Thursday, September 15, 2011

MAD in Mutually Assured Destruction

Everyone is weighing in on the rumor that Rogers was fired and did not take a voluntary LOA.  From what I've heard, this rumor has legs to it given what Spaz and the Athletic Department are saying.  We really won't know much more until we hear from Rogers himself.  That being said, I have a hard time making sense of this for two reasons.  First, it undermines Spaz's job security.  As I noted on Tuesday, I really thought that the Rogers' contract was one of the big chips Spaz still had on the table.  Forcing Rogers out not only removes that chip from Spaz, but also calls into serious question his ability to evaluate personnel.  First, he hires GT, and puts up with that ridiculousness for two years, and then follows that up by hiring an OC who lasts exactly two games.  That does not look good for mustache.

Secondly, I think this really calls into question GDFs job security.  Let me start by saying that I think GDF is a good athletic director and that BC likely couldn't find a better replacement if they let him go.  His job security previous to this appeared to be air-tight.  From the little I know about Father Leahy and the administration, my guess would be that they care about the athletic department as much as it reflects on the school.  In other words, as long as the department is financially stable and reflects well on the school (no NCAA violations, etc.), there will be no changes.  Lying to cover up a firing does not reflect well on the school, and if that's what happened here, I could see the administration potentially making a change.

While it looks like the reports of Rogers being fired are true, I really have to wonder what the thinking behind that type of move would be, because it could cost Spaz and GDF their jobs.  It just makes so little sense that I have to imagine that there will be more details coming out in the next few days.  Possibly some athletic department leaks on concrete reasons Rogers was let go?


  1. Announcing that an employee took a leave for medical reasons when, in fact, the employee was fired, is a pretty big deal. There could be a legitimate reason to do it at first, then release the full story, but it seems pretty bad. First, it's a lie to everyone: the media, fans, financial supporters, etc. Second, it involves a person's health. Unless that person is complicit in it, it's a terrible thing to falsely announce to the public that a person has health issue tat prevents him from working. Is there a reason they would do this that people are talking about?

  2. I dont know if this is the reason. But it looks better for both sides if hes taking a leave of absence. For Gene/Spaz, it shows they were completely incompetent in the hiring and for Rogers it means that the public doesnt know that he was actually terminated on a performance basis.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.