college fb fans - looking for some perspective

[dawgfan]

As many of you know, I'm a huge University of Washington fan (alumnus, class of '92). I live in Seattle, and as a fan of the Huskies I frequent the local Scout.com Huskies site (dawgman.com). For many years, purple-visioned posters there have claimed that the local Seattle media was unduly harsh on the Huskies. I've always laughed off that criticism as short-sighted, biased thinking from people lacking objective perspective when it comes to the Huskies - until this week.

Starting this past Sunday, the Seattle Times has begun an "investigative" piece looking back at the 2000 team that won the Rose Bowl, focusing on criminal behavior by a few players from that team (series index can be found here (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/victoryandruins/)).

For those familiar with UW athletics, none of these stories are "news". The vast majority of the facts presented in these articles have been reported previously, though not compiled together in one place as these are.

As a Husky fan, I look at this series and wonder what the point is - is it to tell us that football players can be bad people? That sports figures sometimes catch breaks in the legal system? That coaches sometimes enable poor behavior by their players? That this particular team had some bad apples?

None of this is news. It's an unfortunate side-note to big-time football, but the sport attracts and can enable violent, anti-social behavior. When you have a group of 100+ 18-23 year old football players, chances are a few of them are going to be unsavory people.

I'm trying to figure out what the ultimate point of this series is. I have some theories - the UW recently announced their intention to seek an extension of the existing hotel/rental car/restaurant tax that was created to fund Safeco Field in order to help pay for renovations and upgrades to Husky Stadium, and I have no doubt that many on the staff of the Times object to this idea. Further, there are many casual and non-sports fans who have bought into the idea of Tyrone Willingham as a model leader of young men, and are disturbed by the passionate calls for his job from many in the Husky fan base - they feel like he inherited a horrible situation and must be give more time to show he can field a winning team. Many on the Times staff have displayed their admiration for Willingham, and it wouldn't surprise me if this series concludes by trying to convince readers that Willingham is cleaning up a dirty program.

Of course, thus far there has been no attempt to provide context to this series or to conduct any real research into the matters that they are discussing. What we have is a case study of a particular team, but no attempt to look at other teams, both at the UW (was this 2000 team typical in the number of problem players? was this typical of Neuheisel-coached teams, or UW teams in general? how does this team compare with players under Willingham?) and at other schools (is this UW team any more or less filled with problem players than other schools across the country? is there any real difference between successful and unsuccessful teams in terms of problem players? how many problem players has Ty had at his previous stops at Stanford and Notre Dame?)

My request for those with the patience to have read this far, is some perspective:

- Does any of the information in this series shock you, or differ significantly from what has happened off the field with your favorite/local University football team(s)?

- Can you recall seeing similar "exposes" of your favorite/local University football team(s)?

- Would you agree that this series (thus far) has been written with a heavily negative slant towards the University of Washington?

Thanks in advance for your perspective...

[Logan]

All I know is that I'm about halfway done with the Jerramy Stevens article, and I'm already pretty disgusted. I'll follow up...

quick edit...you said:

None of this is news. It's an unfortunate side-note to big-time football, but the sport attracts and can enable violent, anti-social behavior. When you have a group of 100+ 18-23 year old football players, chances are a few of them are going to be unsavory people.

Again, this is just off what I've read from the Stevens article, but this doesn't just seem to be about kids doing bad things. From just a piece of this article, I see some shady stuff from the coaching staff, and much worse stuff like people from the Prosecutor's office making a never-been-seen-before deal with Stevens' attorney that allowed him to review witness and victim statements before giving his own story about what happened.

[Karlifornia]

Yeah...it's pretty bad. Washington isn't the only school that has these problems, but this is the Seattle Times. Why wouldn't they report these stories? Jerramy Stevens is a pretty disgusting dude, and he should have been booted off the team many times.

[Karlifornia]

Also, this constant paranoia about Tyrone Willingham is surreal.

[dawgfan]

Yeah...it's pretty bad. Washington isn't the only school that has these problems, but this is the Seattle Times. Why wouldn't they report these stories? Jerramy Stevens is a pretty disgusting dude, and he should have been booted off the team many times.
My question then is do you see the Bay Area papers going after the local schools with similar investigations?

