Jagodzinski firing
I find this whole Jeff Jagodzinski firing story very interesting. In part, this is because we just pilfered a head coach from another BCS conference that was none too pleased by the idea of their coach going elsewhere as well. There are obviously many differences between these two situations, but I think as much as West Virginia was up in arms over RichRod's departure, their reaction was infinitely more justified than Boston College's.
Jagodzinski was interviewing for what would be a CONSIDERABLE upgrade over his current position. I think West Virginia could at least justify their attempts to milk every dollar out of Michigan and RichRod (and the accompanying dragging of his name through the mud) halfheartedly in the fact that Rodriguez was breaking contract to go take a position at another college that West Virginia (at least theoretically) would be competing with in the national rankings each year. With the way West Virginia had played in recent years under Rodriguez, the step up was mainly in prestige only. Jagodzinski would be going from a school that has rarely, if ever, been seriously considered a national title contender under his reign to the head coach of an NFL team that missed the playoffs by a game this season. That's a pretty huge leap.
What I don't get, is why would Boston College fire him other than to save face after attempting to bluff him off of the interview?
First, he's obviously a good coach. Boston College has played considerably well within their conference under his tutelage and he's done well enough to at least receive consideration from an NFL team.
Secondly, wouldn't this discourage other elite coaches from coming to Boston College? Boston College is basically saying, "We want you to come here and be successful, but if you ever try to leave we are going to make things absolute hell for you. Even if it's to a situation where you can't even conceivably compete with us."
Thirdly, why would they do this before he takes the job? Is it really worth the potential blow this is going to cause their recruiting class and any transition problems next season to show that you are serious about coaches honoring their contracts?
I just fail to understand this decision. If BC thinks they are going to start some trend where coaches don't constantly aspire to and leave for better coaching jobs, I think they are sorely mistaken. Firing Jagodzinski I think only causes many, many more problems than it solves.
January 7th, 2009 at 6:30 PM ^
We should seriously take a look at their DC. He's done a great job there. Their secondary, in particular, always seems to be around the ball (despite not having the greatest talent).
January 7th, 2009 at 6:33 PM ^
shouldn't RichRod be phoning every solid DB verbal commit BC had? I certainly would be right now.
January 7th, 2009 at 11:06 PM ^
May be tough. Word is the DC was the second choice when they hired Jagodzinski and most likely the guy they're going to replace him with.
January 7th, 2009 at 6:33 PM ^
Nevermind that Jagodzinski came to BC from the NFL! BC had to know at some point with his success that he has had.
So yeah, kiss off the idea of anyone relevant wanting to coach at BC under this administration.
January 7th, 2009 at 6:40 PM ^
I checked out their list of current commits, and it looked pretty weak. I agree about the DC - the guy's solid.
January 7th, 2009 at 6:51 PM ^
You said in this diary what I tried to say last night with my lame board post. Maybe the AD thinks that Any Pub is good Pub??
January 7th, 2009 at 8:34 PM ^
I can't think of any good reason to fire him, unless just to show that they mean business--a contract is a contract. But otherwise, they are putting their program as far behind as if Jagz had left.
Letting him interview elsewhere may have even helped recruiting, by showing recruits that their head coach has NFL experience, contacts, and prestige.
January 7th, 2009 at 9:03 PM ^
I think there's alot more to be said about the relationship between the AD and Jags. For the AD to come out and say this, and for Jags to not tell/ask BC before agreeing to interview, tells me their relationship wasn't too solid to begin with.
January 7th, 2009 at 9:04 PM ^
Now who do they think will want to come there and coach in that type of enviroment?
January 7th, 2009 at 9:10 PM ^
DiFilippo pushed hard for Jags to get the job, as he was a personal friend IIRC. The Boston media was none too pleased about the hiring as they wanted the UMass coach (I think). I don't know what happened to their relationship since then, because I do know that they were very close.
Also, Spaziani is, IMO, one of the best defensive coordinators in the country. His defenses are consistently good despite not having the athletes that the other schools have. His age is an issue, but they could do worse than promoting him.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:15 AM ^
Can you name me ONE consistently good offense in the ACC? Can you say that the number of offensive superstars in the ACC are comparable to the other conferences in the past 5-10 years (Calvin Johnson doesn't count b/c Reggie Ball was his QB)? This also ignores that BC most likely has talent comparable to the top half of the ACC anyway, as many of schools in the ACC are academically more selective than BC (even for football). I'd hold off on calling him the best DC in the country, considering these factors.
January 7th, 2009 at 9:12 PM ^
I think what BC did was the best thing for their program. You can’t just let coaches break their contracts because something better “might” come available. The AD specifically said if you take this interview you will be fired. PERIOD! He didn’t care and he took the interview and now them man doesn’t have a job. He will get hired again, but I think more schools need to stand up and say the same thing, we are not going to hire someone for one, two, and maybe three years. If you sign a 5 year contract you had better fulfill that contract. Just like coach RR had better complete his contract. When you sign on the doted line that you’re going to be here for six, seven years then you had better do that. If not sign a year to year contract and there will be no more problems.
GO BLUE
January 8th, 2009 at 3:51 AM ^
Schools FIRE a coach if he does poorly. It's not a one-way road. If you do successfully at your job you should be able to improve your job status, just like school will fire a coach 2 years into a 6 year contract if he does a bad job. There's a way to fix each problem, you insert a penalty into the contract. Simple as that. Terrible argument.
January 7th, 2009 at 9:12 PM ^
I think what BC did was the best thing for their program. You can’t just let coaches break their contracts because something better “might” come available. The AD specifically said if you take this interview you will be fired. PERIOD! He didn’t care and he took the interview and now them man doesn’t have a job. He will get hired again, but I think more schools need to stand up and say the same thing, we are not going to hire someone for one, two, and maybe three years. If you sign a 5 year contract you had better fulfill that contract. Just like coach RR had better complete his contract. When you sign on the doted line that you’re going to be here for six, seven years then you had better do that. If not sign a year to year contract and there will be no more problems.
GO BLUE
January 7th, 2009 at 10:06 PM ^
The "fulfill your contract" argument, I think is inherently weak, if only because schools don't really want this to happen.
How many schools fire coaches before their contract expires? Schools breaking the contract happens as much or more than coaches breaking the contract. That's what buyouts are for. I assume there's one in Jagodzinski's contract. As long as he pays it, he's not really breaking his contract, as it says, in effect, "you can't leave for (x) years unless you pay (x) dollars."
If Notre Dame goes 6-6 again next year, Charlie Weis will be fired with 5+ years left on his contract. Should they keep him around just to "complete the contract?" Of course not.
January 7th, 2009 at 11:07 PM ^
Just a couple of things:
First, Jagodzinski came in and effectively kept BC at the status quo. They went 9-3 and 10-3 in the 2 years they were in the ACC before he came in. They then went 10-3 and 11-3 in the 2 years he was the HC there. Sure they played well with him, but they played well before he came too.
Second, it's been reported that the Jets really weren't/aren't that interested in hiring him. Yeah, I would interview for a job that's much better than my current one, but I wouldn't do it if my boss threatens to fire me and the new job isn't a sure deal. So why do it? It seems as though the HC and the AD didn't get along that well (ala RR/WVU) and this is an easy way to get out of the contract without resigning. After all, when you're fired as a coach you still get to collect your salary. When you resign, you voluntarily stop working and the school doesn't have to pay you anymore.
This just seems like a convenient way for both parties to save face. BC can act like it wants a dedicated coach, Jags can pretend to be wronged by BC.
January 8th, 2009 at 8:04 AM ^
For point two... is not so much whether or not he should or should not have interviewed, but it's whether BC after he interviewed and wasn't given the job should have fired him. You're taking a more reactionary angle. What does BC gain by firing him? They obviously would not have fired him if he hadn't interviewed, so why do it now? I just think it's a poor attempt to take some sort of moral high ground and maybe get a few "atta boy" ass-slaps at the national athletic director convention.
January 8th, 2009 at 10:30 AM ^
There are also lots of stories that ever since he got to BC, he's been looking for any job in the NFL, whether head coach or coordinator. These articles made it sound like his leaving was inevitable and was more a question of when and how soon. Maybe that was having an effect on their recruiting, fundraising, etc.
January 7th, 2009 at 11:29 PM ^
In my opinion, the employment laws in this country should have one goal and that is to constantly put everyone on their heels. That is because competition brings out the best in us and benefits society generally. Everyone has to earn what they have and no one should be safe.
What the BC AD is saying is that he doesn't want this type of competition. But stability has never prevailed over competition. IMO BC will be irrelevant for years to come. They are already irrelevant because their success is masked by the fact that they play in one of the worst conferences in college football and they haven't been exposed simply because they haven't played elite teams. BC has also fallen way behind in recruiting. As an example, one of their major areas is NJ, yet in the last two years they have consistently lost recruiting battles to a newcomer (Michigan) and Rutgers and they still have to deal with the Fighting Irish who are strong there. If you want to be a legitimate program, you can't just allow a team like Michigan to come into your backyard and pretty much clean house. Absent major adjustments, BC is in real trouble as football program (their basketball program has declined as well). No top coach is going to want to walk into that situation, even if it is for the "long run." Skilled workers are not going to settle. They're going to want to find new challenges because that's what got them there in the first place. Otherwise, you're just an average joe.
You really got the feeling from the whole RR/WVU fiasco that RR thought the administration betrayed him the moment he signed his contract. In other words, they didn't feel the need to listen to RR anymore now that the contract was signed. While RR made the mistake of signing the contract, what happened after that if we are to believe RR is exactly the type of situation our society should prevent.
Everyone should strive for excellence. You can't do that standing still. Bottom line, if he pays his buyout, he should be free to leave without any one of us criticizing his decision.
Comments