4 year extension for Sark?

[JSeahawks]

Read on a couple different Husky sights that this is going down. Personally as a Duck fan this makes me happy. Although we've got some coaching issues of our own to deal with.

 

[davidonmi]

yep, when I saw the gatorade bath after barely beating the coogs my worries were confimed. This program now excepts mediocrity. Remember when everyone wanted lambo gone for winning 8 games. Not saying I would fire him, he gets one more year, however this is ridiculous. What has he done to merit an extension? Because last time I checked he went 5-4 in conference last year and the year before. How is this 5-4 and different

 

[KitsapGuy]

The Lambo connection. :idea:

Jim Lambright

Career Record: 6 Years, 44-25-1, .636 Pct. (*at major schools)
Bowl Record: 4 Bowls, 1-3, .250 Pct. (*in major bowls)

He was finally fired.

Steve Sarkisian

Career Record: 5 Years, 33-29, .532 Pct. (*at major schools)
Bowl Record: 3 Bowls, 1-2, .333 Pct. (*in major bowls)

Bowl #4 yet TBD.

Lambright's Head Coaching Record

Overall Pac-10 Pac-10 Bowl
Year Record Record Finish Game
1993 7-4-0 5-3-0 Ineligible
1994 7-4-0 4-4-0 Ineligible
1995 7-4-1 6-1-1 1st, tie Sun Bowl Lost to Iowa 38-18
1996 9-3 7-1 2nd Holiday Bowl Lost to Colorado 33-21
1997 8-4 5-3 4th Aloha Bowl Defeated Michigan St. 51-23
1998 6-6 4-4 5th Oahu Bowl Lost to Air Force 45-25
Totals 44-25-1 31-16-1

Sarkisian's Head Coaching Record

Coaching Record Glossary · SHARE · Embed · CSV · PRE · LINK · ?
Year School G W L T Pct SRS SOS AP Pre AP High AP Post Bowl Notes
2009 Washington 12 5 7 0 .417 3.61 4.94 24
2010 Washington 13 7 6 0 .538 5.55 8.24 Holiday Bowl-W
2011 Washington 13 7 6 0 .538 1.80 2.80 22 Alamo Bowl-L
2012 Washington 13 7 6 0 .538 4.90 4.75 23 Las Vegas Bowl-L
2013 Washington 12 7 4 0 .636 14.21 6.40 15
Washington 63 33 29 0 .532 6.02 5.43

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/coa ... ian-1.html

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/coa ... ght-1.html

 

[kearly]

No offense, but it's a joke to compare Lambright and Sark. Sark inherited the worst team in school history fresh off it's 0-12 season. Lambright inherited a team that had just won a national championship.

Also, it was a different era in the Pac-10 back then, after UW fell from grace there wasn't a dominant Pac-10 team again until Pete went to USC in the early 2000s. Making it to Rose Bowls wasn't nearly as daunting back then as it has been lately when competing against a few top five / top ten teams in the conference every year.

Rick Neuheisel got UW a Rose Bowl win and an 11 win season, but I would argue that 11 win team wasn't even as good as this year's. The 2000 team played an easier schedule than the 2013 team did, while posting a far lower point differential. Maybe that 2000 really was better or maybe it wasn't, my point is that if you put this season under a microscope it actually compares very well with our best seasons over the past 20 years.

I think UW has some dark days ahead, but I think the 2013 UW season is pretty under-rated by a lot of our own fans.

I'm not saying I agree with the extension. I think extensions are kind of meaningless, really they are more symbolic than binding. But I think anyone who wanted Sark fired probably didn't dig very deep into the numbers or look at the talent on this team and coaching staff. Either that or they are a little nutty / nihilistic. IDK.

 

[KitsapGuy]

The point I was trying to make is their bowl records. But I guess the bowl games back then were also a different era as well.

 

[kearly]

The point I was trying to make is their bowl records. But I guess the bowl games back then were also a different era as well.

Judging a coach/GM/Manager/QB purely by wins is kind of silly to begin with, and even it's even less compelling when it's boiled down to a sample size of a handful of games.

But even if I agreed and thought that a small sample size record in bowl games was relevant, I'd still point out that Lambright inherited an awesome team that got a little worse every year he was there. Sark inherited maybe the worst team in the BCS and they improved statistically every single season during his tenure.

