To Fire or Not to Fire - that is the question

Two sports blog posts in a row - who would've thunk?

In a college football January full of bowls, bowls, bowls and (yet again) dispute about who's number one (I kind of like undefeated Utah, actually) comes this story about a fired football coach.  This, of course, is nothing new - coaches have been getting kicked to the curb as long as teams have been hiring them.  Certainly the advent of big-time college athletics has put even more pressure on athletic directors and the coaches the bring aboard to produce winning teams yesterday.

But the circumstances surrounding Boston College's dismissal of head coach Jeff Jagodzinski are unique indeed.  It has nothing to do with a subpar season - the Eagles actually finished the year with almost ten wins and lost a close bowl game.  Nor did the coach commit some egregious recruiting violation that put the school in danger of some kind of probation.

Nope.  Jagodzinski lost his job because he interviewed for another job.

A little history is in order.  JJ, as he'll now be referred to (hard last name to type) took the top position at BC in 2007 after a stint as offensive coordinator for the NFL Green Bay Packers.  JJ did a pretty good job in his first two years - 11-3 in 2007 and 9-5 this past season.  Things were looking strong for Eagles football.

Then came the head football coach openings that are part and parcel this time of year.  One particular one intrigued JJ - the NFL New York Jets job, where a certain quarterback named Brett Favre now plays (who used to play for the Packers when JJ was there).  The BC coach decided to interview for the opening - not accept a job, just interview. 

And that is when BC Athletics Director Gene DeFilippo pulled an ESPN Lee Corso move and essentially told his football coach, "Not so fast, my friend."  He laid down the ultimatum - you interview for the job and you will be fired.

Wow.  That's "fired" as in terminated, dismissed, no longer the football coach.  And not for a poor season or a recruiting violation, but for the simple act of flying to another city and meeting with another football guy to talk about their need for a head coach. 

I guess there are two perspectives one can have on this.  Perspective #1 says, Hey, this guy has an obligation to Boston College.  It's called a contract, and he signed one to be their head football coach for five years.  That was in 2007 - do the math.  Schools don't go firing their coaches just because there are some others out there they may want to consider (well, it doesn't happen as much as it could).  Likewise, JJ shouldn't be looking for a better opportunity, at least not until after 2011.  And if he chooses to disregard that obligation to his place of employment, then the school has no choice but to end it's obligation to him.  Besides, they've entrusted a lot to him, beginning with an annual salary most people would kill for.

Then there's Perspective #2.  This one says, Listen, sports teams fire their coaches on a whim these days - so coaches have to be extra protective of their careers and think proactively.  If this is a good opportunity for him, who can fault him for at least looking into it?  Besides, reality check - all he's doing is just going to an interview.  This isn't some conspiracy against his current club.  There's no guarantee he'd even get a call-back.  People interview for new jobs all the time in the business world and aren't let go from their current place of employment.  How is this any different?  And finally - it's great that the school wants to take a stand and all, but the guy has guided their club to a 20-8 record in two years.  You really want to kick him to the curb so quickly?

It's not just a sports story, friends.  It's an ethical dilemma!

It appears that the AD has, in fact, followed through on his threat and fired JJ, as of this afternoon.  So now we have a college team looking for it's third head football coach in three years, an NFL club that may or may not hire his latest interview (I wonder if they feel some kind of obligation to him, given what he sacrificed for just an interview - probably not...) and a football coach out of a job with no guarantee of another one.

But still, it makes you think.  I'd be curious to know what your take on it is.  Which side do you tend to lean toward - Perspective 1 or 2?  Or can you see both sides of the coin?  Comment away!

Comments

[mike mccracken]

One thing to account for in this case is that unlike most schools in DI, the BCs, Notre Dames, Georgetowns and DePauls of the world are places that pride themselves on NOT being anything close to a democracy. Most of the Catholic schools conduct themselves this way - while not completely oblivious to the wants of the alumni and boosters, the final decision is aways made by someone with a collar and a fancy outfit - and there is usually very little debate.

The flip side of the coin is the case of Charlie Weiss at Notre Dame. At any other school with the tradition of ND, Weiss would be gone by now. In his case, the man at the top (and who knows how high that actually goes given that it's ND) wants him there, so he stays on.

The points about it being an ethical situation are dead on in any case, it's just that these institutions do things a little differently - and they like it that way.