Found this on wearesc.com

[Tequilla]

Let's go through a Sark timeline:

1) Sark milked 0-12 for all that he could - which pulled the wool over the eyes of doogs and rolled the eyes of those that actually understanding baselines and normalizing of results

2) Sark's youthful energy combined with results at USC allowed for an instant buy-in of a program (both players and fan base) that needed something to believe in

3) After a plunger raping in the Alamo Bowl during Year 3, Sark fired his defensive staff (deservedly so) to shift heat off of him for the next year or two (dishonorable mention for the rumors of the pussy ass way that he fired said defensive staff)

4) By the end of Year 4, Sark had established an ability to beat those who he should beat and lose to those he should lose to ... Year 5 was going to be very telling about his ability

5) By the middle of Year 5, it was clear to any Husky supporter with half of a brain that Sark was what we thought he was at the end of Year 4. While the upgrades to his defensive staff generally showed on the field, the overall results remained unchanged leading to a pointing of the finger to the constants of the program - which start at the top. The ire became increasing after Sark kept patting himself on the back after a good start and fell into the normal Sark mid-season rut once he had to play the big boys.

6) Sark showed a general inability to recruit in-state and his relationships with the major HS programs/coaches in the state was generally frosty. It's not a stretch to say that they viewed Sark as a fake and all about himself.

7) Sark's off the field behavior that included banging cocktail waitresses at Joey's combined with thinking that it was good form to show up to High School All-Star events with a drunk party bus was not only severely lacking, but also becoming more and more of an issue given that the results weren't there.

8) Respected members of Sark's offensive staff gradually left Sark to find greener pastures in Nuss going to Alabama and Joel Thomas going to Arkansas. Many shrugged those off as SEC SEC SEC moves ... but I'm beginning to think it had as much to do with not wanting to attach yourself to the sinking SS Sarkisian. Consider the coaches that they attached their ship to upon leaving and the success that those coaches have had. To plug holes Sark moved a constant on his staff, Johnny Nansen to cover. Nansen's only expertise to Sark is suggesting what tequila to drink for the night.

9) Almost 6 months after the fact, there hasn't been a single ounce of evidence that suggests that Woodward worked that hard at retaining Sark when SC came calling. In fact, the most telling words from Woodward on the issue were to the team the afternoon that Sark left (which he also handled quite poorly to the point that his players told him to Fuck Off - which also appears to be a recurring theme of former players) saying that his goal was to find them a championship caliber head coach.

10) Without even coaching a game at USC, Sarkisian is already drawing the ire of many USC supporters (who for as much as they are a rival, I respect them from the standpoint that they have expectations and know what good football looks like) because they are seeing the lack of attention to detail, general sloppiness, and mirages to the program that Sark produced at Washington. Sark says that he's focused on fundamentals but his actions are all tied to gimmicks. That gets sniffed out quickly at a school that is perfectly content running Student Body Left and Student Body Right play after play after play after play.

 

[Tequilla]

A couple more Sark thoughts:

1) Yardage per game stats mean jack shit ... only stats that matter are points for and points against. Ultimately, Sark put up a ton of yardage on teams that he was better than and tended to struggle against better teams. Against Stanford, while putting up a ton of yards, the point totals were quite low. When we think of a lack of red zone execution, this is a really good starting point for it.

2) IF Sark has success at USC, it will be interesting to see if he stays or jumps after 4-5 years. I tend to think that he needs to keep moving jobs before his story gets completely known.

3) You could argue that Sark's set with money for life, but you also have to remember that his wife SHOULD get a large chunk of that at some point as it's hard to imagine that she's going to stay with him forever.

4) The more that it comes out that Sark's a POS, the harder it will be for him to jump on a network. Slick >>>>>>>>> Sark when it comes to TV presence.

5) Sark's ego won't let him take an OC job going forward. I could see him getting a middle tier BCS job and then falling on his face if SC doesn't work out. SC is normally your last college job ... hard to move after that.

