The Confidential

The ACC Sports Blog

Archive for the tag “opinion”

10 Jun 2013
7 Comments

Update: Tim Tebow–How Can ZERO NFL Teams Want Him?

Update:  Some folks got their wookies bent over the concern that someone could say something nice about Tim Tebow.  Well, ESPN is now reporting that the New England Patriots are going to sign Tim Tebow.  Yes, the Jacksonville Jaguars could not be bothered to sign Tebow to be a backup, but the uber-successful New England Patriots can.  If Bill Belichick and I are the only two people who think Tim Tebow should have a job in the NFL, I’ll take it.  The guy has had some moderate success in the NFL. 

Tebow will never be a fantasy stud at QB in the NFL.  He might not ever start another game.  But, as we noted below, he belongs in the NFL somewhere.  A project worth investing in.  It is too soon to conclude that he should switch positions.

Original blog entry:

The Confidential gets that Tim Tebow is not a great quarterback.  He does not have the arm or the accuracy or the intelligence or whatever.  But ESPN the Magazine had an article indicating that nobody wants Tim Tebow.  The Confidential cannot believe that there is not one of 32 NFL teams that can find a spot for Tim Tebow.  It is just not fathomable.

Read more…

Posted by acaffrey in Football, Opinion and tagged , ,
07 Jun 2013
13 Comments

Tim Tebow–How Can ZERO NFL Teams Want Him?

The Confidential gets that Tim Tebow is not a great quarterback.  He does not have the arm or the accuracy or the intelligence or whatever.  But ESPN the Magazine had an article indicating that nobody wants Tim Tebow.  The Confidential cannot believe that there is not one of 32 NFL teams that can find a spot for Tim Tebow.  It is just not fathomable.

Read more…

Posted by acaffrey in Football, Opinion and tagged , ,
05 Jun 2013
26 Comments

Lacrosse & The Future

By now, we have all heard that Johns Hopkins is going to the Big 10.  Some folks are really happy, such as the Frank the Tank faithful.  As they should be.  As a preface, there should be no illusion that this is a disaster for the ACC.  This is not the conference apocalypse.  There should not be any wailing and gnashing of teeth.

But it is kind of bad news, right?

Here is why.

Read more…

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Conference Realignment, Lacrosse, Opinion and tagged , , , , , ,
11 Apr 2013
10 Comments

When Will We Get Refbots?

What a great weekend of basketball!  Three great games that were in doubt throughout.  All is great, right?  Heck no!

First, Wichita State remains peeved that the referees called that jump ball with less than 10 seconds to go.  All across the web people were perplexed, including this seemingly-neutral publication, the Business Insider Journal.  Well, what does a business publication know about sports?  True, only the those other than the most diehard of Louisville fans had to think… “hmmm, that was a bit quick.” Second, Syracuse fans remain utterly-perturbed with the series of calls that led to starting guards Michael Carter-Williams and Brandon Triche fouling out, with the most-severe ire addressed to the latter.   Of course, the talking heads commenting after the game noted that the call was blown.   Third, regardless of who you were rooting for, the block called against Trey Burke was simply absurd.  The best anyone can do is argue that it did not “cost” Michigan the game.  Or “tarnish” what was a great basketball game.

Now, the Confidential is going to say this slowly.  And in bold.  Wichita State, Syracuse, and Michigan have nothing to complain about.  Play as if you are going to have a few bad calls go against you.  Assume it.  That first half turnover cost you as much as that late game blown call.  Those missed free throws.  That ill advised shot.  You lost.  

But let’s not pretend that the officiating is not a problem.  We have inconsistencies within games now.  It used to be that “they are calling a tight game” meant something.  Now you get games where they call nothing for 30 minutes and get foul happy down the stretch.  And, of course, vice-versa.  Nobody can dispute that charges are called too often now.  We still see fouls called on the expectation that there would be contact, rather than the reality.  And so on.

And it’s not just basketball.  Did you see this call in baseball the other night?  Wow.

