Puppy Chow
by John Berkowitz on Apr 6, 2010 6:14 AM PDT
Email
PrintDE Peter Follmer has made a strong early impression with his overall strength. He also won't cost the football team a scholarship, as he was a walk on in the track and field program.
DE Clarence Trent's Husky football career may have taken an interesting turn with his Twitter account is stating he is through with the football experiment after only three practices. That may or not be true, as kids frequently enjoy fooling around on their Twitter accounts with bogus messages. We will see if he is out on the field for practice later today.
LB Alvin Logan is up to a solid 228 lbs, making him an ideal candidate for the SAM linebacker position. Mason Foster played the position last season, but has been moved outside to WIL this spring. Cort Dennison played WIL last season, but has moved over to MLB.
WR Cody Bruns has taken over as the holder on kicks this spring. Though Bruns hasn't had much a of a shot at WR, this move puts a very dangerous player on the field. Bruns has an accurate arm and that will come into play on fourth down and two point conversion opportunities.
RB Demetrius Bronson is now in the 230 range, making him a logical choice to move the pile in short yardage situations. The problem for Bronson so far has simply been holding on to the ball. His goal this spring is to eliminate fumbles, or he will fall behind Callier and Cooper on the depth chart.
Coach Sark has been visiting the fraternities and dorms this spring to stir up the enthusiasm for Husky Football. The reception has been good and the sales of student tickets have increased.
The University of Oregon will hold a press conference today to try to explain the 2.3 million dollar outgoing AD Mike Bellotti received as severance for less than a year on the job. The Oregon State Attorney General's office is investigating the payment.
Washington State Cougar's senior defensive tackle Toby Turpin has been expelled from school over an undisclosed academic incident.
A ruling from the NCAA infractions committee on alleged extra benefits provided by would-be sports agents to former USC running back Reggie Bush and other allegations is expected sometime this month. The feeling out there is the penalties will be significant even though the new Trojan coaching staff has been playing down the potential impacts to recruits.
We will have more after practice this evening.
52 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Sark
Visiting Greek row doesn’t strike me as the actions of a man using his current job as a stepping stone. I think he plans on being here for a long time.
I think UW has about anything a quality coach would need when it comes to building a dynasty of some sorts. I think if you asked Rick Neuheisel where he had it best at the answer would be Washington. Sure it is nice to recruit in LA but being in the direct shadow of USC and playing your home games off campus is a problem.
I think it is pretty obvious that Sark is happy here…the proof would be that he didn’t show interest in the USC job.
by John Berkowitz on Apr 6, 2010 6:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Agreed John the Washington Husky head football coaching job is a Great job!
I’d put it right behind the USC Trojan head football coaching job in our league. Your resources are unlimited at the Seattle-based university. The idea is to use those resources to your advantage and I think Steve Sarkisian is doing just that. Others who have come and gone i.e. Neuheisel took advantage of the valuable resources, neglected some of our traditions, and truthfully didn’t respect his profession enough during his time here. I don’t see any of that sort of stuff going on under Sarkisian. On the other hand Tyrone Willingham didn’t use those resources enough.
Sark isn’t going to consider any other jobs until he has his Huskies playing on Jan. 1st in Pasadena. As USC out-going offensive coordinator, Sark said he’d be back soon in the Rose Bowl. I beleive Sark is a man of his word. Yet once Sark gets the Dawgs to the Rose Bowl that is when I become a little apprehensive about how long he’ll be here. Yet once you have a dynasty going, it’s rather difficult to look elsewhere.
Sark will be here for quite some time.
All I saw was purple
Most agree... except a small bone of contention.
not “unlimited resources.” But a very large limit… but I do agree.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Apr 8, 2010 1:41 AM PDT up reply actions
"unlimited resources"
That was more or less an analogy. USC, Ucla, and Washignton have the most resources available. Yet Oregon is better funded go figure…
All I saw was purple
TYEE
At the same time the Administration is taking away student seating and selling the seats to the TYEES. Does that make sense???
Students have had their section since way before my time there in the fifties.
Money wins games.
If we want to get back on top, we need more money. Money for the stadium, for the locker rooms . . . .
Look what money has done for Oregon, it took a nobody little program in the middle of Oregon and made them a contender. As much as people hate to admit it, it’s all about money. Money talks, and it wins championships.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
Yet the Legislature has spoken
To bring in money requires winning first. I’d like to throw out a question here. If we were winning, sharing, and contending for league championships do you suppose the state legislature would be more willing to opt in on the Husky Stadium rennovation project? I don’t know the answer to that one, but maybe they do.
