OMG Shirtless

August 28th, 2014 at 6:25 PM ^

It's not that I was a terrible fish master, it's because they hated white people.  
 

Side Note: Was anyone in school in the early 2000s when some student group gave out free goldfish on the diag?  Seemed like a great idea until they realized that whatever water they used for the fish bags killed goldfish.  

WolvinLA2

August 28th, 2014 at 4:07 PM ^

Sark didn't do a whole lot at Washington.  He turned them from awful to decent pretty quickly, but never took them beyond that.  I'm still surprised USC hired a guy who hasn't been a HC at a high level at any point yet.  I don't mean at a high level school, I mean coaching the school at a high level.

Last year was his best season, and he still didn't beat anybody.  Unless you count unranked BYU in the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl.  Not exactly a guy a program like SC should be looking at.

alum96

August 28th, 2014 at 4:29 PM ^

Who would be better that is available?  Looking around the college landscape there are about 4-5 premier coaches.  After that everyone becomes a gamble.  I am not defending him - I am asking who would you have taken over him?  I guess the main guy is the guy who ironically took his job in Washington, Peterson.  But Sark has ties to the school.  I am not convinced that guys at school like Stanford or Texas A&M are not creations of either the coach before them (Stanford) or one special player (A&M). 

So once you get past the Sabans, Urbz, Bill Snyders (never leaving KSU), Spurriers you are gambling on the Charlie Strongs, Sarks, James Franklins of the world.  The Bob Stoops and Mark Danonios don't culturally fit with USC.  Shaw makes Dantonio seem like a walking party.  If anything Les Miles would probably fit the USC culture.

After that group you are reaching for the Art Briles or Mike Gundy type. There is just not that much available out there that is a near sure thing.  Jim Mora Jr excites me but that would be interesting for USC - go across the aisle and steal UCLA's man. And he is probably headed back to the NFL in 2 years.

WolvinLA2

August 28th, 2014 at 4:33 PM ^

I think a good handful of the guys you mentioned would be better.  If Sark hadn't been the OC at USC before, he wouldn't be the slightest bit considered and SC people would be furious.  There are at least a solid handful of accomplished coaches who would leave their current gig for the kind of money SC throws around.  Hell - they gave Kiffin 4mil a year and he hadn't done anything.  Would a coach with actual accomplishments get 6?  I don't see why not, and many guys would leave their job for 6 million and a chance to coach USC.  

To be more specific - both PSU and Washington hired better coaches this past offseason than SC did, and who knows who might have left if the check was big enough.  Art Briles is another name I'd consider.

EDIT:  And my post above wasn't saying whether or not SC had better options when they hired Sark.  Maybe they really didn't.  But the poster I replied to said he liked what Sark did at Washington, and that's what I was refuting.  Because he didn't really do much.

nowayman

August 28th, 2014 at 5:03 PM ^

The air raid has produced two of the last three heismans.  Manziel was a sleeper phenom, but it's the system, not the qb.

See Keenum's 2011 heisman run.

For a counterpoint (to my own original point) See the University of Houston's 2010 season.  You do need a good qb to run it.

alum96

August 28th, 2014 at 5:39 PM ^

I believe A&M was something like 109th in defense last year.  So if I put Manziel in UM's offense during Rich Rod's years what is the difference btw Rich Rod and Sumlin?  I would have had a special creater who was way better than Forcier and RR would have won 2-3 more games a year.  While our defense was bad.  So not sure if any difference - RR just didnt get that special player. 

RR had a great offense with a great QB and great RB at WVU just as well.  Special players make everyone look genius - now that is not to say Sumlin is not a good coach but both sides of the ball need to matter.

A lot of these guys mentioned as hot commodities remind me of Patterson at TCU 2 years ago.  If you had surveyed the scene, he was one of the hottest young coaches in the country.  Now 2 years later the bloom is off big time as TCU has crashed to earth.  It is a crapshoot.

nowayman

August 28th, 2014 at 6:04 PM ^

because they are very different offenses.  Extremely different even.

