BC AD is an idiot

[Cannon Shell]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3811657

I could see if the coach was interviewing with another ACC team or rival but does he really think the BC job is on par with an NFL job? These colleges fire guys at the drop of a hat but the coach isnt supposed to be able to look into a head coaching job in the NFL? I know that if I am a college AD and an NFL team (not Detroit) is looking at my coach I'd say i would be doing everything I could to keep him happy if he doesnt get the job because he must be doing something right.

[ateamstupid]

I agree. This seems extremely petty and shortsighted.

[Danzig]

i thought it was a bit extreme as well...then listened to colin cowherds take on it this morning, and it made me rethink things a bit. both sides should be held to their contracts-seems a bit much when you hear a coach (saban for instance) complain when a school cuts someone lose after a bad season, but coaches always seem to feel they should be able to talk to whomever, whenever. of course, schools also feel able to fire a coach after a bad year, but they generally have an 'out' for such a thing...he said unless this coach has an out to allow him to talk to someone else, he should finish what he signed up for. certainly would be refreshing....
and yeah, i thought hey, it's not exactly a lateral move, who can blame the guy. but, by the same token, who can blame the school? you put a lot into your program, and a coach bailing after only two years isn't exactly helpful or conducive to success.

[dalakhani]

If BC would have gone into the tank these first two years, they would have considered axing him.

At the end of the day, there is nothing unethical about what the coach is doing. Its a cold business.

Im sure good candidates will be lining up at BC after the way they are treating this guy.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i thought it was a bit extreme as well...then listened to colin cowherds take on it this morning, and it made me rethink things a bit. both sides should be held to their contracts-seems a bit much when you hear a coach (saban for instance) complain when a school cuts someone lose after a bad season, but coaches always seem to feel they should be able to talk to whomever, whenever. of course, schools also feel able to fire a coach after a bad year, but they generally have an 'out' for such a thing...he said unless this coach has an out to allow him to talk to someone else, he should finish what he signed up for. certainly would be refreshing....
and yeah, i thought hey, it's not exactly a lateral move, who can blame the guy. but, by the same token, who can blame the school? you put a lot into your program, and a coach bailing after only two years isn't exactly helpful or conducive to success.

You just negated your own point. Why does the school have an 'out' but the coach doesn't? You coach badly, you get fired. You coach great, you get to consider other opportunities. If coaches need to be held to contracts, so do schools, but that doesn't stop a million programs a year from firing coaches in the middle of contracts. Point is that this may be Jagodzinksi's best shot at a pro job. What should he do, according to Colin Coward? Not interview, then maybe have a crappy season or two and get fired while still under contract and then never get a chance at a pro job again? That's real fair. Like I said, this is petty, shortsighted nonsense, and to call it anything else is moronic.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

You just negated your own point. Why does the school have an 'out' but the coach doesn't? You coach badly, you get fired. You coach great, you get to consider other opportunities. If coaches need to be held to contracts, so do schools, but that doesn't stop a million programs a year from firing coaches in the middle of contracts. Point is that this may be Jagodzinksi's best shot at a pro job. What should he do, according to Colin Coward? Not interview, then maybe have a crappy season or two and get fired while still under contract and then never get a chance at a pro job again? That's real fair. Like I said, this is petty, shortsighted nonsense, and to call it anything else is moronic.

i don't know if either or both have an out...
i think both sides should be held to a contract, but most usually do have outs regarding buyouts, poor performance, etc. look at tuberville, i'm sure he's crying all the way to the bank about losing that job. or nolan ryan, how many years did he get paid not to coach? schools go out on a limb and hire you, hoping you fit and can lift up the program. of course they're going to give themselves outs, and coaches will sign-a coach wanted by many can get more stuff in a contract than a 'no name'. like cowherd said, if he has an out to interview, you can't complain. but if he doesn't, he shouldn't interview.
like i said , i thought it was a bit over the top when the guy threatened to fire him...but by the same token, if i professed to want to stay in my job, while interviewing with a competitor, how do you suppose my boss would like it?
yeah, loyalty goes both ways. but a coach showing disloyalty is no better or worse than a school doing a search while having a current coach. i really think this mentality should change-from both sides.

[ddthetide]

this sounds like the AD and HC didn't get along and this is away for the AD to get rid of him. guess the AD figures he can do this because there are 2 pretty good ex-head coaches already on staff. jack bicknell was HC at BC for 10 years in the 80's and steve logan did a good job at east carolina (80's into the 90's?) for about 10 years.

