How times in the last 50 years has Columbia gone 5-2 in the Ivy League? Let alone in back to back seasons. If M does that here, you guys would put him up for sainthood.
Look, you guys are the ones on the couch.trying to figure out why you can't matchup against the rest of the Ivy football world. Even when you were good in the 40's you were so so.....
Don't have to remind us. We can count the high points of 100-plus years of Columbia football on the fingers of one hand. Speaking of which, did you know that Paul Governalli was the first starting quarterback for what is now the Indianapolis Colts? They were the Boston Yanks at the time.
a long long time ago cliff montgomery was on the side lines and led CU to a Rose Bowl. Columbia had some decent teams; similar to Fordham. Granted it was many moons ago. on Pete at Cornell, if you look at the years after he left when his recruits would be playing you find that the teams went, over a 3 year period, 7-22. obviously not his fault, but certainly the kids werent at the same level as other schools. As the case has been for decades, CU coaches have an inability to consistently assess players when recruiting.
Why do you say the coaches have an inability to assess players when recruiting? You must be assuming they get everyone they want. I think it more likely they're as good as anyone in assessing talent, but Columbia football is a tough sell and they're not getting the guys they want. Of course, they can't say that publicly without killing morale among the guys they get. History is an albatross around any CU coach's neck when recruiting, even as he declares a new era that breaks with it. Gotta get the horses to win. Haven't figured out how to get enough blue chippers. Nonetheless, grateful to all the kids who take the plunge.
Can an Ivy team have a full time recruiter, who is not a coach? Seems to me that a coach that runs to see possible recruits and runs back to CU to participate in practice and games is no getting to see enough kids. Texas, Florida and California are hot beds of HS talent. CU needs more than the few that fall our way. Also, what is the procedure for "friends" of CU to recommend prospective recruits? GP
Lionesq You sound like an apologist! Get a coach who quits talking about past failures(Mangurian still talks about losing culture. Mangurian sounds more and more like Obama blaming Bush). Get a coach who has testosterone and toughness and works the players hard and doesn't make excuses). Mangurian is a joke. This program is goind to the toilet wiht this guy who blames the past, blames the players, blames the coaches. Mangurian will go down as the worst FB coach in Columbia history.
You can say whatsoever you want on the win and losses for McElreavey. One thing for sure is that he assembled some good talented recruits which was evident by the record of the freshman teams when he was the coach.
Garrett was 0-10. He was also the best coach CU has had in the last 40 years. His style wasn't conducive to the Ivies but I guarantee you we would have won at least 1 if not 2 titles had he and his sons( Jason and Judd at least, John was nothing special)stayed. Food for thought. This guy clearly isnt a fit either, was a Dianne favor hire, cut losses at the end of this season and move on.
When a Coach with a reputation for brilliance tackles a football program with a decades long reputation for bad outcomes, it is usually the reputation of the program that remains intact."
Anonymous, I'm not an apologist. I was pointing out a glaring flaw in the other anonymous poster's logic, which appears to be shared by most of the posters here. It is preposterous to say that experienced coaches who come to Columbia suddenly forget how to coach once they get there. Columbia simply hasn't gotten enough good players to compete consistently. if the problem, whatever it is (and I don't claim to have the answer), were as simple to solve as you suggest, it would have been solved long ago. If I can be forgiven quoting a Harvard man, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
i am confussed, i keep looking for the "coach with a reputation for brilliance.." did he/she come and go or did i miss something? surely we arent speaking about our current hed coach.
when i was recruited by Columbia, i dont recall the metrics, but i was ranked 6 or 7 out of t or 8 linebackers to come in. I would say recruting is an ability to assess talent in the absence of knwoing an individual. i can tell you i was the 6th or 7th best linebacker my freshman year.
Des, you need to clarify WTF you are talking about, dude. You sure, did not end up behind anybody as a linebacker. I thought that you should have been the Ivy player of the year!
I think what Wes is saying, is that everyone, with the exception of a star or two is about the same coming in. Perhaps in Wes's case, he was able to flourish in a positive envoirment and maybe a coach or coaches that repeated him, and him them enabling him to reach his potential.
