Future schedules
by John Berkowitz on Oct 5, 2009 12:54 PM PDT
Email
Print
AD Scott Woodward has been hard at work putting together future schedules to fill out the next decade. One change that is rumored to be in the works is that we will have Big Sky teams on the schedule in the near future. UW is close to agreeing on contracts with Portland State and Eastern Washington.
I am a traditionalist but since almost every other team in the conference is scheduling such games UW is at a huge disadvantage if they don't.
One thing we hadn't heard at the stadium that Bob Condotta of the Times picked up was that two BYU game's in the future will be cancelled. That means Jake Heaps will never play in Husky Stadium. Shed a tear for Jake...just kidding.
In 2010 we face Syracuse and Nebraska at home. We have BYU on the road. We have heard a few rumblings that Syracuse may try to get out of that one...stay tuned.
As for other future opponents we are hearing Wisconsin, Illinois, and Hawaii for future home and homes. All of those three work very well for me. Madison is a two hour drive from my house so that works. Champaign is around two and a half hours. We went to Hawaii a couple of years ago and would likely opt to go again.
Solid for now is a home and home with Nebraska and a return game in Baton Rouge against LSU. Pencil me in for both of those if the creeks don't rise. Lincoln is an eight hour drive so we will likely fly to that one.
Scott if you are reading this keep scheduling road games within 4-6 hours driving distance of Chicago. Think Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Missouri, and Iowa.
31 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
bowl ready
let us do it like the rest. Three tuneup games, half way to a bowl. Why knock yourself out early?
Would love to see a Home and Home with Michigan
Two storied programs on the rise…that would be fun!
Would love if they played Penn State since that would be well within driving range and all my friends are either alumni or huge supporters. I may not survive the parking lot…
Either way i think there are ways around scheduling lowly FCS teams. Schedule New Mexico State or San Jose State or North Texas or Duke…why 1-AA teams??
I’m really disappointed that we are throwing away our tradition of never stooping to schedule a lower-division opponent.
I get and agree with the “ABC” scheduling philosophy, but I wish Woodward would’ve highly prioritized finding a lowly FBS/Division-1 team for that “C” game rather than going the Portland St/Eastern Washington route.
For those talking about how it impacts our bowl eligibility – if in 2011 & 2012 we need a win over one of those teams to get to 6 wins and bowl eligibility, it means Sark has failed. The goal at those points is to be competing for a conference championship, not scrambling for 6 wins…
I agree...
…it’s an abomination and an embarrassment. We do not need FCS on our schedule to be successful. We’ver already ridden out the ridiculously hard schedules. Go with the ABC philosophy, but don’t stoop to ASU and Florida levels with the silly schedules.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
Well, it may be that the finances are such that scheduling low-level FBS teams has become a luxury we currently can no longer afford. It sucks to lose the rare distinction of never playing a lower division team, but the bottom line is the bottom line, and when the AD is cutting sports to balance his budget and looking for ways to raise $250M+ to renovate the stadium, he can’t be cavalier with money issues.
ABC is not as easy as 123
I agree but when an Idaho or San Jose State is demanding $750,000 per game it just isn’t feasible to continue down that road at the present time. Don’t forget that a lot of these teams are also demanding a home and away series.
by John Berkowitz on Oct 6, 2009 6:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Naw, keep it out west.
With the east coast bias we don’t need to play east of the Mississippi. If they don’t recognize game then they don’t deserve to get to watch it. The Pac-10 Needs to do home and homes with the Big 12 and Mountain west, the Big 10 is alright but, keep it west, west y’all. The Big Ten, and SEC are good opponents for bowl games, Like Iowa, Michigan, and Purdue in the 90’s for the Dawgs. Make the regular season about our region.
If you want a national program
You have to play nationally.
Playing games in the Midwest makes a lot of sense.
by John Berkowitz on Oct 6, 2009 6:28 AM PDT up reply actions
This is a bad idea all around.
While I think it would be a good idea to schedule a couple of softer teams, they should be from our division (FBS). A victory against a lower division (FCS) school doesn’t count toward bowl eligibility. A game against Portland State or EWU would be a glorified scrimmage that would only count for something if UW lost.
A victory against a lower division (FCS) school doesn’t count toward bowl eligibility.
Not true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowl_eligibility
http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/football/2008/psfootball_handbook.pdf
Agree with Kirk on ABC
There are plenty of patsies to schedule vs Portland and Eastern. Utah St, San Jose, SMU, UTEP, Nevada, Wyoming , San Diegp St. Northwestern, E Carolina, Iowa St., New Mexico and New Mexico St could all be C teamsand are still Div 1. I hate destroying what tradition we have left by playing a JV team.
As for the where, I don’t mind 1 trip out of region, but 2 or more ina year is too much. We are making the games non affordable for the average fan.
To play Devil’s Advocate, according to Bill Fleenor it is getting harder and harder to schedule those lower-tier FBS schools. They want higher guarantees and are less likely to accept 1-off away games and are demanding home and home arrangements.
I still think Woodward should exhaust every possibility to keep our streak alive, but it’s possible that there just isn’t a solution that makes financial sense. In this economy with the department losing money, I can’t blame him if he opts for a Portland State over a Utah State if doing so is better from a financial standpoint.
You can go 7-5 and not go to a bowl game. Still a bad idea playing FCS teams.
A deserving winning team is defined as one that wins a minimum of six games against Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) competition and has a record that includes more wins than losses. [Exception: Each year, a FBS institution may count a victory against a Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) opponent that has averaged 90 percent of the permissible maximum number of grants-in-aid per year in FCS over a rolling two-year period.]
FBS contests played in Hawaii are exempt from NCAA legislation limiting a season
to 12 games, but this competition does count in the six-win requirement. An institution
that participates in an exempt contest, however, must have more wins than losses against Division I FBS opponents to be eligible to participate in a bowl game, even if it meets the six-win requirement.