This is not to say that the referees aren’t doing the best job that they can.  They work hard, perhaps too hard.  Some are out-of-shape, but most are fit enough to keep up with the athletes.  We have had few scandals to question integrity.  The best officials seem to be the ones that everybody hates.  That means something–usually the toughness to make a call that the 5 to 110 thousand people in the building might not like.

But is this the best that sports can do?  Of course not.  We can do better than people.  They are called robots.  Let’s call them refbots.

Sure, refbots have not been invented yet.   To our knowledge.  But we have computers that can win at Jeopardy.  We have had line calls made automatically in tennis for years.  Isn’t this the solution?  Take it out of the hands of flawed humans, and put it into a programmable robot.  The program can be changed to reflect rule changes.  You can have many robots calling a basketball game–all working various angles together to ensure that the right call is made.  Instead of wondering whether one of the three guys will get there, technology will make sure someone is in position.  In fact, isn’t it more surprising we do not have this technology yet???  Even so, the technology has to be inevitable.

What do you think?  Assuming we could design robots to call games with far more accuracy and consistency, would you want that?  Or do you prefer the human error component?

Posted by acaffrey in Opinion and tagged , , , , , , , , , ,
27 Feb 2013

Georgia Tech’s Paul Johnson Needs a Tissue or Three

The Confidential has a new Georgia Tech contributor that will take us to task and defend Paul Johnson, but we are going to beat him to the punch by stating that Paul Johnson needs to stop his crying and get on with coaching football.  Apparently, the ACC did not . . . gasp… do enough to placate Georgia Tech and their scheduling requests.  So someone hand Johnson a tissue.

First, let’s remember that the ACC already has to factor in Georgia Tech’s rivalry game with Georgia.  Also, at Georgia Tech’s request, the Yellow Jackets get to feast on something called Alabama A&M the week before.  So that’s two weeks at the end of the season that are blocked out for conference games.  That leaves 12 weeks for the remaining 10 games that need to get scheduled.  It is what it is.  Florida State and Clemson asked for, and received, the same thing.  It helps the rivalry games at the end of the season, but limits the options for the conference games.

Second, Georgia Tech has a midseason OOC game against BYU on October 12, 2013.  It is at BYU.  That kind of stinks.  But, again, nobody forced Georgia Tech to schedule BYU–who is desperate for late season games.  In fact, the aforementioned article noted that the BYU game caused problems by not being early season, like most other OOC games against FBS schools.  Putting such a game at Week 2 would have been better.  Georgia Tech will do that in the future to help solve its own problems.

Third, a lot of this could have been solved by having Pitt play Georgia Tech in Week 2.  But Pitt was already slated to open the season against Florida State on Labor Day–thereby requiring a bye for Week 2’s Saturday games.  That really messed things up because Pitt is one of the other schools with an October game against an OOC opponent.

To be fair, every schedule does have its challenges.  Georgia Tech’s certainly does.  Georgia Tech has an 8-game streak with no bye.  They have to take consecutive trips to BYU and Miami.  They play Duke, North Carolina, Virginia Tech and Miami in consecutive weeks.  And the Virginia Tech game comes with only 5 days rest.

Of course, the Virginia Tech game is at home–as is the game before against North Carolina.  So Georgia Tech does not have to travel to the Thursday game that comes on short rest.  Virginia Tech does.  We don’t hear crying out of Frank Beamer on this issue.  Wake Forest plays consecutive road games against Miami and Syracuse.  That is a lot of travel for the Demon Deacons, without complaint.

Oh, we forgot… North Carolina gets to play Georgia Tech with the Tar Heels having a bye the week before.  Well, Miami gets to play Virginia coming off a bye week.  Clemson plays Florida State after the Seminoles have a bye.  The Seminoles play Boston College after a bye.  Do we hear crying from Golden, Dabo, and Fisher?  No.

Tough schedules?  Check with Georgia.  They play an SEC schedule, plus they play Clemson and Georgia Tech.  Heck, every SEC team plays a tough schedule.