[Danzig]

"DeFilippo would not discuss the specifics of Jagodzinski's contract but did say the two had a mutual understanding when Jagodzinski took the BC job just a little more than two years ago that he would be the Eagles' coach beyond the 2008 season.

"We certainly expected it would be more than two years before he would look or accept an interview [with another team]," DeFilippo said. "All contracts are different, as well as the spirit and intent of the contract."

Jagodzinski has three years left on his contract. Were BC to fire him, sources said, the university would be on the hook for the remainder of his salary."

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't know if either or both have an out...i think both sides should be held to a contract, but most usually do have outs regarding buyouts, poor performance, etc. look at tuberville, i'm sure he's crying all the way to the bank about losing that job. or nolan ryan, how many years did he get paid not to coach? schools go out on a limb and hire you, hoping you fit and can lift up the program. of course they're going to give themselves outs, and coaches will sign-a coach wanted by many can get more stuff in a contract than a 'no name'. like cowherd said, if he has an out to interview, you can't complain. but if he doesn't, he shouldn't interview.
like i said , i thought it was a bit over the top when the guy threatened to fire him...but by the same token, if i professed to want to stay in my job, while interviewing with a competitor, how do you suppose my boss would like it?
yeah, loyalty goes both ways. but a coach showing disloyalty is no better or worse than a school doing a search while having a current coach. i really think this mentality should change-from both sides.

Says in the article if BC were to fire him he'd still get paid all 5 years.

Personally I think all ACC football jobs are terrible these days. Somehow every school in that league (except maybe Duke) thinks they're better than they really are, like they're actually in the picture for national championships.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by philcski

Says in the article if BC were to fire him he'd still get paid all 5 years.

Personally I think all ACC football jobs are terrible these days. Somehow every school in that league (except maybe Duke) thinks they're better than they really are, like they're actually in the picture for national championships.

yeah, that's what i just put above. seems coaches have the best of both worlds. can leave if you wish, after all, the next job is always 'better'...and if you stink, you get fired and get paid not to work.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, that's what i just put above. seems coaches have the best of both worlds. can leave if you wish, after all, the next job is always 'better'...and if you stink, you get fired and get paid not to work.

I think that this dispute is in essense the AD wanting the coach to put the college's best interests over his and that is either shortsighted or idiotic. I say idiotic. Virtually every AD understands that in order to attract future coaches and even players they have to be willing to let them go if a better opportunity comes up. If the coach were to get the Jets job BC would be off the hook for his contract money. If the President of BC were to get offered the Harvard position, think he stays? Couldnt you say that the players who play for the college "owe" it to the college to play for them for four years too?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by philcski

Says in the article if BC were to fire him he'd still get paid all 5 years.

Personally I think all ACC football jobs are terrible these days. Somehow every school in that league (except maybe Duke) thinks they're better than they really are, like they're actually in the picture for national championships.

That is so hilarious and true. The ACC decided that they had to become a "mega conference" a few years back and sold their souls to the devil (not duke ). The schools that have been in the ACC the last 25 years pretty much know their respective places. Its the ones that came over in the expansion (BC, miami, Fla St., Va Tech) that either regressed (miami, FSU) or never got past second tier status (va tech and BC) that harbor the delusions of grandeur.

You have to give the hokies credit though. What they are able to accomplish year in and year out from such a limited recruiting base is amazing.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I think that this dispute is in essense the AD wanting the coach to put the college's best interests over his and that is either shortsighted or idiotic. I say idiotic. Virtually every AD understands that in order to attract future coaches and even players they have to be willing to let them go if a better opportunity comes up. If the coach were to get the Jets job BC would be off the hook for his contract money. If the President of BC were to get offered the Harvard position, think he stays? Couldnt you say that the players who play for the college "owe" it to the college to play for them for four years too?

shake ups like this can lead to players bailing-and don't forget, many colleges restrict transfers-you can't transfer to a conference rival, and many times kids have to sit out a year if they go to a fellow 1-a school. players get penalized if they move-but coaches can just move at will? not so much now, look at petrinos contract for example-a huge buyout if he should want to leave, and can't move to a sec west team. who can blame arkansas for those terms, with his track record?
how would this particular coach feel if the AD had come to him and said..you're doing good, but we can do better, so we're going to interview others and see if we can improve....kind of like what the coach is saying-i think i can improve, too bad i signed for five years. i didn't really mean it, altho no doubt he'd want the college to live up to their end regarding his money should they let him go.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

That is so hilarious and true. The ACC decided that they had to become a "mega conference" a few years back and sold their souls to the devil (not duke ). The schools that have been in the ACC the last 25 years pretty much know their respective places. Its the ones that came over in the expansion (BC, miami, Fla St., Va Tech) that either regressed (miami, FSU) or never got past second tier status (va tech and BC) that harbor the delusions of grandeur.

