Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2009 21:59:46 GMT -6
I agree with you coach, I think they cut off their nose to spite their face.
Now that he's been fired, I can't see how anyone could take that job without having that in the back of their mind. I applaud him for not bowing to an ultimatum.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 7, 2009 22:10:08 GMT -6
I agree with you coach, I think they cut off their nose to spite their face. Now that he's been fired, I can't see how anyone could take that job without having that in the back of their mind. I applaud him for not bowing to an ultimatum. Shouldn't you also applaud the institution for finally standing up to these college coaches who don't honor their contracts?
|
|
|
Post by coachpoe on Jan 7, 2009 22:24:04 GMT -6
khalfie, good point and I understand where you're coming from...but does an interview necessarily mean you want to leave? What if he is just seeing what's out there? Is it fair for BC's administration to put this ultimatum out there and attach this much importance to his interview?
For example, let's say you are a D III OC who decides to move back down to the high school level to become a HC. After two successful years a small college reaches out and wants you to interview for their HC job. Becoming a college HC has always been something you've wanted to do, and even if you aren't sure you want the job you do want to at least meet with the school to gauge their interest and see what they're all about. Assuming you're honest with your administration about your interest and intentions, you wouldn't be upset if they fired you just for taking the interview? I would want my administration to understand I have an interest in this job/level of football, and at least let me explore my options instead of showing me the door for having career aspirations or goals, and just because I interview doesn't mean I would leave for the job.
Keep in mind, Jags never said he was leaving. He never said he would leave if he had the chance, and hasn't been offered the job anyway. Why is so much importance placed on Jags interviewing for this job? Why does Jags meeting with the Jets and seeing what's out there necessarily mean he doesn't want to be the coach at BC? I don't think USC would fire Pete Carroll or OU would fire Stoops for interviewing for an NFL job. Maybe Jags would have met with the Jets and decided he wanted to stay on the college level or maybe he wouldn't have been offered the job and stayed anyway. Also BC hired Jags knowing he had a succesful NFL background and if he won there would likely be some NFL interest in him.
Once again Khalfie I understand what you're saying, but don't understand why his interviewing for another job necessarily means he doesn't want the job he has or he doesn't have loyalty to the school where he works.
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 8, 2009 9:09:52 GMT -6
khalfie, good point and I understand where you're coming from...but does an interview necessarily mean you want to leave? No, it does not. It only means you want to leave, when your administration tells you, "if you interview, we will fire you." That caveat, makes the interview, a declaration that you want to leave. Right or wrong... it is, what it is. What if he is just seeing what's out there? Is it fair for BC's administration to put this ultimatum out there and attach this much importance to his interview? No, it is not fair, but when has that ever mattered? At best, Jags gets a new gig. At worst he gets paid for the final 3 years on his contract. Either way, he was told what would happen if he interviewed... and he still interviewed, which tells me, an unbiased spectator, that he was ready to leave. For example, let's say you are a D III OC who decides to move back down to the high school level to become a HC. After two successful years a small college reaches out and wants you to interview for their HC job. Becoming a college HC has always been something you've wanted to do, and even if you aren't sure you want the job you do want to at least meet with the school to gauge their interest and see what they're all about. Assuming you're honest with your administration about your interest and intentions, you wouldn't be upset if they fired you just for taking the interview? I would want my administration to understand I have an interest in this job/level of football, and at least let me explore my options instead of showing me the door for having career aspirations or goals, and just because I interview doesn't mean I would leave for the job. Those aren't similar comparisons coach. The scenerio remains, I am told I will be fired if I interview. I agree 100% with your sentiments, the administrations right way to handle this situation, and even a coaches interest in finding his value or dream job. However, I also understand the ultimatum that was made, and what the actions mean, after the ultimatum was set. Every coach wants understanding administration. Every administration is not understanding. BC, for whatever reason, drew a line in the sand, and Jags crossed it, and wants folks to feel sorry for him? Not going to do it. If he really wanted to be at BC... he wouldn't have interviewed. He interviewed. Keep in mind, Jags never said he was leaving. He never said he would leave if he had the chance, and hasn't been offered the job anyway. He interviewed. Why is so much importance placed on Jags interviewing for this job? I don't know... but it was so important... that he still interviewed knowing his BC job was on the line... he interviewed. Why does Jags meeting with the Jets and seeing what's out there necessarily mean he doesn't want to be the coach at BC? Because his boss... told him, if you interview, you will be fired. He interviewed... I don't think USC would fire Pete Carroll or OU would fire Stoops for interviewing for an NFL job. Maybe Jags would have met with the Jets and decided he wanted to stay on the college level or maybe he wouldn't have been offered the job and stayed anyway. Also BC hired Jags knowing he had a succesful NFL background and if he won there would likely be some NFL interest in him. Again... dissimilar scenerios. I'm not arguing right or wrong on the BC administrations part... I am arguing Jags knowing what it meant to accept that interview, and accepting it anyway. Its like your woman telling you not to leave the house at 1 in the morning. Now you can leave, but don't think the locks won't be changed when you return. Once again Khalfie I understand what you're saying, but don't understand why his interviewing for another job necessarily means he doesn't want the job he has or he doesn't have loyalty to the school where he works. Normally, it wouldn't. However, when you are told, that if you do something, "such and such" will occur, and you do it anyway. It means, you don't mind "such and such" occurring. If Then statements are the foundation to conditional programming... the admins. created the IF then... and Jags did the if... meaning "then", above everything else, he valued the interview over his position with BC. Call it what you want... but he interviewed... he was ready to leave.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 8, 2009 9:22:35 GMT -6
I agree with you coach, I think they cut off their nose to spite their face. Now that he's been fired, I can't see how anyone could take that job without having that in the back of their mind. I applaud him for not bowing to an ultimatum. Shouldn't you also applaud the institution for finally standing up to these college coaches who don't honor their contracts? As I understand the situation when Jags took the BC job he made a verbal commitment to stay at least three years. I don't know about a contractual commitment but to my mind a verbal commitment is more binding. A contract involves money, a verbal commitment involves your word. I understand Jags wanting to get back into the NFL. I also understand BC's stance. He did what he thought he needed to do and so did BC. I see that Frank Spaziani, the DC, has been named interim HC. He came in with O'Brien an stayed when OB left for NC St.. I think that choosing Spaziani over OC Steve Logan, who has HC experience but less tenure at BC, shows that BC is interested in long-term commitments.
|
|
|
Post by coachpoe on Jan 8, 2009 11:10:56 GMT -6
khalfie, after reading your posts I am now completely sure that we are arguing different points. I understand your points, and yes Jags was told that if he interviewed he would be fired so he took the interview knowing the consequences. All I was trying to argue was that BC's administration acted in a way that I view to be unprofessional. I would not want to work for a school that prevented me from exploring my options professionally and fired me just for taking an interview. I wouldn't want to work in a place where I was given ultimatums like the one Jags was given. While this may be irrelevant to the discussion, the only question I was trying to answer was whether BC was justified/unjustified in giving Jags this ultimatum, not whether Jags knew the consequences of his actions. Jags knew the consequences, but were they fair?
Also I don't know what Jags or the administration agreed to before he took the job which of course changes the entire scenario. If he agreed to the three year deal like phantom said, maybe that makes the action BC took more understandable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2009 14:27:54 GMT -6
I agree with you coach, I think they cut off their nose to spite their face. Now that he's been fired, I can't see how anyone could take that job without having that in the back of their mind. I applaud him for not bowing to an ultimatum. Shouldn't you also applaud the institution for finally standing up to these college coaches who don't honor their contracts? Sure...I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Split50 on Jan 8, 2009 16:58:33 GMT -6
I am with Phantom all the way on this one. The AD stated all along that he wanted someone who was committed to BC. Apparantly, the HC had made that commitment. Now he is changing his mind. If you can't trust a man's word, what can you trust?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2009 17:29:48 GMT -6
Again, I'm sure they wouldn't lose any sleep over firing him before the end of his contract if he didn't produce, how many times have you seen that played out ?
What we don't know the situation there, if someone who was of good standing with an organization, after just a few years just up and splits at the 1st sign of daylight you have to ask why??
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Sept 3, 2009 21:16:02 GMT -6
BC looking pretty good right now...lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2009 12:13:17 GMT -6
I really hope the current trend of firing OCs before the first regular season game doesn't continue. The Bills fired theirs today as well. Speaks very badly for the oganizations that that guy would be hired in the first place if they had so little confidence in them.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Sept 7, 2009 8:54:35 GMT -6
Any theories on these firings? I mean for some of these, I feel like if you're a first year HC and it won't work, then might as well just do it now before the season. I felt like that was the Todd Haley/Kansas City/Chan Gailey one. That Haley was a longtime OC and just kind of wanted it his way.
The other two are weirder. In Buffalo the guy who left has blasted the HC Dick Jauron saying he wanted to run a "pop warner offense." In Tampa, Raheem Morris said that Jagodzinski didn't know "schemes enough," was probably "a better head coach or position coach than coordinator," and wasn't focused on details, but other than that was vague. (They did get lucky because Greg Olson who they promoted is very good.) Any ideas?
Like I said, I think if it wasn't going to work it is probably for the best to do it now, but some of these statements are bizarre.
|
|