The Seattle Times Company

NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds |


Our network sites | Advanced

Husky Football Blog

Times reporter Bob Condotta keeps the news coming about the Montlake Dawgs.

E-mail Bob| RSS feeds Subscribe | Blog Home

January 8, 2008 9:27 PM

Final Sagarin ratings out

Posted by Bob Condotta

With the season over, the final Sagarin ratings are out, updated through the bowl games, so thought I'd pass them along.

Here they are.

As you can see, UW finished ranked No. 55 in the nation and eighth in the Pac-10 ahead of WSU and Stanford.

In the final strength of schedule rating, UW fell from the No. 1 perch in the nation it held most of the year to No. 2, behind UCLA. But as noted yesterday, SOS was a category the Pac-10 dominated this year --- nine Pac-10 teams were among the final 19 in the nation in SOS.

Here's the list, with their national rank:

2, UW
5, Oregon
6, Arizona
7, Cal
10, Stanford
12, Washington State
16, Oregon State
19, Arizona State
29, USC

UPDATED RECRUITING RATINGS --- Speaking of ratings, the latest rating of 2008 recruiting classes has UW at No. 10 in the nation, No. 2 in the Pac-10 behind UCLA, which is seventh nationally.

However, as some of you have mentioned, UW is more likely to move down than up as the final month of recruiting passes. UW is likely to add only another player or two or three to a class that already includes 25 commits. As other schools fill their classes, some could move ahead of UW.

UW's average player rating is 3.16 which is sixth in the Pac-10 behind, in order, USC, UCLA, Cal, Arizona State and Stanford., meanwhile, has UW at No. 25 in the nation and fifth in the Pac-10 behind UCLA, USC, Arizona and Cal.

Some of you have asked why there's a difference in the rankings. Both simply use a points system, assigning every recruit a value and then adding up the number. The difference is based simply in how the two sites have evaluated the players. At some point, I'll try to delve further into that issue.

Digg Digg | Newsvine Newsvine

Submit a comment

*Required Field

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Posted by Guest

9:51 PM, Jan 08, 2008

Most of the big name schools have at least 18 commits per class, but USC is still at 14. Are they just not sweating things because they are considered great and can get all the 5 star recruits they want at the last minute?

Or is this unusual? Are they having trouble getting more people because perhaps an increasing number of recruits are hesitant to go there for fear of not playing any time soon? Some of the unhappiness among their loads of talented RBs was well documented last season and I think they had at least one or two high profile transfers.

Thanks for any insight you have on this.

Posted by condottarulz

9:52 PM, Jan 08, 2008


I appreciate all of your great work on this blog, but don't bother delving into the recruiting site's methodology. It will only be a waste of your time. Check back in 4 years to see how this class turns out.

You may recall that the Sporting News preseason SOS rankings failed to include UCLA (a blatant ommission). Funny that they ended up #1 in Sagarin, though I think it's debatable...I think OSU, Boise and Hawaii are better than BYU and/or Utah (and, oh yeah, Notre Dame..hahahaha).

Posted by Travelling Jay

10:07 PM, Jan 08, 2008


First time commenter but long time reader of your columns/blogs. Great job! Keep it up!!

Just had to vent a bit about the poll love that Ohio State continues to get. I think they came out 4th and 5th in the major polls after getting throttled by LSU in the "Championship" game. Your Sagarin ratings have them 11th, which seems reasonable given the state of the Big 10. Loved it when Chris Fowler (ESPN Game Day) was railing on the Big Ten in the post-game coverage, stating that the Big Ten is totally against any type of playoff talk because they annually seem to get their best team in the "Championship" game in the current system. Just frustratinnng. Imagine what a fantastic game USC-LSU would have (SHOULD HAVE) been instead of the duds we were left with in the Rose and "Championship" games due to inferior Big Ten competition!

Posted by 3 of 5

10:26 PM, Jan 08, 2008

ya, putting UCLA above UW is hilarious:

Ohio State vs BYU (adv UW)
Hawaii vs BYU (adv UW)
Boise State v Utah (adv UW)
Syracuse v ND (draw)

conference schedules cancel each other out imo.

Even with the bowl game, it's hard to argue that UCLA's schedule was as tough as UW's, let alone tougher.

