1.30.08

Feeling Ill...

I'm sure that many of you have read the Victory and Ruins piece that the Seattle Times has been putting out over the course of the week, chronicling the 2000 Husky Football Teams' successes and failures.

Thoughts:1.29.08 (Prior to "Chapter 4" and "Emmert" being published):

I have a really hard time with these articles.

FACT: Beginning in the late 80s, and stretching into the middle part of the decade, the UW Athletic Program (particularly its football team) was mired in a culture where talent was put in front of character.

FICTION: It was Rick Neuheisal's fault and none of this has or would ever happen under Tyrone Willingham.


You all know where I stand on this issue, a Willingham critic and a Neuheisal apologist. But this seems to be the same ridiculous rhetoric that the UW has been feeding its fans since Neuheisal was released and particularly since Willingham was hired.

They've served fans a carafe of Kool-Aid and they've mindlessly drank from it to the point that I've heard dozens of Husky fans argue that Willingham never should have been fired from Notre Dame (which is so counter-intuitive that I can't even process it. REALLY? You like him coaching at UW? You do realize that if he hadn't been (justly) fired from Notre Dame, he wouldn't be here, yes?)

This is just another limb sprouting from the same tree of propaganda.

The front page of this report features pictures of the following:
"One Player" (Jerramy Stevens) That label fits, implying that he was one of the players involved in misconduct.
"The Athletic Director" (Barbara Hedges) That label fits, as she was in fact the athletic director for the entirety of this investigation.
"The Prosecutor's Office" (They show Dan Satterberg, but identify it as a group of people) This label fits, as it is an office-issue.

and finally...

"THE Coach" (Rick Neuheisal) Not "One" Coach the way that the identified Stevens, but "THE" coach. However, upon reading, you'll find more references to Jim Lambright's player-testimonials and "blind-eye" decisions than you will of Neuheisal---and yet Lambright is a Husky Hall of Famer, a former "Husky Legend", and a revered member of the community. Keith Gilbertson is also mentioned as a coach during this time...but he isn't pictured either.


The fact is that every college program in the country goes through conduct problems, and receives special treatment in certain cases. No doubt that UW's situation was worse than most in America--but there is also no doubt that their current situation isn't completely devoid of such issues.

Furthermore, I think that despite a complete and appropriate investigation into these happenings, that the Seattle Times is guilty of horrendously biased journalism, by leaving the implication open that at the point where Gilbertson left, these problems went away. Their argument would have been immeasurably more compelling had they made a single reference to a player-conduct issue under Willingham---which there are more than a few of. (**This portion was written before today's piece that mentioned some of the conduct issues under Willingham, but was done so so half-heartedly that it didn't make a dent. There is no doubt that the Seattle Times made the decision to emphasize troubles under Neuheisal and de-emphasize them under Willingham.)


But don't get me wrong---I'm not saying that Neuheisal wasn't deserving of criticism. He was. He made some terrible management decisions and probably deserved to be fired. What I'm saying is that he is a scapegoat for his own discretion as well as those of many others---and Tyrone Willingham, while he has no doubt helped the program improve its character-image, has not (nor would he ever believe it possible to) completely expunge such issues from the University and its Football program.


Finally, and in truth this is off of the central-issue of this piece, but points to my issues with the current state of UW Athletics and the supporters thereof, this is yet another example of an unfathomable, yet present acceptance at the UW that seems to say "Winning means that something bad is happening---let's clean it up, regardless as to whether we succeed or not." The series of articles functionally implies that the 2000 season (and 2001 Rose Bowl) were "Bad" and completely fails to mention that that team that won 11 of its 12 games was made up of about 80 kids--and probably 90 percent of them WERE NOT criminals, and WERE NOT enabling this atmosphere of recklessness...and it seems short-sighted to functionally strip them of their triumphs because of the inaction by the administration when faced with disciplining a couple of problem players.


Continued: 1.30.08

I've been involved in a couple of dialogues since I wrote the statement above--and I'm growing even more frustrated.

People whose opinions I respect, and whose experiences outweigh mine in this arena have allowed themselves to become the drones to the Willingham Propaganda Machine. He DOES recruit and cultivate upstanding members of the community---I've never disputed that. But he DOES NOT win. And is not showing signs that he will in the future.

He has somehow achieved "untouchable" status in this community and the college football world, where you're looked at as criminal you raise an opinion that is anything but supportive of him.

He is supposedly "coaching for his job" this season--but I wake up in cold sweats four nights a week, knowing that if he can find a way to 7-6 this season and a bowl appearance, he'll not only keep his job, but get a contract extension...with no mention of the fact that 7-6 is a crappy football season and that there is no possible way that any coach would have been hired at UW if they were told he would have the best season of his tenure in his fourth year and it would be 7-6 with a bowl loss!!!

**I can't find a place to put this, so this is as good as any. I loved the Anthony Kelley story---but it is written in a way that implies that Tyrone Willingham would support his players studying abroad---and that means one of two things: A) Ty Willingham is more incompetent that I thought he was or B) You're incredibly gullible. No sensible coach would ever encourage players to miss vitally important off-season training...regardless of the character of the coach.**

But the fact is that he is not Jesus. And Rick Neuheisal is not Satan. Like virtually all men, they both fall somewhere in between.

I'm glad that the University of Washington Football Program has moved away from the lawlessness that surrounded it a decade ago. But Mark Emmert (UW President) hit it on the head in the final segment of the Victory and Ruins series: "You can win and win properly". But it has been made very public that he shares the same opinion that I do: that Willingham is doing everything right from a character side, but is unfit to succeed on the field.

It is my hope that Mark Emmert sticks with his good judgment, ignores the blind portion of the alumni/fan-base, and follows through with his plans to remove Tyrone Willingham from his position after the 2008 season and bring in a coach who can produce students with high character and produce teams that succeed on the football field. With that coach in place (whomever it may be) the University would have an opportunity to distance itself from the controversy of the Lambright and Neuheisal eras, and the futility of the Gilbertson and Willingham eras. Then, and only then, will the program accomplish the holistic successes that its players, students, alumni and fans long for and deserve.


P.S.
I added this late because I'm sure that someone is thinking it:

My disgust with Tyrone Willingham has NOTHING to do with race. Here is a list of black coaches that I'd trade Willingham and one of my kidneys for:

Sylvester Croom
Romer Crenell
Dennis Green
Karl Dorrell
"Mushmouth" from Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids

____________________________________________________________________

mcflyblogs@gmail.com