Do you want to know an example of a tough coach?  Syracuse’s former head coach, Doug Marrone.  Last year, coming off a 5-win season and in a contract year, Marrone was given a Syracuse schedule with an opener against 10-win Northwestern at home.  They then had to travel to New Jersey for a “home game” against the well-traveling Southern California Trojans.  They also had to travel to Minnesota.  That’s three games against major conference foes that all went bowling.  Their FCS opponent?  Stony Brook, who went 10-3–not exactly an FCS patsy.  And needing a final game to round out the schedule, Syracuse did not find a directional school.  They chose to go to Missouri.  Even worse, they had to play a 5-win Missouri team that needed to beat Syracuse to make it to a bowl.  Marrone never once complained.  Syracuse did not roll over and lose to Missouri, they rose to the challenge and beat Missouri.  Syracuse ended up winning 7 games against that slate.  The coach showed toughness and the team responded with same.

What message is Paul Johnson sending?  That his team needs to have good fortune in scheduling to perform well.  They need advantages, or at least the absence of disadvantages.  That when the going gets tough, you take to the press to air your grievances.  That it is acceptable to make excuses in advance of concern regarding performance.  That the Georgia Tech scheme is so flimsy that teams with two weeks to prepare for it will solve it.

The better message: “We have a tough schedule this year.  We took on some tough challenges and the conference schedule did not break our way too often.  But we’ve got players and coaches in our locker room that will rise to the challenge and make the fans proud.”

Doug Marrone used that type of message in 2012 and now coaches in the NFL.  Even if he had not done well enough in 2012 to get that opportunity, at least he did not embarrass the school by complaining to the media.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Football, Opinion, Schedule and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,
10 Jan 2013

Football Safety and Expansion

For many years, Americans have been told that eventually “soccer,” or football as the rest of the world knows it, will take take over as the most popular sport here.  To date, nothing has prevented football (American), baseball, and basketball from being the dominant sports in the United States.  Even auto racing, hockey, tennis, and golf enjoy spectator sport status that seems unlikely to be rivaled by what we call soccer.  However, there was once a time when boxing was high on the list.  Although boxing’s decline might have been caused by sheer mismanagement, the barbaric nature of boxing may have expedited its fall from grace.  The question is this–on the news of yet another brain being damaged by playing football, is there a risk of football declining in popularity over the long term?  The follow-up question is–why engage in all of this realignment for football purposes if football’s future has serious question marks?

The most recent news is that Junior Seau’s brain examination confirm what many expected–he suffered from the chronic brain damage that has afflicted many former NFL players.  Specifically, Seau was determined to have “chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a neurodegenerative disease that can lead to dementia, memory loss and depression.”  The very popular Seau committed suicide in May 2012.  Amazingly, according to ESPN, Seau was never listed as having a concussion.  Nevertheless, it is obvious that Seau had numerous head collisions during his career.  There is no reasonable dispute as to where the brain damage came from–it was football.

One wonders whether football can be made safe.  While helmet technology can advance, there is nothing stopping the players from growing larger, stronger, and faster.  The collisions are only going to get more violent.  One can only hope that there is a way to use technology to prevent these collisions from devastating the lives of the players–both in the short-term and long-term.

To be sure, the NFL appears serious about addressing player safety.  It is a double-edged sword.  The players seem to question the sincerity of the NFL, as fines for violent hits seem more based on public relations than actually protecting the players.  The addition of a weekly Thursday game seems to support the players’ position that the NFL is more interested in money than safety.  At the other extreme, as the violent nature of football is curbed, a segment of the population (including the players) are going to resent the changes.  So making the sport safer for the players may not necessarily lead to an equally popular product.  Needless to say, football has a problem.  As others have noted, there is no inherent reason why football must be popular.

But as this data continues to stream out, at some point parents are going to question whether they can responsibly allow a child to play football.  We are already seeing that shift to soccer.  In more affluent communities, lacrosse is surging in popularity.  Perhaps the popularity of football has peaked.  If football begins being perceived as a barbaric sport akin to boxing, it’s decline will be inevitable.  Can football can avoid the appearance of being a modern-day sport of gladiators?  We enjoy the bone-crushing hits, but we also enjoy it more when the recipient gets back up and walks to the huddle.  That is a level of toughness that inspires awe.  We don’t want our heroes, or even opponents, being seriously hurt.  This is not Rome.