Posted by Austin

10:27 PM, Jan 08, 2008

I think considers position balance as a factor when ranking class strength. So teams that recruit too many skill player and not enough linemen (or vis vesa) will take a hit on their class ranking. I'm not sure if Rivals does that or not.

Posted by MukilteoSean

11:03 PM, Jan 08, 2008

The rating of recruits is also a factor between the two schools. The number one player in the state of washington, Johri Fogerson, ranks below Middleton, Kearse, Bruns, etc in the Star rankings in both sites. Just depends on what you deem important in scouting. Middleton is not a 5 star recruit on rivals, and most of our 4 star recruits from scout are 3 star recruits on rivals. Its all subjective, and as the guy above said, check back in a year or 2 and see how good they are.

Posted by Jeff D

11:08 PM, Jan 08, 2008

Scout actually rates UW 6th in Pac 10 recruiting by rating per recruit. It's simply the number of recruits. Rivals isn't as swayed with quantity.

Long term recruiting is probably hurt with the huge classes last year and this. We will only be able to recruit 15 or less the next two years. This class better be very very good if it's going to carry the weight of multiple classes.

Ty is also recruiting more under 6' players than any major program in the country for the second year in a row. That is a concern.

Posted by Al T

11:24 PM, Jan 08, 2008

I swear, people on this blog must stay up nights trying to think of new negative things to say on the blog. Jeff D. What's the big deal about height.
Let's see, the under 6' players from last year's class as true freshman:

Brandon Johnson - backup RB good chance to be starter next year
Curtis Shaw - RB moved to WR, came at end of year, will probably start next year
Byron Davenport - starter at corner, starter this year and next.
Vonzell McDowell - starter at CB for 1st two games, should be in the mix for starter next year
Willie Griffin - redshirted, good things talked about on scout team performance.
Erik Folk - a kicker - unless it is soccer and headers I don't think height matters

So of the 5 (I'm not counting the kicker), 4 made significant impact last year. With that track record, you should be saying the opposite, why isn't UW recruiting MORE under 6 foot types. But don't let facts get in the way of the whining.

Posted by condottarulz

11:31 PM, Jan 08, 2008

Al T:

Good points all around. Anyone who watched the Fiesta Bowl saw a lot of 6' and under guys running all around Oklahoma. Remind me, how tall again were Napolean Kaufman and Mario Bailey?

Posted by Husky 2002

11:51 PM, Jan 08, 2008

How tall is James Rodgers of OSU? Or his brother Jaquizz? As long as they have GREAT speed, or decent bulk, I'll take them. How tall was Barry Sanders, Yvenson Bernard, Ken Simonton, Doug Flutie, etc. Talent and speed are what we need. Ty is doing fine.


Posted by condottarulz

12:01 AM, Jan 09, 2008

West Virginia's roster has 7 WRs who are 6' or under--including their top 4 receivers.

Posted by old dawg

12:10 AM, Jan 09, 2008

It's 25 a year, but with 85 total. If you have a lot of non-qualifiers or other problems, I suppose you could keep recruiting 25 a year. It would be tough to have a good program that way though. Also, bringing in JC players can sway the numbers, and I believe that granting scholies to walk-ons count against the totals.

So it's not that simple.

There's a lot of schools that won't bring in a full 25 for these reasons, and thus even with a higher "stars per recruit" number, could have a total less than UW. Many will have 20 or less.

I keep asking Bob C. for a feel for the next crop of players, and this is part of the reason. Clearly the next class will necessarily be smaller, and I'm hoping that the coaching staff will be even more selective than in the past.

This isn't all that much different than the management problem for recruiting that Lambo et al faced in the wake of the sanctions after Hedges did her Brutus impersonation.

Posted by MelloDawg

12:28 AM, Jan 09, 2008

Husky 2002,

Ty is doing fine in recruiting this year's class. That is all.

Posted by PF Davids

12:32 AM, Jan 09, 2008

Scout and Rivals have their pro's and con's. The truth is in how things turn out in a couple years. Five stars and four stars are great - as long as they qualify academically and don't have hidden back injuries, etc, etc. From what I can tell, Ty's done a great job of vetting these recruits.

I like this class. A lot. We don't seem to have a lot of balance based on how the recruiting sites list the players. Mackey, for example, won't play WR for the Dawgs, but he's listed as one. He's going to the defensive side. Some of our RB recruits are also destined for defense. One OL is going to DL. What they list isn't what we'll get.

