He's our only hope
Congratulations to our three All Ivy honorees, P Paul Delaney (1st Team), LB Zach Olinger (2nd Team), and DT Nico Padilla (Honorable Mention).
With Delaney and Olinger graduating in May, Padilla will the sole All Ivy player on the squad in 2014.
Also congratulations to the men's basketball team for their 61-47 win over American University last night. The game featured a breakout performance from freshman power forward Luke Petrasek from Long Island! I sincerely hope this young team proves me wrong and posts a winning Ivy record this coming winter.
As far as getting the change we need for the football program, it's clear the only person who can pull the trigger on making that change is Bill Campbell. And Bill Campbell is the King Lear of Columbia Athletics right now.
My Lit Hum professor taught me in 1989 that King Lear was not only the greatest of all of Shakespeare's plays, but it was the most profound piece of literature in the history of the modern world.
He had a point. And in the last few days, I feel like I've been reading Lear all over again.
I've seen countless emails, very well-written and passionate, not only lauding Campbell's undeniable achievements and contributions to CU football, but they also insist that no one really has the right to question his judgment about Dianne Murphy, Pete Mangurian, or anything.
I respectfully submit to Mr. Campbell that these people are your fans, your devotees, but they are not your true friends. They are giving you bad advice, rubber stamping everything you say, and not allowing you to see the situation clearly.
True friends do not only crave a person's approval and attention. True friends point out important mistakes in a friendly way without taking away any due respect or admiration.
And so while I really don't know Campbell personally, here are three things his true friends would and should be telling him:
1) Standing behind Mangurian and Murphy, both financially and institutionally, is a bad decision right now. It's making you look bad personally and hurting athletics and the University in general.
You've backed beleaguered head coaches in the past, but never in so public a manner. If you allow this to continue, you own this in every way shape and form. Do you really have that much confidence in Mangurian and Murphy that you're willing to put your good name up with them and their records now and in the future... for all time?
2) If you do choose to stand by them, the students and alumni deserve a real explanation why. Saying that two years is not enough time to judge Mangurian is not a good enough answer when he's just turned in the very worst performance of any football team in the history of the Ivy League. If the COO of Intuit or Apple had a full year of record poor performances, I can't believe there would be much chance that you would retain him or her.
As far as Murphy goes, we all deserve much better than the flat out inaccurate and misleading defense of her record signed by President Lee Bollinger last week. That was a true embarrassment to him and the school at large and it's in your best interest to distance yourself from that statement as much as possible.
Don't you think the students and alumni who have just endured this abomination of a football season, more than a decade without a winning Ivy men's basketball record, and countless other failures deserve more of an explanation or at least an acknowledgement of the validity of our discontent? Wouldn't you be calling the paramedics to check for signs of the fan base's life if we DIDN'T have negative comments as a result of all of this? And aren't you in the least bit disturbed that Mangurian's "explanation" for where the program was going was basically nonsensical as soon as he cited "empirical data?" Aren't you in the least bit disturbed that Murphy hasn't made any assurances for improvement in football?
3) You have a lot of commitments in your personal and professional life. And yet your financial and emotional commitment to Columbia Athletics is unimpeachable. So why NOT allow an outside consulting group to take over the department and make the overhaul we so sorely need? This is your chance to delegate this key job and be the savior, once again, for making the call. The humility and responsibility you'd be showing by doing that would be truly worthy of a legend.
It's really up to you Bill. You can ignore this advice from someone who doesn't owe you money, doesn't need a job from you, and isn't looking to get his kids into Columbia.
But you shouldn't, because it comes from someone who genuinely admires you yet realizes you need a little push to the right direction.
I'm sure you'd return the favor.
29 comments:
That's not my current photo. Just sayin'
This guy was a really great player although at about 170 pounds he would certainly not fit the current "system" as an offensive guard.
Some years ago Columbia College Today had an outstanding article on him -- his background and his accomplishments.
He's kind of an elusive figure in the Walter Isaacson bio of Steve Jobs. Jobs and other Silicon people seemed to like having him around and frequently consulted with him, but his exact talents were unclear, at least to me. Jobs and the others called him "Coach."
Meanwhile, as someone said, "nothing is as vulnerable as entrenched success." Campbell was a real hardass but now he's the establishment and naming weightlifting centers named after himself. His building at Baker Field looks just like the House of Blues on Sunset Blvd here in LA. Google it.