 

[KitsapGuy]

Sark has went 5-4 in the conference the last 3 years. How is that improvement? I don't really see how next year is going to improve that. I guess it is just best just to accept that we'll be mediocre under Sark and not dream of being better than that.

 

[zifnab32]

Sark has went 5-4 in the conference the last 3 years. How is that improvement? I don't really see how next year is going to improve that. I guess it is just best just to accept that we'll be mediocre under Sark and not dream of being better than that.

You have to look at more then the record - to say that the 2011 team that lost to Stanford 21-65 and this years team that lost to Stanford 28-31 are identical seems a little short sighted. The team has clearly improved both offensively and defensively over the last couple of years

 

[ClumsyLurk]

Kip makes a great point. Helfrich would probably only have 2-3 wins if he's the WSU coach

 

[ClumsyLurk]

Recruit the lines and I'll be happy, we need those lineman though

 

[chris98251]

I think he has done fine, 5 - 4 records seem middling but is he solidifieng the program and is he getting depth at positions going forward so that we have a program that can sustain itself. Thats the hard part and the part that may not be noticed. I still think work needs to be done on the lines, building from inside out has always been the philosophy I have supported.

 

[Fuzzman55]

I don't think many believe Sark will elevate the program to the next level. So if you're fine with where we are, then you keep him around. He had a senior QB, an all-PAC RB, an all-american TE, and this is his peak. He didn't even believe in his offense enough to keep running it. I haven't been that impressed.

Now, I appreciate what he's done. After Willingham I just wanted a coach who could have his team prepared for gameday. I remember season openers where I wondered if the Huskies had been practicing at all. Sark has assembled a good staff. He has an eye for offensive playmakers. But he's terrible on the road, has never gotten the offensive line to be a strength, and I haven't liked how he's handled Price. So we'll see. I just don't think it would be that big of deal if they moved on.

 

[kearly]

Sark has went 5-4 in the conference the last 3 years. How is that improvement? I don't really see how next year is going to improve that. I guess it is just best just to accept that we'll be mediocre under Sark and not dream of being better than that.

You are judging by wins. Look at strength of opponent, location, yardage, scoring.

There is no question in my mind whatsoever that this team is better than last years.

 

[kearly]

I don't think many believe Sark will elevate the program to the next level. So if you're fine with where we are, then you keep him around. He had a senior QB, an all-PAC RB, an all-american TE, and this is his peak. He didn't even believe in his offense enough to keep running it. I haven't been that impressed.

The offense has been rocking this year. Best QB-RB duo in school history.

I do agree that Sark is clearly not an elite coach. Jim Harbaugh elevated a bad Stanford team to very high heights almost on day one, then did the same thing in SF. Obviously, if you will only want an ELITE coach, then Sark is not your guy. By all means, if Saban wanted to coach at UW, I'd be devastated if UW said no just to keep Sark.

I think Sark has done a good job. I think if we took our 2008 selves out of a time capsule and watched this season we wouldn't complain about it taking a few years to hit the 8 to 9 win plateau. Most coaches struggle to turn around bad football programs. Don't let the exceptions cloud your vision, stories like Harbaugh are very uncommon.

I'd feel pretty comfortable putting Sark in the 70 to 80th percentile among college coaches. Not a ton of coaches could take a terrible winless team and have a winning record 5 years later. Think about how good Willingham was supposed to be. He inherited a less awful team than Sark did and left it winless. If we are replacing Sark, it better be for a proven stud like Saban or Urban Meyer (good luck). And if they hired some random dude most of us have never heard of, the odds he'll be better than Sark are less than the chances he'd be worse, IMO. Throwing a dart in the dark seems incredibly stupid to me given how much this team has improved each season to this point. Sure, there is upside to a change, but there is big time downside as well.

Firing Sark to replace him with a random new guy feels like playing blackjack and hitting on 17. 17 may not be a perfect hand, but you are far more likely to lose hitting on 17 than sticking with it. If Seattle fired Sark and hired the next Keith Gilbertson, we'd be right back at ground zero. Five years of misery and suddenly fans would suddenly remember Sark's tenure very differently.

Now, can Sark win a natty? I am of the opinion that he can, but ONLY if he finds a suitable QB to replace Price and only if he can recruit a solidly above average OL. Sark has struggled in those areas, I won't lie. But when it comes to just everything else, like defense, skill positions, scheme flexibility, overall adaptability and assistant coaching hires, I really like the job he's done so far.