And I don't disagree about Stevens.

[dawgfan]

Again, this is just off what I've read from the Stevens article, but this doesn't just seem to be about kids doing bad things. From just a piece of this article, I see some shady stuff from the coaching staff, and much worse stuff like people from the Prosecutor's office making a never-been-seen-before deal with Stevens' attorney that allowed him to review witness and victim statements before giving his own story about what happened.
I don't disagree.

But my question is, is this unusual? Can you not find similar examples of deplorable behavior by athletes at most other schools, of coaches enabling this behavior and local police/prosecutors/judges that go easy on them?

I'm not attempting to condone this behavior or say the Times shouldn't report it - what I'm saying is I think their lack of any context or comparison with other teams and situation makes the series come across as an unfairly negative slant against the University.

[Logan]

I don't disagree.

But my question is, is this unusual? Can you not find similar examples of deplorable behavior by athletes at most other schools, of coaches enabling this behavior and local police/prosecutors/judges that go easy on them?

I'm not attempting to condone this behavior or say the Times shouldn't report it - what I'm saying is I think their lack of any context or comparison with other teams and situation makes the series come across as an unfairly negative slant against the University.

Just because it happens at other places doesn't mean it should happen at Washington. By saying that a lack of comparison allows the series to come across as unfairly negative, you're excusing the behavior even if you don't realize it (and I recognize where you said you don't condone it). It seems perfectly fairly negative, and whether it happens at one school or a hundred doesn't matter.

[scooter]

I've been very interested in these stories myself. I'm not an alum - I moved here from Big10 country 14 years ago. I do think this is news. I've never seen all of this information put together in one place. Yes, you see a small story on page 6 about Stevens getting pulled over for a DUI, etc. but when you see the whole wrap sheet put together, it's really eye-opening.

Today's article about Curtis Williams is a great example. I knew he wasn't a "squeaky clean" guy by any means, but my only real memories of him are his tragic paralyzation and subsequent death. To learn that he beat his wife (repeatedly) and continued to work the system for years to continue playing football makes me outraged. People like that should be locked away, not glorified.

As far as the motives for this expose, I will go with what they were saying on sports radio yesterday: It's all to sell newspapers. I don't see any motivation other than that. You walk past the newstand and you see the purple and gold on the front page, you buy it because you want to know what's going on. Simple as that.

[dawgfan]

Just because it happens at other places doesn't mean it should happen at Washington. By saying that a lack of comparison allows the series to come across as unfairly negative, you're excusing the behavior even if you don't realize it (and I recognize where you said you don't condone it). It seems perfectly fairly negative, and whether it happens at one school or a hundred doesn't matter.
I don't think it should happen, at Washington or anywhere else.

What's bugging me about this "investigation" is that most of it has already been reported quite a bit in the past - it's a re-hashing of news that has been out for quite some time.

And the stuff that is new - like much of the details on Curtis Williams that ran today, in addition to a few additional bits of information in the Stevens case - is stuff the Times knew about soon after they occurred. Why sit on that information for 7-8 years but now run it? What are they trying to prove by linking all of these events together in one series?

That's what I'm getting at - what is their point, and are they doing a fair job of trying to prove that point?

As well, how often do you see your own paper run similar investigations. Is this normal, or is the Seattle Times unusual in their focus on UW athlete misdeeds?

[Karlifornia]

My question then is do you see the Bay Area papers going after the local schools with similar investigations?

And I don't disagree about Stevens.

The Bay Area papers would salivate if they had dirt like this. I think any paper would do the same thing. Maybe I'm wrong....but when I worked for my college paper, all the really serious journalists were in love with any sort of institutional cover-ups or mishaps. I don't think the Seattle Times is any more muckraking than any other paper.

[Logan]

Now you're arguing something else...before you wanted them to come out with a statement that said "this happens at other schools" and now you just want to know why they've waited until now, and I think scooter answered that: to sell newspapers.

[scooter]

I also think one of the reasons some of this stuff is just being reported now is the unsealing of some of these cases. The King County Court's ability to seal any case they felt they wanted has left a lot of information hidden from journalists (do you remember the "investigative" article series the Times did back in July '07 about sealed case files?). Some of that stuff may be newly unsealed. It then takes a while for the reporter to read through boxes of transcripts to find the "real story".

