While Sean Brackett was a singular talent ready to go for another year once Pete Mangurian took over as head coach, RB Marcorus Garrett was probably the most valuable treasure awaiting the new coaching regime.
Garrett was banged up a bit in his 2011 season, but he still showed many flashes of brilliance including a nifty TD run against Sacred Heart. But his stats were misleading as the coaches who recruited him in 2009 knew he was very special from the day he surprised them by committing to Columbia close to Christmas time that year.
And unlike superstars like Brackett and Josh Martin, Garrett was just a junior headed into the 2012 season.
#23 responded with one of the greatest seasons for a rusher in Columbia history. His 957 yards were third best in a single season in the all-time team record book.
But Garrett’s 2013 season was marred by coaching malpractice. It started well with the senior being named one of the team captains. However, even as it became painfully clear that the Lions could not pass protect to save their lives, Garrett got fewer than 20 carries per game in most contests. Then he got injured in the week six 56-0 loss to Dartmouth and then committed a team infraction that earned him a suspension on top of all that. Fellow team leader Paul Delaney was also implicated in that suspension. Garrett never saw the field again.
When two captains/team leaders act like that is spells one thing: M-U-T-I-N-Y.
Not only did Mangurian and co. have a historic talent in Garrett, but they mismanaged it so badly that by the middle of what should have been a glorious senior season that historically talented player bailed on the regime in a big way.
The Garrett incident should be more than enough to disprove the lie from Mangurian about a talent-thin team, but there are many more other cases and we will document them here.
And we can't cut Mangurian any slack because he won't cut the fans and his talented players any slack.
With him at the helm, CU football has no chance of success at any time.
He's already proven that, and only those with a personal financial or professional connection to him say otherwise.
49 comments:
Jake, now you're impugning Garrett's and Delaney's character, and with no real information at that. Enough already!
Go get 'em Jake. Just ignore the baloney in the post above from Lee, Dianne and Pete.You didn't impugn Delaney and Garrett at all. If they rebelled against the sinking rowboat of Columbia football (certainly not a ship or even a rowboat, more a rubber tube) then it enhances their character.
When Bollinger arrived at least a dozen years ago he promised to correct what he called the culture of losing.
He lied. The record on his watch is the worst ever. He can build dozens of soulless tall buildings but not one proud fotball program. He can spend billions on construction but not a speck on a talented coach and assistants as the other Ivies do.
If you like your president, AD and coach, you can keep your president, AD and coach. I don't like them...they're incompetent and they lie...and I don't want to keep them.
Well, for starters, I have no personal or professional connection to Mangurian, and I am not convinced that Columbia has no chance of success with him at the helm.
You like framing the issue as a neat and tidy absolute, where anyone who voices the slightest dissent must belong to one of your two listed categories. Sure, Columbia had a terrible season, for which, speaking just as an indignant FAN, the coach must pay. But as many of us have pointed out, since Columbia's history of failure transcends the strengths and weaknesses of any individual coach, there is plenty of reason to question whether 1) Mangurian should be fired, and 2) whether firing him would do much good.
If "Columbia's history of failure transcends the strengths and weaknesses of any individual coach" and thus the coach must not be held responsible, then it must be the AD's responsibility. But those who defend the coach also claim that Columbia's history of failure transcends the strengths and weaknesses of any individual AD (or president, for that matter). Then it follows that NOBODY is responsible. Football at Columbia becomes some strange form of performance art in which the score is irrelevant. If firing everyone in the Athletic Department would not "do much good", then by all means let's have employment for life. That's pretty much what Al Paul had.
The coaches, AD and their underlings actually believe that victory is not part of their job description. They obviously deeply resent having their employment jeopardized by their failure to win. They can't understand why they can't continue to go through the motions and pick up their paychecks until retirement.
Nice try at reductio ad absurdum. But that's not what I said.
What I was criticizing was the core, and to my mind, somewhat simple-minded, off-with-heads mentality on this blog. It may well be the case that some people should be held responsible. There is, however, no automatic, one-to-one correlation between firing this person or that person, and any assured improvement in Columbia athletics.
Mangurian's team had the worst statistical record on offense and defense in the history of the Ivy League, besides a 0-10 record. Doesn't that speak for itself and show what an abysmal failure he's been. Nothing more needs to be said.
