He doesn't get it
At the Homecoming football dinner Friday night, Columbia
Board of Trustees Chairman and former Lion coach and captain Bill Campbell decried the “anonymous
bloggers” who are bringing the football program down.
There are so many things wrong with his statement, that I
think I’ll save everyone time and just list the top 5:
1)
There are no “anonymous” bloggers. I’m the only “blogger”
and I’m not anonymous and never have been. I can only assume that Campbell
meant to say “anonymous commenters,” (and if he, as an Apple board member, doesn’t
know the difference between an actual blogger and someone who comments on a
blog, I would suggest everyone sell your Apple shares right away). There are
also anonymous people in the athletic department who take to the message boards
to personally attack me and defend the coach, etc. Campbell may not be aware that the people surrounding him right now want something, like admission for their kids into Columbia, etc. It's time for King Lear to hear the truth.
2)
Commenters, anonymous or otherwise, should not
even be in the galaxy of the things
Campbell and company are concerned about. What’s bringing the program down is
yet another losing record, a clear downgrade from even the sub-par product we
had last year, and a power structure around
the football program that’s been much more obsessed with silencing dissent than
winning.
3)
There’s another word for anonymous commenters,
it’s called “fans.” And the last time I checked, fans who go to games aren’t
required to identify themselves before they boo or make any comments.
4)
Campbell and co. should be grateful that there
is still a passionate enough fan base that expects a winning program at some
point in their lifetimes. This program does NOT lack for support, especially financial support. My sources tell me we have the BIGGEST recruiting budget in the Ivies and are way ahead of many Ivies in other areas of finance. Ask the people at Brown what they could do with the kind of cash we have.
5)
But he and the program should be embarrassed by
its record, not what angry fans are saying about it. An 0-5 record with no game
decided by fewer than two scores should be the only concern, complaint, and
focus of every single person involved in the program, period.
If Campbell, Dianne Murphy or anyone else has a problem with
the anonymous criticism they can talk about it with me. They know how to reach
me.
57 comments:
Wow! Wow!! and Wow!!!
there is a reason why we have the Australian ballot system in the US when we vote. Whay is THAT so wrong? Is there a difference beetween an "Anonymous" post-er and someone like "OldLion" (no offense OldLion, just an example)? They are the same; right.
Great job Jake. I would hope that Dianne or Bill give you a call...
Jake,
We are all wasting time and space asking for PMs head. Suggest committee to pick next coaching staff (emphasize staff)) be football people.
GP
Led by coach Greg Toal, Don Bosco a national power
Sunday, October 23, 2011
BY ART STAPLETON
STAFF WRITER
The Record
Pages: 1 2 3 4 > display on one page | Print | E-mail RAMSEY – The Rev. John Talamo is responsible for making the call that has forever changed North Jersey high school football.
He was desperate to hire a head coach who could alter the image of his football program.
In doing months of research, Talamo sought input from players and their parents, students and teachers and yes, even the school's mailman.
The consensus answer to one question — Who is the best football coach in New Jersey? – ended up selling Talamo without a résumé crossing his desk.
So one March night nearly 13 years ago, the former principal of Don Bosco opened the phone book and began dialing a man he had never met.
Talamo was unaware Greg Toal was set to become Clifton's coach the following day.
"I told him that I was looking for a football coach and when I told him what school it was, he started laughing," recalled Talamo, now the pastor of Our Lady of the Lake parish in Louisiana. "I said, 'Well, hold on, Coach, give me a chance. Look, I understand the situation here' … and he said, 'Let me tell you about the situation there. I wouldn't take my kids on that field and risk getting them hurt because of the playing conditions there.' "
Undeterred, at the end of that 10-minute conversation, Talamo pressed Toal for a face-to-face meeting to continue their discussion about the possibility.
"He told me, 'To be honest Father, I'm supposed to sign with Clifton,' " added Talamo, whose reassignment by the Salesians led to his departure from Don Bosco in 2002. '[But] because you called me and because you're a priest, I'll give you that respect.'