I guess another thing is that I'd really like to see the penalty bugaboo go away, though I honestly can't explain why UW has been such a magnet for terrible calls the past couple seasons. Maybe they really are penalty prone, but it's hard to tell when they are getting killed by Pac-12 officiating more than anyone else.

 

[Seahawks Guy]

Rick Neuheisel got UW a Rose Bowl win and an 11 win season, but I would argue that 11 win team wasn't even as good as this year's. The 2000 team played an easier schedule than the 2013 team did, while posting a far lower point differential. Maybe that 2000 really was better or maybe it wasn't, my point is that if you put this season under a microscope it actually compares very well with our best seasons over the past 20 years.

The 2000 team was better.

And their schedule was tougher...they had to play #20 Purdue, #13 Oregon, #7 Oregon State, and #3 Miami

 

[davidonmi]

No offense, but it's a joke to compare Lambright and Sark. Sark inherited the worst team in school history fresh off it's 0-12 season. Lambright inherited a team that had just won a national championship.

Also, it was a different era in the Pac-10 back then, after UW fell from grace there wasn't a dominant Pac-10 team again until Pete went to USC in the early 2000s. Making it to Rose Bowls wasn't nearly as daunting back then as it has been lately when competing against a few top five / top ten teams in the conference every year.

Rick Neuheisel got UW a Rose Bowl win and an 11 win season, but I would argue that 11 win team wasn't even as good as this year's. The 2000 team played an easier schedule than the 2013 team did, while posting a far lower point differential. Maybe that 2000 really was better or maybe it wasn't, my point is that if you put this season under a microscope it actually compares very well with our best seasons over the past 20 years.

I think UW has some dark days ahead, but I think the 2013 UW season is pretty under-rated by a lot of our own fans.

I'm not saying I agree with the extension. I think extensions are kind of meaningless, really they are more symbolic than binding. But I think anyone who wanted Sark fired probably didn't dig very deep into the numbers or look at the talent on this team and coaching staff. Either that or they are a little nutty / nihilistic. IDK.

with all due respect kearly there's a metric stat that's used to measure a team. it's called wins. The 2000 team WON this team didn't win. U saying this team is better than that team is truly laughable

 

[ChrisB Bacon]

I don't think many believe Sark will elevate the program to the next level. So if you're fine with where we are, then you keep him around. He had a senior QB, an all-PAC RB, an all-american TE, and this is his peak. He didn't even believe in his offense enough to keep running it. I haven't been that impressed.

Now, I appreciate what he's done. After Willingham I just wanted a coach who could have his team prepared for gameday. I remember season openers where I wondered if the Huskies had been practicing at all. Sark has assembled a good staff. He has an eye for offensive playmakers. But he's terrible on the road, has never gotten the offensive line to be a strength, and I haven't liked how he's handled Price. So we'll see. I just don't think it would be that big of deal if they moved on.

I am by no means a Sark apologist aka Doog, but come on. Flip that statement around and it's "Sark's stubborn and won't change his system. Can't adapt." Can't win either way. And that's not even mentioning the fact that the offense has been pretty damn good outside of one game all year.

 

[chris98251]

Considering where the program was, he has reached a plataue that may take a few assessments to take another step up. I think many are spoiled by Duck success and Seahawks recent success also and there is a certain level of impatience. I don't see people beating up Leach yet and he is much higher profile hire. Where's the conference championship in the house of Cougs and the pile on for not beating the Huskies Friday.

 

[Subzero717]

I find it interesting that the standards for professional sports are drastically different. I dont understand why mediocrity is justified for UW.

 

[davidonmi]

Considering where the program was, he has reached a plataue that may take a few assessments to take another step up. I think many are spoiled by Duck success and Seahawks recent success also and there is a certain level of impatience. I don't see people beating up Leach yet and he is much higher profile hire. Where's the conference championship in the house of Cougs and the pile on for not beating the Huskies Friday.

Sark just finished year 5. Leach just finished year 2. Both took over disasters. Leach also doesn't have some of the advantages Sark has like a brand new stadium, tradition, proximity to a large recruiting base, etc.
All of that aside I don't judge coaches til they finish year 3