OT: Report: Sarkisian to USC

Submitted by MGoVoldemort on December 2nd, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Steve Sarkisian has reportedly accepted the USC job.

 

Hearing from a good source Steve Sarkisian will be named the next head coach at #USC.

 
 
3:02 PM - 2 Dec 13 · Details
 
 
Confirmed: (Edit)
 

Steve Sarkisian has accepted the USC head coaching position

Comments

WolvinLA2

December 2nd, 2013 at 4:30 PM ^

Why do you say they weren't interested in Peterson?  I read Peterson withdrew after there was mutual interest.  That doesn't mean he was above Sark, but he was an option.  

I know you're a big SC football guy, what do you think about this?  I think it's pretty uninspiring.  If Sark hadn't been an SC guy before, he'd never get considered.  Washington was bad before he got there, but in 5 years he really hasn't done much.  It also sounds like Coach O is leaving.  To me, Kiff w/ Orgeron is just as good as Sark without him but we'll see.

PurpleStuff

December 2nd, 2013 at 4:52 PM ^

Coach O with money for coordinators > Sark.  Losing him will also be a huge blow to a team that loves the guy and totally bought in when he got the job under difficult circumstances. 

As an SC alum, I'm pretty disgusted with the hire and I don't know anybody who is happy about it.  I thought Haden would aim higher, but even guys like James Franklin, Tim DeRuyter, etc. have better resumes.  Hell, they could have offered to pay Dantonio as much as anybody in the country.

This is a great day for the other teams in the conference.  And it opens up the school to major negative recruiting (How can you trust the guy who bailed on one conference job for another and was selling you UW a week ago but now is selling USC?).  SC will get a bump when the sanctions end, but I don't ever see greatness from Steve Sarkisian.  Mora, Graham, Rodriguez, and Shaw just got a big boost.

Shorty the Bea…

December 2nd, 2013 at 7:48 PM ^

As a family member of many UW alumns and a Seattle-ite, I am thrilled that USC is taking Sark off our hands!  There is no reason 7 to 8 wins should be where UW plateaus.  Only a coach who can't win big plateaus there in Seattle.  I feel for the sanity of your fandom, but just as you said, I am one of the many in this ordeal that stand to benefit greatly by keeping that lackluster dope perpetually underwhelming at the flagship football program of the conference.  Personally, I hope UW steals Mora, an alumn, back.  However, I think Mora has more integrity and loyalty to his players than Sark.  He's an example of a great Pac-12 coach who is capable of winning like Sark never did.  You guys just hired 2013 Brady Hoke!

Cali Wolverine

December 2nd, 2013 at 5:16 PM ^

...boosters and usually have a good pulse of what is going on with the program. Once Kiffin was canned, boosters wanted (and thought they would get) a Gruden, John Harbaugh, etc. (Much like Michigan fans post RR expecting the HR hire). After Coach O brought new life to the program...many were swept up and wanted Coach O. However, after the loss to UCLA the feel good story came crashing down. There was some talk of CP and Franklin, but outside of Sumlin, Stark was at the top of the list (for Haden). Personally I think CP is an amazing coach that would do well anywhere.

From what I am hearing, most people like Sark, know he is a good coach and great recruiter on the west coast, but are very underwhelmed by the hire. Personally, I like the hire, and was annoyed when Garrett hired Kiffin, not Sark, post Carroll. Haden is a great athletic director, and I trust his hire.

WolvinLA2

December 2nd, 2013 at 5:27 PM ^

I don't have the connections you have, but I have lots of friends and some family who are alumni, and no one is really mad about this but most are underwhelmed.  Everyone I've talked to fall into two groups:  The group saying they wanted an established, successful HC, and the group you would fall into, where the general feeling is "he's a really good guy, he's local, he can recruit."  

The big thing I have a problem with is that you really can't point to anything he's done as a HC and say "that's why we hired him."  He started to turn around Washington, but either failed or needed more than 5 years to do it.  

I think the "he's a great recruiter" part is overblown at a school like SC.  I'm sure anyone they would have hired would have been a good recruiter.  And if you can win at a school like SC, you don't even need to be a good recruiter, it just happens.  

WolvinLA2

December 2nd, 2013 at 7:19 PM ^

I've heard a handful of people saying that today too.  USC got to miss Oregon this year (which Sark was never able to do) so that helps.  But yeah, Washington has really never been able to  do much in conference, has never won any decent OOC games and is 1-2 in bowls under Sark.  

johnvand

December 2nd, 2013 at 2:38 PM ^

Doesn't he have some family reasons for not really wanting to pick up and move to a higher profile job?

Things are going to get harder at Boise for him.  You can only get by recruiting the isle of misfit toys for so long until the big boys start cherry picking your commits to fill their classes.

Cold War

December 2nd, 2013 at 7:25 PM ^

Peterson needs to stop screwing around and consider if he wants to spend his whole career at Boise and forgo a huge payday that could set his family up for  generations. The bloom is  starting to come  off.  Ask  Gary Patterson, not hearing his  name much anymore.

snarling wolverine

December 2nd, 2013 at 8:08 PM ^

Petersen's making over $2 million a year (with guaranteed annual $200K raises) at Boise, and is absolutely beloved there - it would take a long time for him to be on the hot seat.  He's doing pretty well for himself.  His predecessors at Boise all failed to find success elsewhere, so why risk it?  

Boise's also an underrated place to live.

 

Shorty the Bea…

December 2nd, 2013 at 7:59 PM ^

No offense, but that has been the case since college football began on the west coast in the 1800's.  Like MGrowOld said, that didn't stop men like Don James from getting the best to go there.  Winning is the greatest recruiter.  Just look at Stanford and Oregon and the talent they pull in these days - because they win.  Sark had a tougher time because he didn't win.  Washington state has produced the nation's top rated pocket QB twice in the past three national signing classes and missed out on both.   This is not normal for UW.  Traditionally, UW holds onto in-state talent and recruits Cali, especially So-Cal, very well.  It is only when the program imploded after they fired Neuhiesel and stopped winning that their recruiting success changed.  Sark sux. Good riddance!

Shorty the Bea…

December 2nd, 2013 at 8:04 PM ^

but they don't recruit the same athletes these days.  Oregon likes 'em lean and fast.  UW only begun to seriously dabble with the spread this season.  They may begin to target the same athletes more often going forward, but UW's lost more in-state five-star O-linemen to the Stanford's and USC's of the world, and more in-state five star QB's to the USC's and BYU than Oregon.  Defenders like Taylor Mays bolted Ty Willingham's winless ways for USC as well.

EGD

December 2nd, 2013 at 4:53 PM ^

Sark has actually been recruiting pretty well--including signing a number of former Michigan targets (Shaq Thompson, Sean Parker, and Demorea Stringfellow, for instance).  8-4 may not sound all that impressive, but the team went 0-12 the year before Sarkisian arrived and they play in the same division as Stanford and Oregon. 

MI Expat NY

December 2nd, 2013 at 2:22 PM ^

I think they just finished some of those facilities and the stadium.  Might not have had time to impact recruiting.  And really, it must be hard to recruit on the basis of "facilities" when you're competing with Oregon for a lot of the same kids.  

Tater

December 2nd, 2013 at 2:14 PM ^

I felt Sark was the right choice for USC all along, which is exactly why I was hoping Pat Haden would have a brain cramp and hire someone else.  If this is true, USC will be back on top within three years: possibly two.

MGoVoldemort

December 2nd, 2013 at 2:19 PM ^

The way I look at it, I'd welcome a dominant USC program back to college football. It would divert a lot of top recruits away from the SEC, and break up the seeming monopoly they have down there right now.