TheBootleg.com®
Posts of the Week
Each week, we will
highlight a few entertaining and/or informative posts from the
previous week. Please keep in mind that it is hard to keep
track/prioritize all posts so we would welcome input from all
Booties. You can make a "Bootie Selection" post as a
response to any post that you deem worthy or you can email a link
(to the nominated post) to me at lars@thebootleg.com.
Below are the posts that
made this week's list:
Poster: sd
Subject: "SOUTH BEND, SOUTH BEND!"
Date: 01/01/02
With apologies to Frank and Liza...
(Sung to the tune of " New York, New York.")
Start spreadin' the news!
I'm leavin' today!
I wanna be a part of it...South Bend, South Bend!
Those darned Bootleg posts
annoy me no end!
I'll make a brand new start of it
in old South Bend!
I wanna wake up
in a city that stays asleep!
And say to Lars and his pals:
"Go take a flyin' leap!"
I told Jesse J.
"Dude, I'm not for sale.
But I'll keep all my young men
Far, far from from jail!"
If I can make it there
I may not need Kent Baer!
It's up to me.
South Bend, South Bend!
South BEND!
(PS: As Gerry Faust once said, "If you're hired for the
wrong reason, you're bound to fail.")
Poster: Hisown
Subject: Message to Recruits and their Families
Date: 12/31/01
As a parent of football player who went through the recruiting
"jungle" a year ago, my advice to the recruits is to do
everything you can to avoid letting the Head coaching situation
affect your decision. Focus on what is important you and your
future (a solid education and good football program). Notre Dame
was one of the schools that tried to recruit my son, and living
in the midwest made it "attractive". Our son chose
Stanford. Why?
1. Stanford Football is one of the better programs in the country
regardless of the headcoach, It is in the best athletic program
in the country. The team is solid with great talented student
atheletes who can compete for a national championship.
2. Stanford education is much better, how do I know? I have
worked in colleges for the past 20 years of my career. Do not let
anyone convince you that the quality of education at Notre Dame
is comparable to that at Stanford.
3. Banking on having the same coaching staff throughout your
college football career is as good as banking on not having snow
in Alaska. Put your education and future first!! No one could
guarantee that TW will be at ND thoughtout next football season.
Try to make a wise decision. Good Luck!
Poster: irishguru
Subject: What Happens Next
Date: 12/31/01
1. First off, I am not going to do anything but wish TW well.
He took this program to new heights in his tenure, I have the
utmost respect for both the man and the coach and hopefully we
can find a way to continue to build upon the work he's done here.
2. My first priority if I'm TL would be to try and tie up Mark
Wateska long term as our strength coach. He is a key guy. One of
the thing that no one is talking about right now is that TW's
biggest impact on the program has been improving the physicality
of play, the conditioning and the mental toughness of Stanford
football players. He sets the tone for all of that, but Wateska
does all the dirty work. He is, simply put, the best in the
business, and TW will undoubtedly try to take him with. We need
to counter that and continue to build up our players. We didn't
lead the conference in rushing and rushing defense by accident
folks.
3. As far as hiring a new HC, my guy is Tom Williams.
I played with him, and he was as smart a player as I ever ran
across. As a defensive coordinator at Hawaii, he awed people with
his schemes and ability to work with LITTLE TALENT and put an
effective D together. He's young, he's energetic and he's a
winner. His reputation as a recruiter is excellent already and we
could tie him up in a long term incentive laden deal. I don't
want to bring some re-tread coach in here and I want somebody
young. Tom Williams is my choice.
Poster: The Griffin
Subject: TW the Hypocrite
Date: 01/03/01
In my book there is no worse a human quality than hypocrisy.
The way this went down, TW is nothing short of a hypocrite. TW's
best quality as a coach was his supposed integrity, his desire to
do things the right way, the way we all hope Stanford will always
do things. That is what made him endearing to the Stanford
community. As other people have stated, it was not his on field
decision making ability rather his demeanor, even in the face of
adversity which made allowed us to rally behind him so strongly
(think Oregon this year).