 

[Dardanus]

Let's go through a Sark timeline:

3) After a plunger raping in the Alamo Bowl during Year 3, Sark fired his defensive staff (deservedly so) to shift heat off of him for the next year or two (dishonorable mention for the rumors of the pussy ass way that he fired said defensive staff)

I haven't heard said rumours (fuck me right?). Care to elaborate?

 

[Tequilla]

From what I heard, upon getting back from San Antonio, Sark rushed into the first bus after landing at the airport and the defensive coaches were put on the second bus which got delayed in getting back to campus. When the second bus got to campus, news of the firing of Holt and the entire defensive staff was already leaked to the media. Upon exiting the bus, the media asked Holt about it and he was completely blindsided by it. Basically, Sark pussied out of telling Holt that he was fired and let the media do it for him.

I know that there are a lot of people that are very critical of the job that Nick Holt did at Washington, but everybody that I know that interacted with him liked him a lot as a person. Regardless of perspective, nobody deserves to be flat out blindsided about their job like that. I lost a ton of respect for Sark after that. If you're going to fire someone, be straight up about it and handle your business like a man with the reasons why you are doing it. You owe it to the person that you fire to at least tell them why.

 

[RoadDawg55]

I know Kim used this word to describe Mora which couldn't be further from the truth but Sark is going to implode down in USC.

They won't put up with his bullshit down there. I was actually surprised Sark left to USC myself. Once he fails at USC I doubt he ever has another head coaching gig again.

Sark has one of the best agents in the business. I have no idea who in the hell he is but he helped get him the job at SC and had his name in NFL coaching searches and even Arkansas at one point (No way Sark takes a job where they fire you for lying about your affairs with co-eds).

After SC he will land a coordinator job or lower level D1 school.

Kiffin's agent killed it too. My theory is they got into the right LA social circles because of their affiliations to USC's dominance. There were tons of celebrities around and no NFL team. The Hollywood types saw dollar signs and they have all laughed all the way to the bank despite Sark and Kiffin being bad coaches. The wonderboy reputations and great agents have been a lethal combination.

I wouldn't be one bit surprised if Sark gets another BCS job after he gets fired at USC. Some shitty program will pay him 2+ million because he has "proven" he can turn a program around. After all, UW was 0-12 when he was hired!

His next move will be to the NFL.

There he will get generational money and fade into bolivian.

I could see that if he becomes a QB coach/OC after getting fired at USC. He could luck into an NFL head coach job if he puts together a few years as an assistant of a good team. I don't think he is having success at USC and then bolting to the NFL.

I think it's more likely he gets fired from USC, but gets one last Utah or Kansas type job before never coaching again. He will completely quit when that happens and mail it in, just like Ty.

 

[[Deleted User]]

Let's go through a Sark timeline:

1) Sark milked 0-12 for all that he could - which pulled the wool over the eyes of doogs and rolled the eyes of those that actually understanding baselines and normalizing of results

2) Sark's youthful energy combined with results at USC allowed for an instant buy-in of a program (both players and fan base) that needed something to believe in

3) After a plunger raping in the Alamo Bowl during Year 3, Sark fired his defensive staff (deservedly so) to shift heat off of him for the next year or two (dishonorable mention for the rumors of the pussy ass way that he fired said defensive staff)

4) By the end of Year 4, Sark had established an ability to beat those who he should beat and lose to those he should lose to ... Year 5 was going to be very telling about his ability

5) By the middle of Year 5, it was clear to any Husky supporter with half of a brain that Sark was what we thought he was at the end of Year 4. While the upgrades to his defensive staff generally showed on the field, the overall results remained unchanged leading to a pointing of the finger to the constants of the program - which start at the top. The ire became increasing after Sark kept patting himself on the back after a good start and fell into the normal Sark mid-season rut once he had to play the big boys.

6) Sark showed a general inability to recruit in-state and his relationships with the major HS programs/coaches in the state was generally frosty. It's not a stretch to say that they viewed Sark as a fake and all about himself.

7) Sark's off the field behavior that included banging cocktail waitresses at Joey's combined with thinking that it was good form to show up to High School All-Star events with a drunk party bus was not only severely lacking, but also becoming more and more of an issue given that the results weren't there.