[chesapeake]

Replying as a native Washingtonian who has very close ties to the UW then and now -- yes, the allegations in this series are much worse than what goes on at most schools. These stories aren't about recruiting violations or cutting corners. They are about violent felonies -- rapes, assaults, robberies and wife-beating -- and claims that the University and King County officials either ignored them or actually covered them up.

There is a lot of new material in these stories and they are connecting some dots that hadn't been before. I would agree that these stories come a little late. Those who should be accountable are already gone. The UW's president, athletic director and head coach have all been replaced and the elected prosecutor in question, Norm Maleng, is dead.

[dawgfan]

Now you're arguing something else...before you wanted them to come out with a statement that said "this happens at other schools" and now you just want to know why they've waited until now, and I think scooter answered that: to sell newspapers.
Maybe I'm not doing a good enough job of explaining myself.

Anyone that has paid any attention to Jerramy Stevens would already know just about everything printed in that article, because almost all of it has been in the news in the past, and most of it multiple times - every time Stevens screws-up, his past is rehashed. The alleged rape, the crashing into the nursing home, the DUI's, the debate around the UW program at the time about whether Stevens should be playing and how much punishment he should receive - all old news.

Anyone that has paid any attention to UW football knows the story about Jeremiah Pharms shooting and robbing the drug dealer - it received a lot of attention in the news when the case was made public. This is not new news, aside from a few added bits like his estranged wife getting into an altercation at a Husky game with one of Pharms' girlfriends and his mother.

Why the need to rehash these stories now? What is the point of lumping them together in a look back at that 2000 team?

In the case of today's subject, Curtis Williams, most of what was reported today is being made public for the first time (though those close to the program knew the details, and followers of the team knew he'd had off the field problems). In this case, the question is why has the Times been sitting on this info for so long? Why was none of this reported when it was happening back in '97, '98, '99? The information was there to be reported - it was not secret like the Pharms investigation. Why did the Times fail to report it then? One can assume that following his paralyzation in 2000 and subsequent death a few years later the paper decided to sit on this info, but most of his sordid details were publicly available before his paralysis.

Of course the Times is trying to sell newspapers - that's the easy answer. The harder answer is why this story presented in this way? What point are they trying to make?

Here are some of the issues I have with this series so far:

- As an expose of that 2000 Huskies team, it's mostly a rehash of news that's been out there for years now. Stevens is an alcoholic idiot and possible rapist? Yeah, we already knew that. Pharms is an idiot who shot and robbed his dope dealer? Yeah, we already knew that. Williams was a violent wife-beater? Didn't know the details, but not a big shocker - we knew he had problems off the field that forced him to miss a season.

- As a critique of local law enforcement, it's lacking in balance - where are the quotes from today from those involved that enabled Stevens and Williams to continue playing (minus the DA Maleng who has since passed away)? Is it possible that is was more than just Husky favoritism that allowed Stevens to avoid prosecution for rape? Hard to say, since most of the quotes were from those criticizing Stevens.

Did the DA do the correct thing in keeping their investigation of Pharms secret until they felt they had enough to charge him? They seem to imply from the wording of the article that is was a travesty that Pharms was playing football while under investigation, but I don't see any evidence from their reporting that the prosecutors mishandled Pharms' case.

Did law enforcement officials screw up by continuing to give Williams a break on his domestic violence charges? Perhaps, but where are the quotes from those involved to get their perspective on why they acted as they did?

- As a critique of the discipline of UW coaches, it is lacking in any comprehensiveness and commentary from those involved. Did they ask for comments from the coaches involved? If so, it's not noted in these articles. If they mean to imply a pattern of enabling behavior by UW coaches, where is the look at how they handled every disciplinary case? Where is the look at how the UW coaches behaved in comparison to other coaches?

- If this series is meant to present a compare and contrast for the UW program, to paint it as an out-of-control situation (presumably prior to the arrival of former AD Todd Turner and current coach Ty Willingham), then where is the comparison of the number and severity of trouble-makers on that 2000 team with other UW teams, with other Ty coached teams and with other teams in general?

