The Seattle Times Company

NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds |


Our network sites | Advanced

Husky Men's Basketball Blog

Seattle Times staff reporter Bob Condotta provides a running commentary on the Huskies.

E-mail Bob| Husky Men's Basketball forum| RSS feeds Subscribe | Blog Home

May 2, 2008 10:04 AM

Re-assessing the Pac

Posted by Bob Condotta

So now that we at least know who is interested in leaving early, if not all who for sure will leave early, time to update our pre-pre-pre-season Pac-10 power ratings.

1, UCLA --- Despite what could be some fairly significant losses, still the team to beat, thanks in part to one somewhat surprising decision to stay by PG Darren Collison. My guess is Josh Shipp and Luc Richard Mbah a Moute ultimately stay, and that combined with Collison, and a top-rated recruiting class, makes the Bruins the class of the Pac-10.

2, Arizona State --- Still No. 2 , and as I wrote last month, everybody's back, and that should be a big advantage next season in a conference that doesn't figure to be as deep or strong as it was this year. James Harden should take the next step to stardom, Jeff Pendergraph could be the best defensive player in the conference, and the rest of the cast should be able to provide a little better support.

3, USC --- Finally some certainty here as we know for sure that O.J. Mayo and Davon Jefferson are gone but that Taj Gibson and Daniel Hackett will be back, as well as a stellar recruiting class led by swingman Demar DeRozan, who may be an even better fit than was Mayo.

4, Cal --- As I wrote a month ago, taking a hunch here that the addition of Mike Montgomery may also compel Ryan Anderson to return. If so, Bears could take a pretty big leap as they seemed to almost play better this year without DeVon Hardin, indicating they won't miss him all that much. Return-to-health of Theo Robertson will help, and Montgomery should add a defensive emphasis missing this year.

5, Arizona --- Little change here. This remains a really hard team to assess until we know for sure if Chase Budinger stays. Budinger remains rated as a high first-round pick but it probably depends a lot on how the tryout camps go. If he leaves, Arizona will drop in this ranking. If not, a trio of Budinger, Jordan Hill and Brandon Jennings will make the Wildcats more than capable of a top five finish. And don't forget that the Wildcats are also bringing in two quality freshmen big men in center Jeff Withey and forward Emmanuel Negedu.

6, Washington --- No change from last month. Return of just about everyone plus the addition of three guards that should solidify the backcourt will make the Huskies again a contender for an NCAA Tournament berth. If one or more of the young big guys makes a big leap in production (or an immediate impact in the case of the freshmen) Huskies could climb higher (especially if the team figures out a way to make free throws again).

7, Washington State --- Cougars added DeAngelo Casto since our last rankings, but it's uncertain how much he'll add next year. Otherwise, Cougars lose a lot, but they aren't going to fall off the edge of the earth, either, bringing in a solid recruiting class and possibly getting some big help from guys who sat out this season such as Fabian Boeke and Abe Lodwick. But it figures to take some time to adjust to life with Derrick Low and Kyle Weaver.

8, Oregon --- Ducks could finish a whole lot higher than this if a fabulous recruiting class pays immediate dividends. And since our last ratings, Ducks added point guard Garrett Sim seeming to solidify their backcourt. But the Ducks lose a lot of production and experience and the M.O. at Oregon under Ernie Kent has been that even the best of classes take a year or two to mature.

9, Stanford --- Cardinal now has a coach, but it has lost its top recruit in big man Miles Plumlee and with the loss of the Lopez Twins, this seems like a team headed for a big fall.

10, Oregon State --- The Beavers will be a lot more interesting to watch next season with Craig Robinson at the helm. But more than three or four wins in conference play seems hard to fathom.

Digg Digg | Newsvine Newsvine

Submit a comment

*Required Field

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Posted by MT Husky

11:33 AM, May 02, 2008

I think it is impossible to argue with any projections because there are so many question marks surrounding USC, Oregon, UCLA and AZ. All will be exceptionally talented…but talent doesn’t always result in a lot of wins, especially when it is freshmen. Because of youth I suspect those four teams will show a lot of inconsistency. There really is no confident way to predict how well they’ll really perform as a team.

