And sometimes these programs actually do more harm than good. Several years ago my sister was trying to get into a pretty good pharmacy program. Every year, two of the openings were saved for minorities. As it turned out, my sister just missed out on being accepted. As it turned out, one of the two minorities who were accepted in this diversity program was very deserving of being accepted into the pharmacy program. The other one was not, however. But because this program was in place, she had to be accepted. Not only do you have people like my sister frustrated by this, you also have others in the program who had to work very hard to get accepted that probably look down on this individual. Was it this girl's fault the program was in place? Of course not, but in this instance I think it created more harm than good.
Too much for a sports board eh!
Seriously, This is why I both like and hate conversations like this on message boards. I can tell by your tone that you are legitimately just trying to process this whole artificial thing called race and everything that comes from it.
While I am not a total fan of set aside or quota programs, I will state that such programs are not just "race" related. I know that boarding/ prep/ private schools,Universities and businesses including the press have and still do have diversity targets that include sex, age, geographical location, etc.. I know of people that were given scholarships to top prep schools because they came from small towns. If not given this chance, they probably would not have been able to attend either the prep school or the top Universities via scholarships that they did attend.
Going in another direction, I will piggyback on a part of corcoran1's comment:
"
While it sounds like whining on its face, none of us really know enough about the situation to have any idea if this guy was making progress. If he was working for a bad AD, this could be a terrible decision. His background does not inspire confidence for anyone on this site, but the program may have been a shambles. A coaching change after two years in a depleted program is by definition a train wreck"
Two things:
One, the background. If organizations cannot afford or attract the idea candidate, they widen the net/ get creative. If said organization widens the net then they typically know that because they don't have an "idea" candidate they have to do other things to help make the hire a successful hire.
Two, defining the problem and progress toward fixing the problem. Rather than beat up the coach for saying things out of frustration because he felt he was fired before giving time to fix the problem, my thought was did the University work with the coach to map out a strategy to fix the program. I don't know. The reason this came to mind was what Kill did as soon as Teague came on board as AD. Though Kill may not get the full seven years to right the ship, the AD agreed that Kill will need time and resources to right the ship.
From my limited point of view, it appears that Colorado is a long slow rebuild. Sounds like Colorado doesn't have the resources to hire an elite coach and coordinators to do a quick turn around. It also sounds like they are not loaded with elite FBS talent. Nor do they have elite facilities or boosters like Phil Knight or T. Boone Pickens. With that said, I wonder how realistic it is to expect any coach to turn things around instantaneously.
