Follow us:

Husky Football Blog

The latest news and analysis on the Montlake Dawgs.

June 19, 2010 at 8:08 AM

June answers, volume one

Finally getting to them. …
Q: Las Vegas seems like the ideal location for an annual Pac-12 championship football game but the city does not presently have an adequate facitly to stage the game. What would it take to make Las Vegas the home for this event? Is it at all possible?
A: I actually kind of like that idea, but you are right that Sam Boyd Stadium isn’t suitable for such an event — it seats just 36,800. But I also don’t think they will take the game out of Pac-10 cities. My understanding is they’ve made no decisions on this, so everything is still on the table, But one proposal I know is to rotate it among stadiums at varying locales throughout the conference (such as Qwest Field in Seattle). Another is to play it regularly at one site, such as is done for the hoops tournament (the Rose Bowl being a logical spot in that scenario). I don’t think they’d go with a scenario where the team with the best record or something ends up hosting it (logistics, for one, would seem to make it undoable to stage a game that quickly). But as with everything, I’m sure the proposal that puts the most dollars in the coffers will win out.
Q: Have you done the math on the USC roster numbers? They currently list 98 on the roster. I assume 85 are scholarship players. I see there are 20 Seniors, 33 Juniors and 21 Sophomores listed. Assuming they can only replace these classes with 15 players per year, that is a net reduction of 29 players over 3 years. That means they will have about 66 scholarship players at the end of 3 years, and perhaps a bunch of walk-ons. If I understand correctly, in year 4 the deficiency can only be made up with freshmen. So, beginning next year, a full strength USC team is about 6 years away. Am I calculating correctly?
A: I haven’t done that math the way you have, and trying to calculate exact scholarship totals beyond a few months or so in college football is always tricky — you never know for sure what attrition might happen, what walk-ons get put on scholarship, etc. But your general point is a valid one in that it could take years for USC to really get back to full strength. I know Jim Lambright felt that UW was still not caught up in 1998, when he was fired, due to the lag effect of the 10 lost scholarships for the Huskies in each of 1993 and 1994. Really, schools in that situation probably don’t truly get back to full strength until the last impacted class has graduated, which in USC’s case would be 2018.
Q: Why do you think Tech punked out? Is it because Larry Scott withdrew the

A: I don’t think Tech “punked out” (though admittedly, not sure I really understand what that means in this case). It was clear from the start that the other schools from the Big 12 considering coming to the Pac-10, other than Colorado, were almost certainly going to follow the lead of Texas (even Texas A&M eventually caved and just followed Texas). Simple as that.
Q: What do you think would have happened if Scott kept canvassing OSU and
Tech and they agreed? Would UT and OU or TAMU gone to the SEC or come

A: A hard question to answer, in a way, because no one ever thought that could happen, that OSU and Tech would make a move separate of Texas (or also Oklahoma, in OSU’s case). But I think the only option Texas was really seriously considering was the Pac-10, so I think if your scenario had happened that Texas would have moved west.
— Apparently, the Pac-10 ADs held a conference call on Friday to discuss how to align the divisions. No resolution yet, however, though the leader in the clubhouse remains the North-South model.
More later.



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 ►