That is why I believe the Times published this letter to the sports editor in today's sports section.
It was written by our friend Richard Forzani '66. I hope it resonates with the Times-worshipping Lee Bollinger and serves as fair notice: not only will we not give up on getting a new AD and football head coach, but the embarrassment will not end for the CU administration... not even in their beloved paper of record.
Understand that whenever people talk about Columbia from now on, it's very likely all they'll talk about is football and sports.
By the way, a Metro North train derailed across from Baker Field today on the same spot as the terrible 19th century train accident I wrote about in this blog this past summer. I expect a lot of people will be making jokes today about how the train wreck outside Baker Field is nowhere near as bad as the one inside Baker Field. Is this what we want, to be the butt of morbid jokes?
Lee and Bill, you need to fix this.
Fix it now.
And speaking of fixing it, remember that Rich Forzani is forming a committee to get it done:
And speaking of fixing it, remember that Rich Forzani is forming a committee to get it done:
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.
54 comments:
Bill - Please fast forward 365 days from now. The team is 0-10 (and another band member from Harvard Letters against us)... Pete is 3-27 over three years. We told you so.
Now what Bill? Once again you sit in your Ivory Tower and refuse to say that you were wrong. What does that mean? Two words... Contract Extension!
what is campbells email address?
Actually, there are two letters. The other letter recommends that we drop football, because the admission of players who could make us competitive will require the lowering of academic standards. It's pretty tendentious, and a reflection of your wishes completely independent of the facts, to assert that Forzani's letter, and only Forzani's letter, reflects the true editorial position of the New York Times.
Equally problematic is your assertion that the football team is the primary concern of people who mention Columbia. Most peoples' connection to the university is credentialing and academic; all things being equal, they'd prefer success to failure in athletics, but mostly they just don't care. The first skill of anyone who launches a political campaign is the ability to count. When you state that EVERYONE is talking about the failures of Columbia athletics, you put yourself in the position of someone who thinks they are leading a mass movement, only to turn at the end in embarrassment to face a passionate, but very small, crowd.
Nice spin. It's obvious that you have no connection to the student body when you mention a very small crowd.
Come down from your Ivory Tower and join the middle class slobs that live and die with your sports programs.
What elitist bullshit, like CU is some pantheon place deserving of worship. Drop sports because we can't possibly lower our standards? No room at the inn for a student athlete to get his degree at CU unless he/she has this GPA or that SAT. What a crock of shit and there lies the problem.
Columbia without football is just NYU.
Rich Forzani '66
Regarding the Devil's Advocate position above, it ignores the primary point Jake makes; that the NYT published the note. If any of you have attempted a NYT letter before, you understand. I was directly/personally vetted by NYT prior to publication. It is posted to provide the opposite side of the position stated by the first writer. It is prima facie taken seriously by the NYT.
Secondly, I reject the concept that most people don't care. I do believe that most people don't have the energy level to be directly involved, hence the importance of our efforts. But if it is understood that sports (including FB) will NEVER be dropped, then who in their right mind would prefer a losing proposition vs. a winning one if the cost was identical.
And I promise you this; because of Jake's blog, thousands more are aware and concerned than they were before.
Sometimes I think the people on this blog can't read. I never said that football should be dropped. I said that another letter said that football should be dropped, and that Jake, without any way of actually knowing, said that only Forzani's letter represented the official editorial position of the NYT. (What makes you think that the other letter writer wasn't also called???)
As far as who roots for Columbia teams, sure, the students do. The alumni (meaning all alumni, not just this echo-chamber), not so much. Once again, I submit, you are greatly inflating your powers and numbers, which leads, strategically, to a significant overplaying of your hand.
Let me get this right. You admit that sports are important to the students, but they do not count in the big picture. Please clarify.
Maybe the alumni would relate to winners other than chronic losers.
Not all CU grads are elitist, ivory dwellers like you. Thank goodness.
I am dying to find out the identity of Jake's antagonist on this board. I wonder if it is someone in the athletic department or a board member...
Jake,
Looks like the 2 has increased to 3.
At some point with enough responses from them, they will inadvertently disclose their identities . They doth protest too much.
I'd be happy to clarify.
The people on this blog rarely say they want better football teams for the students. They want better football for themselves because it validates their sole remaining connection to the university. If they contended that they were doing this for the students, that, at least, would be logically consistent. But in the big picture, they are not advocating for change in athletics to improve the students' experience any more than they are arguing that the academic department where they majored should be upgraded.
As to the elitist, ivory dweller charge: if I didn't care about Columbia' athletics, I wouldn't write at all. You can, and probably will continue to dismiss my comments as elitist. Nevertheless, when you cherry pick your data, your letters, and your level of alumni support, someone should politely point out that the strategy is flawed, and it is all going to end badly.
