More than 99.9% of the people who read and comment on this blog know that we need to remove Dianne Murphy and Pete Mangurian as soon as possible. The 1-2 people who are commenting about how "angry," or "nasty" the blog has become are just that, 1-2 people. They use the same IP addresses and are the same people who make the most negative comments against me in the comments section. They are 100% wrong about everything and are trying to stir the pot, as they say. I suggest we ignore these two people.
This blog is not nasty. I defy anyone to find anything in any of my posts that's nasty. The same 1-2 commenters using nasty language do not taint the entire picture, especially since most people don't even read through all the comments. And as I've said before, I won't delete comments that don't contain vulgarities because like Lee Bollinger, I believe in Free Speech. I also know full well that the Athletic Department thinks it has a legitimate weapon against truth by claiming its critics are "being too negative" and thus it tries to shut us up.
In other words, the AD thinks that by painting those of us who want change as a bunch of angry wackos, their problems would go away. First off, I suspect some of the nastiest commenters are either AD employees, (one of the IP addresses used frequently for nasty comments of all kinds is a Columbia University/Campbell Center address), or AD sympathizers acting as Internet agents provocateurs.
Secondly, with thousands of daily visitors to the blog, it's just ridiculous to even attempt to paint the entire readership or me with the brush of just 1-2 commenters.
And finally, we're back to the same ridiculous statement from Murphy et al about how they say the biggest problem right now is the negativity from the alumni... as if the 0-10 record and the historically worst-ever statistics would somehow go away if we all just shut up, smiled, and oh... kept giving money. I understand that they think that their biggest problem is the alumni anger, and it should be. For now, it appears the passivity of just one alum, Bill Campbell, is enough to save their jobs despite indisputable failure.
NW vs. PM
Of course, this blog's commenters are often very insightful. And those who have pointed out that former Head Coach Norries Wilson was able to recruit better talent are exactly right. His failures came on Saturdays as the Lions lost so many close games that it was obvious he could not get us over the hump.
And while I was relieved to see him go, I wrote several times about how the new coach should not come into CU thinking the program was bereft of talent and any positives. So what did we get? A coach who came in here thinking the program was bereft of any talent and positives. It was EXACTLY the wrong match, one that Murphy would have seen if she truly understood the football program. This bad fit is being allowed to continue as of today because of one man. That's a disgrace.
Again, this is all on Campbell's shoulders. He OWNS this and his true friends should be advising him to cut his losses with this regime as soon as possible.
Now for some more constructive thoughts from Rich Forzani '66, I disagree with his depiction of the blog becoming too nasty, but I think his general thoughts are on target:
A Modest Proposal
The football season is over, but the problem is still unresolved.
The commentary here has, at times, become very angry. We’ve all seen attacks and insults directed at each other, as well as at various people in the U. While this has engendered discussion and woken people up to a very bad condition, it is now becoming, possibly, counterproductive. We run the risk of appearing as caricatures, and while venting frustration may provide temporary relief, it doesn’t provide a long term solution unless it leads to specific action.
I believe we are at a stage where we must move to another level, if we’re truly serious about improving the situation. This is not to say we should leave this forum; it is, after all, how we all found each other. But I do believe that a number of us are ready for direct involvement. Jake’s blog continues to be an invaluable and timely means of communication.
A few weeks ago, several concerned alumni, including CU notables, formed an ad hoc group called “ the Committee for Athletic Excellence at Columbia” (CAEC).
The goal of CAEC is to provide a formal point of contact for Columbia to engage with alumni who are dissatisfied with the current scenario. This is in stark difference to the U-affiliated groups who essentially go along with the status quo.
Our intention is to articulate our issues, organize the alums who feel similarly, and demonstrate to the U that we are not just a handful of discontents. Along these lines, we will be conducting PR exercises and reaching out to the undergraduate community as well as groups like Spectator and WKCR. Full disclosure: these issues include the replacement of PM and DM, and the commitment of LB to a robust and competitive athletic department.
I am asking any of you who feel this is a productive idea to join with us.
We will nominate a steering group who will be involved in immediate activities. What we need from the rest of you is your membership and support, so that we can demand the attention this issue deserves. The more members we have, the more relevance we have to the problem and the solution.