Meanwhile don't expect anything decisive or radical from Campbell. He may not be tired but I suspect he's a little spaced and he's not going to saw off the branch he's sitting on. It took a long time and a lot of work to climb that tree.
Bill MUST be unaware of what this clown is really doing! E-mail his son to get involved, he played...
Let me give you a snapshot of the world Bill Campbell comes from. It's called silicon valley where tech inventions fuel investment that leads to product sales and acquisitions which generates big money for the small group on the inside running the show. Bill found himself in this world by some strange twist of fate. I don't claim to know him personally but I am well acquainted will John Scully with whom BC made his mark. EVERYTHING BC did and EVERYTHING John Scully did turned out to be a POS. That is no shame though since most tech has a shelf life. You make your money off the POS and it becomes outdated and useless soon enough. If you don't believe me, look at your iPhones and tell me they are not tiny and frustratingly flawed. But maybe the NEXT version will be great. Right. Claris was a complete POS but somehow that is what got the ball rolling for Bill.
In Silicon Valley, it is all an illusion since your ideas have limited staying power unless you can put them into immediate action and build a colossal empire to sell within the right window to cash in. Steve Jobs was a master at this and he had the temperament to drive these things through. Bill Gates too was a tyrant and hired other shark types to do his bidding and so forth.
These Google kids are lamers. They are a perfect example of nobodies who can come from esteemed higher education, have an enterprising strike it rich moment and be worth billions - yet still be total collective zero in personality. They amount to nothing and so is Schmidt. Nothing going on. Nothing to say. They made money because they positioned themselves that way. Some people do it and most don't.
BUT, you don't have to be slick to become a big money guy. Not in silicon valley. You just have to find the right pocket within which to thrive. BC did indeed land himself on the gravy train but in no way shape or form does that mean the guy is somehow a genius. He's nothing. I don't think he is so vain he demanded the building he paid for be named the Campbell Center. That was probably someone else's idea. I have no idea why he chooses to be so involved in CU football other than his own attachments and maybe a desire to try and get it right. Maybe? Who knows. He does not say. But let's not give the guy credit for being something he is not which is a be all and end all figure. His opinion SHOULD mean less than nothing. What matters is him understanding he should have no role at all in football decisions. Period. Go play consultant, do whatever makes you happy that is away from anything CU football. You want to donate, fine. Here's your named building that looks like Hard Rock LA. But that's all it amounts to.
Al, who is "Schmidt?"
Wow Al! A lifetime of frustrations in your comments! You OK? Need to talk to someone?
With all due respect, I don't think that this sort of ad hominum attack on Bill Campbell advances our analysis of the endemic problems with Columbia football.
I have been feeling the pain of CU football since ther early 80's and I am as frustrated as anyone on this board with the school's lack of commitment to football and most sports, but I have a problem with the way some of you are burying Coach Campbell. I believe he is the only one in the admin who really does care about football. Its not just about hiring the right coach, it is about supporting the coach and committing to football and the admin has never committed to the level necessary to turn our fortunes around. We are an embarrassment, the other Ivies laugh at us, and Coach is the only one "up there" who seems to care.
Let's have a little compromising here. Bill Campbell back to his old job as Head Coach of CU football at a dollar a year and Pete Mangurian back to his old job as offensive line coach at the going rate for line coaches in the Ivy League.
Now beef up the defensive and offensive lines to Chicago Stockyard standards and get all of your QB's and the other walking wounded healthy. Let's also back off on the the ridiculous amount of weight work that is done at the sparkling new Campbell Center. Half of the modern day leg injuries are probably caused by excessive weight work.
I'll bet you'll get a sell out for the first home game next year which will top the attendance of all of last year's home games minus the homecoming game. Bill will be happy to be back on the gridiron and Pete will be happy as all hell to get the pressure of being a head coach off of his back.
If the new coaching duo wins the first game, Baker Field , renamed in honor of the 1961 Ivy League Champions, just might have full houses all year long. It will be just like Mantle and Maris of the 1960's Yankees filling tall of the opponents stadiums as well. The glory days are right around the corner, Roar Lion Roar GRRRRRRRR.