If Columbia drops football, they risk being kicked out of the Ivy League. Does anyone really want that?
Who could replace us? Georgetown?
Thanks for the confirmation that you are in fact an elitist. I myself do not care about the alumni, the student body or anyone contributing to this board. It's the athletes, the football teams that are constantly being embrassed by the beatings they are enduring year after year, without any help from you the administration .
Thanks for confirming you can't read.
I never said I was an elitist. I said that you would continue to say so. For you, as a matter of reading comprehension, the difference between those two statements is apparently a bridge too far.
The other Ivy schools with football teams are actually dragging our academics down. If we stop admitting football players, we will be in a special elite class all by ourselves. The remaining 7 will eventually follow our example and drop football too.
A much shorter definition of "validates their connection to the University" is pride. You have distroyed that in the vast majority of grads that do not care about CU athletics. This time of year watch the stands of the big football games: Stanford, Notre Dame, Texas etc. to see what real alumni support looks like. That will never happen with you making the assumption that nobody cares about CU football.
To: I'd be happy to clarify, I am a parent who wants better football for the students who are playing , who have not had any support from DM or LB. it's been humiliating and embarrassing for these guys this season. really, who are you to say that the people on this blog,be it alum, past or current players , fans and parents) don't want a better football program for the students. My impression is that this is what this blog is all about.
My reading comprehension is good enough to understand that CU sports is not on the same level as the rest of the IL and you and your Ivory Tower residents are to blame .
Georgetown would be near the top of the list. Don't think that they aren't watching this situation.
I wish the players had a better experience too.
But read between the lines of most blog entries: the prime motivation seems that alumni should have a better experience in the stands. True, some people feel bad about what is happening for the players on this field. Generally speaking, though, the rage they express is more about what is happening to them--`their wounded alumni pride'-- than what is happening to the players.
My statements are being made to whom I perceive to be someone in the administration that is saying hardly anyone cares about CU football. Not directed at any parents, coaches or people who care about making the sports program better.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duct, then it is an elitist.
I agree, but the bottom line is still the same. Everyone's pride is being hurt.
Players, parents, alumni. I don't think the coaching staff is to blame entirely.
Most of Jake's critizising is about the front office staff.
Would it qualify as elitist to note that you misspelled duck?
That will go over really well when you are trying to argue that success in Columbia athletics does not require a lowering of academic standards.
If you are one of the administration,
let's agree that something has to change so that CU sports in general becomes more competitive. I am not advocating any personnel changes, just some attitude adjustments. If that can be shown, the rage will subside.
If you are not part of the administration, we are preaching to the choir.
YES! You should be smart enough to tell a spelling error from a typo. Maybe I'm wrong about you. You're grasping at straws. Have you run out of ammo?
The world is starting to catch on. The clock is ticking for Murphy and Mangurian.
Not asking for lowering of standards. My understanding is that Harvard, Yale and Princeton have higher admission standards than CU. How then is that they kick our butts every year on the football field?
Well, it's true that you did spell duck correctly half the time.
In truth, though, it's the quality of thought, and not just the spelling, that appears to need some affirmative action.
Are you in a position to do something about the program that you care about?
Well, are you a part of the administration or not? A yes will not allow us to figure out who you are, but will help us to understand your attitude toward athletics in general. If you' re not a friend, you must be an enemy.
That's it. Your best shot? I was starting to like you. I think most of my statements can be verified. Your retorts about my spelling/typos are very weak. Not a CU grad, but a sports fan that can spell failure at least 1 out of 2 times.
You are all morons...CU is not dropping football or leaving the Ivy League. CU has fielded a FB team since 1870...U of Michigan the winning-est team in CFB history played its first game in 1879. There is too much history for a total closure. Its a shame the current admin can't understand why the athletic department needs a total over-haul. Fire MDM and PM!!!
The bottom line remains that this Columbia team was the worst team statistically in the history of the Ivy League and the worst in the entire FCS. How can any sane person want to keep Coach Mangurian and Diane Murphy after the team's performance.
To my new best friend. Let me apologize for allowing this line of communication to degrade to name calling. It's not you that is the problem.
In fact, if you are part of the administration,thanks for stepping up
The more we communicate with each other, the smarter we all become.
I remember Columbia's first football game because I was on the team. Things were VERY different then, even the shape of the ball, the rules, the civil war was still fresh in everyone's minds. Columbia had a chance to build its program into THE dominant force but they lagged. Look what happened. The program has never recovered.
