So spring practice is about to begin and we’re also about to get a lot more info from the football program.
That includes two open practices on March 8th and
March 15th, a more information-packed introduction to our recruiting
class, and a social media Q & A with Head Coach Pete Mangurian on March 18th.
We’re also about to get some updates on the coaching staff.
I know that will include a replacement for WR coach Wendell Davis, who has left the team. I thought Davis did a great
job with the receivers in 2012, but something went very, very wrong with that
crew last season. We’ll see if his replacement has any answers.
Speaking of answers, here are the top 10 questions I’d like
to see fans ask Coach Mangurian on the 18th:
1)
Granted the team had some bad injuries in 2013,
but how do you explain what was the absolute worst season in Ivy history?
2)
Columbia’s offensive line was worse in 2012 than
it was in 2011. Then it was worse in 2013 than it was in 2012. When will the
bleeding stop, and wasn’t the terrible offensive line the biggest reason for
the most serious injuries last year?
3)
Why did you call big donors like Bob Kraft and
use the “cupboard was bare” excuse for our woes last season? Didn’t you realize
that would get out? And can you really say that your recruits are more talented
and had enough experience to justify benching many of the older players?
4)
Why don’t we have a JV program? Every other Ivy
team has one and many of our players last season clearly needed more training
for college play.
5)
Has it always been your plan to completely “blow
up” the football program and start from rock
bottom?
6)
Just about every other Ivy team is using QB’s
who are running and passing threats at once. You’re bucking that trend. Why?
7)
How many years away are the Lions from being a
legitimate contender for at least a winning season?
8)
Why have you recruited so many incoming freshmen
who received no offers from any other Ivy school?
9)
Why did strength coach Ryan Cidzik leave?
10)
Explain why you deserve another season at the
helm at Columbia football.
I If anyone reading this does decide to participate in the social media event with Mangurian, I URGE you all to keep it civil and above board. I know my questions above are rather sharp, but they contain no vulgarities or personal insults. I want to pre-emptively discourage anyone from doing that in this upcoming forum.
I If anyone reading this does decide to participate in the social media event with Mangurian, I URGE you all to keep it civil and above board. I know my questions above are rather sharp, but they contain no vulgarities or personal insults. I want to pre-emptively discourage anyone from doing that in this upcoming forum.
27 comments:
If it was a one on one interview and I had 30 minutes of interview time, first question would be: what will you be doing differently this season to send this program in the right direction? See what his answer is and work from that. He would inevitably lead himself into the noose. All he has are a few new players (freshmen) who are are not going to save the season on their own. A coach gets the most out of players. So what is the strategy this year?
That would indeed be a very good question Wingman. But it's clear that at Columbia, there is no noose. He said the team and he would be judged by our record last year. We had the worst season ever, and he's still here. So none of what he says means anything really.
Not that I feel completely comfortable with it personally, but I am accepting certain off-the-record comments that CU as an employer would suffer from credibility if we dumped him after 2 years, following the Wilson firing.
a) it makes some sense
b) it gives CU more time to look around
c) I don't see how a new guy coming in this past year would have changed things that much.
Assuming a poor year 3, a firing would be perceived as more appropriate/understandable and CU would not be looked at as a crazy place to risk a career.
In the meantime, since I know PM will be here anyway next year, I am simply hoping for a miracle. Bottom line is that I want the team to succeed. If PM somehow pulls it off, so be it. I don't have a personal thing with him; I just think he hasn't done the job so far.
If Pete is a lame duck and he knows it then that is not fair to the players. He needs to step it up and get something accomplished. So what is that strategy? You told us you were prepared last season. You laid the blame squarely on the players when your preparations were inadequate. If that is still your approach, how can you expect to put your players in a position to succeed this upcoming season?
Dawg, the U has screwed up football so badly that it's hard to even think about a remedial process, but we never give up, right?
I agree that if PM pulls one off this season, or just doesn't duplicate the grisly horror of last year, he's solid for 2015
With PrezBo and the NHDC with-no-mustard. I hope PM does succeed, but am not banking on it.
