Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Midfield Logo
Comments
-
The thing that scares me is that Sark fully realizes that as long as he reaches House Money/6 wins each year, he's set for life.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
You can't fire a coach WITH A FUCKING CONTRACT who continues to demonstrate incremental progress by going 7-6 for the fourth year in a row, especially in THIS economy.RoadDawg55 said:Sark better be gone if he wins 7 this year. Like you, I have my doubts. It's pathetic that it would even be a debate if Sark does win 7.
I don't buy into the new coach will need to get his guys in, etc. The team has plenty of young talent. I will expect a new coach to win at least 9 in 2014, regardless of what our record is this year. A new coach should be able to come in and compete for a conference championship. -
Now you see why another 0-12 is necessary.DerekJohnson said:
The thing that scares me is that Sark fully realizes that as long as he reaches House Money/6 wins each year, he's set for life.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
You can't fire a coach WITH A FUCKING CONTRACT who continues to demonstrate incremental progress by going 7-6 for the fourth year in a row, especially in THIS economy.RoadDawg55 said:Sark better be gone if he wins 7 this year. Like you, I have my doubts. It's pathetic that it would even be a debate if Sark does win 7.
I don't buy into the new coach will need to get his guys in, etc. The team has plenty of young talent. I will expect a new coach to win at least 9 in 2014, regardless of what our record is this year. A new coach should be able to come in and compete for a conference championship. -
If a new coach faltered, no doubt posters like Section 14A and HuskyClaus would say that shit. Some posters will say anything to defend a coach, it's insane.MikeDamone said:RoadDawg55 said:Sark better be gone if he wins 7 this year. Like you, I have my doubts. It's pathetic that it would even be a debate if Sark does win 7.
I don't buy into the new coach will need to get his guys in, etc. The team has plenty of young talent. I will expect a new coach to win at least 9 in 2014, regardless of what our record is this year. A new coach should be able to come in and compete for a conference championship.
You might not buy it, but that's what will be said. Guaran-fucking-tee.
Irregardless, it's a mute point. Sark isn't going anywhere.
-
And 14a would remain on Doogman and those that call them out will be banned. Lather,rinse,repeat.RoadDawg55 said:
If a new coach faltered, no doubt posters like Section 14A and HuskyClaus would say that shit. Some posters will say anything to defend a coach, it's insane.MikeDamone said:RoadDawg55 said:Sark better be gone if he wins 7 this year. Like you, I have my doubts. It's pathetic that it would even be a debate if Sark does win 7.
I don't buy into the new coach will need to get his guys in, etc. The team has plenty of young talent. I will expect a new coach to win at least 9 in 2014, regardless of what our record is this year. A new coach should be able to come in and compete for a conference championship.
You might not buy it, but that's what will be said. Guaran-fucking-tee.
Irregardless, it's a mute point. Sark isn't going anywhere.
We are a Minnesota/Purdue/Illinois. The sooner we get used to it and find other things to do with our resources,the happier we will be. At this point, I hate money and time so I'm still dumping both into it. I'm what the AD calls a "sucker" and I freely admit I'm actually part of the problem. -
Sark will be our head football coach as long as he chooses and providing AD Woodward remains to rollover Sark's contract. If the mediocrity on the field continues and because of it pressure is somehow applied, change will need to start in the AD's office........ beginning with something being done to get rid of the "M" at midfield.MikeDamone said:
Irregardless, it's a mute point. Sark isn't going anywhere.
-
I will write to the ticket office and ask that you be moved to the south side. I hear they have a W.Tailgater said:
Sark will be our head football coach as long as he chooses and providing AD Woodward remains to rollover Sark's contract. If the mediocrity on the field continues and because of it pressure is somehow applied, change will need to start in the AD's office........ beginning with something being done to get rid of the "M" at midfield.MikeDamone said:
Irregardless, it's a mute point. Sark isn't going anywhere.
