Slick Rick Neuheisel to San Jose?

[JeeberD]

That's the rumour that's floating around the WAC board now that Fitz Hill has been fired. Has anyone else out there heard such a thing?

[The_herd]

Haven't heard it. I would love to see it, though. Rick got a raw deal in Washington and it would be great to see him get a shot somewhere else.

[SnDvls]

I heard that Joe Pa would hire him as an O-Cord with the intention of him becoming the next Penn St coach. It would take some good talking by Joe Pa to the higher ups at PSU, but could happen.

[dawgfan]

Rick got a raw deal in Washington...

How do you figure?

[The_herd]

How do you figure?

Before entering the much publicized NCAA basketball pool Neuheisel sends an email to the AD asking clarification on a grey area in the NCAA rules on whether or not he can be in the pool. The AD responds by email saying it's perfectly fine. NCAA catches wind of the pool and begins the investigation. Shortly after the investigation begins the NCAA tells Washington that it would be in their best interest to get rid of Neuheisel. Neuheisel is fired. Neuheisel is then effectively blackballed by the NCAA when they put him on probation as a coach and any school interested in hiring him must show, in writing, good cause for the hire.

The fact that the NCAA screwed up royally was evident by their decision to drop the probation on Neuheisel and admit he actually did nothing wrong at Washington since he was able to produce his emails with the AD as evidence. This got nowhere near the headlines the basketball pool got.

What Neuheisel did wrong at Washington was lie about his intrest in the San Francisco job, but I don't think that was worthy of a firing.

[dawgfan]

Sorry, but the memo excuse was B.S., and your description of what happened is way off the mark. He never specifically asked anyone in the Athletic Department whether he could/should participate in the Calcutta Pool with his buddies. What had happened was a standard memo had been passed around the Athletic Department that year (as it was every year) that outlined why gambling was a big no-no. It had at the end a misinterpretation of the rules that said it was OK to be in a pool with your friends.

It is highly doubtful Neuheisel was relying on that memo when he joined his buddies in the high-stakes Calcutta pool for multiple thousands of dollars (and that's not the situation the memo was talking about anyway). When Neuheisel was questioned by the NCAA about his participation in the pool, he said (I'm paraphrasing here) "I was just an observer. I know I wouldn't have been able to participate, that would've been gambling and against NCAA rules." This is on tape. Later in the day he fessed-up to his participation, but only after first lying about it in the first 2 interview sessions of the day. Not once during this day of questioning did he talk about the memo.

I agree that Myles Brand's comments shortly after this story came out were extremely unprofessional (essentially saying the UW should fire Neuheisel), but the fact is the UW was in a justifiable position to fire him. Neuheisel was already on thin ice with his bosses (AD Barbara Hedges and interim President Lee Huntsman) for his 49er interview fiasco. If you'll recall, he secretly flew to S.F. to interview for the job while he was supposedly on vacation at Sun Valley with his family. A Seattle P-I reporter happened to be in the S.F. airport on the same flight back to Seattle as Neuheisel and overheard him talking about his interview on his cell phone. He questioned Neuheisel about why he was in S.F. when he had stated he was in Sun Valley that weekend, and Neuheisel concocted a story about golfing with some buddies. Once he was back in Seattle, he held a news conference denying he had been interviewing for the 49er job and telling his golfing story, going so far as to say "I'm not lying about this" and did the same thing on the local sports radio station. The P-I reporter finally broke his story after trying to get Neuheisel to come clean. Not only had Neuheisel blatantly lied to the public, he also hadn't told his bosses about his interview, something that they told him was a requirement. They were not happy about this and give him an ultimatum - no more lying.

When they fired him with cause, it was both because of the gambling and lying - he had clearly lied to the NCAA investigators when first questioned, and not until he'd had a recess and consulted with his lawyers did he decide to come clean. Based on NCAA investigation rules, they couldn't punish him for his lie since he came clean the same day, but he still lied.

The NCAA took a very convenient stance throughout this whole situation - they hinted strongly that Neuheisel should be fired, which the UW did. Then, when they completed their investigation of the UW, they essentially dropped their Lack of Institutional Control charges on the UW and accepted their self-imposed penalties (while extending them 1 year) and declined to punish Neuheisel. They played it perfectly - Neuheisel was in effect punished by being fired and sitting out a couple of years, the UW corrected the situation by firing Neuheisel and later having the AD retire early, as well as other changes in the compliance department. The NCAA got what it wanted without subjecting itself to litigation by Neuheisel.