But don't be swayed from your path by the baloney that firing a coach after two years instead of three, is bad for p-r, blah blah. Potential new HCs know the real problem is institutional, which is why you started CAEC. Don't listen to Columbia's We-Lose-losing Society. They would have you wait till a coach is 4-46
and then ask the NHDC to send over another loser as they have forever, and continue the insanity of changing nothing but the coach. By the way, we need better assts and especially higher-level recruits, which a reform of the system should produce.
Is your CAEC ready to engage PrezBo an trustees about a study by independent experts to devise a real framework for success?
That must begin as soon as possible. It has nothing to do with what PM does this fall. It should be done without PM or any successor in mind. It should be for over-all reform for the long-haul so we DON'T HAVE TO a hire a new coach every couple of years, because
the new system will find and support a good coach and help him if he stumbles.
Chick is right. The scrutiny of PM should continue on its own, but the serious need for an outside consultancy group to overhaul the whole department will always be required.
Rest easy, guys. Your comments are on the money.
CAEC is absolutely focused on an overall solution and our efforts are dedicated to that. Specifically, an independent study of CU history and issues so that we can change basic problems and not repeat the past.
Re PM, I was referring to year 3, since he is obviously returning for it, and certain people in the admin felt that CU cred would be damaged in a job search if he only had 2 years. Understand, this was not the only reason, but was/is in certain admin minds.
Forzani (Big Dawg) makes sense and is not overly swayed by his emotions. I don't think there's any point in going into the q & a with Pete with a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" attitude, as Jake seems to suggest he would do. From the announced plans it looks like Pete is coming out from hiding in commendable fashion...let's give him the benefit of the doubt and a decent chance to make amends!
Pete has been given the benefit of the doubt since he came aboard. He made an honest attempt to do all the right things and cultivate interest in the program. The bottom line is his coaching methods have not been up the the challenge of the job. Making amends is not on his mind. It will be to duck and make as graceful an exit as he can following the season.
To alswingman, aka Carnac the Magnificent...Hey Al, how do you know what's on Pete's mind??
Pete's as shallow as a fruit spoon. You'd have to be a dummy to not see that. That's why the team sucks, when you are predictable in every phase of the game. Your apologist stance is equally as transparent. Though you don't have a leg to stand on and I'm starting to miss the troll's argument.
Swingman, who's the troll?
I don;t buy the admin's baloney that dumping Pete in year two would be a sign to other coaches that this is a risky job. Will it be any less risky if we have anbother pathetic season?
If we would have cut him promptly after year two season's end and told every agent and spread the word that that we really have finally had it This time and we are serious about a winner that whole concern is overcome. Might have even made it look like we were more serious by doing it after only two years...
Our actions and repeated small time behavior is what scares people. CU has been sending the message out for years that we don't want to be the worst team in the league but we also don't care if we are the best, we just want to look good and protect our academic persona... Smart and ambitious coaches see that and leaves us with the next tier.
I also wonder how many really good candidates we have passed on because they scared the admin. I bet there have been many...
Thanks WOF, you made my point better than I did. Nobody cares whether Columbia fires a coach after two years or 22. Nobody wants Columbia's advice about running their football program, or wants to give advice to Columbia. Those are excuses for apathy from our Admin, trolls, and lovers of losing.
Every school wants to focus on its own program and do what's best for it. And that pinpoints our specific, disastrous problem. "Every school" EXCEPT Columbia.
Our Admin. doesn't "want" to do anything. Just roll out a bunch of bodies to say we're fielding a team.
THAT is our problem. And it's been that way for 60 years.
I heard a legend long ago that Dwight D. Eisenhower,
Our WW Two military commander and postwar President of Columbia had had an interest in Bud Wilkinson as Lou Little's final coaching years approached. Very possibly apocryphal, I have no way of knowing. But Ike played football at West Point, was not a fan of losing, and we were still a major program then before the "official" Ivy League. But Eisenhower left to become President of the United States, Wilkinson went on to 47 consecutive wins at Oklahoma, and we went on to 44 consecutive losses.
My point is there was a time when our Admin. and portions of the student body, alums and faculty were not OK with being the laughing stock of college football.
