Follow us:

Husky Football Blog

The latest news and analysis on the Montlake Dawgs.

January 19, 2009 at 2:03 PM

January answers, volume 11

Another round. …
Q: I was perusing the recruiting Web sites and noticed that the Huskies seem to be missing offensive line recruits this year. None of our commits is an offensive lineman and only one of the recruits (that I am aware of) who has visited appears to be a possible offensive lineman. Is the situation with offensive linemen as bleak as it appears to be this year? If so, that would make offensive linemen an urgent priority for next season.
A: You are correct.UW does not have a commit from an offensive lineman. Scout.com, however, has reported that OT Jeremiah Tofaeono, who visited last weekend, is likely to commit later this week. And there are two OL prospects coming in for visits next weekend — JC Eddie Williams, who might be something of a long shot as he has given a soft verbal to UCLA; and high schooler Jamaal Burrell, who says Oregon and Arizona are his leaders. So you are right that this could be a class thin on OLs. However, it is not by design. Steve Sarkisian said the offensive line was a priority and I’m sure he’s doing what he can. However, that may be a casualty of the late start in recruiting. Again, it’s hard to pass real judgment on these guys on this class. If that happened next year, then it would be fairer to criticize them. And who knows? Maybe they will find a way to reel in an OL recruit or two. UW has 13 scholarship offensive linemen slated to return next season with only three departing due to graduation, so the overall numbers next year may be no different than this year.
Q: I’m curious why Aaron Roderick would leave a 12-0 school where he was offered the title “co-offensive coordinator” to go to a school that was 0-12 and be the receivers coach. Is it just the Sarkisian connection and maybe a small raise or is there more to this story?
A: I think it’s all of that, and this is a Pac-10 job. I think that counts for something. But yes, Roderick and Sarkisian go back a ways — not sure how well they know each other, but sounds like that was a factor. Money also could be a significant factor. Roderick was reported to be making $92,000 at Utah. If my calculations are correct of what other UW assistants are making and the money left available, he’ll be getting at least $145,000. But it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s not making more than that, possibly doubling his salary. That could be pretty meaningful.
Q: In your earlier entry on the Husky Stadium proposal it says that the capacity won’t really change — its listed at 72,300 compared to the current 72,500. Why aren’t they adding seats?
A: For starters, it’s not as if UW has been selling out every game the past five years. It’s a growing trend in sports to make sure supply doesn’t drastically drawf demand — you have to make the tickets look valuable. It’s a reason why the Mariners shrunk capacity in the move to Safeco, for instance, and the Seahawks didn’t really add seats at Qwest. In good times, they could likely sell more than capacity. But in bad times, you don’t want 50,000 empty seats. Also, tickets figure to cost more in the new stadium.
Q: Where will that capacity rank among Pac-10 schools?
A: It would put UW third. A reader earlier posted the capacities with some different numbers. I’m going with the official capacities listed in this year’s Pac-10 media guide (but they often change a few hundred either way as schools reconfigure seating. Also, schools usually can get more in than the capacity selling standing-room only or restricted view).
Here are the capacities from the Pac-10 guide:
USC — LA Coliseum: 92,000
UCLA — Rose Bowl: 91,5000
Washington —- Husky Stadium: 72500
Arizona State — Sun Devil Stadium: 71,706
California —- Memorial Stadium: 71,799
Arizona —- Arizona Stadium: 57,400
Oregon — Autzen Stadium: 54,000
Stanford —- Stanford Stadium: 50,033
Oregon State — Reser Stadium: 45,674
Washington State — Martin Stadium: 35,117
The capacities for USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Arizona State and Washington State have all decreased slightly — or in Stanford’s case, quite a bit — in the last decade as schools renovated or reconfigured stadiums (or in the case of the LA schools, having it done for them at off-campus stadiums). Only the two Oregon schools have increased capacity in recent renovations, and OSU got back to where it was decades ago before shrinking it some in the interim.
All for now.

Comments

COMMENTS

No personal attacks or insults, no hate speech, no profanity. Please keep the conversation civil and help us moderate this thread by reporting any abuse. See our Commenting FAQ.



The opinions expressed in reader comments are those of the author only, and do not reflect the opinions of The Seattle Times.


The Seattle Times

The door is closed, but it's not locked.

Take a minute to subscribe and continue to enjoy The Seattle Times for as little as 99 cents a week.

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited seattletimes.com content access is included with most subscriptions.

Subscriber login ►
The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription upgrade.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. For unlimited seattletimes.com access, please upgrade your digital subscription.

Call customer service at 1.800.542.0820 for assistance with your upgrade or questions about your subscriber status.

The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. Subscribe now for unlimited access!

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited seattletimes.com content access is included with most subscriptions.

Activate Subscriber Account ►