TierbsHsotBoobs
New Fish
As long as Washington's pathetic fanbase continues to accept mediocrity, they'll keep getting 7-6. And since they continue to accept said mediocrity, they really deserve another 0-12.
Midfield Logo
- Thread starter Tailgater
- Start date
As long as Washington's pathetic fanbase continues to accept mediocrity, they'll keep getting 7-6. And since they continue to accept said mediocrity, they really deserve another 0-12.
As long as Washington's pathetic fanbase continues to accept mediocrity, they'll keep getting 7-6. And since they continue to accept said mediocrity, they really deserve another 0-12.
My sense at the time of Tyrone's 0-12 masterpiece is that UW's "pathetic" fanbase was very close to cratering or coogin-it in 2008 and perhaps going from 40,000 to 10,000 or less season ticket sales the following Spring had not Willingham been fired. The simple act of UW replacing the 4-year fraud with anyone kept a lot of us pathetics who were then in almost total burnout mode around for one more season. And voila! Jake Locker with a QB coach (what a concept!) rejuvenated enough excitement to keep us wasting our hard-earned coin awhile longer until UW regents shockingly stepped up to a $250M stadium renovation after demurring for twenty plus years. And here we are in 2013 purchasing perhaps 50,000 season tickets or more and working on getting even more pathetic by expecting 9 wins instead of Sark's customary 7. Why not expect 11 or 12?
My sense at the time of Tyrone's 0-12 masterpiece is that UW's "pathetic" fanbase was very close to cratering or coogin-it in 2008 and perhaps going from 40,000 to 10,000 or less season ticket sales the following Spring had not Willingham been fired. The simple act of UW replacing the 4-year fraud with anyone kept a lot of us pathetics who were then in almost total burnout mode around for one more season. And voila! Jake Locker with a QB coach (what a concept!) rejuvenated enough excitement to keep us wasting our hard-earned coin awhile longer until UW regents shockingly stepped up to a $250M stadium renovation after demurring for twenty plus years. And here we are in 2013 purchasing perhaps 50,000 season tickets or more and working on getting even more pathetic by expecting 9 wins instead of Sark's customary 7. Why not expect 11 or 12?
MikeDamone
Active poster
Look, at hardcore Husky we pride ourselves out here as having the most passionate and knowledgeable subscribers out there. There are a lot of really bright people out here. We've all heard those guys on dm.com who post. scream, rant, go off, and sound like they have a beard, wear a tank top, had 4 beers and a Red Bull. Nobody hears a word they say other than they're just crazy.
Don't be that guy out here. If sark doesn't improve this year, his seat will get hot. I don't think there's any question about that. Those who post he needs to win 7 games or he gets fired, the no excuses mantra, .........put on a shirt, put down the beer and no more caffine while posting here. If you can't......there's always the vent board
Some of you like to jump to conclusions
ACSlaterDawg
New Fish
The tolerating of mediocrity is what happens AFTER you go 1-11 and 0-12.
And how has the fanbase tolerated it? It actually hasn't because after 2003 season attendance plummeted and it hasn't come back. If anyone deserves blame its boosters like Fleenor, Crockett, Dempsey, that allowed Turner to be AD and Gilby and Willingham to be hired.
And guess what? When you win 1 or 0 games, how can you expect to hire a top flight coach? You can't. Sark was Woodie's 5th or 6th choice. They tried to get other guys (offered Muschamp) but they weren't interested. Tedford in 04 said he didn't want another rebuilding job. Even if you offer a good guy $10M, he's does not want a fucking rebuilding project.
Sark has been a decent transitional coach and has 1-2 years left to show if he can be a championship coach or not. They've given him a blank check to get top flight assistants and now they've given him a new stadium. The good news is now the UW job would attract top flight coaches and they've given Sark everything he needs, therefore making it easier to fire him.
