is a middle of the road UW coach, among coaches who get fired for poor performance, and he is definitely not exceeding any sort of normal standards. He is ONLY exceeding Gilbertson and Willingham. He is only good when compared to the abysmal levels of his predecessors. Like, how can .491-.504 be considered good by any standard? It is pretty much the definition of mediocre.
Now this mediocre performance would be one thing if there was some form of improvement. Going from 5-7 to 7-6 is a form of improvement. Going 7-6, 7-6, 7-6, 7-6??? is not improvement. It is especially not improvement when the blow outs remain, the losing streaks remain, beating good teams is as frequent as losing to bad teams, we aren't improving our in-conference record, and the schedule continues to be watered down out-of-conference.
Sark is mediocre. His improvement is non-existent at this point. He is only acceptable if you don't believe the University of Washington is capable of, or should strive for, excellence.
Comments
-
But still
-
if you are going to present logical facts to support your argument, im out.
-
that'
that's the problem with this bored. Too much analysisjrjarrell4 said:if you are going to present logical facts to support your argument, im out.
-
Gilby & Willingham are an aberration. They shouldn't even be counted.
More importantly, Sark's first 4 teams were no better than Willingham's 2nd & 3rd teams according to SRS & Sagarin. I don't even count 2008 against Willingham. He was fired and then given his job back bc Emmert is a gutless piece of shit. I'm sure he was real motivated at that point.
It took Sark 5 fucking years to field a team better than what Ty had in his 2nd and 3rd years. And that improvement (based on computer rankings at this point) is entirely bc of Wilcox. -
After James died I was bummed.
After reading your post I'm now completely depressed.
Thanks. -
Sark really is just mediocre at life in general.
-
POTW
-
Neuheisel's W-L record had something to do with his firing. If he had gone 11-1 in 2002 you think he would have been fired? No way, even if the upper campus wanted it. He would have had too much clout. What made Rick vulnerable was going 7-6 that last year.
-
Agree I always contended that as well. Why I laugh that Rick was basically fired for losing 6 games just like Lambo was as well. Yet so many accept Steve losing 6 games every single year.DerekJohnson said:Neuheisel's W-L record had something to do with his firing. If he had gone 11-1 in 2002 you think he would have been fired? No way, even if the upper campus wanted it. He would have had too much clout. What made Rick vulnerable was going 7-6 that last year.
I remember there was serious talk about Rick possibly being fired when the team was 4-5 during that season. -
Water is wet. We all know Sark sucks, it's not that complicated.
What about before Owens, but after Dobie? Some lean years
My g'pa was on the '43 team. After a few wins over Whitman and Spokane Air Command (4-0 that season, all non-conference), we got to the Rose Bowl but lost against USC. Unfortunately, he had to cut out for the Battle of Tarawa in Nov. Didn't even get a ring -
Bagshaw went 63-22-6 in the 1920s... Phelan went 65-37-1 in the 1930sunfrozencaveman said:Water is wet. We all know Sark sucks, it's not that complicated.
What about before Owens, but after Dobie? Some lean years
My g'pa was on the '43 team. After a few wins over Whitman and Spokane Air Command (4-0 that season, all non-conference), we got to the Rose Bowl but lost against USC. Unfortunately, he had to cut out for the Battle of Tarawa in Nov. Didn't even get a ring -
Bagshaw had one shitty year and was shown the door. This is the first decade where UW despite what morons have said was actually patient.DerekJohnson said:
Bagshaw went 63-22-6 in the 1920s... Phelan went 65-37-1 in the 1930sunfrozencaveman said:Water is wet. We all know Sark sucks, it's not that complicated.
What about before Owens, but after Dobie? Some lean years
My g'pa was on the '43 team. After a few wins over Whitman and Spokane Air Command (4-0 that season, all non-conference), we got to the Rose Bowl but lost against USC. Unfortunately, he had to cut out for the Battle of Tarawa in Nov. Didn't even get a ring
This was also their worst decade as they have stuck with loser coaches one-two years too long and haven't exactly had a good hire since James(Rick was a good hire but program was slipping under his watch).
More so than James walking away was Lude being forced out. Had James up and retired while Lude was in still in charge UW would have been fine IMO. UW has had one terrible A.D. after another since Lude. -
By the third year a coach should have the majority of the roster filled with "his" players. He should have some cohesiveness among the staff. He should have his own QB in place and he should have a good feel for the conference and other teams's tendencies. Great coaches are well on their way by Year 3.
There are exceptions to this standard, of course -- but they are very rare across all of CFB. -
Erin Andrews disagrees.CuntWaffle said:Sark really is just mediocre at life in general.
-
Allegedly.Swaye said:
Erin Andrews disagrees.CuntWaffle said:Sark really is just mediocre at life in general.
-
Oh the irony.DerekJohnson said:Neuheisel's W-L record had something to do with his firing. If he had gone 11-1 in 2002 you think he would have been fired? No way, even if the upper campus wanted it. He would have had too much clout. What made Rick vulnerable was going 7-6 that last year.
-
I don't disagree at all. I preferred to try to keep off-the-field factors out because then we get into a discussion of how important how you coach is versus the results. I would have kept Owens out if I didn't feel the racial issues were smoothed over enough at the end.DerekJohnson said:Neuheisel's W-L record had something to do with his firing. If he had gone 11-1 in 2002 you think he would have been fired? No way, even if the upper campus wanted it. He would have had too much clout. What made Rick vulnerable was going 7-6 that last year.
-
Winning makes everything alright.DerekJohnson said:Neuheisel's W-L record had something to do with his firing. If he had gone 11-1 in 2002 you think he would have been fired? No way, even if the upper campus wanted it. He would have had too much clout. What made Rick vulnerable was going 7-6 that last year.
The problem we face is 7-6 is the new 11-1.
A senior on campus right now was 9/10 years old when Washington won their last Rose Bowl.
He was 11/12 the last time Washington beat Oregon.
The fucking doogs of the world have accepted and given momentum to the fact Sark is the savior of the program ... because nobody has forgotten 0-12. We ... have never forgotten What DJ built and being a top tier team year in and year out (and a coach who realized when the standard was slipping if we weren't).
Nothing will change unless fans quit coming to the stadium and quit buying Washington purple gear.
For Christ Sakes, Washington football was the 17th richest program in America last year ... just one spot behind Oregon and all of their riches.
Why would the upper campus, the AD, or anyone want to fuck with that? We .. know it can be better. But ... there are those who live in fear and are afraid to take a chance.
TL, DR -
topdawgnc said:
Nothing will change unless fans quit coming to the stadium and quit buying Washington purple black gear. -
Did Don James have to face a ranked Oregon State? That's what I thought.
-
Plus James got to face San Jose State and Pacific who were worse than Eastern and Idaho State now.MikeDamone said:Did Don James have to face a ranked Oregon State? That's what I thought.
Plus you guys would have all fired James after year two.
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
