The Monday Morning Wash
by John Berkowitz on Jan 9, 2012 8:06 AM PST
Email
PrintThe Husky basketball team split on the road this weekend. If you want to win Pac 12 championships you sweep at home and split on the road. The team obviously isn't playing well but a 3-1 start means that they are still in the thick of things going forward.
Up next is Seattle University on Tuesday. The 2-10 Redhawks have been struggling all season. SU like the Huskies put enough talent on the floor to win most nights but the chemistry hasn't come together to allow them to do that. This will be an interesting game simply because the Huskies tend to play to the level of their opponents.
On Sunday the 1-3 Cougars invade Hec Edmundson. We expected more out of the Cougs this season. The loss to Utah on the road was a surprise but judging from the first two weeks of Pac 12 play road wins are going to be at a premium this season.
Zags
Wouldn't this be a great week to insert Gonzaga into the Thursday night slot?
It is time that UW agreed to a home and away series with the Zags.
Recruiting
Not much in the way of recruiting news over the weekend since the coaches are all out on the road and nobody was on campus visiting. We expect some new names that the Huskies are in on to go public over the next couple of days. Some of them are Plan B guys and some are simply sleepers that the Huskies have been in on for a long time.
One such sleeper is TB Brandon Wilson from Shreveport, Louisiana who has fallen through the cracks due to injuries suffered during his sophomore and junior seasons. According to what I read he ran a 4.39 at an Ole Miss camp. The film on this kid is really good and I like him a lot better than the kid he is potentially replacing - Tairen Owens.
Here is a link to a little film I found on Brandon.
Dawgman has a feature story up on Wilson which can be accessed by clicking the link.
Holy Tyrone!
The 2011 class is far from finished but the current rankings have Husky fans worried. Scout has the Huskies ranked at eighth in the Pac 12 and 43rd in the country. Rivals also has the Huskies at eighth but a little lower nationally at 53rd. The Huskies still have ten spots open to fill the class and they are in on enough highly rated remaining talent to finish 25-35 nationally while finishing somewhere between 8 and 5 in the conference.
161 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm still not worried about recruiting
One bad season can’t be the end of the world? Can it? If we are close to a top 25 recruiting class I’ll be happy.
Speaking of recruiting
Any scuttlebutt on Tosh Lupoi?
Agreed, Tosh would be a serious get
The way Cal has cleaned up this year in recruiting is ridiculous, with Tosh and Sirmon we could really make strides next year..
Rosebowl titles last 90 years, UW 8, UO 1...
Twitter @DAWGFATHER91
UW will offer a lot of money...
…but Cal can also counter with a lot of money making the whole thing mute. Lupoi is a Cal grad who loves Cal so getting him to move wont be easy.
I know one thing for sure…if Lupoi is coming it will not be announced until after LOI day.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Jan 9, 2012 10:22 AM PST up reply actions
Cal can offer a lot of money?
Their staff salaries currently are pretty low. If UW wanted to be really aggressive and offer him $400K+, Cal would have to do a significant readjustment of their staff salaries – their coordinators make ~$250K base (though they do have bonus options that could potentially add another $200K).
I doubt we can steal him away, but no reason not to try and see if we can put some hurt on the Cal staff budget in the process.
Cal has new TV money coming too
All the schools are out there posturing with their new found wealth. Traditionally Cal and UCLA are pretty stingy on salaries…but Tedford makes a boatload.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Jan 9, 2012 11:16 AM PST up reply actions
Not so sure Cal can offer a lot of money.
Budgets are a funny thing when it comes to the UC Regents. It’s as political as any bureaucracy that you’ll find. There is a reason that Cal and UCLA have traditionally been stingy on salaries and I think it has more to do with state administration than departmental level management.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
It’s my understanding that Tosh is well compensated beyond his ‘official’ salary, a la how Tedford’s ‘talent fee’ is paid by Nike.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
pretty sure all of his compensation has to be disclosed
As a public employee of the State of California, pretty sure he can’t have pay that’s not disclosed, and according to what USA Today was able to glean from PIR, he only made $164K last year with a potential addition of up to $75K in bonuses.
I think it's only money that is paid by the state
if he’s also employed by Nike, I’m not sure unless he holds an office that he has to disclose that. Similar to a DOT employee who moonlights.
I don't know the details of California public disclosure laws...
…but I’d be surprised if public employees aren’t required to disclose all income from duties related to their job with the state. Whether or not Lupoi is paid by Nike, a booster, or a car dealership, or a radio station or whatever – it’s for the work he does in the capacity of a state employee, and I’d bet good money that any such income has to be disclosed.
