Sarkisian to Washington

#26
#26
Also undermines the idea that no desirable candidates were interested in Washington.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

this isn't bob stoops at florida we are talking about. sarkisian wasn't exactly beloved at USC. I think we can safety assume UW isn't as great of a job as you think it is. When cal's coach turns you down twice, your job just isn't that great. That's not to say this isn't a good hire, just that sarkisian just isn't the hot coaching commodity he was even 2 years ago.
 
Last edited:
#27
#27
kind of funny........before i saw the annuncement about Sark, i saw that Leach and someone else......Kelly? Peterson? withdrew their names from the Washington job.

i'm going to go out on a limb and say that Sark was their 1st choice.
 
#28
#28
apparenty leach was a little too strange for the UW folk. i'd take sark over hill anyday (the other guy who declined interest). it should be interesting to see how much they pay him. i doubt they could have got leach or hill for less than $2 mil a year. it could be a situation where they were relatively indifferent between the candidates and they realized sarkisian is a lot cheaper.
 
#29
#29
I know Kiffin and Chow didn't get along, but what about Kiffin and Sarkisian?

Not sure why I'm asking that, but anyway. Wonder if they'd be interesting in playing each other in the coming years? UT has been playing Pac Ten schools lately, wonder if he might see USC or Washington pop up on the schedule?

Then again, probably be hard to make it work at least anytime soon considering how many years in advance these games are scheduled.

We already have the SEC schedule. I'd rather not schedule USC on top of that.
 
#30
#30
We already have the SEC schedule. I'd rather not schedule USC on top of that.

Especially after our rotation of PAC-10 teams is up, we have Big-12 looming.

Oklahoma, Texas and Nebraska in a 6 year span if I'm not mistaken.

That is R-O-U-G-H.
 

VN Store



Back
Top