At Stanford, it is not just about winning, it is about winning
the right way. That is why I am proud to take my kids to the
games and why I am excited when they have the opportunity to meet
Stanford players around town. As a former player, I know just how
special it is to be a Stanford football player. Having had the
opportunity to play in the NFL, that becomes even more evident. I
may not have liked all of my teammates while at Stanford, but I
sure respected the heck out of every last one of them. I wish I
could say the same for my teammates in the NFL.
Over the years I questioned many things about TW, but I never
questioned his integrity and his loyalty (mostly to a fault in
sticking with older less talented players). The way he has left
Stanford makes it easier for me to see him go. He has set the
table nicely, good players with the heart and desire to win and
most importantly he has instilled a belief that they will win
every time they step on the field. In my days at Stanford it
seemed like USC and UCLA just found a way to win, they willed it
to happen though they may not have been the better team. I saw
that happen up at Oregon this year, we willed that victory to
happen. But it is time for somebody else who truly believes that
Stanford is an utterly unique football school to come in and take
us the rest of the way. It is obvious that TW did not feel this
way about Stanford from his awkward departure.
I have thought for years that all Stanford had to do was prove
that it could win and go to bowl games every year and it would be
a self fulfilling prophecy. Much as Duke has done in Basketball,
except that we would keep the Standards even higher than Duke has
done in BBall, more like Stanford BBall has come close to doing,
we just need to get over the hump. I know this, I would not trade
our basketball program for Duke's. Though I still think Duke
tries better than most to do it the right way. When I was being
recruited the only bad thing coaches from other schools could say
about Stanford was , "yeah but they can't win there."
Well TW has proven that we can win. Throw in a cozy 60,000 seat
stadium with no track that is packed every Saturday and what
smart kid that is also a great football player will not have
Stanford at the top of his list. We are another 2 good recruiting
classes away from the self fulfilling prophecy of becoming a
perennial top 10 program.
We are at a crossroad, bring in a great coach and the Stanford
football job will no longer be a stepping stone to a perceived
greener pasture. So I say thanks and good riddance to TW,
Stanford deserves better. When you take away a man's best quality
as a coach, his integrity, what is left, his X's and O's. Notre
Dame can have TW's X's and O's because we can certainly do
better, and given the flaws in his character that have been
exposed by just a little flashlight, we can do better in the
integrity arena as well.
Just one man's opinion.
Poster: Hulk01
Subject: Why this matters and where we're heading
Date: 01/03/01
Now where?
These recent events remind me how easy it is to suffer a
love-hate relationship with college football, and how an
institution like Stanford, built around great ideas and ideals,
can feel uncomfortable, too. Asking a university to embrace
modern college football sometimes appears like proposing that a
respected US corporation become involved in pinball machines and
drugs. College football has not just an ugly side, but an ugly
underside. Maybe nothing more vividly demonstrates its weaknesses
than the fact that for years, Ty Willingham was considered
college football's paragon of virtue.
What, heaven help all of us, if this is true?
Seen as a viewer of only bright sides, I've seen the darkness
here. Visit the athletic and alumni directors of Division One
schools--I've done it often--and you quickly learn that football,
with few exceptions, no longer wags the dog. Football is the dog.
Everyone and everything else are the fleas that jump aboard,
hoping they can be symbiotic. This is because football revenue
does more than support other activities. Football games are the
tool through which every school reaches its supporters and
relieves them of huge sums of money. Football is the tool schools
use to legitimize themselves, to appear worthy of mention with
the most prestigious schools. Football is the tool Florida State
used to be taken seriously, when nothing else at the school
merited it. At most schools, the Saturday football game is just
the keynote speaker at the $30,000 per person fundraiser--and the
speaker better be worth every penny.
And so universities seek out unusually big, strong, and fast
young men who can perform at these events, five or six times
annually, and bring in the millions. The difference is that while
the keynote speakers command $20,000 an hour multiplied by 100
events a year, the players receive an education--of sorts, in
most cases--that may prepare them for their eventual
careers--careers which, judging from the bios of former USA Today
All-Americans, favor corrections officers, salesmen, or
"unknown." (My guess: We don't want to know.)
In most cases, no one asks or even expects these men to graduate.
At some schools, perhaps on the theory that allowing them to
attend classes for free isn't enough. they don't even ask that
the players write their own papers. Alums and others have seen
the graduation rates and looked away, knowing that US News and
World Report won't downgrade them one spot for this imperfection.
