Wetzel writes on Auburn hire and race

[Irondawg]

http://rivals.yahoo.com/n...p;prov=yhoo&type=lgns

I don't agree with his logic under most parts off it. The Auburn hire was weird, but I think people are giving Gill a lot more credit than he maybe deserves. Yes, he did turn a perennial loser into a winner and that's a big accomplishment. But when you dig down into the strength of the victories, there's not much there to convince you that it was much different than the MSU 2007-08 season.

He does it again next year and I'm sure he'll be a hot commodity. Going into last year no way his resume was better than Pellini's - that just absurd.

I know nothing about the GA guy though.

 

[Irondawg]

http://rivals.yahoo.com/n...p;prov=yhoo&type=lgns

I don't agree with his logic under most parts off it. The Auburn hire was weird, but I think people are giving Gill a lot more credit than he maybe deserves. Yes, he did turn a perennial loser into a winner and that's a big accomplishment. But when you dig down into the strength of the victories, there's not much there to convince you that it was much different than the MSU 2007-08 season.

He does it again next year and I'm sure he'll be a hot commodity. Going into last year no way his resume was better than Pellini's - that just absurd.

I know nothing about the GA guy though.

 

[Mjoelner]

That wasn't good enough for Auburn. Or Tennessee. Or Washington. Or <font color="#CC0000">Mississippi State</font>. Or Clemson. Or Kansas State

Hmmm. Lets see Wetzel......someone coaching in his second national championship game, coach of last year's Heisman winner, sucess at everywhere he has been, a proven offensive innovator, familiar with the area and the conference, plus we've been there...done that...didn't work vs. someone who has 1 winning season? Go to hell you prick for even mentioning us in that article!

 

[VirgilCain]

but all he was doing was mentioning the major college vacancies this year.... nothing more...nothing less

 

[wpnetdawg]

Someone needs to explain to me how at the time of Nebraska's hire, Gill had a better resume than Pellini.

 

[Mjoelner]

I understand the beef with Auburn and actually moreso UT but even mentioning us seems like a little backhanded slap.

 

[Stansfield]

But the race card being pulled every second is getting disgusting.

 

[Stormrider81]

"Pelini may prove to be a great hire, but his résumé wasn't as strong as Gill's. While both were former NU assistants, Pelini wasn't an alumnus or a former star. He lacked the name recognition and head coaching experience of Gill."

So, because Gill went to Nebraska that should give him a leg up on Pelini? That's just dumb. Also, if you don't make it to a bowl game I think you might as well write off head coaching experience. I mean, what good did it do? Gill is a way better candidate this year than last based primarily on his conference title and bowl bid.</p>

 

[Stormrider81]

People talk about being color blind in coaching searches and then throw a hissy fit when the school didn't hire the minority candidate they thought would be a perfect fit. Note to the media: if you want schools to hire more AA head coaches, quit making such a big deal out of it. When one is hired, judge him the same as you would a white coach. When one is fired, judge him the same as you would a white coach. When one is passed over for another candidate who has arguably a worse resume, judge the situation as you would if two white coaches were involved.

Auburn made a bad hire on paper, really bad. Can't we just call them idiots for hiring a guy that went 5-19? I'm sure if they wanted to pass on Gill just because he was black they would have tried to hire a better white coach. I just think their admin is terrible.

 

[dogfan96]

then nothing changes... it's hard enough for most Black coaches to even get an interview, let alone hired. Most ADs are still good old boys who would rather go with retreads, an alum, or the "safe hire".. especially in the SEC.

 

[TheNewMSU]

To be a lot better than they actually are. Take a look at Croom for example, he had a mountain of evidence pointing to the fact that he was an incompetent coach. However, the media made him out to be the best coach ever. We see how that one turned out as Croom was as incompetent as they come. Nice guy, but AWFUL coach and had no business coaching a major college team. Auburn ONLY cares about winning, bottom line. If they thought Gill would have given them the best shot at winning they would have no doubt hired him. Almost all Auburn fans, and even the "good ol' boys" would support hiring ghetto fabulous if they thought he would turn them into winners. Gill has done a good job at Buffalo, but there is no reason to believe he can duplicate that success in the SEC. Chizick is a bad hire in my opinion, but there is no reason to believe Gill would be any better. Wetzel knows this, he is just looking for attention in my opinion. Unfortunately, this article will certainly give him that.

