Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
At the Pac-12 Poker Table, is Washington's Sark an Easy Mark?
Hardcore_Husky
Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 302 
At the Pac-12 Poker Table, is Washington's Sark an Easy Mark?
This brief summation gives voice to the concerns that Sark isn't the genius so many believe him to be. In fact, he may be an easy mark. That's why many who yearn to see Husky Football return to dominance struggle to accept him as head coach -- because we don't want Husky Football to embrace mediocrity.
Comments
Going forward I hope he lays a big egg...this year is good. My fear is if he hovers above 500, he'll be here a long time. Get to the inevitable and loose him now rather than later. A good coach could have this program humming in a couple of years.
Oh, and like Derek says, 10 - 2 would give me reason to take all this back as well.
It's an unthoughtful and desperate comeback when they have nothing no facts to back up their claim that Sark is the right coach.
I was a dogboy customer for years. Me and many others I knew never said this about people connected with this site, although it was the party line. Many, many of us told the party line groupies and the dogboy bosses they had their heads up their asses starting in 2011. Granted, we may have been a little slow, but we figured it out.
I like to call this 2007
I guess there is a market for being a delusional, moronic fanboy because people still post over there. It really has become a pro Sark circle jerk. Anyone who does not follow their mantra and is critical of Sark and the program are told they are miserable, jerks, need to take it to the vent board, or the OL board.
How fucking hard is it to call it like it is? We all watch the games, our eyes are not lying. This is an average program with a lot of flaws that point straight to the head coach. The head coach in college football is more important and influential than a coach in any other sport. It is crucial to have a great coach in order to be great. It's obvious Sark is not better than average. Stability means almost nothing without the right coach. I don't get why some have such a hard time admitting that.
This thread does pose an interesting dilemma. Is it better to go 8-5 and continue with Sark (there'es no way he gets fired from 8-5) or 5-7 and Sark gets fired. Or would 5-7 even get Sark fired?
Thankfully, Sark admitted on the coaches show that while he thought it was a solid game plan, in hindsight it sucked. Oh yeah, UCLA ran for over 300 yards two weeks later against Arizona. That was my personal favorite moment of Kim's bullshit blowing up in his face.
To call Kim's journalistic integrity compromised is to say that water is a tad bit damp.
What he is a terrible business man. Controversy sells. Rather than put a lid on it, he should have let it grow. There was enough controversy on dawgboy to grow the business. Instead, Grinolds thinks its more important to have Access (hang out with the AD lackies and Cream Puff) than be successful. His "access" produces nothing of value except ego gratification.
A lot of people have left the fold because of his temper tantrums and "access" freak needs.