Iowa and Chris Doyle Agree To Part Ways
that took longer than I'd have thought
On the one hand this seems like they were trying to retain. Him but the backlAsh was too great so they let him go on the other maybe they were giving the guy some “due process” I think Ferentz is a good coach but I wonder if he doesn’t separate either. Iowa appears pretty tight knit from afar though.
Exactly. Doyle has been a huge factor in Iowa's success and is close with Ferentz. It's never easy to make those decisions.
Considering how sports science has advanced, I doubt it's that hard to find an equally competent strength and conditioning coach nowadays. If anything, the old guard that has been in place for 20+ years might be at risk of falling behind the times (remember all those Iowa players that were hospitalized a few years back?).
But I'm sure it was hard for Ferentz on a personal level to let him go.
the rhabdo incident should have been the line. Everything else is just bolstering your case
Good riddance, racist.
So, Doyle is fried for apparently racist behavior. He has been there since 1999, Ferentz’s entire tenure, and Ferentz never knew about this and is blameless? To quote Captain Barbossa from “Pirates of the Caribbean,” that “strains credulity” to me...
Exactly.
The buck stops with... uh.... that guy over there?
Iowa AD to Ferentz: "Kirk, it looks like Coach Doyle is a racist. Maybe you should consider getting rid of him and hiring someone else."
Coach Ferentz: "I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request. Means NO!"
Firing an employee really isn't about punishment. It's about whether it makes sense to keep the person on staff. Ferentz concluded that Doyle was no longer useful to his program going forward, so he let him go.
So how long does Ferentz have, at this point? Doyle has been on his staff for years, and Ferentz allegedly knows nothing about it? Ferentz is paid to know that this kind of stuff goes on, so to me, it says one of two things:
1) He's not paying enough attention to what's going on inside his own program. Or:
2) He knew about it and chose to do nothing anyway.
Either scenario isn't a good look for him, and in this day and age, both are grounds for termination if the general population gets loud enough about it. And then if alums and boosters start withholding donations, then you know Ferentz's days are numbered.
He's now been there longer than Bo Schembechler was at Michigan. Think about that for a minute.
judging by the comments he's made it seems clear that Iowa wasnt even considering firing him. Iowa gonna Iowa and punt this down the road a ways
Sure, the school may not want to get rid of him. But depending on how loud the external noise gets from fans, students, boosters, alums, and the general population, Iowa may not have a choice in the matter if enough people think he needs to go. If the calls are loud enough and Iowa decides to keep him anyway it would be PR suicide for the school.
That being said, I don't know how many people out there want Ferentz to go. Maybe little to none at all, in which case its back to business as usual for him.
So, was he really guilty of racism or is this the usual modern day process of an organization trying to save face by eliminating a person of suspect?
Unless more evidence surfaces of him actually being racist, I'm still labeling this a witch hunt. You have to. Unless you believe guilty until proven innocent. (Of course, it's not against the law for a company to fire an employee. But the point remains.)
Pretty clear he’s being fired for being abusive, with racial comments being part of his abuse, but things like rhabdo being a huge aspect as well.
Can you link a source? I haven't seen anything about that. I read what the players said about him when this first surfaced and that's all I've seen.
Iowa's probably not going to release a laundry list of reasons why they let him go, organizations don't typically do that.
Regardless, he was fortunate to still be employed after the rhabdo thing and this on top of that made it a pretty easy call.
A strength and conditioning coach is with the players all the time. They don't have to worry about set time limits. They can work with them all off-season. They are a key interface between the players and coaches and if they don't have a healthy relationship with the players, that's not healthy for the program.
That's fine. I don't care if he's fired if there is cause. Even if the players just don't like him and that's it.... that's reason enough for me.
What I do care about are the players aledging he was a racist, when I haven't seen any reasonable indication of that. And I care if that's the reason he's being let go. And appearences are that indeed that's the reason. And yes, in public profile cases like this (e.g. Urban Meyer), usually we are privy to at least the main reason(s) for termination.
Because someone says something doesn't mean it's true. You've got to provide evidence. And what I've read from the Iowa players... the evidence is beyond weak. If you don't like the dude, just say so, but don't throw out that bullshit and claim "that's racist". If he is racist, give an actual example. Not "we couldn't be ourselves" or "he questioned my sports car but not a pickup truck".
And the posters on this board are generally thinking this dude's a racist and believing the players without any information other than those statements made a week or so ago. I have a problem with that jumping to conclusion as well. As monacle dude pointed out below, no one knows the situation. But you don't jump on a dude like this, even if you don't like him, and accuse him of something like this unless you are DAMN sure you have at least some solid facts. The facts brought forward to date have not been.
Here's all the evidence you need if you're willing to read.
Pretty clear that the rhabdo incident is completely unrelated. It just factors into what some outsiders think of Doyle.
Not a witch hunt. Witch hunts end up with innocent people burned alive on a stake.
This MF'er was making a million f'ing dollars per year to show kids how to lift weights. If that's not a privileged position, what is? If you're fortunate enough as a professional to land such a cushy, high-profile gig, you can't do anything that even has the appearance of being racist. It just comes with the job. Much like you can't do anything that has even the appearance of being misogynist - did you call Meyer's firing 'guilty until proven innocent?'
McCarthyism in the 1950s was a witch hunt, and no one was burned at the stake.
The point is, it should take more than accusations to get someone fired. Yes, if you provide even the apperance of improperness, you can and should be fired. That's the breaks. But false accusations because you don't like someone are (unfortunately) a part of life too. You can't turn a blind eye to that. As for Meyer, yes, he was proven guilty in my view for his participation in the matter. So no, his firing wasn't "guilty until proven innocent".
It never ceases to amaze me how some people think that 1) they have all the information and/or 2) are entitled to all the information surrounding a situation on which they take a scorching hot take.
When we all learn about "inside voice" as children, I think it would be useful to also learn about "no voice."
Spot on.
WHOOSH
WHOOSH right back.
I know what you were trying to imply, but it works perfectly for those claiming he needs to be fired without knowing the full story, too! :-) I was hoping you'd pick up on that.
You don't consider the statements of many black players to be "evidence"? You're right, they're making it up, because whenever a black person reports racism, he gets money from this big pot of money, and a better job, and lots of positive press.... so there is huge incentive to lie.
What statements?
Do you mean the ones from here?
Myself, and other rationale MGoBloggers were flabbergasted that those statements alone were leading to this accusation.
If there is more I'd be happy to read it and I may change my mind. But I haven't seen anything else. So, until I do, I'm not convinced this isn't a case of firing to save face.
You clearly allude to why "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply at all here, and then say "the point remains" as if that's some kind of magic band aid that covers that gap.
The point does not remain. There is no right to the presumption of innocence from an employer, and there is no right to the "presumption of being a nice guy" among college football fans.
I don't know what happened, but if the players are saying he was being racially abusive, he has to go. And he better have a good explanation for any future employers.
My boss physically and verbally abused me back in 1999.
If I bring that "fact" to my boss' boss, should my boss be fired? Or do you think a reasonable investigation into my claims should occur?
I think you know the answer. Thus, the point I'm making.
And based on the responses on this message board as a sounding board of society.... no, I don't have faith people are performing a reasonable investigation. I would hate to have any of you on a jury. I think the horrendus act that happened to George Floyd and subsequent protests are leading people to forget that claims need to be investigated.
I don't know what happened either. And if the players don't like the dude, then fine, fire him. That's the employer's perogative. But I have a problem with a racist accusation in this case, when I haven't read anything of the sort. Just because of recent events, we can't use that accusation more freely. It needs to be backed up, just like any serious accusation.
EDIT: And hell yeah I'll take my negs on this point. Absolutely. Negs don't negate being right. And I also find it funny how in this thread my views on this matter were upvoted and here they are negged. Even the total discussion in that other thread was more open minded about both sides in this situation, with others of the same mindset as me. Shows how when a precedent is set in a thread, that's what guides the upvotes and negs. Sheeple galore.
Is he going to pull a Blackwell?
If MSU and Dantonio had gotten a separation agreement with Blackwell, he wouldn't have gotten sued.
No, he'll probably pull a Whitewell...
This is so tricky. I don't want to downplay what any former players are claiming the atmosphere there was like. But I also think I feel that this can't be the worst case(s) of racism in the lockerroom/weightroom in the country and if Chris Doyle is needing shown the door to change his ways a hell of a lot more coaches across the country deserve this decision ahead of Doyle. Witch hunt? No I don't think so. Does a guy need fired over these allegations? I don't know the answer but I think we have it...but again, this case seems lower in the spectrum of sports and race issues in relation to what I have a feeling is going on elsewhere.
Why does it matter where it ranks relative to other instances of racism? Is there a threshold below which it doesn't matter?
Saw that one coming...too many people coming forward with claims and not enough evidence to contradict them.
You usually need evidence to convict somebody of something. Are you saying you need evidence to prove your innocence when there isn’t evidence to convict you?
- We aren't in a court of law, dude, the standards for jailing someone and firing them are different.
- There is evidence -- testimony of a lot of players about a lot of incidents. Testimony convicts people all the time!
He wasn't facing criminal trial, he was employed (and probably making really good money). That involves a different set of standards.
The woke mob is coming for you. All it takes are allegations or disagreement with their beliefs.
Your days are numbered. The world is changing.
Or a history of posting dog whistles and other racist comments every chance you get. If only message boards weren’t anonymous...
You are proving my point. Do some reading. Thomas Sowell.