8) Respected members of Sark's offensive staff gradually left Sark to find greener pastures in Nuss going to Alabama and Joel Thomas going to Arkansas. Many shrugged those off as SEC SEC SEC moves ... but I'm beginning to think it had as much to do with not wanting to attach yourself to the sinking SS Sarkisian. Consider the coaches that they attached their ship to upon leaving and the success that those coaches have had. To plug holes Sark moved a constant on his staff, Johnny Nansen to cover. Nansen's only expertise to Sark is suggesting what tequila to drink for the night.

9) Almost 6 months after the fact, there hasn't been a single ounce of evidence that suggests that Woodward worked that hard at retaining Sark when SC came calling. In fact, the most telling words from Woodward on the issue were to the team the afternoon that Sark left (which he also handled quite poorly to the point that his players told him to Fuck Off - which also appears to be a recurring theme of former players) saying that his goal was to find them a championship caliber head coach.

10) Without even coaching a game at USC, Sarkisian is already drawing the ire of many USC supporters (who for as much as they are a rival, I respect them from the standpoint that they have expectations and know what good football looks like) because they are seeing the lack of attention to detail, general sloppiness, and mirages to the program that Sark produced at Washington. Sark says that he's focused on fundamentals but his actions are all tied to gimmicks. That gets sniffed out quickly at a school that is perfectly content running Student Body Left and Student Body Right play after play after play after play.

Dude it's 5 reasons not 10 and no mention of Ossai either is an insult!

 

[Tequilla]

I could have broken it up into 2 5 reasons ... but I got on a roll and was ready to take some gloves off.

 

[Kaepsknee]

Sounds like a bruin or stanford troll trying to cause trouble. Sark is a great coach.

It's got ChrisHart's footprints all over it.

 

[HeretoBeatmyChest]

Regarding the stats that matter...

Yards per play is the best indicator given how some teams employ the hurry up style. Points per play is also a great stat but I couldn't find the rankings anywhere. Here are YPP and PPG

Here is UW's YPP national ranking under Sark: 26-102-24-67-48.

Here is UW's PPG national ranking under Sark: 18-90-25-96-69.

Here is UW's plays per 7 points.....14.5-20.3-13.8-21.1-17.6.

What we see here is UW's 2011 offense was better than the 2013 offense. It ranked higher in yards per play (though the 2013 offense was higher in the actual stat 6.35/6.21) but most important, it required only 13.8 plays per TD while last years was 14.5. Also consider that last season had way better defense & special teams than 2011. So adjust for those non-offensive points and 2011 is superior by a greater margin.

The shame is the 2013 offense should have been better. Price's stats were slightly better in 2011 but in 2013 he threw 6 picks against 11 in 2011. Sankey > Polk and ASJ should have been better than he was in 2011, having two years of experience. The 2011 OL was probably slightly better. The 2011 WR's were stacked with Kearse, Kasen and Aguilar. But 2013 had an experienced Kasen, who they didnt use enough, Kevin Smith, Mickens and Stringfellow who should have been playing big minutes early in the season to get him developed. Also, the hurry up BS certainly didnt help the defense which had to face a lot more plays.

 

[[Deleted User]]

Actually Chest in 2011 that was the one year where Sark had good special teams. Kevin Smith and Jesse Callier were among league leaders in the nation in Kickoff Return average and Kasen was a good punt returner.

In 2011 the offense was just better though. Better OL, Price was at his best, Polk was solid, the WR's with Kearse, Aguilar, Johnson, Kasen and Kevin Smith along with ASJ at TE it's pretty amazing that team only went 7-6.

