Cowardice and Greed

I've had some time to reflect on Saturday night and what it meant to Notre Dame both on and off the field. No doubt there were benefits derived from our game against Washington State. I certainly enjoyed seeing us run roughshod over an opponent for a change, although that had more to do with the quality or lack thereof of the opponent. I know San Antonio is a good destination, and don't doubt people had fun going there. The pictures of the Riverwalk certainly looked enticing.

But I can't get past the mindset that is making these games possible, and I cannot see my way clear to endorsing it or supporting it. My position has nothing to do with "groupthink", and everything to do with trying to make sure Notre Dame stays true to the kind of things it used to stand for.

The people who run our football program don't want to make difficult choices, like bringing in a high-profile coach who might make them nervous sometimes (see: Holtz, Lou) or blue-chip players who won't always act like choirboys. Instead, they want the path of least resistance to winning just enough games to keep the alumni wolves from their door. So they spend a quarter of the schedule on "buy" games against programs without the self-respect to demand a more equitable setup. They believe alumni and fans will be so happy to have tickets they'll pay top dollar for crappy matchups against Low Self Esteem State. Meanwhile, the win total is padded, camouflaging any shortcomings that may be present on the field or sidelines ... shortcomings that will become embarrassingly apparent when a quality opponent is encountered.

The people who run our football program don't want night games on campus, even though some fans and our broadcast contractor do, because managing a crowd like that responsibly takes hard work and quality decision-making. Never mind that a lot of other blue-chip programs manage to do it, our folks are terrified of the slightest liability. But they don't want to give up the money NBC will pay, because they're more interested in wringing every last dollar out of the arrangement. So they put together these boondoggle games in which they greedily demand full control of television rights and gate receipts, limiting the quality of opponent that can be arranged. They put the responsibility for night game crowd control on someone else, meaning they don't have to come up with viable plans, without having to give up control of the greenbacks.

I have no problem playing a balanced schedule, and I certainly wouldn't advise playing "a top 20 team every week", as some strawman-erecting folks have accused. I've long been an advocate of 4-4-4 or a variant (e.g. 3-5-4). I'm not demanding ND play a suicidal schedule -- after all, 2005's fit the model, was fine by me, and we did quite well against it.

I have a big problem, however, when the school is just trying to schedule wins by dumbing things down to the point that excellence is no longer required for a W. I have a big problem when the school that is supposed to stand for sportsmanship tries to use loopholes and its market demand to bully smaller programs into inequitable arrangements. I don't give a damn if every other school is doing it -- I was raised to believe Notre Dame was different.

Yes, we derived some benefits from Saturday. But I'm not willing to pay that price for those benefits.

Men Without Chests

Guest author: Frank Pimentel

In The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis argued that modern education produces "what may be called Men without Chests. It is an outrage that they should be commonly spoken of as Intellectuals. This gives them the chance to say that he who attacks them attacks Intelligence. It is not so. They are not distinguished from other men by any unusual skill in finding truth nor any virginal ardor to pursue her."

Sadly, we see this in full effect at Notre Dame today. First, in their initial bumbling attempt to defend the commencement invitation to President Obama, the University distributed laughable "talking points" to the Board of Trustees, which managed, in one swipe, to insult the intelligence of anyone who questioned the propriety of the invitation and to directly insult the initial Laetare Award honoree.

Then Fr. Jenkins compounded the error by issuing a statement to the effect that he, presumably in contrast to the shanty Catholic rubes who saw through the artifice concocted by Notre Dame in its perpetual desire for respect by those whose opinions matter in academia, was going to deliver an "inclusive and respectful speech." In other words, as Lewis predicted, those who attack him, attack "Intelligence."

Alas, the commencement debacle was not the most recent example at Notre Dame of Lewis’ foretelling. Last week, Athletic Director Jack Swarbrick announced that next October, Notre Dame would be fortifying its football schedule by playing Western Michigan University. Parenthetically, I’ll state that for all I know, WMU is a great school and runs a fine football program. But that’s kind of the point; about all I know of WMU is that it is in Kalamazoo – and I doubt that most anyone not from Michigan or northern Indiana even knows that.

Of course, that announcement understandably caused instant deflation among nearly anybody who harbors hope that the Fighting Irish will once again become the team it was under Rockne, Leahy, Parseghian, or Holtz. By way of brief examples, on our way to the 1988 national championship, ND played Michigan, Miami, and USC in the regular season. The next year we played Michigan, USC, Penn State, and Miami before the bowl game. In ’90 we played Michigan, Miami, Tennessee, Penn State, and USC in the regular season.

