Season ticket sales are up.

Passion

Fancy new theater. We'll see if it's the same movie.

blogs.seattletimes.com/huskyfootball/2013/07/19/uw-reports-increase-in-season-tickets-sold-for-new-husky-stadium/

Mad_Son

Passion said:

Fancy new theater. We'll see if it's the same movie.

blogs.seattletimes.com/huskyfootball/2013/07/19/uw-reports-increase-in-season-tickets-sold-for-new-husky-stadium/

I am glad season ticket sales are up, even if it is for the wrong reason. There is no reason to further pussify our games with empty seats. When we need to get rid of a coach all optional donations (i.e. non-seat mandated) should be shut off. I know that is not a practical scenario but I hate how the quality of gameday has decreased.

jecornel

Here is the problem....This group follows, they need to start leading. This crew and Sark have history to build from instead the history and tradition is ignored. The 25 should have NEVER been taken off the field, THAT should have never happened.
Minus Jerramy Stevens 2001 was an incredible football season, and Curtis Williams should be honored appropriately. That 2001 team wasn't incredibly talented they had guys with heart and battled. The national title team is easily had one of the greatest defense's of all time and the offense virtually unstoppable.

Once Sark decides to get out of his own way and commit to the run, special teams and defense he might just might be able to change his future at Washington.

I know Sark wants to create his own era and all that stuff, but people love history. People love stories and epic games of the past. For all the kids that only know the losing of the last 10 years and average seasons need to recognize this program was actually relevant. If anyone has read about husky football in the 20's it put Alabama football on the map by coming on train and beating mighty Washington. That started Bama football.

I know these guys have a business to run and college athletics is a very profitable business but this group needs to understand what could be.

Scott Woodward Director of Athletics LSU
Jennifer Cohen Senior Associate Athletic Director San Diego State
Paul King Senior Associate Athletic Director
Stephanie Rempe Senior Associate Athletic Director University of Arizona
Shondell Reed Senior Associate Athletic Director Cal St. Fullerton
O.D. Vincent Senior Associate Athletic Director

People involved in the game day experience, and marketing efforts. Fail...To them its about entertainment and ensuring the top "dawgs" continue to earn their unearned 6 & 7 figure salaries. Making it fun for the kids and stuff, develop huskies for life and all that. Make no mistake this about winning and winning creates more money and more money make the elite happy.

There is history and tradition at Washington that is not being leveraged. The story needs to be built on what was and what can be, not shiny helmets and flashy uniforms.

Develop and create the right message and people will follow the leaders.

[Deleted User]

The 2001 team went 8-4. The 2000 team went 11-1.

I agree not honoring #25 was stupid and a mistake.

IrishDawg22

"Once Sark decides to get out of his own way and commit to the run" - jecornel

If you are going to bitch, at least pretend you know something about football. The Dawgs have had 4 straight 1,000+ rushers. 1st time in program history I believe, but I could be wrong.

In today's game, you cannot just RUN the ball without a threat of a decent passing game.

The problem is we cannot RECRUIT athletic Oline guys and we have a position coach who does not understand, or at least cannot develop guys to PASS protect. For some reason Sark has chose to stand behind Cozz, and that has been his biggest mistake.

section8

^^Agree, but Sark has shown a tendency to abandon the run during game situations where its working. So while overall there has been some solid rushing yardage, the choice to bail on the run and attempt to pass.

PurpleJ

IrishDawg22 said:

"Once Sark decides to get out of his own way and commit to the run" - jecornel

If you are going to bitch, at least pretend you know something about football. The Dawgs have had 4 straight 1,000+ rushers. 1st time in program history I believe, but I could be wrong.

In today's game, you cannot just RUN the ball without a threat of a decent passing game.

The problem is we cannot RECRUIT athletic Oline guys and we have a position coach who does not understand, or at least cannot develop guys to PASS protect. For some reason Sark has chose to stand behind Cozz, and that has been his biggest mistake.

Look at our national ranking in rushing yards per game under Sark:

2012: 86th
2011: 63rd
2010: 38th (peaked)
2009: 68th

In comparison, Oregon was in the top 10 every year he has been here.

Source: cfbstats.com/2012/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category01/sort01.html

You are right about one thing. Cozz has done a shitty job and Sark kept him here, and recruits know that.

