The Monday Morning Wash
With the craziness of signing day over it was nice to take a week off from blogging and the computer in general to spend a week down in the sunny British Virgin Islands. We were supposed to have WiFi and did have it for short periods but the dial up connection speeds didn't even allow us to keep up with email let alone surf the web.
One interesting thing I did hear post signing day was that Josh Shirley was pretty close to being a Husky. At around 9:30 in the morning it looked like that was the way the cards were going to fall. Steve Sarkisian even moved his press conference back 45 minutes in anticipation that he was going to pick UW. In the end Shirley flip flopped about thirty seconds before he went on TV and picked UCLA rather than Washington. I am not so sure that it was simply about UW or UCLA...sounds to me it was more about staying home or going away from home.
Basketball
One glance at the Pac 10 basketball standings shows that the Huskies are still couple of games out of the lead which means there is a zero margin for error the rest of the reason. The rest of the schedule however is favorable with the two LA schools coming to Seattle followed by a road trip to the Willamette Valley and Pullman. Realistically if the Huskies don't win the conference title they need to finish with at least 22 wins and get to the tournament finals to have serious shot of being considered.
Another blip I noticed while I was gone is that Enes Kanter has opened up his recruitment again. Washington is still in it but he wants to continue looking around before he signs. In the end he just might end up in the NBA because the NCAA is going to question his participation on a pro team in Europe.
Pac 10 Expansion
The most notable league news of the week happened last Monday when Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott hired former Big Ten deputy commissioner and Big 12 commissioner Kevin Weiberg as the Pac-10's chief operating officer. Weiberg spent a decade working with Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and after eight years with the Big 12, he returned in 2007 to oversee the Big Ten Network start-up. The hiring of Weiberg means the conference is serious about exploring expansion and at the very least forming their own TV network.
The buzz going around is that Missouri will leave the Big 12 to join the Big 10 if asked and Colorado could possibly join the Pac 10 in tandem with Utah. There is no question that Utah would jump if asked but the incentive for Colorado at this point is less than clear since most of their traditional rivals are in the Big 12.
As far as a conference TV network is concerned the Pac 10 likely won't be doing it on its own. The ACC and the possibly about to be plundered Big 12 are candidates to partner with the Pac 10 in the venture. Keep a sharp eye focused on Texas. The Big 10 is currently in discussions with the Longhorns. Texas is in the mood to start shopping itself around.
John Wilner has this take on Pac 10 expansion.
Have heard, read and seen a load of speculation about which schools the Pac-10 would add if it does expand (presumably to 12 teams, but if the Big Ten goes to 16, then all hell might break loose).
The Lawrence Journal-World is reporting that the Big Ten is talking to Texas. If UT bolts the Big 12, then obviously that would have huge financial implications for that league and could potentially spur Colorado to jump to the Pac-10.
My take is that the Pac 10 could be looking at expansion right now as more of a form of a survival mode. In a perfect world the conference is happy and balanced with ten teams. The league would take Colorado and Texas in a heartbeat but a move to add Utah and Colorado would bring in the #18 and #31 TV markets, seal the door of intrusion at the Continental Divide, and effectively keep the Mountain West from gaining ground on the Pac 10. It wouldn't however significantly raise revenues for the existing conference members which is the only reason you should be considering expansion in the first place.
This week I will take a closer look at expansion from a national scope since it seems to be the hot topic of the moment. If the Big 10 goes to 12 teams I don't think it will have much of a ripple effect. If they make the move to 16 teams all hell will certainly break lose.
Stadium
On the legislative front the so called Husky stadium bill moved forward House Finance committee after a 6-3 vote. The only hitch in the plan is that the way the bill is currently written it will not include renovations to Husky Stadium, Key Arena or future maintenance for Safeco Field. The House wants to keep the tax going indefinitely but starting in 2012, the money would be redirected to the arts, low-income housing, tourism promotion and a host of other projects to be determined by King County.
It just shows you how shortsighted the politico's in Olympia are. Maintaining the Puget Sound area's sports infrastructure is a wise investment that needs to be made now and in the future. The tourist tax is a great and painless way to achieve that goal. Diverting the tax for other uses it was never intended for is simply an example of political hijacking. UW backers in the House could still seek to amend the bill to allow help for Husky Stadium.
Jim Sterk Bails
WSU's Jim Sterk is headed off the San Diego to become the new Aztec AD. Sterk did a credible job while in Pullman but the pressures of running an under funded athletic department in a competitive BCS conference apparently took its toll. San Diego State isn't exactly a lateral move. Moving from the BCS to a school in a non BCS conference with plenty of challenges of its own is a curious move. San Diego isn't exactly a cheap place to live either. Nick Daschel had these comments.
There’s no question Washington State is the worst job in the Pac-10, and Sterk was about to run into some serious obstacles during the next 18 months. He works with the smallest budget in the Pac-10, and the department’s money maker – the football program – is going through its roughest patch in history. Martin Stadium is in need of an expensive upgrade, and Cougar boosters aren’t exactly emptying their wallets onto Sterk’s desk.
0 recs |
26 comments
|
Comments
This weeks USC game is a biggie.
