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

May 13, 2008 10:25 PM

Answers, volume three

Posted by Bob Condotta

Here are a few more answers (with some big props to the UW sports information department for their help on some of these):

Q: Any update on the status of Juan Garcia?

A: The latest is that he is still rehabbing and on crutches, hoping his injured foot will heal on its own so he can avoid surgery that would almost certainly end his collegiate playing career. It is reported to be three more weeks until he can bear weight on the foot to test it out. At some point in the next few weeks it is expected that he will be re-examined to determine if the foot is healing on its own. If not, he may have to eventually have surgery. If it is healing, then he will continue rehab with the hopes of trying to come back next season.

Q: How long does the UW's contract with Nike last? Will the school explore contracts with other companies when it expires?

A: The contract expires June 30, 2009. It began July of 2000 and was extended for another four years in 2005. I would imagine that UW will explore other options when that contract runs out if only because it generally explores all of its options when making such deals. At the moment, hard to know where such matters are headed with no permanent AD in place. But by then, the new AD will have had a year or so to begin to figure out those kinds of things. I'm attempting to get some more specifics as to the nature of the contract (financial terms, etc.) and will pass those along when I do.

Q: Any changes in the football uniforms coming this year?

A: No. A UW spokesman says they will look the same as the 2007 season. As for whether they will change down the road, the new AD will certainly have a say in that matter. So, obviously, would a new coach if that transpires.

Q: What is the recruiting budget for the football team? Has it gone up in recent years?

A: According to a spokesman, the recruiting budget this year was approximately $275,000 which essentially covers all travel by coaches and all visits by recruits. That is 5 percent more than two years ago. The questioner noted that Colorado's recruiting budget has essentially doubled since Dan Hawkins became coach two years ago (details here) and wondered if UW should do the same --- Colorado is said to spend more than $550,000 on recruiting. However, I would warn against making a direct comparison since you don't know if the two schools are including the exact same items in their budgets. Without going over it line-by-line, it's hard to know for sure if one school is spending a lot more than another, or simply categorizing expenses differently. Certainly, the reviews on UW's recruiting class this year would seem to indicate the Huskies are spending enough. Without a complete breakdown of the recruiting budget of Colorado, hard to know if they really are spending twice as much as UW, or just counting the expenses differently. It certainly looks, however, as if they are spending more. But without knowing all the details I'd be hesitant to really judge it.Also worth noting is that the NCAA and Pac-10 each enacted reforms aimed at curbing recruiting expenses in 2005 (I examined that in this story here).

Q: Did offensive coordinator Tim Lappano receive a raise to put him on the same level as new defensive coordinator Ed Donatell?

A: Sort of, but not completely. Donatell signed a contract guaranteeing him $310,008 plus a $24,000 housing allowance. After last season, Lappano received a raise of about $20,000 putting him at $219,514 plus the $24,000 housing allowance.

Digg Digg | Newsvine Newsvine

Submit a comment

*Required Field

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Posted by 2Tite4U FoSho

1:01 AM, May 14, 2008

FIRST You guyz iz lozers!FIRST You guyz iz lozers!FIRST You guyz iz lozers!FIRST You guyz iz lozers!FIRST You guyz iz lozers!FIRST You guyz iz lozers!FIRST You guyz iz lozers!FIRST You guyz iz lozers!FIRST You guyz iz lozers!FIRST You guyz iz lozers!

Posted by bill

10:42 AM, May 14, 2008

story about Locker on the front of rivals. pretty interesting!

Posted by OlyDawg

10:42 AM, May 14, 2008

Anyone catch the story on Locker on the front page of ?

Nothing too informative, but gives you a little insight into what he was thinking when he had the neck injury in the OSU game.

Posted by Gabe

10:48 AM, May 14, 2008

Locker will be the Beast of the West. And Troy Must Be Destroyed.

Posted by scott

11:22 AM, May 14, 2008

Another question. What really happened some months ago when Willingham was courting UCLA's DC Walker? Much was made of Willingham's offer to let Walker clean house at the UW, including sacking Chris Tormey. Was Tormey's job really on the line, what does he have to say about it all?