HillsboroDuck

IrishDawg22 said:

"Once Sark decides to get out of his own way and commit to the run" - jecornel

If you are going to bitch, at least pretend you know something about football. The Dawgs have had 4 straight 1,000+ rushers. 1st time in program history I believe, but I could be wrong.

In today's game, you cannot just RUN the ball without a threat of a decent passing game.

The problem is we cannot RECRUIT athletic Oline guys and we have a position coach who does not understand, or at least cannot develop guys to PASS protect. For some reason Sark has chose to stand behind Cozz, and that has been his biggest mistake.

1000 yard rushers are seriously overrated (Hi Reggie!). RN never had a 1000 yard rusher but his RB team was a powerhouse on the ground. As noted above, our running game has been mediocre at best under Sark, even compared to other teams in THIS ECONOMY.

CuntWaffle

Pretty racist that you post a link to a blog written by a white guy.

TheKobeStopper

PurpleJ said:

IrishDawg22 said:

"Once Sark decides to get out of his own way and commit to the run" - jecornel

If you are going to bitch, at least pretend you know something about football. The Dawgs have had 4 straight 1,000+ rushers. 1st time in program history I believe, but I could be wrong.

In today's game, you cannot just RUN the ball without a threat of a decent passing game.

The problem is we cannot RECRUIT athletic Oline guys and we have a position coach who does not understand, or at least cannot develop guys to PASS protect. For some reason Sark has chose to stand behind Cozz, and that has been his biggest mistake.

Look at our national ranking in rushing yards per game under Sark:

2012: 86th
2011: 63rd
2010: 38th (peaked)
2009: 68th

In comparison, Oregon was in the top 10 every year he has been here.

Source: cfbstats.com/2012/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category01/sort01.html

You are right about one thing. Cozz has done a shitty job and Sark kept him here, and recruits know that.

That was an ass whooping.

tracker

"As noted above, our running game has been mediocre at best under Sark, even compared to other teams in THIS ECONOMY."

Our running game will improve when Obama gets serious about THE ECONOMY.

jecornel

Sorry, I meant the 2000 season. I was thinking of the RB game..ha! Yes Sark, is the first coach to have a RB rush for a 1,000 yards in 4 seasons. However, this year will feature a hybrid no huddle offense. He also got tremendous performances out of Polk. Polk had that monster game against WSU and Sark said this what I have envisioned all along for the program....cough, cough....What?

It was U$C's biggest complaint is that Sark had the keys to the Ferrari and stalled it before hitting 6th gear.
I am not trying to be funny or cute but I think Sark panics and it has cost him some big wins and huge steps forward.

jecornel

tracker said:

"As noted above, our running game has been mediocre at best under Sark, even compared to other teams in THIS ECONOMY."

Our running game will improve when Obama gets serious about THE ECONOMY.

I am loving the economy, my business is up and way up. Has been a great year thus far. All my clients have been busy all through the summer and fall is looking very good.

When gets the run going wins and revenues will rise....yahooo.

[Deleted User]

jecornel said:

Sorry, I meant the 2000 season. I was thinking of the RB game..ha! Yes Sark, is the first coach to have a RB rush for a 1,000 yards in 4 seasons. However, this year will feature a hybrid no huddle offense. He also got tremendous performances out of Polk. Polk had that monster game against WSU and Sark said this what I have envisioned all along for the program....cough, cough....What?

It was U$C's biggest complaint is that Sark had the keys to the Ferrari and stalled it before hitting 6th gear.
I am not trying to be funny or cute but I think Sark panics and it has cost him some big wins and huge steps forward.

Sark has been fortunate to have talented RB's not to mention like others say in key games Sark panics.

With the Seahawks if they trail 10-0 they are still sticking with the run. If the Huskies sometimes even trial by just 7 points, Sark starts to panic and abandons the run game.

In college team rushing yards matter more than a thousand yard back. His QB's and backup RB's contribute zero to the rushing game.

While in 1991 or 2000 we didn't have a 1,000 yard rusher but were a great rushing team.

IrishDawg22

PurpleJ said:

IrishDawg22 said:

"Once Sark decides to get out of his own way and commit to the run" - jecornel

If you are going to bitch, at least pretend you know something about football. The Dawgs have had 4 straight 1,000+ rushers. 1st time in program history I believe, but I could be wrong.

In today's game, you cannot just RUN the ball without a threat of a decent passing game.

