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.

[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.

[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."