Don't kid yourself for a moment though that had the UW decided to stick by Neuheisel and fight the NCAA on this that they wouldn't have come down hard on both. The NCAA won't say this on record, but they consider Neuheisel's firing and subsequent absence from the NCAA for 2 years to be his punishment. Had the UW not fired him, they would've imposed major penalties on both Neuheisel - probably a yearlong ban - and the UW, likely a Lack of Institutional Control finding with scholarship reductions, bowl bans and garnished TV revenue.

Neuheisel and the UW will likely come to a settlement on his lawsuit - neither side is a sure thing to win, and the UW would just as soon move on and not have the negative publicity associated with that trial.

Just don't kid yourself that he hasn't brought all of this on himself. He has real potential as a head coach, but he also has major question marks, both on character and as a head coach. He's now had 2 jobs as a H.C., both time getting in trouble for recruiting violations plus now the gambling issue at the UW. At both schools he had early success with primarily his predecessors's players, only to see his teams regress as his own players came to the fore. His teams' lack of discipline come back to bite him in the butt.

Maybe he's learned his lesson with the NCAA and will toe the line, but he'll probably need a downtrodden program like San Jose State to give him a shot. I think he'd be better served to put in his time as a QB coach and an Offensive Coordinator somewhere, let the controversy die down some, give him a chance to build some real connections in the coaching community (most of whom resent him and his perceived unjustified salary and quick promotions), then look for a good fit H.C. job.

[Franklinnoble]

I'd like to see him come to Sac State...

[judicial clerk]

I can't believe UW finished 1-10! Damn!

[The_herd]

What I described above is a summary of The Sporting News' coverage of the aftermath of the situation. The saved emails were to be evidence in Neuheisel's lawsuit against the NCAA and were sent out after the memo went around. The memo went out and he emailed the AD directly to ask if he could be involved in the pool. I don't think he'd claim he had them and be ready to use them in court if they didn't exist. They were also the alleged reason the NCAA is allowing him to coach again.

The NCAA was out to get Neuheisel. They had a personal issue with Neuheisel and it showed in the way the investigation was handled. They didn't have any business telling Washington they should fire him. The decision should have been soley up to the school. Neuheisel is no choir boy, but he isn't the devil either. He was fired and had to sit out from coaching because of a basketball pool he was told by the AD that he could participate in.

[dawgfan]

Apparently you didn't read a thing I wrote.

What I described above is a summary of The Sporting News' coverage of the aftermath of the situation.

They got it wrong then. Wouldn't be the first time a national writer didn't get all the details correct. Let's not overlook the fact that Rick is a very personable guy, easy to like and has some friends in the media (including at least one of the guys at the Sporting News - Matt Hayes I believe) that are willing to spin things in his favor.

The saved emails were to be evidence in Neuheisel's lawsuit against the NCAA and were sent out after the memo went around. The memo went out and he emailed the AD directly to ask if he could be involved in the pool. I don't think he'd claim he had them and be ready to use them in court if they didn't exist.

In all of the reporting I've seen on the matter, and believe me I've read a tremendous amount about it, I've never heard that Neuheisel directly questioned the AD whether he could participate in the pool. What he's been claiming is the yearly compliance e-mail that was sent out that incorrectly OK'd small betting pools was his justification for participating in the big-stakes Calcutta pool. This, despite the fact it took him several days after the NCAA questioning occurred before he mentioned it (because as he was going through his stuff after the fact he saw this e-mail and latched onto it as an excuse), despite the fact that as he was lying about his participation in the pool when questioned by the NCAA he said of course he didn't participate because he knew it was against the NCAA's gambling rules.

Of course he and his lawyer have been jumping all over that e-mail memo as justification - it's the only excuse they have, and they'll use it as their primary defense if the lawsuit goes to trial. Doesn't mean that excuse will hold water.

They were also the alleged reason the NCAA is allowing him to coach again.

Let's be real here. The NCAA doesn't like litigation - they've been burned in the past by it. They got what they wanted when the UW fired Neuheisel and the aftermath has effectively blackballed him from coaching. Had they attempted to add any additional punishment to him, they would've been faced with a lawsuit, so it was convenient for them to let him skate with no additional penalties.

The NCAA was out to get Neuheisel. They had a personal issue with Neuheisel and it showed in the way the investigation was handled.

I agree, but with reason - he continually bends and breaks the rules, and he's not the least bit contrite about it. I'm not sure how the investigation showed a personal bias though.

They didn't have any business telling Washington they should fire him. The decision should have been soley up to the school.

