Average Final Score: Opponents 40 Columbia 7
Touchdowns Scored: Opponents 52 Columbia 9
Average Total Yards per Game: Opponents 514 Columbia 204
Average Rushing Yards per Game: Opponents 243 Columbia 52
Average Passing Yards per Game: Opponents 271 Columbia 152
3rd Down Conversion Rate: Opponents 43% Columbia
17%
Sacks Allowed per game: Columbia 4 Opponents 1.5
Conclusion: Head Coach Pete
Mangurian is not competent for this job. He does not know how to win, make improvements,
or develop players in the Ivy League.
If he continues in his position, Columbia will continue to
lose. Do not be fooled into thinking otherwise. This is what we’re trying to
save everyone from the players to the fans from experiencing.
The Mangurian situation is simply fruit of the poison tree
that is the Columbia Athletics department and the administration at large.
We the alumni, the donors, the former players… all of us
demand a change.
Once again, please email Rich Forzani at Rforzani1@optonline.net and let’s get the committee started
and armed and ready to address the powers that be and the entire Columbia
community.
35 comments:
Rich Forzani '66C
First, Jake, this is exactly the kind of info we need. Thank you.
These are STATS. You don't argue with stats. They are pure truth, just like DM's 9 year record here. Stats aren't nasty, they aren't snarky, they are facts!
They are the truth that will set us free.
Second, and thanks again to Jake, we have had a terrific response so far to our membership campaign for CAEC. You should know 2 things about us.
a) everyone is bcc'd, so your membership is always anonymous. Don't let that keep you from joining.
b) we ask for a VOLUNTARY $25 donation to fund start-up costs, including our website. If you can, great; if not, no problem.
Talk to you soon,
Rich
Not quite. Without a context, they're just some odd numbers floating around in the data universe.
It's all well & fine to argue that we should discuss Columbia's longstanding failings in athletics.
But the context you offer--namely, that these numbers in and of themselves point to the need to fire M & M--are prefabricated.
It goes well beyond the factual numbers Jake has provided, it also comes down to ability to lead, mentoring, respect, taking responsibility, being accountable, and knowing to stand up for the mistakes you made. PM as I know him, although for a short period of time, really sets a bad taste in my mouth. Not just based on the numbers by Jake or the points above, but just how there are two personalities that we’ve seen from PM.
After speaking to several current and ex CU football players, again I ask that someone talk to the players, allow them to speak their peace, and know that there are no financial or other repercussion for expressing how things are behind the locker room doors.
As a leader in an large organization for 15+ years, the major way you earn respect, rally the troops, build trust, and share the ups and downs is stand up for those troops, be honest, and if necessary look in the mirror and address what may be the true root cause.
Are there any updates on senior football players coming forward? Have we lost any additional players for next year or are they in a wait and see state?
Rich Forzani '66C
And more to the point, the stats are plainly NOT without context. They have already been defined as the worst ever in the League. You and your pals are beggining to get boring. You want proof, then you reject it. If you were shown Black, you would claim that it was dark White.
This above isn't opinion, it is primary evidence of failure.
I don't know how many angels you can fit on the head of a pin, but your sophistry is misplaced. It is what it is, and there ain't many more ways to peel this onion.
Add that to the PM self-created PR hellhole, and you have disaster.
Stats do tell a story but what needs to come out and be directed to the powers that be is the demoralization of the locker room, the football alumni community and perception of the university as losers. Regardless uf they like it or not they have to understand what this type of losing does to the precaution of the university. Why do they want that if they have the ability to get it right? This committee should emphasize solutions. That is the formula for success in business and a. language they have to understand.
I really hate this phone keyboard, sorry
The only context there is, is the one that you provide. On its own, no number carries its own meaning. It only has the meaning that you attribute to it, which is precisely what is contested in this instance. Is it Mangurian, a series of devastating injuries, the Columbia athletic department, or this season, a perfect storm of horrendous events? You say there is one, and only explanation. I say this is the crudest form of empiricism, and suggest otherwise.
Can you imagine the basketball analysis like Jake just put out?
Good coaches find a way to either win or make the team comepetitive regardless of injuries.
I am not sure how this year we suffered the perfect storm. We had a legitimate first team running back that seemingly disappeared, read did not play, we had some all-ivy caliber players not asked to play. That to me is not a perfect storm, but rather poor coaching.
It's easy to imagine Jake's basketball analysis. He would say we haven't done well yet, and blame it on Mangurian.
The statistics are the worst in the entire history of any team in the Ivy League and the worst in the FCS this year. Isn't that enough to reinforce that this coaching staff is incompetent. Does the Columbia administration really want them back?
anonymous guy who has it in for Jake:
Are you serious? What has PM done to garner anyone's support?