-
Have you no consideration for dyslexic fans seated in the South Side grandstand?MikeDamone said:
I will write to the ticket office and ask that you be moved to the south side. I hear they have a W.Tailgater said:
Sark will be our head football coach as long as he chooses and providing AD Woodward remains to rollover Sark's contract. If the mediocrity on the field continues and because of it pressure is somehow applied, change will need to start in the AD's office........ beginning with something being done to get rid of the "M" at midfield.MikeDamone said:
Irregardless, it's a mute point. Sark isn't going anywhere. -
We can't assume a different coach would win every game Sark won plus these others. I agree with majority of those listed though.CheersWestDawg said:
Disagree. I think there's coaches out there who wouldn't have blown the following games:ACSlaterDawg said:
B+ for the first two years only.Mad_Son said:
I am not sure I'd fully support someone I evaluated as a B+ but I'd certainly understand giving him a 5th year. I don't see why a C (which I think is about right for Sark) gets year 5 though.DerekJohnson said:B or B+ over the first couple years? Absolutely not. C is more like it. Mora would have won 8 games that first year, 8-9 the second, with a healthy Polk. If I thought Sark was B+ material I would be fully supporting him.
Derek, I don't think another coach would have done a whole better in years 1 & 2. Better coaching and recruiting especially would have a greater impact on years 3 & 4. Sark has had some good wins and you cant just assume a different coach would win every close game he lost. The problem is consistency.
2009 - @ UCLA, @Arizona St
2010 - @ BYU, vs. Arizona St
2011 - @ Oregon St, vs. Baylor
2012 - @WSU, vs. Boise St.
Roaddawg, Damone and Boobs will stick with their opinions even when presented with facts and logic to the contrary.RoadDawg55 said:
Where did I say that? I said that was what enabled South Carolina to hire Holtz. He was out of a job and wanted back into coaching. South Carolina bit, and they ended up hiring him. They weren't going to get a guy to leave a good gig to come there, just like UW in 2008. I don't know why you are having a difficult time understanding.DerekJohnson said:
Where is it written in stone that we could only hire a jobless candidate? You're really reaching now.RoadDawg55 said:
The difference is Holtz and Spurrier didn't have jobs before going to South Carolina. I don't remember any jobless candidates back in 2008. There could have been a guy or two, but I can't remember any.DerekJohnson said:As Race and iDawg once said in a long lost podcast... "How do you get a Lou Holtz or Steve Spurrier to go to some God-forsaken place like South Carolina? YOU PAY THEM A LOT OF MONEY, that's how."
Not to mention, Spurrier didn't take over an 0-12 team, he took over a .500 team, kind of like UW right now. Holtz got them to that point (like Sark), and Spurrier has now taken them to a new level. The only difference is I hope we play in BCS bowls every few years with our next coach, which is something Spurrier has yet to do at South Carolina.
You obviously believe otherwise, but it just doesn't happen. I have not seen a 0-3 win team pluck a 10 win coach from a BCS conference team. Show me some examples of it happening elsewhere.
My argument is that it would have been tough to get a proven winner to leave his job to come to UW. I'm not talking about a 7-6 type coach, I'm talking about a 9+ win coach. You might think we could have, but it wasn't going to happen.
Coordinators, non BCS conference coaches, and coaching journeymen looking for a payday. That's who was taking the job in 2008.
Woodward tried to hire Muschamp. He wanted a defensive coach. Kelly and Meyer blew him off. He was left with Pat Hill, Leach, Mora (who they desperately tried to get). Instead of going with a guy like Hill or Leach they went with a young hungry guy who could at least talk up the program and get some good buzz going. The odds of hiring a top flight coach at the time were barely 5%
Also, the notion that the same people are in charge as the last 10 years is totally wrong. You have a new AD and a new President. I thought the AD would be a total disaster. Instead, the new AD got the stadium built and got Sark a blank check to hire the new D coaches. The D immediately responded in one year and recruiting, which was marginal in the 2011-2012 classes actually was good in the last class.
So to say they've fucked everything up or are incompetent or have low expectations is totally off the mark. I could give less of a shit about their stupid fucking marketing because they've got the big shit right in the last few years. Unfortunately, because most here cant admit these improvements, and admit when they are wrong they lose credibility with all fans and their rightful and correct criticism of Sark is tossed away as nonsense.
