JJ, here.
Wow. I don’t know where to start with this one.
Let’s start at the very beginning…A very good place to start…When you read the Seattle Times, you begin with…W.
Well, the news in the Seattle Times has not exactly been the sweet sound of music to many Husky fans’ ears. If you’re not familiar with what’s going on in Seattle, here’s the very quick version: the Seattle Times is running a series detailing the very criminal recent past of the University of Washington’s football program. You can find all the stories linked on Husky Sports News.
To say the least, it does not paint a very pretty picture of Husky football in the late 90’s and early 2000’s. And Husky fans are not happy (most Husky fans seem to be questioning the timing of the articles, not their veracity)
Now, you can count one former coordinator who is not really happy about the series, either. And he’s taking his anger out on the University of Oregon.
Former Huskies recruiting coordinator Dick Baird weighed in on the series today with Dave “Softy” Mahler on 950 KJR-AM in Seattle and made quite a remarkable accusation.
[You can listen to the entire interview here on KJR's website.]
I’m under no illusion, or delusion, that Oregon, just like any other college football program (or general student population, for that matter), has not had players run afoul of the law. We all know that it happens with every single program.
But why Oregon? What in the world would possess him to throw Oregon under the bus for no apparent reason?
I have to confess I’m struggling here. I would like to call this old bird Baird a couple of choice names. But I don’t think that would serve any purpose. I just don’t understand why he would mention Oregon. Why not Washington State? If this was happening to Oregon, I think most Duck fans would probably try to deflect criticism towards Corvallis, not Seattle. But why mention any other school at all?
The only thing I can think of is that he was trying to make the point that there are players who run into trouble with the law at every school. And I wouldn’t disagree. If that’s what he intended to say, he did a very bad job of doing that.
Unfortunately, I think there’s more to it than Baird simply miscommunicating his point. I hear anger there. I don’t know if it’s anger at the situation or anger towards Oregon. Or anger at himself.
So, where’s a good place to end? For Mr. Baird, he might want to end this by starting to examine himself and his role in this series of unfortunate events.
[You can take a look at one forum's reaction to this interview here.]