Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Husky Coaches Before, During, After James
Mad_Son
Member Posts: 10,194
In the 16 years before James the Huskies went 93-69-1 (.571)
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.
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
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