The bottom line is this. Oregon didn’t receive their funding from Nike CEO Phil Knight before Oregon started winning. It doesn’t work that way. Folks are hesitant of putting money into something that doesn’t work or doesn’t have a decent return investment. We have to have a product to sell to prospective doners and state legislature for that matter. Win and all gets fixed- it’s Economics 101.
The only thing I hope doesn’t occur is to sell the naming rights of Husky Stadium. Bring in marketable uniforms for promotional purposes and find alternative ways to market the program, but don’t sell the naming rights to this football cathedral.
All I saw was purple
Actually . . .
It was Phil Knights money that help take Oregon for a nobody to a somebody. I bet you could do a graph of Oregon wins compared to Phil Knights donations, and it would be scary how similar they would be.
I do agree on Husky Stadium. No quantity of money is worth giving away naming rights to Husky Stadium.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
The year was 1994
And Rich Brooks got Oregon to the 1995 Rose Bowl. Mike Belloti was his top assistant who took over after Brooks went looking for a bigger paycheck. I remember that year because that was the season Oregon copied Washington by finally taking off the sport stripes on their unifiorms. Remember the Gang Green Defense?
Oregon has slowly progressed from Rich Brooks final season at Eugene. This Oregon thing didn’t explode, back then Oregon athletics wasn’t funded nearly as well as Washington’s, that would explain why Brooks took off looking for more money. Bellotti took over for Brooks and the thing never was the same. Essentially Oregon became what Washington was for generations. When did Phil Knight come into the picture? I believe he became completely engaged with Oregon athletics when Oregon switched from their no athletic striped unnies to the sporty motorcycle helmet and trendy uniforms (Harrington era) that went hideous virtually over night.
Phil Knight wasn’t whispering Rich Brooks sweet nothing in his ear like he has with Bellotti and Chipper. But the Oregon movement began during the 94 campaign and lost to Penn State in the 95 Rose Bowl.
All I saw was purple
except that Rich Brooks took Oregon to a Rose Bowl ...
…. a feat never replicated by Mike Bellotti.
I also don’t remember it as Rich Brooks leaving to chase the money. He wanted a shot at the NFL and took it.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
The student section has not been touched.
by John Berkowitz on Apr 6, 2010 8:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Mike Moser transferring from UCLA
In the article his old HS coach says that he believes UW and WSU are high on Moser’s list.
Another thing, he’s also good friends with Terrance Jones, maybe a Moser, Jones and Ross package to UW? Just a thought.
http://blog.oregonlive.com/pac10/2010/04/pac-10_basketball_former_grant.html
Can someone explain this to me?
The Huskies have 13 scholarships. Right now there are 13 people on the roster but Sherrer is a walk on and Pondexter will graduate next year. I see that as leaving 2 potential Scholarships. One is filled by Desmond Simmons. That leaves one Scholarship available If Sherrer is not awarded a scholarship. How could we possibly do a package deal with Jones, Moser, and Ross; or even Jones and Ross?
There’s currently only 1 additional scholarship available beyond Desmond Simmons. If Trent sticks with football, that will open up an additional scholarship as he’d have to be counted against the football roster if he plays at all. However, I’m skeptical that will happen.
That said, even if Romar signs both Jones and Ross, it may not be a problem because both have some work to do to qualify – Ross much more so than Jones.
And Sherrer is not going to be awarded a scholarship – he knew the deal when he turned out for the team…
Moser to UW never going to happen
… and I’d be shocked if ended up at WSU. Oregon? too unpredictable, but I’d expect him to not stay in the pac 10.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
Yep, I doubt UCLA is going to let him out of his scholarship agreement to go to another Pac-10 school, so he’d have to sit out a year.
Has to sit a year anyway...
UCLA has no choice, and he’d have to sit a year to go anywhere D1.
A signed LOI = sitting a year or going to a lesser level barring unusual/extreme circumstances.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Apr 8, 2010 1:45 AM PDT up reply actions
That isn't the issue
It’s losing two years to an intraconference transfer (it can also be waived, too).
I wasn't aware that was a rule...
Is that a Pac10 thing or NCAA-wide?
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Apr 8, 2010 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Pac-10
Each conference has different intra-conference transfer rules. Ours is sit a year (normal) + lose a year of eligibility on top of that. The caveat is that it can be waived by the school the player is transfering out of or by a vote of 8 ADs.
Sounds like a challenge lawsuit ready to happen...
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Apr 9, 2010 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Trent
Although I liked his phyiscial attributes for football, I thought it was a long shot for him to play football. I think Trent should stick with basketball. The program in in good shape and why would you not want to be a part of that success? Sure it will be tough for him to find playing time on a deep Washington basketball roster, but if he works his butt off who knows.
