Follow us:

Husky Football Blog

The latest news and analysis on the Montlake Dawgs.

July 12, 2010 at 6:02 PM

July answers, volume three

Uniforms, bowl agreements and Josh Shirley in this edition. …
Q: I’ve heard all kinds of rumors concerning the uniforms for 2010, such as the possibility of black jerseys or white helmets. Anything you can clear up?
A: As I’ve noted here before, while UW coach Steve Sarkisian is a pretty straight shooter with the media about most things, uniforms are one topic on which he likes to be a little coy. Remember last year, when the team broke out the all-white look at Notre Dame, he said the decision was made by “the committee”? And when pressed on who was on the committee he just smiled and said “a few of us.”? I asked UW AD Scott Woodward about the uniforms recently and he just said that “there may be a few tweaks” but otherwise left it at that. I think Sarkisian thinks there is some motivational value in leaving some mystery about the uniforms.
Pictured to the right, however, is the jersey advertised for sale on the school’s web site, so I assume that’s what the home jersey for this year looks like. It’s not a radical departure from last year, adding some stripes around the shoulders, and what is said to be a little darker shade of purple.
From what I can gather, however, there are no new helmets in the works this year, though there was apparently some internal talk of an alternate white helmet. However, word is that won’t happen this year, though it could in the future (and if it ever did, again it would apparently be an alternate helmet used for a special occasion).
As for black jerseys, I think there is some truth to their exixtence and that it is something you could see at some point this year, though again, only for a special occasion (the UCLA game?) But similar to how the all-white look was kept a secret until the day of the game, I’d expect the same with the black jerseys.
Q: Could you give the run down on bowl game agreements for the Pac 10 (12?) this season? Is the Rose Bowl taking the conference champion this year or is there some BCS agreement outside of the Pac 10 (12)? Is USC still eligible for the Rose Bowl while it is appealing its sanctions? Will 6 wins guarantee the Huskies a bowl bid or do you think it will take 7 or 8 ?
A: The bowl agreements for the Pac-10 this season are pretty much the same as the past other than the Alamo Bowl now being in the No. 2 spot.
So to quickly recap those:
Pac-10 No. 1 goes to Rose or BCS title game;
No. 2 to Alamo;
No. 3 to Holiday
No. 4 to Sun;
No. 5 to Las Vegas
No. 6 to Kraft Fight Hunger (formerly Emerald Bowl in San Francisco).

USC will not be eligible for a bowl game this season as its appeals are to reduce the penalty from two to one. It is accepting this year’s ban regardless, so to repeat, the Trojans will not be eligible for a bowl or the Pac-10 title this year. If USC finishes with the best record in the Pac-10, whatever team is next will be the No. 1 seed out of the conference into the BCS. From there, the bowls actually have their choice, meaning that the Alamo doesn’t necessarily have to take the next team, but has the choice of all teams left from that point (however, bowls can’t skip down to take a team with two fewer conference wins, meaning you can’t bypass a 7-2 team to take a 5-4 team, but you could to take a 6-3 team).
Given that there are 35 bowls, meaning 70 bowl slots, I think any BCS conference team that finishes at 6-6 is almost certain to get in. But the best way this year to guarantee a spot is to finish in the top six (easier to do with USC out of the picture, meaning you’ve just got to finish ahead of three other teams).
Q: Has Josh Shirley received a release from UCLA?
A: The question is a reference to the highly-touted incoming LB who recently was dismissed from the team after a theft charge. To answer the question on receiving a release, I’m not sure he has to. Once he’s not allowed to enroll at UCLA his letter-of-intent becomes void and he’s free to do whatever, just like guys who don’t get in for academic reasons (such as Chris Young and Darius Waters at UW). Shirley hasn’t said much publicly since landing in trouble at UCLA so I’m not sure what his next move is — he could go to a JC, or to another four-year school if that school isn’t too troubled by his legal issues to let him in. Obviously, UW was a close second in his recruitment so coming here would seem an option if he wanted to pursue it — assuming the Huskies would still be interested given his issues (since he’s a recruitable athlete again, it’s not something anyone up there could comment on directly). However, there is little doubt from reading how UCLA worded its statement on Shirley that the door is being left wide open for his return there someday.
All for now.



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 ►