Even if Stanford isn't great, they might still be one of the 5 best teams Pete has played against

[EsophagealFeces]

We've gone over this...

So has he played 5 teams better than Stanford?

He might play five teams better than Stanford THIS YEAR.

That wasn't the question. Which 5 teams before yesterday has he faced that are better than Stanford?

Your question is completely irrelevant. Bad coaches lose. 96-13.

Okay, well at least you responded to the content.

How long does he get to win more than 6 Pac-12 games a year?

Three years, at best.

I hope this is correct, but I'm still not overly confident in Pool Boy. This probably deserves its own thread, but I think that Woodward would have tried to keep Sark if not for all his off the field bullshit. I could be wrong, but I think he was satisfied with the "progress" Sark was making on the field.

The athletic department also sees Pete as how they want to represent the university value wise, regardless of performance. Don't underestimate that.

I meant to mention that in my poast, but forgot to. I think you're exactly right. I fear that the current administration is far more concerned with that than they are with winning.

 

[topdawgnc]

You really need to PM Irishdawg

Why?

It doesn't seem to have helped you any.

BUUUURRRRRN

 

[uzi]

You really need to PM Irishdawg

Why?

It doesn't seem to have helped you any.

BUUUURRRRRN

Agreed.

 

[RaceBannon]

We've gone over this...

So has he played 5 teams better than Stanford?

He might play five teams better than Stanford THIS YEAR.

That wasn't the question. Which 5 teams before yesterday has he faced that are better than Stanford?

Your question is completely irrelevant. Bad coaches lose. 96-13.

Okay, well at least you responded to the content.

How long does he get to win more than 6 Pac-12 games a year?

Sark never won more than 5. Were you all butthurt the last five years?

Way to aim for the low bar. As usual.

You didn't answer the question

I wasn't in favor of hiring Sark -- promoting an OC from another school as our HC. If he hadn't left, he should have been fired. USC did us a favor taking him off our hands.

But Pete isn't a promoted OC, he is 100 and 13 as a HC with 2 BCS wins. I expect even more of him.

How long does he get?

More than one game. You gave Sark five years

 

[Vegasdawg]

Tyrone,,the poster boy for ineptness as a head coach was given how many years by the fans? The Husky halfbrain movement began over that idiot's continued employment and fan support for him. So let's see, Peterman will get....five years to win the 6. Maybe 10.

 

[uzi]

We've gone over this...

So has he played 5 teams better than Stanford?

He might play five teams better than Stanford THIS YEAR.

That wasn't the question. Which 5 teams before yesterday has he faced that are better than Stanford?

Your question is completely irrelevant. Bad coaches lose. 96-13.

Okay, well at least you responded to the content.

How long does he get to win more than 6 Pac-12 games a year?

Sark never won more than 5. Were you all butthurt the last five years?

Way to aim for the low bar. As usual.

You didn't answer the question

I wasn't in favor of hiring Sark -- promoting an OC from another school as our HC. If he hadn't left, he should have been fired. USC did us a favor taking him off our hands.

But Pete isn't a promoted OC, he is 100 and 13 as a HC with 2 BCS wins. I expect even more of him.

How long does he get?

More than one game. You gave Sark five years

Answer the question. How long do you give him?

 

[Disciple_2_Hole]

We've gone over this...

So has he played 5 teams better than Stanford?

He might play five teams better than Stanford THIS YEAR.

That wasn't the question. Which 5 teams before yesterday has he faced that are better than Stanford?

Brah, maybe before you crown Staford a top 5 team against Peterman you should let the season play out. They are 1-1 and got beat by Seven.

 

[dnc]

We've gone over this...

So has he played 5 teams better than Stanford?

He might play five teams better than Stanford THIS YEAR.

That wasn't the question. Which 5 teams before yesterday has he faced that are better than Stanford?

Your question is completely irrelevant. Bad coaches lose. 96-13.

Okay, well at least you responded to the content.

How long does he get to win more than 6 Pac-12 games a year?

Sark never won more than 5. Were you all butthurt the last five years?

Way to aim for the low bar. As usual.

You didn't answer the question

I wasn't in favor of hiring Sark -- promoting an OC from another school as our HC. If he hadn't left, he should have been fired. USC did us a favor taking him off our hands.

But Pete isn't a promoted OC, he is 100 and 13 as a HC with 2 BCS wins. I expect even more of him.

How long does he get?

More than one game. You gave Sark five years

Answer the question. How long do you give him?

Personally, four years unless he's terrible in three. But I'm much more willing to give a coach with a track record the benefit of the doubt than I am a coach who's never done shit (Sark), or worse yet, been shit at other stops (Gilbyham).

 

[uzi]

We've gone over this...

So has he played 5 teams better than Stanford?

He might play five teams better than Stanford THIS YEAR.

That wasn't the question. Which 5 teams before yesterday has he faced that are better than Stanford?

Brah, maybe before you crown Staford a top 5 team against Peterman you should let the season play out. They are 1-1 and got beat by Seven.

Arguing that Furd is worse isn't making Pete's case better.

 

[doogsinparadise]

15 games, or gtfo.

 

[sarktastic]

Uzi is proving why you don't let children play with guns.