- If this series is meant to claim that successful football teams come with the price of unsavory, criminal players, where is the comparison of the that 2000 team in terms of number and severity of trouble-makers with other successful football teams?

Obviously this series is intended to help sell papers. But is that it? Was it simply a decision of, "Let's rehash dirt on a favorite past Huskies team and sensationalize it!" Was there something more to how they have chosen to repackage these (mostly) old stories, and if so, what is it?

[Karlifornia]

Dawgfan, I think this piece carries enough weight to take a second look after the fact, if for no other reason than to pressure the people in charge of the athletic department (and boosters) to make sure it never happens again.

[dawgfan]

Dola - I should also reiterate that as a proud alumnus of the UW, I'm (again) shamed by the actions of Stevens, Pharms, Williams and the coaches that enabled them. My critique of this piece should not be misconstrued as an endorsement of what occurred, but an objection to how the story is being presented.

I am of the opinion that, while it's probably impossible to have a team of 100+ football players consist entirely of choir boys, I don't think it's impossible to field a very successful program that also has no tolerance for criminal behavior.

[dawgfan]

Dawgfan, I think this piece carries enough weight to take a second look after the fact, if for no other reason than to pressure the people in charge of the athletic department (and boosters) to make sure it never happens again.
Fair enough - I can respect that view.

[Logan]

Dola - I should also reiterate that as a proud alumnus of the UW, I'm (again) shamed by the actions of Stevens, Pharms, Williams and the coaches that enabled them. My critique of this piece should not be misconstrued as an endorsement of what occurred, but an objection to how the story is being presented.

I am of the opinion that, while it's probably impossible to have a team of 100+ football players consist entirely of choir boys, I don't think it's impossible to field a very successful program that also has no tolerance for criminal behavior.

I totally understand what you mean, and I know you're not condoning or supporting any of this. My whole point with my responses is that your original post contained all that stuff about putting it into context, comparing it to other programs, etc when none of that matters at all. If you came here only asking why your program was being put in front of the firing line with all this old news, I wouldn't have had an answer besides the whole selling newspapers thing.

[scooter]

There was actually a part in the Stevens article on Sunday that said that Coach Rick would not comment on the story and Barbara Hedges would not return phone calls. It's kind of hard to get their current perspective when they aren't talking. All they have to go on is what they said at the time, and most of that is pretty damning.

The Stevens article also talked about the civil suit that his alleged rape victim brought against him and the university. It talked about how the university insisted that she be identified (the article says that this is rare in rape cases) and then goes on to talk about how the university used the opposite strategy in another suit against them that they settled (they didn't want to be named). The second case was sealed and has only come to light after the Times sued to get the information. This just one example, but there are many. Some of the information is new and it takes a while to put the picture together. I'm sure the Times also wanted to put it on the front page of the main section, but with the primaries and the economy, they didn't have a lot of space up until now.

I think you are trying to see some big conspiracy here that I don't see. The Seattle Times is a major newspaper. They are in the business of selling newspapers and making money. They also like it when people talk about the news they are writing about - it tends to sell even more newspapers. Other than how bad the Sonics are, this potential Bedard trade, and Husky basketball, there really isn't that much to talk about right now. Sports radio is talking about these articles. Talk radio is talking about these articles. Forums. You get the picture. I'd say they have been pretty successful. But I don't see any conspiracy.

[Atocep]

I'm not a fan of UW, but since I live in the area now and get the Seattle Times delivered I'm kind of forced to follow.

I think first and foremost this comes down to selling papers. I don't think anyone will deny that.

However, if some of this stuff is new and connects dots in a way that hadn't been seen before, then I can understand a writer feeling the need to report it. However, I would question the timing of this. Not so much that its so late, but its a week before signing day and Washington has put together a solid class so far.

Also, as a WVU fan I can say that the Pittsburgh Post Gazette's Chuck Finder has done all he can to run WVU's name through the mud over the Rich Rodriguez thing. He's been a the voice of Rich Rodriguez's agent throughout the ordeal and a lot of the info he's put out has been either been false, come from anonymous sources, or been impossible to prove. WVU is in a strange situation where the biggest paper that covers them happens to be the hometown paper for their biggest rival.