On a side note I was displeased with CBS last night when they showcased the highlights “One Shiny Momment”. Why the hell didn’t a sweet 16 team get a spot in the highlights? There were some great highlights during our thumping of 3rd seeded New Mexico. I just thought it was a little puzzling that a sweet 16 club didn’t get on the show.
All I saw was purple
Moser might be nice but
even with Romar math there aren’t enough schollies available, esp since it looks like Trent will stay on a bball ride. I think the dawgs need T Jones, Ndaiye more. Ross and Moser while nice to have would just give more problems on playing time. If he wants to stay in Pac10, he should seriously look at WSU with Bone trying to get an uptempo game.
Off subject a tad
But I think Ken Bone’s idea of pushing tempo is a bad move. Dick and Tony Bennett gave WSU all it needed to win. The philosophy of slow tempo and fundamental defense was set up for a marvelous run. I blame Jim Sterk more then Bone, who is an uptempo basketball coach. I thought Sterk should’ve considered taking Dick Bennett’s advise on a replacement for his son, who departed for Virginia.
That slow tempo, stall ball with a shot clock, and fundamental defensive approach was a damn good niche in the Pac 10, where everybody likes to get up the floor and run. WSU doesn’t compete on the same scale as other Pac 10 programs in terms of recruits they can acquire. Cougs are limited, so going with a philosphical matchup problem would create problems for other Pac 10 teams. Now with WSU upping the tempo, it’s apparent that they’ve become a running team like all the rest of the league. The problem I for see is that when everybody runs an uptempo system, it comes down to athletes. And the better assembled athletes are going to win 8 times out of 10. Bad move on WSU’s behalf. Quick success, with no vision leads to bad decision making and Jim Sterk dropped the ball!
All I saw was purple
Not everybody in the Pac-10 runs.
USC, ASU and OSU play pretty slow, and everybody else besides Washington and Arizona are average.
Washington, Arizona, Cal, Oregon, and occassionally USC and Ucla play uptempo. Bothe USC and Ucla can play in both tempos and win and I thinkt he reason why they can is because they recruit towards both styles. They have kids that flourish in the half court and they have kids that flourish in the open court.
Romar wants 40 minutes of hell and recruits for speed, we are the only program that exclusively recruits the way UNLV and Arkansas use to play.
All I saw was purple
And the numbers dont match up with you
UW is the only school that runs. Arizona plays quicker. The rest are average to really slow
by Brian Floyd on Apr 6, 2010 5:25 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Who's judging?
Did you read or merely skim? I didn’t blame Ken Bone, coaches don’t like to change what they do best. I put the blame squarely on your departed ex AD Jim Sterk. Allow me to rephrase. From an outsiders perspective and a loyal Husky fan, I beleive Dick and Tony Bennett had something good going on with the way they established tempo. Moreover I thought they injected the program with a great defense-first approach. Clearly playing great defense will reward the team with more possessions i.e. turnovers, rebounding, and forcing ill-advised shots by the opposition.
And when you have that sort of philosophy you don’t necessarily have to recruit the best of the best players. You can get a couple guys like Robbie Cowgill and Derek Lowe, add in a decent athletic player or two like Kyle Weaver who buys into the philosophy.
Yet when you are bringing in an uptempo offense, usually (not always), but usually you have to begin recruiting differently, where going after the more athletic basketball player is more or less a necessity in such offense. Those types of kids don’t grow on trees and the more established programs tend to have the luxury of picking and choosing. The NW is flooded with uptempo offenses. Washington, Oregon, and Gonzaga all run some sort of uptempo system. Is their enough room for WSU to compete going in basically the same direction?
I think Ken Bone is a helluva coach, but I am not sold on the idea that an uptempo system is right for WSU at this time. Right now it seems the NW is flooded with that system. And make room for Seattle U too. It’s a bet that Cameron Dollar is going to push the ball as well.
P.S. you guys are taking the “run” thing and stretching it in regards to how I expressed the word. Run means an uptempo offense. Anything more then what the Bennetts used is uptempo and I think it’s the wrong direction to go.
All I saw was purple
Tempo
Washington’s tempo was 10th fastest in the nation this year.
Arizona 76th
Cal 134th
WSU 155th
Stanford 158th
Oregon 174th
UCLA 244th
USC 307th
OSU 324th
ASU 326th
The only two that are uptempo are Washington and Arizona. Everyone else is average or slow.
Now how the hell is that calculated?
