So it begins: bye bye, Randy Edsall

[HOFCeluck]

I absolutely guarantee they WANTED to keep it under their hat until after the game. There's absolutely no conceivable reason to let the news get out 2 days before playing Ohio State. I'm positive he'll be fired; they were just hoping to keep it quiet until Sunday.

Agree 100% not intentional, someone in that department screwed up.

 

[orange79]

Agree 100% not intentional, someone in that department screwed up.

I can't imagine a Division 1 athletic department messing something up.

 

[djorange1989]

He took a nine win team and made them a two win team his first year. He has zero wins against top 25 teams, and he gets to recruit DMV.

Maryland Terrapins (Atlantic Coast Conference) (2011–2013)
2011 Maryland 2–10 1–7 6th (Atlantic)
2012 Maryland 4–8 2–6 5th (Atlantic)
2013 Maryland 7–6 3–5 5th (Atlantic) L Military
Maryland Terrapins (Big Ten Conference) (2014–present)
2014 Maryland 7–6 4–4 3rd (East) L Foster Farms
2015 Maryland 2–3 0–1 (East)

He's into his fifth season. How much more time should he get?

Exactly. The guy belongs at a small non P5 school. At best. I hope Locksley gets the interim gig. That will be funny

 

[CuseLegacy]

 

[HOFCeluck]

I'm really excited to see who they do settle on. Because whoever it is I guarantee won't be good enough for their fan base.

 

[DoctorBombay]

UMd is the perennial "sleeping giant", not unlike Rutgers. Problem is that those fanbases are under the delusion that they've already arrived...despite all evidence to the contrary. Its great entertainment.

 

[retro44]

I got a good chuckle from this quote on the Maryland board..."You guys fire Golden now and you might get Edsall."

 

[rrlbees]

@RandyEdsall: "Worrying is stupid. It's like walking around with an umbrella waiting for it to rain."- Wiz Khalifa

 

[Millhouse]

@RandyEdsall: "Worrying is stupid. It's like walking around with an umbrella waiting for it to rain."- Wiz Khalifa

that guy quoting wiz khalifa. Street cred!

 

[orangenirvana]

"Sorry, Randy. I know what it's like to leave your dream job."

 

[OrangePA]

Seven win seasons and a spot in the military bowl is exactly why they forced out Ralph Friedgen. And it's year five under Edsall, and they have bad losses to Michigan, WVU, and Bowling Green. They're clearly not going anywhere, so what's the point in keeping him around?

Though I would have kept the news under my hat until after the game against the number one team in the country.

It just seems that successful programs keep coaches - they do not fire coaches in the middle of a season. And they forgive bad years or disappointing years.

I am convinced that too much turnover can hurt a program - a college program or a professional program.

Players, administrators, coaches do not find unstable programs - programs with heavy turnover - appealing. Unstable programs tend not to attract high quality personnel.

The best example of the kind of stability that leads to success is of course the Pittsburgh Steelers who have had three head coaches since 1969.

The decision to fire the Fridge was a mistake. Just like the decision to fire Frank Solich at Nebraska after a nine win season was a mistake. It doesn't seem that the Huskers have ever really recovered what they had after that was done. Michigan pushing out Lloyd Carr - the program is still trying to recover. Pitt pushed out Walt Harris even though he was having success - I think he made the Fiesta Bowl that year - and a few years later they pushed out Dave Wannstedt despite winning a fair number of games and despite the success he was having recruiting western PA.

I am not necessarily comparing RE to the above situations, but I do think that administrators should value stability far more than they do these days.

The problem at MD is not coaching in my opinion. It's much more institutional. It is not now and has never been a football school. These things take time.

So, if it were me, I would keep Randy and I certainly would not fire him mid-season.

Anyway, interesting discussion.

 

[HOFCeluck]

It just seems that successful programs keep coaches - they do not fire coaches in the middle of a season. And they forgive bad years or disappointing years.

I am convinced that too much turnover can hurt a program - a college program or a professional program.

Players, administrators, coaches do not find unstable programs - programs with heavy turnover - appealing. Unstable programs tend not to attract high quality personnel.

The best example of the kind of stability that leads to success is of course the Pittsburgh Steelers who have had three head coaches since 1969.

The decision to fire the Fridge was a mistake. Just like the decision to fire Frank Solich at Nebraska after a nine win season. I doesn't seem that the Huskers have ever really recovered what they had after that was done. Michigan pushing out Lloyd Carr - the program is still trying to recover. Pitt pushed out Walt Harris even though he was having success - I think he made the Fiesta Bowl that year - and a few years later they pushed out Dave Wannstedt despite winning a fair number of games and despite the success he was having recruiting western PA.

I am not necessarily comparing RE to the above situations, but I do think that administrators should value stability far more than they do these days.

The problem at MD is not coaching in my opinion. It's much more institutional. It is not and has never been a football school. These things take time.