With the exception of needing another offensive lineman (preferably a center), this class is pretty well balanced. Solid skill position players with size and speed.

Also, some of the 25 will count against last years numbers, and one will take a mission and count later on. I wouldn't be surprised to see Ty take 28 kids this class if the right ones are available. The pressure is on him to win now. He needs this class as much as we do...or more!

Posted by MelloDawg

2:34 AM, Jan 09, 2008

If you want a "feel for next year's class," go to Dawgman or

Posted by rja

4:13 AM, Jan 09, 2008

Normally I try to add something constructive to a blog and not just comment on somebody elses post, but....that comment about Ty recruiting the most under 6' in the nation has to be the dumbest comment I have heard in a long time. Wow, what does the D stand for Jeff?

Posted by sickofexcuses

4:48 AM, Jan 09, 2008

I'm not sure what all the noise is about regarding the schedule last year. If it's being used as an excuse for a 4-9 season, then it's worth pointing out that the problem was going 2-7 in conference, not going 2-2 OOC. The Huskies just weren't that competitive with their conference peers last year, and finished dead last in the PAC10. In fact they've finished 10th, 9th and 10th over the past three years. They're just not getting in done in the PAC10.

Whether or not UW had a more difficult OOC schedule than UCLA is irrelevant. In fact UCLA fared worse than UW in their OOC games, UCLA 1-2, UW 2-2. UCLA had the same conference schedule the Huskies had and were able to win enough games in conference to avoid a losing season and get to a bowl game, not that the bar used to define success should be set that low. UCLA has rightfully made a head coaching change and will no doubt be better next year.

Another point is that last year, the majority of UW's "difficult" games were played at home.

The Huskies played seven games at home, four were against ranked opponents, BSU, OSU, USC, and UO, and two were against rivals, UO and WSU.

The Huskies played six games on the road, only two of which were against ranked opponents, and both ranked teams turned out to be a whole lot softer than their rankings indicated, those teams being ASU and Hawaii. In fact UW led in both those games and failed to make the adjustments required to win those (and many other) games last season.

Anyway, no more excuses. UW has failed to be competitive within the PAC10 and therin lies the rub. Time to get it done.

Posted by DucksownHuskies

5:44 AM, Jan 09, 2008

Everyone outside of Seattle knows why Scout rates the Huskies so is a Seattle based company run by a bunch of Huskies. Good grief. Rivals is much more objective. One of your best in state players goes to the Ducks....Nick Cody. Rivals has him at four stars...Scout downgrades him to two. All you Huskies are delusional.

Posted by onewoodwacker

6:24 AM, Jan 09, 2008

Just a thought - I am not concerned about the number of Offensive (esp. RB's/WR'S)players Ty has brought in. Most of these guys were successful "two-way" players in high school anyway.

Ty NEEDS and WANTS some speed, depth and character (Jake Locker type). Half of these "offensive" recruits will never see that side of the ball unless we go through a MAJOR injury crisis.

Posted by onewoodwacker

6:43 AM, Jan 09, 2008

DucksownHuskies -

I agree about the major differences between Scout and Rivals. Though I will say this. Just as Scout is west coast, Rivals is east coast and both show their respective bias'. I don't like or agree with the down-grading of Nick Cody either.

Except for a small handfull of "can't-miss" players who really knows how these kids will do in college.

Then when you then consider how many are able to take their game to the Pro level. In reality, there just aren't that many "Great Ones" out there

Posted by Husky Fan In New York

6:52 AM, Jan 09, 2008

Rivals is based out of the SE so TX/FL guys and those nearby get a ton of love. I don't know where Scout is based out of but they cover the West more and have a better pulse on the players.

Nick Cody is ranked as a 3 star by Scout and always has been. Don't know where you got the 2 star idea.

Posted by TurbineSeaplane

8:11 AM, Jan 09, 2008

I agree with Mello...

Ty is doing "fine" with recruiting, and that's it as of now.

Hopefully by next year at this time we can be talking about how Ty and his staff won a bunch of games due to excellent preparation, great play-calling and good 2nd half adjustments...


Ok, I can't really say any of that and keep a straight face...


Posted by Dave

9:54 AM, Jan 09, 2008

It is too bad that short football players suck so bad. Good thing the Seahawks were smart enough not to have any short players in key positions this year. Wait, what's that? You say that 23 of the 59 Seahawks are listed at 6 foot or under? A slightly higher percentage than the 19 (out of 52 to date) TW recruits in the last two classes who are 6 foot or under? Well I'll be darned.