I can’t agree with you putting Cal that high. I understand it is with the assumption Anderson will come back (with which I disagree anyways), but even if he does I think Hardin will prove to be a bigger loss than it appears. He filled the middle awfully well, averaged nearly 8 rebounds a game as well as more than a block a game. Correct me if I’m wrong, but who do they have to replace that? That will only put that much pressure on Anderson that Hardin was able to buffer to a certain degree.

Huskies maturity (4 sr’s and a Jr – all with a lot of PT under their belt) and depth will allow them to take enough games from athletic but lesser experienced teams like Oregon, USC and AZ that they’ll win at least a dozen games in the Pac-10, good enough to finish in the top 5 of the Pac (and by fall I’ll have talked myself into a top 4 or even top 3 finish).

Thanks for the speculation though Bob, good assessment except I don’t agree with your Cal pick and wth USC I question if you’re not giving enough credit to what Mayo/Jefferson brought and if they are really that replaceable.

Posted by 206er

12:09 PM, May 02, 2008

i totally agree with mt husky. i don't see cal making that big of a leap. possible losing their 2 top players and moving up 5 placing in the standings? seems hard to fathom. bob, your lack of faith in the dawgs disappoints me. you make note of other teams' rectuiting classes making big impacts, but neglect that the dawgs should have some good ones coming in. scott suggs sounds like an all star and should get substantial minutes at 2 guard. he and smith will likely be a team there. isiah thomas is a truly unique talent and should be a great contrast to overton at pg. and let's not forget that darnell gant will se his first action. mba, holiday and overton should progress nicely. and this year is the first year since 06 that we will have seniors who contribute and have been playing for 4 years. gasser and bermeister were not real contributers and morris and appleby were both transfers this past year. i know we've been let down the past couple years, but i think the dawgs deserve a little more love

Posted by scott

12:30 PM, May 02, 2008

What does it say about the state of our program, and the coaching staff, when we are no more than a middle of the pac team, even though we are loaded with seniors and everybody else is losing talent to the NBA?

Posted by 206er

12:55 PM, May 02, 2008

scott, keep in mind, this is only one person's opinion of a season that starts in 5 months. this is not a science. i believe the dawgs will be versatile and able to match up with many teams. obviously there are personal improvemetns that need to be made by individuals' skills. if the dawgs have a productive offseason i see no reason why they won't be in the top 4. but regardless they should be longer, more athletic, and experienced.

Posted by Cougfan

1:57 PM, May 02, 2008

Hey everyone...long time no communication. I am sure many of you have missed me. I have been reading, but never really found it compelling enough to post...until now!

I am not really going to disagree with any predictions at this point. I am finding everyone's predictions very interesting and really with few exceptions pretty much the same.

What I am compelled to point out, however, is that the same people who are arguing with the Meatball about UofA's chances based on youth and depth, are the same people arguing for the strength of the UW based on the young kids they have coming in being major contributors. To me it does not make sense. The last I looked Arizona's class is rated higher than the UW's class.

I agree the UW has some veterans returning who have the potential to be pretty good based on the apparent weakness of the PX next year. But we all know, at least we should, that until teams learn how to win, it is difficult to improve (not sure that makes sense, but I know what I meant!)

I believe that the UW will be a vastly improved team and can finish anywhere from 3rd to 7th next year and should be able to secure an NCAA bid. But let's be honest when criticizing others, when you are using the same "facts" to support your opinion.

Posted by MT Husky

2:18 PM, May 02, 2008


Where I disagree with you is people arguing that the incoming freshmen fill big gaps left (USC, UCLA, UA) or are nearly an entire all-improved team (Oregon).

Whereas, if you'll read my arguments, I am basing it on Huskies NOT losing any veterans of high worth, retaining their top 2 players and the incoming freshmen potentially filling a gap that was already there (defense and spotty scoring).

I even went so far to proclaim Huskies much improved next year without any help of the freshment - whereas the arguments for these other teams are the substantially greater contributions being assumed the in-coming frosh will make which very much remains to be seen.

Posted by MT Husky

2:23 PM, May 02, 2008

I probably shouldn't post until I've better outlined and completed my thoughts...but I'm feeling a bit defensive as I am taking your criticism toward some of my proclamations of Huskies succeeding and feel your criticism of hypocrisy was improperly made.

But if you read everything I've posted my questioning of other teams being able to succeed with their freshmen are all teams where those freshmen need to be the leaders and best players on the team.