Manziel would not have run RR's offense as well as Denard (or Pat White).  Denard would not have done nearly as well in an air raid offense.  Denard has better legs, Manziel the better arm.

Back to the special player:

Sumlin, and Briles before him, produced in the same manner with Keenum.

Keenum is not and was not a special player.  He is, and was, an above average player.

Briles took the same system and produced Baylor's first ever heisman.  The same system produced the aggies' second.

The air raid has been blowing the hinges off of college football expectations for a long time now.  These aren't hot commodities coaches (but the smart defensive coordinators will eventually figure it out), this system has been working for quite some time.

If Leach hadn't thrown a kid in a closet we we wouldn't even have to have this conversation.

Edit: game time.  

alum96

August 28th, 2014 at 7:43 PM ^

Yes I meant more the equivalent of Manziel for RR's system - say Michael Vick eh?  RR would look genius with Vick playing the same "idea" A&M runs - all offense, no defense.  Again not saying Sumlin is not a good coach.  He has a lot of talent to choose from, and has done very well with a great QB and a decent one before that but they only play 1 side of the ball.  The same thing RR did here.

nowayman

August 28th, 2014 at 4:27 PM ^

People are pretty decent at deceit.  I've gotten close to more than one person that never gave any indication that they were racist that opened up when they felt comfortable around me.  At that point I closed the door, just for the record.

I'm in no way suggesting that Sark is, either.  Just that it could easily happen.

LSAClassOf2000

August 28th, 2014 at 4:30 PM ^

Here's ESPN's short piece on the whole thing - LINK

Here's one of the quotes from Sarkissian regarding Brown: 

"He unfortunately got injured in training camp and was working his way back and decided he didn't want to play anymore. It's a bit unfortunate because we could have used him. We think he could have helped us."

He goes on to mention that he encouraged him to continue playing and getting healthy too, but that it was Brown's choice not to do so. I suppose we'll hear more about this story at some point as well. Rough week for USC football. 

Ghost of BCook…

August 28th, 2014 at 4:37 PM ^

It's too bad that one kid making wild claims can get all this attention when dozens of his teammates (of all colors) are saying it's BS. 

WolverineHistorian

August 28th, 2014 at 4:54 PM ^

I'll bet the UCLA message boards would be hilarious to read right now. I love any bad publicity for USC. After what they were able to get away with for so long under Pete Carroll, they deserve embarrassing stories like this. But don't worry, Trojans. I'll still root for you when you play Notre Dame.

PurpleStuff

August 28th, 2014 at 5:18 PM ^

SC got hit with some of the harshest sanctions in NCAA  history because Reggie Bush took money from a guy who wanted to be his agent. 

Marcus Ray got caught doing the exact same thing right after the 1997 season and was suspended for roughly half his senior year.  Charles Woodson was involved in a lawsuit against his former agent Marion Darnell Jones (a guy who was at the Heisman ceremony) that made it pretty clear he and a number of other players who signed with that company (Summit Management) accepted cash/gifts while in school.  They were a shady company that used cash/gifts up front to get guys to sign and then bilked them out of their NFL earnings down the road.  And if the NCAA had decided to pursue this the way they did the Bush case at a time when the Ed Martin scandal was in full swing we would have had some serious "lack of institutional control" problems.

A historian should know all the facts and probably be more careful here in our glass house.

Maizenblueball

August 28th, 2014 at 6:10 PM ^

I hate USC as much as the next guy, but throwing an insult like this on Sark isn't cool, unless there's substantial proof behind it.  I normally love hearing bad press for USC, but this is a man's reputation and livelyhood we're talking about.  I'm going to withhold judgement until I hear all the facts.

Yeoman

August 28th, 2014 at 6:44 PM ^

There's almost no possible collection of facts in this case that would give you that, no matter how truthful either side is being here. Sark probably doesn't record his office conversations; Brown probably wasn't wearing a wire; nobody else was in the room.

Indefinite withholding of judgment seems a sane response though. Wish it were more common.

Princetonwolverine

August 28th, 2014 at 6:21 PM ^

All news media should have a 72 hr waiting period before reporting anything out of USC.