So as someone that isn't all that familiar with the sportswriters for the Seattle Times I'd ask, does the person writing these articles have a history of taking shots at the program at every opportunity?

While I still think that if there is new info, then doing a full report to show the exent of the issues and how all the dots connected is ok, I still think running this out 7 days before signing day is a bit strange...

[dawgfan]

I totally understand what you mean, and I know you're not condoning or supporting any of this. My whole point with my responses is that your original post contained all that stuff about putting it into context, comparing it to other programs, etc when none of that matters at all. If you came here only asking why your program was being put in front of the firing line with all this old news, I wouldn't have had an answer besides the whole selling newspapers thing.
Context and comparison matters if this series is intended to say anything other than "there were a few really bad characters on that 2000 team, and they may have been enabled by some questionable decisions by University and local law enforcement personnel". And maybe that's all this series really is - connecting some newly found dots with a wealth of already reported info.

[dawgfan]

I think you are trying to see some big conspiracy here that I don't see. The Seattle Times is a major newspaper. They are in the business of selling newspapers and making money. They also like it when people talk about the news they are writing about - it tends to sell even more newspapers. Other than how bad the Sonics are, this potential Bedard trade, and Husky basketball, there really isn't that much to talk about right now. Sports radio is talking about these articles. Talk radio is talking about these articles. Forums. You get the picture. I'd say they have been pretty successful. But I don't see any conspiracy.
A conspiracy? No, not necessarily - I don't think the Times is run by a bunch of Husky-hating Cougars and Ducks. I'm questioning the point they're trying to make with this series, and how they're going about making it.

I'll reserve final judgment until the series concludes.

[dawgfan]

Dola -

Heh, here's a sarcastic (yet not entirely irrelevant) reply by a Husky fan to this series of articles:

SEATTLE TIMES SAT ON STORIES OF CRIMINAL PLAYERS IN 2000

Paper protected fan readership over doing the right thing

Sources Reveal That Times Was Afraid of Losing Ad Revenue

Public police and court records that the Seattle Times are using today were public and available in 2000 we have learned in an exhaustive investigation using the Seattle Times own front page expose 8 years after the fact.

"It was a climate where the editors were more concerned with ad revenue and readership than in doing the right thing," commented an ink stained wretch who requested that he not be revealed. "They were afraid that Husky fans and boosters would drop the paper and advertising if we ran the police reports."

Our investigation has uncovered a sordid work environment filled with booze and dope according to unconfirmed and unreliable sources.

Others have pointed out the similarity to Jayson Blair who made up his news stories and Dan Rather who read forged documents on the air in order to smear all journalists with a broad brush of malfeasance.

"Look, ESPN didn't want to worry about steroids when they were getting record ratings for the Barry Bonds chase to 72 home runs and we didn't want to worry about a few lawbreakers when the Huskies were on a Rose Bowl run," noted another source who now sells used cars and has a much clearer conscience as a result.

It's true, police records were not sealed and were as available then as they are now, confirmed a source inside the police department.

Dozens of reporters have had run ins with the police, and yet their names never appear in the newpaper.

"We had a system, we just didn't publish stuff about ourselves," confessed a former PI editor who now is an independent marketer of "Spare Change" newpaper.

In our next part we find a reporter who died covering a war and dig up a bunch of really sordid stuff about his family.

Stay Tuned!

[Karlifornia]

Dola -

Heh, here's a sarcastic (yet not entirely irrelevant) reply by a Husky fan to this series of articles:

SEATTLE TIMES SAT ON STORIES OF CRIMINAL PLAYERS IN 2000

Paper protected fan readership over doing the right thing

Sources Reveal That Times Was Afraid of Losing Ad Revenue

Public police and court records that the Seattle Times are using today were public and available in 2000 we have learned in an exhaustive investigation using the Seattle Times own front page expose 8 years after the fact.

"It was a climate where the editors were more concerned with ad revenue and readership than in doing the right thing," commented an ink stained wretch who requested that he not be revealed. "They were afraid that Husky fans and boosters would drop the paper and advertising if we ran the police reports."

Our investigation has uncovered a sordid work environment filled with booze and dope according to unconfirmed and unreliable sources.

