Some thoughts from a UW alum who made separate trips from Manhattan to the West Coast and attended the past two #Huskies games:
1) If you hear someone referencing the crowd size/enthusiasm as being a part of the problems currently facing UW football, that person is stooging for the athletic department and should be regarded as such.
2) It is very clear that Jimmy Lake won't coach another game for the UW. I don't disagree with that decision, but if the athletic department is seeking to fire him with cause, I want to point out a couple of things.
Who benefits most from a firing with cause? The answer to me -- pretty clearly -- is the current AD, who is exonerated of the financial obligation and some cases the liability for what has happened. The AD gets a do-over without the financial commitment Lake's hiring entailed.
Firing Lake for an incident from before he was head coach -- which presumably could have/should have been uncovered before he was promoted to head coach -- seems dubious at best and outright shady at worst.
This isn't so much about the concept of fairness to Jimmy Lake -- though there's room for that -- as an attempt to mitigate or even escape responsibility on the part of the administration.
Finally, Washington's attempt to institute this light show between the third and fourth quarter is the most derivative, stupid, embarrassing thing I've ever seen my school do and that includes the '95 switch to purple helmets.
Last week, it was a rip-off of Michigan State. This week it was something I thought sounded like Enya, but I'm not sure. I was too busy booing. Having one-third of the people present in a half-full stadium hold up lighted cell phones was Harry High School crap.
Is this right? It was Coldplay? I need to know for reporting purposes. My wife was asking and I really couldn't tell her other than it was the most uninspiring, lamest song with the absolute worst timing possible.
Jon Gruden's emails first became public because Dan Snyder wants to know why a Web site, owned by a company in India, suggested Washington's new nickname be the Epsteins (among other things). dannyoneil.substack.com/p/why-jon-grud…
Jon Gruden lost his job in Las Vegas because his emails became public.
His emails first became public because Daniel Snyder wants information from Bruce Allen.
Snyder wants info from Allen because a Web site alleged Snyder was connected to Jeffrey Epstein (among other things).
Also, this is how Adam Schefter ended up catching a stray.
None of this is particularly ethical nor is it at all surprising, and at its core, being a high-level reporter who breaks personnel news in these leagues is not actually reporting at all. It is about "relationships" which is a euphemism for asking for and calling in favors.
So I've thought about this more than I should today: What would a "They Can't Cancel Me" Jon Gruden gig actually look like? Would it be unbridled football commentary?
Gruden just saying patently offensive things and acting like "Pigskin Mad Men"? But I don't think he has the willingness to have three-quarters of America hate him even if a quarter of the people defend all of the garbage he spews.
Would he try to do minimize the racism, the homophobia and the rampant sexism and go back to keeping that largely out of sight and act like he did as a "Monday Night Football" broadcaster?
So have we talked about the timing of the Jon Gruden thing yet?
Because it was essentially a Friday news dump, right? Not that @WSJSports has any control over when it gets the info, but a source had to leak that information. You can't request private email correspondence.
Being the cynical fellow I am, I believe that this is the NFL trying to see what public reaction is like to what Gruden did before deciding on a punishment. It was a trial balloon.
Gruden did not seem to be surprised to be asked about it. The #Raiders and the NFL issued responses the day it was reported, and by dumping it on Friday, it put the league's broadcast partners first in line to assess the severity of the comments and contextualize them.