Public employees have far higher scrutiny than private employees.
One bad season can sink a coaching career
This class on the surface has a lot in common with the class that Jake Locker was in. Even with Locker that class ended up sinking Willingham.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Jan 9, 2012 10:20 AM PST up reply actions
Come on John, Willingham
Willingham ended up sinking Willingham. His Jr High Zone read offense that he was running also helped sink him. That guy was horrible! I don’t think having a 25-40th ranked class is going to define Sarkisian. If we see the same next year, I’ll start panicking. We can still make a splash this year!
by datboyeddiep on Jan 9, 2012 10:40 AM PST up reply actions
You think a few extra four and five stars might have made a difference?
If Willingham convinces guys like Schilling, DeCastro, and Mays to stay home he would have had some five star guys who were ready to start from day one.
Sure he was terrible but he only needed a couple of more pieces to get over .500. If Isaiah hadn’t have been injured he probably would have gotten the team to a bowl game.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Jan 9, 2012 10:52 AM PST up reply actions
No that is true
When Stanbach got hurt it killed us. But injuries are part of the game. You know how many times I’ve said if Locker didn’t hurt his thumb we would have not went 0-12? I still believe that to this day! What if that ref didn’t throw that BS flag in the BYU game? Lot of what if’s in football. That’s why we love it.
But no seriously, I understand losing the in state talent is bad. Maybe not as much as you guys do that’s why I don’t see it as too big of a deal. I just feel like stars and recruiting class rankings aren’t everything. I think if we have a lot of 2 and 3 star talent, our coach can get them to play like blue chippers! That’s what they get paid to do. Boise St does it every year. In this class we got two very good QB’s, some help on the offensive line, and some defensive players. Any one of these guys can turn out to be stars, and we still have more room to improve the class.
by datboyeddiep on Jan 9, 2012 11:03 AM PST up reply actions
John's Point
I few more good players in that class would have probably bought willingham more time and who knows maybe he sticks around longer than we all would have liked.
never should have been hired
Although I wanted Dan Hawkins and I think we all know how that turned out for CU
I disliked the Ty hire from the start
But I had no idea he’d be as bad as he turned out, and I don’t recall anyone that opposed his hire painting a scenario nearly as dire as what actually happened.
Stars don't matter!
I like being ahead of the curve, but it’s lonely always being so far out in front of everyone on every issue.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
Even if he does,
I’m sure he’ll fight through the pain. When you’re a legend in your own mind, you have to keep letting people know about it. Otherwise, we might just forget.
I have a long memory. The Ty supporters will tell you this is true.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
A month or so ago, a PSA commited, my reaction lacked the enthusiam of others.
Which eventually became a debate about whether stars mattered or not. I was informed that rankings were irrelevant.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
stars in the macro view matter a lot more than stars in the micro view
In other words, any individual guy you look at could be wildly misidentified in terms of recruiting stars. But when you look at recruiting classes as a whole, the margin of error diminishes greatly and the rankings become a lot more valuable.
I agree, though there is still quite a bit of subjective judgement involved,
and some coaches can recruit to fit a special scheme.
In the macro view, hows this class look?
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
by Steen on Jan 9, 2012 11:09 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
mediocre
Love the 2 QB’s, like a lot of the rest, “meh” on some of them. Really need to reel in Banner & Brostek to keep this class from being a major disappointment though – this should have been a year to really clean up and continue the positive recruiting momentum from the past two years.
no you weren't - that is false
… it was debated that scouting is more important than stars because it was scouting that led to offers which are the primary driver of stars. The relationship between good scouting and stars is apparent, but it is the scouting that matters. If stars were all that mattered, coaches would offer players sight unseen. that just doesn’t happen.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
I've never said "stars don't matter"...
but rather “stars can lie” (yes, I did quote “myself” there…) I think stars matter big time, and anyone not selling something would agree with that obvious truth. But it’s clear the folks “selling” their recruiting website memberships on the basis of being “experts” are marketing a perception of a product…not the substance. I can discuss/debate the relative ambiguity of assessing talent but let’s not open that can…? U$C or $EC? The difference is only in the eye of the beholder…in the end they’re both a big $. The integrity of the sport is in the balance…and it’s getting buried by the hypocracy and corruption of the NCAA. (end of rant.)
A difference? Sure. The difference? No.