With Huskies, their best players and leaders are there with substantial experience and thy will have at very most 1 freshmen starting (if that...I still argue Joel Smith will be the 5th starter) and so it is an ideal environment for freshmen to slowly meld into the team and for their contributions to grow.

Huskies will not be relying on immediate impact from their freshmen or to build new team chemistry as UCLA, UA, Oregon and USC...and your Cougs...will all need to do.

Posted by MT Husky

2:51 PM, May 02, 2008

Final comment (thanks Cougfan, I’ve enjoyed processing this through)

Huskies starting five:

Jon Brockman – Sr.
QPon – Jr.
Overton – So
MBA* – So
Joel Smith** - Sr.

First ‘big man’ substitution – Wallace – Sr.
First guard substitution – Dentmon – Sr.

Huskies go 7 deep before a freshmen needs to enter the game…and even then it could be Holiday (so.) or Gant (red-shirt Fr.).

If it is a freshman it is only because they earned it…no expectations are placed on them. The only other team in the Pac-10 who can make a similar claim is ASU.

*MBA – I’m predicting him being the starter based on the injury to Wallace and with the realistic optimism that his strength and game really develops this summer…which the Olympic team opportunity is ideal

**Smith is 100% healthy and ready to begin showing what he showed he could do his Freshman year. With the line further back he will be a great outside threat and if you look at the other guys on the court his slashing abilities make him the ideal #2 guard to put on the floor.

Posted by Bob Condotta

3:32 PM, May 02, 2008

206er --- Thanks for your comments. I will point out that my job is not to show faith in the Huskies but to try to call it as I see it. I should also have probably pointed out in my preamble that I think the Pac-10 will maybe be even more wide open next year than it was this year, even if maybe not as strong. I don't see UCLA ripping through the conference as easily, for instance. I think there could be 7-8 teams from, say, eight to 13 wins in the conference, meaning a lot of close games, and how teams do in those games will determine a lot of things. I did write that I think UW will again be right in the hunt for an NCAA tourney berth, so I am agreeing with you that they will improve. I guess all we disagree on is how much they will improve. I debated UW moving ahead of Arizona and my Cal pick may prove too high --- and I will definitely move them down if Anderson doesn't come back. But if he does, I will stick with Cal as a top five team next season. An awful lot back plus an upgrade at coach and they weren't far away this year.

Posted by Dave " The Meatball" Armistead

3:55 PM, May 02, 2008

Okay, here is another way to look at it. What Team in the Pac-10 next year will be coached by a Hall of Famer? Which team will start 3 players who will be future 1st round (if not Lottery picks) NBA picks? Which team returns the best Center in the Pac-10? Which team due to an incoming all-world Freshman will have the best starting back court in the Pac-10 (maybe the nation)? Which team has the most consistent post season experience the last 25 years? Which Team annually has a Top 5 SOS and will have one of the toughest schedules in the nation again next year?

The Meatball wants to know the answer.....could it be........

A R I Z O N A!!!

Posted by 206er

4:31 PM, May 02, 2008

thanks bob. didn't mean to sound like i was giving oyu a hard time. i was kidding when i said have a little faith in the daws(even though it'd be nice,) i thank you for the hard work.

that said. this offseason is quincy's time to determine his legacy at uw. this team will eventually be his if he progresses like we all know he can. he needs to be less tmid going to the hole and i'd like to see the dawgs set more screens for him. if he and brockman can work together as a scoring threat and venoy can be the destributer, i like our chances.

Posted by seatownsports

6:38 PM, May 02, 2008

it's amazing on how quick WSU and Stanford will fall in the conference after banner years in the 07-08 season

Posted by junkman

12:02 AM, May 03, 2008

I agree with what's been said about Cal. Not sure how ASU comes out #2 and UW #6 - to me there was very little separating these teams except maybe free throw shooting (sorry to bring it up). Bob doesn't mention ASU bringing in a strong class so I'm assuming they're not. Harden-Suggs should be a great matchup.

Overall the league will really be depleted next year with the loss of so many great players. Should be a wide open season - even UCLA should be beatable (again!).

Posted by jed

7:57 PM, May 03, 2008

IMHO for UW to be significantly improved next year some or all of the following must happen:

VO and QP need to continue to develop; their upside is great and they will be main components the next two years.

The team needs to continue to play with the physical toughness and defensive energy they showed the latter third of the season. This more than anything else wins games as UW showed beating UCLA, Arizona and playing Stanford tough. Romar teams have consistently been good rebounders.

