Joe Moglia
In a recent interview with Forbes Magazine, wildly successful Coastal Carolina Head Coach Joe Moglia, confirms what we always suspected about the way his candidacy was handled by Athletic Director Dianne Murphy two years ago. Here's the key graph:
"As much as I want to spend my life coaching, I did not want to spend the rest of my life looking for a job," he told me --- Columbia University, Florida Atlantic University, and Fordham University all showed interest in him. Columbia BLEW HIM OFF AFTER A PHONE INTERVIEW...
For Moglia not to even get a face-to-face interview is beyond the pale of acceptable behavior by a so-called responsible athletic director.
Unless, that AD was dead set on hiring an inferior candidate like Pete Mangurian from the beginning. An inferior candidate who would be so beholden to Murphy for lifting him out of obscurity and documented failure after failure, that he would surely do whatever she asked no matter what.
I consider this incident to be a serious breach of fiduciary duty by Murphy.
In other words, this is a dismissal-worthy offense considering Moglia's great success over the last two years and the extremely low salary he was willing to accept.
Columbia football hasn't been a perpetual failing state for so long because of bad luck, it's because of bad decisions. And this was a whopper.
The Columbia alumni community deserves some really detailed answers from Murphy about why she never gave Moglia's candidacy a fair shake.
We deserve them now.
11 comments:
Why would Joe Moglia even want to leave Coastal Carolina? Unless he is severely underpaid and the 250k at CU seems like a sweet deal (understandable if he is not in that bracket now). He has done wonders at Coastal. 12-2 then beating Montana @ Montana in freezing temps. That is a magic. No shame whatsoever losing to North Dakota State.
If I was Joe and I am talking to some deep voiced woman who does not know the right questions to ask on a football coaching interview I would be happy to get off the phone.
Ok, did a little research and see that Joe Moglia knows all about finance (if that is the same guy who wrote a book on investing). He is also mid 60's so motives for taking on a rebuilding project of CU's magnitude are unclear. I would think he would be content coaching at Coastal Carolina.
Jake, you yourself said "the three biggest things the new head coach at Columbia needs are:
1) Successful track record as a head coach
2) Experience coaching and recruiting in the Ivy League
3) Willingness and ability to promote New York City for recruiting and to increase fan interest."
So you answered your own question. Moglia didn't have nos. 1 or 2. Not a good candidate for CU's situation.
As you said, yourself, "Giving us a coach who clearly fails to have any one or more of the above criteria is going to be a hard sell for a lot of the fans.
Candidates Pete Mangurian and Jim Hofher probably meet all the above qualifiers. They certainly do for #1, can be okay on #2 with a little refresher course, and can succeed at #3 if willing to get help."
So you said Moglia was not a good choice then and Mangurian was. Are you angry at Murphy for agreeing with you???
Who said:
"I thought Mangurian was an excellent coach at Cornell, getting the most out of his players especially in his final year of 2000 when the Big Red went to the final weekend of the season with a chance to win the title with a win over Penn. The Quakers crushed Cornell that day in Ithaca, but it was amazing that Mangurain got them that far."
And . . .
"When I first broke the news that he was a serious candidate for the job, I emphasized Mangurian's successful tenure at Cornell. Make no mistake, he is a good coach."
And . . .
"Final point: Columbia had better teams than Mangurian did all three years we faced him and Cornell. He won two of those games anyway. Let's hope he squeezes more out of our guys too. I know he has done it before."
Jake, if Murphy should be fired for hiring Mangurian, maybe you should . . . . Nah, I'll stop here under the mercy rule. Suffice it to say hindsight is 20/20.
Bravo for the research above. Approve of PM then; obsessed with firing him now; and blame others for the same thinking in which he once indulged--
it's increasingly evident that most of Jake's commentary is situational.
I never touted Mangurian. I was asked to give him a fair shake once he was hired and I decided to highlight some of his positives. Then the red flags started popping up like mad. After a season and a half, I had seen enough. So has everyone who isn't in the administration. Haven't you? 0-10 and the worst stats of all time should make everyone really look hard at the situation. If you had done more research from 2011, you would have seen that I wrote very glowingly of Moglia very early on in the process. The fact that he wasn't given a fair shake by Dianne is inexcusable.
Hello, we were all skeptical about the hire; espoecially when Gilmore and Margraff were never even interviewed. Instead, Dianne cut a back-handed deal with PM... and now we have a record-setting year that will last until Cornell hires PMback.
One issue that posters have skirted around is what responsibility of the dismal season falls on the players. I will suggest it's is a lot, but that still falls on the coach. The effort was not there this year. On a cohesive team, the whole is always greater than the sum of the parts. That extra effort, playing beyond what you thought your potential was, comes from a collective pride and belief. Belief in the guy next to you is there because he earned it, not inherited it. Belief if your coach and his staff. The coach is correct that his players underperformed. He got exactly what he deserved from them. He set the tone and got the expected performance. He expects when the rising seniors are gone, things will improve. But they won't. His style and methods are the cancer, not disgruntled players or their families. The majority of the posters on this blog get it. This was not a "perfect storm" of injury. This was the result of terrible psychology from a man that clearly doesn't get it!
One issue that posters have skirted around is what responsibility of the dismal season falls on the players. I will suggest it's is a lot, but that still falls on the coach. The effort was not there this year. On a cohesive team, the whole is always greater than the sum of the parts. That extra effort, playing beyond what you thought your potential was, comes from a collective pride and belief. Belief in the guy next to you is there because he earned it, not inherited it. Belief if your coach and his staff. The coach is correct that his players underperformed. He got exactly what he deserved from them. He set the tone and got the expected performance. He expects when the rising seniors are gone, things will improve. But they won't. His style and methods are the cancer, not disgruntled players or their families. The majority of the posters on this blog get it. This was not a "perfect storm" of injury. This was the result of terrible psychology from a man that clearly doesn't get it!
Anonymous above, I've never heard all the details of Mangurian's deal with Columbia. Can you explain the "backhanded deal" Murphy "cut" with Mangurian? You just made that up, didn't you, you rascal!
Anonymous above, I've never heard all the details of Mangurian's deal with Columbia. Can you explain the "backhanded deal" Murphy "cut" with Mangurian? You just made that up, didn't you, you rascal!
Post a Comment