Moreover, unlike boxing, football requires a significant amount of equipment for each player.  At some point, it may no longer be economical for schools to offer football.  Or, stated otherwise, there may be eroding support for incurring the expense of football equipment.  Football cannot sustain its level of popularity if fewer and fewer people are participating at the scholastic level.

In the college landscape, football is the cash cow.  That cash cow depends on continued popularity.  The football money is the reason why there has been realignment discussion daily for the past several years.  It is also the reason why the Big East–with lagging football prowess–runs the risk of extinction.  While basketball can pay for itself, football is so popular and profitable that it pays for all other sports.  In fact, the revenue has gotten so enormous that it is justifying colleges shifting their allegiance from one region to another.

But what if football ceases to be as popular as it is now?  Will all of this realignment have been for naught?  Perhaps this is the reason that schools like Florida State are not so eager to run off to the Big XII.  While football money is nice, a college exists to provide an education.  Abandoning regional comraderie for a few extra football dollars may be shortsighted, especially if football’s popularity is peaking.  At the very least, the aftermath will be a lot of strange bedfellows.  One can only wonder what happens if and when the “buzz” of football money gives way to the hangover of football retreating in popularity.  Those profiting from college football should be keeping a sharp eye on the health of the players.  If the perception of football changes, the profitability of football will not be far behind.

Posted by acaffrey in Football, Opinion and tagged , ,
19 Dec 2012
3 Comments

Proposed ACC Divisions

With the recent addition of Louisville to replace Maryland, the word is that Louisville will just slot into Maryland’s position in the divisions.  What are those divisions?  Who knows?  The non-geographical distribution makes them impossible to remember.  In any event, the Confidential recommends the following divisions:

Atlantic (Coastal rival)

Boston College (NC State)

Wake Forest (Duke)

Syracuse (North Carolina)

Virginia Tech (Virginia)

Louisville (Clemson)

Pittsburgh (Georgia Tech)

Miami (Florida State)

In other words, this would be geographical, except that Wake Forest and Miami slide north and Virginia stays with the South.

The real loser here is Wake Forest, who loses games with its North Carolina-based rivals.  But this is just reality here–Wake Forest is in the worst negotiating position of all teams in the NCAA.  Even Iowa State has its own network now.  You can make arguments for every ACC school to be in some other conference.  But not Wake Forest.  So, with apologies to the Demon Deacons, they just need to suck it up.  Life isn’t fair.  Besides, they also get to be in a division with two private schools.

Virginia gets to be in the South, playing North Carolina and Virginia Tech every year.

Miami gets to play Syracuse and Boston College–Northern exposure every year for those schools.  Florida State gets to be with all Southern-based schools.  Rare trips up north.  Miami and Florida State will play every year.

Were UConn and Cincinnati to ever join… this could be tweaked as follows:

Atlantic (Coastal rival)

Boston College (Wake Forest)

Cincinnati (NC State)

Syracuse (Duke)

UConn (North Carolina)

Virginia Tech (Virginia)

Louisville (Clemson)

Pittsburgh (Georgia Tech)

Miami (Florida State)

Under this scenario, private schools are matched up again.  The basketball is slanted heavily towards the Atlantic.  But any division with Duke and North Carolina is always going to be tough.

In the Confidential’s view, doing whatever one it can to make the divisions logical and easy to remember behooves its short-term and long-term interests.  No matter how hard you try to make divisions competitively balanced, it will not work out perfectly.  So at least use logic and common sense.

What do you think?  Do you prefer the current set-up?  Different idea?

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Conference Realignment, Opinion and tagged , , , ,
07 Dec 2012
3 Comments

Exit Fees and Liquidated Damages

Many people are confident that the ACC will be able to enforce its exit fee against Maryland.  Many people are confident that the ACC will not be able to enforce its exit fee against Maryland.  Regardless of which side is correct, it is important to understand the issue.