I agree that the 2006 team goes to a bowl if Stanback doesn’t get hurt, but that’s with or without Schilling and Mayes. But they don’t make the difference between 4-9 and 7-6 in 2007, and a true freshman in DeCastro in 2008 doesn’t change much in that season.
What sunk Willingham wasn’t going to be changed by recruiting. He could’ve turned USC in the Carroll era into a .500 team with the effort and attitude he brought to Montlake.
by Sundodger on Jan 9, 2012 12:05 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I think all of us agree with that one
I’m always told by the wife not to hate, but I can’t help it. When I picture Willingham’s face it just comes to mind that, “Man I hate that guy”
by datboyeddiep on Jan 9, 2012 12:19 PM PST up reply actions
No love for Miles?
He was the MVP of the US Army game. That should get some sort of mention in the Wash.
He got plenty of love during the game.
Check out the weekend thread….but ya…I should have included him this morning.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Jan 9, 2012 10:23 AM PST up reply actions
I have an idea John...Can we
Make a posting for Cyler Miles and Jeff Lindquist that allows those here in the Dawgpound to welcome these commits in a more personal way? I think it would be extremely unique among the sites I’ve visited!? We all can participate as a welcoming committee with comments of our excitement and hope…it could literally demonstrate a real difference from the generic “trolling” out there. What do you guys think? In the absence of any huge developments ( new coaches,commits etc.) and we could even expand it to the whole list of commits this week? We could present a very appealing,contrast to brands XYandZ?
I think we can
Do that anyway. I cant believe the talk from Williams that somone didnt choose UW because of posters on the internet. How did that recruit even know for sure that 1. The person posting was over the age of 13 and 2. They were even a UW fan to begin with. I think it is being blown out of preportion.
I think that was horrible
All the Udub fans I meet are happy with anyone who picks Udub. If that kid put that much on internet posters, he is not that bright. Knowing so many people who post on the internet just want to stir up controversy, or are not even fans of the team they are posting for. I hated that I read that, I’m guessing from Williams from your post, if that was his name. It was a horrible misrepresentation of Dawg fans.
by datboyeddiep on Jan 10, 2012 3:42 AM PST up reply actions
Great idea! We love all our recruits, but it is a nice sign that two highly regarded
and talented (did you see their all-star games?) QB’s committed in the same year.
Says a lot about their confidence in Sark, and themseleves, and their willingness to work hard and compete.
Welcome Aboard!
by HuskyInExile on Jan 10, 2012 11:19 PM PST up reply actions
Lots & lots of love for Miles, and he looked *good!*
but folks are concerned w/ rounding out the recruiting class, the loss of key in-state talent (especially OL), and excited about possible D coach hires.
by HuskyInExile on Jan 9, 2012 10:02 PM PST up reply actions
I'm thinking this year's UW class
will end up in the 30-40 range nationally, with a few positive committments but nothing profound. Next year could be much better, especially if Wilcox & Co produce results on the field and prove to be adept a building relationship with HS talent.
Next level winning
We have plenty of strong 3 and 4 star guys in place. It is going to take a rose bowl to start getting a decent flow of 5 star guys. I wish the fan base could make it a week with out the sky falling. We have a solid team that has a little depth. Sark has proven that he can do more with less. Wilcox if as advertised can do the same. Sometimes when you are climbing a big flight of stairs you need to look back to see how far we have come. This is sarks first year with for the most part his guys. These seniors laid the ground work. Lets go !!!
That's what I'm talking about!
Go Dawgs! Woof!
by datboyeddiep on Jan 9, 2012 11:50 AM PST up reply actions
More with less?
I think Sark has more to work with on the offensive side of the ball. A first round QB, a likely first round RB, some very good receivers, and not great but serviceable linemen made better by the ability of the QB. This year, Price turned out to have skills way above what is expected.
I agree that recruiting will improve as the team improves. Nothing attracts great players like the chance to win, and be seen in big games that matter. The fans tend to forget that the Dawgs we remember are just that, memories. The kids we are trying to recruit have no memory of UW as anything other than a poor also ran. Sad but true.
Honestly, Wilcox doesn't have to do much
Simply posting average results the first year will significantly improve UW’s standings. An average D wins the OSU game, for instance. An average D this year will likely beat Stanford. It might have even beaten Nebraska.
And with the talent the Huskies have an average D should be the expectation. Not a stellar one, not with only one offseason to prepare, but a decent one that can make occasional plays and not mess up as extravagantly as they had been, combined with better coaching decisions and adaptations to what has been seen.
