The hottest new trend of 2008 and 2009 appears to be a diseased athletic department. See: West Virginia, Rich Rodriguez, and Bill Stewart or Auburn, Tommy Tuberville, and Gene Chizik. You can add Boston College to the list, too, as they've declared they'll fire Jeff Jagodzinski if he dares to interview with the Jets. In a word: bats. Jagodzinski has been good, not great in his two years as BC's head coach. He's highly unlikely to get an NFL head coaching gig off the back of a Music City Bowl loss. But he's been successful enough for Boston College to hope there's some later date at which he'll have the resume for an NFL head job. So you're basically firing a guy good enough to get interviewed by the NFL but not good enough to get hired, which is the exact profile of coach you should be looking for at a school like Boston College.
Add in the strange departure of Tom O'Brien, who made an at-best lateral move to NC State for no apparent reason, and you've got the makings of a power-mad or incompetent athletic director with no idea how to maintain stability at his program. One incident is strange. Two is a trend.
How are you going to hire a promising replacement when you've just fired a coach for daring to interview somewhere else? How are you going to recruit when you're on your third coach in four years and the previous two left suddenly? You won't, and you can't.
Congratulations, Gene DiFilippo: you've managed out-dumb the rest of the country in a year in which a special teams coach from Mayberry and a 5-19 Iowa State coach were hired.
Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Brian:
You are a complete idiot. How about less weed and Cheetos and more thinking?
As echoed by Mike Golic on Mike & Mike this morning, kudos to DeFillipo for actually expecting a BC head coach to honor his contract and not take any job interviews for at least three years from the date of signing. Recruiting is the very reason BC put its foot down. You cannot build a successful NCAA football program if you do not have stability at the head-coach position. Jags agreed not to talk to any other potential employer for at least three years. By talking to the Jets, he essentially is telling current players and recruits that he really has no interest in hanging around at BC and that he could go at any time. Who wants to play for a guy like that? Recruits and their parents want a guy who will stick around.
Watch for other schools to follow BC's lead. This will weed out future potential coaching candidates who think that they're going to treat an NCAA school as their whore while they wait for something better to come along in the night and jump ship.
Nice job Gene and BC. Screw Brian. In addition to needing a shave and a haircut, he's clearly retarded.
"Who wants to play for a guy like that? Recruits and their parents want a guy who will stick around."
Meeting with Huizenga really buried Carroll's recruiting class at USC that year and subsequent years. And that's not the exception to your general rule - your general rule is just unfounded. I see no evidence that recruits think that playing for a coach good enough to get interviewed by NFL teams is a bad thing, or a turn off. Additionally, I see no evidence that BC has any idea of how to create stability.
They do know how to win lower-tier bowl games, though, so that's nice.
My curiosity abounds. How is threatening to fire the coach going to dissuade him from attempting to get another job?
Granted, Jags made his bed, he wanted more money and agreed to the new terms for it, but the AD going off on the coach isn't going to help his program's image of stability in any way shape or form.
The one other thing that speaks to DeFilippo's arrogance is his refusal to play what is, at least on paper, the most obvious non-conference game imaginable. There are two FBS teams in New England, BC and UConn, and BC refuses to play the game. You could play it at a neutral site. But for whatever reason, DFilippo has essentially said there's no way the game will ever happen.
The reason is a lawsuit filed on UConn's behalf against BC a few years ago that cost BC millions and an extra year in the Big East. The obvious need for BC to play UConn is apparent only to UConn fans. New England recruits already know BC exists. BC schedules its 1-AA opponents from New England to help regional football. Notre Dame is on the schedule for a few more years. Why play another 1-A school locally when you can go to another part of the country and help recruiting. When ND drops from the schedule BC does a home and home with Southern Cal. That sounds like better scheduling than UConn.
Add to that the fact that BC owes Connecticut nothing after the legal antics of its Attorney General, and I would say BC's position is rational.