No, lots more needs to be said, and a few of us have tried repeatedly to say it. But traumatized by the indignities of last season, many people do not take kindly to be being reminded that doing what they want to do, i.e. act on their rage and fire Mangurian--will not get them the results they seek.
does anyone know what led to the suspensions of Garrett and Delaney?? Is it something that warranted a suspension for basically the rest of the season??
"It may well be the case that some people should be held responsible."
"May be" responsible? So it's possible that NOBODY is responsible? That's absurd.
The head coach and the AD are ALWAYS responsible for the win-loss record of the team, whether it's caused by their poor decisions or by sunspots. That goes with their jobs.
The quality of the trolling by the AD's minions is abysmal. These arguments are mindless.
They were suspended for a game. One game. Delaney returned as punter. Garrett was injured before the suspension. Other than that, there is no real information. Jake's post is mostly conjecture, a specialty around here.
Jake give it a break! You tell too many "half truths". The cupboard was bare because too many kids leave the program after getting accepted into the school. Since there is no penalty of lost scholarships or funding, kids lie and use football to get into the Ivy league. Look at this list of kids that should be playing. Here are the missing cans out of the cupboard which in turn makes it bare: Darin Patmon DB, Chris Cicilioni DL, Brandon Blackshear DB, Mike Zunica RB, Daren Napier DL, Austin Stock OL, Brad Losee DL, Chris Mooney TE, Joe Raimondi DL, Maurice Rothschild WR, Chris Rapka QB, Hunter Coleman DL, Sean Coffinger TE, Chris Proctor OL, Josh Keiles OL, EJ Odigwe LB, Ben Walker LB, Mark McClain LB, Tyler Hamblin DB, Colton Bishop DB, Mike Skalitzky DB, Percee Goings QB, Isaiah Gross WR, and Jake Wanamaker. This doesn't even include the 2 kids that quit this year. Jake surely you recognize these names because you "talked them up" on this very blog. These athletes quit on NW and PM. Hence, empty refrigerator, empty cupboard and empty bread basket!
Yes. I won't say but I will tell you that it is unbecoming of a student athlete anywhere especially the Ivy League. Very selfish acts.
First off, just about all of the names you mentioned only left the team after Mangurian came here, not before. Mangurian ran a lot of them off, by the way, like Wanamaker and Stock, for no good reason. If the cupboard is bare, it's because Mangurian emptied it himself.
All attempts to get me to "give it a rest" will continue to fail until Mangurian is fired or has the decency to quit.
Jake, many of these kids left BEFORE PM arrived and why would PM run off some and not all? Many from those same incoming classes are STILL on the roster. PM is not going anywhere and neither is Dianne or Bollinger. Don't you realize that your powder is wet and your musket jammed? You lost.
Nope, most of those players only left after Mangurian came here. Don't ask me why he ran off Wanamaker and Gross, etc. Ask Mangurian's shrink. Doesn't he have a shrink? If not, he needs one.
It appears many of the Mangurian supporters here, (all two of them), are suffering from battered wife syndrome.
Look folks, I promise you that Pete will be saying the same nasty things about your kids very soon.
We're going 0-10 or maybe, maybe, maybe 1-9 next season.
Then he'll trash your kids too.
Then he'll be fired.
Then lots of people will say:
"hey, we could have avoided a whole added year of this misery if they had just listened to the sane critics back in December!"
Why don't we skip a step and clear the decks now?
What you people don't realize is that these parents contact Jake directly (I've seen trhe e-mails). This is NOT conjecture, so get the story straight. Mangurrian RAN OFF several of these players, fact, not conjecture!
Mangurrian is claiming to these influential alums that the cupboard was bare. Remember, HE was the one that wsanted a "smaller aqnd more managable team". Also, this is why there is no JV team. The kids need to develop and PLAY, otherwise, they get discouraged and either quit, or get run off!
The symptoms of MIDS (Mangurian-Induced Derangement Symptom) have now reached a feverish pitch.
