Midfield Logo

[MikeDamone]

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.

Some doog urban ledgends will live forever I see.

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?

 

[DeepSeaZ]

No. No I don't. The inability to improve should be enough. I can't go through another 0-12. I just can't.

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.

 

[CheersWestDawg]

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.

They don't want 0-12 or 12-0. Something in the 5 - 8 win range will be just fine.

They want a football program that can pay for all the lesbian/Title IX/sports that don't matter and not one dollar more.

 

[MikeDamone]

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.

They don't want 0-12 or 12-0. Something in the 5 - 8 win range will be just fine.

They want a football program that can pay for all the lesbian/Title IX/sports that don't matter and not one dollar more.

I support that.

 

[Fire_Marshall_Bill]

I don't get it. Are you talking about the mid field logo? How could they possibly have two? I wonder if half the Michigan fans are mad about looking at a W?

He's saying that when you're viewing the "W" from the north stands, it's upside down so it looks like a "M" (sort of). That's what I think he's saying....it's Tailgater so you never can tell.

 

[Tailgater]

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

I'm already on the southside and always have been, except when I was a student long before field turf and logos when all we had at midfield was Husky slop with a little seagull and goose shit mixed in. However, if I ever have to sit on the northside, I'd like to have a "W" instead of a damn "M" at mid-field.

 

[MikeDamone]

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

I'm already on the southside and always have been, except when I was a student long before field turf and logos when all we had at midfield was Husky slop with a little seagull and goose shit mixed in. However, if I ever have to sit on the northside, I'd like to have a "W" instead of a damn "M" at mid-field.

You will be dead before you have to sit on the north side. The O/U is five years. But thanks for the consideration for us joe six packs on the north side. New money people.

 

[puppylove_sugarsteel]

oh dang

 

[Tailgater]

[/QUOTE]

You will be dead before you have to sit on the north side. The O/U is five years. But thanks for the consideration for us joe six packs on the north side. New money people. [/QUOTE]

New money with a capital "M".

 

[Tailgater]

Other than "Miasma" which I couldn't find in my dictionary, but it sounds dogmatic or doggerel, all of the above responses are disappointing. I bring this up because the appearance of an "M" at midfield on our new turf for half the stadium to see points out the shortcoming of having a block "W" as our logo. This is a picky observation, not a complaint. If our logo were still a Dawg, be he malamute with tongue hanging out or weasel, it would still be a Dawg right-side up or upside down and who would care or notice. But an "M" (and I don't care what Michigan and Wisconsin have at their midfield)? Better to rotate the "W" 90 degrees toward the student section and coach's offices in the west-end bowl.

A dog standing on it's head would look weird.

I'm hearing half the USC fans are dumbfounded and can't figure out what "snajorT" means.

If I were half a USC fan looking at "snajorT" properly oriented upside-down, I wouldn't be so much dumbfounded as I would be a scum-ba...... well, you know.

 

[MikeDamone]

Other than "Miasma" which I couldn't find in my dictionary, but it sounds dogmatic or doggerel, all of the above responses are disappointing. I bring this up because the appearance of an "M" at midfield on our new turf for half the stadium to see points out the shortcoming of having a block "W" as our logo. This is a picky observation, not a complaint. If our logo were still a Dawg, be he malamute with tongue hanging out or weasel, it would still be a Dawg right-side up or upside down and who would care or notice. But an "M" (and I don't care what Michigan and Wisconsin have at their midfield)? Better to rotate the "W" 90 degrees toward the student section and coach's offices in the west-end bowl.

A dog standing on it's head would look weird.

I'm hearing half the USC fans are dumbfounded and can't figure out what "snajorT" means.

If I were half a USC fan looking at "snajorT" properly oriented upside-down, I wouldn't be so much dumbfounded as I would be a scum-ba...... well, you know.

Welcome to late July. Did you just wake up from rip van winkle nap, or just get out of the hospital?

 

[Tailgater]

Other than "Miasma" which I couldn't find in my dictionary, but it sounds dogmatic or doggerel, all of the above responses are disappointing. I bring this up because the appearance of an "M" at midfield on our new turf for half the stadium to see points out the shortcoming of having a block "W" as our logo. This is a picky observation, not a complaint. If our logo were still a Dawg, be he malamute with tongue hanging out or weasel, it would still be a Dawg right-side up or upside down and who would care or notice. But an "M" (and I don't care what Michigan and Wisconsin have at their midfield)? Better to rotate the "W" 90 degrees toward the student section and coach's offices in the west-end bowl.

A dog standing on it's head would look weird.

I'm hearing half the USC fans are dumbfounded and can't figure out what "snajorT" means.

If I were half a USC fan looking at "snajorT" properly oriented upside-down, I wouldn't be so much dumbfounded as I would be a scum-ba...... well, you know.

Welcome to late July. Did you just wake up from rip van winkle nap, or just get out of the hospital?

Just back from a very relaxing week at my son's place in Mill Creek. Sort of like a hospital except no meds nor nurses poking around, but plenty of cold beer. Did get down to look at the new stadium and seeing what that fucking subway station is doing to our former tailgating lot really pissed me off to the point where I'd like to shove a half dozen luxury suites up the regent's collective asshole. I may never recover from the sight of it. Something's are just more tragic and painful than 7-6.