"When we hung up the phone, I prayed things would work out for the best."
That is a crying shame and flat out shameful if CU has the biggest recruiting budget (for football) in the Ivy League and these are the results.
I guess I have been ignorant of Bill's true influence. After all he was very successful as head coach even before he was a success in business. How would he know what would be a successful formula for football? I'll give him a call and tell him to shift his emphasis on women's soccer exclusively. There's a winning program poised for bigger things.
I meant NOT successful as head coach.
The Bosco story is great. Where's Coach A been? How’s he feeling? I was at the game this weekend and talked to a couple kids after the game. Based on the conversation from these young, intelligent, self-motivated men I believe they hit the nail on the head. They have a GREAT O-Line coach, but not a head coach! Coach M has no idea or care about these players other than pawns for his own opportunities either at CU or maybe somewhere else. Never gets to know the players and make them feel like it's a team not cogs in an engine.
The prediction is a number of players could leave the team if they aren’t changes to the coaching staff. What are these young men saying about the coaching, mentoring, and wellbeing in the best interest of young future leaders?
Jake, for someone who works in journalism, this is one of the more irresponsible posts you’ve written (and that’s saying something). I was sitting in the room on Friday night and not only did Campbell not mention any “anonymous bloggers,” he sure as hell didn’t waste any breath on blaming YOU for bringing the program down. His only mention of anonymity was people writing him hate mail and not signing their name to it. The fact that you have used whatever misinformation you were fed to pen another 500 word self-important diatribe is perfect example of what this blog has become from what it once was. What used to be a useful, informative, and dependable source of information for alumni, parents, and supporters of the program is now a vehicle for some inexplicable power trip and vendetta against an administration that has locked you out.
No one will sit here and decry your right to criticize a program that has left so many of us disappointed so many times, especially when these conversations frankly aren’t happening anywhere else. However, posts like this are reckless and do untold damage to your credibility in the eyes of anyone who has knowledge of the actual facts of the situation. Speculating on the mindsets or conversations of Campbell, Murphy, etc. is one thing, but misattributing false quotes is inappropriate and lazy.
Several people at the event reported to me exactly what Campbell said.
Jake
Where is Argast? he is by far their best coach.
I believe Argast is quite sick. Many longtime readers know I have long been a supporter of his. Even if I weren't, I'd certainly continue to wish him the best and a full recovery.
I am sorry to hear that, he is a quality person and great coach.
Well, I certainly don't want Mr. Argast ill or worse. I would just like to see the OL fixed.
If Bill C is receiving anonymous hate mail that is cowardly. I would be happy to communicate personally what my thinking is and get his opinions if I had a line to him. My only outlet is the internet and I am not interested in an anti-CU blog. If the CU AD and powers that be get behind the program and have fans and alumni believing a turnaround is possible, I am all for it. That's not happening so they will take what is dished.
I also don't think there is a comparison between Surace and Pete. For one thing Surace is a Princeton alum. For another, Princeton has had football success. It was just a matter of getting in tune. What is happening with Pete is not a program makeover. Seems to be an accelerating disintegration of an already broken situation.
Jake, you really have not responded factually to the comment by "Uppers Only". He says that he was in the room and heard it. ( I was invited, but I could not take another pep talk .)
I agree with UO that your comments have become a series of ego trips about how you are so f--king smart; and all the morons in the AD are idiots.
You certainly have gotten a group of anonymous fans whose comments remind me of the "America First", and Tea Party types.
Have at ,guys!
I was there Friday night and there was no mention of anonymous bloggers,etc. Only anonymous hate mail to him. Why were you not there? You didn't want to pay the money to go? I thought you were a supporter? Just another example of your nonsupport and complaining but not actually doing anything to help the program.
Actually Bill does get it! That is what you don't understand. None of you know what you are talking about most everyday. It is ok to be a fan and talk about things to make the program better etc,but this critizing and berating the ad and coach just makes you sounds stupid.
