Blaine Newnham / Times associate editor
Neuheisel questions still persist

ROD MAR Rick Neuheisel wants to coach again, but his choices could be limited because of his recent problems, both on and off the field.

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

While the NCAA freed Washington to go on with the business of college athletics yesterday, more questions surfaced about the past and future of Rick Neuheisel than ever before.

Was the UW fair in firing him?

Did he violate NCAA rules on gambling, or didn't he?

Will he ever coach college football again?

The last question is the easiest to answer.

Neuheisel will coach again.

"I love football, and I love the relationships involved, and I miss them," he told his part-time employer, College Sports Television, yesterday. "I'm eager for the sideline again."

In the wake of guiding the Huskies to an 11-1 season and Rose Bowl victory, Neuheisel could have coached at Notre Dame if he had wanted to.

The San Francisco 49ers interviewed him. There was a spigot of interest he should have turned off, but couldn't, the attention so important to him.
 
The interest won't be nearly as high a second time around despite what many will see as NCAA absolution.

His situation is not unlike the one facing Mike Price, who one year was courted by Alabama, and the next by Texas El Paso.

If you were desperate to win and sell tickets, as San Diego State is, you would be crazy not to consider a coach who won more than 60 percent of his games at top Division I schools, who can promote and relate in, at times, a mesmerizing manner.

John Robinson is retiring at UNLV.

But, on the other hand, if you were Texas looking to replace Mack Brown, you look at California's Jeff Tedford, not at Neuheisel.

Neuheisel believes the NCAA has exonerated him. In any event, he has paid his penalty and deserves to coach again.

"The important thing is to realize that, not only did the NCAA not impose any penalties on me, but they also came to the conclusion that I did not violate any rules, which is the way I had felt all along," he said in the CSTV interview.

Even if you accept that spin, we are talking about a coach who had to answer for 51 violations at Colorado and a handful more just months after he had been the coach at Washington.

You are talking about a coach who lied to his athletic director at Washington, and then sued the school. And, most important, you are looking at a coach who had a hand in the decline of two proud programs.

Two years after he left Colorado, the Buffaloes, playing primarily with his talent, were 3-8. Two years after leaving Washington, the Huskies are 1-5.

There are those who will tell you that if Neuheisel had stayed at Washington he would be about to be fired.

I'm not sure of that. If Neuheisel had stayed, the Huskies wouldn't have gone through the agony of the summer of 2003 when they didn't know who their coach would be.

They wouldn't have gone through a change in coaching staffs. And they would have had Neuheisel's undeniable resiliency, the spirit that helped produce the come-from-behind wins in the magical season of 2000.

But the reality is, after Jim Lambright's players were gone, toughness was gone.

Neuheisel isn't entirely to blame for what has happened to the Huskies. But who could be more responsible? Don't forget that while he was still coaching, the Huskies lost nine of their final 17 games.

In its findings, the NCAA threw a grenade at Washington, which is exactly where it belongs. The inexplicable Dana Richardson e-mail lives.

The unchallenged memo by Richardson, the school's former compliance director, allowing gambling outside the department leaves the UW on its own against Neuheisel in court as he sues it for wrongful termination.

The NCAA allowed that, while Neuheisel had clearly broken rules on gambling, it couldn't prove he was not simply following department policy as articulated in the e-mails.

"This set of circumstances presents a unique problem, which requires a unique solution," wrote the NCAA committee. The unique solution was to let Neuheisel off without sanction and leave court proceedings to Washington.

The NCAA also backed away from nailing Neuheisel for violating ethical conduct rules for twice lying to investigators about his gambling involvement.

Since he came clean on the same day in a third round of interviews, he was let off the hook and the UW put squarely on it. He was once again slaloming his way through the NCAA rules.

The NCAA didn't sanction Neuheisel, but its investigation effectively cost him two years of coaching.

Was that fair?

A court will decide.

Blaine Newnham: 206-464-2364 or bnewnham@seattletimes.com.