 

[PostGameOrangeSlices]

Let's go through a Sark timeline:

1) Sark milked 0-12 for all that he could - which pulled the wool over the eyes of doogs and rolled the eyes of those that actually understanding baselines and normalizing of results

2) Sark's youthful energy combined with results at USC allowed for an instant buy-in of a program (both players and fan base) that needed something to believe in

3) After a plunger raping in the Alamo Bowl during Year 3, Sark fired his defensive staff (deservedly so) to shift heat off of him for the next year or two (dishonorable mention for the rumors of the pussy ass way that he fired said defensive staff)

4) By the end of Year 4, Sark had established an ability to beat those who he should beat and lose to those he should lose to ... Year 5 was going to be very telling about his ability

5) By the middle of Year 5, it was clear to any Husky supporter with half of a brain that Sark was what we thought he was at the end of Year 4. While the upgrades to his defensive staff generally showed on the field, the overall results remained unchanged leading to a pointing of the finger to the constants of the program - which start at the top. The ire became increasing after Sark kept patting himself on the back after a good start and fell into the normal Sark mid-season rut once he had to play the big boys.

6) Sark showed a general inability to recruit in-state and his relationships with the major HS programs/coaches in the state was generally frosty. It's not a stretch to say that they viewed Sark as a fake and all about himself.

7) Sark's off the field behavior that included banging cocktail waitresses at Joey's combined with thinking that it was good form to show up to High School All-Star events with a drunk party bus was not only severely lacking, but also becoming more and more of an issue given that the results weren't there.

8) Respected members of Sark's offensive staff gradually left Sark to find greener pastures in Nuss going to Alabama and Joel Thomas going to Arkansas. Many shrugged those off as SEC SEC SEC moves ... but I'm beginning to think it had as much to do with not wanting to attach yourself to the sinking SS Sarkisian. Consider the coaches that they attached their ship to upon leaving and the success that those coaches have had. To plug holes Sark moved a constant on his staff, Johnny Nansen to cover. Nansen's only expertise to Sark is suggesting what tequila to drink for the night.

9) Almost 6 months after the fact, there hasn't been a single ounce of evidence that suggests that Woodward worked that hard at retaining Sark when SC came calling. In fact, the most telling words from Woodward on the issue were to the team the afternoon that Sark left (which he also handled quite poorly to the point that his players told him to Fuck Off - which also appears to be a recurring theme of former players) saying that his goal was to find them a championship caliber head coach.

10) Without even coaching a game at USC, Sarkisian is already drawing the ire of many USC supporters (who for as much as they are a rival, I respect them from the standpoint that they have expectations and know what good football looks like) because they are seeing the lack of attention to detail, general sloppiness, and mirages to the program that Sark produced at Washington. Sark says that he's focused on fundamentals but his actions are all tied to gimmicks. That gets sniffed out quickly at a school that is perfectly content running Student Body Left and Student Body Right play after play after play after play.

christ, let's not

 

[topdawgnc]

I'm going to take some heat for saying this, but Sark is not a bad coach.

He is lazy, immature, and overrated as a play caller.

What we overlook is at the age of 34 he took over one of the top football programs in the country (revenue, size, conference, etc) and didn't run it into the ground.

0-12 was not 0-12 ... it was still a bad culture and could have easily been in the shits for years.

If the guy had discipline, maybe paid his dues a little more and been focused, he likely would have been above average.

At SC I fully expect him to win 9-10-11 games a year. The equivalent to average at Washington. Just enough to make the naive believe in him ... piss off those who know better ... and not justify a buy out by firing.

He will never out coach a good coach, he'll never out hustle a worker coach, and he'll beat average coaches and beat the shit out of bad coaches.

As the famous Race Bannon says ... you are what your record says you are ... and it fully applies to Sark.

A below average coach who feasts on weak competition and has a great agent and a charming smile.

I like to be topdawgncfs and say a coach isn't a bad coach while also saying he's a below average coach in the same poast, TWILTD.

Below average = bad.

hth

Bad is Tyrone Willingham

Below average is Sark

One destroyed a program ... the other survived.

HTH

 

[RoadDawg55]

I'm going to take some heat for saying this, but Sark is not a bad coach.

He is lazy, immature, and overrated as a play caller.

What we overlook is at the age of 34 he took over one of the top football programs in the country (revenue, size, conference, etc) and didn't run it into the ground.

