Florida New DC Quits After Less Than a Month

Submitted by WilliSC48 on February 4th, 2010 at 3:46 PM

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college_uf/2010/02/breaking-geo…

"Less than a month after taking Florida’s defensive coordinator position, George Edwards is leaving to take the same position with the Buffalo Bills.

Edwards was officially hired by Urban Meyer on Jan. 8 and now leaves the day after the Gators signed one of the best defensive recruiting classes in history. Edwards came to UF from the Miami Dolphins, where he was linebackers coach. He briefly replaced Charlie Strong, who took the Louisville job in December.

Edwards, one of four Gators coaches hired in the offseason, will rejoin Buffalo head coach Chan Gailey, who led the Dallas Cowboys in the late 90s while Edwards was Dallas’ linebackers coach."

Comments

UMalum1997

February 4th, 2010 at 4:47 PM ^

I can't see how this is going to help Edward's career in the long run. Why would anyone want to hire a dude who's word isn't worth shit? Why take the job in the first place? You are coaching at UF, not working at a walmart.

EDIT: Yes mgoworld, I am a dumbass! It has been a long week!

UMalum1997

February 4th, 2010 at 3:55 PM ^

I can't see how this is going to help Edward's career in the long run. Why would anyone want to hire a dude who's word isn't worth shit? Why take the job in the first place? You are coaching at UF, not working at a walmart.

ken725

February 4th, 2010 at 4:01 PM ^

I bet Urban Meyer knew of this and tried his best to keep it hidden from the recruits until after signing day. This claim cannot be proven in the court of law, but it doesn't mean that it's not true.

WolverineBoston

February 4th, 2010 at 4:11 PM ^

Aside from Urban's potential shadiness here, how is this a good career move for Edwards?

He goes from DC at one of the best college programs in the country to one of the worst NFL teams. There's a distinct possibility the Bills won't be in Buffalo in 3-5 years. A savior of their franchise, Chan Gailey is not.

Obviously he may just prefer the NFL life to the college one...

DoubleB

February 4th, 2010 at 4:32 PM ^

More money. As an African-American, he will have a much better opportunity to become a head coach in the NFL.

This is more speculation, but the Florida situation can best be described as "in flux"--maybe he feels more job security with Chan Gailey in Buffalo. Maybe he feels more comfortable working with Gailey than he did with Meyer and his staff.

Most likely he thought of this as a promotion (as would I) and jumped at the opportunity.

WolverineBoston

February 4th, 2010 at 4:40 PM ^

Money is money. And yes, right now it's probably more in Buffalo.

But look a few years down the road. Buffalo is TERRIBLE. Do you really think Chan Gailey and his regime is going to last there more than 3 years? I don't. So then he'll be out of a job.

But if he stayed w/ Florida, he could develop all that 5* talent they just picked up and most likely lead one of the better defenses in the country. There is no reason in 5 years of almost guaranteed success there he wouldn't get a HC opportunity.

But at the end of the day, he's an NFL guy. Been an assistant in the NFL for the last 12+ years.

DoubleB

February 4th, 2010 at 4:56 PM ^

"There is no reason in 5 years of almost guaranteed success there he wouldn't get a HC opportunity?

Because African-Americans are perenially given great opportunities at the Division I level. Charlie Strong toiled for 8 years at Florida as DC (and prior to that 3 at S. Carolina) before getting a shot at Louisville--a marginal Big East school. Walker was fantastic at UCLA and ended up as the head coach at a backwater in New Mexico State.

If he wants to be a head coach, he's much, much better off in the NFL.

I don't know how Gailey's going to do in Buffalo, but even if it's a short tenure, the experience as an NFL coordinator will help him down the line. Again this is a PROMOTION and a move most ambitious coaches are going to make.

sharkhunter

February 4th, 2010 at 4:31 PM ^

to break a contract - LOI. I don't think NCAA is exempt from basic contracts laws and breaches but maybe it is to some extent b/c 17 yr olds can sign these contracts/LOIs. Maybe promissory estoppel to stop the promise/LOI and avoid going to UF.

funkywolve

February 4th, 2010 at 5:16 PM ^

that I believe the ncaa's stanch has always been that you sign a LOI to attend/play for a college, not the coaches there. Of course, we all know that the coaches play a huge role in where a player decides to attend college.

In addition, the ncaa isn't saying a player cannot leave. It's just that the player will more then likely have to sit out a year if they decide to transfer.

I agree that it's unfair to a lot of players when a coach(es) leave, but I'm guessing (because I'm not a lawyer) that the ncaa has their bases pretty well covered.

LJ

February 4th, 2010 at 5:40 PM ^

Though I'm sure the NCAA is subject to basic contract law, for a player to show Promissory Estoppel he would have to show that he acted in reliance on the promise that the coach would be there.

First, it's very likely that this promise was never explicitly given to the extent that it's contractually binding.

Even if one of the coaches did assure the recruits that their DC would stick around, it might be explicit in the LOI that coaches may leave, or a court may find that it's implicit in the nature of college sports that a player is signing up to play for a school, not a set of coaches. Coaches leaving might be considered part of the game (though this is certainly unfair for the players)

If a player could show that Urban or the school knew that Edwards was leaving and knew that the player was basing his decision in large part based on that DC, he might have a mistake defense, but proving these things would be next to impossible. Both claims are pretty dubious.

sharkhunter

February 4th, 2010 at 4:26 PM ^

unethical that Urban, DC, staff and even University knew that the job was offered and probably accepted. Everyone knew but the recruits and their families. Ouch, kick in the nuts ouch. I have the feeling Urban will be out by August, citing medical reasons but a year later take another job.

kriegers

February 4th, 2010 at 4:58 PM ^

I'm not sure how many of the recruits care, but it's not fair to force them to attend Florida after the DC leaves if they'd prefer to play elsewhere. Sure, this guy couldn't have been their primarly recruiter since he just got there, but the uncertainly should be enough to permit a player to leave if he chooses.