Most helpful to a non-lawyer is this recent article from the businessofcollegesports.com.  The article provides a great layman’s understanding of something called liquidated damages:

In legal terms, conference exit fees are known as liquidated damages.  Liquidated damages provisions are commonly added to contracts.  They set the amount a party to the contract must pay in the event it breaches the contract.  Liquidated damages provisions are useful because they theoretically save the parties the time and expense of litigating the amount of damages caused by the breach.

But, the amount of liquidated damages specified in a contract cannot be randomly selected.  Courts will generally only enforce liquidated damages provisions if (1) the anticipated damages in the event of a breach are difficult to ascertain at the time of contracting, and (2) the amount of liquidated damages is a reasonable estimate of the actual damages that would likely be caused by a breach.  If a liquidated damages provision does not meet this test it is deemed a penalty and is unenforceable.

The ACC’s current exit fee is not $50,000,000.  Instead, as the article notes, the ACC’s exit fee is “three times the conference’s total operating budget at the time of withdrawal.”  As for Maryland, this means the amount is roughly $52M.

Where the Confidential differs is the analysis of whether the exit fees satisfy (1) and (2).  The author does not seem to question (1).  Indeed, how exactly does one quantify the damages where a founding member of a conference leaves?  With all the conference realignment discussion, people talk about TV revenue.  But what about the unquantifiable damage to a conference when it is perceived to be unstable?  When there are daily rumors regarding this or that member leaving?  When there are discussions about whether the conference will cease to exist.  When schools like Wake Forest have, really, no other option at all in the conference realignment scenario.  Where it is questionable whether Pitt, BC, Syracuse, and other schools are certain to have a landing spot.  Does ESPN want to renegotiate now, when it might have to renegotiate in two weeks if two schools leave?  Do kids want to play for a school that may go from “ACC,” as it is currently thought of,” to its current weakened position in comparison to other conferences?  If UVA and Georgia Tech leave the ACC, what does that do for Florida State’s academic reputation?  How can you quantify these things?

You cannot.  Which is where exit fees come from.  Instead of trying to figure that all out, you agree on a number ahead of time.

As for (2), the article states “that [t]he requirement to pay three times the conference’s operating budget does not appear to be related in any way to the actual amount of damages the ACC would suffer if a member withdraws.”  Liquidated damages clauses often just state a sum certain.  The ACC provision is actually tethered to something that relates to the size and wealth of the ACC at the time a member departs.  If the ACC grows and becomes even more successful, it has more to lose.  If the ACC contracts, it has less to lose and the liquidated damages (exit fees) decrease.  Moreover, the schools have a say in the conference’s operating budget.  If the schools want the conference to scale back operations, they can do so.

Perhaps the ACC could have tied its exit fees to TV revenue.  But this excludes the damage to the ACC’s name.  Is there any question that swapping Louisville for Maryland is a loss with respect to academics, cohesion, and the appearance of the ACC?  The ACC has been damaged beyond anything that can be measured in TV revenue.  The ACC is perceived to be on life support, forcing Presidents to make statements regarding rumors, etc.  Maybe a more reasonable number would be 1 or 2 or 1.5 times the operating budget, but the operating budget is a conservative measure to calculate damages.

Moreover, people analyzing this situation speak in terms of “black and white.”  Lawyers, at least good ones, know that life (and the law) are not black and white.  As the litigation moves forward, the parties will likely have a sense as to where the judge is leaning on legal issues.  Will the judge allow the jury to resolve the question of whether the exit fee is reasonable?  Will the judge decide it as a matter of law? On an issue like this, the judge is likely to defer a definitive ruling and give the parties a chance to settle based on an expectation of what these rulings would be.  In the meantime, nobody should presume that a certain result is inevitable.  It is doubtful that there will even be a result.  Someone will blink.

 

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Conference Realignment, Opinion, Predictions and tagged , , , , ,
29 Nov 2012
2 Comments

The College Expansion Game… is it Risk or is it Monopoly?