You take a gamble when you play FCS teams
You can go 7-5 and not go to a bowl game.
In the Pac-10 with 6 bowl affiliations, it is so unlikely as to be virtually impossible to go 7-5 and not go to a bowl game. Especially considering every year, bowls are scrambling to find enough eligible teams.
There are arguments against scheduling FCS teams, but this isn’t one of them.
You have to more wins against losses with FBS Teams to go to a Bowl Game.
You go 3-0 against FCS teams 4-5 FBS teams. YOU DON"T GO TO A BOWL GAME as per the rule. Doesn’t matter what the conference has a contract with.
An institution
that participates in an exempt contest, however, must have more wins than losses against Division I FBS opponents to be eligible to participate in a bowl game, even if it meets the six-win requirement.
http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/football/2008/psfootball_handbook.pdf
It’s sounding like finances are the driving force here Jack. Apparently it’s not so easy to schedule FBS creampuffs anymore – they realize their leverage and are taking advantage of it in terms of financial guarantees and whether to insist on home and home reciprocity.
Given the financial difficulties our AD is facing, I can’t really blame Woodward if he tried his best to find FBS opponents but determined that it would cost too much money in comparison to going with an FCS team. If the department were rolling in money like the old days, I doubt Woodward would’ve resorted to an FCS team.
Finances
The SEC is sucking up all the games with the low lifes and bidding up the pricing. Woodward is making the righ reluctant decision on this. The next step will be going to an eight game conference schedule. Expect that to happen in the very immediate future.
by John Berkowitz on Oct 5, 2009 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions
I'd rather see a 10-game conference schedule
That’s silly, of course. But it strikes me as greedy and disrespectful to the fans to schedule FCS teams. If we really need scrimmage bait, give half the tickets away to charity—since it’ll probably be early September, the students and the band won’t be on campus anyway.
OK, that’s unrealistic. But I hate wasting our finest fall afternoons playing a patsy, and then getting stuck with frigid night games in November against the middle-conference opponents that no one pays any attention. There’s no honor in whipping an overmatched, out-of-class opponent, especially for money. I don’t care that the SEC does it—it’s ignoble.
I’m very curious about why we’re dropping the two with BYU, and I personally would not accept the desire to schedule a easier tune-up as a valid reason.
In the meantime, I’d love nothing more than to schedule more games against Notre Dame. I do not want to die having never beaten them.
Verge I agree...
However it isn’t about scheduling scrimmage bait. It is about getting a team to come in here once per year at a reasonable price without a return engagement.
by John Berkowitz on Oct 6, 2009 6:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes, I sense that
But it doesn’t allay my frustration—I always get a little fired up when money trumps my beloved traditions.
If it really comes down to booking FCS teams, might it be better (would it even be feasible?) to fill a slot with a long-term contract playing against a regional “rival”? I never thought I’d see the day that we’d want to play Idaho (for instance) every year, but could it be any worse than alternating schools like Portland State and Tennessee Tech? Maybe a long-term commitment with us would help to elevate a struggling D-1 program?
What happened to
the 8 game conference schedule we used to have?
I remember some years ago where we didn’t play one Pac 10 team for two years alternating every two years. We played the coogs every year and I think we played all the NW schools but not the California or AZ schools.
Jack
We went round robin when the schedule was increased to twelve games
I am pretty sure they are going to go back to eight games because playing the extra conference game puts us at a disadvantage against the SEC, ACC, Big 10, and Big 12.
The Schedule
I’m going to have to agree with kirkd and John on this one. As much as I would love to stick to the ABC schedule, I would rather have ABD, then get stuck with AAC, AAB, or an ABB schedule. We should exhaust every resource to find an Idaho, Utah State, San Diego State, but if it isn’t possilbe, then I’ll live with a weaker opponent.
I’m not a fan of the 8 conference game schedule, it just creates problems with a “true” conference champion if two teams have equal records and didn’t get to play each other.
Verge has a great point, early September games without the students and without the band, is already a bit of a problem, especially if you play Idaho. Now you could be playing Portland State, with few students, no band, and no atmosphere, it has a recipe for being nothing more than a glorified scrimmage.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
I think we should encourage some of the bait to have their home
and home game played at Qwest much like was tried with Air Force in the first year of “Ty the terrible”. I realize the promoter lost his shirt but thats because Todd T screwed it up by not offering it as a package with season tickets. Think Idaho or Utah St wouldn’t want to play in Qwest if they get to keep the home team share of the gate buoyed up by Huskies in attendance. Heck we could even let Idaho keep the revenue for a sell out at the kibble dome (around 30K seats) and split the remaining revenue from qwest around 35000 seats between the two. That would be a win win and still provide a revenue stream for th Dawgs plus satisfy the home and home. Once again, please no JV teams, not even Appalachian St. Like Tevya sang in Fiddler on the Roof: “TRADITION”. Go Dawgs
Qwest
If things go according to schedule all home games will be played at Qwest next season. They would like to start demolition of the lower bowl after the Cal game.
I think the Air Force game was a terrible experiment. Todd Turner just burned the Air Force Academy and treated the game like it did not exist. Turner was a tool who never figured it out. Firing him after the Hawaii game was the best decision Emmert ever made.
The problem with Idaho or a Utha State being the home team at Qwest is they wouldn’t bring more than five thousand fans. Why pay them more than we do now to do that? I am not a big fan of the FCS games but it seems to be the only legit answer at this point.
Do you really want more home and away series with a Syracuse?
Speaking of Syracuse…there is rumor floating around that they are trying to get out of next years game.
by John Berkowitz on Oct 6, 2009 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
