Whitlock - "Media gave Notre Dame and C. Weis a reach-around".
- Thread starter 3000lbchicken
- Start date
I hate Whitlock. He is just a fat piece of **** that uses race arguments to make a name for himself. In regard to his article, I seem to remember the media giving Notre Dame and Willingham quite the "reach-around" when Notre Dame was 8-0 in his first season. Hopefully Whitlock will keep his fat *** out of State's business when they can Croom.
How can you say Weis is not a better coach than Willingham? Willinghams record at Washington (a school that used to be a perinnial powerhouse, has a huge Seattle recruiting base, won a national championship in the 90s etc.) makes Sly Croom look like Nick Saban. It's painfully obvious who the better coach between the two of them is.
I just don't get whitlock, he takes up for Willingham because of his race and bashes Weis because of his, but earlier in the year bashed Vince Young because of his race.
Like I said, I think he is a big fat bi-polar idiot.
I just don't get whitlock, he takes up for Willingham because of his race and bashes Weis because of his, but earlier in the year bashed Vince Young because of his race.
Like I said, I think he is a big fat bi-polar idiot.
And he does have a valid point in that Willingham started 8-0 his first season against a tougher schedule than Weis did when he started 5-2 in his first season and yet somehow Weis got a 10-year $30,000,000+ contract. And he correctly points out that Weis won with Willingham's players and hasn't really done **** with his own. I don't think it was racist, but Notre Dame has definitely overpaid badly for Weis.
"I do agree though that he went way over the line by suggesting that Weis being overpaid was racist."
Yep, it wasn't racist, it was stupid. They bought into the hype of him being a genius coach and when faux rumors of the nfl wanting him arose, they freaked out and gave him a ginormous contract. Now they are stuck with a coach that is struggling to win with his own players, has yet to win a single big game at ND, and has yet to prove he can develop players.
Yep, it wasn't racist, it was stupid. They bought into the hype of him being a genius coach and when faux rumors of the nfl wanting him arose, they freaked out and gave him a ginormous contract. Now they are stuck with a coach that is struggling to win with his own players, has yet to win a single big game at ND, and has yet to prove he can develop players.
One thing Whitlock fails to mention in his crusade to portray Notre Dame as racist (which they may be) is the fact that part of the reason Weis got a fat, long-term contract is he used "interest" from NFL teams as a negotiating tactic. Notre Dame ate it up and decided to give Weis a contract that would make it extremely hard for him to leave. Was this a good idea? I have no clue and we probably won't know for a few more years. Whitlock needs to admit he hopes Weis fails so that he can go on another rant about how Notre Dame and college football is racist. Willingham is a **** coach whether he is black, white, chinese, indian, or hispanic and that is all that should matter. Articles like this help keep racism alive.
I agree that Weis getting the big extension was likely not a racist move, which is where Whitlock is wrong. It was a stupid move. He's right about that, but like was said, the primary difference between Weis and Willingham is that Willingham didn't try to play Notre Dame when he had some early success. Weis acted like he was going to bolt after one year and got a huge contract for it. He simply negotiated better. Willingham might have been able to do the same at ND had he dangled the idea of leaving after his quick start.
Bottom line, Notre Dame was desperate at the time to try to keep up with OU, USC, and the other powers of college football. They were falling behind and are still way behind, and they made a mistake in estimating that they might have the next robot-genius coach. It was purely an act out of desperation in hopes that Weis might be their savior. As it stands, I don't know that anyone can save Notre Dame short of cheating like crazy.
Bottom line, Notre Dame was desperate at the time to try to keep up with OU, USC, and the other powers of college football. They were falling behind and are still way behind, and they made a mistake in estimating that they might have the next robot-genius coach. It was purely an act out of desperation in hopes that Weis might be their savior. As it stands, I don't know that anyone can save Notre Dame short of cheating like crazy.
Add to all of that the fact that Notre Dame really wanted Urban Meyer. When he turned them down, they shat themselves and grabbed Weis. Once Weis had a little success Notre Dame overreacted because they figured they might not get another chance a such a quality coach (however Weis was and still is an unproven commodity).
the SpyGate videos benefitted Weis a great deal and he was never that great of a coach to begin with. He sure doesn't look like an offensive genius with no Tom Brady and no videotapes. Anyway, I love watching Notre Dame struggle. I will always hate them for their exclusive TV deal.
On and off the subject:
Does anyone else think that ND could outspend Bama for Saban? I think it is conceivable that someday the Irish might go after him if they tire of Weis.
Does anyone else think that ND could outspend Bama for Saban? I think it is conceivable that someday the Irish might go after him if they tire of Weis.
in this country going to wake up and realize that they have the power, not the coaches. The AD's "hold the keys" to the head coaching jobs. They don't have to pay $3M/year to get an above average coach. The HC job is still based upon the ability to identify 11 players who know what they are supposed to do and who give 100% every second they are on the field. (How many SEC coaches can you say are managing to do that?) A HC must be able to do that before you can even dream of winning a conference and/or national championship. Luck, perception, schedule, not-so-good refs, and injuries play a huge role in even having a shot at a championship.
Long-term, high dollar contracts lead to apathy on the part of coaches. (See Tuberville, Fulmer, etc.) When you do not have prove your worth each and every year, it's human nature to ease off of the gas pedal.
I believe in low-to-medium base salary contracts loaded with high dollar bonuses for certain achievments. I don't believe you ought to fire a coach for 1 or 2 sub-par years, but if his average win total over the previous 3 to 4 year period dips below a certain level, his contract should be eligible for immediate termination.
Buyout clauses should never be part of a college coach's contract. If he does his job, he'll be rewarded, if not he'll be let go. If a coach is good enough, he can land another job after being let go.
Also... at least 50% of an assistant's potential pay ought to come from a pool of money overseen by the HC. An assistant should never have a guaranteed contract. At least one-half of his pay ought to be based on performance.
It is supposedly a selling point during recruiting for a coach to gurantee that he'll always be the coach while a recruit is at a school. But, I wonder, really, how big of a consideration that is for the average recruit.
Long-term, high dollar contracts lead to apathy on the part of coaches. (See Tuberville, Fulmer, etc.) When you do not have prove your worth each and every year, it's human nature to ease off of the gas pedal.
I believe in low-to-medium base salary contracts loaded with high dollar bonuses for certain achievments. I don't believe you ought to fire a coach for 1 or 2 sub-par years, but if his average win total over the previous 3 to 4 year period dips below a certain level, his contract should be eligible for immediate termination.
Buyout clauses should never be part of a college coach's contract. If he does his job, he'll be rewarded, if not he'll be let go. If a coach is good enough, he can land another job after being let go.
Also... at least 50% of an assistant's potential pay ought to come from a pool of money overseen by the HC. An assistant should never have a guaranteed contract. At least one-half of his pay ought to be based on performance.
It is supposedly a selling point during recruiting for a coach to gurantee that he'll always be the coach while a recruit is at a school. But, I wonder, really, how big of a consideration that is for the average recruit.