If the coaches created a depth chart for columbia's incoming freshman linebackers my freshman year I was rated at the bottom. That is what I was saying. It goes to the point that many coaches are not good recruiters because they aren't good at evaluating talent. Many can be good once they know the person and have coached them, but that isn't recruiting or assessing a skill set, that is coaching and there is a difference. I would not say that I flourished in a positive environment because, like these kids today, we were losing, suffering through many players leaving, etc. Des
I never understood why Garrett called CU players "drug addicts and losers." It was an obviously incorrect label. Seemed more to be said out of frustration than anything else. True, he was the wrong fit. So what is the right fit? The type of coach to come in here all spit and vinegar (which is very typical in the culture of football coaching) is the WRONG fit. An old school guy bringing his old school ways, beat the tar of the players, work ethic will win the day just does not work.
I will provide two examples of great Ivy coaches who built strong programs and were able to craft their recruiting strategy around a philosophy. Smart coaches attract smart student athletes which is what you get in the Ivies. Carm Cozza and Joe Restic built great programs. Why on earth would the CU AD continue the pattern of bringing in a guy like Pete who is no different in his approach than the losing ways of Jim Garrett.
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/11/17/drug-addicted-losers/?_r=0 Oh, I get it. He was talking about the "drug" of being a defeatist. Clever. But, still just the absolute wrong personality. The right coach will bring in the right players and have everyone pulling in the right direction.
Quite right; but should he have been sent packing with one Ivy win in two years? Or, did the triumph over the formidable Lions save him? Now that would have been something!
The way coach Garrett explained it to us was that he did not say "drug addicted losers". He said that we were conditioned to accept losing and that losing was like a drug habit to us that we could not kick. I've said it before but as crazy as he was the majority (by a huge margin) of the players loved and believed in him and did not want him fired.
Totally agree with the anonymous who said Coach G was the best coach we've had in 40 years. He was also bringing in stud recruits.
McElreavy was the most classless, unethical, piece of garbage we have ever hired. I can't believe anyone can ever be as big a fraud as he was. And I am not even talking about his infidelities and alcohol abuse. Mac lied and slandered people for no reason right out of the gate. He was a terrible person. I wouldn't eat one of his pancakes at his diner.
I thought the issue with Garrett was less about the "drug addicted losers" quote and more about his public skewering of the punter after the Harvard game.
I was told it had to do with bashing Murph (the punter), the article, and overall clashing with the admin all of the time up that point. A former Asst AD once told me he had sealed his fate at the Harvard game. The admin could not wait to get rid of him.
I always felt he was straight with the admin from the get go - he tried to run our program like a D1 program - The admin thought that was what they wanted but soon realized his ways were too much for CU and they soon turned on him...
43 comments:
"After a very successful three years as the head football coach at
Cornell University (1998-2000)..."
Whaaat? I want some of whoever wrote this is smoking. You wanted to say, "After three years as the head football coach at Cornell..."
If we dug deeper into Pete's actual accomplishments at Cornell then you would have wrote, "After leaving Cornell..."
When is Chris Connors coming back from his quad injury? I think he is our most sure handed receiver.
Pete at Cornell:
1998 Cornell 4–6 1–6 T–7th
1999 Cornell 7–3 5–2 3rd
2000 Cornell 5–5 5–2 2nd
16–14 11–10
let's base opinions on facts, yes?
How times in the last 50 years has Columbia gone 5-2 in the Ivy League? Let alone in back to back seasons. If M does that here, you guys would put him up for sainthood.
Congrats on a winning 1999 season but very successful? The fact is Pete is mediocre on his very best day.
If the Lions go 5-2 in the League, he'd be "successful" by any definition. Or, is 7-0 the bar?:-) :-)
1-9 would be great at this point. Can he beat a terrible Cornell team again?
Cornell is not really as bad as it's record.Not as bad as Columbia anyhow.
3-7
1-9
HOW DOES THAT DEFINE SUCCESS?
Columbia has scored 45 points so far. Cornell has scored 135 points so far. It won't even be a close game. 0-10 is looking more likely.