Hopefully, FT accuracy will return to previous Romar team levels.

If only the above happens they will be a good team. If they can get several players to improve perimeter play on both sides of the court i.e. shooting and defense the sky is the limit.

Personallly I believe this will have to come either from the new guys coming in or Holiday or Gant. I think Dentmon, Smith and Wolf will be more role players. They contribute but we need much better perimeter play than the last two years. The former two have been here for several years and I think they are playing the best they can.

Artem's value is clear but his level of recovery is yet to be determined. MBA will have his chance. I wouldn't be surprised to see Breshers contribute some important minutes defensively inside like what Artem brings. Bresher's will be a freshman but he is a beast physically and yet athletic. Who gets 8 to 12 blocks in a game, even a HS game.

I think the coaching staff should try to find ways to get Holiday in the game. He is versatile and like Romar says does a lot in small ways to help you win.

Just some thoughts. Go Dawgs.


12:22 PM, May 04, 2008

Wow, liviing in seattle I really get a first hand look at how delusional the local media is about the huskies. To pick them to finish better than the cougars, even when losing weaver and lowe, is a complete joke. It's all about Tony Bennett, and now, WSU will have more Pac-10 caliber athletes thanks to this incomming recruiting class. GO COUGS AND BULLDOGS!!!

Posted by Randy

9:31 AM, May 05, 2008

Meatball, you are a real riot. Your post is, as usual, totally irrelevant. Total pointless fluff.

Who's returning a hall fame coach - Who cares!!?? The past means nothing.

Who has 3 future draft picks - Irrelevant as nobody predicts the future (except of course you) and being a draft pick means nothing.

Who's returning the best center - Uhh let's see, who's returning the ONLY center? That's like saying if Jordan Hill left then Washington would be returning the best center with Joe Wolfinger.

Which team with an incoming all world freshman will have the best backcourt "in the country (lol)" - At least that one is easy...UCLA!!!!!

Which team has the best post season success - Pathetic. Like an old man sitting around the stove talking about life in the 40's. Totally pointless in regards to the upcoming season.

Which team has a top 5 SOS - Again pointless as it is no assurance of success. SOS is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors tool the NCAA selection committee uses to hand out NCAA bids to teams that don't deserve Arizona last year. That bid should have gone to Arizona State!

Here's the next question. Which team has a fan that spends his time posting pointless fluff comments on another team's blog site. - Could it be....ARIZONA??

Posted by Dave " The Meatball" Armistead

10:25 AM, May 05, 2008

Randy- Don't get upset with the Meatball because he is right. Since you call me an idiot, I must retaliate. The Huskies smell like rotted goat balls stewing in a pot of retchid anteater feces. Romar is the perpetuator of this rancid broth, and it speads like wildfire when you mongaloids are forced to devour this madness on a daily basis. You guys should have no hope, but since you participated in the F.B.I company pic-nick All-Star game (which your AD Department had to pay for and you lost...what a joke!) you guys think you will finish in the top half of the Pac-10 and make the NCAA Tourney? You guys drink too much of you own excrement, because the delusions I read on here are quite hiliarous and dangerous.

EVEN MALLORY KNOWS THAT, as SHE HAS disappeared in a puff of despair and does not show her statless face around here anymore.

Posted by Cougfan

10:26 AM, May 05, 2008

Oh Randy, why do you make a fool of yourself so often? This is a post that is "predicting" the order of finish in the PX next year. To that end, making predictions about how good players will be and how well a team may do because of that is TOTALLY salient.

If you read many of the posts on here, Husky fans are making predictions of their team based on players who have rarely won and what should be a fairly strong recruiting class. Why are these people not fools as well??? I happen to agree that the UW will find success next year and have a legit shot at the NCAA's. So will UofA!

You don't think that a program's past success can be important? Naive to say the least. Winning breeds winning. The swagger could account for a few wins per season.

And, If you want to know about having fans that post pointless things on another teams website, go to and look at the multiple posts yesterday and Saturday from "BigBallj"--a husky; "dawgincarolina"--a Husky; "Romarville86"--a husky! So what is your point? In fact if you go to any team's website there is predictably posts from opponents fans.

Keep posting, Meatball! Most on here enjoy your outspokenness.

