After reading 3 pages of the 'Hard Being a Tech Fan These Days' I can't help but think of the idea of loyalty in college football.
What separates college from professional sports in a large part is loyalty to one's alma mater. This feeling is perpetuated by
every collegiate institution through created traditions that elicit special significance and meaning to its supporters - which are not nearly as apparent in pro football. Obviously, an indication of a program's success is the degree and quantity of which that support is achieved.
Yet for most collegiate athletic programs, coaches are loyal to opportunities and universities, including supporters thereof, are loyal to results. Like most, I was very frustrated with reports of TSO 'shopping jobs' every offseason. At the time I wished he'd be more considerate of the opportunity and unprecedented loyalty/support he was provided by our beloved
university.
Yet in the above referenced thread (posted by the same crew who unprecedentedly funded the Gabe Rivera Scholarship) the current level of support for our athletic programs is mostly cited in a range from apathetic to marginally hopeful. I couldn't help but feel that TSO knew that his job security was only related to his success on the field - as it should be in almost all cases. After all, Texas Tech didn't have any special significance/meaning to him prior to accepting the position.
Which brings me to Kliff and Co., Tadlock, etc. and Kirby. It appears to me that Kirby's hiring model includes identifying coaches who will not 'jump' to the next opportunity as indicated by (1) hiring proven/tenured coaches at a more senior age and (2) identifying coaches with university ties. IMHO, Kirby's approach is related to the limited quantity and degree/extent to which our university has historically supported its programs - especially/mainly during the down times. I can't help but feel our current regime may be sensing a lack of loyalty - which, in turn, wouldn't encourage a successful coach (or potential recruit for that matter) to cite "the loyalty of the fanbase" when considering other offers. This board (including me), as of late, certainly wouldn't disprove this philosophy if in fact it's part of Kirby's approach to this job.
My point is that we (and certainly me included) would benefit our program by focusing on what we can control - which could be considering the terms for which we support our athletic programs. Given the state of our athletic programs, a sudden mass act of support would be unprecedented (for most college programs), but conceivably the unequivocal support (and a lot of patience) for our programs and those individuals whose jobs are on the line to ensure its success is a much needed step to transition to championship level achievements.
How do we get there? I don't have the answer, but perhaps it could start with creating a culture of public encouragement by the collection of individuals who spend more mental energy than most in consideration of our athletic programs - RRS - which may trickle down to other Red Raiders and beyond. After all, we are the same group who created the unprecedented vehicle for a scholarship fund. (And, if you've read this far into this crazy long post, that's likely another act that most wouldn't have accomplished.
) Maybe the cost of a majority act in unprecedented loyalty by publicly encouraging and supporting (attendance) our programs isn't too extraordinary - at least in the realm of unprecedented acts for members of RRS!
(Please excuse typos grammar enthusiasts)
Guns Up!
This post was edited on 4/8 10:23 AM by stdybrks
What separates college from professional sports in a large part is loyalty to one's alma mater. This feeling is perpetuated by
every collegiate institution through created traditions that elicit special significance and meaning to its supporters - which are not nearly as apparent in pro football. Obviously, an indication of a program's success is the degree and quantity of which that support is achieved.
Yet for most collegiate athletic programs, coaches are loyal to opportunities and universities, including supporters thereof, are loyal to results. Like most, I was very frustrated with reports of TSO 'shopping jobs' every offseason. At the time I wished he'd be more considerate of the opportunity and unprecedented loyalty/support he was provided by our beloved
university.
Yet in the above referenced thread (posted by the same crew who unprecedentedly funded the Gabe Rivera Scholarship) the current level of support for our athletic programs is mostly cited in a range from apathetic to marginally hopeful. I couldn't help but feel that TSO knew that his job security was only related to his success on the field - as it should be in almost all cases. After all, Texas Tech didn't have any special significance/meaning to him prior to accepting the position.
Which brings me to Kliff and Co., Tadlock, etc. and Kirby. It appears to me that Kirby's hiring model includes identifying coaches who will not 'jump' to the next opportunity as indicated by (1) hiring proven/tenured coaches at a more senior age and (2) identifying coaches with university ties. IMHO, Kirby's approach is related to the limited quantity and degree/extent to which our university has historically supported its programs - especially/mainly during the down times. I can't help but feel our current regime may be sensing a lack of loyalty - which, in turn, wouldn't encourage a successful coach (or potential recruit for that matter) to cite "the loyalty of the fanbase" when considering other offers. This board (including me), as of late, certainly wouldn't disprove this philosophy if in fact it's part of Kirby's approach to this job.
My point is that we (and certainly me included) would benefit our program by focusing on what we can control - which could be considering the terms for which we support our athletic programs. Given the state of our athletic programs, a sudden mass act of support would be unprecedented (for most college programs), but conceivably the unequivocal support (and a lot of patience) for our programs and those individuals whose jobs are on the line to ensure its success is a much needed step to transition to championship level achievements.
How do we get there? I don't have the answer, but perhaps it could start with creating a culture of public encouragement by the collection of individuals who spend more mental energy than most in consideration of our athletic programs - RRS - which may trickle down to other Red Raiders and beyond. After all, we are the same group who created the unprecedented vehicle for a scholarship fund. (And, if you've read this far into this crazy long post, that's likely another act that most wouldn't have accomplished.
(Please excuse typos grammar enthusiasts)
Guns Up!
This post was edited on 4/8 10:23 AM by stdybrks
