Wednesday, February 18, 2015

The Onslaught of Excellence


Faculty House

I’ll start with the positive things we learned from today’s event at Faculty House:

1)      Rick Taylor said we needed to pay our assistant coaches more. That’s very true and it’s helpful for him to say that publicly.

2)      President Lee Bollinger announced that $3 million is being spent to replace the playing surface at Kraft Field. That’s good news too since the Field Turf is 10 years old and Field Turf has a 10-year shelf life.

3)      The program has dropped the Fordham game beginning in 2016. (Not exactly “positive” news, but the right move for now).

4)      Everyone needs to give more money. (I know that’s not exactly different from what college administrations have said about everything for 100+ years, but a lot of people should donate more).


Now to the harder part.

I have to play the role of a realist again because much of what we heard and saw at Faculty House was an exercise in corruption.

New Athletic Director Peter Pilling is innocent of that charge of course and we still wish him every success. The same will go for the new head football coach, who Pilling said we have a soft target of hiring by mid-March. 

It wasn't fair to drag Pilling into this event at all. It may harm his ability to set a newer, warmer and more humble tone in the department's relationships with alumni. 

For example, I don't think Pilling would have rejected out of hand the idea for a practice field nearer to campus had he known how important an issue that's been to so many alumni for so many years. 

Meanwhile, Bollinger and Taylor were disappointing as what they said failed the truth test and failed the test of giving long-suffering fans and alumni some real hope.

Based on my own impressions and the impressions of several alumni who were at the event or listened in, here's what really stood out as egregious, false, and disappointing from Taylor's and Bollinger's words, (again, many of these impressions come from what I heard and what other alums who listened to or attended the event. I stand by them): 


1) Bollinger Thinks He's Awesome

Bollinger began by stating that Columbia and its administrators are doing a spectacular job in every aspect of human existence but for some curious reason, football alone has not responded to their onslaught of excellence. 

The praise for outgoing Athletic Director Dianne Murphy was excessive and contained the repeated false impression that she's overseen more Ivy championships in her tenure compared to her predecessors. 

That is false. 

But even if it were true,  no one is taking responsibility for this one place where the Bollinger regime isn't the greatest thing since cronuts.

I'm glad Bollinger is at least willing to admit there's a problem with football, something he was unwilling to do adequately last year, but it's clear that these people don't consider themselves responsible for creating the problem. How can a problem be fixed if no one takes responsibility for fixing it?

For a man who has such strong support from the trustees right now, his words in that preamble sounded oddly defensive and almost embattled.

2) Money for Nothing?

According to Taylor, our facilities are first class, our financial aid is first class, our administrators are first class but the alumni need to double their contributions. Why is money the problem if all these things are first class already? Is there something specific, like maybe a high-priced, but totally worth it head coach and assistants you want us to donate money to pay for? If so, why not just say the word? I have always insisted that a lot more money would come pouring into Columbia football even before we start winning, as long as something specific was there for donors to latch onto. 

We didn't get that today. 

Something also changed in Taylor's message from the December meeting compared to today.

When Taylor was asked at that first meeting if more alumni giving and participation would turn things around, and he said that wasn't really very important. 

I will give Taylor the benefit of the doubt that he simply reconsidered that statement and now honestly feels that alumni donations and participation will make a key difference to football's chances for winning. I'll also allow that maybe he didn't hear the original question clearly. But it's fishy. 


3) Mangurian Delusion

According to Taylor, Pete Mangurian did a hell of a job and was on the verge of success. He actually said that at one point.

I have to think they would have kept Mangurian if they could despite the 0-21 and the continued worsening performance of the team on the field. 

That really doesn't make me feel confident in their abilities to evaluate the depths of the problem. 

Taylor also said he did not have a more in-depth meeting with Mangurian after their initial meeting because he resigned beforehand.

Excuse me, but isn't Mangurian getting a pretty expensive buyout of his contract? Shouldn't one condition of that be that he keeps his appointment with Taylor? If that wasn't required, that's financial negligence on behalf of the administration.


4) Absence Breeds... Love?

According to Taylor, the fact that Bollinger allowed a situation to occur in which we had no AD or head coach for months is not a problem. The problem is my blog and cheap alumni.


