Jaimee Grubbs claims Tiger Woods affair; another woman, too

Wow, first the National Enquirer claims that Rachel Uchitel had an affair with Tiger Woods (she denies it)...



... Now, after the story of the alleged Thanksgiving fight with his wife Elin Nordegren surfaced, we have two more women coming forward to bask in the black-lit glow: Jaimee Grubbs and another yet unnamed.

Jaimee Grubbs

The two sources are US Weekly (via TMZ) and Radar Online. At USWeekly, Jamie Grubbs claims that she had a 31-month affair with Woods that started April of 2007 when she was 21 years old. TMZ reports:

The magazine, which comes out tomorrow, claims Grubbs had 20 sexual encounters with Tiger. Us Weekly has photos, racy texts from Tiger, as well as a voicemail from November 24, in which Tiger suggests his wife might be on to the alleged affair.

If Elin Nordegren did go upside Tiger Woods' head with a golf club, I can see why she did it. But, and this is a powerful "but", stories like the one Tiger generated are bait for any woman trying to make a name in entertainment and Jaimee Grubbs certainly fits that mold. She was on VH1's Tool Academy.

The question is, why wait until now to come forward?  Did she want "hush money" from Tiger Woods and he refused?  If so, and that's a question someone should ask, it doesn't make her look good at all.  Coming forward in this way says nothing good about the character of Jaimee Grubbs.

Meanwhile, Radar Online claims "several other women" are coming forward to claim they had sexual affairs with Tiger Woods, but the online mag explains it has no names and has not seen or listened to any evidence, but does write:

RadarOnline.com also exclusively learned that ANOTHER woman has voice mails from Tiger and is in talks with a national outlet to reveal her sexual affair with the golfing great.

 Ok, let me see.  It's a recession.  People are looking for whatever marketing edge they can get.  I'd just bet the voice mails are innocent on the part of Tiger Woods or even doctored and the women are in the entertaiment industry.   Like  Jaimee Grubbs, if they do step forward they have a lot of explaining to do.  

I don't think this is going to harm Tiger Woods as much as it will show the dark character of the women talking to the media.  I can't help but wonder what Rachel Uchitel thinks of all this.  

Stay tuned.

Notre Dame Football Press Conference on Charlie Weis

Yesterday the Notre Dame Football program announced that Charlie Weis was no longer the head coach of The Fighting Irish effective today, December 1st. Notre Dame Athletic Director Jack Swarbrick held a 20 minute press conference to talk about what was his decision and moving forward.

The video presents 15 minutes of that 20 minute event (provided by CBS Sports Online and The University of Notre Dame) including the question and answer session with the press and my commentary.

Why 15 minutes? To control the video file size and get this out as quickly as possible. You can read the full transcript at the Notre Dame Football website here.

At the press conference, Swarbrick said that told Weis of his decision not to retain him Saturday night, after Notre Dame's loss to the Stanford Cardinal 45 to 38. He had not talked to any other coaching candidates before releasing Weis. My impression is that, indeed, how the team performed in that game impacted Swarbrick's choice to look for a new coach. After the game, Weis did not talk to the press.

Charlie Weis leaves with a 35 win, 27 loss record and was just 16 wins versus 21 losses over the last three years.

Swarbrick said that he believes the program has the right ingredients to take the next step and return to a level of prominence is a leadership issue, and "turning the corner" is a matter of finding the right person. Swarbrick believes that having a team with a great defense is a must in a pursuit of a BCS bowl bid.

I think Swarbrick should have given Weis one more year with a strick objective: 8-4 we retain you, less than that we get rid of you. At 8-4 a BCS bowl bid would take care of itself.

But now, Notre Dame has to start over again.

After some thought I do believe Notre Dame can return to football competitiveness, but not prominence. The reason is that talent and the knoweldge to develop that athlete is more spread out and communicated via the Internet. Also, new schemes work for one year, then because of online communication, answers for those approaches are developed rapidly.

I think Weis gets that now. When he came to Notre Dame he was confident he had a "schematic advantage" but as I told anyone who would listen it would take about two years for college football to develop a "book" on his offense, then we would see how well he could coach and recruit. We did; Weis lost to Army 31 to 17 and that started the league of pissed off Fighting Irish fans. Some of them think a return to the days of Knute Rockne is possible, and Swarbrick's one of them.

