Guerry Clegg: Schools have decisions to make about their coaches
With few exceptions, I've long believed that it wasn't my place as a sports columnist to call for a college coach to be fired for simply not winning enough.
Pro sports are a different story. But in college sports, things like operating with integrity and developing young people should matter. For sure, winning does matter a lot. But it should be viewed within the context of the mission of higher education.
It's not so much because I hate to see someone lose his job. Most fired coaches are provided pretty attractive severance packages. My family could scrape by on Gene Chizik's $7.5 million buyout from Auburn.
Rather, I've come to realize that very few people other than the coaches really know what's going on inside a program. Only a few beat writers even have fairly regular access to the players and coaches any more.
That said, it's also incumbent upon columnists to state opinions and provide perspective that fans often are too passionate to see. When it comes to firing a coach, it's seldom black and white because the decision should be based on this question:
Will changing coaches likely improve the program? Said another way, is the reward worth the risk?
Actually, it's more about money than anything. If big donors start pulling back, the school president has to weigh the financial implications versus the direction of the program.
Yes, what has happened the last two, three or even four seasons shapes that thinking. But ultimately, you fire the coach based on how you think he will do going forward, not as punishment for losing a few games. LSU lost to Alabama and Arkansas, and suddenly some boosters wanted to fire Les Miles. Perhaps they have completely forgotten about Gerry DiNardo. Or Curley Hallman. Or Mike Archer. Or Jerry Stovall.
Three of our four schools -- Georgia, Auburn and Georgia Tech -- have reached a crossroads with their respective coaches. All three schools are finishing up disappointing seasons. That's three in a row for Georgia and two straight for Auburn. And while Tech won the Orange Bowl last
season, that stands out as an aberration under Paul Johnson. After a 20-7 start his first two seasons -- basically with Chan Gailey's recruits -- Johnson went 28-25 before last season.
Georgia, for all of its issues this season, has a chance to win 10 games. Georgia Tech will finish 3-9 if it loses to Georgia. Yet there has been much more speculation about Richt's job than Johnson's. That says a lot about both programs.
It says Georgia is expected to win SEC and national championships, while Tech is expected to just have a decent team every once in awhile.
But it still goes back to that question:
Is the reward worth the risk? Here's my assessment of our three local coaches in limbo (Alabama's Nick Saban seems safe for now):
Richt: No. Or, more accurately, not now. Not with a strong nucleus coming back and another supposedly stacked recruiting class coming in. The risk is too great. As mentioned, Florida and Tennessee are improving. The last thing Georgia needs to do is fire Richt and give even more recruiting ground to the Gators and the Vols. Remember that from 2010 through the 0-2 start of 2011, Georgia lost nine of 14 games. By the end of that season the Dogs were playing LSU for the SEC championship. The following season they were one play away from going to the nationship championship game.
Plus, there's no obvious replacement who is available. Barring further regression next season, give this group a couple more years and then reassess it.
Johnson: Again, I won't call for someone to be fired. Just apply the qualifying question of risk versus reward. Tech football has pretty much defined mediocrity since Bobby Ross left for the NFL. If that's the best you can do, then you just accept it. However, if you believe that there is another Ross or David Cutcliffe somewhere out there -- that is, someone who will dig a little deeper to sign 20-25 football players who can win and aren't intimidated by Tech's academic curricula -- then perhaps the reward justifies the minimal risk. Either way, if Johnson is going to stay, he can't just rely on his ego and quirky offense to overcome inferior recruiting.
Finally
Malzahn: This is sort of a year premature, because there's no way Auburn should even consider firing him this season. But clearly next season will be pivotal. Remember the mandate of "significant improvement" that Vince Dooley placed on Ray Goff? That would apply to Malzahn next season. The Tigers don't have to win the SEC West. They don't even have to win the opener against Clemson. But they must become more competitive. They can't get blown out by LSU or scrape by some inferior opponent as they did Jacksonville State.
Malzahn needs to fix the offense. That's his calling card. Maybe John Franklin III, the transfer East Mississippi Community College who began his career at Florida State, will be the answer at quarterback. Or maybe freshman Woody Barnett. Jeremy Johnson and Sean White just don't fit the offense.
So what would constitute "significant improvement?" A third consecutive season of five or more losses won't cut it. Four losses with signs of getting better might be enough, but that hot seat will stay hot.
-- Guerry Clegg is an independent correspondent. You can write to him at sports@ledger-enquirer.com
This story was originally published November 21, 2015 at 8:45 PM with the headline "Guerry Clegg: Schools have decisions to make about their coaches ."