If I could kiss Nick Holt, I would. Though, with him, I’m sure it would end in deep penetration and a score
Your analysis is appreciated, even when we don't agree.
You sure look right on this one . . .
by HuskyInExile on Jan 9, 2012 10:07 PM PST up reply actions
Excellent post
I usually don’t agree with you, but got to give credit where credit is due.
by datboyeddiep on Jan 10, 2012 3:43 AM PST up reply actions
Ironically, the UW put up surprisingly average numbers in Pac 12 play
… the impact of the two pac 12 blowouts (Stan, USC) biases the general opinion of the crowd – but even putting up similar numbers over the course of conference play next year will probably be looked at as a big step up.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
I don't recall USC being on probation in '77
And it doesn’t matter anyway – UW went 6-1 in conference play (7-0 when UCLA had to forfeit their win) and USC went 5-2.
DJ recruited quite well from pretty much the start of his time at the UW.
I didnt say 77
I believe it was 74. I have seen it discussed many times that USC going on probation helped DJ early on.
not sure how
USC was in the midst of one of their great runs:
1974: 10-1-1 (national champions coaches poll)
1975: 8-4
1976: 11-1
1977: 8-4
1978: 12-1 (national champions coaches poll)
1979: 11-0-1
Besides which, I can’t find any evidence USC was on probation then. They were on probation starting in 1982, but by that point the UW was well established under DJ.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/10/sports/la-sp-0611-ncaa-sanctions-chart-20100611
1980 conference sanctions
UW won the conference title in 1980 and went to the ’81 Rose Bowl, while five Pac 10 schools were ineligible for post-season play due to sanctions by the conference lasting one year. That season wound down to UW 9 wins and 2 losses and winning the conference, with Stanford finishing in second place.
The schools on probation were: USC, UCLA, Oregon, Arizona State, and either CAL or Oregon State. Prior to the season, I recall the media debating whether UW or Stanford would get to the Rose Bowl by default. As it turned out , the Huskies lost only to Oregon and Navy (both at home), -and were the undisputed PAC10 champions.
Just wondering,
What kind of regular season record do you guys think we’ll have this coming season? I think we’re looking at maybe an 8 – 4 season, or is that too pessimistic, what’s your guys’ take on this?
hard to say at this point
The big wildcard is how much better the defense will be under Wilcox.
After Signing Day I’m looking forward to doing a comparison of the projected 2012 depth chart vs. the 2011 one and getting a better feel myself for what we can reasonably expect.
It wouldn’t surprise me if 7-8 wins turns out to be the most probably projection, with 2013 being the season where we stand the best chance of breaking through to 10+ wins, but maybe Wilcox has a bigger impact than I’m initially anticipating.
Realistically here's what I'd say
And i’ll try to be even a bit pessimistic:
SDSU: win
@LSU: loss
PSU: win
Stanford: win
@ORE: loss
USC: loss
@ARIZ: win
OSU: win
@Cal: loss
Utah: win
@Colo: win
@WSU: loss
Of those games, the ones that I think are most up in the air are Cal, WSU and Stanford. Right now I have Washington going 1-2 on those mostly on the home field advantage; I could easily see Washington winning all of them. So I have it as 6-3 with 3 gimmies.
If I could kiss Nick Holt, I would. Though, with him, I’m sure it would end in deep penetration and a score
AZ
I would not discount ARIZ – we did not soundly beat them at home last year after they had fired their coach. With new coach and playing at home I think they will be much better plus the UW has been a terrible road team. Other wise I pretty much agree with your assessment.
by lorenzothedog on Jan 9, 2012 2:49 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah
I was tempted to list them as one of the guesses too, but 6-6 seemed way too pessimistic to me. And honestly, I’m not at all sold on RichRod being able to replace Nick Foles and do well at Arizona right off the bat. He just didn’t look that great in Michigan, and it’s not like Michigan is devoid of talent.
If I could kiss Nick Holt, I would. Though, with him, I’m sure it would end in deep penetration and a score
Don't sleep on Leach
Leach turned Texas Tech into a Big-12 contender, with recruiting classes that looked abjectly horrible. WSU wasn’t that far away this year either and had a lot of talent, particularly on offense. And playing @WSU is hard for anyone – but it’s going to be either crazy or odd for this game depending on how many actually show up.