Notre Dame can be competitive, but to think the program can get talented players to come and perform under the amazingly rigorous academic standards the school has established is just plain unrealistic. The main problem is Notre Dame refuses to change with the times: to come into the 21st Century. I'm not saying it should relax its standards, but make a choice that if its going to maintain them it should expect to field a competitive football program and be happy with that.

But as long as Swarbrick and other Golden Domers think they can "wake up the echoes" Notre Dame will be in for more coaching failure for years to come. What Swarbrick should do is sit down and craft a numerical performance standard for the next coach to follow that reads like this: if your team posts an 7-5 or better record for four years, we will extend your contract after year five. Simple.

That standard may not be "national championship level" but it does make sure the program establishes a competitive ethic first, then, maybe, that national championship will come.

Stay tuned.

Tiger Woods update - neighborhood on lockdown

Tiger Woods update in brief because it's been a long Monday for me here in Georgia.

First, the neighborhood Tiger Woods lives in is on "lockdown", making it sound like its a candidate for the MSNBC TV show of the same name. According to TMZ.com, Isleworth Florida security has it so tight that people who live there can't go from place to place freely. It's so bad that security took the memory card of one person's camera away and confiscated it.  Part of the reason for this is that it's turned into a makeshift TV studio with a 24-hour presence of TV trucks and and "three dozen vehicles".  

And TMZ itself is under attack as having inaccurate information according to the Orlando Sentinel. Sgt. Kim Montes of the Florida Highway Patrol told the newspaper none of their reports were accurate.  But given that the FHP has not talked to Woods or Elin Nordegren either, how would he know? 

Geez.

What is known is that on Monday, the Florida Highway Patrol was snooping around the hospital Woods entered for treatment on Friday, in search of more information. They still do not have a search warrant, but want one to basically confirm if it was Tiger's wife Elin Nordegren who hit him. I hope they never get the search warrant.

On the matter of the hospital, injuries, and Woods golf tournament, it seems he's so badly banged up he can't play in the Thursday event.

A new account of Woods and Elin Nordegren has surfaced at RadarOnline.com. It has the following:

Tiger Woods told his wife that she ruined their Thanksgiving and stormed out of their house before crashing his car early Friday, RadarOnline.com is reporting exclusively.

The golfing great had been arguing with wife Elin Nordegren for quite some time Thanksgiving night, according to a source familiar with the situation.

When the argument escalated, Tiger left the house and according to the source told Elin: "You've ruined our Thanksgiving! Are you happy
now?"

Tiger, 33, had pulled out of his driveway at 2:25 am Friday when he crashed. He has not offered any explanation about where he was going. He released a statement Sunday taking responsibility for the crash but not addressing what happened prior to the accident.

Given how large the Woods home and compound is, how the hell could someone hear all that? I'm just wondering. 

In all a sad tale, now with people taking bets on the future of his marriage and pulling for him to get a divorce. I'm not one of them; The Woods' have two kids who need them together. I hope they get through this.

Stay tuned.

Saints v Patriots - Saints destroy Patriots 3-4 with textbook approach

For me watching the ESPN Monday Night Football Saints v Patriots game was a trip back in time to all of the textbook methods I learned how to attack a 3-4 defense. What was so surprising to me was to see the New England Patriots play little variation in the basic "Oklahoma Defense" alignment, with a nosetackle and two inside linebackers over the guards. The New Orleans Saints tore apart the Pats defense using a basic rule: keep the linebackers moving and guessing.

  3-4 defense

The strength of any 3-4 defense is its linebacker play. One of the best ever teams at playing the defense was the 1977 Denver Broncos. The "Orange Crush" Defense was known for its exotic blitzes and rapid linebacker pursuit. The Dallas Cowboys approach against the Broncos in Super Bowl XII was to use two-tight-end sets, screens, draws, and misdirection to keep the linebackers always guessing regarding where the offense was going - called "the point of attack" - and gaining yardage in the process. The result was a 27-10 win for the Cowboys.

The Saints Offensive game plan had all of that, and more. A signature play was the fake screen left, screen right to Robert Meachem, who ran 38 yards to score.

