Ben DeLuca fired

[ugarte]

Got the call from UVA.  What a dirty business.  but we all knew that already.

The idea that this is dirty is based on a pretty warped premise: that a change in coach should not change the recruit's perspective.The restrictions in football and basketball are the abominations.  Take off the red-colored glasses. Sometimes the naivete about this sort of thing on this forum is mind-boggling.

What possible reason can you give for Virginia holding off on making the call? He isn't enrolled, the coach he chose to play at Cornell for is gone, UVA is an excellent school with an elite lax program ...

Sometimes the jerks on this forum are mind-boggling.  Do you have to make everything so personal?
I think a player should be absolutely free to do what ever he or she wants to do all the way until they enroll. So its not a question of forming an opinion based on a warped premise.  I have no problem with him looking around again and choosing Virginia or any other school because Cornell is now different than what it was when he enrolled, or even if he just changed his mind for whatever reason.
Despite what you say, I do have problem with a school calling after they know that the player has committed.  Let the recruit decide if he or she wants to look around but I have no rose colored glasses and I know that in any competitive situation the world works differently.  I just don't have to like it and I would hope my school wouldn't do it, but I'm sure they all do.  That's all.  I also would hope to be able to post something like that without being called a naive fool.

I'm comfortable with my post. It is only as personal as you choose to take it. You are only the most recent person to express this kind of piffle.

You have no objection to anything except Starsia making a phone call to a player who "committed" - as if that means anything outside of the cartel of NCAA sports. If Greco didn't have misgivings he wouldn't have taken the call. You sound like a jilted ex. Your post is somewhere in the neighborhood of naive or self-serving, so you might as well wear the shoe - it fits.

*puts on jerk shoes* *thinks damn, these are comfy*

[jeff '84]

Oh yeah, Reilly? Well, the jerk store called. They are running out of you!

http://youtu.be/0KmTTy_MM5w

[Johnny 5]

It astounds me that the facts regarding this debacle are still unannounced.
I wonder if Max Seibald or Rob Pannell are looking for a side job?

::help::

[billhoward]

Personnel actions and the facts and findings behind them don't get announced, much as we'd like the inside story. The best to hope for is vigorous digging and reporting provides a rounded understanding of what happened.

Max Seibald and Rob Pannell would certainly be marquee names for the coaching staff. The best players aren't always the best coaches.

Assistant now interim head coach Matt Kerwick, who has lots of experience, including at Cornell, seems like the most likely person to carry Cornell into 2014, perhaps show he can be the head coach permanently. It feels as if Cornell will be hiring a coach for the 2015 season not 2014.

[ugarte]

It astounds me that the facts regarding this debacle are still unannounced.
I wonder if Max Seibald or Rob Pannell are looking for a side job?

Do you mean "leaked"? Why would the details get announced? I'm sure that DeLuca knows the school's reasons. Neither he or the school are talking, though, and here's a non-exclusive list of reasons why that might be:

 - When DeLuca was fired, he also received a settlement with a non-disclosure agreement

 - there is a possibility of future litigation

 - the school is being respectful enough not to air details

 - nobody gives out controversial information unless they are compelled to do so and nobody is under any compulsion here.

These reasons are not mutually exclusive and also 100% SPECULATION. You don't have the answers you want because the people who have the answers don't want to share them. Full stop.

[Al DeFlorio]

It "astounds" me that someone believes he's entitled to the "facts" regarding a personnel decision involving an employer and its employee.

[mountainred]

It astounds me that the facts regarding this debacle are still unannounced.
I wonder if Max Seibald or Rob Pannell are looking for a side job?

I'm sure that DeLuca knows the school's reasons.

You would think that, but Deluca's statement began with "For reasons which still remain unclear to me."  I don't take everything I read in these situations at face value, so who knows? Perhaps it is intended to be a cute way of saying "I don't understand why the reasons justified discharge."  Or maybe it's a negoiated phrase, but it's an odd choice if that's the case.  If I'm the school, I wouldn't agree to something that makes it look like we didn't explain the rationale; I'd rather have a vague statement that Ben didn't agree with the reason(s).

