Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="OrangePA, post: 58527, member: 204"] Your paragraph, quoted below, is not accurate, but does admittedly reflect, in part, the thinking of some important alums at the time and it is precisely what my post attempts to address - an an amateur's insistence on attempting to critique the ability of a major college coaching staff. There is no doubt that some folks who know as much about football and college football organization and operation as you do, made the decision to fire Coach Pasqualoni on the basis of the emotion of a single game - Ga Tech - and the presumptions you have consistently made regarding the talent level of the team. I know that because I was there while the discussion took place in the Citrus Bowl at the half of that game. I can tell you that nobody even suggested that Pasqualoni should be fired because he supposedly underachieved in the 1990s - that was not an issue. The concern expressed at the time was the blow-out loss to Ga Tech - the belief that there was sufficient talent for the team to be successful - that major doners would no support the program if a change were not made. The decision was made in the heat of the moment - just a few weeks after the Chancellor announced that the staff would be retained, and of course after the great win at BC. I think the decision also reflected what some have described as Mr. Burton's reaction to Pasqualoni. The coach never allowed outside factors decide internal football matters. Here is what you have concluded: "P's demise had more to do with naitonal TV blow-outs and the [B]failure to take full advatange of the talent he had on his roster in the '90s[/B]. SU's upgrade of facilities was necessary in light of what other schools were doing but it wasn't the reason for multiple losses to Temple and Rutgers or 0-62, 0-59, 0-51 type blow-outs. That's been discussed in a hundred previous posts and isn't what I'm talking about here. (emphasis supplied). Your presumption that Syracuse did not take advantage of its talent in the 1990s is inaccurate - SU did not have the kind of talent that so many assumed it had - SU never had NC talent - it had some great individuals but never the bulk of talent that the major programs had and still have on a yearly basis. And, as noted above, the coach's performance during the 1990s had nothing to do with the decision to fire him. That has been your presumption but it's not accurate. That some others on this board might agree with you is certainly not surprising - many have repeatedly issued what has become the conventional wisdom on this board. Many have presumed that we should have won a NC under Coach P. I understand that. As far as candor is concerned, I never recall Pasqualoni approaching press conferences the way Reid does - Pasqualoni answered questions very directly unless the question dealt with strategy for the upcoming game - he always made it clear that he would not answer those kinds of questions. Was he as fun as Coach Mac or Lou Holtz or some others? Clearly not. He was total football - very serious. Could he have been more outgoing or more fun during press conferences? I guess so. Would that have had any impact on the halftime coaching decision in Tampa? I don't think so. Reid assumes full responsibility when the team loses and gives credit to the players and staff when the team wins. I agree that Marrone has patterned his approach after Reid's approach. I don't think it makes any difference in how either the administration or the owners of the Eagles assess their coaches. And I do not think that either of the two coaches is exhibiting a lack of candor. I think that "press conference demeanor" is pretty irrelevant and interests only radio talk show hosts and some listeners. I think its a non-issue. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?