In Super Bowl XIX in 1984, San Francisco 49ers Head Coach Bill Walsh designed a play that caused the Miami Dolphins 3-4 inside linebackers to "split": one to the left to cover one running back on a screen and the other to the right to do the same. Meanwhile, Tight End Russ Francis faked a block, fell down, then got up quickly and ran downfield wide open. He picked up 35 yards on that play as I recall from memory, and the Niners won 38-14.

The Saints ran the exact play tonight, Monday night, and with similar results, decades later. That play only works against a base 3-4 defense and man-for-man coverage, which is what both the 1984 Dolphins and the 2009 Patriots presented.

But what I can't figure out is why the Patriots would go into such an important game with so terrible a defensive game plan? To say that New England Head Coach Bill Belichick was outcoached is an understatement. But to his credit, he admitted it.

Somewhere along in the fourth quarter, Coach Belichick knew he had the wrong game plan. But I'm still massively shocked he allowed Head Coach Sean Payton and Quaterback Drew Breeze to beat them in such a textbook fashion. Brees' perfect 158.3 passer rating was a child of a great game plan. I'm not taking anything away from Drew Brees, who was magnificent, but watching that approach unfold was a thing of beauty and I'm not a Saints fan.

Still, one weakness is there to be exploited: the nature of the Saints passing approach by coaching is ripe for a hard-blitzing team to exploit. Why? Well, the Saints have really gotten by on the "look-off" pass, having Brees turn his entire body away from the intended receiver before turning and throwing. I first noticed this during the preseason when the Raiders played the Saints, and they did it in that blow out game. I took note of it as the "secret sauce" in their attack. I figured a blitzing team like the New York Jets might get to them.

The New York Jets held them to 24 points, the Saints lowest total this season so far, but the Jets' offense generated three interceptions from Quaterback Mark Sanchez,and so they lost 24 to 10. But the blueprint is set. Just which team - that has a good offense to help out - will use it is anyone's guess.

Stay tuned.

Oakland Raiders 10 percent share worth $60 million

Oakland Raiders Manager of The General Partner Al Davis recently announced that 10 percent of the organization was for sale. That news started a small set of media speculation web posts on the value of the organization based on Forbes annual blast about NFL team values. From Forbes, the Oakland Raiders are worth $797 million, which would put the 10 percent chunk at $79.7 million.

Mr. Davis, I'll give you $35 million for that 10 percent

But the Forbes estimate is wrong. Way wrong.

It's wrong because the number's based on 2008 information, yet presented in this year: 2009. Moreover, media discussion on the Raiders value mentions the credit crunch, and the national economy, but fails to include the local employment situation.

People need income to buy tickets and that money comes from jobs. In September 2008, California's unemployment was just 7.7 percent, and we thought that was terrible at the time. Now the rate is at 9.6 percent as of October, and in Oakland it's over 17 percent.

So let's do some quick figuring. If jobs are needed to buy Raiders tickets, then its reasonable to say that Raider ticket purchases are attached to the unemployment rate. It's fair to use the statewide unemployment data because the Raiders are a statewide draw - sports is Oakland's true export industry.

So we take 7.7 in 2008 and subtract it from 9.6 in 2009. That's 1.9, which when divided by 7.7 (the previous year's rate) gives us 24.67 percent. Or, the magnitude of the total increase of unemployed Californians over the previous year is 24.6 percent.

So we have to subtract that from the Oakland Raiders total value since it was based on 2008 information. That leaves us with $797 million minus $196.67 million, or $600.33 million.

So the Oakland Raiders 10 percent stake is valued at $60.33 million. Or, $60 million.

It is worth it? Well. Let's just say this: I would not buy it for more than $35 million if I could and here's why.

While my estimate's based on an adjustment to reflect current state economic conditions, it does not include what may happen in 2010.

The UCLA Anderson school projects that state unemployment will rise to 11 percent by mid-2010. So if you bought the Raiders 10 percent stake at $60 million, you'd have taken about a $20 million bath in less than one year. Since there's no guarantee things will get better by 2011 absent a massive second economic stimulus, why even spend $40 million for the team? 