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

from what I can gather, Gill was the most qualified candidate, and the number one pick among their fans. No other reason makes sense, other than that some of the bigger boosters simply wouldn't go for it.

 

[Stormrider81]

and then complain when they pass said candidate over, and that will change things? I don't buy it. In fact, I go the other way and say more ADs would hire minority candidates if they knew they could fire the guy without allowing him to totally bottom out in order to avoid having the race card played.

 

[thelaw]

He started it and I'm sure he was ecstatic to be the first one to point out that Turner Gill is black and didn't get the job...

Honestly, this type of move by Barkley and the guy that wrote this article piss me off to no end. Turner Gill is 15-22, in the MAC. Chiznik is 5-19 and there is no argument against that Auburn has made one of the worst hires possible- but give me a break- Turner Gill is not exactly an incredible coach on paper either. To me this situation is like a guy picking a 93 Metro Geo over a 96 Chevy Astro van- I guess one may be better than the other, but I wouldn't want either one.
I think it is absolutely ridiculous that race is such a big deal with coaching hires and the worst part of it all is that the controversy is usually started by the BCA or folks like Charles Barkley- Organizations and people that probably want the best for black coaches and athletes. But this type of behavior is simply counter productive and tends to piss a lot of people off. And it pisses people off because it puts them in a position where they have to defend their integrity and "prove" they aren't racists. It puts undue pressure on ADs, fans, etc... that isn't deserved. I think its merely an easy way to grab the spot light for a few minutes.

I don't know the reasons for Auburn's terrible choice- but it seems to me that Auburn should have landed someone better than both Gill and Chiznik. Leave the race discussion and finger pointing out of it- just ruins the reason that many of us read about sports constantly- because it isn't politically related.

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

candidates got chances to interview, maybe don't land that job, but then their name is out, and the GM tells other teams how good he is.

 

[maroonmania]

Gill apparently has the same baggage that Charlie Strong has, a white wife. I know its 2008 and a lot of things have changed and progressed, but let's face it, there are still a lot of folks, especially in the deep South, that are uncomfortable with that just as they would be in hiring a white coach with a black wife. I absolutely do not believe MSU would have hired Sylvester Croom if the same situation applied to him. Rightly or wrongly, when it comes to the head coach, who IS the face of the program, those types of things are very much considered.

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

that was black with a white wife.

Regardless, if that's why they didn't hire him, well, they are in trouble.

 

[maroonmania]

but the assistant coach thing means nothing. That's a whole different animal just to have someone on the staff with that situation. Heck, I couldn't even tell you if most of our assistants or married or even have families. Bottom line, the same level of scrutiny is not on them.

 

[Stormrider81]

I wouldn't compare that to the college game. Regardless, forcing people to interview a minority candidate is ridiculous.

 

[ColMuldrow]

The presidents and boosters aren't bothered by it nearly as much as the mothers of athletically gifted 18-year old black males.

I'm not saying that the AU powers-that-be had the foresight to acknowledge this, but its certainly worth considering.

 

[patdog]

But you can't argue that it has worked unbelievably well. How could it possibly hurt to have a similar rule for college football? Its success in the NFL might not translate to college football, but how can you know that? I wouldn't have thought it would have worked in the NFL either, until it did. College football needs to give a Rooney Rule a chance.

 

[Dawgzilla]

gotdangedRooneyruleku

 

[Todd4State]

Turner Gill has had one winning season. And that was a 7-5 season. I need to see Turner Gill win more games to make the decision on whether he is a good coach or not. Heck, Croom and Rocky Felker managed to have one winning season to.

If Barkley was thinking rationally, which he is not on this case, he would see that Auburn is in a hopeless situation right now. Whoever goes in there is going to fail. And that means if Gill went there, he would fail, which would probably ruin his career.

Sir Charles should just keep his mouth shut, sit back and deal with the next two years. Maybe by then Gill will be even more proven and have an even better chance to succeed than now.

 

[patdog]

but you can't say on the basis of their resumes so far that he's clearly a better candidate than Chizik. Yeah, Chizik's record at Iowa St. sucks, but that's not an easy place to win and 2 years may very well have not been enough time to turn it around. And yeah, Gill had a great year at Buffalo, but the level of competition is pathetic and several of the wins came in OT. As for their careers as assistant coaches, it's not even close. That part of their resumes goes clearly to Chizik.