Do they go by total points scored? Do they check each players 40 time? C’mon you can’t measure tempo, too many variables to consider.
All I saw was purple
Seems like a psuedo-science if you ask me.
Does it consider many variables that can effect possessions such as:
1. No. of slow tempo opponents on the schedule.
2. Foul trouble to key members of the basketball team.
3. turnover margin.
4. Poor officiating.
5. Ill-advised coaching decisions.
6. The current Health of key members of the team (flu, stomach virus, knee, rib, and ankle injuries).
7. Odd scheduling (having more road games then home games).
8. Team preparation.
9. The psch of key players on the team i.e. is their bitterness amongst players for undisclosed reasons, players homesick, players worried about a mid term exam.
10. Personal- such as social issues.
Each one of these categories to some extent can play a part on how a basketball team plays and I cannot see how you can adequately measure tempo without taking all these and more variables into consideration. If you are just taking from one sample then all you have is a controlled sample. Science doesn’t quite work that way. You have to have a controlled sample and an uncontrolled sample to compare and you must be able to test the hypothesis again. The scientific community will reject your study if only using a controlled sample. You have to cosider all variables for it to be proven not false.
All I saw was purple
Yikes
The only one of those that actually matters in the sample size of an entire season is number 1. The rest mean nothing at all in terms of basketball and tempo.
Your answer is here:
Tempo: We can estimate possessions very well from box score stats by using this formula: FGA-OR+TO+0.475xFTA.
For each team, possessions are counted for the team and their opponents, and then averaged. A team’s average tempo is total possessions divided by minutes. This value is then adjusted for schedule, considering the preferred pace of each opponent and when each game was played
Link
Not buying it
What happens if Washington loses Quincy Pondextor and IT for a 2 week stretch?
Could that variable effect the outcome of total possessions?
What happens if both MBA and Breshears have extensive foul trouble?
Coult that variable effect the outcome of total possessions?
What happens if we run into a slew of poor officated games (it happens)
Could that varible effect the outcome of total possessions?
All of the above variables can effect the outcome of a game, season, and total number of posssessions. Your formula looks impressive on paper, but it is not accurate unless you consider all variables that can effect the outcome.
This is the reason I don’t buy into the BCS formula. How the hell is “strength of schedule” formulated as a variable? If you are going to use strength of schedule then you also have to use “venue” as a variable. Because it is much easier to beat Ohio State at home then in the horseshoe.
All I saw was purple
They eliminated SOS from the BCS formula years ago.
Sagarin still uses it in his poll, but thats only a portion of his poll, which is something like 1/16th of 1/3rd of the formula.
No they didn't...
They eliminated point margin. The reason was to try to curtail coaches from running up the score on smaller and weaker opponents just to get a better BCS score in the so-called formula.
They still use strength of schedule. That is the back bone of the BCS formula and the argument for going with a computer system since before the Washington/Miami national championship debate. Hell the argument for strength of schedule dates back to when Barry Switzer chastized BYU’s strength of schedule in 1984, who claimed a national title over his 2 loss Sooners (thanks to UDub).
Strength of scedule is and has been included in the BCS formula. And if they are going to use strength of schedule as a consistent variable, then I for one believe “venue” is a very important variable that should be included in the formula.
Venue Variable example in BCS formula:
Home victory = 1.0
Neutral site victory = 1.5
Road victory = 2.0
Home loss = -2.0
Neutral site loss = -1.5
Road loss = -1.0
Beating Ohio State on the road should weigh more as a victory then beating them at home.
All I saw was purple
The BCS Formula:
(1/3)Harris Poll + (1/3)Coaches Poll + (1/3) Computer Rankings.
Some computers use SOS, some don’t, but SOS is not an inherent part of the BCS formula.
Who on Earth decided the folks voting in the Harris Poll were experts, who has the knowledge and unbiased opinion to vote consitently without some personal agenda? The Coaches Poll has showed it’s ugly face in terms of favoritism. It has become public knowlege that certain coaches don’t vote, they allow administrators to vote on their behalf. And how many coaches, who actually vote, will vote somebody they’ve beaten higher up in order to move their own numbers up?
And if SOS is not formulated into the computer rankings, then what are some of the consistent varibles in the computer formula?
See the problem with the technology the BCS committee is using, they are attempting to correctly legitimize who is rewarded a shot at the national title. They are attempting to sell us on the notion that all this BCS formula crap is based off scientific numbers- when clearly it is not. Polls are not science. They (the polls) indicate current trends baseed upon what the sampled pop. hypothesises. But current trends do not indicate what may transpire using the scientific method. Example: Global warming. Trends say Global Warming is occuring, but has it been proven not false? Science says no.