0-12 was not 0-12 ... it was still a bad culture and could have easily been in the shits for years.

If the guy had discipline, maybe paid his dues a little more and been focused, he likely would have been above average.

At SC I fully expect him to win 9-10-11 games a year. The equivalent to average at Washington. Just enough to make the naive believe in him ... piss off those who know better ... and not justify a buy out by firing.

He will never out coach a good coach, he'll never out hustle a worker coach, and he'll beat average coaches and beat the shit out of bad coaches.

As the famous Race Bannon says ... you are what your record says you are ... and it fully applies to Sark.

A below average coach who feasts on weak competition and has a great agent and a charming smile.

I like to be topdawgncfs and say a coach isn't a bad coach while also saying he's a below average coach in the same poast, TWILTD.

Below average = bad.

hth

Bad is Tyrone Willingham

Below average is Sark

One destroyed a program ... the other survived.

HTH

Tyrone Willingham achieved more at Stanford than Sark did at UW. Now, Sark is at USC which is comparable to Ty at Notre Dame. Sark will get a quick hook at USC like Ty did at ND. Then Sark will take over a downtrodden program. He will run it into the ground, just like Tyrone did. I'm calling it now. They are more similar than you think.

 

[dnc]

I'm going to take some heat for saying this, but Sark is not a bad coach.

He is lazy, immature, and overrated as a play caller.

What we overlook is at the age of 34 he took over one of the top football programs in the country (revenue, size, conference, etc) and didn't run it into the ground.

0-12 was not 0-12 ... it was still a bad culture and could have easily been in the shits for years.

If the guy had discipline, maybe paid his dues a little more and been focused, he likely would have been above average.

At SC I fully expect him to win 9-10-11 games a year. The equivalent to average at Washington. Just enough to make the naive believe in him ... piss off those who know better ... and not justify a buy out by firing.

He will never out coach a good coach, he'll never out hustle a worker coach, and he'll beat average coaches and beat the shit out of bad coaches.

As the famous Race Bannon says ... you are what your record says you are ... and it fully applies to Sark.

A below average coach who feasts on weak competition and has a great agent and a charming smile.

I like to be topdawgncfs and say a coach isn't a bad coach while also saying he's a below average coach in the same poast, TWILTD.

Below average = bad.

hth

Bad is Tyrone Willingham

Below average is Sark

One destroyed a program ... the other survived.

HTH

Tyrone Willingham achieved more at Stanford than Sark did at UW. Now, Sark is at USC which is comparable to Ty at Notre Dame. Sark will get a quick hook at USC like Ty did at ND. Then Sark will take over a downtrodden program. He will run it into the ground, just like Tyrone did. I'm calling it now. They are more similar than you think.

this

 

[HeretoBeatmyChest]

I'm going to take some heat for saying this, but Sark is not a bad coach.

He is lazy, immature, and overrated as a play caller.

What we overlook is at the age of 34 he took over one of the top football programs in the country (revenue, size, conference, etc) and didn't run it into the ground.

0-12 was not 0-12 ... it was still a bad culture and could have easily been in the shits for years.

If the guy had discipline, maybe paid his dues a little more and been focused, he likely would have been above average.

At SC I fully expect him to win 9-10-11 games a year. The equivalent to average at Washington. Just enough to make the naive believe in him ... piss off those who know better ... and not justify a buy out by firing.

He will never out coach a good coach, he'll never out hustle a worker coach, and he'll beat average coaches and beat the shit out of bad coaches.

As the famous Race Bannon says ... you are what your record says you are ... and it fully applies to Sark.

A below average coach who feasts on weak competition and has a great agent and a charming smile.

I like to be topdawgncfs and say a coach isn't a bad coach while also saying he's a below average coach in the same poast, TWILTD.

Below average = bad.

hth

Bad is Tyrone Willingham

Below average is Sark

One destroyed a program ... the other survived.