Everyone have a peaceful Thanksgiving with your families.
teacher mike 196
We were on the verge of being an upper echelon Ivy team around five years ago, with MA, Knowlin, Gross, Kennedy and others. That leads me to believe that there are no insuperable obstacles to success. If Norries hadn't relied upon Marino as his OC, and if he could have kept up with his initial recruiting successes, we would not have been in the mess we are today. It all goes to leadership at the top of the organization. To me, that means a certain level of institutional support, an AD who knows something about football, and coach who can orchestrate a program. Bollinger can fix this problem tomorrow if he chooses to do so. The downfall of any organization is blind loyalty to incompetent subordinates and indifferent advisors. If Bollinger is prepared to say that it is institutionally important to have a competitive athletic program and to act on that belief he has to replace Murphy and let Murphy's replacement hire the next football HC.
Look, I admit I have almost no idea what's going on behind the scenes, but the Bill Campbell I know is a great person and a great captain and teammate.
(I was only a frosh (when freshmen were ineligible for varsity) when he captained the Ivy championship football team, and I regret not being able to play on that team, but) I played about ten seasons of rugby with Bill Campbell, and I cannot begin to tell you the amount of respect, admiration, and gratitude that I and my rugby teammates and the Old Blue Rugby Football Club have for him!
Roger Dennis '66
Wow, having BC return as head coach is a beautiful dream. I'm sure it would be incredibly meaningful to him. Small linemen of that era has such perfect form in their stance, so low to the ground in their blocking techniques, and such quickness. Who can say what would happen if college players like that faced today's 300-pounders. We'll never know.
A happy holiday to all!
The turkey (not Campbell, Bollinger, Murphy) isn't roasted yet so I feel compelled to comment on Jake's appeal to Campbell. Campbell has the power, true, but he will not act. Of course he' s fond of CU football but he will not fire or overrule Bollinger, who deserves to be fired for that ridiculous, insulting letter, nor will he even get rid of Murphy, Mangurian and the Nathan's Hot Dog Committee, all of whom are useless. A few years back Campbell extended Bollinger's contract through 2016, and he won't blow up their cozy elitist cocktail and dinner parties for the sake of long-suffering alumni or even to erase Columbia's reputation as a laughingstock. I do not admire
Campbell's inaction but it appears that bashing him is a waste of time even though he deserves it. If by any chance he is quietly trying to do anything, he should tell us so. It would reassure us and note harm his efforts one bit. Most likely he's doing nothing, and that leaves me bereft of optimism.
Old lion thanks for the remark about us being an upper echelon ivy team back then. That group was really close to getting it done. Norries had some great kids he recruited.
You just reminded me of the time the NewYork fans booed
MM at the stadium.
You NY fans are tough. PM does not have a chance.
The most prominent sign of cultish, inward-looking, behavior is when you have completely lost any perspective about it looks to outsiders.
Honestly, do you really think that attacking Campbell in this fashion is making him more, or less likely, to respond to your concerns?
Do you really believe that denouncing Bollinger for his position on athletics--in the context of his responsibility for the whole university--makes him or you look bad?
Take a step back: from there, it appears that a lot of people are bouncing off the walls so hard, the walls are beginning to close in....
I am thankful if we get a new coach, one that likes Turkey, but isn't I turkey. Some big meals so our slim fast experiment can finally go by the way of the horse and buggy, and for a unison of football alums and players to be the best
Bollinger is a pompous ass who is so full of himself that if he were broken he would spill candy like a pinata.
Mangurian has given nothing and taken everything.
Bill has given more than his share in terms of time and money. As the narrator from Conan the Babarian said, so he sits with a crown upon a troubled brow. As I believe Bill sits. Knowing the decision at hand is not easy on many fronts. So I ask, how many of you would like to be in those shoes?
To the mental midget who dropped two turds of his thoughts here--: 1.Why in hell should Columbia fans suffering for up to 60 years worry about how outsiders perceive us? It's most likely they agree with us. 2. Why in hell--which is where we are, in football hell--should it make us look bad to denounce Bollinger's rotten position on athletics "in the context of his responsibility for the whole university?" Are you saying it's necessary to destroy football to preserve Columbia? Strange that even the dweebs who run the seven other Ivies don't feel that way about their schools. Probably because even they don't believe such garbage,
I'm afraid your rage is interfering with your reading comprehension.