5) As Expected: Bashing the Blog

And that leads to the fact that once again, an inordinate amount of time was spent talking about the blog and me... even if no one could bear to mention my name. 

They kept referring to me as "the blogger" like the Arab terrorists always call Israel the "Zionist Entity." 

Folks, the curious thing about all this is this: if they hate the blog so much and it's so bad and they resent the attention it gets, WHY do they keep giving it so much publicity?

The fact is, every failing regime needs to create scapegoats and phantom enemies.

In that sense, this blog must be the best thing that's ever happened to the Columbia administration.

I'm like Israel is to the failed Arab leaders in the Middle East: a phony enemy the regimes can focus on to deflect attention from their own failures.

Meanwhile, I don’t think there’s much need to respond to Taylor’s comments about me and the blog today since I explained very well yesterday how this concept that the blog is harmful is quite false and frankly dangerous for a regime that needs to hear as much criticism as possible.

The fact is, I respect Taylor even if he does not understand me or the work I’m doing. I am very used to being criticized and I try to take it to heart instead of ignoring it all out of hand. 

I Gave Taylor a Chance to Clarify the Record

But I do think it's important to clarify what Taylor was alluding to when he mentioned something about him on the blog that was not true. 

What he was talking about was my glowing summary of some of the positive things he suggested Dartmouth do to turn its program around about seven years ago. 

I emailed Taylor a few months ago and during his responses to me, he told me of his complaint that some parts of that praiseworthy account were not true, but never gave me any specifics. 

I told him that I considered my source on that story to be unimpeachable, BUT that does not mean that source’s information was 100% correct. 

So, I offered him the chance to tell me on or off the record what was wrong in the account, and he refused saying he wanted to focus on the present. 

Folks, when someone publicly complains that he's been portrayed inaccurately but he then refuses a simple chance to clarify the record, it's a big red flag. 

If what I said about the good things Taylor did at Dartmouth was wrong, it clearly wasn't so wrong that Taylor felt it was worth a minute of his time to fix. 

Now feel more confident than ever in every aspect of the Dartmouth story.

The funny thing is, my profile of Taylor and his moves were 100% positive! So it’s odd that he seems to take exception to them. As he spoke about that account today, he made it seem like I had some criticisms of his job or of him, but I have not. I only criticize him now for his comments today and his continued parroting of an erroneous untruth about the blog being a real problem. 

This is not criticism, but since we are speaking of accuracy, there were inaccuracies in Taylor’s comments today. His praise for Mangurian was over-the-top ridiculous, but then it really went too far when he gave him kudos for allegedly instituting the recruiting weekends. In truth, those weekends were instituted long before his arrival. Sure, some aspects of them were unique to Mangurian, but Taylor made it sound like he invented the wheel.  

And if we want to bring track records into the equation, well my record speaks for itself and so does the football program’s. 

Let’s just say my winning percentage is a lot better.

In short, Bollinger and Taylor embarrassed themselves greatly today. Pilling was unfortunately associated with that, but hopefully he'll wipe himself clean of it and I will try to help him do that. 

Meanwhile, every account of today's event will have this as a headline: "Worst Program in College Football Blames Alumni and a Blog for Failures!"

That will be followed by more endless jokes about Columbia football.




22 comments:

Unknown said...

Jake, as the parent of two former players I have appreciated your blog over the last several years. That said my hope for the new coach and AD is that you can focus on the positive and share information without personal attacks. I think the players would appreciate all the alumni and fans support unconditionally
Thanks
Doug Miller

Jake said...

Pilling and the new coach will get nothing but support from me for a long time.

oldlion said...

