<p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri">so quickly into believing that having an ******* for a coach is equal to having a cheater and loser for a coach. So Jackie has a reputation as a "not so nice guy" who could possibly be a cheater at State and who got us put on probation. When I hear people say things about him all I remember is his record and the probation issue. I could care less if he was the long lost father that 85% of our players never had. I could care less if he was a man of stability and character who goes to church every Sunday even during the season. I could care less if everyone he meets thinks he is a great man of the utmost character. And finally, but not least, I could care less what the national media thinks of the man. Their opinion is often based on how he talks to them. I would rather the media hate the man simply because I dislike most of them more than most people out there.
So we were brainwashed by the administration bringing in the "anti-Jackie." He said things like "doing it the right way", "building character", "honesty", "integrity", etc. Most fans bought in. He also had the distinction of being the first African American coach in the SEC and he said things like "maroon is the only color that matters." This gave us hope that the hire was based on his coaching abilities and not on anything else. So we bought in.
Yet in the end not enough people in the administration thought enough about the implications that character, ethics, integrity, and honesty can HELP you win games but will NOT win them alone; not enough thought about how the implications that other characteristics like stubbornness, egotism, and condescension can HELP you lose games but will NOT lose them alone.
See, I think that the Croom experiment is a wash when it comes to people liking things about him and disliking things about him. So if his strong characteristics as a man are indeed cancelled out by his weak characteristics to equal a sum of zero then we should again go back to the man's record as a coach. Personally, I never looked at all of the BS in the first place. If we have a coach who has all of the characteristics that everyone loves and none of the ones that people hate, AND he wins, then great for us. We get to like our coach for more than just winning. If not, WHO CARES?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span> I'll take a winner any day over a nice fella who loses a lot.
Every time I hear someone in the press or on the board qualify their response about Croom with "but he is such a nice guy of utmost character and I like him" I write them off as a person that sees the game of football as something way more than winning and losing. Football does have other things that come along with it but most of those things come by winning first.
There is not a person on this board who can honestly tell me that they would quit contributing to the bulldawg club, cancel their season tickets, stop tailgating altogether, and turn away from MSU football if we were winning at a very consistent level (say 9 games a season or more) because they thought the coach was a slime ball jerk of poor moral fiber. If someone did say that I simply would not believe them.
The character myth may have some legs but it amounts to a hill of beans when it comes to winning vs. losing.
Croom must go.</font></p>
Chris Low: (1:29 PM ET ) I've said repeatedly that MSU fans need to let Croom finish the job. He took over an impossible situation and has been such a class guy. That said, he has to realize how bad the Bulldogs are offensively now and address those problems. If he doesn't (or any coach doesn't), then you're probably not going to be around much longer.