New stadium for the Raiders? Okay... With what money and who's political will? I don't care what Oakland City Councilman and Oakland Alameda County Coliseum Authority Chairman Ignacio De La Fuente says, justifying building a new baseball or football stadium in this economic climate is pure folly, and this comes from a person who's a big advocate of stadiums as economic development.

This is one time I'd agree with California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who I know would make the same statement. In the past, I'd argue with him; not today.

I'm an idealistic realist. We're in bad times and it's going to take massive levels government spending to right this national economic ship. Preesident Obama should have pushed for $2.4 trillion, not $787 billion.

And justifying stimulus spending on a football stadium alone, as opposed to part of a larger complex, is a losing political fight because for the first time such costs compete with money for basic services. I've never seen an economic climate like this before.

Folks, we're experiencing the result of 30 years of job loss to foreign economies that I estimate has cost us $976 billion in revenue wealth, over $400 billion during the last eight years alone. I don't know if the collective American population is too slow to catch on, but all of this talk of too much government spending is the mouthing of idiots.

Sorry to be so honest and to a degree sharp, but I'm trying to convey in an effective way just how much trouble we're in. We've lived off a credit system that absorbed our nations economy from these Worldwide economic structural changes until the overall increase in weight of consumer debt over the past five years was just too great for the system to bear. The result is where we are and are going to be for a few years.

So spending even $60 million for 10 percent of the Oakland Raiders is just not a good idea. Yes, by advocating one purchase it for $35 million I'm stating the organization's value will fall to just about $400 million by 2011.

And if you're saying I'm just a blogger, I will tell you this is the same report I'd write to the Mayor of Oakland if I was his economic adviser, which I was from 1995 to 1999 and all the additional institutional models and data I use only point to the same conclusion. So slam my blog post you may, but let's talk in 2011 and see where we are. I'd look forward to that conversation.

Oakland Raiders and Al Davis 10 percent share worth $60 million

Oakland Raiders Manager of The General Partner Al Davis recently announced that 10 percent of the organization was for sale. That news started a small set of media speculation web posts on the value of the organization based on Forbes annual blast about NFL team values. From Forbes, the Oakland Raiders are worth $797 million, which would put the 10 percent chunk at $79.7 million.

Mr. Davis, I'll give you $35 million for that 10 percent

But the Forbes estimate is wrong. Way wrong.

It's wrong because the number's based on 2008 information, yet presented in this year: 2009. Moreover, media discussion on the Raiders value mentions the credit crunch, and the national economy, but fails to include the local employment situation.

People need income to buy tickets and that money comes from jobs. In September 2008, California's unemployment was just 7.7 percent, and we thought that was terrible at the time. Now the rate is at 9.6 percent as of October, and in Oakland it's over 17 percent.

So let's do some quick figuring. If jobs are needed to buy Raiders tickets, then its reasonable to say that Raider ticket purchases are attached to the unemployment rate. It's fair to use the statewide unemployment data because the Raiders are a statewide draw - sports is Oakland's true export industry.

So we take 7.7 in 2008 and subtract it from 9.6 in 2009. That's 1.9, which when divided by 7.7 (the previous year's rate) gives us 24.67 percent. Or, the magnitude of the total increase of unemployed Californians over the previous year is 24.6 percent.

So we have to subtract that from the Oakland Raiders total value since it was based on 2008 information. That leaves us with $797 million minus $196.67 million, or $600.33 million.

So the Oakland Raiders 10 percent stake is valued at $60.33 million. Or, $60 million.

It is worth it? Well. Let's just say this: I would not buy it for more than $35 million if I could and here's why.

While my estimate's based on an adjustment to reflect current state economic conditions, it does not include what may happen in 2010.

The UCLA Anderson school projects that state unemployment will rise to 11 percent by mid-2010. So if you bought the Raiders 10 percent stake at $60 million, you'd have taken about a $20 million bath in less than one year. Since there's no guarantee things will get better by 2011 absent a massive second economic stimulus, why even spend $40 million for the team? 

New stadium for the Raiders? Okay... With what money and who's political will? I don't care what Oakland City Councilman and Oakland Alameda County Coliseum Authority Chairman Ignacio De La Fuente says, justifying building a new baseball or football stadium in this economic climate is pure folly, and this comes from a person who's a big advocate of stadiums as economic development.