I don't know for sure if Bollinger and Murphy are OK with it. They appear to be but I hope not. I do believe that the next 12 months, whether we we win 10 or lose 10 will provide the answer, because they either change the institutional disfunction now or they don't, and that will determine the future. Last season was the worst performance of any team in Ivy League history'. Either we go up, we go down, or we go away. The status quo they seem to prefer is untenable.
Ike and Wilkinson had a bigger destiny ;-) It doesn't take that much to turn it around. It is second nature to Penn by now. Brown seems to make do with sparse support. Dmouth puts up with mediocrity. No one can make the case that Buddy Teevens is a quality coach or recruiter. He's adequate on his very best day, yet they are middle of the pack most years.
Chick, I completely agree with the thrust of your comment. Understand, I simply relayed info obtained from anonymous highly placed admin. Whether legit or not re effect on applicants, it is posed as one of the reasons for retention.
BUT, everything you described is dead on, so no reason for me to repeat.
The upper reaches, BOT and Pres, must consciously decide to be winners, period. Anything else is placating and insulting.
and what's this friction between alawish and wingman? C'mon, guys.
No friction here, Big Dawg. I think alswingman is one of our top posters. But in response to his accusation that I'm an "apologist" for Pete, I would respond that I'm merely merciful and hope that Pete will profit from his errors. If he doesn't improve then it's time to go. I also appreciate that you brought the "two years is too soon" view into the debate, which is understandable. Those who would want Pete axed right away aren't in the position of having to deal with the nuances, consequences, etc. As high as the AD and most of us (including Jake) were on Pete at the start, the disaster of last year needs to be seen in perspective -- star QB and other players lost right away, etc. I have no doubt that Pete wants to succeed at Columbia, not bolt as alswingman suggests. Maybe "pride goeth before the fall," or maybe it motivates him to make like the phoenix...will be interesting to watch, we should support as best we can and be grateful for all the drama!
Any reports on Spring Ball yet?
great stuff, chic! I am right with you.
great stuff, chic! I am right with you.
alawicius, my apologies for the harsh words. Everyone, all the way down the line from the little kids getting the face paint on game day, fans, alumni, administration- everyone wants a successful program. Being a head coach of a college football team is a privilege and with it comes great responsibility. You have to confront and articulate failure to the program's supporters because the reality is you are not going to win every game. Every coach deals with it differently. Pete has demonstrated he puts his head in the sand or deflects the blame on the players. This is proven to be a valid criticism based on his press conferences after games. He may have coachspeak words about accountability in preseason interviews but never in response to problems needing a direct response. A head coach should step up and be a leader in those situations.
Most likely he does accept accountability privately but he is very bad at community relations where a head coach has to show he is unflappable- even with the losses piling up. He has to show he is the right man for the job. It is a tough assignment but most of us would agree we do that every day in our respective careers.
So Pete is not one of the great ones, that's ok. Show us something - anything - to make us believe he is capable of leading that group effectively.
The criticism he has faced from this board or form other sectors is nothing compared to what other head coaches have faced. Pete needs to man up - actually the time to do that has passed. The sentiment is he does not have the fortitude to extend an olive branch. The sentiment is he is a one track minded coach who is out of his depth.
So if Pete wants to lighten the criticism he needs to show more than coachspeak on a social media platform arranged by the AD.
Okay, al, I'll buy that. Maybe the open practices and q&a coming up are part of the new deal. Thing is, without a dominant RB, someone at least as good as Garrett, we're too reliant on the passing game and the OL. I'm waiting to see if we come up with a good one for the lost recruit.
Re RB, my own impression is that Molina and Watson are both good runners. They are not power backs, obviously, but both of them have talent.
Re RB, my own impression is that Molina and Watson are both good runners. They are not power backs, obviously, but both of them have talent.
I agree about Molina and Watson, and the new recruits add some power, but I'm not sure any of them can give us what Garrett could. Wait and see...
Molina and Watson do have talent but thus far have not shown the "it" factor. Maybe a breakout season for one of them (likely to be watson if at all) but my bet is at least one one of the freshmen winning significant PT. They have some decent prospects. None seem to be the type to replace garrett. That guy was lost to Lehigh and they are making a bad mistake playing him as a DB.
Post a Comment