I think there would be risks with both, but sark especially has done nothing (yet) to prove he is head coach material in my opinion.
I get this up to a point.
But I've long had a saying, too: "the SEC is too good top to bottom for any coach to come in and win in his first job." The talents that have won in the SEC ALMOST ALL had serious COLLEGE coaching experience as head coaches elsewhere BEFORE settling into the job that made them famous.
Bryant - Maryland, UK, Texas A/M
Dye - E Carolina, Wyoming
Spurrier - Duke
Majors - Iowa St, Pitt
Stallings - ATM
Tuberville - Ole Miss before he won a lot at Auburn
Meyer - Bowling Green, Utah
Saban - Toledo, Michigan St - THEN at LSU and THEN at Alabama
Miles - Okie St
The one school that seems to have exceptions is Georgia, but they've had a few duds going that route, too. I think Richt (whom I do think is a fairly good coach) benefited from the timing of his early career coinciding with that time period between Spurrier and Meyer else he's first 6 years before he actually was fired. And Kirby seems to be a good hire, too.
The exception to that whole thing, of course, is Vandy. You go to Vandy (a la Franklin) to make your mistakes and learn from them before you get the job that's going to make you jump into the upper echelon of coaches.
I think what commends Sark so long as he's dry is that he DID improve a ghastly Washington team.
And btw - for those who forgot - Sarkisian already replaced a fired Kiffin at USC back in 2013.