Charles Barkley thinks race was a factor in AU’s snub of Turner Gill
And I tend to agree. There just aren’t any other compelling explanations. No one has been able to convince me that Chizik was a better choice than Gill or any other number of candidates. Gill turned around a perennial loser. Chizik inherited a bad program and made it worse. If race did play a factor, then it is shameful.
I’m disappointed in the hire (and the forced resignation of Tuberville). And I’m not alone. I made the rounds at work today to gauge the reaction of fellow alums. It was universally negative. One season ticket holder said he plans on giving up his tickets (and no, he isn’t a reactionary, vindictive person). He just couldn’t see paying over $1000 to an athletic department that would make such an inexplicable decision. Like me, he admired Tuberville as a person and respected how he ran a clean program that we could be proud of on and off the field.
There was no animus toward Chizik. Who can blame him? If you ran your company into the ground and then one of your competitors offered you their vacant CEO position at double the salary you would take it too. No, something clearly is amiss in the upper echelons of Auburn and its board for this hiring decision to be made.
I just hope I regret these words one day.
I do not know why they passed on Turner Gill, but I think an important thing to remember is – they weren’t the only ones.
Turner Gill was under consideration last year for the Nebraska job (his alma mater); however, they passed on him for Bo Pelini, who had no experience as a head coach.
Turner Gill was also under consideration this year for the Syracuse job; however, they passed on him for Doug Marrone, who had no experience as a head coach.
There has to be something else – if I remember correctly last year the discussion with Nebraksa, was whether Turner Gill had what it took to run a major college program. His own alma mater, his own former coach (both when he was a player and a position coach) passed on him to be their coach of the future.
Keep in mind Chizik was considered an up and coming property just two years ago. Most people thought he was a little too anxious to be a head coach when he took the Iowa State spot, b/c it pretty well doomed him to failure. The consensus was, he should have waited for a better spot to make his start. I don’t think you can hold his record at Iowa State against him. If he had stayed D-coordinator at Texas the last two years, then everyone would be talking about what a great hire this was for Auburn.
True, if the last two years hadn’t happened Chizik would be a hot commodity. And if Auburn had scored 37 points against Alabama they would have won. But, the last two years did happen and Auburn failed to score any points – let alone 37 – against the Tide this year.
If Auburn had hired a suitably qualified candidate who just happened to be white then the cries of racial bias would be non-existent or at least muted. As it went down it appears they passed over a more qualified coach who happens to be black in favor of an apparently less qualified coach who happens to be white. I can’t speak for Nebraska or any other programs, but at least Pelini appeared suitably qualified at the time of his hire.
How is Turner Gill more qualified? He won more games granted (still a losing record for his career – with just one winning season). However, wins and losses aren’t all that matter in hiring a coach.
People only say wins and losses don’t matter when they lose!
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying Turner Gill is the most qualified candidate in all of college football, only that he is more qualified than Chizik. He took the job of head coach at THE WORST team in college football and turned them into a conference champion. Chizik ill advisedly took the reins at one of the worst programs in a good conference. The team showed no improvement at all – NONE – under his watch. If anything they got worse. For that reason alone Gill was more qualified. Maybe Chizik is a great coordinator, but horrible head coach. Maybe Iowa State was a bad choice. (I bet any number of people would have said the same thing about Buffalo before Gill took over.)
Wins and losses aren’t ALL that matter, but they DO matter. Chizik has a lot more of the latter than the former as a head coach and no one has explained that away to my satisfaction.
Again – if Turner Gill was that qualified – why have so many teams passed on him (I just read he was also considered a candidate at Washington State and one other team). Including still Nebraska, which would have known him best.
In coaching hires – wins and losses still aren’t the only thing considered (though I’m sure they are). However, if that was the only (or even primary) consideration then New England probably wouldn’t have 3 superbowl wins.
I personally thought Turner Gill would be an interesting hire – but he only beat one team with a winning record in route to that conference title (so not exactly an awe inspiring accomplishment). For the regular season – his 7 wins were against teams with a combined record of 30-54 and his total margin of victory was 72 points (45 of those coming in 2 games). I won’t take away the fact that they upset Ball State and had a great run – however, it doesn’t show me that he was that much more “qualified.”
I’m not saying Chizik was the best choice – I just don’t see that it’s that overwhelming a disparity.
Look at Gene Stallings record before he went to Alabama; he was 27-45-1 at Texas A&M and 23-34-1 with the Cardinals. However, I’m sure that ‘92 national trophy doesn’t shine any less b/c of his past record.
Allow me to clarify – I’m sure wins and losses are considered, not I’m sure they are the only thing considered.
