Follow us:

Husky Football Blog

The latest news and analysis on the Montlake Dawgs.

June 15, 2011 at 10:01 AM

June Questions, Volume Two

Another batch. …

Q: Washington has two long 7-game losing streaks–one with ASU and the other with Oregon. Is this the longest losing streaks (in games) ever for conference foes? And the last time Washington beat Oregon was in 2003, but the final win against ASU was in 2001. Since the UW doesn’t play ASU in 2011, will this now 10-plus years between wins be the greatest losing streak (in time) against a conference foe?

A: Assuming this question was asked by either Phil Knight or Dennis Erickson. To the answer, UW’s longest conference losing streaks are a pair of 10-gamers to USC (1965-74) and Stanford (1967-76). Those would also be the longest period of time between wins — UW beating USC in 1964 and then not again until 1975, and beating Stanford in 1966 and then not again until 1977.

Q: With all of the issues with Ohio State, there has been talk about stipends-whether football players get them at all, whether it is different from other sports, whether it should be increased. Obviously a scholarship includes the cost of tuition, room, meals, and presumably books and class fees (like lab classes sometimes have). Do UW football players get any more than that to cover other necessities (laundry, paper, etc.)?

A: If they do, it’s an NCAA violation. As you infer, NCAA schools award scholarships that cover certain basic needs, and that’s it. All athletes in all sports get the same. Anything above and beyond is a violation, simple as that. There’s lots of talk out there about trying to give the athletes more (here’s a story on that topic from today’s Denver Post). But so far, that’s all it is, talk. And until the issue of Title IX is figured out — it would be against the law to award more money to football players than, say, women’s softball players — it may just stay as talk for a while.

Q: After hearing constantly that Jake Locker was surrounded by subpar talent during his career, how is it that the year after he is gone, starting a very inexperienced QB the Dawgs are projected to win more games?

A: First, you’d have to show me who is projecting UW to win more games this year than a year ago. Some fans may be, but I’m not sure all are. Some prognosticators may be, but I’m not sure all are, if any really are. Remember, publications like The Sporting News had UW in their pre-season top 25 a year ago — I haven’t seen anyone doing that so far this year. So I’m really not sure the expectations from the outside are higher, and most of those you read mention exactly what you did — the lack of an experienced starting QB — as a main reason for concern.

But to go with your question, those who might have higher expectations for UW this year look to the improvement of the entire roster around the QB spot — Chris Polk, an improved WR corps that will be bolstered by two of the top recruits in the country (Kasen Williams, Austin Seferian-Jenkins), continued growth and improvement on the lines, a more experienced secondary. It could be argued that every position group other than QB and LB are better, on paper, heading into 2011 than it was in 2010 (with the offensive line maybe a push). So, for those who are optimistic about UW’s hopes in 2011, the thinking is that the core around the QB will improve enough to make up for a probable learning curve at the QB spot.

Q: If Ronnie Fouch was still here would you increase your projected win total for UW this year?

A: Kind of hard to answer not knowing how Fouch would have progressed last season — would he have beaten out Price for the backup job and played in the games Price played in? No doubt, as mentioned above, it’s the inexperience at the QB spot that is the No. 1 question about this team in 2011. So, having a more experienced QB — and simply having another one with experience — on the roster would mitigate the concern a little bit.

Q: Did Hudson get much playing last year? How much time will he get this year?

A: Not sure which Hudson is meant here — defensive end Andrew or walk-on tight end Evan. The answer is the same for both on the first part — they did not play in 2010, each redshirting. And the answer is similar on the second. Both emerged in the spring as players with roles for 2011. Andrew Hudson is definitely in the rotation on the defensive line, playing several different spots (a traditional end in 4-3 looks, and as an inside end in the five-man front). Evan Hudson is the No. 3 tight end behind Seferian-Jenkins and Michael Hartvigson but seems sure to see the field as the Huskies could use multiple tight ends quite a bit.

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 ►