Midfield Logo

[RoadDawg55]

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 no good coach would take the job is absolutely a Doog taking point. And a bullshit one at that.

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.

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.

I hated the Gilby and Ty hires, but will admit I was intrigued by the Sark hire. I was not a guy who said, "Sark gets it," or "FREE PUB!"

UW isn't the only school that has fucked up some hires. Elite schools like Alabama, Oklahoma, Florida, and USC have fucked up hires as well. It happens, although the TW hire was about as bad of a hire as I have ever seen. Anyone who knew anything knows you don't hire a coach fired from Notre Dame for going .500.

What gets lost here is that Sark has not been a disasterious coach, he is a mediocre one. I wish we would have pulled the plug after last year, but we are stuck with (hopefully) one more year.

Maybe I am delusional, but I am hopeful UW won't fuck up our next hire. Woody needs to show balls and fire Sark unless he has a top 15 type season.

 

[DerekJohnson]

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."

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.

Where is it written in stone that we could only hire a jobless candidate? You're really reaching now.

 

[RoadDawg55]

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."

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.

Where is it written in stone that we could only hire a jobless candidate? You're really reaching now.

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.

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.

 

[MikeDamone]

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 no good coach would take the job is absolutely a Doog taking point. And a bullshit one at that.

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.

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.

I hated the Gilby and Ty hires, but will admit I was intrigued by the Sark hire. I was not a guy who said, "Sark gets it," or "FREE PUB!"

UW isn't the only school that has fucked up some hires. Elite schools like Alabama, Oklahoma, Florida, and USC have fucked up hires as well. It happens, although the TW hire was about as bad of a hire as I have ever seen. Anyone who knew anything knows you don't hire a coach fired from Notre Dame for going .500.

What gets lost here is that Sark has not been a disasterious coach, he is a mediocre one. I wish we would have pulled the plug after last year, but we are stuck with (hopefully) one more year.

Maybe I am delusional, but I am hopeful UW won't fuck up our next hire. Woody needs to show balls and fire Sark unless he has a top 15 type season.

What leads you to believe the incompetent people in change of football who have been fucking up for the past 10 years will have an epiphany and get it relight next time? Oh yeah, "hope". Excellent strategy as always. Or maybe you're delusional....

 

[TierbsHsotBoobs]

I hated the Gilby and Ty hires, but will admit I was intrigued by the Sark hire. I was not a guy who said, "Sark gets it," or "FREE PUB!"

UW isn't the only school that has fucked up some hires. Elite schools like Alabama, Oklahoma, Florida, and USC have fucked up hires as well. It happens, although the TW hire was about as bad of a hire as I have ever seen. Anyone who knew anything knows you don't hire a coach fired from Notre Dame for going .500.

What gets lost here is that Sark has not been a disasterious coach, he is a mediocre one. I wish we would have pulled the plug after last year, but we are stuck with (hopefully) one more year.

Maybe I am delusional, but I am hopeful UW won't fuck up our next hire. Woody needs to show balls and fire Sark unless he has a top 15 type season.

You just nailed the difference between UW and the REAL football schools. They pull the plug and start over when they know shit is fucked. Even Texas fucking A&M figured this shit out.

 

[MikeDamone]

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."

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.

Where is it written in stone that we could only hire a jobless candidate? You're really reaching now.

I am 81% sure that I was told by the most passionate and knowledgeable subscribers out there that UW could not hire someone who had a CONTRACT.

 

[RoadDawg55]

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 no good coach would take the job is absolutely a Doog taking point. And a bullshit one at that.

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.

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.

I hated the Gilby and Ty hires, but will admit I was intrigued by the Sark hire. I was not a guy who said, "Sark gets it," or "FREE PUB!"

UW isn't the only school that has fucked up some hires. Elite schools like Alabama, Oklahoma, Florida, and USC have fucked up hires as well. It happens, although the TW hire was about as bad of a hire as I have ever seen. Anyone who knew anything knows you don't hire a coach fired from Notre Dame for going .500.

What gets lost here is that Sark has not been a disasterious coach, he is a mediocre one. I wish we would have pulled the plug after last year, but we are stuck with (hopefully) one more year.

Maybe I am delusional, but I am hopeful UW won't fuck up our next hire. Woody needs to show balls and fire Sark unless he has a top 15 type season.

What leads you to believe the incompetent people in change of football who have been fucking up for the past 10 years will have an epiphany and get it relight next time? Oh yeah, "hope". Excellent strategy as always. Or maybe you're delusional....