But that wasn’t the end of the consternation. Instead, echoing Jenkins’ pronouncements surrounding Commencement, Swarbrick announced with respect to the inevitable backlash, "It reflects a not very sophisticated view of what's going on out there." As with Jenkins, those who attack him attack "Intelligence."

But I am not fooled. In the case of football, the problem isn’t finding opponents on short notice, it’s finding opponents who will be bought, not expecting a return visit by Notre Dame. This scheduling philosophy, deemed "7-4-1" for shorthand, means 7 home games, 4 road games, and 1 "neutral site" game televised on NBC -- amounting in substance then to 8 home games and 4 road games. It requires materially watering the schedule down and making it, frankly, boring.

I believe this was intentional. Notre Dame knew that if it shorthanded itself by establishing a Potemkin 7-4-1 "requirement," it would eviscerate future schedules so badly that, by contrast, a league schedule (Big 10? Big East? ACC?) would be appealing. Of course, this is a false choice. Simply returning to a more balanced home/road schedule (6-6, or even 7-5), with the historical norm of playing home-and-home series with marquee schools, would immediately solve the problem.

But that itself is the problem. The powers that be don’t want the supposed scheduling problem solved. Rather, while alumni have always overwhelmingly opposed joining a conference for football, those in the Dome and JACC – specifically John Heisler – "know better" and want it (and for reasons having nothing to do with athletics and everything to do with those whose opinions matter in academia).

They don’t want to solve the scheduling "problem" that they created themselves. Rather, they have set us up to "solve" the scheduling "problem" by, sooner rather than later, throwing up their hands and arguing that the only feasible solution left will be to, surprise, join a conference.

But my Intelligence will not be insulted. Until Notre Dame places Men with Chests back into leadership positions, my checkbook – which had heretofore been open – will remain closed.

Charlie, Leadership and the Secret Sauce

(The Rock Report ) -

“Every victory is won before the game is played.” ~ Lou Holtz

I was out having some drinks and ran into a player on the 1988 team who recounted the back story that led to the Irish’s inspirational thumping of Rodney Peete and the Trojans that year (pardon any lack of clarity here, we were a few pints deep.) A game that, to this day, remains one of my favorite Irish victories because the Irish simply beat the crap out of the Trojans.

To set the scene, USC was number two in the country, but a favorite over the number one ranked Irish. Before the game Holtz asked the team to assemble, waited until the entire team had joined and then walked in. He announced that Ricky Watters and Tony Brooks had been continually late to meetings and that he could suspend them, but that it was up to the players to decide what to do with them (to suspend them or let them play.) Holtz walked out and put the decision in their hands. A debate ensued and one of the players stood up and said that this was the game that would define their lifetimes, that they couldn’t let the opportunity slip away and that they should let Watters and Brooks play. But as the debate continued and while players agreed that it was too important an opportunity to lose… they also started thinking that if they believed enough, they didn’t need Watters and Brooks, that they could win without them. They voted to leave them behind (Holtz later admitted he had made the decision already.)*

The result was a physical ass kicking of the Trojans that was the last real hurdle to the 1988 championship. Holtz found a way to turn a negative into a positive just as he had done when he led Arkansas to their memorable Orange Bowl demolition of the Sooners.

“Motivation is simple. You eliminate those who are not motivated” ~ Lou Holtz

Every good coach has specific strengths, but the one thing all great coaches have is the ability to lead other coaches and players… and make them believe. Schematics are important. Recruiting is vitally important. Player management at the college level is critical. Coaching management at the highest level is equally critical.

What makes great coaches successful is not the just the ability to sell an idea but to lead their organizations through the tough times to get there. It's easy to forget that the criticism of Holtz was ear-splitting at times during his career, yet Holtz led through adversity and won.

“As a leader your attitude has a powerful impact on others. You have an obligation to develop a positive attitude, one that inspires the people around you to achieve the impossible” – Lou Holtz

What struck me about Brian Kelly at Cincinnati (calm down, in no way do I think he was ready to take over the Irish in ‘09) is that he had a horrible QB situation, actually worse than Notre Dame had in 2007, and he was able to work through it, make the players believe and turn in a very impressive BCS season for Cincinnati.

Was the quarterback situation a real and dire problem? They played five different quarterbacks during the season, of course it was.

Just like talent was a real problem and coaching changes are problems. But Kelly was able to not just sell the idea that success was probable/inevitable, but lead them through the tough times. Bearcat QB Tony Pike wasn’t even on the depth chart to start the season, but he said that Kelly made him believe he could and would win.

"He's a salesman, is what he is," says Grand Valley State coach Chuck Martin, who was Kelly's defensive coordinator at the school. "Whether it's Grand Valley State or Central Michigan or Cincinnati, he has kids believing they can move mountains. His No. 1 strength is offense. His No. 2 strength is how good he is politically at getting people to believe in his program. He sells it door to door, which not a lot of coaches will do.