One more point on scheduling UConn. When BC did play UConn both as a non-conference game and in the Big East (once, I think) the game was not viewed by the networks as interesting enough to be nationally televised. Why should BC waste a 1-A slot on a game that does not bring in national exposure and revenue. If UConn becomes as good and prominent in football someday as its fans think it is now, then maybe this will make sense. Until then, BC should stick with playing it's 1-A non-conference games against ND and SC, or against similar private schools with football history like Syracuse and Northwestern.
Jimmyshi -
If you've been around, then you know there is bad blood between UConn and BC. Has to do with BC ditching the Big East. Jim Calhoun won't play BC in basketball. So BC won't play UConn in football. They helped UConn's program all they are going to, until a few years go by and the hard feelings dissapate.
It's your job. It's your money.
The reason he won't schedule the UConn football game is because of the lawsuit and because Calhoun has refused to put BC on the basketball schedule. This is all readily available information, so check your facts before spouting inanity.
As for O'Brien, everyone affiliated with BC was glad to see him go. It's only people who have never been forced to watch him coach football games that think he's some sort of genius.
here is where BC disagrees with brian
"So you're basically firing a guy good enough to get interviewed by the NFL but not good enough to get hired, which is the exact profile of coach you should be looking for at a school like Boston College."
specifically a school LIKE boston college. that is exactly what the AD is trying to get away from. and you know what maybe they should be commended for this. you have two options a) continue being a school LIKE boston college or b) find someone who wants to stick around and will actually build it into something. thats how all the other schools got to where they are, on the backs of long tenured coaches
Mgojosh:
Then why hire a known transient with an eye for the NFL to begin with? I mean, I guess I understand the argument, "the AD is cutting his losses on a bad hire to begin with, due to changed priorities of changing BC from being, well, BC, to a more established program." But I don't give the AD that much credit. I think it was impetuous.
Geez, where do they find you guys? For the last time, Jags was not fired for what he did. IT WAS THE WAY HE DID IT!!!! Yes, college coaches move on all the time. Yes, BC is often a stepping stone on the way to something bigger. That is not the point here. Jags broke a promise, call it a verbal agreement not to seek an NFL job for at least 3 years. But then he lied to DeFilippo and said he wasn't looking, when he clearly was. And he did it in the middle of the critical recruiting season, which already was not going well. And finally, he deliberately went ahead with the Jets interview BECAUSE HE WANTED TO BE FIRED AND COLLECT SOME OF HIS REMAINING CONTRACT!!! He deliberately dissed the guy who hired him and gave him his first very lucrative HC job, get it? He won't get the Jets job, but will be the OC for the Seahawks and collect some extra cash from BC to boot. That's low. That's unethical and dishonest. No class.
Just another lazy "media guy" not doing his homework on a story that, at least on it's face, "appeals" to many Americans (especially right now).
The columnists and broadcasters who actually have examined the manner with objectivity and industry all seem to be arriving a similar conclusion . . .
Did Jagodzinski deserve to get fired? Yes. His boss told him specifcally not to.
Unfortunately, that doesn't mean DiFilippo is doing a good job. First, DiFilippo hired the guy in the first place. Look at his resume--is Jagodzinski the guy you'd want to hire if you were looking for the next (say) Frank Beamer?
Second, how exactly is firing the coach for something trivial like this supposed to make the program more stable? I'm sure there were things happening behind the scenes, but that doesn't necessarily reflect well on DiFilippo. He obviously let his relationship with Jagodzinski deteriorate.
Finally, whether he wants stability or not, DiFilippo is now an AD who next year will have his third football coach in four years. If I were a coach looking for a college job, I'd definitely think twice about Boston College. Recruiting is likely to be screwed up for a couple of years, and the last coach got fired in a squabble with the AD.
DiFilippo also hired the guy in the first place. If the stability of the program is so important, why did he hire a guy