HTH

Tyrone Willingham achieved more at Stanford than Sark did at UW. Now, Sark is at USC which is comparable to Ty at Notre Dame. Sark will get a quick hook at USC like Ty did at ND. Then Sark will take over a downtrodden program. He will run it into the ground, just like Tyrone did. I'm calling it now. They are more similar than you think.

I think Sark will go the NFL assistant route. Guy has way too big of an ego to take a small time HC job after being HC at UW and USC.

 

[GrundleStiltzkin]

I'm going to take some heat for saying this, but Sark is not a bad coach.

He is lazy, immature, and overrated as a play caller.

What we overlook is at the age of 34 he took over one of the top football programs in the country (revenue, size, conference, etc) and didn't run it into the ground.

0-12 was not 0-12 ... it was still a bad culture and could have easily been in the shits for years.

If the guy had discipline, maybe paid his dues a little more and been focused, he likely would have been above average.

At SC I fully expect him to win 9-10-11 games a year. The equivalent to average at Washington. Just enough to make the naive believe in him ... piss off those who know better ... and not justify a buy out by firing.

He will never out coach a good coach, he'll never out hustle a worker coach, and he'll beat average coaches and beat the shit out of bad coaches.

As the famous Race Bannon says ... you are what your record says you are ... and it fully applies to Sark.

A below average coach who feasts on weak competition and has a great agent and a charming smile.

I like to be topdawgncfs and say a coach isn't a bad coach while also saying he's a below average coach in the same poast, TWILTD.

Below average = bad.

hth

Bad is Tyrone Willingham

Below average is Sark

One destroyed a program ... the other survived.

HTH

Tyrone Willingham achieved more at Stanford than Sark did at UW. Now, Sark is at USC which is comparable to Ty at Notre Dame. Sark will get a quick hook at USC like Ty did at ND. Then Sark will take over a downtrodden program. He will run it into the ground, just like Tyrone did. I'm calling it now. They are more similar than you think.

It's always been the downtrodden programs that Armenians get to take over.

 

[Tequilla]

If we're going to turn this thread into a discrimination thread about Armenians I'm out

 

[topdawgnc]

I'm going to take some heat for saying this, but Sark is not a bad coach.

He is lazy, immature, and overrated as a play caller.

What we overlook is at the age of 34 he took over one of the top football programs in the country (revenue, size, conference, etc) and didn't run it into the ground.

0-12 was not 0-12 ... it was still a bad culture and could have easily been in the shits for years.

If the guy had discipline, maybe paid his dues a little more and been focused, he likely would have been above average.

At SC I fully expect him to win 9-10-11 games a year. The equivalent to average at Washington. Just enough to make the naive believe in him ... piss off those who know better ... and not justify a buy out by firing.

He will never out coach a good coach, he'll never out hustle a worker coach, and he'll beat average coaches and beat the shit out of bad coaches.

As the famous Race Bannon says ... you are what your record says you are ... and it fully applies to Sark.

A below average coach who feasts on weak competition and has a great agent and a charming smile.

I like to be topdawgncfs and say a coach isn't a bad coach while also saying he's a below average coach in the same poast, TWILTD.

Below average = bad.

hth

Bad is Tyrone Willingham

Below average is Sark

One destroyed a program ... the other survived.

HTH

Tyrone Willingham achieved more at Stanford than Sark did at UW. Now, Sark is at USC which is comparable to Ty at Notre Dame. Sark will get a quick hook at USC like Ty did at ND. Then Sark will take over a downtrodden program. He will run it into the ground, just like Tyrone did. I'm calling it now. They are more similar than you think.

Ty had a 54% winning record at Stanford, Sark was at 53% during his time at UW.

Ty did have a Rose Bowl appearance, of course when he was our coach many people would argue it was a down year for the PAC.

Regardless, you are hard pressed to say that a coach is "bad" when he left a program no worse off than he found it. Taking into account he was 34 and taking his first run at a HC job anywhere ... and he didn't do bad.

Maybe I should have said he was average, because that is what his record indicates. However, I chose to say below average because he isn't realizing his potential ... due to being lazy and undisciplined.

I personally don't think Sark will be fired from SC. He would have to really shit the bed, and with the talent he will recruit ... I don't see him doing that.