So, if it were me, I would keep Randy and I certainly would not fire him mid-season.

Anyway, interesting discussion.

I hear what you're saying and I don't necessarily disagree. But in 2010 Maryland has a new AD who I'm sure wants to install guys guy. He has a coach who has one year left on his contract, and the guy who was going to be the new HC just left for Vanderbilt. So what do you do? Extend him? Keep him as a lame duck? It'd probably have done the former...but I wouldn't describe that fanbase as rational.

The problem with Edsall was that this job wasnt supposed to be a post- Robinson caliber rebuild. There was talent there. So for this to be year five and their high point being the foster farms bowl I can kind of see it from their perspective.

Considering where they wanted that program to go, Randy Edsall was probably one of the worst choices they could make.

 

[elimunelson]

Be great if they hire Doug Marrone or Schiano. Two bozos who just didn't get the grass is never greener on the other side.

Gonna be a few dominos with Sarkisian getting canned shortly too. If they go the NFL route w Chip it won't impact college as much but if they go find the coach du jour it could impact everyone.

 

[Millhouse]

It just seems that successful programs keep coaches - they do not fire coaches in the middle of a season. And they forgive bad years or disappointing years.

I am convinced that too much turnover can hurt a program - a college program or a professional program.

Players, administrators, coaches do not find unstable programs - programs with heavy turnover - appealing. Unstable programs tend not to attract high quality personnel.

The best example of the kind of stability that leads to success is of course the Pittsburgh Steelers who have had three head coaches since 1969.

The decision to fire the Fridge was a mistake. Just like the decision to fire Frank Solich at Nebraska after a nine win season. I doesn't seem that the Huskers have ever really recovered what they had after that was done. Michigan pushing out Lloyd Carr - the program is still trying to recover. Pitt pushed out Walt Harris even though he was having success - I think he made the Fiesta Bowl that year - and a few years later they pushed out Dave Wannstedt despite winning a fair number of games and despite the success he was having recruiting western PA.

I am not necessarily comparing RE to the above situations, but I do think that administrators should value stability far more than they do these days.

The problem at MD is not coaching in my opinion. It's much more institutional. It is not and has never been a football school. These things take time.

So, if it were me, I would keep Randy and I certainly would not fire him mid-season.

Anyway, interesting discussion.

here's my theory. when dispassionate outside observers look at other schools, they try to answer a different question than fans do. dispassionate outsiders will essentially say "you're [insert school here], know your place, you're not that good, appreciate what you have" boring ordinary competent coach might give you a higher average number of wins per year. where a fan of a school might not care as much about maximizing the average number of wins per year. maybe they want to try to maximize the number of good seasons. it might require taking a little more risk (risk/reward, like everything else) and fans might be ok with a higher variance strategies that get them more really memorable years.

dispassionate observers put no value on hope - they don't care about maryland, they don't root for maryland, so they don't value increased hope. if edsall doesn't give MD fans hope, they will pay extra for hope. even if it means there's a chance they'll be worse.

shooting for the moon sometimes mean you hire a george mcdonald. oh well move on

edsall is the type of guy who an impartial search committee finds when they're solving a different less risky question than what fans want

 

[djorange1989]

If the Terps are smart they call Matt Rhule. But they aren't smart so let's see what they do

 

[djorange1989]

I hear what you're saying and I don't necessarily disagree. But in 2010 Maryland has a new AD who I'm sure wants to install guys guy. He has a coach who has one year left on his contract, and the guy who was going to be the new HC just left for Vanderbilt. So what do you do? Extend him? Keep him as a lame duck? It'd probably have done the former...but I wouldn't describe that fanbase as rational.

The problem with Edsall was that this job wasnt supposed to be a post- Robinson caliber rebuild. There was talent there. So for this to be year five and their high point being the foster farms bowl I can kind of see it from their perspective.

Considering where they wanted that program to go, Randy Edsall was probably one of the worst choices they could make.

Totally agree. Randy inherited a 10-3 team, tore it apart and here they are in year five looking horrible. This isn't Duke being patient with Cutcliffe. He deserves to be fired he hasn't done the job. Fattened up on bad teams(including the 2014 McFu**it Orange)

 

[OrangePA]

here's my theory. when dispassionate outside observers look at other schools, they try to answer a different question than fans do. dispassionate outsiders will essentially say "you're [insert school here], know your place, you're not that good, appreciate what you have" boring ordinary competent coach might give you a higher average number of wins per year. where a fan of a school might not care as much about maximizing the average number of wins per year. maybe they want to try to maximize the number of good seasons. it might require taking a little more risk (risk/reward, like everything else) and fans might be ok with a higher variance strategies that get them more really memorable years.

dispassionate observers put no value on hope - they don't care about maryland, they don't root for maryland, so they don't value increased hope. if edsall doesn't give MD fans hope, they will pay extra for hope. even if it means there's a chance they'll be worse.

shooting for the moon sometimes mean you hire a george mcdonald. oh well move on

edsall is the type of guy who an impartial search committee finds when they're solving a different less risky question than what fans want

No doubt emotion plays a role in the decision to hire or fire a coach.