I wouldn’t go too far down the road of parsing Gill’s record as a coach. No matter how you slice it Chizik’s was far worse. At the end of the day Buffalo won enough to take their conference title while Iowa State couldn’t beat a single team in their conference (and they didn’t even play the three best teams!).
When Nebraska hired Pelini Gill had not yet proven himself on the sidelines. At that point in time Pelini’s qualifications were certainly equal to, probably greater than Gill’s.
You want my unvarnished, ugly opinion? I think the higher ups at Auburn didn’t want to have a mixed race couple going out to booster functions and what not. I think they could stomach a minority couple, but not mixed race at this point. I don’t believe that is because they are racists. I think they merely recognize the reality of how some people – people with potentially deep pockets – feel in this state (and across the country). I would like to think it is a small minority of people, just not a negligible minority. Was it the only reason? No. But I do think it was in their minds.
An analogy might be the hiring practices at Hooters. A manager there might choose not to hire an overweight lady to be a waitress. It doesn’t mean he dislikes large people; it just means he understands what his customers expect/like.
Trotting out Stallings’ record at A&M is irrelevant. I’m not saying that once a coach has a bad record that coach can never win. I’m saying that wins/losses are the principle metric by which we measure coaches and are the best indicator of their talent. For every Gene Stallings you can find I bet I could pick two coaches who lost at one program and then did as bad or worse at their next stop (Ty Willingham comes to mind). Sure, some might falter in one program and thrive in another, but you don’t KNOW that in advance and (ceteris paribus) you’ll pick a coach with a better record because you can at least point to it and say, “I can prove this guy is a winner.”
Why not engage in some parsing of Turner Gill’s record? Gill had proven himself on the sidelines when Pelinini was hired. He hadn’t won his conference, but he had a winning record in his conference (5-3 conference record).
How is Gene Stallings record at A&M irrelevant? It proves the point that sometimes coaches with losing records are hired, for reasons obviously other than their record. My point wasn’t that every coach with a losing record goes on to great succes. Nor, was I saying your claim was once a loser always a loser. Rather, as I made reasonably clear, the point was that win-loss record is not the only thing taken into account (or maybe even the prime thing) when hiring a coach, and is not an absolute indicator of future success.
Ty Willingham on the other hand was a horrible example for you to use. It plays much better into my point than yours. He actually had a winning record at both Stanford and Notre Dame.
Unfortunately, as you well know, it’s not ceteris paribus. Do I think Chizik was a great hire? No. He had an awful record at Iowa State and you can’t expect your fans to get excited about him. They had to expect uproar from the fans. I’m guessing Chizik likes jobs where he’s pre-set doomed to failure (he’s like Ron Zook redux).
However, Turner Gill was no slam dunk. If Turner Gill had Mike Leach’s record at Mike Leach’s school – then yes, I might be thinking something stinks. Right now; however, I just don’t see this great disparity that makes me think it was race. I can buy that Chizik already had some ins with the powers that be (and the money men) and they wanted somebody they could control better. Though, that’s just pure speculation as well.
As far as the wins/losses thing goes I was a big Tuberville fan and I often said as much about him. He didn’t win every game, but he did pretty darn well. He also ran a clean, disciplined program and brought in players who were good people that I was typically proud to call fellow alums. By forcing him out after one bad season the AU administration was sending a clear message that they wanted to win. Period. Off the field Tuberville was, and remains, a first class guy. With “win first” as their criteria they made a very poor hiring decision in my opinion.
People who are saying that wins and losses aren’t everything now to defend the Chizik hiring should have been saying the same thing before Tuberville got canned. And yes, he was forced out. Otherwise they wouldn’t have paid his buyout, plain and simple.
Regarding Willingham (who has a career losing record, BTW), he started strong at ND and then faded. Kind of like Chizik – did great at AU and UT then, well, not so great at ISU. Willingham may have had an overall winning record at ND, but he performed well below (what I believe were unrealistic) expectations. That is the key. Gill FAR exceeded expectations even if he didn’t go 12-0, while Chizik most certainly didn’t meet or exceed anyone’s expectations.
I think most people didn’t think Tuberville should have gotten canned – I know I didn’t (however I think the message was – finally, we have an excuse to get rid of him). I think most people also agree that Chizik was an unexpected hire (and probably not a great one). However, the issue at hand is not whether Gill should have been hired (I agree he would have been a better choice – for fan excitement and program interest – regardless of coaching acument) – the issue is whether he was such a better coach that the only possible explanation is racism (which is not the case).
Yes, Willingham does have a career losing record – however the point was to name a coach who “who lost at one program and then did as bad or worse at their next stop” (and Willingham did not lose at a program until his third stop – so he does not fit that category).
Chizik 5-0
Gill 1-4