We'd most likely tolerate the losing for one more year or maybe even two if we saw even the slightest trend of improvement this year, but that certainly has not happened - we were as bad early as we were at season's end. We also might tolerate the losing a little longer if the man had shown even the slightest morsel of public relations acuity, but I would argue that he has failed in that department worse than the poor performance on the field.
He had a chance to show signs that the team was getting better and he miserably failed that one. he also had a chance to show he was a good guy who appreciated the players, former players and fans and he failed miserably in that department, too.
And I still maintain he could get away with being a jerk as long as he would just give us some hope... But again, he failed on that one, too...
Dianne should have realized the risks she was taking hiring this guy and if you ask me, she is equally as culpable.
How can anyone objectively argue with Jake about any of this?
Perhaps. But the problem is that you are much better arguing for Jake than Jake is.
Why argue for the sake of arguing? It is obvious PM is a colossal failure. His career will take a huge hit for his arrogance. He did it go himself. The argument made in this blog is primarily no one wants PM,'s laughable lack of people skills and dearth of football acumen to affect the CU football program. That is why Pete it's doomed one way or the other. I will actually enjoy tormenting him through every means at my long distance digital disposal and letting him know his crash and burn is entertainment.
Anonymous "But the problem is that you are much better arguing for Jack then Jake is."
Well that's team work, regardless what Jake states or any of us, we are working and supporting our cause as a team, not an individual like you and the other 1-3 bandits.
We all want what's best for Columbia University first an foremost and the student athletes basically pulling two full time jobs as a Athlete in a challenging Ivy league university.
PM is not a TEAM player he is an individual only worried about his own personal gain and to either focus on his agenda to move back to the NFL or allow for his own personal financial gain. He has absolutely no agenda to address and assist these young men to be around someone who teaches and leads.
Could someone explain upperclassman watching from the stands at Baker? I mainly was ticker watching to start the season and I missed that. We were able to dress 120 at home when I played in the 90s. Freshmen dressed. What happened? That really bothers me if not done for a valid reason.
thanks,
Jim Armstrong '99
To put these numbers in context, it would be interesting to see the stats for the 7th place team in the league, and also for Columbia last year. This will help show how awful the team was relative to its peers and relative to its own recent past.
Jim,
I am not sure if there ever was an explanation as to why the upperclassmen did not suit up. There certainly is speculation that others can relay, but we don't have an answer.
Des Werthman
You're mischaracterizing my position. Mangurian has certainly made mistakes. Where I differ from most commentators on this blog is 1) I think the insistence that he be fired is reflexive, i.e. it is what fans do everywhere when the team is bad--fire the coach; 2) I think he should be given more time, unimpeded by the toxic environment around the football program that this blog creates; 3) Bollinger has spoken, and for the next ten months at least, you are not going to change his mind; 4) given #3, you can either be self-fulfillingly destructive, or stand down, and for the moment, as Todd Hawkes as pointed out, you seem committed to the latter course.
I know, I know, you can't do anything more to hurt the team, because it is already written in stone that under Mangurian, they will be 0-10 in 2014. So committed are some to this position that I begin to wonder: if Columbia has a modest turnaround next year, will being wrong about Mangurian outweigh their interest in a few victories???
From 1995:
New York Giants center Brian Williams and offensive line coach Pete Mangurian were involved in a loud shouting match and reportedly came close to exchanging blows yesterday at practice. The New York Times reported that Williams, a seven-year veteran, became upset because Mangurian was criticizing his players for being overweight. It said Williams directed an expletive-laced tirade at his position coach. Williams declined comment on the incident, and Mangurian said it should be "kept in the family.
----------------
Has anyone seen PM and Richard Simmons in the same place? I believe we may be dealing with a fatist! There is no place for that at Columbia.
And so goes the experiences of his players in Atlanta, tampa bay, Cornell, fill in all the other places he has coached. It is called being a bad leader and unfit for the position or title.
Thanks Jim, great find! You have just done more vetting of Mangurian than the so-called search committee did two years ago!
Seriously, read the whole article:
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/22/sports/pro-football-fists-nearly-fly-between-line-coach-and-a-giant.html
The only reason Pete was in that job to begin with is because he and Dan Reeves were networked. Not sure if the shouting incident was before or after Reeves coached the Falcons to their only Super Bowl appearance but Pete was on that staff too.