Posted by Randy

12:51 PM, May 05, 2008

Meatball, I never called you an idiot. No no no. I said you were a riot. As in funny. And I'm not upset at you at all. But really, as cougfan says, and I must reluctantly agree, putting too much faith in the incoming players while discounting another teams incoming players not a good idea.

And your retort was unnecessary. Resorting back you your old vugarity is uncalled for.

Posted by Dave " The Meatball" Armistead

1:55 PM, May 05, 2008

Randy- my bad; poor reading comprehension on my part.

You apparently haven't seen Brandon Jennings play yet then. He is head and shoulders above the other incoming Freshmen across the nation, and would be an impact player in the NBA next year. He is a certain one and done player, but what I love is that when he has been playing in these All-Star games, he is more interested in winning and making his teammates better. You team him with Nic Wise, Chase Budinger, and Jordan Hill there will not be anyone that can stop us. I've already mentioned Jamelle Horne's impact for next yearl; with a wide open Pac-10 do not be surprised (since I am informing you) to see my Cats back on top...

You guys may get some quality guys that can have impact, I'm just saying that just cuz you have just about everyone returing, that may not necessarily be a good thing since you guys didn't even make the NIT last year. That is all the meatball is saying.

Posted by Randy

7:23 AM, May 06, 2008


You are totally correct, I haven't seen Brandon Jennings play. I've very excited to see him. Not necessarily against us but excited none the less. And I do agree that line up looks very tough.

I'll assume that the physical problems Nic Wise had last year are corrected? He needs to be well as the Wildcats do look a bit thin at guard following Jennings and Wise. With the graduation of McClellan and Dillon and departure of Bayless who will give Wise & Jennings any rest time? David Bagga??? Jamelle Horne is listed as a forward. Will he swing back to play guard? What do you see to fill the void Meatball?

And I do agree on a key point. If a team plays poorly, a year of experience won't suddenly make them good. Something has to change to make them better. But you do look for signs that the team is close and a year will make a difference. Look at Oregon 2 years ago...couln't beat anybody. But almost all their losses were by very close margins. The next year...elite 8. Washington's last 4 loses of the season were all by 3 points or less. Throw in the Pittsburg game and the Huskies could have been 21-12 instead of 16-17. The hope is with the returning players and the supports of good new players, a team can turn those loses around.

Arizona finished ahead of Washington by 1 game this last year. I see no reason to think they won't finish ahead again. But I also think the Huskies will finish higher than 8th based upon what other teams have to face with roster changes.

Posted by Dave " The Meatball" Armistead

12:27 PM, May 06, 2008

Randy- We have Zane Johnson and Brandon Leavander as back-up guards, Horne will not go anywhere near either guard spot. Right now Lute is attempting to snag some last minute recruits at the guard spots to help out, but yes, outside of Wise and Jennings, there is a huge drop off. As of now, that is where we are suspect. However, Chase could get some time at the 2 spot when we go with a big line-up. Jennings, Budinger, Horne, Hill, Withey....

Chase also ran some point last year.....

Posted by Randy

12:20 PM, May 08, 2008

So let’s eliminate all the emotion and name calling that goes with our unwarranted opinions. Many have asked that they be backed up with fact and numbers. So here we go. Here is an assessment of the PAC 10 next year based upon A) Where a team is now 2) What a team is losing 3) what a team is gaining. There is of course still the problem of bringing these items to a conclusive prediction but at least we can see the numbers upon which they are based.

Current Standing – Final 2008 PAC 10 record
1) UCLA 16-2
2) Stanford 13-5
3) WSU 11-7
4) USC 11-7
5) Arizona St 9-9
6) Oregon 9-9
7) Arizona 8-10
8) Washington 7-11
9) California 6-12
10) Oregon St 0-18

What they are losing: Points and players (Ground rule – Mbah a Moute, Shipp, Budinger & Anderson stay in school. If this changes, the rank changes).
1) Oregon -46.8 Hairston, Leunen, Taylor, Platt, Shafer (5 players)
2) Stanford -41-1 Lopez X2, Finger, Washington, Prowitt (5 players)
3) UCLA -35.8 Love, Westbrook, Mata-Real, Stanbach, Lee (5 players)
4) WSU -34.0 Low, Weaver, Cowgill, Cross (4 players)
5) Arizona -33.6 Bayless, McClellan, Brielmaier, Dillon, Walters (5 players)
6) USC -32.8 Mayo, Jefferson, (Doucette never touched the floor) (2 players)
7) Wash -18.4 Appleby, Morris (Oliver early departure) (2 Players)
8) Cal -14-4 Hardin, Verneisel (2 Players)
9) Oregon St -10.4 Jones (Giles kicked off) (1 player)
10) Arizona St -5.1 Atuahene, Polk (Just transferred) (2 players)

