Roundtable Discussion: Will the Huskies Qualify for a Bowl?

Husky fans that lapsed into a coma shortly after the 2002 Sun Bowl may awaken to find that they didn’t miss anything.

The team has not been close to a bowl game since, and need three wins in their final three games in order to become bowl eligible in this, Jake Locker’s final season. The first of these three games is tonight vs. UCLA, and you’re likely currently stuck in traffic as a result.

Since getting to a bowl will take wins, we asked a group of award-winning Husky fans to discuss how they think the season will play out:

Do you think the Huskies will win their final three games and become bowl eligible?

Frank (Mr. Anderson News Quiz Champion, 5/23/1995): Ehh, maybe if we didn’t have to play Cal at Berkeley–the Bears have been sick at home.

Drew (Parking Spot Award Runner-Up the Last Four Months*): No, primarily because the week-on, week-off inconsistency of this team will mean likely one or two losses in these last three games. Even if the bye week helps them rest and prepare for UCLA this week, and UW gets a win, you have two tough road games against Cal, who plays really well at home and almost upset Oregon, and WSU where it’ll probably be snowing and bitch-ass-cold. The Cougs are probably the most improved team in the Pac-10 this season, or at least the past 3-5 games.

---

Ansley (Funplex Pop-a-Shot Champion): I don’t think they are going to get the three wins they need, but it hurts me so much to type it that I might just take it back.

Dusty (2002 Nobel Prize in Physics): Yes, they will become bowl eligible because there are now 60 bowl games, so every FBS school is required to play in the post-season.  That said, we will finish 3-9, so pack your bags for the Poodle Dog “Good Food” Bowl in beautiful Fife, WA!

---

With all the frustration over how this season is playing out, do you even care if the Huskies make what would be a lower-tier bowl?

Ansley: If they do, it would be big for the program. The whole build-up over the next three-plus weeks, an Apple Cup with something on the line, a bowl game to watch during the holidays, it would be good for the players, for the fans, for the donors, and, thus, for the program.

Frank: Even sneaking into a bowl means a whole extra month that players get to work out and practice with coaches, and an extra game of experience for the entire roster.

Drew: I do care, because it would be nice for Locker to go to a bowl. And it would really help the future of the program. Then again, at what point do we give up on Locker and start giving Price more time to develop/get real game experience? Price did really well against Oregon, given the circumstances. And like Frank said, a bowl helps this young team in the long run.

Jason (The 2006 Car Domain Firm Handshake of the Year): I agree that the bowl is nice as an extra month of practice, but it’s really hard to care about this team. The level of talent has improved in a couple of positions, but those are few and far between. The game planning has been inconsistent and puts too much of the offense on Locker.

Dusty: Obviously, if we ran the table and made a bowl game, I’d be ridiculously excited to not cry during ESPN’s “it’s the most wonderful time of the year” Bowl Week commercials.  It would also be a huge boost to the program, as right now I fear we could take a step back in terms of our perceived turnaround, etc.  I’m also confused every week how our offense is somehow worse than it was last year. 

We are coming to the end of the Jake Locker era. Thoughts on his last four years and his future?

Dusty: At the end of the day, I appreciate Jake Locker, but am certainly ready for the Montana era to begin, so Sark isn’t wasting his time teaching a D1 QB how to drop back, and can focus on making him better, rather than competent/less embarrassing.

Ansley: I still love Jake Locker. He’s a truly stand-up guy. He risked money and health to come back and play for us. And he takes his dog with him everywhere. I want the best for him this season, and that includes a bowl game.

Frank: I’m really disappointed Locker couldn’t handle the offensive pressure put on him. This is a kid who might have been the first overall pick and still sounds like he’s going to be a 1st rounder. QBs like that are supposed to be able to carry their teams. Even a first round bust like JP Losman got Tulane to a bowl game.

Stanford puts most of their offense on Luck. Ohio State puts most of their offense on Pryor. Michigan puts all of their offense on Robinson.

Are we admitting that Locker doesn’t measure up to these peers of his and is a career NFL backup, at best? Closer to Ron Pawlus, and not even a Brady Quinn?  A guy who is incapable of running an sophisticated offense?

Actually, I’m starting to worry about that…. I think Locker may just be a dumb guy who can’t function in anything more than the simplest offenses.  What proof do we have that he has any football intelligence?  He doesn’t make reads and rarely gets to a second or third option.

Jason: I’ll say it: Locker isn’t smart enough to run an offense.

Huskies vs. UCLA, 5pm, TV—ESPN Radio 950AM

*Runner-up in the Pac 10 could still get Stanford to the Rose Bowl, we’ll take it.