Next thing you know, they'll be telling me that a guy can be listed at 6 foot or under and be NFL MVP. Or the best young linebacker in the game. Or a Super Bowl MVP. Or a 13 year fullback. Or... hey, wait a minute!

Posted by Jeff D

10:08 AM, Jan 09, 2008

Cool I started a little beehive. Knock it all you want but the fact is size is one of the attributes in football - a very physical sport.

I never said shorter players can't excel but I do say recruiting classes where 40% are under 6' is not smart. Just as your arguments reference the exception rather than the rule, the rule is the standard.

None of you will dispute USC domination in recruiting. They have a 5'6" recruit (shorter than any husky) but ALL others are 6'+. Last year they had 2

It's football guys. Do you really want to have the shortest team in the country?

Posted by garfieldmag

10:11 AM, Jan 09, 2008

While where to set the bar for a 'tall' player is subjective, I'd say around 6'2", you can look at a team like USC to see what happens when you get a bunch of behemoths in their at linebacker and DB. There are always exceptions, James Rodgers, Maurice J-D, and that Holliday guy from LSU are all good players. But any coach will tell you that he'd rather have the bigger guy in there.

Posted by Husky 2002

10:12 AM, Jan 09, 2008

In places where height matters most, OL, QB and TE we are fine. To some extent it's nice on DL, but pad level and leverage matter more. It does not matter at WR, RB or CB. It is nice to have, but I'll take a quicker, more agile athlete who is shorter any day. The game of FB is now played out in open space and speed and quickness are more important than ever before. Your argument holds no weight.

Posted by kdawg

11:29 AM, Jan 09, 2008

Scout also rates a recruiting class by how well the recruiting class fulfills current needs by player position. UW has a lot of needs, so therefore, by Scout.s thinking, UW's ranking of their recruiting class gets some bonus points. Anyway you slice it, we are recruiting well above what would be considered possible by a last place finisher in the PAC-10.

Posted by Jeff D

1:57 PM, Jan 09, 2008

Well husky 2002 you and Ty must be the exception. The current top 10 recruiting teams for 2008 (Scout) average 3 recruits per team under 6'. None has more than 5 except UW @ 10. I think I'll go with

BTW - Pac 10 average is about 2.5

Posted by Husky 2002

2:27 PM, Jan 09, 2008

Wow a bunch of 5'11" 17 yr olds. It's impossible that any of them will crack 6'. Also, they'll never go anywhere in their careers. Moronic.

Posted by Jeff D

2:43 PM, Jan 09, 2008

It is interesting that I make an observation supported by the data from every major university and you call it moronic. I assume that to mean if facts are different than what you choose to believe the presenter of the data must be unintelligent. I believe it's called the shoot the messenger theory.

Posted by onewoodwacker

4:57 PM, Jan 09, 2008

Don't kid yourself - I would bet a $1,000.00 that 95% of these kids report a "fudged" Height, Weight, Bench Press, Squat, 40 time.

When I asst. coached we would fudge our size on our roster. We wanted the opponent to think we were bigger than we were.

I would also bet that there are probably only 20 guys in the entire NFL that can run a "TRUE" sub 4.4 forty. You go to these recruiting sites and low and behold there are thousands.

And I'm shocked how many can bench 300lbs plus. I'm 52 yrs old and have been lifting for 35 years. Do you know how many 17yr olds I've seen bench 300 plus? 2 (Bench Press - free weights)

Some of these kids list their height at 6-5 or taller, which usually means their arms are 3.5-4' long. Do you have any idea how much strenght it takes to move 300lbs 3-4' off your chest?

Most men don't reach their ultimate lifting capability until they're 40, these kids are doing it at 17-18? I'll be from Missouri - "Show Me".

Recent entries

May 13, 08 - 10:25 PM
Answers, volume three

May 13, 08 - 05:31 PM
Reece signs with Raiders

May 13, 08 - 10:21 AM
Answers, volume two

May 12, 08 - 04:20 PM
Answers, volume one

May 12, 08 - 03:57 PM
Moos: Still no contact







Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Browse the archives

May 2008

April 2008

March 2008

February 2008

January 2008

December 2007


Buy a link here