Steve Sarkisian has done wonders for USC

[OregonDucks]

Sarkisian might be one of USC's most successful coaches along with Pete Carrol.

In Pete Carrols first year the Trojans went 6-6 and lost in the Las Vegas bowl. In a time where the overall strength of the PAC was not that great.

Sarkisian inherited a program that was coming off of sanctions, depleted roster and lacked depth. He took over a program in a difficult pac-12 conference, one of the best conferences in the country and in his first year compiled a 9-4 record and WON the Holiday Bowl.

In Pete Carrols final year with the Trojans he had a 9-4 record. And that was when Carrol had his recruits well in place, and the program wasn't suffering from previous sanctions. In fact the only suffering the program was having was their previous success of titles.

Sarkisian was also dealing with a broken locker room considering the emotional ending of the previous teams season and the whole Orgeron/Kiffin debacle.

You have to go back to 1978 to John Robinson for the last time a first year head coach did better than Sarkisian did in his first year, as Robinson went 12-1.

This year, finally with the full scholarships and starting to get depth at each position, USC has a bright future, and Sarkisian appears to be the man for the job, considering what he has built there in his short time. One of the best recruiting.

So far in the 2016 class USC ranks #4. But lets look at the previous class under Sarkisians first year.

2015 USC ranked #1 in recruiting

Pat Haden made a create hire with Sarkisian and it looks like Sarkisian's future is as bright as the city lights in Los Angeles.

 

[4down20]

^doesn't want Chip Kelly going to USC.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

^doesn't want Chip Kelly going to USC.

The writing is on the wall. Chip will be a trojan

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Sarkisian might be one of USC's most successful coaches along with Pete Carrol.

In Pete Carrols first year the Trojans went 6-6 and lost in the Las Vegas bowl. In a time where the overall strength of the PAC was not that great.

Sarkisian inherited a program that was coming off of sanctions, depleted roster and lacked depth. He took over a program in a difficult pac-12 conference, one of the best conferences in the country and in his first year compiled a 9-4 record and WON the Holiday Bowl.

In Pete Carrols final year with the Trojans he had a 9-4 record. And that was when Carrol had his recruits well in place, and the program wasn't suffering from previous sanctions. In fact the only suffering the program was having was their previous success of titles.

Sarkisian was also dealing with a broken locker room considering the emotional ending of the previous teams season and the whole Orgeron/Kiffin debacle.

You have to go back to 1978 to John Robinson for the last time a first year head coach did better than Sarkisian did in his first year, as Robinson went 12-1.

This year, finally with the full scholarships and starting to get depth at each position, USC has a bright future, and Sarkisian appears to be the man for the job, considering what he has built there in his short time. One of the best recruiting.

So far in the 2016 class USC ranks #4. But lets look at the previous class under Sarkisians first year.

2015 USC ranked #1 in recruiting

Pat Haden made a create hire with Sarkisian and it looks like Sarkisian's future is as bright as the city lights in Los Angeles.

 

[OregonDucks]

Absolutely not. I think when a coach comes in inheriting the turmoil on a team and program like Sarkisian did, that coach needs to be applauded and recognized. And I don't think sarkisian has gotten the recognition that he deserves.

 

[trojanfan12]

Sarkisian might be one of USC's most successful coaches along with Pete Carrol.

In Pete Carrols first year the Trojans went 6-6 and lost in the Las Vegas bowl. In a time where the overall strength of the PAC was not that great.

Sarkisian inherited a program that was coming off of sanctions, depleted roster and lacked depth. He took over a program in a difficult pac-12 conference, one of the best conferences in the country and in his first year compiled a 9-4 record and WON the Holiday Bowl.

In Pete Carrols final year with the Trojans he had a 9-4 record. And that was when Carrol had his recruits well in place, and the program wasn't suffering from previous sanctions. In fact the only suffering the program was having was their previous success of titles.

Sarkisian was also dealing with a broken locker room considering the emotional ending of the previous teams season and the whole Orgeron/Kiffin debacle.

You have to go back to 1978 to John Robinson for the last time a first year head coach did better than Sarkisian did in his first year, as Robinson went 12-1.

This year, finally with the full scholarships and starting to get depth at each position, USC has a bright future, and Sarkisian appears to be the man for the job, considering what he has built there in his short time. One of the best recruiting.

So far in the 2016 class USC ranks #4. But lets look at the previous class under Sarkisians first year.

2015 USC ranked #1 in recruiting

Pat Haden made a create hire with Sarkisian and it looks like Sarkisian's future is as bright as the city lights in Los Angeles.

I actually agree with pretty much all of this. I'm not sold on Sark just yet, but he needs to be given at least as long as Kiffin got (about 3.5 seasons). With how young our team is overall, if we finish the season strong, Sark will be fine. If we don't, then I think his seat will be warm going into next year, his 3rd season. If he doesn't have more success next year, his seat will be extremely hot going into his 4th season.

 

[OregonDucks]

I actually agree with pretty much all of this. I'm not sold on Sark just yet, but he needs to be given at least as long as Kiffin got (about 3.5 seasons). With how young our team is overall, if we finish the season strong, Sark will be fine. If we don't, then I think his seat will be warm going into next year, his 3rd season. If he doesn't have more success next year, his seat will be extremely hot going into his 4th season.

Absolutely agree with this. Couldn't have said it better.