Let's see if we continue to show improvement this Saturday.
You still get Yale, next week in New Heaven.Columbia, beat them last year.
Must score 24+ per game from here in to have any chance. Not sure they can do it with the present game plan.
D should keep the scores around 24.
GP
"New Heaven"? What is the opposite of a Freudian slip?
Look, you guys are the ones on the couch.trying to figure out why you can't matchup against the rest of the Ivy football world.
Even when you were good in the 40's you were so so.....
Don't have to remind us. We can count the high points of 100-plus years of Columbia football on the fingers of one hand. Speaking of which, did you know that Paul Governalli was the first starting quarterback for what is now the Indianapolis Colts? They were the Boston Yanks at the time.
a long long time ago cliff montgomery was on the side lines and led CU to a Rose Bowl. Columbia had some decent teams; similar to Fordham. Granted it was many moons ago.
on Pete at Cornell, if you look at the years after he left when his recruits would be playing you find that the teams went, over a 3 year period, 7-22. obviously not his fault, but certainly the kids werent at the same level as other schools.
As the case has been for decades, CU coaches have an inability to consistently assess players when recruiting.
Why do you say the coaches have an inability to assess players when recruiting? You must be assuming they get everyone they want. I think it more likely they're as good as anyone in assessing talent, but Columbia football is a tough sell and they're not getting the guys they want. Of course, they can't say that publicly without killing morale among the guys they get. History is an albatross around any CU coach's neck when recruiting, even as he declares a new era that breaks with it. Gotta get the horses to win. Haven't figured out how to get enough blue chippers. Nonetheless, grateful to all the kids who take the plunge.
Can an Ivy team have a full time recruiter, who is not a coach? Seems to me that a coach that runs to see possible recruits and runs back to CU to participate in practice and games is no getting to see enough kids.
Texas, Florida and California are hot beds of HS talent. CU needs more than the few that fall our way.
Also, what is the procedure for "friends" of CU to recommend prospective recruits?
GP
Lionesq
You sound like an apologist!
Get a coach who quits talking about past failures(Mangurian still talks about losing culture. Mangurian sounds more and more like Obama blaming Bush).
Get a coach who has testosterone and toughness and works the players hard and doesn't make excuses). Mangurian is a joke. This program is goind to the toilet wiht this guy who blames the past, blames the players, blames the coaches. Mangurian will go down as the worst FB coach in Columbia history.
Dartmouth two-deep listed at end of game notes: http://www.dartmouthsports.com/pdf9/2557263.pdf?SPSID=48870&SPID=4719&DB_OEM_ID=11600
Starters Bronson Green, Victor Williams, Cole Marceux, and Ryan McManus are not listed.
Where is Isaiah Gross?
"Mangurian will go down as the worst FB coach in Columbia history."
Worse than Bob Naso? Worse than Larry McElreavy? Surely, you jest.
Naso was 4-43-2
McElreavey was 2-8
Mangurian is presently 3-12
so the jury is out on whether he will beat Naso's total number of wins
if he "runs the table: and loses the next 5 games he will be 3-17 so his winning percentage will actually be less than McElreaveys
the point is Mangurian likes to blame people and find fault-is that who you want as your leader?
You can say whatsoever you want on the win and losses for McElreavey. One thing for sure is that he assembled some good talented recruits which was evident by the record of the freshman teams when he was the coach.
Garrett was 0-10. He was also the best coach CU has had in the last 40 years. His style wasn't conducive to the Ivies but I guarantee you we would have won at least 1 if not 2 titles had he and his sons( Jason and Judd at least, John was nothing special)stayed. Food for thought. This guy clearly isnt a fit either, was a Dianne favor hire, cut losses at the end of this season and move on.
To paraphrase Warren Buffett:
When a Coach with a reputation for brilliance tackles a football program with a decades long reputation for bad outcomes, it is usually the reputation of the program that remains intact."