We aren't entitled to any further explanation, but the school does have some incentive to assure possible donors (as they view all of us) that the decision was fair and reasonable.

[Rosey]

It astounds me that the facts regarding this debacle are still unannounced.
I wonder if Max Seibald or Rob Pannell are looking for a side job?

I'm sure that DeLuca knows the school's reasons.

You would think that, but Deluca's statement began with "For reasons which still remain unclear to me."  I don't take everything I read in these situations at face value, so who knows? Perhaps it is intended to be a cute way of saying "I don't understand why the reasons justified discharge."  Or maybe it's a negoiated phrase, but it's an odd choice if that's the case.  If I'm the school, I wouldn't agree to something that makes it look like we didn't explain the rationale; I'd rather have a vague statement that Ben didn't agree with the reason(s).

We aren't entitled to any further explanation, but the school does have some incentive to assure possible donors (as they view all of us) that the decision was fair and reasonable.

Frankly, I'm surprised he didn't leave to spend more time with his family. That's typically how it works in private industry.

[Towerroad]

It astounds me that the facts regarding this debacle are still unannounced.
I wonder if Max Seibald or Rob Pannell are looking for a side job?

I'm sure that DeLuca knows the school's reasons.

You would think that, but Deluca's statement began with "For reasons which still remain unclear to me."  I don't take everything I read in these situations at face value, so who knows? Perhaps it is intended to be a cute way of saying "I don't understand why the reasons justified discharge."  Or maybe it's a negoiated phrase, but it's an odd choice if that's the case.  If I'm the school, I wouldn't agree to something that makes it look like we didn't explain the rationale; I'd rather have a vague statement that Ben didn't agree with the reason(s).

We aren't entitled to any further explanation, but the school does have some incentive to assure possible donors (as they view all of us) that the decision was fair and reasonable.

Frankly, I'm surprised he didn't leave to spend more time with his family. That's typically how it works in private industry.

Don't forget pursue other projects or differences in strategic vision.

Regardless of the merits, I think this was done in a very shabby way. The act may have been justified but I don't think that is the way to treat a long term employee. I wont be making any donations to the athletic department this year as a result.

[Robb]

It astounds me that the facts regarding this debacle are still unannounced.
I wonder if Max Seibald or Rob Pannell are looking for a side job?

I'm sure that DeLuca knows the school's reasons.

You would think that, but Deluca's statement began with "For reasons which still remain unclear to me."  I don't take everything I read in these situations at face value, so who knows? Perhaps it is intended to be a cute way of saying "I don't understand why the reasons justified discharge."  Or maybe it's a negoiated phrase, but it's an odd choice if that's the case.  If I'm the school, I wouldn't agree to something that makes it look like we didn't explain the rationale; I'd rather have a vague statement that Ben didn't agree with the reason(s).

We aren't entitled to any further explanation, but the school does have some incentive to assure possible donors (as they view all of us) that the decision was fair and reasonable.

Just spitballing here, but I'm guessing it's probably not a good strategy for future employment to iterate the list of all the reasons why the last guy fired you on the front page of the paper.

I'm sure any potential donor with sufficient enough, ahem, "gravitas" is able to have all of his questions answered to his satisfaction.  Would it really be best for Cornell to yield veto or even oversight power to every yokel who kicks in a hundred bucks to the athletic department?  Not a chance.

[ugarte]

It astounds me that the facts regarding this debacle are still unannounced.
I wonder if Max Seibald or Rob Pannell are looking for a side job?

I'm sure that DeLuca knows the school's reasons.

You would think that, but Deluca's statement began with "For reasons which still remain unclear to me."  I don't take everything I read in these situations at face value, so who knows?

The last place I'd look for an honest assessment of Cornell's reasons for firing Ben DeLuca would be Ben DeLuca's public statement. The second-to-last place I'd look is Cornell's public statement.

[KeithK]

Would it really be best for Cornell to yield veto or even oversight power to every yokel who kicks in a hundred bucks to the athletic department?  Not a chance.

No, just *this* yokel!  I want some concrete value for my C-note!

[Towerroad]

It astounds me that the facts regarding this debacle are still unannounced.
I wonder if Max Seibald or Rob Pannell are looking for a side job?