Others have pointed out the similarity to Jayson Blair who made up his news stories and Dan Rather who read forged documents on the air in order to smear all journalists with a broad brush of malfeasance.

"Look, ESPN didn't want to worry about steroids when they were getting record ratings for the Barry Bonds chase to 72 home runs and we didn't want to worry about a few lawbreakers when the Huskies were on a Rose Bowl run," noted another source who now sells used cars and has a much clearer conscience as a result.

It's true, police records were not sealed and were as available then as they are now, confirmed a source inside the police department.

Dozens of reporters have had run ins with the police, and yet their names never appear in the newpaper.

"We had a system, we just didn't publish stuff about ourselves," confessed a former PI editor who now is an independent marketer of "Spare Change" newpaper.

In our next part we find a reporter who died covering a war and dig up a bunch of really sordid stuff about his family.

Stay Tuned!


It seems like UW fans are unhappy with the paper for doing the same thing that the athletic department did:

Keep things under wraps for financial gain or success.

The paper is being opportunistic by re-breaking a story, just as the athletic department was opportunistic in letting talent do whatever the hell they wanted

[dawgfan]

It seems like UW fans are unhappy with the paper for doing the same thing that the athletic department did:

Keep things under wraps for financial gain or success.

The paper is being opportunistic by re-breaking a story, just as the athletic department was opportunistic in letting talent do whatever the hell they wanted
Except most of this stuff wasn't under wraps - it was public knowledge. We all knew about what happened with Stevens when each event happened (and each subsequent event rehashed his previous events). We all knew the Pharms issue once the DA went public with their charging him of a crime. The issue most UW fans have with this story is why is it a story again now?

Yes, the Curtis Williams details are new to public knowledge, but why break it now when it could've been broken as far back as '98? And why only report one side of his story? There is another side to it.

It just feels like piling on - kind of a "Hey, in case anybody forgot, Jerramy Stevens and Jeremiah Pharms did some really bad stuff while at the UW and since and were both part of the 2000 Rose Bowl team. We know these things have been reported quite a bit already, but we don't want anyone to forget. Oh, and those 'personal issues' Curtis Williams had - we didn't report them at the time, and yeah he's died since from football injuries, but here's one version of what he did."

[miami_fan]

Could the timing have anything to do with the recent hiring of Rick Neuheisel? I don't know what the reaction was to the hiring but if fans are clamoring for the good old days of Rick Neuheisel and that Rose Bowl team, I can see the paper going with the series. Just from reading the intro, I don't doubt that there is a great deal of Ty-love going on here as well. If the info is as public as you say it is, then I can see the series discussing how much those incidents affected recruiting, fund-raising etc. doing such great damage to the program that UW fans must allow more time for Ty. The end game will be something like this. Is winning so important to UW fans that they would prefer a team like the 2000 Huskies with a coach like "Slick Rick"? Or are they willing to wait for the program to rebuild and have success with a coach like Ty?

[watravaler]

As many of you know, I'm a huge University of Washington fan (alumnus, class of '92). I live in Seattle, and as a fan of the Huskies I frequent the local Scout.com Huskies site (dawgman.com). For many years, purple-visioned posters there have claimed that the local Seattle media was unduly harsh on the Huskies. I've always laughed off that criticism as short-sighted, biased thinking from people lacking objective perspective when it comes to the Huskies - until this week.

Starting this past Sunday, the Seattle Times has begun an "investigative" piece looking back at the 2000 team that won the Rose Bowl, focusing on criminal behavior by a few players from that team (series index can be found here (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/victoryandruins/)).

For those familiar with UW athletics, none of these stories are "news". The vast majority of the facts presented in these articles have been reported previously, though not compiled together in one place as these are.

As a Husky fan, I look at this series and wonder what the point is - is it to tell us that football players can be bad people? That sports figures sometimes catch breaks in the legal system? That coaches sometimes enable poor behavior by their players? That this particular team had some bad apples?

None of this is news. It's an unfortunate side-note to big-time football, but the sport attracts and can enable violent, anti-social behavior. When you have a group of 100+ 18-23 year old football players, chances are a few of them are going to be unsavory people.