You have to give the hokies credit though. What they are able to accomplish year in and year out from such a limited recruiting base is amazing.

I hate giving the Hokies credit, but they do win alot of games. I do know one thing though, when Foster leaves, there will some serious mourning in Hokie Nation.


They tend to get the best players from Virginia year in and year out. Be curious to see where the kid from Phoebus goes. Played fantastic in the HS All American game this past weekend. I think Phoebus ended ranked in the top 5, maybe in the top three in the Nation this year.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I think that this dispute is in essense the AD wanting the coach to put the college's best interests over his and that is either shortsighted or idiotic. I say idiotic.

Maybe that Bill Donoghue (Catholic League guy with bad teeth) is giving the AD advice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gcCN...ill%20Donoghue

I only got through half of this, and was laughing so hard had to save some for another time. Want to save some fun for later.

[ddthetide]

Originally Posted by GPK

I hate giving the Hokies credit, but they do win alot of games. I do know one thing though, when Foster leaves, there will some serious mourning in Hokie Nation.


They tend to get the best players from Virginia year in and year out. Be curious to see where the kid from Phoebus goes. Played fantastic in the HS All American game this past weekend. I think Phoebus ended ranked in the top 5, maybe in the top three in the Nation this year.

Foster stays so he'll get the HC job when Beamer finally goes. UVa's only hope is they both leave. until then VT will dominate UVa.

the football schools in the ACC- Clemson, VT, Miami, FSU. miami and fsu have lost control of the state of fla. UF rules and the rest of the SEC is raiding the state. Clemson is the one i don't get. they should be able to go 9-3 every year. spurrier can't be hurting the. usc's offense is terrible but the defense id really good. Clemson has talent on both sides of the ball so that leaves coaching. i don't think Dabo Sweeney (Bama man) is the answer, great recruiter though.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

shake ups like this can lead to players bailing-and don't forget, many colleges restrict transfers-you can't transfer to a conference rival, and many times kids have to sit out a year if they go to a fellow 1-a school. players get penalized if they move-but coaches can just move at will? not so much now, look at petrinos contract for example-a huge buyout if he should want to leave, and can't move to a sec west team. who can blame arkansas for those terms, with his track record?
how would this particular coach feel if the AD had come to him and said..you're doing good, but we can do better, so we're going to interview others and see if we can improve....kind of like what the coach is saying-i think i can improve, too bad i signed for five years. i didn't really mean it, altho no doubt he'd want the college to live up to their end regarding his money should they let him go.

I understand what you are saying but the head coach in a college program is very important and the coaches realize that. Players are screwed under the NCAA system, thats a given but the coaches are employees so they have a right to look for better employement. The issues isnt with feelings, it is about getting the best job for the coach. If pete Carroll said to BC he wanyed the job do you think they would hesitate to fire the current coach? It goes both ways and unless there is some underlying deal like the AD thinks the coach is using the interview to extort more money out of them he is being pigheaded.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I understand what you are saying but the head coach in a college program is very important and the coaches realize that. Players are screwed under the NCAA system, thats a given but the coaches are employees so they have a right to look for better employement. The issues isnt with feelings, it is about getting the best job for the coach. If pete Carroll said to BC he wanyed the job do you think they would hesitate to fire the current coach? It goes both ways and unless there is some underlying deal like the AD thinks the coach is using the interview to extort more money out of them he is being pigheaded.

Aren't the coaches contracts such that they are guaranteed they'll get paid even if they are fired? I don't see how that can be such a bad situation. If the pay is guaranteed for the term of the contract then they shouldn't have the option to go elsewhere. If the coach has the option to get out with no strings attached then so should the team.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Aren't the coaches contracts such that they are guaranteed they'll get paid even if they are fired? I don't see how that can be such a bad situation. If the pay is guaranteed for the term of the contract then they shouldn't have the option to go elsewhere. If the coach has the option to get out with no strings attached then so should the team.

Supposedly BC says it wont pay him
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...ng-carousel-5/

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Supposedly BC says it wont pay him
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...ng-carousel-5/

If there is a clause then they have every right to fire him. Assuming there isn't then I don't see a chance in hell they can fire him and not pay him.