Quote:
|
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.