On TTU's administration and "thinking you can do better"
The paper trail of the Texas Tech case in part suggests that the TTU brass felt Mike Leach overvalued himself, and they threw around at least one name for a replacement (Art Bryles), actively sought a chance to boot Leach and when the Adam James complaint surfaced they ran with it.*
This brings to mind other programs who were unhappy with their coach not for team success but for some facet of his personality and marketability, or an idea that "they could do better," usually that they wanted more than second-place finishes. Boosters and/or administrators have structured the firing of innumerable coaches on this basis; in many, many cases, their hubris is rewarded with all-out failure due to not respecting what it takes to build a program, not appreciating their success or falling for a confident smooth talker without really investigating what he was about.
I can think of several examples:
-UCLA fired Bob Toledo in 2002 (didn't even let him coach his bowl game). Bob led a 20-game winning streak in 1997-1998, but UCLA was never the same program without QB Cade McNown. However, they hired an incompetent mediocrity in Karl Dorrell, whose career was marked by inconsistency, quarterback injuries, foolish public statements and one win over USC. They canned him after years of angst and got Dorrell's mentor in Rick Neuheisel, one of the great charlatans of modern college football.
-Notre Dame fired Tyrone Willingham. They went for the un-Tyrone, an ND alum with an outsized ego (see what I did there) who would talk trash and call out the opponent. I don't even have to give the punchline to this one.
-After TW left Stanford for Notre Dame, Stanford intentionally low-balled itself in both budget and personnel - arguing that big-time football was incompatible with the university's image. Stanford hired two head coaches because they were buddies with the AD, one incompetent and the other an a-hole who was intimidated by the players' intelligence and tried to "break" them because of it (this is factual).
Now Jim Harbaugh is there, talking about making Stanford a top-ten program, and is assisted by an AD and an admissions department who are committed to having a successful, top football program without compromising the university's integrity.
-Minnesota, a death valley of football for two decades, canned Glenn Mason after his 85th meltdown loss, this one against Texas Tech (some might say this was ironic, but I think it's just a coincidence. Doncha think?) Word was they wanted to do better than 7-5/8-4, and that Glenn didn't get along with Minnesota high school coaches. They hired motivational speaker Tim Brewster who has, to put it one way, not done anything Glenn Mason didn't already do and had a 1-11 season to boot.
-Nebraska fired Frank Solich after a 9-3 season, in what was really a revenge move from the previous 7-7 year. They started reading the papers and came to believe they weren't cool enough because they ran a "dinosaur offense." Frank was in the tough position of succeeding a legend, which made it a case of wanting to go back in time rather than forward, but they hired Bill Callahan who was a huge break in tradition. His efforts to both install a "modern" offense and inspire his players were doomed from the start due to personnel holes and the fact he was just fired from a pro team for losing control of his team.
Now NU is back to a tough-first coach and appears to be on a serious rise in a weak conference division. Funny how Nebraska's staple of option football is now mainstream again in college football, adjusted to spread systems and with a bit more passing.
-Not fired yet, but Cal fans have been complaining for years about Jeff Tedford. He took a 1-11 team to 7 wins in his first season and has made the Bears a but even in 2006 they were saying he had peaked as a coach and they needed someone new to "take them to the next level." Like Mason's teams, Cal tends to be front-runners that fade late in the season, contributing to the off-season griping.
-The only case I can think of where this plan worked was Ohio State firing John Cooper - and the real reason behind that was innumerable losses to Michigan. It pains me to say they got what they wanted.
I've seen this stuff happen innumerable times in high school programs as well. Also to arrogant people who dump their significant others because they think they can get someone who's younger or hotter or has better body parts or a fatter wallet. It's just a bad idea to play on the assumption that you are better than what you are getting, and that simply changing the coach is going to fix it.
*(Aside: there is also the chance they were uncomfortable with the success and publicity of the football program, and actually wanted to get a coach who would be comfortable with a program "glass ceiling". Academics can be very touch and go when it comes to sports publicity. A significant portion of the Duke faculty hated the lacrosse team because they represented money, alpha-males and extracurricular pursuits, and when the totally bogus rape allegations were laid they leveraged them to the hilt even after they were disproven.)
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:49 PM ^
I think the big problem is fans/alums/administrators at schools with no history of recent success thinking they can somehow be nationally dominant over an extended period of time. Oklahoma State strikes me as the key example of this, thinking that if they just spend as much money as the big boys they will be able to attract the top players and suddenly be a bigger deal than Texas, OU, Nebraska, etc. (much less all the other programs in the country).
Mike Leach made Texas Tech as good as they could ever hope to be and certain people did not appreciate his efforts. They will regret it shortly.
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:55 PM ^
It might happen, T. Boone Pickens does have quite a bit of spare cash, and they are in a football rich area. Oregon might be a special case, as the attraction of the Nike brand might be more important than the excellent facilities, but its not impossible for a program to rise from mediocrity to national prominence.
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:59 PM ^
Ok State has a lot more competition from long established quality programs in the Big12, whereas USC is really far and away the top dog in the Pac10. A number of teams have to be down before Ok State gets a whiff of a conference title. I guess that is what I mean by program ceiling.
Also, I wouldn't call winning your conference once a decade (like Oregon does) rising to "national prominence."
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:45 PM ^
I would have fired Leach last year
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:07 PM ^
If you were TTU, why?
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:21 PM ^
He embarrassed the university, called out his own players, didn't listen to his University brass and was the definition of a douche.
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:42 PM ^
Can you take us through this? I honestly don't really know what incident you are talking about from last year.
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:52 PM ^
If embarrassing the University, calling out players, and being a douche were good reasons for canning a coach, there would be about 15 total coaches left in football. Not to mention that Weis would have been gone after year one.
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:53 PM ^
I'm not saying that Leach acted as a professional, per se, but the leaked e-mails don't make me think TTU "brass" was especially professional either. In the current context, some of their public statements have been downright laughable.
I think TTU, as a University, comes off as being as being the full realization of every hick Texan stereotype, ever.
January 2nd, 2010 at 7:39 PM ^
Predictably, at least one of the Tech trainers has signed an affidavit saying that Leach mistreated James. When you are faced with losing your job, especially one as cool as being an athletic trainer at your local university, in a "big small town" in this economy, it's hard to tell your bosses no. It's not like the trainers will ever see Leach again, anyway.
January 2nd, 2010 at 4:50 PM ^
You're talking about Charlie Weis here right?
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:48 PM ^
Bill Mallory was the winningest coach in IU history, had a number of winning seasons with bowl appearances, even managing to beat Michigan once, yet after a couple of off years was fired so they could hire Cam Cameron, who was a complete, unmitigated disaster.
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:51 PM ^
best post i have seen all day
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:06 PM ^
Haven't been too many posts today, but thanks.
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:59 PM ^
But I think Carr is still worth mentioning here. Our fan base had very little appreciation for what Carr did. I, too, was annoyed with all the losses to OSU and wondered if we could do better than Carr.
Fast forward a few years, and the guy who was supposed to take us to the next level hasn't even come close to matching Carr's level. And while I think (hope) that RichRod gets this turned around, I don't think he can possibly do much better than Carr did.
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:03 PM ^
Couldn't have said it any better.
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:06 PM ^
I think Carr got a bum rap for losing to good OSU teams and dropping bowl games to national title caliber teams from Texas and USC, but I don't think it was unfair for fans to be disappointed in his overall record/performance.
If Rodriguez doesn't exceed Carr's performance once he gets the ball rolling, I will be disappointed.
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:26 PM ^
Basically, if you think RichRod can do better than Carr, then you're saying you expect a minimum of 10 wins per season from RichRod. That's quite a high expectation for a guy who's won 3 conference games in the last two years.
That's quite the expectation you have there, though I sure won't complain if you're right!!
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:39 PM ^
I don't think it is nuts to think Michigan can be as successful as programs like Texas, OU, USC, Florida, Alabama and even OSU. The top programs in the country (now that there are 12 regular season games) should regularly win 10 games a year. Carr only did it six times in thirteen seasons (twice more he won nine games in a year with an 11 game regular season).
Also, Carr only had his team in the national title hunt after September a handful of times. I definitely think it is possible for Michigan to do better under Rodriguez. People who think these last two years are indicative of what Rodriguez can/will do at Michigan are blatantly ignoring the situation he inherited.
January 2nd, 2010 at 5:30 PM ^
I think we can take a step up and be at least as good as OSU (similar northern power, better recruiting base, but maybe slightly less national pull to make up for it). There is the factor that a good number of the programs you mention are kinda cheatish (or a lot).
You do realize though that you said Lloyd "only" won 10 games in like half his season? Forget that looking good now...that's not as easy to do as it looked, obviously.
January 2nd, 2010 at 5:39 PM ^
All I said is that it's quite the high expectation. Sure, we could be as good as Texas, OU, USC etc.
