This hire, when it's analyzed in a vacuum, is okay. I guess. But in the face of the hires UW could've made, Sarkisian isn't even the third-best choice.

I've heard this spun 10 different ways, but the bottom line is that UW could've had both Mike Leach and Pat Hill. This isn't speculation: as John Clayton confirmed today, "Both of those guys were waiting by the phone". The Huskies could've had either of them - established head coaches with western recruiting bases - and instead chose an inexperienced assistant.

If you think Steve Sarkisian is a better choice than Pat Hill and ESPECIALLY Mike Leach, you're a UW apologist. If you think Steve Sarkisian's USC O-coordinator pedigree makes him a better offensive coach than Leach, you're stoned: Leach is one of the best offensive minds in the college game today, and a proven program-builder. He took Texas Tech from the dregs of the Big 12 and turned the program into a Top 10 program ... recruiting to LUBBOCK, Texas!!!!

Have y'all ever been to Lubbock, Texas? Yeeeeeech. Pullman is Palm Springs compared to Lubbock, Texas.

Leach has put the Red Raiders in 8 bowl games in 10 seasons, has re-written the NCAA offensive record books, and, besides, is a borderline wacko who would've been INTERESTING! After four years of The Most Boring Coach on the Planet, I'm ready for somebody interesting.

Leach or Hill or Sarkisian?

1. Leach.
2. Hill
3. Sarkisian, a distant 3rd.

Bad choice here.

JS/NWWC