The cupboard is, and mostly has always been, bare. Jake likes to tout our one or two stars. Dating way back, we've always had one or two stars--most prominently, a whole tradition of fine quarterbacks. But do a count of Ivy League 1st team, 2nd team, and honorable mentions, and you'll see that in comparison with any other Ivy League team, an independent examination confirms that we just don't have the depth. Although it is not likely to be well received in fandom, Mangurian is absolutely right.
Judging by this season's performance, the cabinet certainly looks bare. Question is how it got that way so quickly after Wilson's departure.
Someone emptied it, that's how.
The cabinet is not bare now. If you guys had football "eyes" you could see the potential of many players on this team. Talent will prevail no matter the inefficiencies of the coaching staff.
Not talking 8 & 2, but possible 5 & 5.
Are you telling us that this doesn't happen at other Ivy schools?
To the characters here who say nobody is responsible for the history of losing, I reply BULLSHIT! And DOUBLE
BULLSHIT to the first poster of that garbage who posted again to defend his nonsense.
Do you have a job? Do they keep you in it forever although you haven't a shred of competency?
If so, then you must be an AD employe or Murphy herself, or Mangurian or Bollinger.
How do you think you create a HISTORY of losing? By the people responsible not doing their jobs and not caring.
Sounds like the current federal government except even those clowns can be voted out after four years and have to leave after eight years. Bollinger has been in charge for about 12 years, Murphy about 10, and
Mangurian two years too many.
If you and your pals are actually alums and not AD lifers, how much losing can you endure? You obviously have no pride in Alma Mater.
If Marcorus was injured, why not just say that? It's complete idiocy for a coach to hide that detail from people who follow the program. The kid deserves praise and accolades from the head coach, not some stupid punishment or think he is more important than one of the best RBs the program has had in years. Whatever the reason for the suspension, the way it was handled was laughably arrogant. Not a word on reasons why he was out to finish the season. Pete has no class as evidenced by his no shower and shave policy.
He did not want to play for pete
Pride in Alma Mater? You get your `pride in Alma Mater' from the Columbia University Department of Athletics? Uh, maybe you should get a life???
This whole blog has become an increasingly disturbing blend of denseness and willful misreading. Although I never thought it was an especially nuanced concept, I also never said no one was responsible. For the nth time, in a university with a long history of losing football teams, firing Mangurian is not a magical solution to the problems of Columbia football. In fact, given the perfect storm of a season we just had (the loss of both Nottingham in the first game), it may not even be a solution at all.
Frankly, I think someone who coaches football at Columbia should be give 4-5 years--the time required to change the culture of the place, and for his own recruits to become seniors. If he is still failing after this run, then we can talk about termination.
If this is too long for you, then I suggest you find some other venue to express your feelings for Alma Mater.
4-5 years? That would translate into three more years for the Murphy/Mangurian regime. So the this AD troll is about three years from retirement. So you get fired next November and have to retire two years early. Big deal. You would actually inflict additional years of misery on the players, alumni and students for three years of paychecks? Pathetic. Man up.
Yes, unless you want an endless cycle of excitement about the prospects for a new coach, disappointment when the record goes south, and derangement when that disappointment turns to betrayal and outrage.
Remember this is the blog where most people thought the seniors should play. PM has had ONE season of his own recruits. So which is it? A team should be led by its seniors, or you want to fire him when so far, he's only recruited freshmen? The inconsistency may not trouble you, but you can't have it both way.
Finally, can we please dispense with the phrase "man up."? Maybe you feel the need to do so, but it is unclear to me why testosterone needs to be linked to responsibility.
To Anonymous who said I should get a life, I have a great life, a great profession, a great wife, children and grandchildren and a lot more, including pride in Alma Mater for many reasons including a child who also is a proud alum. I showed my pride with copious volunteer
work for CU in an area totally divorced from athletics. Also by donating annually since I began working. Above all I am proud and grateful to Alma Mater for instilling a ferocious belief and love for freedom of speech, thought and inquiry--a permanent gift even if, sadly, ensuing generations of students may not have received it to the same extent as they did in my day.
Therefore my pride in Columbia athletics, especially football and basketball but all others too, is far from my entire interest in the university as you falsely suggest.
Pride in the intellect is not what we're discussing here however. This is a sports board and we're discussing
football.