That is a mistake in my opinion.

The insider should approach it as a dispassionate outsider.

 

[Frozen]

If the Terps are smart they call Matt Rhule. But they aren't smart so let's see what they do

So are you saying they should not rule out Rhule?

 

[DoctorBombay]

Spoke w/ 2 UMd alums yesterday who were ecstatic that Edsel was done. This was always an odd hire, IMO. He hadn't done enough to warrant a job like MD & coupled w/ the WAY he dumped UConn- didn't speak well for a success at this stop.
UMd has B1G & UA money & w/ the right hire, i.e.; not cheap, they could evolve into a major player.
As for Edsel- after that snark he laid on his alma mater... him, he's been dead to me for years.

 

[Millhouse]

No doubt emotion plays a role in the decision to hire or fire a coach.

That is a mistake in my opinion.

The insider should approach it as a dispassionate outsider.

it's no irrational to put higher weight on great seasons than an outsider would. it's just different preferences. you want to optimize overall winning percentage. i want to optimize good seasons. i think you're less hopeful for really good seasons. i think the 1970s did a number on you as an SU fan

when the sabres win a cup and i'm at the parade i will not be thinking, you know they could've had a better overall winning percentage if they hadn't tanked for a couple years

 

[Hoo's That]

Spoke w/ 2 UMd alums yesterday who were ecstatic that Edsel was done. This was always an odd hire, IMO. He hadn't done enough to warrant a job like MD & coupled w/ the WAY he dumped UConn- didn't speak well for a success at this stop.
UMd has B1G & UA money & w/ the right hire, i.e.; not cheap, they could evolve into a major player.
As for Edsel- after that snark he laid on his alma mater... him, he's been dead to me for years.

When Edsall was hired, their board, and almost everyone else in the ACC for that matter, thought all that UA money was going to get them Mike Leach. They were not amused when Plank told them no deal.

 

[BlackKnight76]

Or Temples Coach to stick it to PSU. That guy is solid.

Rhule would be a good hire for them (or anyone) but he's a PSU alumnus. Why would he want to stick it to them?

 

[OrangePA]

it's no irrational to put higher weight on great seasons than an outsider would. it's just different preferences. you want to optimize overall winning percentage. i want to optimize good seasons. i think you're less hopeful for really good seasons. i think the 1970s did a number on you as an SU fan

when the sabres win a cup and i'm at the parade i will not be thinking, you know they could've had a better overall winning percentage if they hadn't tanked for a couple years

You think it was the 1970s?

What about the late 1990s?

I'm pretty certain that economics had more of an effect on SU Football in the late 1990s than in the early 1970s. Back when I first started attending SU games in 1968 Penn State's Beaver Stadium had about the same capacity as Archbold Stadium. And at that time Syracuse was one of the only schools that had an indoor domed football practice facility.

But I digress.

My comments really had nothing to do with the Syracuse Football program.

They had to do with the value of personnel stability and the destructive effect of emotionally based personnel instability.

I cited the Steelers as the example that I admire.

 

[Millhouse]

You think it was the 1970s?

What about the late 1990s?

I'm pretty certain that economics had more of an effect on SU Football in the late 1990s than in the early 1970s. Back when I first started attending SU games in 1968 Penn State's Beaver Stadium had about the same capacity as Archbold Stadium. And at that time Syracuse was one of the only schools that had an indoor domed football practice facility.

But I digress.

My comments really had nothing to do with the Syracuse Football program.

They had to do with the value of personnel stability and the destructive effect of emotionally based personnel instability.

I cited the Steelers as the example that I admire.

i'm trying to convey to you that it's not emotional. it's just different preferences. i'm perfectly willing to concede that firing a coach that is slightly better than average very well might hurt your long run winning percentage because there's a good chance you hire someone worse. but if you're trying to go for something great and you don't think that slightly better than average coach can do it, you might make the switch knowing that it might backfire. i don't think having a higher appetite for risk is more or less emotional than having a lower appetite for risk

i think part of the reason we have different preferences is because you saw the 70s and I didn't

 

[dasher]

i'm trying to convey to you that it's not emotional. it's just different preferences. i'm perfectly willing to concede that firing a coach that is slightly better than average very well might hurt your long run winning percentage because there's a good chance you hire someone worse. but if you're trying to go for something great and you don't think that slightly better than average coach can do it, you might make the switch knowing that it might backfire. i don't think having a higher appetite for risk is more or less emotional than having a lower appetite for risk

i think part of the reason we have different preferences is because you saw the 70s and I didn't

Let's not make it like seeing the 70's (as I sadly did) makes you old. It doesn't. Really. it doesn't. Okay, it does.