What we must do is take this from the individual level to the organizational level. CAEC provides us that opportunity.
Please email me your contact info if you wish to participate. No “Anonymous” any more. We need names and Class year, and whatever credentials (varsity sports, honors, etc.) you believe add credibility. This is NOT restricted to athletes; it is open to all Alums or parents of students. Send your info to me below.
33 comments:
Bravo Jake!
Yes, Jake, the fact that I'm marginal to your blog misses the larger point, namely, that your blog is marginal to the University.
In fact, not only is it marginal, but it marginalizes itself further by all the over-the-top anger. Fire this one, fire that one--tThe anger builds and builds until you're way out there, look around, and suddenly discover that only the people on this blog are out there with you, and that they constitute but a tiny fraction of the university's alumni.
I wouldn't expect to be welcomed into this football ghetto. But since I would like Columbia athletics to succeed, sometimes I just throw caution to the winds. Then I have to tell you that in the process of becoming a leading spokesperson about the problems of Columbia football, you've turned your fight with the Athletics department into a p*ssing match and become increasingly self-deluded.
Wow, the above comment is textbook shoot the messenger.
Our team just finished 0-10 and lost its games by an average of way over 30 points.
Do you think that without this blog that would somehow remain a secret? Do you think opposing coaches and recruiters aren't fully aware and talking about this on their recruiting trips?
And yet you crucify Jake for calling for the people responsible for this up be held accountable and replaced? You see, this is why so many of us suspect that you either are an Ath dept employee or family member or friend. Who could even defend this otherwise? Oh, and we notice that the "defense" is never actually a defense of Mangurian or Murphy, it's just an attack on Jake on the blog. That speaks volumes.
Why is it delusional to ask for firings and replacements after such repeated debacles? Again only an AD employee or a tremendous defeatist would think otherwise.
The other dead giveaway is that almost every attack on Jake refers to him as some kind of egomaniac. That's what we in the psychiatric community call "projection." Only egomaniacs like Mangurian and Murphy and their frightened sycophants could think that someone who works so hard for change and for the publicizing of our students' accomplishments would be egomaniacal himself. Jake's blog and his very veto positive advocacy for the players is as selfless as it gets. Only someone with so stained a soul like those who support this ath dept failure would fail to see that.
And I'm sorry Jake for not ignoring these people like you asked. I am just so offended by the dishonesty and craziness of those who think they can't attack you for wanting better.
I'm a Yale fan who reads this blog and am commenting for the first time.
I can tell you that this Lion group was the worst football team I've ever seen in my 62 years.
And someone here is actually "advising" Jake to pipe down about replacing the coach because it makes Columbia look bad??? That ship hasn't just sailed pal, it's circumnavigated the Earth!!
Maybe I'm just a dumb Yalie, but it occurs to me that maybe the reason why Columbia doesn't win is because the people who want to win like Jake are tarted this way.
Sorry, but I'm not a member of the Athletics department, a family member, or a friend. That would be too easy for you, because then you would have to defend what's written on this blog on its merits.
I'm very familiar with the concept of projection, though I would strongly contest the matter of who exactly is projecting on to whom. I am also well aware that the football team went 0-10, and that something should be done about its failings. But while everyone on this blog pulls manically on just one or two levers--fire Mangurian, fire Murphy, my 50+ years of experience watching Columbia football prompts me to doubt that these measures are much of a solution. After all, as dozens of people have pointed, Columbia has had 8 or 10 coaches over the last five decades, many of whom have gone on to success elsewhere. A firing or two might be cathartic, but I'll give you 90-1 odds that after two years, you could just recyle the same comments about the next coach that are now being made about Mangurian, and no one would know the difference.
And yes, by the way, Jake used to write intelligent sports commentary.
Which CU head coaches have gone on to success elsewhere? Buff Donelli never was head coach anywhere else. Frank Navarro got a gig at Princeton somehow and is widely regarded as one of the worst mistakes they ever made. Campbell had success elsewhere, as a businessman. Bob Naso never was a head coach again. Jim Garrett? Ditto. McElreavy? Nope, never a head coach again. Tellier? Same. Shoop? Also no. Norries? uh uh.
So, the above comment by the Jake-basher is easily shown to be false.