I'm trying to figure out what the ultimate point of this series is. I have some theories - the UW recently announced their intention to seek an extension of the existing hotel/rental car/restaurant tax that was created to fund Safeco Field in order to help pay for renovations and upgrades to Husky Stadium, and I have no doubt that many on the staff of the Times object to this idea. Further, there are many casual and non-sports fans who have bought into the idea of Tyrone Willingham as a model leader of young men, and are disturbed by the passionate calls for his job from many in the Husky fan base - they feel like he inherited a horrible situation and must be give more time to show he can field a winning team. Many on the Times staff have displayed their admiration for Willingham, and it wouldn't surprise me if this series concludes by trying to convince readers that Willingham is cleaning up a dirty program.

Of course, thus far there has been no attempt to provide context to this series or to conduct any real research into the matters that they are discussing. What we have is a case study of a particular team, but no attempt to look at other teams, both at the UW (was this 2000 team typical in the number of problem players? was this typical of Neuheisel-coached teams, or UW teams in general? how does this team compare with players under Willingham?) and at other schools (is this UW team any more or less filled with problem players than other schools across the country? is there any real difference between successful and unsuccessful teams in terms of problem players? how many problem players has Ty had at his previous stops at Stanford and Notre Dame?)

My request for those with the patience to have read this far, is some perspective:

- Does any of the information in this series shock you, or differ significantly from what has happened off the field with your favorite/local University football team(s)?

- Can you recall seeing similar "exposes" of your favorite/local University football team(s)?

- Would you agree that this series (thus far) has been written with a heavily negative slant towards the University of Washington?

Thanks in advance for your perspective...


Investigative journalism hurts when it hits a favorite team/politician/organization/corporation/etc, but it is necessary. If any positive changes are made to the program due to the series, then it served its purpose. Of course, the guy behind the series may be a WSU fan who loves to hit the Huskies when they are down, but even then, if positive changes come as a result, so be it...

Fixing something, or setting something in motion that attempts to fix something that is broken should be the desired end-game of stories like this...at least one would hope

[dawgfan]

Could the timing have anything to do with the recent hiring of Rick Neuheisel? I don't know what the reaction was to the hiring but if fans are clamoring for the good old days of Rick Neuheisel and that Rose Bowl team, I can see the paper going with the series.
I'm not sure that's exactly the angle, though it's possible it plays some part. Most UW fans were OK seeing Neuheisel gone, though some would argue that the way he was fired (in June, with no chance for a real coaching search) was more crippling to the program than anything he did himself.

Certainly there is a lot of nostalgia for the days when the UW was a national player in college football - the success under Don James which carried through Jim Lambright and Rick Neuheisel represented 27 years of no losing seasons, many bowls (including quite a few Rose Bowls) and a National Championship and a #2 and a #3 finish.

And there is certainly a lot of impatience with the slow pace of rebuilding under Willingham (UW last in the Pac-10 when he arrived, and finished tied for last, 2nd to last and last in the Pac-10 in his 3 seasons so far). But I don't think many Husky fans are yearning for Neuheisel himself. There's actually been quite a bit of debate about whether he'll leave UCLA in a bad spot after 4 years and get in trouble with the NCAA again (I'm in the camp that thinks he'll do very well at UCLA and keep his nose mostly clean).

Is winning so important to UW fans that they would prefer a team like the 2000 Huskies with a coach like "Slick Rick"? Or are they willing to wait for the program to rebuild and have success with a coach like Ty?
It's important to note that the vast majority of that 2000 team were not criminals - this was not a team full of outlaw sociopaths.

Many fans don't miss Neuheisel's antics, but they do feel that winning can be accomplished along with doing things the right way. And while Willingham does things the right way, it's not clear that he can also produce sustained excellence. Willingham is not a bad coach, but he's not a great one either IMO. He'd be a very good fit at a service academy or an academics-first school like Duke, Vandy or Stanford.

[miami_fan]

My request for those with the patience to have read this far, is some perspective:

- Does any of the information in this series shock you, or differ significantly from what has happened off the field with your favorite/local University football team(s)?

- Can you recall seeing similar "exposes" of your favorite/local University football team(s)?

- Would you agree that this series (thus far) has been written with a heavily negative slant towards the University of Washington?

Thanks in advance for your perspective...