And, the odds of hiring a top flight coach now are probably 90%. You'd have a strong pool of candidates lining up for the job.
-
I stopped reading here. If Woodward wanted a defensive coach, he would have hired Holt instead of Sark.ACSlaterDawg said:
We can't assume a different coach would win every game Sark won plus these others. I agree with majority of those listed though.CheersWestDawg said:
Disagree. I think there's coaches out there who wouldn't have blown the following games:ACSlaterDawg said:
B+ for the first two years only.Mad_Son said:
I am not sure I'd fully support someone I evaluated as a B+ but I'd certainly understand giving him a 5th year. I don't see why a C (which I think is about right for Sark) gets year 5 though.DerekJohnson said:B or B+ over the first couple years? Absolutely not. C is more like it. Mora would have won 8 games that first year, 8-9 the second, with a healthy Polk. If I thought Sark was B+ material I would be fully supporting him.
Derek, I don't think another coach would have done a whole better in years 1 & 2. Better coaching and recruiting especially would have a greater impact on years 3 & 4. Sark has had some good wins and you cant just assume a different coach would win every close game he lost. The problem is consistency.
2009 - @ UCLA, @Arizona St
2010 - @ BYU, vs. Arizona St
2011 - @ Oregon St, vs. Baylor
2012 - @WSU, vs. Boise St.
Roaddawg, Damone and Boobs will stick with their opinions even when presented with facts and logic to the contrary.RoadDawg55 said:
Where did I say that? I said that was what enabled South Carolina to hire Holtz. He was out of a job and wanted back into coaching. South Carolina bit, and they ended up hiring him. They weren't going to get a guy to leave a good gig to come there, just like UW in 2008. I don't know why you are having a difficult time understanding.DerekJohnson said:
Where is it written in stone that we could only hire a jobless candidate? You're really reaching now.RoadDawg55 said:
The difference is Holtz and Spurrier didn't have jobs before going to South Carolina. I don't remember any jobless candidates back in 2008. There could have been a guy or two, but I can't remember any.DerekJohnson said:As Race and iDawg once said in a long lost podcast... "How do you get a Lou Holtz or Steve Spurrier to go to some God-forsaken place like South Carolina? YOU PAY THEM A LOT OF MONEY, that's how."
Not to mention, Spurrier didn't take over an 0-12 team, he took over a .500 team, kind of like UW right now. Holtz got them to that point (like Sark), and Spurrier has now taken them to a new level. The only difference is I hope we play in BCS bowls every few years with our next coach, which is something Spurrier has yet to do at South Carolina.
You obviously believe otherwise, but it just doesn't happen. I have not seen a 0-3 win team pluck a 10 win coach from a BCS conference team. Show me some examples of it happening elsewhere.
My argument is that it would have been tough to get a proven winner to leave his job to come to UW. I'm not talking about a 7-6 type coach, I'm talking about a 9+ win coach. You might think we could have, but it wasn't going to happen.
Coordinators, non BCS conference coaches, and coaching journeymen looking for a payday. That's who was taking the job in 2008.
Woodward tried to hire Muschamp. He wanted a defensive coach. -
Some doog urban ledgends will live forever I see.ACSlaterDawg said:
We can't assume a different coach would win every game Sark won plus these others. I agree with majority of those listed though.CheersWestDawg said:
Disagree. I think there's coaches out there who wouldn't have blown the following games:ACSlaterDawg said:
B+ for the first two years only.Mad_Son said:
I am not sure I'd fully support someone I evaluated as a B+ but I'd certainly understand giving him a 5th year. I don't see why a C (which I think is about right for Sark) gets year 5 though.DerekJohnson said:B or B+ over the first couple years? Absolutely not. C is more like it. Mora would have won 8 games that first year, 8-9 the second, with a healthy Polk. If I thought Sark was B+ material I would be fully supporting him.
Derek, I don't think another coach would have done a whole better in years 1 & 2. Better coaching and recruiting especially would have a greater impact on years 3 & 4. Sark has had some good wins and you cant just assume a different coach would win every close game he lost. The problem is consistency.