No, I'm not part of the administration. I've actually been a Columbia football fan since 1962 (my father took me to a Columbia-Rutgers game about 1953, but that doesn't count). One of my all-time favorite sports memories is Archie Roberts bringing back Columbia against Cornell from a 21-6 deficit to win 25-21 in the pouring rain (October, 1963?)
Yes, I'd like Columbia to win in football and basketball. But the university is a university with a football team, not a Football Team that happens to be located in a university. If you don't care at all about Columbia athletics like most of my friends, my interest in such matters is pretty dubious. But neither can I match the ardor of some on this blog, whose frustrated fandom leads them to exaggerate their influence and strike out in poorly calculated ways.
Also. please remember that all anonymous statements don't come from the same source. I repeat that I am not advocating any personnel changes. Just some attitude adjustments on both sides.
Thanks!
Going through old papers I found a preseason fundraising
letter from Coach M introducing Team Number 123 via two specific concepts: 1. "Team 123 will not be satisfied
withanything less than greatness." 2. "Team 123 works together" because it knows "it'll take the whole team to get us where we want to go." Strange the team knows this-- he says--but he doesn't.
Every coach is going to have their mantras and formulas for success. We all know the story with Pete. He's a failure as a coach so nothing he says makes a difference. Everyone sees it and knows it. If it takes another 0-10 season for the guy to be fired, well, that's the way the powers that be want to play it.
Rich Forzani '66
Folks, the intra-blog sniping doesn't advance the cause. And no one is impressed with smart people trying to prove that they are. In my humble opinion, I'm one of the smartest people I know, and I'm sure many of you feel the same way about yourselves also.
But here's the deal, in response to our "cherry picking" critic.
Football and other sports are never going away. The Ivy association is far too important to CU, so it is a straw man issue. Period. Whatever your opinion of this may be, nothing's going to change.
So since we will always have sports, the choice is to do well or do nothing.
We can't blame budget, because it is huge. What we can do is DEMAND intelligent management of these funds. That implies/requires performance accountability, as in any organization. (This is where the "cherry picking" comment goes in the toilet.)
For, based upon any evaluation, either re championships or overall performance, our A Department comes in last. The administration is the entity pouring the Kool Aid with their skewed results. Now, DM isn't the only terrible AD we have had, but she IS the one we've had for 9 years, and she has worn out her long leash. It's time for her to move on.
We need a thorough and sane and professional evaluation of the Athletic Dept and recommendations to improve the terrible heritage and miasma that has defined our sports programs for so many decades.
It boils down to getting our money's worth and expecting reasonable competence from highly paid employees.
Does that make sense to everyone?
Very good, Dawg, I can't imagine it being said any more succinctly.
Makes Very Good Sense. ThankYou Mr. Forzani, we need more people like you and Jake to make this happen.
Jake: Your comments comparing a fatal train accident to Columbia football is a new low for this blog. You probably thought it was cute, but it was crude and tasteless
I am a parent of an upperclass player. 0 and 10 or 10 and 0 with an Ivy titile and national ranking; it wouldn't change the fact that Pete Mangurian is an ignorant, miserable and EXTREMELY dangerous man who has no business leading this team or having any responsibility for the growth, development, health and well being of these amazing and dedicated athletes.
Again, the above comment is another trick nobody should fall for. My post clearly states that morbid jokes comparing CU football to the train wreck are what we DON'T want. The commenter above, (one of our same 2 troublemakers), is trying to pretend to be offended.
And again, you'll notice that every disagreement with our cause on this blog does NOT include even the slightest defense of Mangurian or Murphy's records. They consist completely of attacks on us personally or against our right to even complain in the first place.
This is an old and silly political trick employed by people aligned with obvious losers.
Nice try, but it won't work.
0-10 is 0-10. And no attack or attempts to twist our words can change that.
Oh, and these obvious phony attacks attempt to use my policy of letting anyone anonymously comment here against me. This is literally biting the hand that feeds them.
Biting the hand that feeds them?" So free speech consists solely of the speech of the people with whom you agree? That's very big-hearted of you.
On the retention of M & M, I'm an agnostic. Sure, football is a disaster, but I have yet to be persuaded that the firing of Mangurian and his replacement by another coach is anything more than a Sisyphean task. Analogies are often made to corporations that are performing poorly. True, except if you have been on the bottom for so long, and fire the new CEO every two years, all the churning does is to make the turn-around less, rather than more, likely.
I know--the notion that M & M should be given some time will make some on this blog apoplectic. But think about it-- what precedent are we setting when the next coach knows that Columbia's been in the dumps for 50 years, and he'll be gone in 2 if he doesn't turn it around?
I think their are other circumstances in this case. However, I think that any coach that examines this last year's record and statistical outputs would whole heartedly agree that the current coach should be fired on numbers alone.
Post a Comment