I'm sure that DeLuca knows the school's reasons.

You would think that, but Deluca's statement began with "For reasons which still remain unclear to me."  I don't take everything I read in these situations at face value, so who knows? Perhaps it is intended to be a cute way of saying "I don't understand why the reasons justified discharge."  Or maybe it's a negoiated phrase, but it's an odd choice if that's the case.  If I'm the school, I wouldn't agree to something that makes it look like we didn't explain the rationale; I'd rather have a vague statement that Ben didn't agree with the reason(s).

We aren't entitled to any further explanation, but the school does have some incentive to assure possible donors (as they view all of us) that the decision was fair and reasonable.

Just spitballing here, but I'm guessing it's probably not a good strategy for future employment to iterate the list of all the reasons why the last guy fired you on the front page of the paper.

I'm sure any potential donor with sufficient enough, ahem, "gravitas" is able to have all of his questions answered to his satisfaction.  Would it really be best for Cornell to yield veto or even oversight power to every yokel who kicks in a hundred bucks to the athletic department?  Not a chance.

I don't expect Cornell to vet personnel decisions with the alumni or to explain them. They are big boys and girls, they make decisions have to live with them. Now, those that are asked to donate (who are also big boys and girls) can make their own decisions based on the information that is publically availalbe. I have decided not to give money to the athletics dept this year because of my perception of the shabby way DeLuca was canned.  The majority of my donation goes elsewhere but the portion that went to athletics will stay in my pocket this year. I am sure the institution will survive.

[Al DeFlorio]

Regardless of the merits, I think this was done in a very shabby way.

I don't expect Cornell to vet personnel decisions with the alumni or to explain them. They are big boys and girls, they make decisions have to live with them. Now, those that are asked to donate (who are also big boys and girls) can make their own decisions based on the information that is publically availalbe. I have decided not to give money to the athletics dept this year because of my perception of the shabby way DeLuca was canned.  

I am genuinely puzzled by what you've written.  

1.  You say you "don't expect Cornell to vet personnel decisions."  

2.  You say that even if the dismissal was "merited" it was handled in a "shabby way."

How, then, should Cornell have handled it differently if it was "merited" given that personnel decisions shouldn't be vetted or explained?

[Towerroad]

Regardless of the merits, I think this was done in a very shabby way.

I don't expect Cornell to vet personnel decisions with the alumni or to explain them. They are big boys and girls, they make decisions have to live with them. Now, those that are asked to donate (who are also big boys and girls) can make their own decisions based on the information that is publically availalbe. I have decided not to give money to the athletics dept this year because of my perception of the shabby way DeLuca was canned.  

I am genuinely puzzled by what you've written.  

1.  You say you "don't expect Cornell to vet personnel decisions."  

2.  You say that even if the dismissal was "merited" it was handled in a "shabby way."

How, then, should Cornell have handled it differently if it was "merited" given that personnel decisions shouldn't be vetted or explained?

Let me try and explain:

Mr. Deluca was a long time employee who was successful enough to have been recently promoted to lead one of the most prestigious athletic programs at Cornell. I assume he was appointed by Mr. Noel with the approval of the Admin.

His on the field record is hard to argue with.

The press release announcing his dismissal was one of the most blunt instruments of its type I have ever seen. My belief is that it was written harshly to send others a message.

I am forced to one of two conclusions, neither flattering to the admin.

A. There was a serious difference of opinion about how Mr. DeLuca was running the program which might include the "hazing" incident. If this was the case I believe that Mr. DeLuca should have been given and taken an opportunity to resign or lacking that the press release should have had some wording to the effect about differences of opinion about the direction of the program instead of the "don't let the door hit you in the ass" wording.

B. There was some other egregious activity which will never made public that justified the summary dismissal. In that case, Mr. Noel's judgement in appointing him must be brought into question given that both of them have been in the same organization for over a decade.

Every firing of this type represents an institutional failure. A failure to find the right person for the job that his/her superiors want done. In my opinion, the Admin. and Mr. Noel bear a significant portion of the responsibility for what happened and at least for this year I will withhold my financial support because of the poor job they did. I do not think we should reward poor performance by supposed professionals.