Another round. ….
Q: Can you put this violation stuff in perspective for us? How many secondary violations did each Pac-10 school have in the most recent data available?
A: That’s a good question that a number of you sent me in varying manners. Unfortunately, such date doesn’t really exist. The Pac-10 has a policy of not commenting on violations other than to acknowledge those that have already become public. In the UW’s case, for instance, the conference will say it has received the violations but won’t comment otherwise. And when there is some resolution to those cases, it will make that public since it is already out there. But otherwise, the schools have asked the Pac-10 not to comment, so it doesn’t. Most schools don’t make that information public. UW has decided it will comment on those that it is asked about specifically, and in the case of the two recent violations, decided to be proactive and simply make a statement about what it had — as a public institution, it does have a responsibility along those lines. In general, however, such information is only available through filing Freedom of Information requests. I’m not an expert on those, but they do cost money, and take time to process so media entities tend to pick and choose which requests to pursue. But even that wouldn’t solve the issue in terms of the Pac-10 as USC and Stanford are private schools and don’t have to release such information. UW and the other seven in the Pac-10 are public schools. The closest the Pac-10 has come to releasing any general numbers on overall violations came a few years ago in this story in the Eugene Register-Guard that reported that there were 195 secondary violations among all Pac-10 schools in all sports in 2006 and about 170 in 2007. (I’ve put in a request for the same information for 2008). Otherwise, they don’t give specific numbers for violations per sport or anything like that. The RG also reported last year that Oregon had 11 secondary violations (which, by the way, is for the entire department, not just the football program, as many of you who sent this to me seemed to imply. The story doesn’t say how many were just for football, one reason I didn’t refer to it in my coverage. Only two of the violations cited in the RG story refer to football — the story doesn’t give a breakdown by sport. And that’s not to try to defend Oregon, just to explain why I didn’t use it as a comparison to UW since the story doesn’t give an exact number for football, contrary to how I think some read this story. And I also checked since many of you asked, and I mentioned the Tupou incident four times either on the blog or in stories I wrote. So I did address it on here.) Given all of that evidence, however, it looks like the average number of secondary violations per school per year is somewhere in the 9-11 range or so. So three for football (or it could be two as I think UW is self-reporting the deal in LA as one violation) probably isn’t out of the ordinary at all. But without hard date, it’s hard to say for sure where it ranks. (And by the way, I know I said I’d covered all violation stuff the other day, but this was a question I got from a few of you after that entry).
Q: I have an idea for Husky Stadium funding, or at least an answer to WSU fans who disagree with the UW asking for tourism tax money. The UW AD can take a percentage of ticket sales and divert it to the renovation fund, and the loss of revenue that once made us self-sustaining can be taken out of our general fund, thus equaling WSU’s AD use of tax money. Part of WSU’s renovation is being funded by levies placed on tickets, which could otherwise be used to supplement their athletic budget, thus decreasing their need to draw from the general fund (the Cougars do take some money from the general fund for athletics each year). In other words, WSU is using tax money indirectly to fund their stadium renovation. Essentially, we can make a concerted effort to no longer be self-sustaining, and partially use the general fund to renovate Husky Stadium, in the exact same way WSU has done for Martin. Is this viable, and is my logic correct?
A: Essentially, that’s what UW already intends to do to raise the other $150 million for the stadium. UW plans to raise a portion of that money through premium seating — there’s a good breakdown here from the school of how it plans to raise money from various sources. That’s one thing that sometimes seems forgotten in this — UW is planning to raise $150 million on its own to fund half of the renovation. So all those kinds of fundraising efforts are already being explored. But the school has decided that it can’t do the whole thing on its own, thus the request for a matching $150 million from the Legislature.
All for now.
Another round. ….
The opinions expressed in reader comments are those of the author only, and do not reflect the opinions of The Seattle Times.