So in 4 classifications
1) Major losers – Oregon & Stanford
2) Big losers – UCLA, WSU, Arizona, USC
3) Barely lose – Washington, Cal, Oregon St
4) What loss? – Arizona State

Incoming class rank & national ranking based upon individual player rankings by Count is number & rating of players.
1) UCLA (Nat rank 1) – (2) 5 star, (2) 4 star recruits (4 players)
2) Arizona (Nat rank 7) – (1) 5 star, (2) 4 star, (1) 3 star (4 players)
3) Oregon (Nat rank 11) – (1) 5 star, (2) 4 star, (3) 3 star (6 players)
4) Washington (Nat rank 15) – (4) 4 star (4 players)
5) USC ( Nat rank 24) – (1) 5 star, (2) 3 star, (1) 1 star (4 players)
6) WSU (NR) – (1) 4 star, (2) 3 star), (1) 1 star (4 players)
7) Cal (NR) – (1) 4 star, (1) 3 star (2 players)
8) Stanford (NR) – (2) 3 star (2 players)
9) OSU (NR) – (1) 4 star, (1) 1 star (2 players)
10) ASU (NR) – (1) 3 star, (1) 2 star (2 players)

State of the team and Prayer Factor (God, please let these incoming freshmen be great or we’re dead) and weaknesses in the team with the new recruits added in.
1) Oregon - Losing everyone, bringing in a mob with excellent ranking, major praying going on here.
2) WSU - Losing everyone, bringing in an unranked group, also major praying but who’s answering.
3) Arizona - Losing a lot, gaining great class but where are the guards? Losing 4 gaining 1.
4) Stanford - No prayer at all, losing much gaining nothing. This team is praying that Hill can return to his sophomore form before the Lopez’s became great.
5) Arizona St – Losing nothing, gaining nothing, Can the existing team improve enough to move up? Playing draw poker with a pat hand.
6) USC – DeRozan better replace Mayo but remaining cast is still good.
7) Cal – This teams praying to Mike Montgomery and Ryan Anderson (Please help our team Mike, and please stay Ryan) but remaining cast is fair.
8) OSU – Losing nothing, gaining nothing…had nothing. Playing draw poker with 7 high no pair and everybody knows it.
9) Washington – Losing very little, bringing in excellent class, good at every position except center but unlike UCLA they at least have a couple.
10) UCLA – Not much to pray for, losing a lot with best class in the nation but who will play center. With Love & Mata-Real gone there is nothing but guards & forwards. Does is matter??

Final rankings based upon all factors above. Feel free to debate. Have facts ready.
1) UCLA – Was the best, stays the best
2) Arizona State – Team the same, returning freshmen becoming sophomores. Up 3
3) USC – Stays about the same
4) Arizona – Gets a little better. Up 3
5) Washington – Gets Better Up 3
6) California – About the same but should move up 3.
7) Oregon – Starting over, like UW 2 years ago. Down 1.
8) Washington State – Same as Oregon but not the recruits. Down 5.
9) Stanford – Losing way too much. Down 7.
10) Oregon State – Don’t look for 0-18, I’ll bet they steal a win….maybe.

Posted by Dave " The Meatball" Armistead

2:50 PM, May 08, 2008

Randy- Good break down, but the fact of the matter is we are all simply making projections. None of it matters until we see how current rosters mesh with new incoming players. We'll see next October how things really appear...

Recent entries

Aug 18, 08 - 08:22 PM
A couple updates

Aug 15, 08 - 10:18 AM
Bradley, Gaddy updates

Aug 14, 08 - 09:24 AM
Roy to have surgery

Aug 12, 08 - 09:44 PM
Former Husky Femerling in Olympics

Aug 11, 08 - 12:42 PM
Joel Smith to Chaminade







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
Browse the archives

August 2008

July 2008

June 2008

May 2008

April 2008

March 2008


Buy a link here