Renovate Husky Stadium? Banish them to Qwest Field
Or perhaps a high-school stadium. In any event, the University of Washington has a football program in trouble, and has been for a long time, and venue would seem to be the least of the school's problems.
Many in the region are of the opinion that the University of Washington Huskies are in need of a more appropriate place to play home football games. After the Saturday, Oct. 27, 48-41 loss to Arizona, some may believe that a home field worthy of the program might be found at any randomly selected high-school stadium, since that's the caliber of play the one-time Pac 10 power often has exhibited through four coaching programs the past nine years.
The latest loss, for which the recently blogger-flogged coach Tyrone Willingham apologized to a post-game radio audience, in several ways was the worst in recent memory. For one, it came at home against what was apparently an eminently lesser opponent on a gorgeous day when homecoming festivities were being observed. For another, it was registered after the Huskies had gone ahead by two touchdowns during the second quarter and 15 points during the fourth. It happened even though wunderkind UW quarterback Jake Locker had nearly 500 yards of total offense and even while the visiting Wildcats spent most of the game in minus numbers for rushing yards.
In short, a statistical summary of the game nearly - nearly - would have had just about anybody lucky enough to have not been there wondering (or even wundering) how the huck the Fuskies could have lost. In a word: turnovers (five). In a phrase: pass defense (five). Make that 500-plus. A week earlier, the UW "defense" gave up 465 ground yards at home to Oregon; against Arizona, it was 510 yards passing. (Fun with numbers: about the same distance as dropping a ball from the top of the Space Needle three times.) For his effort, Wildcats QB Willie Tuitama has his school record, as does Locker. But the latter's achievement is merely for having essayed his school's longest play from scrimmage when he found receiver Marcel Reece for 98 yards during the second quarter.
Getting back to places to play: The Huskies still have two at home (Cal Nov. 17 and Washington State Nov. 24) and three on the road. This means the team easily could finish 2-11, given a 13-game schedule ending, mercifully, in Hawaii in December, and not in a bowl game. To have qualified for a bowl, the U-Dubs would have needed at least six and maybe seven wins, which is quickly becoming a mathematical impossibility. This business of a new or improved place to play also is seeming to be not only less possible but less in the way of a critical public talking point.
One reason might be the empirical reality. Many who have attended games the past several decades at the 72,500-capacity Montlake monument that is Husky Stadium (some 61K were there Oct. 27) may have concluded that, far from being the decrepit venue many claim, it in fact can be a very pleasant place to spend a Saturday, at least when the Husky-football part isn't happening. The views to the west and east are so magnificent as to nearly distract the spectators when the game isn't going well, which has been usually the past few years. The typical visitor also is not made privy to the structural underpinnings, said to be in need of shoring rather than ignoring. Some have even discussed tearing down the nearly century-old edifice and erecting a sports palace worthy of ...
Which is when the ellipses invariably kick in. Worthy of five or six dates a year of the Huskies giving up hundreds of ground and air yards and losing? Others ask: Why not raze the stadium, do something better with the property, and have the UW team play local games at Qwest Field? The Seahawks home is used no more than a dozen times a year for football and could easily accommodate Saturday collegiate-scheduling demands.
Major decisions about places the Huskies could play will, of course, await public discussion similar to what one might have hoped had begun and ended with the rancorous Sonics-venue debate. Meantime, many wonder whether the Huskies ever actually could play the way they once did. If not, there are a lot of very suitable high-school football fields in the region that may be just right for observing the kind of defense the UW Huskies have been playing for way too long.
Comments:
Posted Sun, Oct 28, 6:40 p.m. inappropriate
No and yes.: It's true, Husky Stadium needs a renovation. The south grandstand in particular can be a dangerous place to traverse. The concrete is ages old and crumbling and the walkways steep and narrow. As far as I know, there are only two elevators in the entire stadium. A friend of mine, aged 31 and suffering from MS (although with no outwardly visible signs), was denied an elevator ride because she didn't look handicapped. We called the stadium and asked about the elevator situation and they recommended we schedule the elevator ride with stadium officials next time. This does not a pleasant stadium experience make. Views aside, Husky Stadium is decrepit.
To your other point, I would favor the Huskies playing at Qwest Field if they could "Huskify" the stadium for their games. It's Field Turf so perhaps they could insert Husky end zone and midfield logos for Saturdays. Furthermore, I'm sure it wouldn't be impossible for the NFL and the NCAA to schedule alternating weekends so there isn't a rush to clean/prepare the stadium between a Saturday and Sunday game.
The more I think about it, the more I like it. Count me as a proponent of a complete tear-down of Husky Stadium.
Posted Mon, Oct 29, 7:06 a.m. inappropriate
private donations, not state funding: Actually the debate about Husky stadium won't at all be "similar to what one might have hoped had begun and ended with the rancorous Sonics-venue debate" Unlike the Sonics' request that included $300 million of public money, the Huskies fund raising efforts (ironically for a publicly owned team) will be based on private donations.
From the Times:
Officials aren't ruling out any method of fundraising, including premium seating, ticket surcharges and possibly even selling corporate naming rights to the stadium.
As far as I can tell, no one has talked about going to the legislature.
Posted Mon, Oct 29, 9:46 a.m. inappropriate
Elysian football fields (and basketball courts): The reference was to the nearly ceaseless discussion the past three-plus decades about the apparently endless need for new or renovated sports facilities: Kingdome is built; Sonics leave Seattle Center to play at the Kingdome; Sonics return; Jeff Smulyan threatens to move M's; Bubba Behring threatens to move Hawks; Hawks play games at Husky Stadium; Sonics play in Tacoma while facility is renovated at Seattle Center; '95 M's provide the p.r. cover for building Safeco Field; Paul Allen wins special election to implode "aging" Kingdome and replace with Qwest Field. Any of this sound familiar? I still wear socks I bought before widely praised KeyArena opened and now it's described by NBA officials as the worst basketball facility this side of Carjakistan. The issue isn't public versus private money. The issue is spending so much time and energy addressing sports facilities that are under-used and deemed expendable for not having the amenities of shopping malls and theme parks.
Posted Mon, Oct 29, 10:56 a.m. inappropriate
move the stadium somewhere else: each game ties up traffic and the air for 6 hours with 75 k purple dogs ruining the environment.
Posted Mon, Oct 29, 12:22 p.m. inappropriate
The Piper
Posted Mon, Oct 29, 1:14 p.m. inappropriate
RE: lysian football fields (and basketball courts): It makes sense that you left the renovation of Hec Ed out of your list. That project was just as extensive as the project that forced the Sonics down to Tacoma for a bit, but there was no request for public funding, so it raised very little ruckus.
I think the difference is exactly that of public v. private funding. There is no public debate if no one is asking the public for money. If the money can be raised by fans of the team, who cares?
Posted Wed, Oct 31, 4:27 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Bass ackwards...: Start with the UW administration. As I recall the NCAA investigation cited problems with the 'span of control' - I don't think that 'span' has been fixed - certainly its problems are evident from other perspectives as well.
I think the Alumni are feeling milked quite a bit at Husky Stadium - there is money to rebuild, but they are going to have to work with what they've already got.
I understand the concerns about game day traffic, but it is what, 8 days a year? FWIW I think adding high school games to Husky Stadium makes sense as a way of introducing H.S. students to the UW - it makes that goal a bit more tangible - and that's more important than a winning team.
-DT