[CTcard]

As I noted, even in the year Sark got fired he out-performed Helton. It's possible that Helton has improved from then, and it's possible that Sark's off-the-field behavior isn't worth the gap, but I don't think you can look at the full weight of the evidence and say that Helton > Sark. 

The full weight of the evidence includes that Sark was an alcoholic who did not have control of his problem. That's untenable in a football coach and somebody in charge of college students. Without anything else, I'd say that makes Helton better than Sark. 
[I am contending that this is a more important issue that is implied by the statement "Sark's off-the-field behavior isn't worth the gap".]

While most metrics imply that U$C performed somewhat better in the first five games than the latter nine in 2015 that's not definitive as to their coaching abilities. Firstly, the difference isn't great. Secondly, Helton was coaching the first five games, so had a hand in those as well. Thirdly, Helton was dealing with the fall out of the firing of Sark over the latter half of the season - which is a handicap. Fourthly, in taking over a team mid-year Helton was not able to instill "his systems" whatever those may be. 

The full weight of the evidence would also include their full record. 
Helton is in total 28-11, 72%; in conf 20-6, 77%.  
Sark was 12-6, 67%; in conf 7-5, 58%. 
Helton has a better win percentage over a longer stretch. 

Neither of these records is particularly impressive given the advantages one has at $C, but I'd say you can look at the full weight of the evidence and conclude Helton > Sark - even if not everyone would agree.

[CTcard]

As I noted, even in the year Sark got fired he out-performed Helton. It's possible that Helton has improved from then, and it's possible that Sark's off-the-field behavior isn't worth the gap, but I don't think you can look at the full weight of the evidence and say that Helton > Sark. 

The full weight of the evidence includes that Sark was an alcoholic who did not have control of his problem. That's untenable in a football coach and somebody in charge of college students. Without anything else, I'd say that makes Helton better than Sark. 
[I am contending that this is a more important issue that is implied by the statement "Sark's off-the-field behavior isn't worth the gap".]

While most metrics imply that U$C performed somewhat better in the first five games than the latter nine in 2015 that's not definitive as to their coaching abilities. Firstly, the difference isn't great. Secondly, Helton was coaching the first five games, so had a hand in those as well. Thirdly, Helton was dealing with the fall out of the firing of Sark over the latter half of the season - which is a handicap. Fourthly, in taking over a team mid-year Helton was not able to instill "his systems" whatever those may be. 

The full weight of the evidence would also include their full record. 
Helton is in total 28-11, 72%; in conf 20-6, 77%.  
Sark was 12-6, 67%; in conf 7-5, 58%. 
Helton has a better win percentage over a longer stretch. 

Neither of these records is particularly impressive given the advantages one has at $C, but I'd say you can look at the full weight of the evidence and conclude Helton > Sark - even if not everyone would agree.