The NCAA is a part of higher education and should use a scientific method on how to crown it’s champion. What message are they sending when they use incomplete and biased information and variables to determine who is deserving of playing for a national championship. Clearly Oregon was more deserving of Nebraska a few years ago, but due to some pscuedo-science formula, the computers favored Nebraska, who got clobbered!
I think you settle it on the field- best way and only way to determine a real champion. Yet I am not in favor of a playoff, so let’s get a damn BCS formula working that doesn’t allow biasis in the equation. The only way you can use a BCS formula based on scientific data is to use all variables that can effect a possible outcome. Doing so will legitimize who is worthy to play for a title. Until then, our system is nothing more then psuedo-science and the bad part is higher education is selling us this junk science.
Note: not intended to heckle cassino. I’m merely making a valid point that our current system has many flaws.
All I saw was purple
Crazi ...
…. I know you are old school, my man. however, these newer concepts in sports statistics have a lot of validity and are meaningful. You get a pretty large sample size when you measure a team out over a year. enough to wash out some of the noise that you think might be in the numbers.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
You're already calling him a failure after one year and blaming Sterk
Bad move on WSU’s behalf. Quick success, with no vision leads to bad decision making and Jim Sterk dropped the ball!
How do you know that Bone’s system doesn’t work?
The Bennett system leads to LESS possessions for the team. It was predicated on making the opponent use the whole clock and take a bad shot, not to force turnovers.
WSU is playing 9 possessions faster than under the Bennett’s. Is it a quicker tempo? Yes. Is it running? Not at all. Your idea that the conference is a running conference is way off. In fact, the conference is more defense oriented than running oriented.
No one said it can't work
I said “I think Ken Bone is a helluva coach, but I am not sold on the idea that an uptempo system is right for WSU at this time. Right now it seems the NW is flooded with that system”.
And I will stand by my words. I think WSU had something going great under the Bennett’s style. And I think Sterk should’ve considered going in that same direction. I guess we’ll see how all this plays out in a few years. For the record I am not dissing Bones. I think he’s a helluva coach, but if he plans on going with the grain, he’s got a tough road ahead of him.
All I saw was purple
As I said to one of your earlier posts (which ironically is below this post)...
“I think WSU had something going great under the Bennett’s style. And I think Sterk should’ve considered going in that same direction.”
Uhm, how do you know he didn’t? Simply put, there aren’t a lot of great winning coaches out there. Of those, there are fewer that share the Bennett philosophy. Of those few, how many are available? How many would chose to go to WSU?
Can you at least NAME someone you think they should (and could) have hired instead, who runs a down tempo game and was readily available?
I think they did the best they could. They got a great NW coach with a little bit of “juice” who understands the perils of WSU hoops yet was still willing to take the job, and might just be willing to stick around a while. I’m not sure they could do any better, without continuing their up and down “stepping stone” tradition of the Raveling/Sampson/Bennett past.
I imagine Sterk had high hopes of hiring WSU’s Romar, or Few, a guy that isn’t looking for a stepping stone, but will build the program up and be there— tempo be damned.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Apr 8, 2010 2:03 AM PDT up reply actions
Also..."if he plans on going with the grain, he's got a tough road ahead of him..."
Uhm, it’s WAZZU. ANY grain is a tough road to basketball success. Having talked with Bone personally I like the man and hope he does well, but I have a hard time believing he— or anyone— even the Bennett’s— can have long term success at WSU.
Has anyone proven to have prolonged success there, or hasn’t everyone pretty much used the job and a great player or two’s success to move on to a “better” job.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Apr 8, 2010 2:08 AM PDT up reply actions
You also assume that there are coaches out there that can successfully coach the slower style.
Not to mention that there are people that want to see it… slow grinding basketball can be a thing of beauty, but most of the time it turns into a mushy pile of steaming worthlessness. At least running gives you an intriguing angle.
I don’t think there are 3 coaches in college basketball that can better coach “slow-ball” than the Bennett’s. It was Dick’s thing, and Tony learned from the best. The assumption that just because other teams are recruiting faster teams that WSU could inherently recruit and play slower teams more successfully is begging the question of the ability to find a “slow” coach out there that A) can actually coach at the Pac10 level and compete both on the court and recruiting wise and B) WANTS to coach at WSU.
Bone is a great coach, and great coaches succeed, and fail, depending on opportunity and circumstance. Let’s give him a chance to implement HIS system with HIS guys and see how it works…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Apr 8, 2010 1:53 AM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