Posted by BoiseTruth

11:41 AM, May 14, 2008

Molly had a nicely done "peek at 2008"

Bob, thanks for addressing my question on recruiting budgets. I would be hesitant to relate last years reviews of the recruiting class to budget since the ranking was largely based on local recruits. Only two 4 stars from out of state. Not a lot of money spent recruiting from Seattle to Tacoma (even Prosser).
That's not going to work every year simply because that number of local 4 stars aren't going to be available every year. All I know is that the last two years Hawk has been handing out offers across the nation like penny candy on a warm, dry, Holloween night. He's taken the approach that nobody is unrecruitable.

Conversely, I, and other people on the blog wonder why UW doesn't seem to bother recruiting people on the Scout top 300 list (at least not a large number) . Much less the top 100. Is that a consequence of budget? I guess that's what led to the budget question.

Posted by Formerly Guest

12:07 PM, May 14, 2008

Good question. I had always figured it was a matter of exosure and coaches being afraid to over-reach.

I recall Doba saying after WSU's 3 years of 10 wins, they broke from their past recruiting strategies and rather than taking undersized rural kids early in the season, they all of a sudden thought they could compete more with UO and the LA schools for top notch S. Cal talent...but they couldn't get those guys after all and then had to scramble for JC guys and other left-overs. This exacerbated some of their academic issues and led to lack of depth and talent.

Recruiting seems a precarious balance. If you are holding out for the prom queen until the last minute and pass on the slightly lesser girl who is likely to say yes, sometimes you are left with nothing on signing day when USC, Florida or ND step in at the last minute and take your recruit.

I am curious to get Bob's take on it.

Posted by BoiseTruth

12:56 PM, May 14, 2008

You make a valid point FG. Related to that, last year, I heard Lee Corso talking about recruiting against Michigan, and Ohio State when he was at Indiana. His theory was that you couldn't beat them by recruiting their recruits, so forget them, and get the best of the rest. He got Indiana to the Rose Bowl (great accomplishment) so I guess it works, but he only did it once so maybe only marginally successful. The question then becomes, is UW now the equivalent of Indiana, or WSU regarding recruiting? Should UW just throw in the towel, and take the best of the rest?

Hawk's theory is, "to me, you are either trying to be the best or you are not". If we had to commit to Corso's theory, or Hawk's theory which would we choose? I lean towards Hawk's theory. He thinks he can do it whether anyone else believes it or not is irrelevant to him. But, you're right, you have to score with the prom queen every now and then. Sounds good to me.

Posted by OlyDawg

1:49 PM, May 14, 2008

I don't think Ty has a problem going after big name recruits of USC or UCLA - see: Chris Polk and Craig Noble.

I think recruits well for our position geographically and nationally - there's no way we could pull down Top 10 guys who are out of state. There's a reason warm weather schools often pull down the top rated recruits. And Ty's crew has shown an eye for good recruits that fly under the radar - see:Foster, Noble

Also, I wouldn't put a lot of thought into the top 100/300 rankings. A lot of it is hype, and even more of it is East Coast bias.

Posted by Blue

2:28 PM, May 14, 2008


Indiana last went to the Rose Bowl in ’68, and Corso didn’t start coaching there until ‘72/’73. Am I missing something?

Posted by BoiseTruth

3:18 PM, May 14, 2008

Sorry Blue, I thought Indiana went in the early 70's. I guess Corso wasn't even marginally successful with his best of the rest approach.

Oly, do you think that the fact that Polk was going to be buried on the SC depth chart influenced his decision about coming to UW? Who is Polk going to have to sit behind this year at UW as a true freshman? That's pretty appealing if you want to play early. Three D-line starters lost. That's pretty appealing for Noble isn't it? Not to mention that Noble wasn't offered by SC, or UCLA. But, he wasn't an under the radar guy because he had three PAC-10 offers including Oregon. If warm weather dictates who we can recruit, how did Polk, Noble, and Foster end up at UW. The top rated running back in the west last year ended up at Colorado. Not warm. East coast bias, and hype aside, we don't really have anything better to go than the list of players provided by Scout and Rivals. At least not that I know about.

Finally, in regards to holding out for the prom queen and missing a chance with the girl next door, I don't think we're holding out for anybody. In order to go to the dance with the prom queen, you must first invite her to the dance. I don't think we're doing that, which was my point in the first place.

Posted by Formerly Guest

4:41 PM, May 14, 2008


I agree, if you don't ask the 5-star player from Florida or Ohio to come to your program and give them an offer, they won't come.

But I think the problem is to get a lot of these players to come, you have to invest a lot of phone time and a lot of face time to get them to agree, and then you have to worry about them ditching you at the last minute when a more enticing program comes along.

That LB we got from lousiana last year is a good example. We only had a chance because LSU said no to him and Tennessee backed off. Even then, Tormey spent a lot of hours each week/month trying to close the deal.

I don't think any program can invest tons of hours per week in 300 different guys this spring and fall. They have to sort of target 30 or 40, balancing it between guys they have a great chance to get and porm queen types.

I may be wrong, but I think in the Don James years, most of our guys were from WA or CA with an occasional guy plucked from AZ or somewhere else in our time zone. Even at our zenith, we weren't getting top 300 guys from outside our conference zone, and probably not a lot of top 300 guys from outside our state.

We certainly had more pull then than we do now, and we got the state's version of Kavario Middleton 9 years out of 10.

I was in grade school and then high school at the time, so my memory may not be all that accurate, but for what it is worth, this is my impression of those golden years.

I would like to see us compete with USC for some of these top 300 guys who are west coasters, but until we finish 2nd in conference two years in a row, I am not sure we will be able to do that.

I agree that Noble and Polk were great grabs for us, but my sense is that USC could have kept Polk and grabbed Noble, but elected not to.

I see your frustration with our program being conservative in not going for the home run recruit. I guess my hope is that Polk and Locker have breakout years next year and TW asks top 300 skill players in CA "these guys wouldn't be starting at USC but in our program they are all-conference. Do you want to ride bench for 2-3 years at USC or be all-conference next year for us?"

It's not the most prideful selling point for our program, but it can be an attraction for the kind of talent upgrade we want.

Posted by BoiseTruth

6:32 PM, May 14, 2008

"I think the problem is to get a lot of these players to come, you have to invest a lot of phone time and a lot of face time to get them to agree, and then you have to worry about them ditching you at the last minute when a more enticing program comes along." Not to be dismissive , but welcome to the world of college football recruiting.

I don't think Roussel is a good example at all. He was a case of inviting the the girl next door, then having having a shot at the prom queen (UCLA LB - the prom queen), and dumping the girl next door only having to go back to the girl next door when you missed on the prom queen. The way I see it, the only option Roussel had was the boy next door -- Tulane. I'm glad we have Roussel, but I don't think he fits your example (unless I've misunderstood your point).

I think you've exaggerated what I said. You don't have to recruit the entire list of 300. You don't have to recruit Florida, or Ohio to recruit people on that list. How about 10 players west of the Mississippi. Can you show me where that has happened? I'm aware that most of the people that DJ recruited were local and cali recruits, but this is a different era (internet recruiting - text messaging - Hawk) that I'm not sure applies anymore.

As for competing with USC, maybe we'll never be able to do that, but SC can only take 25 players per year. There are a lot more good players than that. If finishing in the top two in the conference two years in a row is really important to our ability to compete for recruits, how do we explain a number 14 ranking last year (in state recruits that won't be available next year? Then what?).

As far as Polk goes, I don't know why you say that SC could have retained him if they wanted to. I remember PC vowing to fight for Polk after he committed to UW, but he didn't wind up at SC. Maybe you're right about Noble. They never tried to get him.

I'm not frustrated about last years recruiting class. I'm actually very happy with the class. I'm more asking the question, if last years recruiting was due to the availability of local recruits, and those recruits aren't available this year what do we do then? Are we asking enough? If not, why not?

I don't buy the fact that UW should have to take a back seat to anybody when it comes to recruiting. To me the UW is an incredible place to go to school, and play football. Yeah, it might be my silly past remembrances, but I'm stuck in that, and won't give it up. Realistic? Maybe not, but at this Point I'm not willing to give it up without a fight, or without the effort. It doesn't hurt to ask.