Your intellect, and truthfulness, are not in evidence, however, even if you want to broaden the argument. It's not about one coach, it's about a series of them over the past 60 years. Also ADs and presidents. Good coaches don't need 4-5 years to display competence. Nor do ADs and Presidents. Bollinger has been here 12 years not 4; Murphy about 10.
It appears to me that the Columbia Admin. Has always considered intercollegiate athletics, especially football, as just another gym class.
Since you admire intellectual exercise and obviously are in need of some, why don't you begin by giving us your thoughts about that ludicrous letter that Bollinger or his ghostwriter Murphy published in Spectator in response to our concerns?
One last thought about Columbia football--I acquired my pride in it when I became a Columbia student because of my pride in the University, not the other way around. They are not divisible to me. Perhaps it stuck because it was a time when there was good reason--when the Coach was Lou Little, whom I met and spoke with. Since then we have had many coaches who were little but not Lou.
So take your apathy and annoyance elsewhere...my loyalty is steadfast.
Al, I wish you had included In your post more details about your thinking. Medical records of students are subject to HIPAA confidentiality rules. Garrett's medical condition really is none of our business, no matter how dearly we would like to know. Not publicizing the substance of Garrett's and Delaney's rules violations was less likely caused by arrogance, and more likely an effort to limit the damage to the students involved, not humiliating them publicly and not creating a detailed online record that might interfere with job applications. Generally, university disciplinary matters are kept confidential, in any event. Again, we have no rational claim on that information. So do you really think not publicizing these facts was "idiocy" and "arrogance". Can you explain why? Or maybe you were just venting a bit?
I'm glad you met and actually spoke with Lou Little. Now, perhaps we can move on and talk about the rest of our football history?
It's true that in other universities, coaches would not be given 4-5 years. But since no else has our 60 year history of losing, analogies with other universities are fundamentally flawed.
Think of it this way: if a corporation had been at the very bottom of its industry for 60 years, would you fire the CEO every two years when they didn't show progress? True, it might offer an outlet for your frustrations, but from my perspective, that just ensures that in perpetuity, we bump along the bottom.
The Bollinger letter was boilerplate stuff. Once he's determined that Murphy and Mangurian should remain, the letter is a placeholder. I'm not nearly as put off by the letter as I am by the tunnel vision of some on this blog who contend that the President of one of the world's great universities should resign or be fired because we have a lousy football team.
It is completely normal for a coach to want to keep injury info secret for game planning concerns. However, in this instance, it doesn't entirely add up. Pete left the matter open after the 1 game suspension. If this was just any player who is out then it would be glossed over but our best offensive player and a guy who is graduating/leaving the program after a stellar career deserved better. It seems obvious Marcorus deserves to be treated with dignity and respect from his head coach. All he had to say was the guy is injured and not playing. Instead he offered nothing and treated the matter as an affront to him! "I won't tolerate any foolishness" was the last Pete had anything to say about Marcorus.
Claims of medical privacy don't factor in. No is asking to see the MRI. Injury status is part of the game. Pete the loser coach that he is apparently regarded such news as unworthy of attention or perhaps he really did believe that info would help opponents form a strategy (as it mattered).
Personally, I am tired of this argument. I can't stand the deep voiced female making decisions out of a vacuum nor can I stand the sports-impotent president of the University. I feel for the alumni who care deeply about the program.
I also feel bad for the recruits who think they are getting a decent coach to play for. Note, the guy smooth talking in your mom's kitchen is not going to help deliver you a great college football experience.
Garrett stopped playing for mangurian, his injury was not the factor. He could have put his name in some record books, but chose not to.
BS
Al, you are so misinformed and your reasoning is so opaque I just don't know where to start, so I'll leave it someone else to try if anyone cares to. I will say, however, that your comment about Murphy is noted and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Even Duck Dynasty won't tolerate that sort of thing. Seems lately that we reach a new low here almost every day! Take a time out, man.
My dear friend in Lou Little: Many people met him...my point was that there was a time when there was competence, success and pride in Lion football. That era ended after he left. He was a fine coach but obviously he wasn't unique. All schools with good coaches eventually lose them but don't lose their ability to compete. They hire another competent coach--and assistants--who carry on.
Your analogy that a habitually unsuccessful corporation wouldn't fire the CEO every two years is incorrect. They probably would fire him every few months.
