Speaking of growing pains, I'm going to go a bit off character and ask a question for thought that I know could illicit some "stop over-reacting" comments. It's not a criticism of Sark, or Arch, or how the offense has looked the last couple of games, but rather something that I started pondering after thinking about how other teams have won or played for championships lately.
Sarks QB strategy is clearly to recruit a HS QB he likes every year and develop them. Hopefully for a year or two before they have to start. Is this the smartest way to go?
The Pros: Before a QB has to start a game, they have had a year or two to sit and learn Sark's complicated offense. It's also likely to be more sustainable and build more depth than relying on transfers.
The Cons: Inevitably, even if a 5 star prospect has spent a couple of years learning the system, at some point you are going to be relying on a QB with little to no game experience to start. There are growing pains for at least the early part of the season. Also, you can project what a HS QB could develop into in college, but you don't really know until they are on the field. Some are just misses (Weigman, Arnold, Nelson, Uiagalelei are just a few of the 5 stars lately that didn't exactly flourish at their initial destination)
Both teams that played in the national championship game last year did so with portal QBs. Oregon has been a top 5 team the last 3 years with Nix and then Gabriel, and looks to be very good again this year with Moore. OU is unfortunately looking better than I would like with Mateer.
I have always liked Sark's recruit and develop the best HS QB strategy (Quinn wasn't a traditional experienced portal transfer), but I can see what some teams are preferring to take the route of bringing in a proven transfer each season and trying to avoid the inevitable growing pains of a first-year starter.