First "Inwoodtiger", and now this "Yalie"... Thank you for your support! We all owe Jake a great deal for allowing us to fully engage in this foum.
Jake marginalized??? Hardly! Bill reads the blog. Alumni read the blog. Someone reads the blog to Mangurian because there are no pictures and I doubt he can read. So I'd say this blog is pretty impactful!'
We need someone with head coaching experience. After playing under Wilson, I can tell you he was a great recruiter and a good coach. His issues came were with letting Vinny Marino run the offense into the ground with baffling play calls. But Wilson has had success as an OC (see his record at UConn). The same can be said about Bob Shoop, who now has been having success as a DC at William & Mary and now Vanderbilt. Both of these have had success, but NOT AS A HEAD COACH. There is a vast difference between running a program and running an offense or defense. While both coaches were talented, I want to see someone who has proven success at either a D3, D2, or other FCS school. It may not be a sexy hire, but it is what we need
If our coaches have gone on to success elsewhere, then there is a problem with Columbia football. If they haven't gone on to success elsewhere, and the job is career-ending, then there is still a problem with Columbia football. You pick your poison.
Look, we just had a 0-10 season. The Fordham game was horrific, but we could write it off because they offered scholarship. But as the losses accumulated, the anger grew. As more and more evidence pointed to a season without victories, this blog went from disappointment to anger to rage.
I got off the train somewhere between disappointment and anger.
Somewhere on that spectrum is appropriate and may even be politically useful. But where this blog has gone on to rage, it's self-defeating and self-destructive.
Of course people in power will always protect their position, their decision. That is the way things work throughout history, politics is politics, even in sports. Handing out buttons is a good grass roots activity but what is needed is blunt force to eject Pete Mangurian and if necessary the AD who hired him. It would not be the first time a coach was hired not for his/her qualifications but due to a personal association.
BC - the man, the myth, the drunk - is an emperor with no clothes. He is nothing without his money.
Not a good comparison but humorous anyway. kirk herbstreit was forced to relocate his family away from Ohio when he made some slightly questionable comments regarding his alma mater Ohio State football. Some fans would not tolerate even commentary against their football program or even utter the "M" word (MICHIGAN) much less tolerate an arrogant jackass like Pete Mangurian. Naturally, Columbia has barely a .01% fanbase as Ohio State does in football but point is, Pete can do as he pleases until someone wakes up and gets rid of the problem.
Rich '66
So far we have had 6 new members sign up for CAEC this afternoon, on a quiet post-holiday Friday.
Please consider lending your name to the Committee. We want to be a recognized serious entity within the greater dialogue. The more of you joining the cause, the greater our potential effect.
Athletes not required.
rforzani1@optonline.net
Jake, I would call the comment that PM can't read nasty.
Jake, calling Bill Campbell a drunk is nasty.
Rich,
I like the idea of moving to another level and forming this new group. The only thing that stops me from joining you (right now) is the same thing that stops me from signing the petition; I do not feel I have enough info to insist that PM and DM must go. I have heard stories, especially about the coach, but i have not heard from enough sources to form a definitive opinion.
You and others who know me know that I have some very strong (and often unpopular) opinions on things, but they come after thorough research and analysis, and after looking at the issues from as many perspectives as possible. I just don't feel that I've yet had that opportunity in this situation.
And this is largely why I keep saying that WE MUST HEAR FROM THE PLAYERS AND PARENTS!
The reason, btw, that I am saying players AND parents is this: The culture of football is such that a player does not talk against his coaches. Therefore very few players will probably step up and say anything. This being the case we would be left not really knowing what I think is a mandatory part of this equation - i.e. the level of respect and fairness that exists in the Columbia football program. Whereas the players will be reluctant to discuss this, a number of them will have shared their thoughts and feelings with their parents. So hearing from both the players AND the parents will get us closer to the truth and allow the 'powers that be' a greater opportunity to make an informed decision. ('opportunity' being the operative word there)
While I cannot form an opinion yet, I have heard and read that players were sitting on the bench for less than legitimate reasons. If true, this could result in several negative scenarios. For one, there is the emotional pain for the player who knows that he did not get a fair chance to show what he is capable of, and thus did not get the recognition he deserves. (2) Also, a more successful football career would result in more job offers from alumni. (3) Re somebody like Marcorus: His sitting those last weeks surely cost him another All-Ivy selection, probably a 1000 yard campaign, and definitely the opportunity to move up the ladder on Columbia records charts. Furthermore, If he had had an outstanding senior year to go with all that he had already accomplished, he may very well have been a late round NFL draft choice! Even if not drafted (and he still might be) he would have had a larger number of free agent offers, and those offers would have been for higher dollar amounts! AND he would have had a better chance to actually make a professional team! (He would go into camp with higher expectations from the coaches and would therefore probably get more preseason opportunities. Also, if he gets injured during camp the team would be less likely to cut him and more likely to give him time to heal so that they can get a real good look at him.)