"I remember at Central Michigan, somebody asked him how long the rebuilding cycle would be. He said, 'About 10 seconds.'"

“Yes, I know that you feel you are not strong enough. That's what the enemy thinks too. But we're gonna fool them.” – Knute Rockne

How does this relate to Charlie? Weis is a tough egg to crack, because he gets the problem and he can sell an idea, but what from what I’ve seen, is not a great manager of the team day to day through the tough times and or adept at keeping them motivated and believing. That’s where real leaders separate themselves. I’ve heard stories of Charlie motivating through fear (you won’t have my NFL endorsement) to encouragement (be yourself), but what is striking to me is that he doesn’t really know how to do it and that’s a problem.

“It is a fine thing to have ability, but the ability to discover ability in others is the true test.” - Lou Holtz

Urban Meyer is an asshole. Some of his players hated him even at Notre Dame, but he gets them to play at a high level. Charlie can be an asshole too, but his secret sauce hasn’t worked with either his assistants or the players to date. In 2006, his second year, we had players dogging it on the field in what was supposed to be a possible National Championship run.

“Your talent determines what you can do. Your motivation determines how much you’re willing to do. Your attitude determines how well you do it.” ~ Lou Holtz

That, to me, was a major sign of impending failure. He had others as well, such as sticking to his scheme beyond all rationality, going for it in absurd 4^th down situations and always taking the kickoff when you knew we’d be beaten down.

The problem is that Charlie doesn’t yet have the secret sauce. He’s guessing. He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know. And the frustrating thing is that he’s smart, he knows the game, he can sell, he cares and he works hard.

But it’s not enough.

You have be able to make everyone around you believe and that’s not a trait normally found in nature. A top level college coach needs that leadership intangible. Some guys are brought up that way in their families, others have an intuitive sense and pick it up, some have mentors and still others work at it and eventually get it or are thrust into circumstances that somehow draw it out of them. Charlie had a mentor in Bill Belichick, but I’m not sure Belichick would win in college and Charlie doesn’t seem to have that innate ability.

And even if you have the secret sauce, it’s not enough. You also have to be a good cultural fit for the position. Since Lou, Notre Dame's had two carpet-baggers and a believer without the secret sauce.

ND is primed for a run at the championship the next two seasons, but we need a coach who not only has the boxes checked, but also the secret sauce. Right now Charlie seems to be failing schematically, in coaching motivation and in player motivation. He appears to be a very classic case study in failure and what happens when you elevate a technical expert to an upper-level leadership position. Technical experts in leadership positions have an inclination to "go insular" when things go wrong and try to figure it out in their comfort zones, that's usually a recipe for failure. Leaders are highly engaged. It’s certainly not impossible for him to succeed, but he hasn’t done most of the job before, so he’s guessing. The hope is that the coaching changes would create the secret sauce, but that’s a guess. Notre Dame needs someone who has it. Whatever it is. Someone who can coach schematically, recruit and make his players and coaches believe.

I hope that Charlie gets it this year, but the odds, at this point, are not in his favor. Given his background, his inclination will be to run back to what he knows best and focus on schematic advantages, but that may not serve him. If I were Charlie I'd limit the schematic analysis and concentrate on having the toughest, most in shape, fundamentally strong team in the country; one that believes they can win regardless of schematics. Being able to win Rocks, Papers, Scissors doesn't matter much if the other guy can punch you in the mouth. There are no awards for cleverness. When LSU beat Florida two years ago, they did it by controlling the line of scrimmage. Florida did the same to Alabama last year. That control of the line is key to making any well-called play work.

There was some leadership analysis recently that showed that the most powerful way a leader can use his/her time, in order, are to 1- show the team the road map for success, 2 - put in place a mechanism/process/resources to make sure everyone feels they can achieve those goals, 3 - manage the day to day effectively and 4- inspire them to achieve.

To be sure, there were signs that Charlie may have started to figure it out in the Hawaii game, where Weis adjusted his approach and the team responded in fairly dramatic fashion, but a look back at the abysmal run from Pittsburgh to USC last year should give anyone pause. That written, winning can do a lot to change a coach's and team's perceptions and a rising talent base, softer schedule and rejiggered coaching staff will give Weis a tailwind he hasn't had since 2005. I think it's fair to say that all but a small minority are hoping Coach Weis puts it together this year and, if he does, he'll likely pull in another top class and his coaching comeback story will become part of Notre Dame's lore.

*There's a very good chance that the pints changed the story a bit.

**Please save the "you want Charlie to fail" or "just another excuse for Charlie" comments that seem to accompany every article that seem either pro or anti-Weis.