So, anonymous above's comments would be worth considering if you were talking about Mike Francesa. But Jake is constantly admitting mistakes, in fact he's doing just that today in the post above about Princeton. He does not put on airs. And it certainly does not take a genius to see that Campbell's leadership has failed the team no matter generous he is or well-meaning.
I really don't detect any ego issues in Jake's posts. I do see that in some other people, but for the most part he just states opinions that are clearly labeled as such. There does however seem to be a degradation in the kind of content that's appearing here. The reason is frustration turning into anger, and the impulse to look for targets to blame.
Which is not to say there aren't people who should be accountable and held responsible. My own severe experience with football at CU included watching a coach take nips from a silver flask on the practice field. In a certain sense I can understand, at least in hindsight. But it really bummed me out at the time. The players deserve a staff that is the very best available. Anything less can seriously hurt kids who have a deep emotional investment in football.
Unfortunately, I definitely don't have the answer to the present situation. "Let us pray."
I haven't seen Jake calling for Mangurian to be fired. I do think we need to find out more about the hiring process and why so few candidates were actually interviewed. It does seem like Dianne Murphy hired an old acquaintance without really vetting him properly. That's the kind of thing that should result in her dismissal if we had a president that gave a damn about athletics. I also think Bollinger is afraid to fire Murphy for myriad reasons.
Mitch, people get angry when they see their team getting worse on the field. I'm sick of being told to be patient.
I didn't realize Pete knew Murphy prior to his interviewing. If you ask pete though, he would just say "all the stars are aligned"
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/columbia-hires-football-coach-with-ivy-and-n-f-l-ties/
guys, leadership in any area never delegates its responsibility. the donors, alums, AD types, coaches, all bear responsibility for what has been going on here for years. what is lacking is some passion and inspiration and pete is not getting that from the players. one of pete’s first acts was to tell those recruited by wilson they were next to useless because they accepted losing (like they wanted to lose?) so he threw the baby out with the bath water and immediately divided the team and forecast his coaching style. problem is pete is not a good coach on many levels. forget his poor play schemes and lack of clock management. on top of lacking head coaching skills, he lacks maturity and is spiteful. it is hard to fathom he would put his ego in front of his job security but I met him a few times and there is definitely a void about him.
if anyone is telling you the team is in harmony, they are not telling the truth. the players respect and support each other but they don’t respect his style or his decisions or the way he belittles *them* not their performance. he looks through them and never talks *with* them just *at* them. has everyone forgot pete sat players in the stands in street clothes for home games? there was more furor when wilson forgot to bring the raincoats! do the basketball, baseball or archery coaches do this to their players? you can’t tell me pete put them in the stands because they lacked *playing* ability. that my friends speaks volume about pete and the football program.
support the players - *absolutely*
root for some wins - *absolutely*
support pete as a coach - *no*
respect pete as a man - *no*
It is obvious, this coach has already lost the team. That cannot be rectified.
It isn't obvious at all that the coach has lost the team. I thought that our guys played hard for the last two weeks. We planned on going into the season with Nottingham at QB and Adebayo on the DL. We suffered a crippling loss at Fordham, a team we should have dropped four years ago when they went scholarship. So hang this season on Murphy, who was told by many of us to get Fordham off the schedule. If we had played anybody else on our schedule in week one we would not be sitting around moaning.
Gosh, I thought it was all those LOSSES the past SiXTY years that were bringing down the program, not a few
What a smarmy little cover- up dweeb
the coach can lose the team, but the team still plays hard...it is called pride. something that many Columbia teams have provided through many bad coaching regimes. the kids will play hard, but they will play harder when they believe. i dont find that to be the case right now.
in a way, we have all let the kids down. by accepting the norm at Columbia we have given in to an inferior way of thinking; that we cannot not or are not allowed to win. you can throw as much money at the problem as you want, but that wont remedy the inherent problems that confront the program.
