I don't want to mix up my arguments, so I'll be clear and say that I don't see a 3-loss season as acceptable. Yeah, we play in a tough conference with a difficult OOC, but that's what the money is for. All the games are winnable for us, and losing three winnable games in a season is not the standard. That's especially true if the losses are not explainable by injury or some other bad luck.
But I'm not arguing about what's acceptable, I'm arguing about what I think CDC and the administration consider worth firing Sark over.
To fire Sark, you're going to have to make your case to a lot of people and you're going to have to deal with the fall out of that decision. Think about every program that fired a coach because he was good, but not quite good enough. If the next guy isn't even better, then you look like an idiot. We're talking about a lot of careers and reputations. There are practical and human components to this, and it has very little to do with what is acceptable. Consider all of the potential fallout that can come from firing Sark and missing on the next hire. All because the dude went 9-3. That is a tough row to hoe, and I don't see any of the people in power being willing to take responsibility if it goes sideways.
That being said - people do unreasonable things and I can't see the future. Maybe Kyle Shanahan calls up CDC and says he wants the job. Anything can happen. But all other things being equal, I don't see us firing Sark for going 9-3 in 2026. Mostly because I don't see a group of well educated professionals collectively making a decision that, on its face, seems very hard to justify and carries a significant amount of potential blowback.