Only Columbia yawns at 60 years of failure. The failure is due to our CEO and his staff not giving a damn about having a decent program. It's "let's just plug in the first body who's willing to work for the crappy salary we pay." Are you saying it's just bad luck that CU's leaders can't find one solid coach in 60 years? Or is the reason their own incompetence and/or apathy?
Rich '66
Figured I'd weigh in with a couple of thoughts:
First, I don't think certain personal comments re DM help our cause. That has nothing to do with the underlying issues and takes away from our cause.
Second, it is obvious that, short of some unanticipated scandal, there is no administration plan to make any staff changes as of yet, but that unless some major improvements happen quickly, there won't be much choice in doing so. Too many people are now aware and aroused, and it will get worse, not better.
Finally, we at the Committee for Athletic Excellence at Columbia fully acknowledge and agree that this overall issue dates back to Al Paul and before. That is why our primary stance is the formation of an independent expert group to determine the actual issues, rather than just firing an AD and a coach or 2, and getting back on the same merry-go-round. We aren't seeking a band-aid or individual punishment; we want a permanent fix.
Once we have a rational sense of what our issues are, we can address them logically. Otherwise we wind up with the same old same old.
Rich:
This is your best statement yet of what the issues are.
Finally, we actually agree.
To the anonymous poster above who named all of the players who have left the program, Mike Skalitzky has not left the team and is still very much a Lion.
I agree with Rich Forzani too, but his statement is the same one he has maintained from the beginning of this issue. I doubt that you are Bollinger, Murphy or Mangurian but thanks for finally joining the correct side. Rich did add
that strictly personal remarks are out of order and counterproductive, and I agree. The issue is their performance, which provides huge targets for relevant criticism.
You are a little dense if you think my reasoning is opaque. A head football coach has ample opportunity to stand behind his players - even in defeat. It is something that has to be done in order to keep your locker room. As pointed out many times, this is a failure of PM's leadership and why he will never hold a locker room together even with new recruits. What coach does not stand behind his players? Ok, college kids pull pranks or what have you and coach doles out discipline. But you are a failure as a leader if you ostracize a player and fail to acknowledge his importance to the team.
I'm not on the inside and I am sure Marcorus is a man of class who would say all is well. It still behooves the head coach to get behind his players and convey the details of why he did not play in his final games as part of the program. How's that for opaque?
Garrett was suspended for one game because of a violation of rules serious enough to require a one-game suspension. Getting behind the players doesn't entail giving you information you are entitled to have. Al, I doubt you've been in the locker room, so I doubt you have more than your assumptions about the atmosphere there. Your reasoning is opaque because you're making things up.
Garett was suspended at the same time he had a severe high ankle sprain. Those injuries linger and take a while to come back from. PM showed he had his players back by not divulging what Garrett had done to get suspended.
High ankle sprains take a long time to heal. That's why the NFL instituted the horse collar rule -- they cause those injuries. Garrett was injured most of his sophomore year too, foot or ankle, I believe. Came out of camp with it and couldn't shake it all season. At least he had one healthy season.
To: The Lion.
No, regrettably, this statement of goals gave much more credence to the criticisms that I and other have been leveling.
It's very gratifying to see him come around.
Your comments are always opaque, but it seems you're saying that you have called for institutional reform of the football program before Forzani did, and that he's come around to your lead. He has from the start of this debate more than a month ago that firing the coach is not the log-term reform that's needed.
Let's not worry about who gets credit (Jake deserves it most by far). Let's get on with the task of reversing this mess.
No, not quite. Initially, he was dismissive of anyone who didn't agree that Mangurian's 0-10 record meant he should be fired. It's only in response to criticism that he has offers a more inclusive version of what needs to be done.
Jake may have started by screaming from the rooftops, but by now, I think the reaction is "did you hear what he just said?" and "why is that guy on the rooftop still screaming?"
Because there's still no light at the end of the tunnel after 60 years, for a team that once won the Rose Bowl against Stanford, and then beat them again when they met two years later.
Now you've really gone off the deep end. What exactly is the causal link between `Mangurian is fat' and `Mangurian needs a shrink' and winning the Rose Bowl in 1934???
Post a Comment