Leadership has to believe first...

Tucker32

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
1,931
Reaction score
1,357
Points
113
I think Kill, Claeys, and staff did a great job setting a new direction with a strong foundation, brick by brick, over the last few years. Their work was needed and added great value.

With that said, after being upset about Claeys being let go, I have come around to it really is probably the right decision. Sometimes as a leader you recognize that someone you have in another leadership position is really good, yet you don't see that individual taking the dept/org/program the next step. This is a really hard place to be because you risk failure at the expense of being good, or above average, by making a change to take the next step to get dramatically better outcomes.

Great organizations, and their leaders, know when to make changes. The don't get stuck in average. Sometimes their changes work, sometimes not. I was upset with the change, not because I really believed Tracy would take the next step, in fact I questioned that. However, I much prefer the idea each Saturday that we have had a chance to win, with a great defense. I knew that could continue. Yet, it looks like our leadership has greater aspirations, and they are building the infrastructure to support it.

We will see what happens next, but like letting Tubby go, this is an attempt at taking the next step. Many don't believe it can be done, as we have heard many mock the rose bowl talk. However, it looks like we have an AD who finally believes it can happen with the right person and support, and the President is supporting him. I don't know that we have seen that here before.

The leadership has to believe first, and the rest will follow. It seems our leadership finally believes (just wish they would have managed the noise better). My hope is we see the results change dramatically so the rest follow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

The Athletic Director's public statement on the dismissal did not have to be hostile to the previous HC and his staff...and...it was definitely hostile.

I think that in the end is my biggest rub.

I'll hold the grudge for a while but indeed will move on.

Looking forward to what this newfound "leadership" has in store and will be optimistic.

BTW...we did get to see some really good defensive play the past few years. That will be missed...
 

The Athletic Director's public statement on the dismissal did not have to be hostile to the previous HC and his staff...and...it was definitely hostile.

I think that in the end is my biggest rub.

I'll hold the grudge for a while but indeed will move on.

Looking forward to what this newfound "leadership" has in store and will be optimistic.

BTW...we did get to see some really good defensive play the past few years. That will be missed...

Agree on both fronts. The dismissal should have been handled better. There was no need for the negative spin. And, totally agree, the defense has been great.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Do you guys think Coyle wanted the boycott to happen and play no bowl game? Therefore, making it easier to fire Claeys? I wonder whether he cared either way...
 

Do you guys think Coyle wanted the boycott to happen and play no bowl game? Therefore, making it easier to fire Claeys? I wonder whether he cared either way...

If you think the AD wanted the national embarrassment to continue, you're on something
 


The Athletic Director's public statement on the dismissal did not have to be hostile to the previous HC and his staff...and...it was definitely hostile.

I think that in the end is my biggest rub.

I'll hold the grudge for a while but indeed will move on.

Looking forward to what this newfound "leadership" has in store and will be optimistic.

BTW...we did get to see some really good defensive play the past few years. That will be missed...

I agree with this. Still not happy with the way things were handled but am excited for the future. I didn't have a lot of confidence in Claeys going forward but thought he deserved a chance. Oh well, it may end up working out for the best in the long run.
 

Do you guys think Coyle wanted the boycott to happen and play no bowl game? Therefore, making it easier to fire Claeys? I wonder whether he cared either way...

I think Coyle didn't want Claeys around regardless.... but I'm also not down with any conspiracy type stuff either.

It is still a less than pleasant event he might have to deal with / comment on and etc. I doubt he wants that.
 

I think Coyle didn't want Claeys around regardless.... but I'm also not down with any conspiracy type stuff either.

It is still a less than pleasant event he might have to deal with / comment on and etc. I doubt he wants that.

Coyle's tone, mannerisms and comments toward the previous coaching staff made it pretty clear to me that there were personal feelings involved. I don't believe otherwise for a moment. The tone, mannerisms and comments were over the line of decorum by my standards. Let's call it the "low road".
 

If you think the AD wanted the national embarrassment to continue, you're on something

No, I don't think he wanted any of that. It just hurts the overall brand, and make it that much tougher to get a coach in. I think people are overthinking that. He just didn't manage the communication well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



Agree on both fronts. The dismissal should have been handled better. There was no need for the negative spin. And, totally agree, the defense has been great.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the negative spin could have came from two places and one is more easily excused.
1. Coyle and Kaler were perhaps rightfully angry at the players actions and Claeys & Co support of boycott. They should have swallowed their anger on this one.
2. Coyle and Kaler had to denounce an aspect of the former staff to make a clear statement to the general public that the U does not support the kind of behavior that took place on Sep 2nd. Without doing this it makes it difficult for the average Jane or Joe to get behind Fleck.
 

Good thread. I think Coyle felt obligated to explain why he made the change and that he tried to tie it into his guy PJ's culture thing (he already knew who he was going after). I don't think he really intended to criticize the old coaching staff in that way, but that is how it came out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

2. Coyle and Kaler had to denounce an aspect of the former staff to make a clear statement to the general public that the U does not support the kind of behavior that took place on Sep 2nd. Without doing this it makes it difficult for the average Jane or Joe to get behind Fleck.

This is what I think they were attempting but it doesn't answer the obvious question - why were those initial 4 players who were suspended ever reinstated. If in fact Coyle and Kaler were so gung ho on all this then they would have never signed off on the reinstatement of those 4 players. All the bluster didn't ring true to me. Because after I read the police report (which Coyle and therefor Kaler had at the time of reinstatement) it was clear that regardless of the criminal outcome, the activities of those players was not acceptable. But they were reinstated anyways and the rest is history.

And if Claeys had the final decision on whether to reinstate the players then it demonstrates horrific leadership by Coyle/Kaler and a terrible decision by Claeys. But I suspect that wasn't the case for the first year head coach.

Regardless...moving on but not forgetting.
 

This is what I think they were attempting but it doesn't answer the obvious question - why were those initial 4 players who were suspended ever reinstated. If in fact Coyle and Kaler were so gung ho on all this then they would have never signed off on the reinstatement of those 4 players. All the bluster didn't ring true to me. Because after I read the police report (which Coyle and therefor Kaler had at the time of reinstatement) it was clear that regardless of the criminal outcome, the activities of those players was not acceptable. But they were reinstated anyways and the rest is history.

And if Claeys had the final decision on whether to reinstate the players then it demonstrates horrific leadership by Coyle/Kaler and a terrible decision by Claeys. But I suspect that wasn't the case for the first year head coach.

Regardless...moving on but not forgetting.

I agree
 



As far as I'm concerned, using the word "leadership" for Coyle and Kaler is misguided. They provided no leadership when the players needed help, and now they're taking shots at the previous coaching staff and positioning themselves as the protectors of the moral high ground.

Coyle and Kaler are out to save their necks and their jobs. They will throw anyone under the bus if they think it makes them look good.
 

I thought we the fans were supposed to stop accepting mediocrity?
 


No, I don't think he wanted any of that. It just hurts the overall brand, and make it that much tougher to get a coach in. I think people are overthinking that. He just didn't manage the communication well.

Yeah, after a guy sh!ts his pants he tends to try a find a good reason...but in the end it just a guy who sh!t his pants.
 




Top Bottom