If I could kiss Nick Holt, I would. Though, with him, I’m sure it would end in deep penetration and a score
agreed
I know it’s reflexive to dismiss the possibility of WSU being any good, but with Leach at the helm I’m not going to take any game with them for granted.
so far as to predict a loss?
they are still WSU even if Jesus Christ himself was coaching them.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
It's not like it was ancient history since WSU won over UW
2008, right? Three years ago? Not so long ago. And it was in Pullman.
And in 2010, WSU was right there with Washington, requiring late-game heroics from Kearse and Locker to pull off the win. It’s not like a 7-point win is so dominant.
If I could kiss Nick Holt, I would. Though, with him, I’m sure it would end in deep penetration and a score
I won't predict a loss
But I’m also not going to assume the win either with it being in Pullman with Leach at the helm.
I'd be surprised in anybody deliberately 'slept' on Leach; the question will be
whether he’s able to surprise people anyway.
He’s arriving with a reputation, great fanfare and big expectations.
by HuskyInExile on Jan 10, 2012 11:23 PM PST up reply actions
Pessimistic?
This was not a hard, on the barrel, 7 win team. I’d settle happily for 8 wins with no ass-rapey defeats on national television. It’s a high bar, I know.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
8-4 is where I would expect the team to finish.
7 wins, 3 losses and 2 toss-ups. Win a game I don’t expect us to win, lose a game I don’t expect us to lose and split the toss-ups. 8 wins makes me happy.
Benno
Agreed.
That’s just about how I see it too.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
I am considerably less optimistic.
Or should I say, I could see them going anywhere from 9-3 to 5-7 and not be too surprised. Big questions at some key positions make it really hard to start calling wins this early.
Man
When I read that all I thought was Major League Baseball. The end of football is near, and it is sad……
by datboyeddiep on Jan 10, 2012 11:05 AM PST up reply actions
Running Back, Left Tackle, Kicker even.
Again, I don’t think a 9-3 record is impossible but there’s some significant question marks on the preseason alignment.
Before anyone jumps down my throat about running back; I like the potential we have but Polk leaves some huge shoes to fill.
not just LT, but most of the OL
We have to replace Senio at LT, no guarantees that Tanigawa will be back to full health, and Kohler just hasn’t looked that great at RT. Lots of question marks there.
dont totally disagree
I just have confidence in the people that will replace most postions. I probably should have included RB also. But i have faith in Sankey and Callier. Plus have KP back helps Polks departure. I think our OL will be better next year no matter who is playing LT. Kelemente is a guard that played LT.
on the LT
Here’s the thing – if we had a better option at LT, wouldn’t they have been playing? Not only was Kelemete better than Hatchie, Riva or Fancher in the eyes of our coaching staff, so was Kohler.
Now, maybe one of those guys improves enough this off-season to make it a wash overall, or even an improvement, but I’m skeptical. Kelemete may be better suited at the next level as an OG, but he was clearly the best OT on the roster in the view of this staff. And while he wasn’t awesome in my view, I thought he did OK. So did Pac-12 coaches who voted him 2nd team All Pac-12.
Missing my point
We all know that every year every team in college has to replace some current players that leave. Its not like we have to replace DeCastro.
my point is this
You’re expecting a really significant uptick in performance from someone among Hatchie, Riva & Charles if you think the OL is going to be better next year.
Could happen, but losing your best OL to graduation (Kelemete) and your next best guy to injury (Tanigawa) is not the best scenario for seeing an overall improvement in your OL.
Outside of Shelton at one tackle, Parker at safety, and maybe Trufant at one corner,
I’d say every position on defense is a question mark right now.
the d-line rotation is pretty predictable.
I don’t see any of the young ends, in particular, usurping Jamora, Shirley or Hudson.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
There are still pretty big questions on the line.
Do Jamora and Shirley continue to play the same position? Does Jamora bulk up and move to the strong side? Does Shirley move to linebacker? Can Hudson possibly get big enough to play the strong side (he’s about 225 right now)? If he can’t, do they move somebody else there? If the young linebackers (Kearse, Timu, Gilliland, Lyons, etc.) come out strong, would the coaches consider moving somebody like Tutogi up to end to get a better athlete on the strong side?
Can anybody step up and give the Dawgs a legit 3-tech? If it’s Shelton for any amount of time, how many snaps in a row can they get out of Lagafuina?
New coaches with new ideas. Wilcox’s scheme needs a stout end on the left side of the D since he’s going to see a lot of double teams. Right now, Hudson isn’t real close to having the bulk to get that done. He’s also likely to have a lot more pass coverage responsibility than he had in the Under.
