Sean Brackett soared, but Pete Mangurian showed him no respect
More and more people close to the football program report that Head Coach Pete Mangurian continues to talk to anyone who will listen, (including major donors and administrators), about the supposed lack of talent he inherited on the roster when he became coach two years ago.
This is a disgusting and cowardly lie meant to cover up the current coaching staff's historic, and I mean historic, failures.
And I'd like to put a stop to it right now with a detailed analysis.
I'd like to dedicate each of the next few days to those "talentless players" Mangurian inherited.
Let's start with the QB:
1) Sean Brackett
Brackett was struggling with injuries for almost all of 2011, (the season before Mangurian took over), but he was still the total package. He could run fast and tough, he had a strong arm, and most importantly, he was a team leader in the truest sense of the word. Oh, and in 2010, he was 1st Team All Ivy. When healthy, and he was relatively healthy coming into 2012, he was the best Columbia QB in 30 years.
Mangurian and Offensive Coordinator Jaime Elizondo proceeded to misuse this commodity by keeping him in the pocket too much and subjecting him to a playing behind a by-design too light and inexperience offensive line.
Mangurian's lightweight experiment and his disdain for the veteran O-linemen put Brackett in a dangerous situation week after week. He also threatened Brackett with special punishment if he ran outside the pocket more than he deemed necessary, thus taking away the QB's singular talent of throwing better while freezing the defense on a roll out.
Mangurian's mismangement, disrespect, and general ineptitude in his handling of Brackett is one of the best examples of how is he all wrong for coaching in today's Ivy League and especially at Columbia.
To all the big administrators and donors who have heard Mangurian's line about how he inherited no talent. I suggest you get the other side of the story.
Of course, as it stands now, the truth will come out painfully all during the next season.
Tomorrow: Marcorus Garrett
UPDATE: I'll talk about Josh Martin in a separate post as well, but I just want to mention that he had four solo tackles for the KC Chiefs in their game against the Colts yesterday.
Martin was one of those "talentles, cupboard-bare" players he supposedly inherited.
Consulting Success
For those of us, (myself included), who were unfamiliar in the past with the whole world of collegiate athletic consulting firms and how they operate, I give you the folks at Collegiate Sports Associates.
CSA was just hired to assess the situation at the University of Wyoming, and this was their report.
Here's are some highlights from their work that could certainly be written about Columbia:
a “culture of acceptance and validation” that has resulted in sustained mediocrity in University of Wyoming athletics, most notably football and men’s basketball.
“There is a pervading opinion that ‘good enough is good enough’ in football and basketball,” the report states. “Thus, there is not a sense of urgency and accountability that accompanies programs with high expectations for competitive success.”
The report noted university officials understand that they face geographic and financial challenges, but they can’t allow those challenges to become excuses.
There need to be higher expectations, and thus, more accountability, the report said. And that starts at the top.
As a result of this report that was filed just a month ago, Wyoming has already fired its head football coach.Oh, and how much money did this assessment cost?
Just $35,000!
For Columbia's donors, that's nothing. In fact, I bet those of us who want big change in football who aren't even wealthy could raise that much money in a week.
23 comments:
Even if I was a to shelf coach I would avoid U Wyoming. Tough, tough sell to recruits. Beautiful area, just very isolated. You would have to get players that were not bothered by freezing temperatures and a really off the beaten path place. Personally, I would not mind going to school there but coaches have been frustrated for years there. What else could they do to make the program more attractive?
Rich '66
One might think I'd be peeved at someone "stealing our thunder", but in this case I'm grateful to Jake for posting the Wyoming U study.
FYI, this same doc is going on the Committee for Athletic Success at Columbia website in January, when we inaugurate action.
We have had the study for almost a week. Of course, it addresses another set of issues than ours, but looking at it provides all of you a general idea of what can be done when men/women of good sense, humility and foresight actively strive to understand their problems.
It also helps incredibly for them to first admit that these problems exist, and that they have never been able to solve them internally.
