Spare a thought this Christmas for those college football coaches who have been fired or are on the hot seat.
As the 2008 college football season draws to a close, the annual round of housecleaning begins at underperforming programs across the country. Under pressure from fans and boosters for winning results, many athletic directors will be making coaching changes in the hopes that a new voice at the helm will produce wins that have eluded their teams. Indeed, the 2008 process has already begun—notables such as Clemson’s Tommy Bowden, Syracuse’s Greg Robinson, Tennessee’s Phil Fulmer, and Washington’s Tyrone Willingham have already been fired or informed that they will not be returning next season.
Some of these firings are justified. In Willingham’s four seasons at Washington, the team has won a combined six games in the Pac-10. Barring an upset win over No. 22 Cal this weekend, the Huskies will go 0-12 this season.
In three seasons at Syracuse, Robinson compiled a 7-28 record overall, the lowest for any three-year span in Orangemen history. Coaches are the ones ultimately responsible for the state of their programs. When Michigan head coach Rich Rodriguez tells angry fans to worry about other things like the economy, it does not change the fact that his biggest worry should be the Wolverines’ 3-9 record.
But when Tennessee ousts a coach like Fulmer, a man who has won a national title, a Southeastern Conference title, finished in the final top 10 in six seasons, and is one year removed from a 10-win season, will that really make the team better? Will 33-year-old Lane Kiffin, the new Volunteers coach, really command more respect on the recruiting trail than Fulmer? Will he understand his SEC opponents as well as Fulmer does? It is possible that Kiffin will usher in a new dynasty on Rocky Top, but he has a long way to go before he even matches Fulmer’s accomplishments.
And that’s what I really don’t understand about some head-coaching changes. When Nebraska fired Frank Solich after the 2003 season, Steve Pederson, then-Nebraska AD, said that he would not surrender the Big 12 to Texas and Oklahoma. Is that really a realistic standard to hold one’s program to? Although winning conference titles and national championships may seem easy during a program’s glory days, even Texas and Oklahoma may find it tough to stay as good as Texas and Oklahoma. Times change, and no one really knows how good a team will be in the future.
Perhaps after years of following Columbia football, I have learned to appreciate how hard it is to win. Obviously, Nebraska and Tennessee will not be held to nearly the same standard as the Light Blue, but the same number of things need to come together for programs to win. The games of touted recruits need to translate to the college game. Programs need to keep up with the infrastructure arms race that defines today’s college athletics. Key assistant coaches need to be kept. And luck needs to be on a team’s side. There’s a lot of money flowing through the NCAA today, and the number of schools with the resources to compete is larger than ever before.
Keep such facts in mind when observing coaching hot seats over the coming weeks and months. Is the losing really because of the coach, or is the infrastructure around him not really there? Are ADs and fans really realistic about their program’s current place in the world? It’s worth it to keep in mind that out of the 13 programs that forcibly removed their coaches last season, only seven have better records this season.
Above all, remember that winning is difficult. When you win that Rose Bowl, savor it. It doesn’t happen every year. It may not happen again in the next five, 10, or—in Columbia’s case—next 74 years.
Charles Young is a senior in the School of Engineering and Applied Science majoring in applied math.
Sports@columbiaspectator.com
Comments
We're looking for comments that are interesting and substantial. If your comments are excessively self-promotional or obnoxious you will be banned from commenting. Consult the comment FAQ and legal terms.