Jamora
Understood that the schemes could change and roles would change with them, but it’s sure hard to imagine that Jamora (if healthy) wouldn’t have a starting job somewhere along the d-line.
I certainly agree. He's a starter.
His injury convolutes things a little. My question is really more about what the coaches will do with the fact that their two best pass rushers play the same position. By the end of the season, Shirley showed that he deserves snaps. Will they come at Jamora’s expense (which I think would be a shame), or will one of them find themselves with a different role next season?
Lambright on with Softy
Here is a link to interview with Jim Lambright and what he thinks about Husky defense
Stupid comment of the week
From CB Byran Harper regarding his recruitment:
"…I decommitted from Washington and I haven’t heard from them since…"
Well duh!
That's actually surprising
A lot of teams will spend some time talking to players a decommit to find out if it’s a hard or a soft one, if they can do something else to convince them, etc. Decommits at this stage are not exactly set in stone, after all.
If I could kiss Nick Holt, I would. Though, with him, I’m sure it would end in deep penetration and a score
With Sark?
As you know, Sark is from the Levell Edwards “Mr Integrity” school; a person’s word is worth gold to him. When Byron Harper said bye, Sark said bye – end of story.
by onewoodwacker on Jan 9, 2012 3:22 PM PST up reply actions
That means Sark's going to lose a few kids here and there
Lots of kids like playing hard to get through the process. That might be immature, it might be them seeing what they can get, whatever – but they do it – and they will feel slighted if they’re not being constantly wooed.
Might be even okay to lose those kinds of kids, but at the end of the day they’re kids.
If I could kiss Nick Holt, I would. Though, with him, I’m sure it would end in deep penetration and a score
different situations
I agree with onewood (nice to see you convert from ST blog). The difference is that Harper did not de commit over the summer or early on. He gave his word to UW and said he is committed to this school. Once Harper jumped ship to UCLA after UW had already offered him and he commtted what should he expect? Sark should be pissed off. I understand the continuous recruiting by other schools as part of the game. I say if you are the recruit don’t commit unless you are coming to that school. By leding on UW and then stabbing sark in the back the cold shoulder is what this recruit will get. I bet he will hear from our d staff once this week is over as cb is a position of need but either way I trust sark more then an 18 year old John Kerry.
by DAWGFAN87 on Jan 9, 2012 4:00 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
That's fine
But if that’s how you treat 18 year old prospects, expect to lose some kids.
You can try and dictate to the recruits how you want them to behave, but that honestly is just not going to work well all that often. Again, they’re kids. And again, that’s the market.
If I could kiss Nick Holt, I would. Though, with him, I’m sure it would end in deep penetration and a score
agree
Like I said I expect sark to continue to recruit this kid and I also expect sark to go after other schools recruits. My biggest thing is this kid suprised that he has not heard from the UW staff since he decommitted. It’s like “no sh$t dude”.. you are not a 5 star player who can dictate these things. Kids are more and more trying to take the leverage away from coaches and schools in recruiting. I think until there is an early signing period this is the only way coaches can try and get some of it back. Again if he wants to be a dawg I guarantee you that Sark will have a scholarship for him
by DAWGFAN87 on Jan 9, 2012 4:15 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
John Nash disagrees.
… you POV is very pollyanna. We don’t like to hear it, but this is classic Game Theory here and the game of recruiting is ruthless. The recruiter lavishes attention on the prospect and then makes the hard sell. once the kid is on the hook, the pressure is put on him to stay on the hook (e.g. – if you jump off the wagon, you are done). If the kid decommits, the coach has to follow through on the threat in order to make the point to other recruits. The game theory at play tells us that all coaches will have the same incentive to cut bait on a decommit because they know that their colleagues are adopting the same tactics and that it makes it harder for any single commit to decommit in the future – a situation that benefits all coaches.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
Econ Major?
Always nice to see the Nash equilibrium make it into a sports blog. Well done. This would hold true if you were in a “perfect situation” as they say in Economics, however the UW Football team is not a “perfect situation”. Thus the coach is willing to make exceptions to the theory in order to fill positions of need. (CB, OL, DL)
If the UW had a so called perfect team which would mean they had balance depth across the board and had not position of need, then yes you would be correct. But because UW has needs it is willing to compromise and thus game theory is not played perfectly.
Should add
That because UW has needs it is willing to compromise in the game to fill those needs. If UW as i said had perfect depth or in Econ they say a perfect situation (think 1991 husky team, 2004 USC) then they could tell a recruit who decommits that if you do then you lost your scholarship and it is not coming back. We are not in that situation yet.