These alums and administrators only hope these performers remain
in school long enough to provide the entertainment--and only wins
are entertaining--that reels in the money. At most schools, the
football player is a unpaid fundraiser, not different from the
38D Playmate who leaps out the cake to the delight of the drunken
men who slip $100's in her G-string. The celebration, the good
seats, the beer, wine and lobster, and above all the win--these
are there to intoxicate the guests just long enough to pry them
for their money.
If you'd been present at the founding of the modern university
and its early beginnings, or even been in them as late as the
1950's, and were fast-forwarded to now, you'd think we'd gone
mad. It would be like returning to Rome centuries after its rise
and learning that the Romans had decided its role in civilization
was to promote gladiators and lions, bread and circuses.
So when I hear that Stanford University struggles with the role
of football, I'm sympathetic. That doesn't mean that I agree that
the answer is to play football in a field surrounded by apple
crates--especially when we play baseball in a park so splendid
you'd think Stanford's foremost ideals are learning, God, and the
value of three-run home runs. I want young men to come here and
do honor to this place, and for this place to return them that
favor. We must make sure they can benefit from coming here, and
then make sure they do. I don't want young men coming here
because we offered the better deal and weight room--but I do want
them to see that they'll be rewarded with a program and
facilities that reminds them that they matter, and that anything
worth doing is worth doing well--right down to almost
Augusta-like perfection of the grass in our outfield.
I love this game. My absence on other Bootleg boards may indicate
it is among the few games I still love. The pros have ruined
every professional sport for me (Peter Angelos delivered the
sledgehammer blow to baseball, which had been hanging in there.)
For me, a game only works if some ideals are in place; throw
those out and we might as well bring in George Steinbrenner as
AD, leverage our portfolio, and see if we can't buy NCAA
championships in everything. (Only Harvard has the endowment to
compete with us on this, and my guess is they'd pass.)
What this means to me, finally: Anything worth doing is worth
doing splendidly. That includes providing the best and most
beautiful facilities (beauty is as worthwhile as anything, right
there with courage and integrity) and the best training,
coaching, and preparation. That includes measuring and paying
what it costs to achieve those goals.
What does Stanford get it return, and represent by making this
investment? Excellence. For all its darkness, I'm convinced that
is value of sports: the value of seeing a task--any
task--performed brilliantly. At their best, sports remind us of
the heights that we can reach, and the value of the relentless
use of all our gifts along the lines of excellence.
I think that is what keeps most of us coming back here. It's not
the practice reports or the prospect updates or the dissections
of the play-calling, but because they game matters in a bigger
way, not just as a reminder of our youth or our days learning
what they mean by "the magic of the grass."
Stanford has embraced this already, and can and should embrace it
in every sport. This uncompromising but uncompromised devotion to
excellence is a worthy goal not despite our obstacles, but
because of them. Nothing worthwhile comes easily; the easy way
would not be satisfying, at least to me. I'd go back to golf, my
last hope for excellence with honor, along with bridge and books
and runs around the lake.
We can get there from here, soon.
We are about to get a clearer sense, clearer steps, and a better
man to help us get there. GR and Mick will be back, LW will
actually sound optimistic, JR will be doing his Eddie George
imitations, and I will be sitting back and shutting up (I know I
will regret providing posters with that straight line). At that
point, I will have little to say except,
Isn't this fun?
Poster: Mick
Subject: 19 THOUGHTS
Date: 01/03/01
1. I don’t think it was all planned out for the Seattle
Bowl.
2. I do think TW may have had something to do with engineering
O’Leary’s downfall, albeit perhaps indirectly. I think
he may have caused White to question O’Leary, then find a
reason to get rid of him.
3. Hulk said at least 4 players were upset. I think he’s at
least 80 shy of the real number.
4. I think White went from very concerned/edge of panic, to
full-fledged panic, then to the ultimate realization that TW is
the best job insurance he’ll ever have. Faced with mediocre
coaching choices (in ND’s eyes), it would be a PR nightmare
to fire White…and the media will want to extend TW’s
honeymoon to, say, three years, if he goes 6-5 and 6-5 in his
first two years.