1) By outsiders, I mean 1) the decision-makers whom you are trying to influence; and 2) other people who might be persuaded, but are put off by the personal nastiness on Jake's blog.
2) Bollinger runs a university whose academic departments are its primary enterprise. Although football may be your sole connection to Columbia, it's actually a very small part of that enterprise. When you denounce Bollinger because the football team is lousy, the comment says more about you and what you think is important than it does about Bollinger.
You want to have a temper-tantrum,then go ahead and have a temper-tantrum. But before you stamp your feet, please be aware that the prospect is neither pleasing to watch nor very likely to influence public opinion.
Rich Forzani '66
Re the preceding dialogue:
Campbell is one of 24 trustees. He has no direct authority over operational decisions, and if he did, he would be one of 24 votes. His personal funding, reputation, and athletic prowess associate him with sports, but unless he were to attempt an unlikely direct intervention, he is a potential influence but not a primary solution. All we can hope for is his active encouragement of a rational conclusion.
Bollinger, conversely, is directly and institutionally responsible for this situation. He is president of a great university and is tasked with the care and growth of same. This includes ALL aspects of the institution. He is paid an extraordinary amount to do this.
One of his areas of oversight and responsibility, and one which takes up a significant portion of budget as well as garnering an outsize amount of public recognition, is athletics. The budget here is much greater than, for example, the budget for the French department or the Art History department. However, despite other accomplishments by Bollinger, he has consistently ignored his fiduciary and institutional responsibility. The example is is this: what would be his reaction if, say, the English department or the Physics department consistently ranked at the bottom of the Ivy League? The answer is apparent.
Why then has he not acted appropriately re athletics? This is a formal budgetary responsibility, not a matter of personal taste. He is obligated to demand excellence here just as he is for every other area under his authority. But he hasn't.
This is not a matter of opinion. The historical records and independent ratings all provide objective conclusions. He has not demanded accountability from his AD, or if he has, has allowed himself to be placated by double-speak because of intellectual and professional laziness. The AD clearly must go, but Bollinger needs to understand how he has under served his constituency.
Whether he likes sports or not, it is part of his job. Period.
To Rich:
Viewed in the aggregate, athletics is a very small part of Bollinger's job. In this respect, the budget of respective departments constitutes a false equivalence. Ask MOST alumni--not just those on Jake's blog--which is worse--a lousy football team, or a lousy French department, and they would choose the latter. I can understand how you might think otherwise if you hang out with athletes. But Columbia being Columbia, that is not most graduates connection to the university.
Nor am I persuaded by your "objective measures." Best as I can tell, the difference between your stats and DM's stats is that hers include individual performance. If such people were attracted to Columbia, it is simply another example of "unskewing the polls" to substitute your stats and then designate them as more "objective measures."
In sum, my main point is that Jake's blog has acquired an increasingly cultish, self-reenforcing quality. Everybody's mad at Mangurian, at Diane Murphy, and at Bollinger. And while this group of alumni may be affluent and perhaps more influential than most, they destroy whatever credibility they may have by playing personnel dominoes--Mangurian is bad, and he should fired; which means that Murphy should be fired, which means that Bollinger should be fired, or if not fired, feel the wrath of the mighty alumni.
From the inside, this may all make sense. But it is THE distinguishing feature of cults that they haven't a clue about it looks from the outside.
As usual, the Oldlion is on the mark. The absurdity of all the comments about the difficulties of coaching at CU is that NW very nearly turned us into a solid program. In 09 we had a fine team that unfortunately snatched defeat from the jaws of victory vs. Lafayette and Yale. If that team goes 6-4, who knows what happens with recruiting and confidence. The next year, we frittered away a homecoming victory vs. Dartmouth that would have put us at 5-5.
Almost isn't good enough. NW lost a ton of close games and never got over the hump. Eventually it gets hard to sell recruits on a turnaround story when the team never quite turns around. But NW did recruit a remarkable number of great football players: AK, Lou Miller, Gross, Kennedy, Adams, Martin, SB, Garrett, ZO, etc. Pete did not inherit a program so bereft of talent that 3-17 was inevitable. And with all due respect to current players and their parents, there are only a handful of players in Pete's first two classes who look like quality Ivy players. I find it sad that there are 40 All-Ivy underclassmen coming back next year, and we have one of them.
