In intercollegiate athletics, it's ludicrous and absurd that coaches are given the ziggy and are fired in the middle of the season based solely on winning and losing. And right now, I'm not talking about college basketball. I'm talking about college football. I just don't know what's going on.
I can understand if something unethical or immoral took place, then a guy has to be let go immediately. But when you start making changes in the middle of the season, as has been the case at Duke with Carl Franks, Army with Todd Berry and Arizona with John Mackovic ... come on now.
I can comprehend this mentality in the NFL and NBA, but this is intercollegiate athletics.
These are all quality, academic schools.
All of a sudden athletic directors are saying they don't like the intensity or emotion or the way players are responding to a coach -- and they're gone. What is it all getting to?
I can comprehend this mentality in the NFL and NBA, but this is intercollegiate athletics, and there was recently a meeting to have coaches moving in a positive direction.
The bottom line is, when schools fire coaches in the middle of the season, they're sending a bad message. It forces coaches to take chances on kids who aren't great all-around people. And it puts some shady characters in uniform, just because they can shoot the jumper or throw the pigskin.
It's all about that thirst for a W! But the pressure to win is big enough. When a coach gets pounced on in the middle of the season, that is just a no-no. And people wonder why there are issues for athletes and coaches in college athletics.
Athletic directors have the right to make a change, but they should do it after the evaluation process at the end of the season, and give coaches a chance to finish up the season.
Let's do it right. Let the guy have his dignity and allow him to complete the season.