Jake, I do not think that Taylor was praising Mangurian; I think he was being gracious. But there was ample criticism of the way in which the program has been run in the last three years along with a healthy dose of candor regarding the unacceptable cliques and lack of harmony on the team. As far as his "Big hat, no cattle" reference, I think what he was saying is that the university can pay for physical plant, salaries and the like, but that discretionary money needed for the program, along with internships, etc. have to come from the alumni, many of whom haven't put their money where their mouth is. As far as the blog, I thought I heard that Pilling intends to reach out to you. I also believe I heard that somebody said that the blog exists because no useful information is forthcoming from the administration. Finally, Taylor did comment that other schools use the blog to recruit against us. Now that Mangurian is gone and we are trying to turn over a new leaf I think that we should try to cut the program some slack. PS, as far as the Fordham game, that one is on Dianne. Taylor basically said that it is lunacy to play Fordham since it is full scholarship and they always have us as their 4th game while w eopen with them. I and I am sure others wrote to Dianne three years ago and asked her to end that travesty. Today we were told that we have to play them once more because it is their homecoming. That to me is suicidal; I would cancel even if it means a forfeit rather than allow our new coach to be served up as a sacrificial lamb on day one.

Jake said...

I will and am cutting Pilling and the new coach a lot of slack. I'll do much more than that.

But I can't cut the existing failures within the administration any slack.

And I think they embarrassed themselves for the most part today.

Everyone is laughing at the fact that the only negative that was specifically described was this blog in a program with 3 winning seasons in 44 years.

Coach said...

agree - 100%. good for you.

O said...

How about the revelation that Mike Leach was a candidate for the job and they hired Mango instead?? I'm fairly certain that they said Leach was VERY interested in the job and all of what came along with coaching in NYC...how did that screw that one up?!

btw, I'm amazed that the topic of the blog was even brought up at all. Perhaps there's a generational gap when it comes to this sort of thing, but the blog has ZERO bearing (no offense, Jake) to what happens with the team or on the field. How many millions of sites exist on the web whose sole function is to criticize things? Jake, I would actually take it as a badge of courage that you've managed to get under so many 'important' people's skin, but shame on them for even acknowledging it...there's no doubt they should be above such 'petty' devices. Enlightened intelligentsia, my ass.

Anonymous said...

Wasn't on the call but that is interesting to hear about Leach. That would seem a real stretch. In fact, the more I hear about Mr. Taylor's comments in general the more I am not as confident in his powers of perception. He sounds like a stooge.

At the time, Leach had very few head coaching prospects so of course he would be willing to listen to interview offers. Remember he was tossed from Texas Tech for a (disputable) charge of player abuse. Also, there is/was plenty in Leach's demeanor and conduct that made him a very big risk. He does not hold back his thoughts with his players, media or administration. At the time he said he was fired from TT because he was due a large bonus and Craig James' son was the very person who the "abuse" was said to have been against (concussion issue). So the media spotlight was on him. I can't see Columbia taking that leap.

You can say Leach gets results (and he did at Texas Tech) but he is a loose cannon. Would he have done better than Pete? Most definitely but he's the wrong fit for the Ivies.

Zero Dark said...

Mr. Pilling did say that he will reach out, and I think as someone who has worked in marketing he recognizes the potential this blog has as a positive for the program. When the others spoke about it I couldn't help but think of old, out of touch men railing on about the evils of the internet. Generational gap as you said O.

Coach said...

Dartmouth made public Taylor's report years ago - hope that Columbia does the same.

Chick said...

Is Taylor serious about other schools using this blog to recruit against us? I can it hear it now: "Hey, Kid, did you know that some guy who's a Columbia alum has a blog where he criticizes the Admin for doing nothing about losing for the past 60 years?"

Most likely replies:

--I would too if I were him. Everybody knows they run a crappy program.

--Anyone with a brain would complain about that. How hard is it to win a couple of games now and then?

--I'm a humanitarian. I'm going to play there to help turn that #*£¥%€ around.

--Who cares? New York is much better than this one-horse town

LEAST HEARD REACTION: "Right, Coach I heard that the famous football genius and consultant Rick Taylor complained about Jake's blog after he cashed his last paycheck from Bollinger. I'm definitely signing with you here at NE-SW-Central-SE-NW Missouri State!"

Unknown said...


The answer is an on campus practice facility and increased financial aid for all students at the outset. The other option is an IVY recruiting exemption that may be given to any disadvantaged institution.

Columbia_Fan said...

Jake,
Recently a friend's son visited Harvatd to meet the coaches and see the campus. At the meeting with the staff, one of them asked the kid what other schools he was
considering. When the lad said Columbia, the entire staff broke out in laughter and one remarked " we've out scored them by 150 points in the last 3 games".
I guess that's better than using the blog.
Seems that every Ivy team can up with a similar story.