The game results tell us pretty conclusively that Pete can't coach, but he hasn't recruited well either. The talent pool is shallower for us today than it was two years ago when he took the job. We are headed in a very bad direction, and unfortunately for the AD, football is the most popular and visible sport we play. She's committing career suicide if she sticks with Pete. Evidently, that's what she intends to do.
One interesting exercise: compare the percentage of Columbia College graduates to the overall board of trustees. Then compare the percentage of undergraduate alumni at the seven other Ivy schools to the overall board. What you will probably find is that we have a lower percentage of College graduates represented on our board than our peer institutions. Now why does that matter? Simple: at no other Ivy school would we have such a low percentage of undergraduate alumni who would have such a lack of a vested interest in athletics. That is why you have a trustee like David Stern, of all people, blowing off Columbia athletics as he has done. He is a law school alumnus, not a College graduate, so why should he care? So unless and until the composition of the board changes, Bollinger can do as he damn well pleases without worrying about pleasing a board I which a sizable majority do care about athletics.
Pardon the post holiday typos. The point I was trying to make is that a board with a majority of undergraduate alumni is much more likely to demand athletic excellence than a board in which a majority went elsewhere to college.
For the most part, while the level of vituperation may be increasing here, the quality of thought and expression is also going up. Progress!
To Anonymous who questioned my reading comprehension: It's excellent but your communications are misleading. First you said my complaints about 60 years of football horror seem "cultish" to "outsiders"--without context or nuance-- which I naturally took to mean the outside world, not other Columbians. Then you replied
by explaining you meant "outsiders" as those at Columbia who make the decisions and don't share my interest in football and all CU athletics which stems from my love of my school. Unlike you,I don't consider some Columbians as insiders and others as outsiders. If some don't like sports, fine--I don't like left-wing Psychosis--but I don't exclude non-sports fans from the ranks of Columbians although I do find the lack of school spirit unfortunate.
Then after correcting yourself,you went on to explain that sports are just a tiny speck to Bollinger. Then why did he promise to attack "the culture of losing" when he arrived here 12 years ago,,,,his phrase not mine!?
Rich Forzani '66C
An intelligently posed note earlier,("To Rich") debating my position on Bollinger's responsibilities.
Here's the problem:
1) It isn't, and never has been, a choice between a lousy football team or a lousy French department, as you pose.
As a multi million $ prez, LB needs to deliver the goods for BOTH. PERIOD. This is Columbia, and we are spending millions on athletics. So opinions like you mention don't count. Competence is a job requirement and unfortunately, it is people who think like you who have allowed our intellectual and physical expectations to take the low road. We expect French and Physics to be outstanding; we expect the same for athletics. Explain how we are wrong.
2) "Objective measures" which you question here, appear to be a mistaken or deliberate misinterpretation of what I said.
Murphy's individual stats still do not bail her out. The most accepted rating criteria in the country, used by the other Ivies, which includes ALL aspects of an athletic department, ranks her last in 5 out of the past 9 years. She ranks an average of 7th for all 9 years. If you do not perceive this as completely ineffectual, then clearly we have nothing further to discuss. This is 180 degrees from your comment re "skewing the polls". You are deliberately turning pure stats on their head to support a spurious and political position.
Re: "Cults"; Few here know each other; fewer still agree on anything except the fact that Columbia is not getting its money's worth from an uninvolved president, an incompetent AD and a failure of a football coach. Understand, however, that PM is just the tip. There is a ton of dead wood that will be exiting shortly.
And seriously, people, you need to step up if you believe in this. Join CAEC. NOW!
Dear Rich,
Thanks for stepping up as you have. I will be e-mailing you today to add my name to CAEC. Everyone with pride in Columbia should do the same even if they're not sports fans. It is beyond bizarre and very sad to be called a cultist for taking pride in Columbia and its Lions. In my heart I cannot separate them at all.
I hesitated only because I doubted I could add anything concrete to your process. But I agree that standing up publicly to be counted is extremely important. The last Columbia president who gave a damn about football was Dwight D. Eisenhower who left Columbia to become President of the United States. The last successful Columbia football coach was Lou Little who retired soon after. It's time to end 60 years of failure.
Post a Comment