Try reading these posts with an eye to what is based on first-hand knowledge and what is based on assumption. It's enlightening. It would be disturbing if any of these posts actually mattered.
what we know firsthand
team is losing in a manner that is the worst in decades.
coach has made bad play calling decisions on more than one occasion
we have scored 45 points in 5 games and let up a ton
we have one of the best backs in the league and dont use him as effectively as we could
we are zero for the world on thrid down conversions and our offense barely moves the ball.
none of this is based upon assumption and it is all first hand knowledge. we are stinking the joint up and our coach, in my opinion, is at the heart of the matter. sorry, but i dont blame kids that arent put in a positin to succeed.
I could point out that you don't know about the play calling because you don't know (a) what the players showed they could do in practice but did not execute at crunch time; and (b) what the players can't do that limits coaching options. You can say you disagree with coaching calls from your perspective, but you don't know if they're "good" or "bad" without some inside scoop. And unfortunately that is not available here. Wish it were.
To "anonymous" who says Jake's commenters sound like "America First and Tea Party types," I'm proud to be America First, not America Last like you. I'm proud also,
like the Tea Party types, to be a patriotic, intelligent
American who believes in common sense, the rule of law, and honest stewardship of our tax dollars, not a delusional who supports the Bernie Madoff methods and morals of the reigning dictator. Sorry, but you brought up your politics.
Back to football, why didn't the Campbell fans at the dinner ask him from WHAT are the critics tearing down the football program? From its magnicent record of the past 60 years? From its consistently high competitive quality over the decades? From Coach M's all-freshman experiment?
Analyzing play calling doesn't take an inside scoop to state whether it is bad or not. Since it is backward looking, by definition (or just like poker), one can see the mistakes that yielded a sub-optimal outcome. This is done by reviewing down/distance and situation and figuring out what the optimal call would have been. Everybody makes mistakes, but I am just surprised at how many are made given the "experience" of our staff.
just for the record.. there were several people interviewed for the job. Just because all of you were not privy to them is doesn't mean anything was done in secret.
Jake's points: first seemed to be trivia, and based on a second-hand, perhaps erroneous report. BAD blog, journalism.
Last year saw a few wins, not what was wanted but encouraging.
Coaches not as interested in winning as...come come!! that's down right stupid!
Brown's budget is public? or, learned through another second-hand source Jake taps?
Some of Jake's analyses are well-researched, carefully written. His opinions often useless.
The comments, as others have stated, are simply outbursts, purporting to KNOW something w/o evidence or any way for others to check.
Look, Jake received information from multiple (credible) sources that BC made a negative reference to the BLOG. Naturally, Jake would be defensive, it’s his Blog. I would have acted the same way. If those people interpreted what BC said incorrectly, then thank you for setting the record straight. Jake responded defensively, as he should have, because he felt as though it was a personal attack against him.
Think about this: Without Jake, and this BLOG, we would still have Norris. That was a move that had to be made and certain parts of the program were brought to the surface by using this BLOG as a vehicle for change. As far as PM, thanks to Jake and this BLOG bringing to light that all “non-essential” upperclassmen were not allowed on the sidelines for home games (per Pete - except Homecoming and Senior Day) they were forced to sit in the stands. Now that policy has changed and everyone is allowed to dress for all home games. Regarding the administration, why should Jake apologize for pointing out the shortcomings of a group of people that resent him. They resent what he represents… doing the administration’s job better than they do; and on a part-time basis. Jake would like nothing more than to just update this Blog once or twice per week. Also, just be aware of all of the information that Jake does NOT share with the BLOG that would embarrass the football team and the administration.
To those of you who think Jake is on some sort of “power trip” or is simply trying to show you how “self-important” or “intelligent” he is, that couldn’t be further from the truth. Jake is a Columbia honors graduate, Northwestern J-School graduate and he is highly regarded in his profession. He certainly does not need validation through this BLOG, that’s for sure. He provides a great outlet for all of us. We should be honoring him, as opposed to vilifying him!