And no school would fucking fire a coach that goes 5-7-7-7, following 1-2-5-4-0. That's just not feasible pal, at least not until year 5 or 6. But, given that they gave him a blank check to get new coaches and a new stadium, its clear they want to be successful and compete for championships and won't tolerate mediocrity for long.
Keep parroting your 0-12 and outdated talking points douchefuck. They may give the high priests here a hardon but they aren't based on any reality.
Last edited:
TierbsHsotBoobs
New Fish
So you like to think that the fifth year of mediocrity will somehow disprove everything that came before it? You do that?
Drink some battery acid.
MikeDamone
Active poster
One of the top 5 greatest doog talking points. Well done, pal.
TierbsHsotBoobs
New Fish
ACSlaterDoog has obviously never heard of Jim Harbaugh:
http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/fetch-team.pl?team=Stanford
ACSlaterDawg
New Fish
Its not a doog talking point, its pointing out how the state of the program in 08 guaranteed the next coach 5 years. Its recognizing how the AD and fan base would view him. And even hardcore fans would have to give him a B or B+ for the first two years which was enough to guarantee him another 2-3 years. I've already seen enough to know he's not the long-term answer and the sooner he's gone the better. But, given what Woodward has done (new stadium & money for better assistants) its clear expectations are returning to normal.
Saying fans need another 0-12 is not relevant to anything. Many fans have already left. Ultimately, the big money guys need to force Woodward's hand (if there isn't substantial improvement this year) the way they did in 98 after Hedges gave Lambo a vote of confidence. The average fan can't do anything. Its the insiders and money guys who have an impact.
Saying fans need another 0-12 is not relevant to anything. Many fans have already left. Ultimately, the big money guys need to force Woodward's hand (if there isn't substantial improvement this year) the way they did in 98 after Hedges gave Lambo a vote of confidence. The average fan can't do anything. Its the insiders and money guys who have an impact.
Fleenor is an inside money guy. #werefucked
Last edited:
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.
MikeDamone
Active poster
Saying no good coach would take the job is absolutely a Doog taking point. And a bullshit one at that.
ACSlaterDawg
New Fish
B+ for the first two years only.
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.
Disagree. I think there's coaches out there who wouldn't have blown the following games:
2009 - @ UCLA, @Arizona St
2010 - @ BYU, vs. Arizona St
2011 - @ Oregon St, vs. Baylor
2012 - @WSU, vs. Boise St.
How are you so sure? I agree we could have done better than Sark, but I have a hard time believing 0-12 didn't scare coaches away. Why would a proven coach leave a nice gig for UW in 2008?
I didn't mind the Sark hire at the time. Coordinators are always a gamble, but I liked it better than hiring Mike Leach, Pat Hill, Tom O'Brien, or any other coaching journeyman we probably could have gotten. I can see why the AD went with Sark. They liked that he was a part of a winner (USC), they know he would attack the job with energy (in other words, the opposite of TW), and they had to like his So Cal recruiting connections from being at USC. To me, the hire made sense.
I hope the AD won't put up with mediocrity any longer. I hope there is some truth to this being "A New Era" of Husky Football with the reopening of the stadium. If Sark can't get take us to the next level (he won't), we need to find a new coach. It will be much easier to get a proven coach now then it was in 2008. With a new coach in 2014, I see no reason why we won't be a top team in the conference.
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."
MikeDamone
Active poster
It's simple. They fucked up the last three hires. When Sark was hired most of is here said it was a bad hire. They masses (sounds like you were in this group) were smitten with a kick ass presser, sark "gets it," and enjoying the "FREE PUB!" that came with him continuing to coach at USC. The coach didn't have to be Pat Hill or obrien. That's a myth that doogs like to repeat. Money talks. They went cheap and covered it with some rah rah bullshit spin.
Take a look at the history of South Carolina football before Holtz. They sucked and they sucked for a long time.
0-12 might scare people off but money reassures them.
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.
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.
Last edited: