The scheduling puzzle

by John Berkowitz on Oct 6, 2009 3:54 PM PDT

Seattle-area old-timers probably remember going to the old Wharf, Clark's, or Ivar's restaurants and having a paper place mat featuring future University of Washington football schedules. As a kid, it amazed me that the athletic department had everything scheduled ten or more years into the future.

The practice of scheduling games years into the future has taken a pause, or at least it has at the University of Washington. Here are a few universal factors that are influencing such practice:

The expansion to a 12 game schedule.
Creation of the BCS.
The creation of two-division super-conferences.
Eight game conference schedules by the super-conferences.
Demands for home and away scheduling by non BCS schools.
Demands for up to one million dollar appearance fees by non-BCS schools.
Increased television coverage due to multiple channels on cable and satellite.
The revenue advantages of the SEC driven by the CBS contract, huge stadiums, huge attendance, and a new multi-million dollar contract for the exclusive SEC channel.

Lets take a look a closer look at the challenges Washington (and all Pac-10 schools) is facing.

A nine-game round robin schedule.
Every other year each team has five conference road games.
The Pac-10 does not have its own exclusive cable TV network.
The Pac-10 is isolated on the west coast, so in comparison to a Big Ten or Big 12 team, they don't have as many scheduling options.
Smaller stadiums and declining attendance.

Boiling this down, Washington will be playing some FCS schools in the near future. An FCS school won't demand a return game, and is more than happy to play for a decreased share of the revenue generated by the game. The difference can be as much as $750,000 compared with scheduling an Idaho (who isn't a drop in the bucket these days).

Eastern Washington or Portland State would be thrilled to have a $250,000 payday. The price to get Idaho into Husky stadium this season was $600,000. The current price for a future game is now between $750,000 to $1,000,000.

Washington is still going to play big-time schools every year. There will always be the Nebraska's, the Michigan's, LSU's, Notre Dame's, and other premier schools on the schedule. However, we aren't going to get two of them in one season anymore. There could be exceptions to that in the future, but not many. Let's face it: playing LSU and Notre Dame in the same year doesn't make much sense when Florida is playing Charleston Southern, Troy, Florida International, and Florida State.

Washington now has a firm schedule set for the next three years. Portland State isn't official as yet, but expect confirmation to come any day now.

Beginning in 2013, it gets pretty sketchy. The Huskies announced a home and away series with Hawaii with a game in Honolulu in 2013 and a return game at Husky Stadium in 2015. Athletic Director Scott Woodward also announced a home and away series for 2017 and 2018 with Wisconsin. Washington already has a contracted series with Colorado on the books for 2015 and 2016.

The Huskies have been rumored to also be in talks with Illinois for a home and away series, with 2013 and 2014 a logical fit for the both teams, as the Illini have only one non-conference game scheduled for those seasons.

2010 Schedule

@ BYU

Syracuse

Nebraska

2011 Schedule

Eastern Washington

Hawaii

@ Nebraska

2012 Schedule

Portland State

@ LSU

Nevada

2013 Schedule

(Open)

@Hawaii

2014 Schedule

(Open)

2015 Schedule

(Open)

Hawaii

Colorado

2016 Schedule

(Open)

@ Colorado

(Open)

2017 Schedule

(Open)

Wisconsin

(Open)

2018 Schedule

(Open)

@ Wisconsin

(Open)

Tweet Comment 75 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Thanks

A very good and understandable summary of the situation.

I’m still curious about the loss of BYU games…

by Verge on Oct 6, 2009 5:20 PM PDT reply actions

Continue Reading this post

John, thanks for using the “continue reading…” link. I wish you’d use it more so that we don’t have to scroll so far to find old articles. A couple paragraphs as a teaser, and I’m sure you wouldn’t lose readership.

While I intellectually understand the money issues and reasoning for scheduling an FCS team, I have to say that emotionally it tears me up. I was proud to support a team that was one of only fourschools to have never played a I-AA or FCS school. And super proud to be in a conference with two of the other three schools.

I personally think it’s worth $500-750K to keep that pride intact.

by NeuroDawg on Oct 6, 2009 5:38 PM PDT reply actions

Ask the swim team about that...

When you are trying to balance a budget having 6-7 home games is huge from a revenue perspective. It just isn’t about the difference in money…it is about the total amount of home games you can schedule in a season. If Washington had not done this they would be facing a season with only five home games which is unacceptable.

Nobody is happy about it….but it had to be done.

Once again this is mostly carry over from the days of Hedges and Turner. Woodward is just cleaning up a mess and getting the future firmly in line.

We have played FCS teams before by the way…they just weren’t listed as such prior to the late 1970’s. For example the first time we played Hawaii they were in the same classification as the University of Puget Sound! That was just like playing Central Washington today. By the way we lost that football game.

by John Berkowitz on Oct 7, 2009 7:02 AM PDT up reply actions

Sad Day for the Husky Alumni and Fan base

I agree with NeuroDawg…a stinging loss to Notre Dame and and this in the same week. Made a few phone calls to no avail. This emotionally tears me up also. Playing so weak teams…I wonder about the reapercussions of smaller attendance and possibly no TV coverasge. One helluva of a BIG gamble.

by bigdawgdaddy999 on Oct 6, 2009 6:12 PM PDT reply actions

Ask Michigan about Appalachian State

There are plenty of programs in the FCS who are capable of beating BCS teams on the right day. The difference between a good FCS team and a middle of the pack WAC opponent is negligible.

by John Berkowitz on Oct 7, 2009 7:15 AM PDT up reply actions

Eastern Game

Possibly one of the only times I will donate my tickets to Charity and do some something else on Labor Day weekend.

by bigdawgdaddy999 on Oct 6, 2009 6:14 PM PDT reply actions

Oh hell

I wouldn’t…playing Idaho or New Mexico is the same thing most years.

by John Berkowitz on Oct 6, 2009 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions

2010 schedule

If Jake sticks around, anyone else thinking we could very likely be 3-0 in non-conference?

by JoeinFW on Oct 6, 2009 7:22 PM PDT reply actions

bowl game

by Purpledawg on Oct 6, 2009 7:52 PM PDT reply actions

Bowl game

a sure thing starting 3-0. Now I understand why there are no sanctions on USC despite multiple glaring violations. Don’t kill the golden goose. TV ratings will fall.

by Purpledawg on Oct 6, 2009 7:55 PM PDT reply actions

Just smart business

This needed to happen. Let’s face it, there are no medals for playing a tough schedule. They are scheduling (1) marquee game and (1) B game that we should win almost without exception, and (1) C level team that we should win every year. This is how you hit 9 and 10 win seasons. That is where we want to be. The extra marquee match up is called a bowl game.

by Fighting Husky on Oct 6, 2009 8:12 PM PDT reply actions

An excellent point...

that hasn’t been made often enough (about the bowl game being the additional marquee matchup).

I’ll take Eastern in game one and Notre Dame in game 13 any time.

An extra game and additional practices are worth more to the program overall than an early out-of-conference game against a high-profile team that may very well COST the team that extra game and those extra practices.

by Tunnelrat on Oct 7, 2009 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions

Good Analysis

intellectually, i know a solid logical argument when i see one. But this is college football tradition and i think emotion has its place. Obviously UW football is laying the foundation and aiming for the elite, perennial NC contender level. That is exciting!! But here has to be some Little Sisters of the Poor left in D1 that we can play! On the otherhand the PAC10 needs its own network asap. And add Utah and Boise State sooner rather than later too.

by 206 on Oct 6, 2009 8:26 PM PDT via mobile reply actions

Tradition

I can’t argue with that one. Tradition is important but you will see USCLA and possibly USC do the same thing in the near future. they just can’t find the games and it will get tighter when we revert to an eight game conference schedule.

by John Berkowitz on Oct 7, 2009 7:17 AM PDT up reply actions

I need a little education...

do Portland State and Eastern Washington count toward the six wins needed to qualify for a bowl game? Rules have changed and I haven’t kept up.
Thanks for the help.

I'm tired of next year. Win now!

by wishfulthinking on Oct 6, 2009 9:11 PM PDT reply actions

Yes, they will count toward bowl elligibility.

by thecassino on Oct 6, 2009 9:43 PM PDT up reply actions

its embarrassing

… but we now know what the story is. Wish it didn’t have to be this way and I worry about not having televised games as a result.

Either way, one of JB’s best write ups. Oh, and I am not a fan of “the jump”. Scrolling for the occassional old post is not nearly as irritating as having to click through for every post.

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.

by Gekko Mojo on Oct 6, 2009 10:38 PM PDT via mobile reply actions

You guys let me know what you think of the jump

I used it this time because once the schedule was added the article was way too long.

by John Berkowitz on Oct 7, 2009 7:18 AM PDT up reply actions

there is a time for it, such as breaking adding a table to an article.

but mostly a pain – especially if you are accessing from a mobile device.

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.

by Gekko Mojo on Oct 7, 2009 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions

I'm all for it on the longer articles.

Short ones obviously don’t need it, but I really like the idea on the longer articles. There’s always continuing conversations on old posts, once it leaves the front page the conversation normally ends. The more articles on the front page the better, IMO.

"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"

by Lear Pilot on Oct 7, 2009 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions

Embarrassing

If we want to see practice games, we’ll go to the spring scrimmage.

Adding one more home game in 2012 is a weak argument. It may be nice for the players and staff, but from the fans’ perspective, I think most of us would rather watch the Huskies play BYU on television (or even listen to the game on the radio — Bob Rondeau is awesome!) than attend a home game (possibly at Qwest Field) against Eastern Washington or Portland State.

It’s one thing to drop BYU, two games that I was looking forward to seeing the Huskies play, but to replace BYU with sugar free cupcakes is very, very disappointing. It sends the message, rightly or wrongly, that all of the talk about tradition and expecting to win is just that — talk. If they want to soften the schedule, at least don’t schedule a sacrificial lamb. Washington can afford to play a respectable opponent, like Idaho.

Recruits do not come to Washington to play Eastern Washington and Portland State.

Jake Locker’s comments during his press conference on Monday back up my views about this. He stated that the Notre Dame game was the kind of game you come to Washington to play. He said that playing good teams makes you better.

Is it possible that part of the reason that Cal is starting slowly this season is because they played Eastern Washington? How does that prepare you to play Pac 10 level competition? It doesn’t. Look at Arizona State. Same thing.

We just lost to Notre Dame. (Thanks to the refs. But I digress.) We have never defeated Notre Dame. Now they have this to hold over our heads, too. And so do our Pac 10 rivals, USC and UCLA. Where is Husky pride?

I have never been impressed by “everyone is doing it” arguments. Part of the reason that SEC schools schedule cream puffs is that they have to play a conference championship game. Well, fine. When the Huskies play USC twice in a season, then schedule Eastern Washington. (No! Not even then!!!)

Gee, that Nebraska game in Lincoln is looking pretty scary. Maybe we should buy our way out of it. I hear ITT Technical Institute is willing to play us. Groan…

If a team cannot make it to a bowl game without playing a lower-division opponent, frankly, they do not deserve to go to a bowl game. There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. This is the wrong way — and it’s embarrassing. Fans should have been given a chance to give feedback before this humiliation was foisted upon us.

I would much rather lose to a good team than wallop a patsy. It’s better to lose with pride and honor than to purchase a victory.

Why should we care if we’re playing Eastern Washington? For the same reason that we care at all!

It is not too late to re-reschedule and fix this debacle.

by Scott Frost on Oct 6, 2009 10:51 PM PDT reply actions

All good points, but you overlook what is by far the most important point – the bottom line.

Recall, the UW had to drop the swim teams and lay off people in the athletic department this year just to make ends meet. The football team is obviously much better this year, but attendance isn’t much improved (yet). Revenues are unlikely to go up much this year, so it could be another tough year of making ends meet in the department.

If you’re Scott Woodward, you simply can’t afford to not consider cost in the equation, and the reality is that right now it costs far less in guaranteed payday to bring in an FCS team. And playing a 6th home game in 2012, even against Portland State brings in a lot more money than not doing so.

People are getting too melodramatic about the quality of competition thing and saying they won’t go see games against Eastern Washington and Portland State. If that’s how you feel, whatever – donate your tickets to youth groups. For me, I’ll take pleasure in watching the Huskies win big and enjoy the chance to see backups get some serious playing time.

Realistically, it’s not much different from games back in the day under DJ when we played teams like Pacific or Bowling Green or Toledo.

And for me, a day at Husky Stadium is to be cherished no matter the opponent.

by kirkd on Oct 6, 2009 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions

I appreciate your attempt to look at the silver lining and to be happy with whatever you get. I just think that the scheduling went too far.

I assure you, I haven’t forgotten the “bottom line.” I simply value honor and pride over money. I don’t accept the “if you can’t beat them, join them” mindset.

Notre Dame turned down a bowl invitation in the not too distant past because they didn’t think their play that season warranted it. I can’t stand Notre Dame, but I have to admire that.

It is one thing to soften the schedule, another to oversoften it. Schedule Idaho, not Eastern. Schedule Wyoming, not Portland State. Washington can afford the extra $750,00 or so to play Idaho. Better yet, just don’t back out of games that fans have been looking forward to for quite some time.

I think you may be overestimating the money factor. One home game in 2012 is added at the expense of a home game against BYU in 2011 (replaced by a yawner home game against Eastern) and what would likely be higher television revenue both years. Sure, we will sell a few tickets to a home game against Portland State, but that may not amount to much, especially if the Huskies can’t swing a stadium renovation. If they can swing it, the 2011 Eastern game would likely be at Qwest Field, which seats less fans than Husky Stadium.

Even though the Idaho game was likely to be the end of the losing streak, they could only sell about 60,000 tickets to it and those were discounted tickets. They charge more for better opponents. The revenue from one BYU game may be almost equivalent to what they would bring in from both Eastern and Portland State combined, especially when you factor in television. In the long run, if not the short run, I think that playing the BYU games would have proven to be healthier for the program, financially and otherwise.

If just one elite recruit is turned off by this kind of scheduling or just one major donation doesn’t come in from a disgruntled booster, that could outweigh the perceived benefits of playing sacrificial opponents. These scenarios may not happen, but scheduling patsies is not, in any way, inspiring or exciting.

What sells more SEASON tickets, playing lower-division opponents or top 25 teams? I’m more likely to buy a season ticket if they schedule several good opponents.

Some fans seem to assume that the Huskies must win to attract fans and that this “purchase a victory” approach is an easier way to accomplish that. I don’t look at it that way. I think the Huskies merely need to play competitive, tough, proud football. They are doing that now. Win or lose, it is exciting to watch the Huskies play. They play every down. They can win any game. That was not the case last season, when defeat seemed inevitable and seats were empty.

You become the best by playing the best. The more top teams we play the better. Otherwise, why not just join a lower-division ourselves? Then we’d really dominate…..for a while. But it would be meaningless.

I don’t accept the rationalizations, such as “this is like playing Pacific in the past.” Why should a past scheduling mistake be a justification for a present scheduling mistake?

If the backups get serious playing time, I agree, that is nice to see. But it comes at the expense of the starters being prepared for the rest of the season. Again, I point to the lack of success some teams, like Cal and Arizona State, are having after playing cupcakes earlier in the year.

I love Husky Stadium, too, but going there to see Eastern or Portland State is akin to attending a practice or the spring game. It isn’t a legitimate game.

by Scott Frost on Oct 7, 2009 12:37 AM PDT up reply actions

Upon reflection, I think that TV money has to be shared with other Pac 10 schools, so maybe the TV revenue is not as big a factor as I was thinking when I wrote the above, but I think Washington can beat BYU, and a win against a top 25 opponent gets a lot more free exposure for a program than a win against a cream puff. I really believe that the intangibles for the program that come along with playing BYU exceed any short term revenue issues, if there even are any.

by Scott Frost on Oct 7, 2009 12:56 AM PDT up reply actions

One more observation: Shouldn’t they be more worried about that three game stretch in 2012 where they play at Cal, at LSU and then at USC? Zoinks! I think more schedule juggling will happen there. I just hope that they don’t add another wimp to the schedule.

by Scott Frost on Oct 7, 2009 1:20 AM PDT up reply actions

I saw that

first three away games lineup and thought YIKES….that’s as bad as this year but the silver lining is that the team will be all Sark’s players. I expect they will be more competitive than what we’ve seen this season so far.

Jack

by T9ODawg on Oct 7, 2009 7:05 AM PDT up reply actions

Those teams (Idaho, Wyoming)...

…are becoming more and more coveted by all of the big boys. Why go to Washington and play when you can go to Georgia and make more money?

Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!

by dawgfan22 on Oct 7, 2009 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions

The SEC eats up a lot of no names.

by John Berkowitz on Oct 7, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions

Honor and pride...

You can afford to value honor and pride over money.

Scott Woodward can’t.
Honor and pride don’t pay for the swim team or new stadiums.

by Tunnelrat on Oct 7, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions

True

You are correct, in the most literal sense, but the swimming program was a problem more because of the logistics of having their pool so far away. It was likely they were going to b cut, anyway. The new stadium will not be paid for with revenue from games. That will come from independent donors, the state or not at all.

by Scott Frost on Oct 8, 2009 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions

Yes, but that doesn’t change the fact that revenues of late haven’t been covering expenses. I would guess that the cuts Woodward made in the last year will likely mean he doesn’t have to make further cuts, but he also can’t safely assume the department will make enough improvements in profit in the next few years to make football scheduling decisions that cost several hundred thousand dollars.

I was upset with the news when it first came out too, but once I heard what the financial implications were, I understood the decision. I’m not thrilled with it, but in this case, money is more important than pride.

by kirkd on Oct 8, 2009 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions

Proud to be a Husky with you!

Well, it’s good to see that so many Husky fans are so passionate about the program. We may disagree about the details from time to time, but we all care a lot about the program and that tells me that everything will be alright.

Go Huskies!!!!!

by Scott Frost on Oct 8, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions

It’s a financial decision. When the department has to cut sports and staff, and upcoming revenues don’t appear to be any better, you simply can’t afford to make decisions that will cost the program several hundred thousand dollars.

Season ticket sales depend significantly on how good people perceive the program to be. Sure, it’s nice to have a LSU, Oklahoma or Ohio State on the slate, but those are more about individual ticket sales than season tickets. And if Sark proves to be as good as he looks right now, the team will once again start drawing 67,000-72,000 fans.

Yes, tickets against USC cost more than tickets against Idaho, but not by much – I’m pretty sure there isn’t a major difference in price between them in my season ticket package. What they charge on an individual ticket basis I don’t know, but I really doubt this was about Woodward ducking better teams for the sake of a guaranteed win – if he could’ve scheduled a bottom-rung FBS team and had it make sense financially, he would’ve done so.

As for the examples of the past under DJ, I sure don’t recall hearing people grumbling about us playing those weak Division-1 teams, and I really don’t think there’s much actual difference in playing an Eastern Washington in 2011 vs. playing Pacific in 1980.

I agree that it sucks to lose the rare distinction of never playing a lower division program, but this athletic department is scrambling for money, and this is something that isn’t as important as keeping the department from being in the red and having to consider more cut backs.

by kirkd on Oct 7, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions

The saddest words: "what could have been..."

This is more an argument for the way the BYU games were handled than it is an argument against playing patsies, per se, though I do oppose playing opponents in lower-divisions.

If the Eastern and Portland State games sell out, then the financial case will have been made. But if you run the numbers, accounting for cancellation fees, TV revenue, patsy bribes, concessions and so on, one BYU home game that sells out could, theoretically, bring in approximately the same overall revenue as two patsy games if those patsies are in a half empty stadium. Yes, it is a big “if,” but it is a remote possibility.

They are banking on the cream puff games having big crowds. They have to be. They paid to get out of the BYU games, then paid to get into the cream puff games.

The argument is moot, really. Fans will either show up or they won’t. The only thing that is certain is the games will not be as good. They will likely produce slightly more revenue than the BYU games would have, but they could also lose money relative to the BYU games.

If they wanted to add a home game in 2012, why not negotiate with BYU to move that game to a future season, leaving us with a better home game in 2011 and an intact home and away series with a quality opponent? Part of the benefit of adding the home game in 2012 is offset by losing a superior home game in 2011 with BYU.

If that hypothetical better BYU home game in 2011 were a sell out and televised, that, along with the fee for traveling to BYU for the away game, would make the two BYU games versus the two patsy games essentially a financial wash, unless the patsy games sold out and the BYU home game was a dud. Which seems more likely? Since we can’t monitor parallel universes, we’ll never know.

If Locker leaves early, the Eastern game won’t even be the debut of Price or Montana and we’ve already seen Fouch play. If they are struggling to sell tickets to the Arizona and Oregon games this season, what is going to sell tickets to the Eastern and Portland State games? The people who care about seeing the backups play will already be there, regardless. The students won’t be in town, the band won’t be there, the game should be a blowout, no big game buzz…

The BYU home game would likely have had Jake Heaps playing and maybe Nick Montana. Both teams might be ranked. Who knows? ESPN’s GameDay might have even shown up for it. I doubt it, but we’ll never know now. That’s one of the invisible opportunity costs associated with playing cupcakes. We’ll never know what could have been. Like the recruit who doesn’t become inspired by our impressive schedule or doesn’t see a big game on TV because it was backed out of in favor of a patsy or the potential donor who doesn’t get excited.

There may not be much difference between playing Eastern now versus Pacific thirty years ago, but that doesn’t mean that we necessarily have to play at that level.
Where do we draw the line? Just for the sake of making my point, if Reed College was willing to play us in exchange for some gas money, should we? How about Cal Tech? At what point do we say this is too embarrassing?

How many games against good teams might we not win because we prepared against lower-division opponents? Could it cost us a bowl game and the revenue associated with that? Are we being penny wise and pound foolish? Is part of Cal’s problem that they warmed up against Eastern Washington? We’ll never know. There is really no way to answer these questions in a way that will convince or satisfy anyone.

What I know for certain is that I wanted to see the Huskies play BYU and it isn’t going to happen. Regardless of the greater arguments for or against playing patsies, I think the BYU series could have been salvaged with some creativity. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. They just preferred to buy a couple of wins. I hope it was worth it.

by Scott Frost on Oct 8, 2009 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions

I forgot to mention that part of the equation is the fact that weaker schedules cannot possibly help season ticket sales. It isn’t just about those particular games. And, heaven forbid we should lose… That won’t happen, but it’s nightmare scenario stuff to contemplate.

by Scott Frost on Oct 8, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions

I agree that scheduling lower-division teams doesn’t help season ticket sales. But the quality of the OOC teams on the home schedule is far less important in driving season ticket sales than the quality (or perceived quality) of the Dawgs. If the team is winning, they will sell a lot of season tickets, regardless of which OOC teams they play at home.

They might sell less single game tickets for games against Eastern Washington and Portland State, but I’d be shocked if they don’t between 60-65,000 for each – Sark appears to be a guy that can turn this program around, and I’d expect both the 2011 & 2012 squads to be bowl contenders, and thus sell a lot of tickets.

by kirkd on Oct 8, 2009 8:39 PM PDT up reply actions

Half Empty Stadium?

Expect at least 60,000 in a worst case scenario.

By the way season ticket sales will increase quite a bit over the next couple of years.

by John Berkowitz on Oct 8, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions

John and kirkd --

You are both probably right. I think my disappointment at not getting the see the BYU games got to me a bit and I tend to consider worst case scenarios a lot. Not John’s 60,000 worst case, but the less realistic, really, REALLY worst cases that never actually happen.

I agree about Sark being a great coach and a very charismatic guy. I just love him and I hope he’s our coach for many years to come. Holt, too. (Should I say Holt is awesome or would that be pushing it?) :)

I kind of have a thing about beating BYU ever since they got ranked #1 after playing a 6-5 Michigan team in their bowl game the year we beat Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl. “Let it go, Scott. Let it go…”

by Scott Frost on Oct 9, 2009 2:32 AM PDT up reply actions

I don’t think that backing out of the BYU games cost us any money – based off of Bob’s reports, it sounds like the UW had an option to cancel those games, and there’s been no mention that the UW had to pay BYU to do so.

I’d be more worried about whether playing patsies would harm the UW’s preparation for the rest of the season if we were playing only patsies. Playing patsies doesn’t seem to have harmed Florida or LSU any.

by kirkd on Oct 8, 2009 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions

I know what you mean. Sometimes it seems to hurt and sometimes it doesn’t. I guess I’m just a worrier. :)

by Scott Frost on Oct 9, 2009 2:23 AM PDT up reply actions

Scott

You have to realize that only USC, UCLA, and Notre Dame are left in addition to Washington. Expect all but Notre Dame to follow suit in the near future. Notre Dame had to switch to a semi alliance with the Big East to avoid it…just a reality of the current game.

by John Berkowitz on Oct 7, 2009 7:05 AM PDT up reply actions

BYU games

Another thing to consider is that Jake Heaps likely will be at quarterback for BYU in 2011 and/or 2012. I really would have liked to have seen those games.

The WSU Cougs — the other Cougars — might have a tougher strength of schedule in 2011 and 2012 than Washington, were it not for the fact that we play them.

by Scott Frost on Oct 6, 2009 11:28 PM PDT reply actions

I got an e-mail from a friend of mine, who’s a BYU fan, with the subject “Is Sarkisian afraid of Jake Heaps?” and linking to an article in the Salt Lake Tribune about our backing out of that 2011-12 commitment.

I know my friend was joking, but the old saying “there is much truth in jest” must be considered, even if it’s just perception. The perception is that were afraid of the competition. But I also realize that the perception is about the change, and in two years no-one is going to care any more. The “everyone is doing it” argument is valid, in that it doesn’t affect bowl eligibility and, for the most part, doesn’t affect rankings.

I know it’s not going to chance anything, but I would like to write a polite e-mail to Woodward and Emmert concerning these changes. Anyone know their e-mail addresses?

by NeuroDawg on Oct 7, 2009 3:27 AM PDT reply actions

Is Sark afraid of Heaps?

Nope…the athletic department is afraid of only playing five home games in a single season. That is why the changes were made.

by John Berkowitz on Oct 7, 2009 7:08 AM PDT up reply actions

Woodward's e-mail address

NeuroDawg — According to GoHuskies.com, Scott Woodward’s email address is

huskyad@u.washington.edu

I don’t know Emmert’s. I wrote to Woodward and Sark, but I don’t think they’re listening.

by Scott Frost on Oct 7, 2009 8:28 AM PDT up reply actions

that is so silly, it cannot even be commented on.

Afraid of BYU after having the likes of LSU, Oklahoma, USC, Cal, Oregon, Notre Dame and Boise St on our schedule the last two seasons? Please.

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.

by Gekko Mojo on Oct 7, 2009 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions

Not Broken

Yep, things are improving these days. So why tinker w/ the schedule after agreements had been made? Looks like administrators & managers with not enough to do, and out-thinking themselves once again.

by Go Viks! on Oct 7, 2009 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions

The ONLY good thing

about this is that it provides money to lower division teams that need that revenue stream to help maintain their athletic dept’s. Other than that its a horrible idea.

Just my two cents

by bigdave967 on Oct 7, 2009 6:02 AM PDT reply actions

Dave

It is no different than when we used to play Santa Barbara, Pacific, Bowling Green in the 1970’s. 85 scholarships and parity have changed the landscape.

by John Berkowitz on Oct 7, 2009 7:22 AM PDT up reply actions

Why Not CWU?

Sure, it defintely helps out the athletic departments at EWU and PSU if we play them, and that might be some of the local politics behind these scheduling decisons. For that matter then, why not play Central? The Widlcats are now 6-0 and ranked 5th in D-2, with plenty of former D-1 players on theit team. (D-2 is going to be getting much more competitive with the recent changes of NCAA tranfer player rules.) And Ellensburg certainly needs all the help they can get to keep this program going.

Now I am not serious, but do we see were this type of thinking can go?

The point that is not yet coming up is trying to figure out what the players want, as it really is mostly about them if we want to enjoy a great team. Maybe the coaches and others might worry a bit about our players getting beat up pretty good when playing against more competitive teams? And I guess it never hurts to win as many games as we can. But I’m pretty sure that we get the best recruits bye having the toughest schedule our administration can put together. The players are not afraid to play any other teams, the bigger they are, the harder we can fall them. The big risk in playing EWU and PSU, or CWU one day for that matter, is that the players will not be any too interested in these games, and if we do not become a top ten+ team team again in doing this, our recuiting is going to suffer.

I just don’t see how “dumbing it down” ever works for anything in the longrun. Go ahead and scedule the EWU’s in the future if that is what you want to do, but backing our of our BYU games was a mistake that will come with some big costs.

by Go Viks! on Oct 7, 2009 8:22 AM PDT up reply actions

I love the tradition

but I think you a few of us our over reacting just a bit. Right now, only 4 out of 120 teams don’t play lower level teams, and it looks like 3 of the 4 will be scheduling lower level teams in the near future. Notre Dame plays 2-3 service academy’s every season, that’s as good as playing a FCS school or two.

Our schedule will be plenty tough in the future. As long as we are in the PAC10 and schedule out of conference games against Nebraska, Wisconsin, LSU and other top programs we will have absolutely no problem getting into a championship game. Until recently I’ve been completely against playing FCS teams, but lately I’ve gotten to the point that we are making life too tough on ourselves, nobody else is holding themself to the high standard we are, so what’s the point??

My only concern is the gameday environment, first game of the year in early September, no band, very few students, and a smaller crowd due to the weak opponent, sounds like a recipe for being very bland!!

"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"

by Lear Pilot on Oct 7, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions

BYU

I don’t know if it is a mistake. When decisions are made like this both athletic departments get together and concur on what is best. If BYU waned to force the issue and wanted to make a fuss I doubt the change would have been made. Something makes me think it is in the best interest of both schools.

by John Berkowitz on Oct 7, 2009 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions

Mutual decision? Maybe...

There is an article in Deseret News wherein Bronco Mendenhall seems perplexed as to why Washington wanted to drop the games, but he didn’t seem upset about it, either. They can schedule some less challenging teams themselves — but not too much less. BYU still has to try to impress poll voters more than a school like Washington does if they want a BCS bowl game.

by Scott Frost on Oct 7, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions

Bronco doesn't make those calls

They can schedule less challenging teams and come out ahead with more home games. That is really what it is all about. I have nothing against BYU but I would rather play a Big 12 or Big 10 opponent.

by John Berkowitz on Oct 7, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions

Jump or Scroll

makes no difference to me. I read everything on the blog almost every day.

Regarding playing small schools: I remember back in (I think) the PAC-5 days of early Jim Owens we used to play Idaho and (then) College of the Pacific… both considered patsies. Sometimes they surprised. I remember one year when COP had a great running back named Dick Bass. Everyone in the student section was screaming “Grab Bass!!!” the whole game. It was quite amusing.

Mush you Huskies!!! GO DAWGS!!!

Expect to Win!!!

by OLDDOG on Oct 7, 2009 10:44 AM PDT reply actions

Nick Rowland

BTW- You were right John. Roland committed to Oregon. Damn!

Expect to Win!!!

by OLDDOG on Oct 7, 2009 10:49 AM PDT reply actions

Too bad...

The facilities really swayed him even though he had a deep love of Coach Cozzetto. Keep an eye on Micah Hatchie. He is better than Rowland and I think UW has the inside track on him.

by John Berkowitz on Oct 7, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions

Hatchie

I’m glad to hear that about Hatchie. Is there anyone else out there who is comparable or better than Rowland, besides Hatchie? I’m at the mercy of the scouting web site and they obviously make mistakes.

Unrelated trivia question: John, do you happen to know where Steve Emtman was rated coming out of high school?

by Scott Frost on Oct 7, 2009 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions

Emtman

Steve was a three star. You have to remember that the type of coverage available now wasn’t being offered back then.

by John Berkowitz on Oct 7, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions

Games to WIN!

I say we show these kids that chosing Cal and Oregon was the wrong decisions. We need to make a statement and beat both Oregon and Cal. That way we can give both Rowland and Carter something to think about.

The season isn’t over- not by a long shot. We still have plenty of games that are winnable on the sched.

Looking forward to the Oct. 24th showdown. WOOF!!!

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Oct 7, 2009 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions

Like Sark Said....

…every game the rest of the way is winnable. GO DAWGS!!

Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!

by dawgfan22 on Oct 7, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions

After thinking about this for the past day

I’ve decided that I like this decision. The biggest pro in my mind is that we get to bring a team into Husky Stadium that we should be able to tune up against, get our younger guys some reps, stay healthy and most importantly beat.

Bottom line is that there’s no reason for us to be playing 2 or 3 teams like BYU, Oklahoma, Boise State, Ohio State, LSU or Notre Dame every year, and the easiest way to accomplish that while keeping the max number of home games on the schedule is to occasionally go down to FCS for a game.

This is a good decision for the program going forward. Remember, teams like Florida play FCS teams every year, and they almost never leave the state of Florida for a non-conference game, yet nobody holds it against them.

by thecassino on Oct 7, 2009 12:19 PM PDT reply actions

And let's not forget

That in two seasons time we’ll (ideally) be breaking in a new QB, and a game against Eastern will be an excellent opportunity for Montana/Price/Fouch to get his feet wet.

by thecassino on Oct 7, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions

That will work out REALLY well.

That should turn into one of the best “under the radar” advantages to this move.

"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"

by Lear Pilot on Oct 7, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions

Just a sign of the Times

One big out of conference game per year is enough. you need to set yourself up to be at least 2-1 coming out of conference play. Scheduling LSU and Notre Dame in the same year really doesn’t get that done. All this stuff runs in cycles.

by John Berkowitz on Oct 7, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions

I think...

…it was pretty much inevitable given the changes in the college football landscape. The Pac-10 needs to follow suit on some of the things the SEC and Big-10 are doing.

Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!

by dawgfan22 on Oct 7, 2009 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions

TV rules

if you are a TV darling and everyone wants to watch you (higher game rating) it does not matter who you play. Florida, Miami, USC and UCLA are big market schools and in high demand. Money rules it is no longer for the game.
I dropped my season tickets when they went to afternoon and night games but there are many TV football channels and more coming so the Huskies will always be in demand unless they go 0 for 12 again.

by Purpledawg on Oct 7, 2009 9:27 PM PDT up reply actions

A dilemma just popped up with the future schedule

Decmber 7, 2013 the Huskies are playing Hawai’i on Oahu.

That day is my 50th wedding anniversary. I need to convince the boss we should celebrate in Hawai’i.

Jack

by T9ODawg on Oct 7, 2009 2:06 PM PDT reply actions

by Lear Pilot on Oct 8, 2009 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions

I want to go because it’s another chance to go to Hawai’i. I can sell it to the wife on the premise that we can visit relatives in Kailua and then hop a plane for Kaua’i, our favorite island.

by kirkd on Oct 8, 2009 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions