Advertising

The Seattle Times Company

NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds | seattletimes.com

Huskies


Our network sites seattletimes.com | 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 23, 2008 12:38 PM

More on UW and LSU

Posted by Bob Condotta

Despite his ties to LSU, Washington acting athletic director Scott Woodward said he wasn't really trying to schedule a football game against the Tigers --- it just sort of happened.

"(We) had an opening and (they) had an opening and it just sort of fit,'' Woodward said.

The Huskies announced today that they have signed a deal to play a two-game home-and-home series with LSU, with the Tigers coming here to open the 2009 season on Sept. 5 and UW going there on Sept. 29, 2012.

UW needed another game after Nevada pulled out of a scheduled contest in 2009. Woodward said the Huskies called a number of schools, including some in the Big Ten and ACC.

Along the way, Woodward, who worked at LSU from 1999-2004, also talked with old friend Verge Ausberry, senior associate athletic director for the Tigers, and the two realized that each school might be able to help the other.

"We were looking for BCS schools,'' he said. "When you do home-and-homes you're looking for really good matchups, but this late in the game trying to get someone can be problematic. It just worked out they had a nice fit.''

UW hasn't played an SEC school in a regular-season game since visiting LSU in 1983, a 40-14 loss. The Huskies haven't hosted one since losing to Alabama and Bear Bryant in 1978, 20-17. UW last played an SEC school in any setting in 1989, beating Florida in the Freedom Bowl 34-7.

"It'll be fun for our fans to experience a different type of geographical and football culture,'' Woodward said.

Adding LSU will give the Huskies another pretty stout schedule in 2009 as UW will also play at Notre Dame while hosting Idaho in non-conference play.

Some have wondered if the Huskies shouldn't downgrade the schedule a bit while it is attempting to dig out of a four-year rut of losing seasons.

Woodward said that was discussed, but that ultimately the school wants to continue its philosophy of putting together the most attractive schedule it can each year. He said UW coach Tyrone Willingham shares that view.

"He likes to have competitive schedules for our fans and he likes the challenge,'' Woodward said.

There is also the chance that both LSU games will be nationally televised, possibly by ESPN, though no agreements are yet set.

Digg Digg | Newsvine Newsvine

Submit a comment

*Required Field



Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Posted by duckieswin

1:14 PM, May 23, 2008

2tite where are u

Posted by Gabe

1:39 PM, May 23, 2008

Whether stupid or not, looks like the deal is done. So maybe we should get back to something really productive, like discussing TW's win/loss record and how many games he can lose next year and still keep his job. You have to give the guy credit. He's on the hot seat and he still wants to take on LSU instead of Cal State Nowhere. That's assuming Emmert didn't do this on his own over lunch.

Posted by Gabe

1:41 PM, May 23, 2008

Jeeez, forgot to say what's really important: Troy Must Be Destroyed.

Posted by iowa husky

1:45 PM, May 23, 2008

I'd love to see the average strength of schedule for Ty's teams since he began at ND through this season.

Posted by Jordan

2:17 PM, May 23, 2008

I agree with you dblue and several others. There are a lot of people on here that don't get it. This is a great idea. Until we are a perenial Pac-10 contender the only way to stay in the minds of the media and national recruits is to play games like this. I also think this has a lot to do with Jake Locker. Mark my words this is JAKE LOCKER'S HEISMAN TROPHY COMING OUT PARTY. The whole nation will see what he can do against the hyped defense of an SEC team.This game will be on national tv with a quality team from the SEC and possibly College Gameday. You don't get that publicity with San Jose State. This was brilliant.

Posted by Dave

2:28 PM, May 23, 2008

While I do think this is a mighty tough game to add to the schedule, I also note that even with this game, all that it will take to get to a bowl game in '09 is beating Idaho at home and going 5-4 in the Pac-10. This could be achieved a number of ways, for example by beating Stanford, Cal, WSU, Arizona and Oregon State, 3 of which are home games that year. If Ty can't accomplish that or the equivalent by year 5 at a school like UW, he should get out of the business entirely. Doubly true if Locker comes back as a healthy 3rd year starter at QB. And presumably Ty agrees since Woodward says he is down with this.

Meanwhile, if we lose we are really no worse off than we are now, but if we win what better way to vault the program onto the national stage? So I am coming around to this move.

Posted by gohuskies898

2:44 PM, May 23, 2008

I for one disagree with a lot of you that we should be scheduling easier opponents. If we had a non-conference home slate of Idaho, San Jose State, and Pacific, who would get excited? Attendance at those would be terrible.

The LSU game will be sold out and the stadium rocking. I would rather see us lose to better teams then pad our non-conference schedule.

I have always been in favor of a signature team, middle of the road team, and an easy one. 2009 seems about right. One Championship Team (LSU), one middle team (Notre Dame), and one easy one (Idaho).

GO DAWGS!!!

Posted by Mick

4:06 PM, May 23, 2008

I have to laugh and applaud at the same time. Bob, you did an article about a year ago detailing the difficulties of scheduling SEC teams. I tried to counter the arguments in the story as I didnít buy the UWís rational, but you shot me down. And this was right after oregon has scheduled a home-away with Tennessee and Georgia, and here we are with our own SEC game. Didnít sound so hard from what I read today.

Posted by Bob Condotta

4:18 PM, May 23, 2008

Well, they do have a pretty big in with LSU right now. Not sure this completely kills my theory that it's not all that easy to bring SEC teams up here. Let's wait and see if it's a trend. I doubt it ever will be.

Posted by The way it really works

4:23 PM, May 23, 2008

I love the folks wanting to take on this challenge. I wish I shared their optimism and enthusiasm.

True -- a huge win over a team like LSU would be great. It would be the biggest win in years. Heck, given how few wins we've had, that doesn't take much!!!

Real world -- we'll probably get drilled (just being honest seeing the state of our program)
Real world -- at the end of the year, everybody flaps their gums about it, but the 12-0 team from a BCS conference that played several weak sisters always gets the nod over the 10-2 team that played a brutal schedule.
Real world -- At the end of the year, we look better going 8-4 and going to a bowl game rather than 6-6 and being a tweener. Nobody will care that we won against Idaho or that we lost to LSU. A win against anyone is always better than a loss to anyone. It's just the way college football works. Until there is a playoff, it's a beauty pagent. And wins are what the judges are looking for!

For all of the talk, playing a difficult schedule never gets rewarded with bowl games. The team with the better record (from a BCS conference) will get a bowl or a better bowl. Sure, everyone pays a bunch of lip service, but ultimately the wins get the goods.

And as a fan, I'd rather watch us win against anyone versus watching us drop another game to a top 5 program.

Please fellow Husky fans... take an honest look at the state of our program right now. (Not where we were 20 years ago.) I agree I'd rather watch us in a good game versus LSU over a sacking of Saint Ann's Nunnery for the Blind, but we're not a good program right now. It's the cold reality.

If we get good again, I say we do the Don James model for scheduling:
One easy game
One so-so game
and One tough game

But given the state of things right now, I think we're just piling more weight on top of something we can't move as it is. I love the Dawgs, but this is insanity. We need to play a cream puff OCC and just start winning some games. THEN (and only then) should we start tangling horns with programs which are candidly completely out of our league.

It's not being a wussie. It's just being realistic. Even the best fighters don't take a fight if they're totally out of shape. They train and prepare for the big fight. Then when they are ready (experience, conditioning, etc.), they take it on. We're just not ready right now to contend in fights like this... it's not ducking from a challenge, it's just being smart.

Posted by onewoodwacker

4:37 PM, May 23, 2008

Cool - LSU - Think Bradly Roussel will be just a tad bit excited to play at home in 2012?

Kid comes all the way from Baton Rouge to play in Seattle with no prospect of ever playing in front of his home town then this happens - pretty damn cool!!

Posted by Formerly Guest

4:38 PM, May 23, 2008

Way it really works...
Agreed.

Posted by Dave

4:42 PM, May 23, 2008

@4:23 -- If we are 6-6 we won't be a "tweener" there are barely enough bowl eligible teams as it is and two more bowls just got added. Even if we didn't get one of the Pac-10's seven (!) contractual slots, at 6-6 we would be virtually guaranteed a slot somewhere.

You are right that 12-0 always seems to trump 10-2 regardless of strength of schedule (unless of course it's a BCS league team vs. a non-BCS league team) but by the same token, nobody really gives a hoot after the season about 8-5 vs. 7-6. At the end of the day both teams played in minor bowls.

Posted by Gil Dobie

4:49 PM, May 23, 2008

The goal in 2009, and an at least somewhat realistic one, is the Rose Bowl. A loss to LSU does not affect that in any way. Playing that caliber of opponent only helps us in our preparation for winning the Pac-10. If we're playing for the national title, which may be remotely possible with dramatic improvement in the defense by 2009, then a loss here would be tough. Even then, we play them so early in the schedule it wouldn't be a factor. If one loss keeps us from a very low tier bowl, so be it. Such a bowl would be a huge disappointment in 2009 anyway.

Posted by fudazz

5:01 PM, May 23, 2008

I agree "the way it really works". This is football, not basketball. Strength of schedule doesn't count when it comes to post season positioning. If you're not in a BCS bowl, its all about your won/loss record and how many tickets you can sell.

Posted by Dave

5:09 PM, May 23, 2008

actually if you really want to get deeply into it, if you're not in a BCS bowl it's not even about your won-loss record as long as you're bowl eligible. It's all about how many tickets you can sell, or whatever other criterion the individual bowl committees feel like using. There is no law that for e.g. the fourth place team in a conference cannot be picked "ahead" of the third place team if the #3 bowl finds the fourth place team sexier.

Posted by Gabe

5:42 PM, May 23, 2008

Perhaps TW stepped up to the line and supported the LSU date despite the prospect that it could hurt his chances to remain coach. If he did, that's greatly to his credit. But my w/a guess about this is that UW's bayou boys got together and did this one on their own, putting TW's feet to fire and giving him one of the biggest tests of his career. Once they told him they had done the deal, then he was down with it. Totally. This is how I envision it unfolding. Now our intrrepid reporter can go out and get the real story behind the story and give us the facts. Troy Must Be Destroyed.

Posted by MelloDawg

11:56 AM, May 24, 2008

Wait, wait, wait....

What's all this "Year 5" of Ty's regime talk? Since when has he earned his 5th year? I thought that 90% of this blog was in agreement that if he doesn't win THIS year that he's out and doesn't GET his 5th year.

Now apparently we're making excuses for his FIFTH year when he hasn't even started his FOURTH. Is that even possible?

Husky Football: "We'll get 'em next year!"

Posted by Formerly Guest

4:54 PM, May 24, 2008

Mello,

I am glad that TW is still with us, but I do think the consensus on this board remains that 90% of us won't support him unless we do very well this year.

The catch is that we may all have different definitions of doing 'very well."

I wouldn't sweat it. I worry about your blood pressure. Go and enjoy the weather.

Posted by dawg 84

6:14 PM, May 24, 2008

before you start talking about a locker heisman soming out party you should worry about him even being around if you fire Ty. Willingham was the only reason he's at Udub and if you fire Ty he will look to go to a school where he will sit out and play baseball. then back to football and play both sports. Geez does ASU sound good with Erickson there. Top baseball program. All Ty haters better be careful what the wish for.

Posted by MelloDawg

7:16 PM, May 24, 2008

Dawg 84,

Wrong. Jake Locker would have come to UW even if Hillary Clinton was the head football coach. A 6 year old could have recruited Locker. I like how it was some recruiting genius of Ty that got our QB to consider UW.

Recent entries

May 23, 08 - 04:55 PM
Examining the schedules

May 23, 08 - 12:38 PM
More on UW and LSU

May 23, 08 - 10:46 AM
Huskies to host LSU in 2009

May 23, 08 - 08:50 AM
Rayford signs with BC Lions

May 22, 08 - 09:42 PM
Interesting story on Weis, Willingham salaries

Advertising

Marketplace

4 automakers invest in plants; Honda upgrades Fit bumpernew
Toyota plans to expand production of its Highlander SUV. (Toyota) 4 automakers reveal big plant changes A variety of automakers announced major moves ...
Post a comment

Advertising

Advertising

Categories
Calendar

May

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

Advertising

Buy a link here