Follow us:

Husky Football Blog

The latest news and analysis on the Montlake Dawgs.

June 21, 2009 at 7:38 PM

June answers, volume four

The rain has come and the Father’s Day festivities in our house are over, so time to knock off a few more Q-and-A’s.
Q: What do guys do on unofficial and official vists? I don’t have a clear idea of that and would be particularly interested in the differences. Do they just act like typical tourists or what? How much of the facilities do they have access to on an unofficial? Thanks in advance if you find time to respond and I apologize if this has been covered as I have not seen it.
A: This has been addressed but no big deal as this is a commonly asked question. For an official version of the differences, I found this from the LSU web site. In general, an official visit is the one 48-hour trip that an athlete can take to a campus where he is hosted by the school, with transportation, meals and lodging paid for. On official visits, they meet with coaches, school officials, whoever they want, and can be taken to school athletic events, that sort of thing. An unofficial visit is just someone taking a visit to a school, same as you or me, paying their own way. They can meet with coaches and school officials on campus, but the school cannot pay for any of their expenses and they do not have official hosts, though if they know someone and want someone to show them around, they can set that up. That commonly happens. But what they do on an unofficial visit is up to them as it’s all on their own dime. Official visits don’t start until the school year has begun, so if an athlete wants to make an early decision, he/she has to take unofficial visits to visit schools. You can take as many unofficial visits as you want, but only five officials and only one to each school.
Q: While it’s clear coach Steve Sarkisian and his staff are going after a lot of top prospects from all over the place, it seems that they’ve had quite a few offers to “sleeper” types. Do you sense that this is a continuation of they way they recruited at SC, or is this more a matter of flexing some digging muscles they hadn’t needed to resort to in their former gig? I realize quite a few of the early offerees have been revealed, rated, and now have multiple stars and often multiple offers.
A: I really don’t think the UW coaching staff, or any other staff, is sitting there saying “let’s go after a bunch of sleepers” or “let’s just go after big name guys.” I think instead they are simply going after the best players they can get, and worried mostly about whether the player can help them than any ranking. No question I’m sure those members of the staff who came from USC are learning they have to recruit a little differently, but I’m also sure that was no surprise. What’s a key in recruiting is learning quickly whether you really have a chance to get a kid. Makes no sense to go after guys you have no chance of getting. So if you find out that the only guys who are interested in your school are so-called “sleepers” then it may seem like that’s all you are going after. But I think schools start at the top of their list and work their way down. I think any school, if they could get the top 25 guys on their list, would do so any year. And not to be argumentative, but I actually have thought this staff has seemed to have some early success with some bigger-name guys than UW had been getting most of the past four years or so, witness the high rating for the class assembled so far.
Q: Do you really believe, as you wrote, that one of this year’s “big 3” at QB was a “must get”? If so, was it for depth reasons, in case we have three injuries this year? Or just for symbolism, that a former QB guru can get the player he wants? (Truthfully, after Jake Heaps went elsewhere, I thought it wasn’t going to kill us if we missed on the QB we wanted this year).
A: To make it clear, since I know it can be confusing at times with recruiting getting earlier and earlier, the recruits we are writing about now won’t join the team until 2010 so none of this has anything to do with the team that will play this fall. I’m not sure I felt they had to get one of the big three QBs on their list, but I did say they had to get a good QB this year. With just three on scholarship now and Jake Locker being a senior in 2010, they had to get someone in this class to fill in the depth. It was obviously well-documented UW was making serious runs at those top three QBs and not getting any of them would have been a hit to the perception, especially after losing Heaps. Personally, I think that stuff is overrated a bit, both in how much it may help you or hurt you. To me the bigger issue was simply getting a good QB. What added to the pressure a little bit of getting one of the big three is that this is considered a down year for QBs nationally and regionally and the dropoff is considered pretty significant after those guys. So the best way to fulfill the need at QB was to get one of those guys.
Q: Will you be doing any more live chats soon?
A: Yes. I had plans all along to do at least one a week during the summer. I didn’t get to one last week for a number of reasons but I will have one this week, and maybe more if there is interest as I may again be unable to have one the following week.
Q: Is Sione Potoae really a full commit to UW again? I see changed his designation this week.
A: did change both Potoae and Tevin Carter back to full commits this week. But apparently that is solely because of the way lists players and not anything to do with Potoae and Carter having publicly reaffirmed commitments or anything. Apparently, Scout’s rules are to list players as solid commits unless or until they have scheduled other visits. Potoae and Carter each said they will take other visits but haven’t officially scheduled them yet, so Scout revised the ranking. However, I think any UW fan should definitely consider each as less solid than they were a few weeks ago based on their comments (or those of their coaches) that they plan to take other visits and look around and explore their options.
BUSTER SPORTS NAMES OWENS NO. 11 PAC-10 COACH — Also today, Jim Owens is No. 11 on the Buster Sports countdown of the top Pac-10 coaches of the modern era.



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 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 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 content access is included with most subscriptions.

Activate Subscriber Account ►