The Dawgs need to bring their A game and the DawgPack needs to get into the USCs players heads early and often. We just do not match up well with USC athletically, so if we can win this one we will be in good shape entering the tourney. Of course, I am counting on sweeping the remaining games, UCLA, WSU, Ore, Ore St. Absolutely cannot afford to drop one of those. Go 5-0 or 4-1 in the last 5 games and I think the Dawgs will need to make the final round in Pac10 tourney. Go 3-2 and the only way left is to win the Pac 10 tourney, a tough assignment.
When is our government going to learn???
What is it about politicians and the need to raise taxes?? First our great legislature decides they don’t need to listen to the people, or the rules, and are going to raise taxes without our approval. Then they take a specific tax that was suppose to end, which was created to fund stadiums, and now they are going to EXTEND it eternally and not spend a penny of it on it’s original purpose: SPORTS!!!! When will our state government learn? When will they represent the PEOPLE!!!!
Last one out of town: Turn off the lights!!!!
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
I think you will find that the renovation of Husky Stadium using public funds isn’t all that popular with the majority of the population.
I think they should end the tax if they are not going to use it for its original purpose which was to fund sports stadiums.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 15, 2010 11:25 AM PST up reply actions
If they don’t use it for sports, kill the tax instead of using it for pet projects.
I think if they continue the taxes, they need to be allocated towards things that have some connection to how those taxes are generated in the first place – tourism. I can see funding the convention center, museums and sports stadiums. The rest of it is pet projects, and however worthy, they should be funded through other means.
Hopefully the amendment to prevent spending on public sports facilities is just political gamesmanship to get it out of committee and the amendment will be repealed in the general assembly.
Exactly
I have no problem if they don’t want to fund the stadium, as long as they END the tax.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
First our great legislature decides they don’t need to listen to the people, or the rules, and are going to raise taxes without our approval
I don’t want to turn this into a political debate, but the legislature is doing this because it is within the rules – after 2 years, initiatives can be suspended.
I fully understand the anger at them doing so, but let’s be clear – them suspending the initiative is not against the rules.
Thanks for the clarification.
It might be within the rules, but there is no question that it goes completely against what the voters wanted. The voters were quite clear, stop raising taxes.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
? for johnb
John, do you think Sterk was forced out at WSU or did he just beat the rush by seeing the handwriting on the wall with his relationship with WSU admin? Either way, it looks bad for Wulff next years end. I think the next ADs to go will be Garret at USC and the Furd AD.
Writing on the wall
I think he saw the writing on the wall from what I have read. He made two bad football hires in a row…you usually don’t get a third chance. I think he was smart to make the jump to SDSU which could represent a lot more upside over time. At least personal upside. If he has success he can use it as a jumping off place for another BCS opportunity.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 15, 2010 11:23 AM PST up reply actions
And the lack of fundraising success didn't help him
Contract was up in 2011 and he couldn’t quite get over the hump with stadium fundraising. Not a better time to jump, or better place, then now.
Head coaches everywhere nod in approval
by cougfan on Feb 15, 2010 2:42 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Bill Moos
What do you think of him going to WSU?
When is his non-compete done with Oregon?
by PandG on Feb 16, 2010 9:08 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
There is still plenty of time left on the non compete so the Cougs would have to come up with some big bucks to buy it out.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 16, 2010 9:20 AM PST up reply actions
Paying 200K means he's working for free
For PandG, the details are 7 years, 1.4 million dollars. So, 200K a year that he’s being paid not to work goes away if he takes a BCS job west of the Mississippi. So, WSU has to pay well above the 200k for it to be worth it for him to work.
Is it worth it? I think it probably is, especially if he can start pulling in the donors needed
think it would be in their best interest
To consider hiring him.
Personally I would like to see WSU strong again.
We were at our best when they were at their best.
Didn’t see the Bud Withers article before posting this a.m.
by PandG on Feb 16, 2010 12:37 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Sounds like WSU is making a serious run at him
What’s going on Wednesday isn’t an interview, it’s a full on recruiting trip with WSU trying to woo Moos.
I agree it’s better when both Washington schools are strong. It’s in both schools best interest.
WSU wants Moos
They just need to come up with the $1.4 million he is guaranteed from Oregon to buy out his contract. Once that is done they need to pay him a competitive salary.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 16, 2010 2:11 PM PST up reply actions
Luckily it isn't a buyout
So we have to at least pay him that 1.4 (300k over 5 years or something like that), with a salary on top. I’m assuming this is going to cost half a million+ a year which, in my opinion, would be worth it.
Word last night was there are donors willing to step up to pay him that 1.4 million which is a good sign for us. One, it takes the pressure off the university and allows them to just deal with the salary. Two, it shows the donors are serious about Moos and could be a good sign.
no $ for Husky Stadium
hb 2912 passed with no repeal on the amendment restricting funds for hs or the “safe.”
Here's the link
From reading the bill’s history, there was an explicit amendment that says, in essence, no money may be used for state university stadiums.
It still needs to get through the Senate
It still can be ammended in the Senate but things don’t look good right now.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 16, 2010 8:02 PM PST up reply actions
True
It could go that way then go through reconciliation afterwards. It seems like this is all happening very quietly this time, with almost nothing coming from UW outwardly at least
Politics can be interesting
You never know exactly what you have till the bill is signed.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 16, 2010 8:08 PM PST up reply actions
It seems like things changed quite a few times just today
All the maneuvering with the bill is interesting. Personally, I think they should just kill the taxes instead of using them just for low income housing and the arts. We’ll have to wait and see what all happens though.

by 