Ihave to point out that is absolutely wrong. Jake said he was told, corrrectly or not, that Campbell made a negative reference to an "anonymous blog". Jake pointed out rightly that his is not an anonymous blog. Therefore, if what was said about Campbell were true, he likely wasn't talking about Jake. Then Jake assumed that Campbell had attacked him and went on the offensive, attacking Campbell's competence. Objectively, Campbell is an immensely capable guy whose achievements far exceed Jake's - in football as well as business. My question is whether Jake tried to confirm the quote directly with Campbell before writing. That is what he would have done if he is doing journalism here. That is the basis for criicizing what happened. I wasn't there but the corrected version of what Campbell said sounds more plausible. Maybe Jake can go to the source (Campbell, that is) and ask. Then he will know whether an apology is in order to both Campbell and us, and whether his sources are credible, for future reference. So far, from what I know directly about CU football, Jake's sources have not been consistently reliable.
I think Jake raised several perfectly valid points. And the vapidity of Mangurian's coaching decisions (TO DATE, certainly, perhaps not as he continues) can surely be questioned even by casual fans who actually watch our games.
None of this is meant to impugn Billy Campbell's own obvious and genuine love for Columbia football. (And whatever he said at the pre-Homecoming dinner.) But he nonetheless often strikes me as way too close to the CU and Athetics Dept. administrations.
As for whomever posted that story about Don Bosco's coach, give it a lengthy rest. As we've learned this season, DB is never necessarily quite the juggernaut others wish to imagine it is. What it has over all other Jersey Papist high schools is recruiting, which it does on a near-national level. But some other schools without Bosco's near-national recognition level also field pretty good teams.
I'd personally right about now settle for one or two victories. But the chance for them seems to fade even as I post. God but I hope not, but we may well be heading for 0-10, whatever the actual reasons for a season which began, as indeed all Lions football seasons do, with some decent reasons for hope.
Lets set the record straight!
Bill Campbell was not quite a coaching "genius".
His overall record as head coach was 12-41-1 and his Ivy Record 8-33-1.
Everyone there is a fraid to question his football judgment because of his contributions to the school.
Its time for Campbell to step back and let someone else make the decisions regarding the future of this football program.
Right now it is on the scrap heap.
Imagine if Apple and Intuit performed like our football program.
New Jersey's "PAPIST" high schools ???
yes, there were several people interviewed for the job. One was Ron Price, the failed coach at Kansas State, who (just by coincidence, I'm sure) was at Cornell while Herr Murphy was there. The other finalist (cannot remember the name) also had Cornell ties. Anyone who applied and did not have Cornell ties was not seriously considered regardless of how strong of a candidate they wee.
The word "Papist" I used because it always used to annoy my staunchly Episcopalian (and former) in-laws,that's all. Their social attitudes, save about drinking, struck me as distinctly Cromwellian. I really could see them as worrying about "Popery."
But would you rather call them "parochial" high schools? Or simply, as he NJSIAA does, "non-public?" Regardless, only Don Bosco and one or two others even in fact play other "Papist" schools during the regular season. Most are in fact in conferences with public high schools, and usually only meet each other during the playoffs. It's a funny system.
But then, I've also met people who, even after watching Bosco on national TV, thought the school is named after a "local educator" in Ramsey, NJ. That says a lot about how DB portrays itself to the world at large, one might plausibly suggest. Notre Dame it ain't, ya know?
Bill C was not a "bad" coach. His players liked him but he was not effective. This could be for any number of reasons. The fact is he was simply forgettable. He was an excellent player so if that qualifies him to "get it" then great but...if he has lessons learned from his ineffective tenure and has something to add in the way of support for Pete's alleged long range plan, let's hear it.
I know for sure Pete is the wrong man for the job. Lots of people knew that when it happened. The politics of the situation are to let this guy sink the program further which the powers that be swallow their pride in the fact they blew it. The results could very well be a solitary winning season. After all Tellier had 1 great season out of 14 - and he did go 1-9 his first 2 seasons. The only reason CU had 3 wins last year was due to Brackett and Garrett.
Ron Prince would have been an intriguing choice.