The problem is we cannot RECRUIT athletic Oline guys and we have a position coach who does not understand, or at least cannot develop guys to PASS protect. For some reason Sark has chose to stand behind Cozz, and that has been his biggest mistake.

Look at our national ranking in rushing yards per game under Sark:

2012: 86th
2011: 63rd
2010: 38th (peaked)
2009: 68th

In comparison, Oregon was in the top 10 every year he has been here.

Source: cfbstats.com/2012/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category01/sort01.html

You are right about one thing. Cozz has done a shitty job and Sark kept him here, and recruits know that.

You leave out 1 key component to our rushing numbers. We had a QB that was absolutely no threat while running the spread option. Add in a mobile QB (Miles) and you can add 500 yds into that number which would put us near the Top 30 to go with our passing attack.

My main concern is still the lack of TALENT up front and their ability to protect the passer.

As for Sark's play calling, we that speaks for itself.

TheKobeStopper

IrishDawg22 said:

PurpleJ said:

IrishDawg22 said:

"Once Sark decides to get out of his own way and commit to the run" - jecornel

If you are going to bitch, at least pretend you know something about football. The Dawgs have had 4 straight 1,000+ rushers. 1st time in program history I believe, but I could be wrong.

In today's game, you cannot just RUN the ball without a threat of a decent passing game.

The problem is we cannot RECRUIT athletic Oline guys and we have a position coach who does not understand, or at least cannot develop guys to PASS protect. For some reason Sark has chose to stand behind Cozz, and that has been his biggest mistake.

Look at our national ranking in rushing yards per game under Sark:

2012: 86th
2011: 63rd
2010: 38th (peaked)
2009: 68th

In comparison, Oregon was in the top 10 every year he has been here.

Source: cfbstats.com/2012/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category01/sort01.html

You are right about one thing. Cozz has done a shitty job and Sark kept him here, and recruits know that.

You leave out 1 key component to our rushing numbers. We had a QB that was absolutely no threat while running the spread option. Add in a mobile QB (Miles) and you can add 500 yds into that number which would put us near the Top 30 to go with our passing attack.

My main concern is still the lack of TALENT up front and their ability to protect the passer.

As for Sark's play calling, we that speaks for itself.

Because Sark never had a mobile quarterback before.

MikeDamone

jecornel said:

tracker said:

"As noted above, our running game has been mediocre at best under Sark, even compared to other teams in THIS ECONOMY."

Our running game will improve when Obama gets serious about THE ECONOMY.

I am loving the economy, my business is up and way up. Has been a great year thus far. All my clients have been busy all through the summer and fall is looking very good.

When gets the run going wins and revenues will rise....yahooo.

Whoosh

PurpleJ

IrishDawg22 said:

PurpleJ said:

IrishDawg22 said:

"Once Sark decides to get out of his own way and commit to the run" - jecornel

If you are going to bitch, at least pretend you know something about football. The Dawgs have had 4 straight 1,000+ rushers. 1st time in program history I believe, but I could be wrong.

In today's game, you cannot just RUN the ball without a threat of a decent passing game.

The problem is we cannot RECRUIT athletic Oline guys and we have a position coach who does not understand, or at least cannot develop guys to PASS protect. For some reason Sark has chose to stand behind Cozz, and that has been his biggest mistake.

Look at our national ranking in rushing yards per game under Sark:

2012: 86th
2011: 63rd
2010: 38th (peaked)
2009: 68th

In comparison, Oregon was in the top 10 every year he has been here.

Source: cfbstats.com/2012/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category01/sort01.html

You are right about one thing. Cozz has done a shitty job and Sark kept him here, and recruits know that.

You leave out 1 key component to our rushing numbers. We had a QB that was absolutely no threat while running the spread option. Add in a mobile QB (Miles) and you can add 500 yds into that number which would put us near the Top 30 to go with our passing attack.

My main concern is still the lack of TALENT up front and their ability to protect the passer.

As for Sark's play calling, we that speaks for itself.

Isn't it SARK'S job to recruit and develop that TALENT? Isn't it also his JOB to commit to having a solid GROUND game?

I can CAPITALIZE words in my POSTS, too.

[Deleted User]

IrishDawg22 said:

PurpleJ said:

IrishDawg22 said:

"Once Sark decides to get out of his own way and commit to the run" - jecornel

If you are going to bitch, at least pretend you know something about football. The Dawgs have had 4 straight 1,000+ rushers. 1st time in program history I believe, but I could be wrong.