So we intend to use this study as a "sampler" of what can actually be accomplished if the administration is serious about improving CU athletics. All of you should be asking the simple question: "Why doesn't, why wouldn't CU take a similar path?"
All we at CAEC are asking is that same question. Our request of CU is that an expert and neutral group investigate why we are consistent failures and how we can best resolve that problem.
I challenge any of you to explain how that request is disloyal or self serving or any of the other nonsense I've read here. We don't point to individuals, although I have my personal opinions as you all know.
CAEC wants a guidebook for the future to assure CU competence and success, prepared by people with no axe to grind and who understand what they are doing.
If you think this makes sense, join us.
Richf@lionsports.org
Rich:
This is the sane version of what your aims are. The problem is the considerable gap between this vision and the actual practice.
What has actually been done includes the following:
1. Nasty personal attacks on PM
2. Snarky comments about new recruits, with the clear implication that no one with any sense would play football for THAT coach
3. the frequent charge that anyone who raises questions about the strategy MUST be a member of the Athletics Department.
4. The broader mischaracterization of the criticism: many people have suggested that what you are doing in practice (as opposed to what you SAY you want to do) is misguided, but no one to my knowledge has ever said you were disloyal.
5. the outcome of such a consultant's study, which you treat forbearingly above, but which we all know is overdetermined to result in the firing of Murphy and Mangurian
In sum, the problem isn't that the strategy above is bad. The problem is that your description of it, and all the baggage that has accompanied it, is more a little bit disingenuous.
Rich '66
Ah, well. What more can I say.
My previous position description was about as straightforward as I could make it.
There will always be those who attempt obfuscation. I'm ignoring them..and you. Your comments above, while clothed in "reasonableness", expose their intent quite nicely.
One point: why would a neutral, expert study be "pre-determined" to firing folks?? Unless they damned well deserved it. No friends of mine or anyone else here would be involved.
Give us a study as described, and let's have the recommendations. Doesn't sound disingenuous to me.
Comments, anyone????
This gets to the heart of the matter.
While I don't think anyone in the athletic department actively WANTS us to lose, I do think that presented with the choice to have a winning program out of their complete control, they'd choose to keep things the same and stay in complete control.
This is what makes CU athletics the unfortunate fiefdom that it is. Those in direct charge like being in charge more than anything else.
Thus the commenter above who opposes the consultant's route does a very good job of at least exposing the current regime's fears.
Here is an exercise for Pete: do a web search Pete Mangurian total package. You will find a pdf file containing the magnum opus of Pete's vision of what a football program should be. Compare what he says to the reality if his actions and approach as we have seen at CU and read about elsewhere. You have no argument. The man is a smooth talker and has great ideas. The problem is he is incapable of putting it into action due to his cantankerous personality and ineffective leadership. when it comes down to it, his personnel evaluations do not reflect well in him either.
Apparently, neither Rich or Jake can read. I explicitly described an independent consultant who did not have an "overdetermined" outcome as a sane strategy.
It's everything else (items 1-5) that I objected to.
Is this misreading willful? Are you all so stuck in your rabbit hole that all criticism appears the same?
There is nothing quite so delegitimatizing as all the baggage you bring.
If we went the "professional" route, then what would Ted Gregory claim his contribution would be to Columbia?
The pervasive opinion in the Athletic Department has never been "good enough is good enough". If only it were. The pervasive opinion has always been "NOT good enough is good enough". This is why 0-10 seasons result in zero, ZERO personnel changes. When you go 0-10 and nothing changes (especially not personnel), the message is clear : 0-10 is "good enough".
Keep it up, Jake and Big Dawg Rich. You are a great 1-2
punch. To Anonymous who attacked them--ZERO and 10,
Total disgrace, 60 years of misery. Oh I forgot the total
derision from Bollinger of alums who complain.
I'll give you one thing though, since you're dead set against firing Murphy and Mangurian, that plan is incomplete....Bollinger should be fired with them.
Mangurian is gutless! Whom will he blame when he loses at least 8 games next year!
I am tired of people like this who blame everyone else. Mangurian, man up you gutless individual!