This is one time I'd agree with California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who I know would make the same statement. In the past, I'd argue with him; not today.

I'm an idealistic realist. We're in bad times and it's going to take massive levels government spending to right this national economic ship. Preesident Obama should have pushed for $2.4 trillion, not $787 billion.

And justifying stimulus spending on a football stadium alone, as opposed to part of a larger complex, is a losing political fight because for the first time such costs compete with money for basic services. I've never seen an economic climate like this before.

Folks, we're experiencing the result of 30 years of job loss to foreign economies that I estimate has cost us $976 billion in revenue wealth, over $400 billion during the last eight years alone. I don't know if the collective American population is too slow to catch on, but all of this talk of too much government spending is the mouthing of idiots.

Sorry to be so honest and to a degree sharp, but I'm trying to convey in an effective way just how much trouble we're in. We've lived off a credit system that absorbed our nations economy from these Worldwide economic structural changes until the overall increase in weight of consumer debt over the past five years was just too great for the system to bear. The result is where we are and are going to be for a few years.

So spending even $60 million for 10 percent of the Oakland Raiders is just not a good idea. Yes, by advocating one purchase it for $35 million I'm stating the organization's value will fall to just about $400 million by 2011.

And if you're saying I'm just a blogger, I will tell you this is the same report I'd write to the Mayor of Oakland if I was his economic adviser, which I was from 1995 to 1999 and all the additional institutional models and data I use only point to the same conclusion. So slam my blog post you may, but let's talk in 2011 and see where we are. I'd look forward to that conversation.

Tiger Woods update - police search warrant request is legal stalking

OK, this to me is now beyond silly at this point. According to TMZ.com, the Florida Highway Patrol is seeking a search warrant so that they can enter Tiger Woods home and investigate his wounds to determine if they were the result of an auto accident or a butt whoppin given to Woods by his wife Elin Nordegren.



TMZ explains:

One big piece of evidence showing probable cause ... sources tell us Tiger's wife, Elin Nordegren told FHP troopers she went looking for Tiger in a golf cart, came upon the accident and then used a golf club to break the window to gain entry. That's a very different story from what she first told Windemere cops shortly after the accident -- she never mentioned a golf cart. Nordegren told Windemere police she had walked out of her house, saw the crash, went back inside to get a golf club and returned to the vehicle.

Yeah, her story doesn't add up. OK she kicked his butt for the whole alleged affair talk. But I think both Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren have learned valuable lessons and this matter should be put to rest.

The Florida Highway Patrol should not be granted a search warrant. To me, it reads like the  FHP are staging an attempt at legal stalking into the private lives of a celebrity interracial couple. Hell, why bother? The speculation's enough punishment and far more media fun anyway. The Florida Highway Patrol should be out busting drug dealers, not screwing around with this matter.

This has gone too far.

What if they find that Elin Nordegren hit Tiger Woods? Are the FHP going to arrest her?  I'm just afraid they will take this whole deal too far.   I do not subscribe to "the book" and think its used all too often as a reason to pry into the private lives of the rich and famous. Can't the FHP just give this a rest?

Moreover, isn't this out of their bounds? As I read what the FHP can and can't do, they're charged with maintaining the safety of the highway and state roads. They're not the Florida State Police, and as such don't have the powers of what the Florida Constitution says is the job of the chief law enforcement officer - the sheriff.

So what the hell is the Florida Highway Patrol doing? Why are they sticking their collective nose so far into this matter? And if the FHP staff involved are Civilian Community Service Officers, which are unarmed and without arrest authority , they have no business trying to get a search warrant for a minor traffic crash. And if they're not Civilian Community Service Officers, why not?

Something's fishy here.

OK, you may be saying that Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren should be treated like any other couple. I cry foul on that. The simple fact you say that means they aren't like any other couple. Most couples don't get their private lives speculated on by the public let alone have to deal with the emotional pain that results from it - that should be considered as punishment by law enforcement. In fact, it's a more lasting sentence than jail time as it carries on through the rest of their lives.

They're not a normal couple, so the book does not apply to them. Sorry, but that's a fact. Save the search warrant for a drug arrest, not for this. Otherwise it looks like legal stalking into much ado about nothing.