2009 - @ UCLA, @Arizona St
2010 - @ BYU, vs. Arizona St
2011 - @ Oregon St, vs. Baylor
2012 - @WSU, vs. Boise St.
Roaddawg, Damone and Boobs will stick with their opinions even when presented with facts and logic to the contrary.RoadDawg55 said:
Where did I say that? I said that was what enabled South Carolina to hire Holtz. He was out of a job and wanted back into coaching. South Carolina bit, and they ended up hiring him. They weren't going to get a guy to leave a good gig to come there, just like UW in 2008. I don't know why you are having a difficult time understanding.DerekJohnson said:
Where is it written in stone that we could only hire a jobless candidate? You're really reaching now.RoadDawg55 said:
The difference is Holtz and Spurrier didn't have jobs before going to South Carolina. I don't remember any jobless candidates back in 2008. There could have been a guy or two, but I can't remember any.DerekJohnson said:As Race and iDawg once said in a long lost podcast... "How do you get a Lou Holtz or Steve Spurrier to go to some God-forsaken place like South Carolina? YOU PAY THEM A LOT OF MONEY, that's how."
Not to mention, Spurrier didn't take over an 0-12 team, he took over a .500 team, kind of like UW right now. Holtz got them to that point (like Sark), and Spurrier has now taken them to a new level. The only difference is I hope we play in BCS bowls every few years with our next coach, which is something Spurrier has yet to do at South Carolina.
You obviously believe otherwise, but it just doesn't happen. I have not seen a 0-3 win team pluck a 10 win coach from a BCS conference team. Show me some examples of it happening elsewhere.
My argument is that it would have been tough to get a proven winner to leave his job to come to UW. I'm not talking about a 7-6 type coach, I'm talking about a 9+ win coach. You might think we could have, but it wasn't going to happen.
Coordinators, non BCS conference coaches, and coaching journeymen looking for a payday. That's who was taking the job in 2008.
Woodward tried to hire Muschamp. He wanted a defensive coach. Kelly and Meyer blew him off. He was left with Pat Hill, Leach, Mora (who they desperately tried to get). Instead of going with a guy like Hill or Leach they went with a young hungry guy who could at least talk up the program and get some good buzz going. The odds of hiring a top flight coach at the time were barely 5%
Also, the notion that the same people are in charge as the last 10 years is totally wrong. You have a new AD and a new President. I thought the AD would be a total disaster. Instead, the new AD got the stadium built and got Sark a blank check to hire the new D coaches. The D immediately responded in one year and recruiting, which was marginal in the 2011-2012 classes actually was good in the last class.
So to say they've fucked everything up or are incompetent or have low expectations is totally off the mark. I could give less of a shit about their stupid fucking marketing because they've got the big shit right in the last few years. Unfortunately, because most here cant admit these improvements, and admit when they are wrong they lose credibility with all fans and their rightful and correct criticism of Sark is tossed away as nonsense.
And, the odds of hiring a top flight coach now are probably 90%. You'd have a strong pool of candidates lining up for the job.
And yes, the stadium is an improvement and 7 wins is better than zero. Of course.
And yes, the same people are in charge now as 10 years ago. An overriding theme has emegered that transends each AD/President's tenure. You need to look past those two positions and go a level up. The BOR. In 1991upper campus took control and was able to start implementing their vision of what football would look like at UW. It has been a long road, but they finally have it where they want it and have quieted down the critics that forced Lambright out. UW does not have the desire to field a championship level team. It is too risky. It does not sit well with the academics. A football prgram should never over shadow the university. They don't want 0-12 or 12-0. Something in the 5 - 8 win range will be just fine.
Woody states publically how pleased he is with Sark. '12's 7 wins > '11s 7 wins > '10s 7 wins.
Throwing money at things is a lazy and foolish way to fix problems. And it hasn't worked with assistants. We just ended up with high paid shitty coaches. All Holt had to be was be average and he would have been fine. Wilcox looks to be an improvement, but jesus christ, that is like the improvemnt Sark made over Ty. Anyone DC with half a brain (lol!) could improve on that cluster fuck. Ivan? Cozzetto? Kiesau? Are you shitting me?