 

[[Deleted User]]

I'm going to take some heat for saying this, but Sark is not a bad coach.

He is lazy, immature, and overrated as a play caller.

What we overlook is at the age of 34 he took over one of the top football programs in the country (revenue, size, conference, etc) and didn't run it into the ground.

0-12 was not 0-12 ... it was still a bad culture and could have easily been in the shits for years.

If the guy had discipline, maybe paid his dues a little more and been focused, he likely would have been above average.

At SC I fully expect him to win 9-10-11 games a year. The equivalent to average at Washington. Just enough to make the naive believe in him ... piss off those who know better ... and not justify a buy out by firing.

He will never out coach a good coach, he'll never out hustle a worker coach, and he'll beat average coaches and beat the shit out of bad coaches.

As the famous Race Bannon says ... you are what your record says you are ... and it fully applies to Sark.

A below average coach who feasts on weak competition and has a great agent and a charming smile.

I like to be topdawgncfs and say a coach isn't a bad coach while also saying he's a below average coach in the same poast, TWILTD.

Below average = bad.

hth

Bad is Tyrone Willingham

Below average is Sark

One destroyed a program ... the other survived.

HTH

Tyrone Willingham achieved more at Stanford than Sark did at UW. Now, Sark is at USC which is comparable to Ty at Notre Dame. Sark will get a quick hook at USC like Ty did at ND. Then Sark will take over a downtrodden program. He will run it into the ground, just like Tyrone did. I'm calling it now. They are more similar than you think.

Ty had a 54% winning record at Stanford, Sark was at 53% during his time at UW.

Ty did have a Rose Bowl appearance, of course when he was our coach many people would argue it was a down year for the PAC.

Regardless, you are hard pressed to say that a coach is "bad" when he left a program no worse off than he found it. Taking into account he was 34 and taking his first run at a HC job anywhere ... and he didn't do bad.

Maybe I should have said he was average, because that is what his record indicates. However, I chose to say below average because he isn't realizing his potential ... due to being lazy and undisciplined.

I personally don't think Sark will be fired from SC. He would have to really shit the bed, and with the talent he will recruit ... I don't see him doing that.

By that same FS logic then Ty wasn't bad at UW then since he took over a 1-10 team and left the team more talented than he took over.

Sark was a bad coach and you proved it by pointing out how he and Ty were fucking identical win % in their first head coaching job.

 

[bananasnblondes]

I'm going to take some heat for saying this, but Sark is not a bad coach.

He is lazy, immature, and overrated as a play caller.

What we overlook is at the age of 34 he took over one of the top football programs in the country (revenue, size, conference, etc) and didn't run it into the ground.

0-12 was not 0-12 ... it was still a bad culture and could have easily been in the shits for years.

If the guy had discipline, maybe paid his dues a little more and been focused, he likely would have been above average.

At SC I fully expect him to win 9-10-11 games a year. The equivalent to average at Washington. Just enough to make the naive believe in him ... piss off those who know better ... and not justify a buy out by firing.

He will never out coach a good coach, he'll never out hustle a worker coach, and he'll beat average coaches and beat the shit out of bad coaches.

As the famous Race Bannon says ... you are what your record says you are ... and it fully applies to Sark.

A below average coach who feasts on weak competition and has a great agent and a charming smile.

I like to be topdawgncfs and say a coach isn't a bad coach while also saying he's a below average coach in the same poast, TWILTD.

Below average = bad.

hth

Bad is Tyrone Willingham

Below average is Sark

One destroyed a program ... the other survived.

HTH

Tyrone Willingham achieved more at Stanford than Sark did at UW. Now, Sark is at USC which is comparable to Ty at Notre Dame. Sark will get a quick hook at USC like Ty did at ND. Then Sark will take over a downtrodden program. He will run it into the ground, just like Tyrone did. I'm calling it now. They are more similar than you think.

This observation should be posted on the front page of this website and should be engraved on a plaque above the shitter at Hardcore Husky Headquarters. Well done