Exactly
Also, Nash assumes rational actors, which 18 year old kids are not. (nor are coaches, to be fair, but kids are even more unpredictable and may not understand their own self-interest).
And again, it’s not game theory that governs this system, it’s market forces. All coaches may benefit from being united in behavior, but as long as one of them benefits more (or can) by breaking from that behavior (say, by poaching a once-in-a-lifetime RB or DT) then you’re hosed. Furthermore, the coaches are actual rivals; their goals are not to maximize benefit to everyone but to maximize their benefit and minimize the opposition’s benefit. Prisoner’s dilemma doesn’t apply here because realistically you want (as a coach) for your team to succeed at the expense of the others, which throws that all up in the air.
If I could kiss Nick Holt, I would. Though, with him, I’m sure it would end in deep penetration and a score
On the contrary, economics often explains what appear to be otherwise irrational behaviors
… and no game theorists assume “rational” actors. on top of that, the game theory really applies to the coaches, not the kids.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
basic terms
If you are Alabama u can tell all recruits don’t commit until you are ready but if you decommit from this school you can kiss any chance of coming here good bye. They can do this because they have much better depth and do not depend on certain players like we currently do.
by DAWGFAN87 on Jan 10, 2012 3:18 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Well, one exception does not contradict the point
… and I don’t believe there is anything that we know about the Castro situation that directly contradicts it anyhow. Look, I’m not saying that the reaction is to lock the doors and cut off communication. I’m saying that the overwhelming incentive is to pressure the committed recruit to not decommitting in the first place. If he were to do so with no consequences, the tactic becomes useless on other recruits.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
It's tough to say that Castro was ever actually "committed" to the Dawgs.
It was pretty clear that the only reason he accepted UW’s offer was because he didn’t have the one he really wanted at the time.
"...nice to see you convert from ST blog..."
I always take a few months away from there around this time of year. It gets over-bearing!!!
by onewoodwacker on Jan 9, 2012 7:18 PM PST up reply actions
ST blog comment section
I try and take 366 days a year off from their comment section, it’s what’s best for my IQ and sanity.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
if you decommit from a school, why wouldn't a school decommit from you?
that kind of logic should be pretty apparent even to an 18 year old.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
Exactly
I think he feels hurt. Well so do we. He’ll figure it out someday when he has a job and “de-commits” from it. Hopefully he doesn’t wonder then why they never called him back to employ his services.
by datboyeddiep on Jan 10, 2012 3:50 AM PST up reply actions
EXACTLY -
if Bryan didn’t know at the time – he probably does now. I’m quite confident that Sark explained to the young Mr. Harper, that he was committing to the University of Washington – NOT – DMart.
by onewoodwacker on Jan 9, 2012 7:14 PM PST up reply actions
Stephon Tuitt
Last year Stephon Tuitt de-committed from Notre Dame. Notre Dame jumped on the first plane to get down to his place and talked with him. Tuitt was Irish again the next day. Just because somebody decommits doesn’t mean they aren’t still interested.
the fact that he would "recommit" the very next day speaks to some other issue at play that sounds like a misunderstanding
… a kid who commits and then decommits later usually isn’t going to be open to changing his mind the very next day. Think about it … why decommit? It doesn’t affect your ability to take visits. Outside of regime change, there really is only one reason to decommit and, if you do, it is not a very good sign for the original school.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
And that's the point
Sometimes it is a misunderstanding or an issue that needs to be reworked out. Sometimes the recruit has a problem talking to the coach or can’t get a hold of the program and gets pissed. Or the parents intervene. Etc, etc.
Which is why if you have a firm ‘if you decommit from us we write you off’ policy you’re going to lose some kids.
If I could kiss Nick Holt, I would. Though, with him, I’m sure it would end in deep penetration and a score
Before everyone leaps on him/to his defense, how bout some context.
Recruitment rumors are like the world’s worst game of telephone…
Their kids -
At 18
While I NEVER ascribe nor condone criticizing a high school kid for their decisions about where to play a sport in college – I do hold them accountable for their decisions.
When they are picking colleges they are “kids” – if they commit a violent crime, they are “adults”? If they want to drink a beer, they’re “kids” – if we let them go to war, they’re “adults”? Either they’re kids or adults – not conveniently both when needed.