Many people have said this before, but let me repeat it: Bill Campbell is a great guy, but no organization can succeed when ONE guy has so much influence. Campbell probably doesn't even want to have the huge influence he's commanded, but it worked out that way. Kraft has deferred to Campbell way too much as well, which is a shame, because he should be able to help us more. Now it's time for a group of excellence-seeking former players, who have no ulterior motive, (I know of at least one very prominent member of the football committee who's top concern is getting his daughters into Columbia), to stage a friendly coup. The first thing that group would do is hire Tom Gilmore.
should say: "whose top concern"
"Holy Cross and head football coach Tom Gilmore have agreed to a new three-year contract extension, it was announced by athletic director Richard M. Regan, Jr. The new contract will keep Gilmore as the head coach of the Crusader football program through the 2015 season."
Doesn't Pete's contract run through the 2015 season?
Serendipity?
I think we should forget Gilmore. First of all he's signed at Holy Cross through 2015, secondly he's been hyped too much for the job at CU, so expectations will probably be too high, and lastly he would be our second Penn grad head coach. The first one, Lou Little, was a boomer, but we'd be pushing our luck with another one. It may work at Penn State/Brown, but we're another story. We need a Columbia guy (listening, Des?), or a non-Ivy Leaguer who really wants the challenge along with the advantages and is ready to bleed Light Blue.
I accept the job, thanks for asking.
By the way, Ron Prince would be a disaster. He is a character for sure, wrong fit. His wife is from westchester county I believe so that is the only connection to the "area." He'd fix the OL though.
Well, if Gilmore's not available, how about Bill Belichick?
I would bet that Gilmore would have won in a landslide if the admin would have polled the fans, both times!!!
Give the "General Manager" Campbell another shot at it, he can't do worse than Mangurian and might improve on his legacy.
Campbell and the rest of the administration don't get it. Ovetr the past Four decades they've picked LOSERS, yet they don't want to acknowledge it. I'm sorry, those are facts, not a subjective opinion.
Maybe it is NOT the coaches.. just a thought?
The problem is not coaching. Yes, maybe some of the former coaches had shortcomings. The problem lies in recruiting - Columbia is ninth in an eight team race in terms on recruits preface. Enough good (D I-AA) players do not want to go to CU.
The problem has always lied in lack of institutional support...
I have to disagree with you. Play call is based on film study, tendency study, evaluating personnel going into the game initially. In the heat of battle adjustments must be made if the opponent changes tendecies.
Thanks for seconding my earlier post . . . I'd add the obvious, that no one here has access to the information the coaches have. Therefor, they can't know their thinking and options, much less critique their decisions rationally. Personally, I like to see a few screen passes mixed into a game to slow down a pass rush. I could scream that the failure to do so is a boneheaded coaching mistake, lack of imagination, etc., but I think it more likely that the personnel available showed in practice they can't run an effective screen. The coaches know the play can't work with this team. (Maybe that will change before the end of the season?)
Thanks for seconding my earlier post . . . I'd add the obvious, that no one here has access to the information the coaches have. Therefor, they can't know their thinking and options, much less critique their decisions rationally. Personally, I like to see a few screen passes mixed into a game to slow down a pass rush. I could scream that the failure to do so is a boneheaded coaching mistake, lack of imagination, etc., but I think it more likely that the personnel available showed in practice they can't run an effective screen. The coaches know the play can't work with this team. (Maybe that will change before the end of the season?)
what are you clowns talking about? have you seen a scouting report? i can pull that info off of game film to see tendencies, etc. the only information we dont have is the degree of injuries and the thought process of a specific coach, but nothing else is unavailable. if you read my post you would see that statistical analysis, aka tendencies are easy to spot. however, take it a step furthere and see what the proper decision making process is and all of a sudden you ahve some meaningful insights.
sure, actual times during the games call for different things, but a coach should have a pretty good handle on options available to him prio to game time. it is called being prepared. like any battle, you have to be able to make adjustments on the fly, but that we arent privy to the all knowing coach is just a load of horse crap.
and after reading the resposne and writing the response; i think i have figured out why CU cant win.
Post a Comment