I'm a believer that once you make 3 or 4 posts on the blog that you really should just shut up cause 4 more posts won't be of any benefit if you can't make your point in the first 4 posts. Therefore, I'll shut up, but nobody else has to.

Enjoyed your thoughts FG, and Oly. Thanks.

Posted by SnohomishRick

8:27 PM, May 14, 2008

As far as James goes, even after a bunch of Rose Bowls and a National Title we still never danced with the Prom Queen. We had a few twirls around the dance floor with Princesses and got some good players but it has always been about getting the best of the instate players and a few out of state gems. The best part about limited talent instate this year is that we only have 18 or 19 scholarships to offer so we should be able to pull in the same percentage of good players.

Posted by Formerly Guest

9:33 PM, May 14, 2008


I differ from you in that I advocate -and practice- redundant posts. A few repsonses:

-Yes, I may have exaggerated your point. At least I certainly oversimplified it.
-I would like to see us grab some top 300 guys.
-I don't really know, and can only speculate...despite what PC said publicly, I suspect he was not that heart-broken to lose Polk. I would not put it past him to lie to a guy like Polk and really make him feel like he has a high chance of starting, if he really wanted to keep him from leaving.
-Yes Roussel is a weird example. The program had the bargaining chip rather than the player in that case, so he was the one almost left at the alter, so to speak. I think the point I was trying to make is when you go for players out of your homebase, you are probably limted by money (as you pointed out earlier) but probably also by time. You have to choose pretty carefully, even though these kids are your "reaches." The 10 or so you pick, well you have to make sure you have a reasonable chance to get them. I guess the point I was making with Roussel was even though we didn't have much competition (just tulane), we still had to invest a ton of energy and time in developing that relationship to get him here. Imagine how much more time and effort we would have to spend to wow a guy and bond with him, when he is also being pursued avidly by 5 big-10 schools and 5 SEC schools.
- I cannot show you where we have gone after a top 300 guy pretty hard that is outside of WA or CA, if even in CA. What I see is TW developing some relationships with certain schools in S CAL, N CAL and up here. My hope is that he has first dibs on any kid coming out of Redlands East now, for example.
-Yes, I think we finished with the 14th class in large part because we had such good talent in-state last yr, and WSU was so unable to get anyone to sign. It will be naturally harder this year.

You make a great point about this being 2007, not 1991. It is the internet age, you say. I guess I think inside the box and don't adapt well, and look for old patterns for success. I think our coaching staff does too, based on what I have seen of their recruiting tactics. I hope it works this year.

TW strikes me as an over-regimented kind of guy, don't you think? I really wonder how much control he give Tormey in all this.

Posted by BoiseTruth

7:59 AM, May 15, 2008

orning FG,

As you, and Rick, say, the old recruiting patterns that have been successful probably won't, and shouldn't change completely. That personal contact base of HS coaches is very important. That said, lets veer off to internet recruiting for a moment. Here's a link that's been around for a few days, and posted many different places so you may have seen it already. It does a pretty good job of explaining how some of the new tech is being utilized.

Tw does strike me as being very regimented, and I don't really see him as the kind of guy to be on the forefront of modern tech recruiting. But, the old way is still how the bulk of recruiting happens so maybe not all that important at this point. I don't know how Tormey feels about the new methods, but I would tend to think that he might embrace it more quickly than TW. No way to know for sure. Just guessing. Also, as the link points out, not all coaches are sold on the new methods being better.

Posted by BoiseTruth

8:02 AM, May 15, 2008

Let me try that again, Morning FG. That's better.

Posted by Guest

11:28 AM, May 15, 2008

Thanks for the link. It is an interesting read. I am intrigued that Saban and others do this, that so many coaches are going to these spring HS clinics to see players, and that Bowden says he has been recruiting local players since the 8th grade.
The quote from the Minnesota recruiting director is telling - "The Saban rule permits those coaches who want to work hard [recruiting] to do so."

It would be interesting if Bob did an article explaining how much of this stuff we are doing right now. You have raised very good, but worrisome, points I would say.

Recent entries

May 15, 08 - 09:43 AM
Baseball interlude two, more

May 14, 08 - 03:40 PM
A.D. update

May 14, 08 - 11:11 AM
Wednesday notes and links

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

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







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