Everyone talks about college football as if it was a game of Risk.  Delaney and the Big 10 have the blue armies and are moving 10 of them to Kamchatka.  Slive and the SEC have the red armies, and will respond by trying to take Egypt.  Empire creation at its best.  Of course, some of those folks then turn around and say that the Big 10 and SEC are not competing against each other.  Huh–what Risk game involves cooperation?  The goal is to be the last one standing.  In any event, it is sad that college sports is no longer like Monopoly.

Yes, in the old days, college sports was like Monopoly.  The NCAA had the Monopoly of all the properties.  The value to a conference was driven not by the properties (i.e. the individual schools), but what could be done by acquiring all the similarly colored properties (i.e. forming conferences).  The Big 10 was the Dark Blues, with Michigan and Ohio State.  The Pac-12 was the Green properties.  No matter who played in the Rose Bowl, it was special.  Some conferences benefited by location–the Oranges and Reds have a little extra value because you might get sent to St. Charles Place and have to run them.  This is the equivalent to the Big East having the major metropolitan areas in basketball.  Or the SEC having the advantage of the key Southern, football-crazy areas.  Notably the game of Monopoly made the colored properties adjacent.  Indeed, being nearby your neighbors is valuable to a cohesive conference (notwithstanding the development of serious rivalries, of course).  Other than Notre Dame-USC, is there any rivalry that does not involve geographic proximity?  No.

Now, it’s all about a brand.  You might be able to make more money combining Boardwalk and Park Place, but Boardwalk would know its valuable and not want to be dragged down by Park Place.  Conferences are trying to build houses on Boardwalk and Marvin Gardens.  It works because the people paying are only focusing on the relative worth of the properties they are landing on… i.e. Boardwalk is a better property than Marvin Gardens.  The people paying do not realize that pairing Boardwalk with Park Place is more profitable than just Boardwalk alone.  Fans of conferences want to break off pieces of other conferences.  Fans of the Big 10 are drooling over North Carolina, forgetting that part of what makes North Carolina great is its rivalries with Duke, North Carolina State, and Virginia.  Sure, it’s a great school–but you cannot fabricate sports rivalries.  And you cannot just create a trophy and make it a rivalry.

The Confidential hopes that someday, the powers-that-be recognize that the real value in conferences was when they were geographically appropriate.  Perhaps they can figure out how to allow the revenues to be apportioned as per the current conferences, but go back to allowing schools to primarily play their neighbors.  More Penn State-Pittsburgh, and less Penn State-Iowa or Pittsburgh-Georgia Tech.

About the only thing we know is that, as of today, the Big East has Baltic Avenue.  Oh, and Connecticut Avenue.  And they had to mortgage Vermont Ave. to pay rent.  The ACC seems like the railroads–nice to have & pretty well spread out, but not generating enough money to keep up.  The SEC is now the Dark Blues–making plenty of money, and winning football and basketball titles regularly.  Or maybe the Big 10 is the Dark Blues.  It sure seems like the Big Ten Network is the “Chance” card sending someone to Boardwalk to make them wealthier every time it comes up.  And Rutgers just landed on Free Parking–from rags to riches on one roll of the dice.

In your game of College Sports/Expansion Monopoly… who is who?  Feel free to share your opinion.

 

Posted by acaffrey in Conference News, Conference Realignment, Opinion and tagged , , ,
27 Nov 2012
3 Comments

College Fooball Head Coach Firings: Really?

Stepping aside from the ACC for a moment, the Confidential cannot help but wonder what the heck is going on with college football head coach firings?  Then again, as the Big Ten becomes the Pied Piper to the rest of college football’s money-obsessed rats, there is no reason to be shocked by two of the most surprising coaching firings in recent history.