In today's game, you cannot just RUN the ball without a threat of a decent passing game.

The problem is we cannot RECRUIT athletic Oline guys and we have a position coach who does not understand, or at least cannot develop guys to PASS protect. For some reason Sark has chose to stand behind Cozz, and that has been his biggest mistake.

Look at our national ranking in rushing yards per game under Sark:

2012: 86th
2011: 63rd
2010: 38th (peaked)
2009: 68th

In comparison, Oregon was in the top 10 every year he has been here.

Source: cfbstats.com/2012/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category01/sort01.html

You are right about one thing. Cozz has done a shitty job and Sark kept him here, and recruits know that.

You leave out 1 key component to our rushing numbers. We had a QB that was absolutely no threat while running the spread option. Add in a mobile QB (Miles) and you can add 500 yds into that number which would put us near the Top 30 to go with our passing attack.

My main concern is still the lack of TALENT up front and their ability to protect the passer.

As for Sark's play calling, we that speaks for itself.

W. JW. I didn't think you could doog it up this badly but somehow you did.

IrishDawg22

He_Needs_More_Time said:

IrishDawg22 said:

PurpleJ said:

IrishDawg22 said:

"Once Sark decides to get out of his own way and commit to the run" - jecornel

If you are going to bitch, at least pretend you know something about football. The Dawgs have had 4 straight 1,000+ rushers. 1st time in program history I believe, but I could be wrong.

In today's game, you cannot just RUN the ball without a threat of a decent passing game.

The problem is we cannot RECRUIT athletic Oline guys and we have a position coach who does not understand, or at least cannot develop guys to PASS protect. For some reason Sark has chose to stand behind Cozz, and that has been his biggest mistake.

Look at our national ranking in rushing yards per game under Sark:

2012: 86th
2011: 63rd
2010: 38th (peaked)
2009: 68th

In comparison, Oregon was in the top 10 every year he has been here.

Source: cfbstats.com/2012/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category01/sort01.html

You are right about one thing. Cozz has done a shitty job and Sark kept him here, and recruits know that.

You leave out 1 key component to our rushing numbers. We had a QB that was absolutely no threat while running the spread option. Add in a mobile QB (Miles) and you can add 500 yds into that number which would put us near the Top 30 to go with our passing attack.

My main concern is still the lack of TALENT up front and their ability to protect the passer.

As for Sark's play calling, we that speaks for itself.

W. JW. I didn't think you could doog it up this badly but somehow you did.

Your right, KP was so mobile last year.

Have you ever watched a game???

Maybe I will add pics next time.

IrishDawg22

PurpleJ said:

IrishDawg22 said:

PurpleJ said:

IrishDawg22 said:

"Once Sark decides to get out of his own way and commit to the run" - jecornel

If you are going to bitch, at least pretend you know something about football. The Dawgs have had 4 straight 1,000+ rushers. 1st time in program history I believe, but I could be wrong.

In today's game, you cannot just RUN the ball without a threat of a decent passing game.

The problem is we cannot RECRUIT athletic Oline guys and we have a position coach who does not understand, or at least cannot develop guys to PASS protect. For some reason Sark has chose to stand behind Cozz, and that has been his biggest mistake.

Look at our national ranking in rushing yards per game under Sark:

2012: 86th
2011: 63rd
2010: 38th (peaked)
2009: 68th

In comparison, Oregon was in the top 10 every year he has been here.

Source: cfbstats.com/2012/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category01/sort01.html

You are right about one thing. Cozz has done a shitty job and Sark kept him here, and recruits know that.

You leave out 1 key component to our rushing numbers. We had a QB that was absolutely no threat while running the spread option. Add in a mobile QB (Miles) and you can add 500 yds into that number which would put us near the Top 30 to go with our passing attack.

My main concern is still the lack of TALENT up front and their ability to protect the passer.

As for Sark's play calling, we that speaks for itself.

Isn't it SARK'S job to recruit and develop that TALENT? Isn't it also his JOB to commit to having a solid GROUND game?

I can CAPITALIZE words in my POSTS, too.

And when was I defending Sark???? The discussion was about the lack of running game, when in fact it is our inability to protect the passer that was our main issue on offense.

Sorry that is a TOUGH concept for some IDIOTS to grasp.