What I can't understand is where are all the articles and TV segments talking about how racist San Diego St. is for hiring Brady Hoke, a coach who had 4 losing seasons in the same conference at an easier place to win than Buffalo before finally posting a 7-6 record last year and a 12-1 record this year (with the one loss to Turner Gill's Buffalo team). It only took Gill 2 years to win a conference title at Buffalo. Hoke didn't win one in 6 years at Ball St.

 

[Brutius]

Let's have a little hypothetical situation:

Auburn hires a black coach for this position. This coach had been 5-19 at his previous employer. How many of you would be here shouting that the only reason he was hired was because he was black? I'm guessing the vast majority would.

This is a stupid hire on many levels. Race is just one of the areas of its vast stupidity.

 

[DerHntr]

which is the only way to truly compare apples to apples here, then i would have said they did it because chizick was a homer from auburn who coached during one of the better stretches of auburn history with tubberville. he was there for three great years and was one of the reasons they were good. this is EXACTLY why i think they hired chizick. just look at jacobs' statement for a moment when they hired chizik "He has a strong knowledge of this athletics program, this university and the community, and he knows how to be successful in the Southeastern Conference."

they know him, they know what he can do, and it seemed to be the easy hire. of course this didn't turn out too easy because of his record as a head coach and now BECAUSE he is white. it is amazing how social pressures muddy the waters.

edit to add: that i do agree with you that many would say it was because he is black. i would have been in the group that didn't.

 

[Brutius]

Dude was 5-19 in the past 2 years. That's worse than Croom.</p>

I don't think Gill should have been hired just because he is black and I don't think a coach that was 5-19 over the past two years should be given a promotion under any circumstances. It's just plain dumb.

To me a hypothetical comparison would be if Ellis Johnson had gone somewhere to be a head coach and been 5-19 over his first two years. Then Croom quits and we hire Ellis Johnson because he had a strong knowledge of the MSU athletics program. Seriously would ANYBODY here be ok with that? Anybody?</p>

 

[seshomoru]

Croom would have had to been fired, err... had to resign, after winning 65% of the games he coached. Then EJ would have had to go somewhere, go 5-19, then come back.

That, to me anyway, is what makes it all so damn strange. They could have avoided all of this by keeping a good coach.

 

[DerHntr]

ellis was here under one of the worst coaches in our history. yeah he helped us have our one winning season but he in no way had the luxury of working for tubs and coaching his team in the Capital One, Music City, and Sugar Bowls; having a #5 defense in 2003 and 2004; or being the co-DC at Texas when they won the national championship in 2005.

I like EJ but he doesn't have the wins here at State that Chizik had at Auburn or elsewhere (as a coordinator).

Again, I also think the hire was not a good idea. But I don't think the race card is appropriate when you consider that Auburn had some weird firing of Tubberville and all they basically wanted was the team to be run like Tubberville ran it a short 3 years ago. Chizik was there then so they apparently think he can bring them back to that type of team. Will it work? I have no clue. But I do think it was a strange hire and I think their reasoning is flawed considering his head coaching record. Maybe they are giving him a pass since he was in an "impossible situation" himself.

 

[fishwater99]

Many an African-American mother would not want their son playing for a black man married to a white woman.
That is the fact in the deep south..

Charlie Strong will have the same problem getting a HC job in the SEC.

 

[Todd4State]

I could also see BCA people saying that they hired Turner Gill for a hopeless situation to hurt black coaches.

Either way Auburn is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

The thing is, and the thing that Barkley isn't seeing here, is that Auburn was not going to be able to make a good hire no matter who it is or was- regardless of their skin color. They just fired one of their most successful coaches because their biggest cigar boy is a nut. Not only that, you have to compete with Nick Saban for recruits and he will probably win a NC in five years or less. And on top of all that, Auburn's talent is not that good. This is going to be a major rebuilding job. That's the issue here, until Barkley started talking out of his ***, which has compounded things even further.

 

[HammerOfTheDogs]

but all he was doing was mentioning the major college vacancies this year.... nothing more...nothing less

But where's Syracuse? They sucked big-time as well. Gill would've been a perfect fit there. Orange-racist-pigs.