Anonymous, I'm not an apologist. I was pointing out a glaring flaw in the other anonymous poster's logic, which appears to be shared by most of the posters here. It is preposterous to say that experienced coaches who come to Columbia suddenly forget how to coach once they get there. Columbia simply hasn't gotten enough good players to compete consistently. if the problem, whatever it is (and I don't claim to have the answer), were as simple to solve as you suggest, it would have been solved long ago. If I can be forgiven quoting a Harvard man, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
i am confussed, i keep looking for the "coach with a reputation for brilliance.." did he/she come and go or did i miss something? surely we arent speaking about our current hed coach.
when i was recruited by Columbia, i dont recall the metrics, but i was ranked 6 or 7 out of t or 8 linebackers to come in.
I would say recruting is an ability to assess talent in the absence of knwoing an individual. i can tell you i was the 6th or 7th best linebacker my freshman year.
Des
Des, do you mean 6th or 7th out of 8 freshmen linebackers at Columbia, or something else?
Des, you need to clarify WTF you are talking about, dude.
You sure, did not end up behind anybody as a linebacker. I thought that you should have been the Ivy player of the year!
I think what Wes is saying, is that everyone, with the exception of a star or two is about the same coming in. Perhaps in Wes's case, he was able to flourish in a positive envoirment and maybe a coach or coaches that repeated him, and him them enabling him to reach his potential.
Meant to say respected
If the coaches created a depth chart for columbia's incoming freshman linebackers my freshman year I was rated at the bottom. That is what I was saying. It goes to the point that many coaches are not good recruiters because they aren't good at evaluating talent. Many can be good once they know the person and have coached them, but that isn't recruiting or assessing a skill set, that is coaching and there is a difference.
I would not say that I flourished in a positive environment because, like these kids today, we were losing, suffering through many players leaving, etc.
Des
I never understood why Garrett called CU players "drug addicts and losers." It was an obviously incorrect label. Seemed more to be said out of frustration than anything else. True, he was the wrong fit. So what is the right fit? The type of coach to come in here all spit and vinegar (which is very typical in the culture of football coaching) is the WRONG fit. An old school guy bringing his old school ways, beat the tar of the players, work ethic will win the day just does not work.
I will provide two examples of great Ivy coaches who built strong programs and were able to craft their recruiting strategy around a philosophy. Smart coaches attract smart student athletes which is what you get in the Ivies. Carm Cozza and Joe Restic built great programs. Why on earth would the CU AD continue the pattern of bringing in a guy like Pete who is no different in his approach than the losing ways of Jim Garrett.
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/11/17/drug-addicted-losers/?_r=0 Oh, I get it. He was talking about the "drug" of being a defeatist. Clever. But, still just the absolute wrong personality. The right coach will bring in the right players and have everyone pulling in the right direction.
Should Surace had been fired at the end of his second 0 for 7 league games?
Surace did not go 0-7 in his second year. Guess which team gave him his only Ivy win.
Quite right; but should he have been sent packing with one Ivy win in two years? Or, did the triumph over the formidable Lions save him? Now that would have been something!
The way coach Garrett explained it to us was that he did not say "drug addicted losers". He said that we were conditioned to accept losing and that losing was like a drug habit to us that we could not kick. I've said it before but as crazy as he was the majority (by a huge margin) of the players loved and believed in him and did not want him fired.
Totally agree with the anonymous who said Coach G was the best coach we've had in 40 years. He was also bringing in stud recruits.
McElreavy was the most classless, unethical, piece of garbage we have ever hired. I can't believe anyone can ever be as big a fraud as he was. And I am not even talking about his infidelities and alcohol abuse. Mac lied and slandered people for no reason right out of the gate. He was a terrible person. I wouldn't eat one of his pancakes at his diner.
I thought the issue with Garrett was less about the "drug addicted losers" quote and more about his public skewering of the punter after the Harvard game.
I was told it had to do with bashing Murph (the punter), the article, and overall clashing with the admin all of the time up that point. A former Asst AD once told me he had sealed his fate at the Harvard game. The admin could not wait to get rid of him.
I always felt he was straight with the admin from the get go - he tried to run our program like a D1 program - The admin thought that was what they wanted but soon realized his ways were too much for CU and they soon turned on him...
Post a Comment