Very young team with loads of talent, has yet to really get off the sanctions wagon as he is filling in all those lack of depth holes with very young players (talented young players) I think Sarkisian can really be evaluated after the next two years.

Right now I feel many within Los Angeles are freaking out far too early. The season is also still young.

 

[4down20]

I actually agree with pretty much all of this. I'm not sold on Sark just yet, but he needs to be given at least as long as Kiffin got (about 3.5 seasons). With how young our team is overall, if we finish the season strong, Sark will be fine. If we don't, then I think his seat will be warm going into next year, his 3rd season. If he doesn't have more success next year, his seat will be extremely hot going into his 4th season.

If you got a legit shot at Kelly and you keep Sark I think your AD might be a bit looney.

The only thing that gives me pause is Kelly had that show clause and with USC directly coming off sanctions - that might not be the best mix.

 

[B_dub]

Googled "Wonders", to see what alcohol company it was before entering this thread. Came away with nothing.

 

[OregonDucks]

If you got a legit shot at Kelly and you keep Sark I think your AD might be a bit looney.

The only thing that gives me pause is Kelly had that show clause and with USC directly coming off sanctions - that might not be the best mix.

Pat Haden would look absolutely weak if he suddenly fired his coach after 2 seasons.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Absolutely not. I think when a coach comes in inheriting the turmoil on a team and program like Sarkisian did, that coach needs to be applauded and recognized. And I don't think sarkisian has gotten the recognition that he deserves.

 

[4down20]

Pat Haden would look absolutely weak if he suddenly fired his coach after 2 seasons.

He has more than due cause.

Sark is lucky he's being allowed to finish this season.

 

[trojanfan12]

Right now I feel many within Los Angeles are freaking out far too early. The season is also still young.

That's exactly what's happening, imo. People just looked at the last couple of recruiting classes and decided USC is back. They didn't take into consideration that these are mostly freshmen and sophomores. Or the parity in the PAC. I read somewhere that only 3 teams in the country are playing more underclassmen in key roles than USC.

 

[OregonDucks]

He has more than due cause.

Sark is lucky he's being allowed to finish this season.

Although I don't think he goes the rest of the way unbeaten. Sark has a chance to win 10 games this year. You can't fire a coach after a 10 win season, which would show improvement over the previous year. PLUS the potential for some great young talent coming up the ranks.

 

[UM Fire]

I actually agree with pretty much all of this. I'm not sold on Sark just yet, but he needs to be given at least as long as Kiffin got (about 3.5 seasons). With how young our team is overall, if we finish the season strong, Sark will be fine. If we don't, then I think his seat will be warm going into next year, his 3rd season. If he doesn't have more success next year, his seat will be extremely hot going into his 4th season.

I agree that you really need to give a coach time to get his own team in there. I always said 5 years was the right amount of time to determine if someone was your guy or not. There can be, though, extenuating circumstances...

Side note... if memory serves, you wanted coach O to take over, right?

 

[trojanfan12]

If you got a legit shot at Kelly and you keep Sark I think your AD might be a bit looney.

The only thing that gives me pause is Kelly had that show clause and with USC directly coming off sanctions - that might not be the best mix.

Yes and no on getting rid of Sark if Kelly becomes available. If Sark has the team headed in the right direction and playing well, there's no reason to go after Kelly. However, if there's still doubt in Sark, then you have to at least make an inquiry to see if Kelly is interested.

I agree about hiring a coach that had a "show cause" placed on him so soon after sanctions. The one thing that would make me feel okay about it though, is that whatever supposedly happened, it was in an attempt to get USC level recruits. At USC, he'd already have them, so no need for shenanigans.

 

[OregonDucks]

Maybe what would be worse than Haden pulling the trigger on Sarkisian so early, would be Haden talking to other coaches behind the scenes and behind Sarks back. That would create such a divide on the political aspect of things within the USC program, would be absolute poison.

 

[trojanfan12]

He has more than due cause.

Sark is lucky he's being allowed to finish this season.

This is true. From what I understand, some pretty powerful boosters were not happy that he was allowed to keep his job. If they don't like the way things are headed, Haden may have to fire Sark to save his own job. Especially if someone like Kelly is available.

 

[4down20]

Yes and no on getting rid of Sark if Kelly becomes available. If Sark has the team headed in the right direction and playing well, there's no reason to go after Kelly. However, if there's still doubt in Sark, then you have to at least make an inquiry to see if Kelly is interested.

I agree about hiring a coach that had a "show cause" placed on him so soon after sanctions. The one thing that would make me feel okay about it though, is that whatever supposedly happened, it was in an attempt to get USC level recruits. At USC, he'd already have them, so no need for shenanigans.

I can agree, but now you are giving him this year to get things going rather than 3.

If he gets USC heading in the right direction and you win out etc, no way you get rid of him. But if wins less this year than last, doesn't finish in the top25 etc. I think you are nuts if you don't make the switch.

If USC didn't want to for the show cause I can understand that. But if that's not the issue, I'd go for it. And I'm not even a Chip Kelly fan.

 

[trojanfan12]

I agree that you really need to give a coach time to get his own team in there. I always said 5 years was the right amount of time to determine if someone was your guy or not. There can be, though, extenuating circumstances...

Side note... if memory serves, you wanted coach O to take over, right?

I did at first. But in the UCLA game, he was badly out coached by Mora, which showed he just wasn't head coaching material.