He was 34 when he took over a UW program in terrible shape. You thinking him not making them 10-2 in year 3 means he's not suited to run a program is laughable.
He was head coach of Southern Cal for 2014 and 2015. He went 7-5 in the conference. Stop trying to re-write history.
i hate this line of thinking. what is so weird about having interest and caring about a sports team once past 25?
At least y’all hired Jimmy Lake. Pretty sure it’d take the illegitimate black son of Darrell Royal to be a HC at UT after Strong
When your own team's fans are laughing at you because you're desperately trying to convince them that Year 4's 7-6 is better than Year 3's 7-6 or Year 2's 7-6, then maybe you're not the right guy to take over a UT program that just fired a guy with a .640 winning record At least Kiffin did his time at a mid-major before being given the keys to another P5 team
Even if he really had quit drinking (he didn’t) all the other terrible shit kind of cancels that out.
You think they’ll hire another after Strong? That was my point, I just clumsily posted it. Some teams aren’t ever going to do that again bc it’s seen as some proof of a disaster
Ahh yes, let's judge a coach in his first 12 games at a school coming off probation. They finished in the top 20. Just awful. Look, he was really young when he took over a Uaw program in bad shape. He did a solid, not great, job. He had 1 year at USC and they weren't terrible. There's nothing there to say he's a sure fire solid HC but there's nothing there to say he can't be, either.
I’ll see it when I believe it. A lot of fanbases/the sport usually gives these coaches one shot under a tight time frame, fires them, and then they’re basically seen as “incapable of leading a top program” which is the next hire to come up? Shaw lost his opportunity bc Stanford kind of stalled. Locksley isn’t going to get that opportunity unless UMD becomes good fast. The coordinator pool is pretty tight at this point. Maybe Tony Elliott but only after “he has the opportunity at a smaller school”. UF hired Muschamp as a DC but I bet they wouldn’t give Elliott a shot without HC experience if you’re going to get them to be at the level of opportunities so that they can coach Texas/USC/ND and so on again they need to be promoted to a level where that’s possible, not stuck in stasis sorry, I know this isn’t the thread but this offseason’s carousel has infuriated the fuck out of me. An entire season spent talking about equality and shit but I guess that stops in the job market ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Those weren’t his first 12 games at the school. He was 8-4 in his first 12 games. No one is saying that he can’t be a solid HC. You are tilting at windmills. Stop.
First 12 conference games. Idk why you chose to only do conference games. Bottom line, top 20 in year 1 at a school coming off probation isn't a failure. #2 recruiting class was damn good too. Nothing about his time at USC should be seen as a negative outside of his off field issues.
7-5 at Southern Cal is below expectations. 20-16 and never finishing top 2 in the division at UW is below expectations. That’s all I have been saying. He can succeed at Texas but he should’ve done better at his previous two stops as HC.
I enjoy the fact that you’re keeping up this 9 win narrative even after you copied and pasted his 5 year UW record in this very thread. Generally speaking, 24-21 in the PAC is not going to be considered acceptable for a program like UW’s. You also have to consider that UW didn’t fire Sark; he took his dream job when USC came calling.
What games are you cherry picking to get 7-5 at USC? Taking UW from 0-12 and 12 wins over 5 years to top 25 in 5 years was a solid job. You have these delusional standards and think coaches should miraculously meet them in 2-3 years. Building a program takes time. Doing what Saban and Meyer did isn't the norm. Hell Dabo was 6-7 in year 3. Saying a top 20 season and #2 recruiting class in year 1 at a school coming off probation didn't meet expectations means your expectations are too high.
Fans of opposing teams liked Sark. They liked Sark because they knew that, even when he had a talent advantage, he was still good for two inexplicable losses per year. Nobody ever feared a Sark-led team, even when that team was the mighty Trojans. It's telling when opposing fans want you to stay. Contrast that to how opposing fans felt about Carroll, Kelly, Petersen, Shaw, etc. - guys they knew wouldn't give away a game for no good reason It's just funny that Sark has shown the same drawbacks that Herman just got fired for (and a worse overall record for it), and hasn't shown that he's progressed past them.
Did he leave before the bowl? And I know UW didn't fire him. They didn't bc he did a good job there and got a top 5 job out of it. Yet some people like to look back and say it was a failure.
In both stats I am using conference games. 7-5 is not acceptable at Southern Cal, especially how those losses happened.
Yep. Yet some think a non-playoff appearance is a failure for 20 programs. Meanwhile 3 of the 4 playoff spots are normally Alabama, Clemson, and OSU.
If Sark can get a QB in there, like Ewers, I could see this hire working out. Sark vs Lincoln, Quinn vs Caleb would be a fun rivalry
lol at cherry picking conference record and leaving out top 20 season and #2 class. Again, nothing about his time at USC should be considered a failure outside of his off field issues.
lol I didn't mean for this to happen. I just think the standard for good coach is so fucking high now that only 3 coaches meet the mark. Everyone else sucks. That's dumb. So many programs play the coaching lottery every 4-5 years in the hopes of pulling the next Saban/Dabo and the odds are drastically against them.
Top 20 and #2 class in year 1 coming off probation is not. But keep cherry picking to fit your narrative. It's cute.
Quit judging him based off his conference record! Judge him on his 4-1 non-conference record against Fresno State, Boston College, Notre Dame, Arkansas State, and Idaho!
20 years ago I wrote a long missive on the message boards about Mancur Olson's Roving Bandit Theory of political development applied to USC football (entitled The Roving Bandit Theory and the Pillaging of Troy), and how the rest of the conference had a massive collective action problem facing them regarding how to make sure that a Hackett-led USC kept winning only 6-7 games per season so it would be just enough for them to keep him and not fire his worthless ass and get a decent coach like, say, Petey Carroll. It got shared between all the Cal/furd/UCLA/USC message boards and sparked a lot of spirited discussion, and the funniest thing was that the USC fans to a person argued that no way in hell would they be happy with 6-6 or 7-5, but none of them disagreed with my assumption that USC couldn't win a conference game unless somebody let them
Yes. And then Petersen took over. His first 5 years: 8-6 7-6 12-2 10-3 10-4 30-15 in PAC Then resigned after 8-5 (all 5 losses coming in PAC) You know, something more like the trajectory The Banks was talking about for UW.