Unknown said...

BIG NEWS in Columbia's HC search: Former Penn coach Al Bagnoli is in talks to become the Lions next head coach. http://t.co/tYjlATKSYC I don't think anyone saw this coming.

Coach said...

Exactly, John

I remain, very truly yours, Richard Szathmary said...

I've had some minor disagreements with this blog over the last few years (and great amusement at the likely only one-man claque that was pushing so hard for Toal from Don Bosco, probably a BC or Paramus Catholic fan). That said, blaming the woes of Columbia football on this blog is completely ridiculous. This blog should be both valued and maintained; to attempt to flail it is a gross mistake. You want good news about CU football 24/7, expand what is apparently Darlene Camacho's role in Athletics.

And Bollinger has some mothering nerve asking (nay, near demanding) more money from alums. I've been pretty generous as circumstances allowed over the last 20 or so years. It hasn't helped much. The general assumption is usually that if you supply some victories, monies from satisfied alums will come.

Lastly, as someone who out of simple curiosity and the desire to collect college football t-shirts loves walking round campuses, I really do believe that the claim the practice facilities are "too far away" is much too much of a red herring. At several Big 10 schools (including Rutgers), "the field" is never exactly a hop, skip and a jump away. Ditto for USC (the one that plays Clemson) and Clemson itself. So could we please drop this one for a while? Not every campus is like Princeton re proximity to its practice facilities, or valiant Alcorn State, where the stadium and practice fields are literally right across the road from the dorms, and also conveniently next to the bookstore as well.
And for what it's worth, I don't think we should drop Fordham. A) I love going to Arthur Avenue to dine and B) Fordham isn't quite THAT good and won't be for the foreseeable future ngiven its own major facility issues.

Anonymous said...

I had a suspicion Prez would use the platform to launch a fundraising pitch. Any leader who calls their own meeting tends to try and align it with their strengths.

Fordham is a wild card as far as how good they are but fact is they overmatch our guys almost man for man due to scholarships. Plain and simple.

Unknown said...

Well, go ahead and drop Fordham - although, I think in the spirit of the rivalry they should continue to play each other. It is only in the last two-years that my Rams have dismantled Columbia, and albeit, some payback from the early patriot league years where you took it to us.

Ask any player on the CU Lions if they would still want to play Fordham - I am sure they would all say yes. It is a challenge but one they lineup against every day of the week. poor decision by the admin.

Chick said...

I agree with the two comments above about retaining Fordham. I think we can play with them. Wouldn't you say Harvard can? Then why are we going thru this furor with a new coach and AD, etc. It's to be able to play and beat
Harvard, and Fordham too. With a coach like Bagnoli, we could do it.

Anonymous said...

How much does Bagnoli have left in him? His reputation would give the program instant credibility but for him it would mean a return to the recruiting trail. Last I heard he would rather play golf. Apparently it is hard to get leisure time in when committed to the grind.

Recruiting is a young man's role nowadays. Are student athletes going to bowled over by Bagnoli? I would but I am not a high schooler who does not know about Penn's great teams.

Big Dawg said...

Get a coach. Get a program. Give them a year to put it together. Then let's see. What else can be reasonably expected?

The PC paens to DM were to be expected today; not so the BS re PM. He sucked in every way. Witness the fracturing of the team itself, as described by Taylor.

And did anyone expect differently from PM? His job description is self-justification, and @ 3.5 mil I totally understand. However,
most importantly, he did go on record as stating that FB is not an appendage but a serious part of the CU mission. So I am heartened by that.

Now, I wonder who around here can hold his feet to the fire if that doesn't prove out? Thoughts, anyone?

Anonymous said...

Big Dawg, are you saying Pete's buyout was 3.5 mil? If so that is criminal. I thought he had a season left on his deal worth a few hundred grand.

Anonymous said...

I get it. 3.5 package to the incoming head coach. Presumably a 5 year deal.

Too bad Pete's savings account can't be debited. I'd charge him $400,000 for the mess he left. Seems a reasonable fee.