They could fuck it up. I don't have too much faith in the AD. My reasons for a strong hire would be: More money to spend, better facilities, better talent. We should be able to attract much better candidates now then in 2005 and 2008. I can't see how that is even an argument.

 

[MikeDamone]

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 no good coach would take the job is absolutely a Doog taking point. And a bullshit one at that.

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.

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.

I hated the Gilby and Ty hires, but will admit I was intrigued by the Sark hire. I was not a guy who said, "Sark gets it," or "FREE PUB!"

UW isn't the only school that has fucked up some hires. Elite schools like Alabama, Oklahoma, Florida, and USC have fucked up hires as well. It happens, although the TW hire was about as bad of a hire as I have ever seen. Anyone who knew anything knows you don't hire a coach fired from Notre Dame for going .500.

What gets lost here is that Sark has not been a disasterious coach, he is a mediocre one. I wish we would have pulled the plug after last year, but we are stuck with (hopefully) one more year.

Maybe I am delusional, but I am hopeful UW won't fuck up our next hire. Woody needs to show balls and fire Sark unless he has a top 15 type season.

What leads you to believe the incompetent people in change of football who have been fucking up for the past 10 years will have an epiphany and get it relight next time? Oh yeah, "hope". Excellent strategy as always. Or maybe you're delusional....

They could fuck it up. I don't have too much faith in the AD. My reasons for a strong hire would be: More money to spend, better facilities, better talent. We should be able to attract much better candidates now then in 2005 and 2008. I can't see how that is even an argument.

By using the "We couldn't attract good candidates in 2008" line you are be default letting the administration off the hook. The fact is, a competent administration would have been able to get someone who had a better shot at getting UW over the hump than Sark. So after 5 years, if Sark gets fired, they go back to the drawing board. There is no confidence they will hire the right guy, unless just by luck. Then we need to wait until the new guy gets his own players in, we get to hear about how the first year recruiting class doesn't count, we get to hear about how Sark was soft and the team has a soft attitude that will take time to change, we get to hear about how sark didn't recruit linemen, we get to hear about how hard the schedule is for a team that is rebuilding, we get to hear how the strength program created a bunch of fat weaklings, etc etc etc.

2008 needed to be the right hire. After two bad hires and refusing to shit can TW after three years, it was a critical hire. Even AAAAAANDY and Fleens were livid and vowed to not give any more money. That was before they learned they would be given "access" to the program.

The reality is the administration is happy with a Minnesota type of program. Mediocre most years. Terrible ever 3 years or 4 years, and a 10 win season every decade or so. Very little trouble. Palatable to the academics. A fun little thing to have as part of the overall UW experience. That's what it has become and where it looks like it will stay. Sark probably can stay forever if he wins 7 or 8 this year.

 

[RoadDawg55]

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.

 

[MikeDamone]

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.

 

[TierbsHsotBoobs]

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 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.

 

[DerekJohnson]

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 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.

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]

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 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.

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.

Now you see why another 0-12 is necessary.

 

[RoadDawg55]

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.

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]

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.

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.

And 14a would remain on Doogman and those that call them out will be banned. Lather,rinse,repeat.

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.

 

[Tailgater]

Irregardless, it's a mute point. Sark isn't going anywhere.

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]

Irregardless, it's a mute point. Sark isn't going anywhere.

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.

I will write to the ticket office and ask that you be moved to the south side. I hear they have a W.

 

[DerekJohnson]

Irregardless, it's a mute point. Sark isn't going anywhere.

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.

I will write to the ticket office and ask that you be moved to the south side. I hear they have a W.

Have you no consideration for dyslexic fans seated in the South Side grandstand?

 

[ACSlaterDawg]

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.

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.

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.

We can't assume a different coach would win every game Sark won plus these others. I agree with majority of those listed though.

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."

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.

Where is it written in stone that we could only hire a jobless candidate? You're really reaching now.

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.

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.

Roaddawg, Damone and Boobs will stick with their opinions even when presented with facts and logic to the contrary.

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.

 

[TierbsHsotBoobs]

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.

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.

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.

We can't assume a different coach would win every game Sark won plus these others. I agree with majority of those listed though.

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."

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.

Where is it written in stone that we could only hire a jobless candidate? You're really reaching now.

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.

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.

Roaddawg, Damone and Boobs will stick with their opinions even when presented with facts and logic to the contrary.

Woodward tried to hire Muschamp. He wanted a defensive coach.

I stopped reading here. If Woodward wanted a defensive coach, he would have hired Holt instead of Sark.