So the key with these coaching decisions is the 'Why?'
Look, coaches are human and they make mistakes - sitting players who should be on the field; playing guys 'out of position;' using offenses or defenses that are not well suited for the personnel they have; not understanding the various personality types of the players and thus yelling at kids who would learn/play better if they were treated with respect, etc., etc.
Although too many of these mistakes would still indicate the need for a coaching change, I at least can accept them (on a human level) IF they are honest mistakes.
But if vindictiveness and/or bias are behind any of these coaching decisions, then that's another story!
Roger Dennis '66
To the Posters that said calling B Campbell a drunk is nasty and to the poster that said PM can't read nasty, I will tell you what is nasty. Making juniors and seniors sit in the stands and not dress for the game, who buy the way have practiced all week ... Nasty. Bullying players?... Nasty. PM getting into confrontations with parents of players? ..... Nasty. Bullying injured players into going out and playing?.....Nasty. Defense out on the field for 100 plays which can lead to serious injuries?...Nasty. Having your OL and DL loose weight, so that blocking becomes impossible ? ...Nasty. Blaming your team for a 0-10 season and not taking any responsibility....Nasty. And lastly, taking the love and passion for the game of football away from this team.... Very Nasty.
While I am happy somebody here has acknowledged Norries as compared to PM I would be remiss if I didn't add something as well. Exactly when did it become apparent to all the gurus here that he COULDN'T get us over the hump? By my mark he was more competitive than most columbia coaches. There were several games that I saw the players battling back to get a win (corneal with Brackett over the top). But as usual all of you hemmed and hawed chasing another good football coach out with this blog.
Your point?
Quite a few fictional accusations in your list. That is nasty too.
To the poster who wrote 'Nasty' so many times: Would you be willing to let us know if you are either a player (this year or last) or the parent of a player?
Thnx,
RD '66
Rich '66C
Roger, as usual a well thought out and deliberate response. I agree completely with your personal position. We all need to make this decision based upon our conscience and personal evaluation, because this is not a frivolous activity.
I respect that. We aren't interested in tearing down; only in building up.
I am no rocket scientist, but at 0-10 and setting the record for worst CU team ever, think about that for a second, and worst in the nation, what other evidence is needed to fire a guy or take a position?
If I were a lawyer and said I have won 10 cases, but lost 100 in a row, chances are you would never hire me.
For being some of the smartest people on the planet there is sure as hell a lot of dumb ass over thinking going on here.
It must be emphasized over and over that this team that Mangurian coached was the worst from a statistical standpoint in the history of Ivy League football and statistically the worst of all the FCS schools on both offense and defense. How can anyone consider having this coach for another year.
Qqqqq
I'm glad someone got to the real point. It doesn't matter if the coach is a meany or a sweetheart. At 0-10 and every game a blowout, did it occur to anyone that he is just a very bad coach? You could get a derelict to produce the identical record (maybe better) for a bottle of muscatel each week.
I would coach for some Thunderbird and am sure I would be a whole lot more fun in the press room. just saying
Exactly!!! There is something very wrong with an administration that hasn't already fired the head football coach after a season like this. That's why we need a new HC and a new AD.
You have to love the personal vendetta Jake has with the administrators... It makes for an entertaining read!
Nasty? What happened to free speech...Fire the bum PM. Fire DM. Campbell is drunk. If you were with him at CU games and events you would understand. Jake u have a great blog...never give up until changes are made.
Post a Comment