The NCAA needs to rectify this problem of coaches leaving and screwing players (especially head coaches). I'm sure they won't. But they should. It's a disgrace to hold the players to higher commitment standard than the coaches since the coaches can leave whenever they choose and the players are stuck.

PhillipFulmersPants

February 4th, 2010 at 5:40 PM ^

a coach in a free market economy taking another job, just as I wouldn't want anyone telling me I can't leave my job. There's never a "good" time for a coach to leave in the collective mind of a fan base, particularly if that coach has been successful (sorry West Virginia). And if you're going to limit coaches, would you have the NCAA hold its institutions to same kind of employment restrictions as well? Limit how and when a school could fire a coach? I'm not a labor lawyer, but this seems to go against the basic rights and protections American workers and employers enjoy in this country. Bottom line, moves like Lane Kiffin's are douchey, I think we can all agree, but I don't want to be the one telling him he can't do it.

I do agree with your point about holding the kids to a commitment when there's a coaching change seeming unfair. Instead of regulating labor rules for coaches, the NCAA would be better served IMO in revisiting scholarship rules and associated penalties for transferring, particularly in situations where a head coach bolts, retires, or is fired. But even this seems problematic. In theory I like it, but how do you do it in practice equitably? Do you release just the incoming kids from their commitments? Do you open it up to kids who've been in a program a year, two, three ... ? It could get messy.

kriegers

February 5th, 2010 at 9:48 AM ^

I wasn't suggesting that the NCAA force coaches to remain at schools. That's obviously problematic. I was suggesting that the NCAA fix the problem of coaches leaving where it also screws committed players - just give the players an out too and I'm good.

Regarding your applicability question: The first thing to realize/accept is that any solution is not going to be perfect. That being said, an imperfect solution is better than the current system. Instead of perfection, perhaps we should aim for clarity. Allow incoming players to be released and maybe freshman who redshirted because they haven't played. I think a tricker question is which coach leaving should trigger this make-believe rule? For sure the Head Coach. Probably the DC and OC, but probably not the position coaches.

jrt336

February 4th, 2010 at 5:34 PM ^

Can't blame him, but is sucks for those recruits. The next D coord should be good though. And they didn't go somewhere else after Strong left.

Tamburlaine

February 4th, 2010 at 5:37 PM ^

Maybe Edwards got a feel for the college recruiting game and just about barfed. Especially at Florida. Especially under Meyer.

Maybe he has some backbone, morals, and ethics and stuff and just couldn't stomach turning himself into a sycophant for 18-year old kids and got out before his soul turned to poop.

maizenbluedevil

February 4th, 2010 at 6:30 PM ^

Ok... For everyone calling this guy a douche, is this just becaus you like to rip on Florida?

Honestly, I see nothing wrong with this. It's business, bottom line.

I mean, are you all really telling me that if you took a better job than your current one.... but then a few weeks later, an even better opportunity came along, that you wouldn't take it?

bjk

February 4th, 2010 at 6:51 PM ^

isn't UF, it's the NCAA double-standard. It's all the red tape hog-tying the kids who play for free while their supposed role models are stepping on their heads to get from one megabuck contract to the next.

This is all a function of history. Once, there were scholar-athletes. Then, someone found a way to turn their innocent frolics into a cash-rich spectator sport (our own Fielding Yost was a pioneer in this process). Now the scholar-athletes are a prized commodity with no access to the riches they provide for all the other participants in a for-profit enterprise. And it's very hard to alter the paradox that this irresistable process has brought us to. This year's coaching-changes spectacle only makes the obvious a little more obvious.

maizenbluedevil

February 5th, 2010 at 12:26 PM ^

I just don't buy this whole narrative that's presented that student athletes are exploited while others line their pockets.

I respect student athletes. I knew some in college and they work they're asses off for sure. But I don't feel sorry for them, as if they're being taken advantage of.

For student athletes, best case scenario is they go pro and make an obscene amount of money. (Or become a coach and make an obscene amount of money.) Worst case scenario: They get a great experience and a free college education. There's a lot to be said for that, as anyone who is burdened with student loan debt can attest to.

Once again, it's not like these kids were bonded to the guy, he'd been there 3 weeks. I highly, highly doubt that any of Florida's recruits cried in their Cheerios this morning over this. Why? Because they are going to play football for one of the best programs in the country, get a free education, have a great college experience, etc.

This guy leaving for Buffalo is similar to if a recruit who wanted to play to Michigan who only had MAC offers committing to EMU, then getting offered by M the day before NSD. There's no reason he shouldn't jump at that offer.

That's just life. I don't see how you can blame anyone for taking the opportunity they think is best for them.

Captain Obvious

February 5th, 2010 at 9:02 AM ^

at all? A number of kids just signed away 4-5 years to UF, presumably to play for this guy at least in part, and he leaves the very next day after their commitment becomes irrevocable.

Yeah, nothing shady there.

Unless he told every player about this before signing day (which would still suck because they would have just a few dys or whatever to rearrange their life plans), this is shitty. If there's a single quote out there about a recruit being excited to play in his defense, however...