I don’t pose the “kids” versus the “adult” as an argument; I simple believe in accountability. Thus, I have NO problem in cutting ties with this young man. IMHO, Harper de-committed, not the other way around. If Harper felt the urge to reconsider, then HE needs to call Sark.
Accountability is fine
At the same time, understanding is also important. You can say that they’re old enough to go to war and be all ‘you should be an adult’ but the reality is that many kids going to college are just that – kids. They should be held accountable to their actions, but you’ll also lose a lot of kids just because their expectations are not yours. Understanding that is as much your loss or gain as it is theirs.
If I could kiss Nick Holt, I would. Though, with him, I’m sure it would end in deep penetration and a score
Accountability -
has it’s drawbacks, but is there every really a good time to learn a life lesson? In reality, if we don’t get a kid back, because he walked away, are we suppose to feel concern?
by onewoodwacker on Jan 9, 2012 7:08 PM PST up reply actions
Am I the only one who thinks there might be a bit more to the story?
If this guy was irreplaceable (or a highly rated player), I’m positive that our coaching staff would be calling him everyday until he committed elsewhere.
The fact that they are not calling him should be evidence that they believe he his replaceable. Coaches have a short enough shelf life already, they aren’t going to cut off their nose to spite their face.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
I believe so
I don’t think anyone in life is irreplaceable! The ones that feel that way are never successful. Everyone can be replaced. There is always someone else with the same or more talent than you no matter what you do in life. A lesson learned for a 18 yr old. Next time keep your word and this problem will not happen. It started with him breaking a promise, not Udub.
by datboyeddiep on Jan 10, 2012 3:52 AM PST up reply actions
There is no such thing as a single irreplaceable recruit
… at least not among high school seniors. there is simply too many unknowns surrounding 17 or 18 year olds. Therefore, I don’t see too many situations where any coaching staff would feel so desperate as to risk the opening of the floodgates by humbling themselves at the feet of any single recruit. Next man up!
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
They are young, and it is the responsibility of the recruiting coaches to teach
integrity and reasonable expectations in the recruiting process. If a coach cuts corners when he recruits a ‘kid,’ then that kid will already know that coach might cut corners elsewhere . . .
by HuskyInExile on Jan 9, 2012 10:17 PM PST up reply actions
in other recruiting news...
top-10 overall bball recruit anthony bennett has UW in his final 5 schools. even if a one and done, he would obviously be a huge coup for romar. we still currently have no commits for this class
Oh please commit
We love Washington commits!
by datboyeddiep on Jan 10, 2012 3:53 AM PST up reply actions
Message to commits:
“you like me…you really like me”!
I love em!
Greatest thing in the world!
Now I think we might scare them away!
by datboyeddiep on Jan 10, 2012 11:02 AM PST up reply actions
That was the joke of it I was after...
Thank you for noticing… I think I like “you”!?
Another one and done just means another year not going to the big dance. UW just doesn’t have the team cohesiveness or coaching talent to handle it.
Agreed.
Teams like Kentucky, Memphis, Duke, North Carolina, Syracuse and others really struggle with their one and dones.
by thecassino on Jan 10, 2012 9:00 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Another way to look at it is that coaches like Williams, Calipari, Boeheim, /shuh-SHEF-skee/, etc. do a fine job of merging supremely talented one-and-done players with guys that’ll stick around for a few years. In a very small sample size, Romar hasn’t shown as much accumen in that regard.
If recruiting continues to thrive
The difference between all this coaches and Romar is they have had decades of experience molding super talents to fit a team. Romar has in the last few years begun to collect this type of one and done talent. He is a good enough coach to figure out the balance between talent and chemistry.
by CgHawk360 on Jan 10, 2012 10:09 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
The sarcasm slaped me in the face
Kinda hurt.
by datboyeddiep on Jan 10, 2012 11:03 AM PST up reply actions
Ouch! What's worse? This "Dead Period" ...
Is Killing Me!
we got a new DB coach
I’d expect to see recruiting heat up starting this weekend with visits resuming and the staff rounding into shape.
This is where the link lead me, lol
Rosebowl titles last 90 years, UW 8, UO 1...
Twitter @DAWGFATHER91
Hello, I think I'm lost
The sign said “game thread”
Bringing Purple to Pullman
by Harry the Husky on Jan 10, 2012 7:52 PM PST reply actions
Not sure which thread to post this so i'll do it in a couple
Notre Dame Blogger has all the answers
Rosebowl titles last 90 years, UW 8, UO 1...
Twitter @DAWGFATHER91
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