Agreed - Brand's comments were out of line. However he was already on thin ice with the UW - this was the straw that broke the camel's back. You can argue that the UW should've fired him without cause (exercising their buyout essentially), but they have a reasonable case to fire him with cause, despite what the NCAA says or the memo.

Neuheisel is no choir boy, but he isn't the devil either. He was fired and had to sit out from coaching because of a basketball pool he was told by the AD that he could participate in.

He's not the devil, he just ignores the rules he's supposed to play by. He never thought his tournament participation would've been discovered, and had he not won both years and bragged about his winnings, it probably never would've been known by the public. This idea that he was wronged by his AD is completely off-base though.

[Glengoyne]

Well, I still think Ricky got Jobbed there in Washington. It was a freaking basketball pool for goodness sakes. Let's not make this Pete Rose betting on Baseball.

[dawgfan]

Have you read anything I've posted? He wasn't just fired for the pool, he was also fired for his constant lying. And it wasn't 'just a pool', it was a high-stakes Culcutta-style auction pool. This wasn't you and your buddies buying squares for $5 a piece, this was bidding on teams for upwards of a few thousand dollars, with winnings of several thousand dollars.

[path12]

I'm with Dawgfan here. Neuheisel was continually having to explain away minor infractions his entire time here. It was death by a million paper cuts, and the pool was just the last straw.....

[Glengoyne]

Have you read anything I've posted? He wasn't just fired for the pool, he was also fired for his constant lying. And it wasn't 'just a pool', it was a high-stakes Culcutta-style auction pool. This wasn't you and your buddies buying squares for $5 a piece, this was bidding on teams for upwards of a few thousand dollars, with winnings of several thousand dollars.
It doesn't matter to me whether it was $5 or $50,000. It was a basketball pool. The NCAA's rule is out of line as far as I'm concerned. Zero Tolerance is almost never the best policy.

[dawgfan]

Zero tolerance isn't exactly how the NCAA handles gambling. If you look at penalties they've handed out, it's pretty clear they impose a sliding scale of punishment based on the nature of the infraction. A coach putting in $5 in the local pool is going to get a slap on the wrist, i.e. a letter of reprimand. A coach putting in $2,000 is going to be in a lot more hot water, because the stakes make the plausibility of a game's integrity being in question much higher. Still unlikely, but a lot more likely than for a $5 bet.

The worst thing that can happen to the integrity of a sport is to have the legitimacy of the outcomes come into question. To preserve this, you have to take a hard-line stance against gambling. Had Neuheisel simply been in a neighborhood $5 a square pool, this wouldn't have been an issue. It's the amount of money that was at stake that made it a big deal to the NCAA.

[judicial clerk]

Rick's problem, and the reason that Washingto should have fired him, is because of his lying. I just don't think the guy can be trusted.

On another note, god help us if UW lures Tedford up to Seattle. With UW's resources and Tedford's apparent coaching ability, the rest of the Pac 10, and the nation, could be in trouble.

[Franklinnoble]

Rick's problem, and the reason that Washingto should have fired him, is because of his lying. I just don't think the guy can be trusted.

On another note, god help us if UW lures Tedford up to Seattle. With UW's resources and Tedford's apparent coaching ability, the rest of the Pac 10, and the nation, could be in trouble.

The Pac-10 is already in trouble with Tedford at Cal.

I don't think he's leaving.

If Cal can improve their stadium and give Tedford a little more to work with, it's actually a better place for him. Berkeley is a lot more pleasant than Seattle, and they have a lot of very well-heeled alumni that might be persuaded to pony up some more cash for a successful program. In a few years, Cal could be a real powerhouse.

[dawgfan]

Berkeley is a lot more pleasant than Seattle, and they have a lot of very well-heeled alumni that might be persuaded to pony up some more cash for a successful program. In a few years, Cal could be a real powerhouse.

They might be pursuaded, but the problem is they haven't yet been. I think it's unlikely that Tedford leaves Cal this year, but if he does it will be because the likelihood of getting the facilities improvements he needs to compete with USC are much greater at the UW than at Cal.

[judicial clerk]

The Pac-10 is already in trouble with Tedford at Cal.[QUOTE]

No kidding. One play away from being undefeated.

I don't think he's leaving.[QUOTE]


I agree with this and your other comments. Tedford is a California guy, but I think Washington would be willing to make a ludicrous offer to him to entice him. I am talking the type of offer that is hard to refuse. Cal and its alumni do have the potential to create a powerhouse program but UW and its alumni have more practice at it and more desire to have a powerhouse program.

[dawgfan]

I'm hearing from a pretty reliable source that Neuheisel interviewed for the UNLV job today and is one of 3 finalists they are considering.