First, the most offensive of all firings is the dismissal of Jon Embree at Colorado.  Look, the Confidential routinely noted that the Buffaloes were the worst BCS-level program.  Nothing that happened on the field gives the fans any reason for optimism–the team was outclassed week after week.  But you just cannot fire a coach after two seasons.  Indeed, as ESPN’s Ted Miller noted, the school really could not articulate a basis for firing him.  Frankly, firing a football coach after two years should be a terminable offense for whomever hired the coach.  If the athletic director hired a guy that could not last more than two years, the athletic director is even more incompetent than the head coach.  Short of a scandal of some sort, it just does not make long-term sense.  Can anyone name another head coach fired based on record after only two seasons?

Even worse, Colorado did this to an African-American man and a former Colorado player.  In light of the latter, he should have had a little more latitude.  As it relates to race, this is just yet another example of an NCAA head coach being given a shorter time to turn a program around than comparable white coaches.  Sure, Jon Embree was 4-21.  But Greg Schiano was 3-20 after two seasons.  Iowa’s Kirk Ferentz was 4-19 after two seasons.  It is statistically more likely, Embree would have been a Greg Robinson, who was only 5-18 at Syracuse after two seasons and ended up winning only 5 more games.   But Colorado will never know whether Embree was a Ferentz or a Robinson.  Colorado and the NCAA should be ashamed.  The Confidential is loathe to suggest racism, but to not give a head coach at least three years is simply absurd.  Really, the Confidential does not see why any African-American family would allow their son to go to Colorado after its treatment of Embree.  And good luck to the next coach explaining to kids and their families that they can be sure that he will be the Buffaloes’ head coach for the full four or five years that the kid is in Colorado.

Second, Auburn fired head coach Gene Chizik a mere two years after winning a National Championship.  Granted, many Auburn fans never liked the hire.  After all, Chizik was only 5-19 at Iowa State.  Notably, unlike Colorado with Embree, Iowa State was going to give Chizik more time to turn around the program.  Instead, he turned Auburn around.  This culminated with winning it all in 2010.  To be sure, that 2010 team was special.  It had to have significant talent beyond merely Cam Newton–a QB alone can only carry a team so far.  Chizik and his staff were able to go 14-0 against an SEC schedule.  Regardless of how much talent you have, to go 14-0 suggests some significant ability to coach the game of football.  After all, how many programs have gone undefeated?

In fairness to Auburn, however, the recruitment of Newton and other issues were becoming a bit of a scandal for Auburn.  This is perhaps more important than mere record.  Even if Chizik was bowl-bound this year, a program has to avoid sanctions.  So the firing is justifiable from that standpoint–certainly more so than with Embree.  Again, however, the issue might hurt Auburn in recruiting unless it can land a home run with its new coach.

Finally, the Confidential would be remiss in failing to observe that North Carolina State and Purdue fired head coaches after winning games and being bowl-eligible.  For Purdue, Danny Hope got Purdue to two straight bowl games for the first time in several years, according to ESPN, but was not allowed to even coach the team in the bowl game.  He took over a team that had gone 4-8 the prior year, never finished with a worse record, and did better than that in three seasons.  Not good enough?  For North Carolina State, it is frustrating to beat a great team every year, but also lose head-scratchers.  Still, you have to be really careful before firing a head coach that has taken you to three straight bowl games, like Tom O’Brien had done.   Fans and programs need to be careful before dispatching a coach because of “mediocrity.”

Indeed, fans of programs disappointed in the average records often complain that the new guy “cannot do any worse,” as if mediocrity is bottoming-out.  Syracuse fans thought that the .500ish records of Paul Pasqualoni were too much to swallow.  And then they hired the aforementioned Robinson, who showed that things can get worse.  Much worse.  Perhaps the best example is Southern Mississippi, who forced head coach Jeff Bower to resign after 14 straight winning seasons and six straight bowl appearances.  Fans and boosters were unhappy with the mediocrity.  The end result?  Southern Mississippi continued to go to bowl games under head coach Larry Fedora, but then watched him abandon the program for North Carolina before the 2012 season.  Unlike Bower, Fedora was not interested in being a lifer at Southern Mississippi.  In 2012, the team went 0-12.  Enjoy THAT fans and boosters.  Mediocrity can get worse.

Posted by acaffrey in Football, Opinion and tagged , , , ,

Post Navigation

Newer Entries →