So then let me ask you this - if RichRod doesn't start cranking out the top 5-10 finishes soon, will you consider him a disappointment and root for him to be replaced? Or will you say "Eh, 10 wins ain't that bad, I'll settle for it?"
January 2nd, 2010 at 6:03 PM ^
I don't think anyone outside the fair-weather fan base ever rooted for Carr to be replaced. Yes, we expect to win every stinking game and a MNC every year, and when we don't, you hear about it. But 9-3 and 10-2 is a reasonable striking distance; as long as we're convinced UM is going for the jugular year-in, year-out, and those 2 losses are against teams doing the same, I think we'll wait one more year to see if we hit the jackpot, whether it's Lloyd or Rich or whoever.
January 2nd, 2010 at 6:08 PM ^
For me the evaluation period (in comparison to Carr) starts in 2011. From that point forward I hope/expect Rodriguez to have Michigan finishing in the top 10 more often than not. If his success rate is less than about 50-50 (Carr was 6 out of 13), I will certainly be disappointed. If it is about 50-50, I will probably say, "Eh, ain't that bad" (as I did for most of the Carr era), and if he does better (which I firmly expect he will) I will be thrilled, especially considering what we've had to go through during the transition.
By comparison, Tressel is now 7 out of 9 for top ten finishes, with 5 (and probably 6 depending on where they end up this year) top five finishes in the AP Poll (Carr's teams finished in the top five only twice). I think something closer to that should be our goal/standard/expectation once Rodriguez gets the roster stocked and the ball rolling.
January 2nd, 2010 at 7:52 PM ^
That's a well formed opinion by you. I sure hope you're right, though you probably understand why my confidence has been shaken.
January 2nd, 2010 at 4:07 PM ^
said that about RR and don nehlan after RR's first two seasons at WVU
January 2nd, 2010 at 5:24 PM ^
Rich was 9-4 his second year at WVU
January 2nd, 2010 at 4:33 PM ^
...as one of those who appreciates Lloyd more in retrospect.
I think one of the main perceived frustrations with Carr was that some of his best, most cherished qualities may have led to an appearance of underachievement in some very high-profile contests.
January 2nd, 2010 at 5:12 PM ^
I thought the density of decent years ('97, '06) and near-decent years ('04) was high enough for an elite program. I think the co-incident timing of repeat MNC contenders (LSU, USC, UF) with our long nightmare that began with Bo's death created maybe an unconscious clash of expectations and a fair-weather fan perfect storm, but I think that by the time ('07) that disappointments became tedious, Carr was already practically out the door entirely of his own accord. I never stopped drinking the Lloyd kool-aid, to borrow a hackneyed phrase we've become familiar with in recent months, and when he left, I faced the future with uncertainty and apprehension over a possible break with the culture that had produced 41 non-losing seasons and fewer MNC's than one would expect for all the near-misses in that time. I also feared that the break could be even deeper, breaking our heroes' hundred-year bond with the point-a-minute teams and the Kipke and Crisler MNCs of years past in exchange for a race to the bottom of the barrel of commercialistic spiritual degradation against unpleasant modern icons such as Saban and Meyer (but to be honest, this "modern" era had already started with the scheduling of 1-AA teams anyway).
Since I never grumbled about the old king, I had no baggage preventing me from joining Brian in proclaiming, "Long live the King (RR)." I accepted Brian's prediction that the transition might be ugly, but the the upside could actually include more of those glittery MNC's than we experienced through 40 years of M being a dominating regional, but somehow never a true national power. We are all suffering through a transition that is longer and more painful than what we expected. What the future holds, we will have to see.
Maybe some are feeling remorse for a lack of full appreciation of the Carr years. But I am actually somewhat irritated by the meme that Carr was pushed out. My admittedly hearsay understanding is that Carr was more than ready to go by the time he finally did, that he only hung in as long as he did for the sake of the team, and that the rhythm of change at UM was a wagon rolling down a hill. No one was forced out, no one destroyed a worthy HC in order to try out something sketchy and underhanded. The old guard had its day and left in its own time of its own accord. The new era is here, and the new HC has had only two years to settle himself in.
To me the comparison of LC to the dead king in Hamlet, of RR to Claudius, and the remorseful Lloyd-come-lately fair-weather-fans to Hamlet is basically another manufactured arrow in the quiver of the unthinking and somewhat irresponsible and self-indulgent RR-haters to use against RR, who I guess they see as an evil plot to inflict 3-9 and 5-7 seasons on them. I'm not pointing this at the comment above, but rather, your comment gave me a point of departure to express my annoyance with the "Carr was done wrong" meme that usually floats around in close association with the "RR is no Michigan Man" meme. Forgive me for going on a bit long.
In short, I think there is still a possible upside right here with RR and that no Carr-loving loyalist has any reason to feel bad about pulling for RR. Whether it works out or not, patience is in order for now. And I loved the Lloyd years as much as anybody.
January 2nd, 2010 at 5:20 PM ^
Just because one thinks Lloyd was underrated as a coach in no way precludes rooting for the best with Rich. And while it may be hard, not loving the Lloyd years doesn't mean one has to wear blinders about Rich Rod.
As a great man once said "I like 'em both".
January 2nd, 2010 at 5:55 PM ^
I think most fans looked at Mich as a top football program during the Carr years and thus think when Mich steps out of conf to play ,they should win.
I don't think it was the wins,but who the wins came against.
2000-lost to UCLA
2001-lost to TENN
2002-lost to ND
03-lost to Oregon-USC
04-lost to ND-Texas
05-lost to Nebraska
06-lost to USC
07-lost to APP State-Oregon
The 95 season they lost to Texas AM...96 they lost to Alabama
...98 they lost to Syracuse.
January 2nd, 2010 at 6:16 PM ^
but don't you need to mention wins ('00 -- Alabama; '02, 08 -- Florida, etc.) as well? UM fairly well owned the esseeeceee in the Lloyd years (the Tennessee thing was a bummer).
January 2nd, 2010 at 8:13 PM ^
Headed? no....I remember at the time there seem to be a thought out there in the media (it was everywhere)that Mich should compete with the top 6 or 8 teams in the nation,and that just wasn,t happening in alot of peoples minds at the time,raal or not.
I only included the losses because wins don't make people want a new coach.
January 2nd, 2010 at 6:16 PM ^
But beyond that, who DID they win against?
95 - Virginia, BC
96 - Colorado, BC, UCLA
98- Arkansas
99 - ND, Syracuse, Bama
00 - Auburn
01- just bad
02 - Washington, Florida
03 - ND
04 - OOC not kind
05 - 01 looking pretty good now...but we got screwed vs. Nebraska
06 - ND
07 - ND, Florida
Can't just consider the bad games and not the comparable wins.
January 2nd, 2010 at 6:52 PM ^
From 1998 onward, we made it through the month of September unscathed a total of two times.
We were consistently good under Carr, but rarely in the national-title conversation. Now, he did cash in one of the few times we did get in it ('97), for which everyone is grateful. But it was frustrating to see us, in the years that followed, always seem to drop our first tough game of the season (especially when it was on the road). From 2000-05 we lost our road opener every year.
January 2nd, 2010 at 8:20 PM ^
I agree,sports radio was busting our butt hourly.
I had to quit listening,couldn't go around being pissed the whole day.
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:00 PM ^
Wisconsin. They never got caught up in "Why isn't Barry winning national championships?", and in return they've sustained excellence (in basketball too).
Which is a feat for those old enough to remember when Wisky was worse than Indiana and challenging NW for the Big Ten basement. They were putrid. Now they beat Miami, and no one is shocked.
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:18 PM ^
During the Wisconsin-Miami game.
Which is kind of funny, since she's the former chancellor at the UW-Madison and the current president of the University of Miami.
Supposedly it was after Miami shellacked Wisconsin 51-3 in the opener in 1989 that Shalala decided to fire Don Morton.
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:05 PM ^
They fired R.C. Solcum, and have never been up again to that level. They thought he was the problem when it was really just Texas getting good again.
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:15 PM ^
But RC Slocum still sucks, mainly because I had to spend 30 minutes last night listening to my cousin (who played in the 12th Man program during the Sherill to Slocum transition) complain about how RC let the program go soft and let Texas off the mat when A&M had been the dominant program for about a decade. Whether or not it was Slocum's fault, I blame him for the fact that I have to listen to all the Aggie griping.
January 2nd, 2010 at 5:14 PM ^
Remind him that A& M was always a fake good program that beat up on SWC softies that was Notre Dame's bowl record padder.
He wasn't great by any stretch, but about as well as they can hope for. They're never going to be "great" if Texas is rolling. Just like MSU, or any little brother.
January 2nd, 2010 at 4:24 PM ^
Was that he couldn't field a modern offense to match his top defenses. That, and Mack Brown was starting to kick his butt on the recruiting trail.
Unfortunately, that left us with the fraud that is Dennis Franchione. It's FRANtastic!
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:18 PM ^
While it does seem like the TTU administration has been tired of Leach for awhile, there's no particular reason to believe it had to do with on-field performance. It seems that it had more to do with his personality and ability (or lack thereof) to deal with his superiors.
January 2nd, 2010 at 4:29 PM ^
I don't think we can count Carr on this. I heard rumors, I'm sure people on this blog know more, that Carr actually wanted to retire a few years before he did, but lacking a solid replacement, Martin asked him to stay. At that point we have the opposite, if anything, where we think we can get more good years out of a coach that really just wants to go hang out with the grandkids.
We might be able to count Moeller though? I'm heard he was disliked prior to the punch that ended his career. I feel like if Moeller was say coming off a National Championship win, he would have ended up donating a bunch of money to the fraternal order of police, publically going through booze/anger management classes and apologizing on every talk show for a few months and then been left alone after that.
Of course I remember the time I got drunk and ended up puking on a DPS Officer that stopped us. I remember drunkenly thinking "If they'll fire Moeller for a punch, they'll expel an undergrad for vomit! Aaaahhh!" So ever since then I've had a little sympathy for Moeller.
PS: Moeller can coach linebackers, just saying...
January 2nd, 2010 at 5:31 PM ^
I always thought he was OC-type. HC is sort of a high-profile figurehead position along with all the rest, but I bet there would be no bad press associated with putting him in a position coach sort of thing. (Would he take the implied step down?) If he got along with Gerg, and he really coaches LB, this would be a political marriage made in heaven, connecting RR with the old guard and salving the irritation with the ugliness of RR's personnel management and transition RE defense.
Just kidding (sort of).
January 2nd, 2010 at 5:54 PM ^
He was a three year starter at tOSU, mainly as a LB, although I think he was also a down lineman for some plays. Under Bo he was the DE Coach and later DC. He coached LBs for the Lions and The Bears in the NFL, along with being the Lions HC in 2000.
January 2nd, 2010 at 9:21 PM ^
...got shafted hardcore by the Lions. I thought he did a credible job taking over as HC after Ross quit and walked out on the team mid-season.
At minimum the Lions should've given Mo a 1 season contract as head coach as an audition. Instead, the f'ing geniuses in the Lions' front office went out and got Moron-weg and stuck us with him for years. Talk about a guy who exceeded his peak level of competence.
"I'll take the wind in OT!"
I can understand that the Lions' management was annoyed Mo didn't beat Chicago to sneak into the playoffs, but they needed to give the man a little goddamned credit as a coach for having that team anywhere near the playoffs after Ross' bush-league stunt.
January 2nd, 2010 at 5:32 PM ^
I think it is pretty well known that Carr wanted to retire after 2006, but Martin asked him to stay another year.
January 2nd, 2010 at 5:46 PM ^
IIRC, Moeller didn't punch a cop; he just made a scene. He was facing some heat from the fanbase after back-to-back 8-4 seasons, but nothing huge at the time. One of the obstacles Moeller always had to deal with in the public perception was that he had a horrible 3-year run at Illinois in the late '70s. That was always in the back of peoples' minds when his U-M teams didn't perform well ("Well, what do you expect? He stunk at Illinois"). I don't think the restaurant incident blacklisted him. I think it's more just that the combination of the Illinois performance and the two mildly underperforming seasons in '93 and '94 created a perception around the country that he wasn't that good of a coach. He did manage to become head coach of the Lions (and remains their only coach to post a winning record in the past 50 years), but again got fired, and after that I don't think he really pursued any more head jobs, nor was there much interest in him.
Moeller was an accomplished assistant (he was both DC and OC under Bo) and probably would make a good assistant, but at this point he's pushing 70, so I think he'll stay retired.
January 2nd, 2010 at 6:33 PM ^
the restaurant scene mentioned was the only one made public. there were other episodes that never made it into the media-it was the accumulation of misdeeds that resulted in his firing
January 2nd, 2010 at 6:49 PM ^
isn't long to establish a record at a place like Illinois in the '70's. I remember hearing that Bo's irritation with the manner of Moeller's firing at UI lead him to run up the score in a couple of Illinois games after that.
I went through most of the Moeller UM firing media fire storm in fetal position with my eyes closed and hands to my ears (was there another Steinbrenner/Martin kerfluffle at the same time?) but I remember the bad press preceded the firing (kick 'em while they're down) and that I felt the firing was inevitible, and that M burnished its rep for squeaky-cleanness in the crisis. Was Moeller's firing really more optional than I recall?