out of Weaver's dismissal process:
Weaver (according to the Washington Post) is standing in front of the athletic department and it just came to him out of the clear blue sky that Greenberg had to go? That the decision had nothing to do with losing? Or to do with maintaining a clean program?
That's so disorderly it's almost random. How about considering (1) winning/losing direction of the program (even if you want to say the program may have topped out lately, surely you have the debate, not just bury it), (2) filling the bleachers, (3) graduating the athletes, and (4) the status of the second major revenue sport in paying the bills for the rest of the department, just for starters?
This is bizarre.
I won't say it's worse, but the timing of the decision is on a par. Potential coaching replacements (the good ones anyway) have mostly been signed to contract extensions. (Doesn't mean you can't sign a Shaka; it just means it will be quite a bit more expensive). You've got a great incoming recruiting class, one of which blew up the Capital Classic and is now said to be eying the exit. It's not a good time to be scratching around for new talent for the coming year.
In point of fact, it seems to me that, if Weaver had decided to give up on Greenberg, Weaver could have started contacts behind the scenes this spring, with a view towards either (1) finding a sure upgrade at the end of next year or (2) sticking with a known commodity while continuing to test the waters.
In other words, no pressing need to jump the gun. This could have been handled many better ways.