5. TW’s keys are two: first, and foremost, his coordinators
and assistants. Personally, I think he’s a poor judge of
them. I think he lucked into the group he has (how good they are,
I’ll keep to myself). If he doesn’t get top-notch Xs
and Os guys, he’ll be screwed.
6. Second key is recruiting. Notre Dame will always recruit well.
Personally, I’ve often wondered whether TW is a great
recruiter or if his coordinators/assistants are great
coordinators. And if, as I suspect, it is his coordinators who
were the great recruiters…then TW will have to get a great,
great staff. And I don’t think that’s his forte. So if
he gets his key Stanford assistants to come with him…I think
that they will do great things.
7. Funny afterthought: typically, if the head coach is not a
great Xs and Os guy, and is not a great recruiter, and is not a
great assembler of staffs, he’s at least usually great with
the media and alums. Tyrone is none of those things, although
probably comes closest when assembling his staff. He also had the
absolute and total luxury of what must be the lowest collective
expectations (collectively) in all of D1 football, and for sure
the lowest in the Pac 10.
8. Second funny afterthought. Tyrone’s best advantage is his
ability to instill discipline and secondarily to relate to
players. Much of his authority rested in his rock-solid personal
core. One wonders how much damage he has done to his core in his
recent poor handling of the Notre Dame hiring situation.
9. I don’t blame him for leaving. I’m unhappy about it.
I don’t like how he handled it. But I understand the lure of
doubled compensation, a cheaper place to live and the challenge
(such as it is) of coaching ND.
10. Part of it is that ND is one of our toughest competitors. I
left a job once, for compensation that ended up to be about
double what I left. The practice I left was in the dumper, the
direct competitor was not only terrific but poised to ramp up
quickly. My Ted Leland (boss) told me that I was the most immoral
man he knew. Two futile years later, he followed me out the door.
11. Current firm…another guy left, in almost exactly the
same fashion as TW, virtually identical situation. He is the most
reviled human being at our firm. I understand how the Booties
feel.
12. Others have pointed out that TW’s daughter was a senior
at a Peninsula school run by the Holy Cross folks…same as
Notre Dame. One wonders…did his daughter apply to
Stanford…and did she get in?
13. Really exceptionally poor integrity on TW’s behalf. TW
was clearly slobbering, by all accounts, for the ND job all
along. His decision to play it coy early on cost him. I actually
thought (and posted) at the time that his early coquettishness
turned off ND and bound him for us. But when White made the panic
pick, and Gruden and the other saviors were unavailable, then I
became very concerned. I posted to that effect, as did GR, that I
thought now, ND in general and White in particular would need to
hire TW, though other board regulars disagreed. Dam it. I knew
it.
14. TW brought a lot to Stanford football. He also learned a hell
of a lot on Stanford’s nickel. When all is said and done, he
had a Davie-like record. Not the best, not the worst. Far better
than the doldrums days. Not as good as the best days.
15. He won’t be there in four years. I really doubt it. I
honestly think that there’s about a 20% chance that
he’ll be there in four years. I don’t think he’ll
get to the NFL…he really lacks what they need. I’ll
make my TW/ND over/under 2.5 years.
16. Finally, I have to say it one last time…TW’s
strengths really mixed well with Stanford’s needs, and his
weaknesses were a non-issue for Stanford. Incidentally, I work
with someone who, whenever she opens her mouth, I know that 1/3
of the time she will say something foolish, 1/3 of the time it
will be pedestrian…but 1/3 of the time it is sheer
brilliance. While I wouldn’t ascribe that exact ratio to
Glenn Dickey, I would say that his article on the TW to ND story
was accurate.
17. Anyway, he’s gone and he’s a memory. On to bigger
and brighter things. The recruiting season will be one of the
finest in years. It will work out great. I think the yield over
prospects will fill out the recruiting season well. I know LW
mentioned that we should only fill out those scholarships who are
awesome, whether or not that comes to all available scholarships
or not…but let’s face it, any coach coming in will fill
out ALL scholarships…no matter what.
18. We also need a great coach. My instincts say Murphy would be
a good one, though I don’t know about his D1 recruiting
abilities. He would be my choice. Riley? Ron Turner? Dave
Baldwin? Don’t know. Not really sure. I hope we get someone
with the qualities of TW.
19. And lastly, GR goes…and so
does Mick. A twofer…