The last two entries are why football at Columbia exists in an athletic ghetto that has always seemed so marginal to the larger university.
Probably makes sense to have the consultant look at our baseball and tennis programs that have been mostly successfull and competitive year in year out in the Ivies for the last 20 plus years. Yes, some of it might be apples to oranges but they clearly have a process, philosophy and certain type of kid they recruit to fit into the system. Part of it certainly is the greater CU community doesn't care if football wins or loses whereas at Penn and Harvard they have made conscious choices to change that mentality for football ( and now basketball for Harvard- although questionable at best on who they are admitting) worth musing about.
I'm jumping off this merry-go-round of back stabbing, confrontational, posters. The first poster that says "nobody cares" will prove my point.
I know it's early speculation/wishful thinking but I do like the idea of Rex Ryan becoming head coach at CU after the Jets fire him as expected. He has the right temperament for the job. Players actually like him and he knows his stuff. Proof that you can have high expectations and be hard on players but still be in their corner. He has his drawbacks of course and I doubt the administration will dip into the NFL well after the Pete fiasco but it is a good fit.
Also doubtful Rex will want a college job. He will surely land on his feet as a DC on some NFL team or perhaps even another HC opportunity.
Jake, I don't know what Mangurian's reasoning was with respect to reining in Brackett's running, and I preferred his play as an underclass man to his last two years. Looking at the situation, though, two important facts were that Sean had become injury-prone in his junior season, starting with the Fordham game and lasting throughout the season. His injuries cost CU a chance at a winning season. Unfortunately, CU did not have an effective backup, as witnessed especially by the Dartmouth game, carrying over through last season. Shouldn't your critique of Mangurian's use of Brackett discuss that context?
Oh Jakey,
Let's discuss facts again because apparently we have belittled ourselves to head coach's BMIs and rumors that "more and more people report."
Funny how all your players that you are siting as "impact" players are no longer on the roster and were NOT on the past roster of the 2013 season. Even Garrett had an injury - which you love to pretend didn't exist - but let's stick to the facts. Brackett graduated in 2012 - probably had a lot to do with the 3 wins achieved in the previous season and has nothing to do with the losses occured in 2013. Where is he now? Oh wait....
Josh Martin was a stand out player. And now a great marketable asset for the program being on a powerhouse team such as the Chiefs.
Again...not on the 2013 roster.
And why are you quoting "talentless, cupboard-bare" players? Who said that? And did you take this out of context for your own props among your followers who don't do their research outside of this blog (yes I'm looking at you Wingman)....
Oh and let's talk about UW. Have you been to Laramie? If you have, then you wouldn't compare the situation to an Ivy League school....even one with Columbia's record.
So let's stop with all this witch hunting and BS, Jakey. Shouldn't you be writing letters from Rudolf (for your daughters) instead of writing stories from TMZ? It's the holidays, afterall.
Merry Christmas ya filthy animal!
Question for Jake: if one were to assume that Mangurian is going to be around for the 2014 season, what is your view on the extent, if any, to which he should be cut some slack for the time being?
Hey, David M, shouldn't you be polishing the old resume in stead of wasting time commenting here? You don't want to wait until after the Brown game next year. Once "The Purge" begins, the exits in the AD's office will be jammed. Beat the rush.
David M
I think Jake's point was that Wyoming actually hired a firm to provide them with an objective analysis of what is good and bad within the athletic program.
I think Jake is sometimes a little over the top, too, but he is a big enough boy to take the criticism.
Why is the athletic department and football staff defensive and hiding?
Has anyone asked anyone at the athletic department what research has been done into how to improve results? I'd be surprised if they don't have a strategic plan they're executing, based on just the analysis you're advocating. There has to be reasoning behind adding nutrional and conditioning coaches, new facilities, more agressive coaching changes (viz., Paul Nixon, Norries Wilson), etc. You don't get money to spend in organizations like Columbia unless you can make a persuasive case for the need and the benefit, and that requires a research-based plan.
Post a Comment