I guess I should answer your original questions.

Does the info shock? Does it shock me that this is the first I am hearing about it? Yes. I don't remember this being met with national outrage as similar incidents at other school.

As far as your second question, I am an UM Hurricane fan Nuff said. Quit your whining;)

Third, again I think the slant is negative towards Neuheisel, Hedges, and the local legal community. I do think there may be an indirect shot at those who are calling for Ty's job.

One thing is for sure. I will be reading the rest of the series.:)

[st.cronin]

I agree with Miami fan. I also think that all sports news is essentially trivia.

[miami_fan]

It's important to note that the vast majority of that 2000 team were not criminals - this was not a team full of outlaw sociopaths.



The vast majority of most "outlaw" teams are not criminals. Teams and programs have been demonized for less than what has been in the series so far.

[stevew]

That Stevens article made my blood curdle. How embarassing for the Walrus to take the piece of shit in the first round.

[Karlifornia]

An "academics first" school? What? Isn't that redundant?

[JHandley]

There's a very important aspect to this situation that isn't being addressed. About 2 weeks ago, the UW went to the state legislature to get funding for stadium renovations. The UW wanted to either tap into the state and local taxes for other stadiums or get a new one levied. This is a response to UW's attempt to get Olympia to fund stadium renovations.

You keep saying, over and over, that this is all old news to anyone who pays attention to the program. The Times took it upon themselves to inform the half of the population that does not pay attention. They wanted people to know what they would be giving their money to.

Right or wrong, and I don't have a dog in this fight, the UW should have expected something like this after having the chutzpah to ask people in Pullman to pay for their new digs.

[miami_fan]

There's a very important aspect to this situation that isn't being addressed. About 2 weeks ago, the UW went to the state legislature to get funding for stadium renovations. The UW wanted to either tap into the state and local taxes for other stadiums or get a new one levied. This is a response to UW's attempt to get Olympia to fund stadium renovations.

You keep saying, over and over, that this is all old news to anyone who pays attention to the program. The Times took it upon themselves to inform the half of the population that does not pay attention. They wanted people to know what they would be giving their money to.

Right or wrong, and I don't have a dog in this fight, the UW should have expected something like this after having the chutzpah to ask people in Pullman to pay for their new digs.

To be fair, dawgfan did address this in the first post. This is not a big issue for me only because I think the Times probably could have came up with more current reasons to argue against the tax extension. The most notable would be the losing the program is doing now.

[dawgfan]

Right or wrong, and I don't have a dog in this fight, the UW should have expected something like this after having the chutzpah to ask people in Pullman to pay for their new digs.
This is a bit of a sidetrack, but let's be clear about what the UW is asking for in terms of money. They are not asking for money from the general fund - they are asking for a continuation of the current hotel/motel, car-rental and restaurant taxes that were created to help pay for Safeco field and are scheduled to be retired in a few years.

I'm not sure where I stand on this issue - I'm not a big fan of public funding for stadiums. But then again this isn't for a private for-profit entity - it's for one of the state Universities.

[dawgfan]

An "academics first" school? What? Isn't that redundant?
What I mean are the schools that hold to higher academic standards for their athletes. Most schools and conferences use NCAA minimums for prospective student-athletes, but some hold to higher standards (among them the schools I listed). And with those higher standards, the pressure to win usually isn't as great.

[stevew]

Wtf Hope Solo...

Jerramy Stevens cleared in domestic violence case involving Hope Solo - seattlepi.com (www.seattlepi.com/sports/article/Former-Huskies-star-Jerramy-Stevens-in-court-for-4033619.php)

You'd think a 2minute Google search would be enough to not go out with this punk.

[kcchief19]

I think that door swings both ways ... I wouldn't date Hope Solo after a two-minute Google search on her. She's a hot mess.

But criminality trumps stupidity. What is she doing with him?

[britrock88]

And they were engaged to be married... today!

[britrock88]

Dola -- and yeah, Hope Solo is pretty much the most genuine example of a femme fatale in popular consciousness.

[dawgfan]

I have no clue what she's thinking. Jerramy Stevens is trouble, and I suppose her deciding on a shotgun marriage with him shows her decision-making is also highly suspect.