Playing psychotherapist (of which I have no training) it seems Pete has fat issues. He is in good shape himself (wait, did I just compliment him?). I don't see any face fat on him and that is impressive for a 58 year old man. Genetics or good fitness. Come to think of it he has no gray hair either. Maybe he is a clone? I think he has expectations about fitness and as an OL coach that is a tall order. Some guys who play OL are going to be overweight. If he only wants ripped and cut 250lb guys to play for him then that is way too high a standard. Not saying he definitely does, after all he played a large freshman who does not fit that body type. He seems to want a lot out of his players as far as fitness though.
So to answer the question, yes, Richard Simmons would be an excellent choice as a member of Pete's staff. I'll call him right now and have him in Pete's office by the morning.
Thanks anonymous, read it. I saw it on a Philly blog and copied the entire excerpt. However, read the Times and gleaned that unnamed sources spoke highly of PM, at least 2 starters had serious public issues and the Giants rushing game went from 4th in yards/carry in 92 (4.5) to 25th in 94 (3.3). I was adding a touch of levity and you saw an edited misrepresentation of PMs tenure with the Giants a decade ago. Breath in and then out.
Happy Holidays,
Jim
By "seriously, read the whole thing," what I meant was:
Hey, everybody, this Times article contains even more interesting tidbits than the brief excerpt provided above and so is worth reading in its entirety; here is the link.
All friends here, big Jim.
Hahaha....four years at CU and I just assume sarcasm! My bad anonymous,
These are the facts. Period Numbers to one thing they reveal the true story.
Here's a comparison of stats from the 2012 team under head coach Mangurian's 1st year vs this years team 2013 his 2nd year.
Scoring in 12 CU:145 OPP:272
Scoring in 13 CU: 73 OPP:401
First Downs 12 CU:167 OPP:200
First Downs 13 CU:110 OPP:272
Rushing Yds 12 CU:997 OPP:1516
Rushing Yds 13 CU:519 OPP:2429
Passing Yds 12 CU:2042 OPP:2219
Passing Yds 13 CU:1524 OPP:2712
Total Offense 12 CU:3039 OPP:3735
Total Offense 13 CU:2043 OPP:5141
Total Touchdowns 12 CU:15 OPP:35
Total Touchdowns 13 CU: 9 OPP 52
Time O Poss. 12 CU:29:33 OPP:30:27
Time O Poss. 12 CU:24:44 OPP:35:16
Now ask yourself this question: Which direction is the program moving in?
To this day, neither Claridge, Mangurian nor Reeves will say specifically why Forney won the job back nine weeks later. Claridge, a starter in every game of organized football he'd ever played, spent the last month of the season wearing a hat and standing alone on the sideline.
Coincidence or not, the Falcons were 6-4 when Claridge started, 1-5 when he sat. The fluctuating line caused quarterback Chris Chandler to plea for Mangurian and Reeves to settle on a starting five and stick with it. Chandler, who was released in February as the only quarterback to lead Atlanta to the Super Bowl, only needed to point at his lack of protection - an NFL-high 66 sacks allowed and a staggering ratio of one every 8.35 passing plays - as evidence.
Look familiar?
After some of the things Mangurian allegedly said to Elliott the last three years, Jumbo probably has learned to let almost anything roll off his back. During the final game of the '93 season, in excruciating back pain, Elliott says Mangurian challenged his desire and toughness. It was something Elliott would never forget. Or forgive. A few weeks ago, when Elliott heard Magurian and Giants defensive line coach Earl Leggett had a brief shoving match during practice, Jumbo cracked, "I hope Leggett kicked his butt.
" "It was pretty much in my head then that if I ever got the chance to leave and (Mangurian) was still with the Giants, I would move on to greener pastures," Elliott said. "I've played with broken ribs, broken bones. . . . I don't need some JV line coach doing that kind of stuff.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/jumbo-jet-lands-smoothly-article-1.745732#ixzz2mThra5w2
What is perplexing to me is the concept that we should keep him for another year because things could/should get better.
The perplexing thing is to even ask the question because how could things get much worse? It is such a low barrier that things almost have to get better and that very well will largely due to the fact that they cannot get any worse.
So, let's keep him for tha reason. Splendid, i have never been witness to any employee setting his/her own low base and being kept because things are going to improve.
However, what if this is as good as it gets? Nobody seems to contemplate that scenario. The reason? Because it is incomprehensible, but certainly not improbable. This is like doubling down on a losing position; just not a good idea because it leads to finacial ruin. In this case, it is program ruin.
Is there a way to find out if Pete is using Grecian formula?
Al: look closer. Pete has a HUGE GUT! He doesn't practice what he preaches.
How hard is it? Just Google "pete mangurian fired" and look at the results. That in conjunction with the Times article posted earlier should have been enough to avoid this disaster from the start.
I don't really think the sort of character assassination being practiced here helps anything. And it's needlessly cruel.
Post a Comment