Did Tiger Just Catch His First Break?

I hate to use the Jenkins family blog as an avenue to ruminate — that’s what Facebook is for. But given how much time is spent in the Jenkins household talking about Tiger these days — that is, lots — I can’t resist. My latest thought is that the report out of Florida that officials from the Florida Department of Children and Families visited the home of Tiger and Elin Woods this morning may prove to be Tiger’s first break in a while. Because no matter how much of a scoundrel he was/is, the world public is not going to have much patience for government bureaucrats sticking their nose into his mansion. Tiger may not be much of a husband, but there is no particular reason to believe either he or Elin are lacking as parents. If the FDCF sticks around, the story goes from “What Tiger did to Elin” to “What government bureaucrats may do to the Woods family.” And if the latter is the storyline, Tiger the perpetrator becomes Tiger the victim.

Reports that state bureaucrats have their noses in the Woods mess may turn Tiger the Cheetah into Tiger the victim.

Of course, this potential break might be a double-edged sword. If Elin or the Nordegrens thinks there’s even a snowballs chance in hell that she could lose Sam or Charlie to the State of Florida, she’ll be Stockholm bound faster than Cheetah can get laid — and for good.

POSTSCRIPT: As of 1 pm on Monday, this story really hasn’t caught on at all. So I guess the answer to the question posed in the title is a big fat “no.”

My Thoughts on the Cheetah — Er, Tiger — Woods Saga

I’ve been trying hard lately not to use the Jenkins family blog as a venting forum. Some of it can and may be used against me. Plus, I doubt Reese and Finn will care much what I thought about when they were in diapers.

Nevertheless, I’d be remiss if I didn’t say a few words about the Tiger Woods scandal. It does, after all, occupy a fair bit of the Jenkins family dinner conversation these days.

He had it all -- and it still wasn't enough.

My thoughts, in no particular order:

Conventional wisdom is that Tiger will bounce back from this one. Tiger the player may bounce back, but Tiger the brand never will. This guy is no longer Superman. In fact, he’s a full-fledged dog of a husband. Sure, Kobe recovered from a similar situation. But Kobe was never as perfect as Tiger. And for Kobe there was only one gal — there are three (3) gals linked to Tiger. So far. Plus, “Cheetah” Woods is just so good for a guy who changed his name to Tiger.

Oh how I wish Betcha.com was still around — the dough that would be flowing on this one. Betcha: “More gals will come out of the woodwork”; “Tiger’s game will suffers in 2010″; “Tiger will lose his number one ranking on or before …”; “Tiger and Elin Woods will be separated on or before …”; “One of Tiger’s sponsors will drop him on or before …”; “One of Tiger’s gals (Rachel Uchitel, Jaimee Grubbs or Kalika Moquin) will be in Playboy on or before …” — you get the idea.

I don’t see Tiger going on Oprah for this — he’s no fan of the boo birds, and they’d be out in force.

I’m a big collector of Nike Tiger Woods shirts. After his dogness became evident I thought about changing to my second-favorite brand, Greg Norman Apparel. Then I remembered — he cheats on his wife, too!

Jesper Parnevik’s criticism of El Tigre won’t go unanswered. I’m sure a lot of guys are thinking what he is saying — but they aren’t saying it. At the very least, Parnevik will be cryptonite when Tiger is around.

Prediction: Inglorious Basterds is Gonna Clean Up Come Oscar Time

Last night Ronnie, Norman, Mito and I saw Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds at The Guild.

No doubt the best and most entertaining movie I’ve seen in a long while. I liked The Reader slightly more, but this it’s a toss up.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that this puppy cleans house come Oscar time.

Christoph Waltz will get nominated for Best Supporting Actor — even though, if you were judging by screen time, he’s probably more in the “actor” than “supporting actor” category. That seems to be the consensus among early reviewers.

Brad Pitt will get nominated for Best Actor — even though he was arguably the supporting actor here. This prediction is mine — I haven’t seen anyone else call it. The Academy is aching to give Mr. Brangelina some hardware, and this just might be its chance.

Quentin Tarantino for Best Director — a given.

In fact, I’m going to go out even further on a limb — Inglorious Basterds and District 9 both get Best Picture nods.

You read it here first. (Okay, maybe you didn’t, but watch for it.)

How Many People Does the UW Need to Screw in a Lightbulb?

I can no longer blame Keith Gilbertson, Rick Neuheisel or Ty Willingham for what has happened to once-proud Husky football. The latest news suggests that the program must be so tied up in bureaucratic red tape that winning football games is secondary. The news I refer to is that University President Mark Emmert just announced a 13-person “advisory committee” to, according to The Seattle Times, “help define the desired qualities and characteristics for the next coach.”

According to The Everett Herald’s John Boyle, “this committee won’t be involved in recommending candidates, or commenting on candidates (UW Athletic Director Scott) Woodward and university president Mark Emmert come up with.” Instead — and I am not making this up — the 13-person committee will “make suggestions on a more general level about what they’re looking for in a coach” — in Woodward’s words, “it’s an advisory committee to give us the qualities and the criteria they want for a head football coach . . . They’re not selecting candidates, they’re not vetting candidate, they’re not suggesting candidates. They are just vetting the quality of candidate they want and the quality of coach that they want and the values that the coach has as related to the University of Washington.” According to Examiner.com, the committee includes: Ana Mari Cauce, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences; Ed Taylor, dean for undergraduate academic affairs; Professor Robert Stacey, representing the Advisory Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics; Professor David Lovell, chair of the Faculty Senate; Randy Hodgins, interim vice president for external affairs; Joanne Bowers, head women’s gymnastics coach; Anttimo Bennett, president of the Associated Students of the University of Washington; Jake Locker, student athlete; Andre Riley, representing the Big “W” Club; community members Don Barnard and Bob Flowers from the Tyee Board, and Eddie Pasatiempo, representing the UW Alumni Association.

UW quarterback Jake Locker, a college sophomore, is the only member of the recently-announced 13-member football coach advisory committee with an actual football background.

I won’t wax on here about the needless waste of taxpayer dollars on a “committee” such as this. I can only imagine how many members will be on the actual search committee. Suffice it to say, however, that there won’t be too many Grade A candidates eager to rebuild an utterly decimated program. There should be even fewer candidates who would want to work for a university whose leadership needs thirteen people, including, inter alia, the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and the chair of the Faculty Senate, to tell it what it wants in a football coach. What such bureaucrats know about winning college football programs is beyond me. What isn’t beyond me is that working for a university whose leadership needs thirteen people to tell it what it wants in a football coach has the makings of career suicide.

The end result will inevitably be a Grade B or Grade C football coach, no better than the one we have now. We may win a game here or there, but a return to prominence? No time soon.