Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: TerpsInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS
Posted at 10:59 AM ET, 02/17/2011

Randy Shannon, Larry Johnson rejections provide opposing recruiters ammunition against Terps

By Steve Yanda

Maryland announced Wednesday that it was promoting Todd Bradford to defensive coordinator and hiring Keith Dudzinski, formerly the defensive coordinator at Massachusetts, to coach inside linebackers. Those moves were necessitated by Don Brown's recent and sudden departure to become the defensive coordinator at Connecticut.

And if that was the complete context of the situation, perhaps Maryland fans wouldn't be quite as frustrated with how things turned out.

But the sequence of events between Feb. 4 and Feb. 16 added to the sting Terrapins followers may be feeling today. On Feb. 6, Maryland coach Randy Edsall reportedly approached Penn State defensive line coach Larry Johnson -- a highly regarded recruiter in the state of Maryland -- but Johnson declined to be interviewed for the Terrapins' vacant defensive coordinator position. Edsall did interview former Miami coach Randy Shannon last week, but Shannon also turned down the job.

Most recruits likely didn't notice that Johnson and Shannon declined Maryland's overtures, said Rivals.com lead football recruiting analyst Mike Farrell. But you know who will bring such developments to those prospects' attention? Opposing recruiters.

"I know that other ACC coaches were a little bit worried when they heard Randy Shannon might be the defensive coordinator at Maryland because of the job he can do recruiting, especially in Florida, and the reputation that he has, not only as a great coach, but also a guy who can recruit," Farrell said. "And Larry Johnson would have been an absolute home run, because he's destroyed Maryland in Maryland for years at Penn State. He's a native. He would have been the key to this whole staff, because he would have been the guy from Maryland who could lead up their recruiting efforts in-state. So to miss on those two guys, you know, and then promote from within, you can bet other schools are going to point that out to recruits.

"Recruits won't notice. They don't follow this stuff, you know? They would notice if Randy Shannon or Larry Johnson were there. That would be a big deal to them. But they're not noticing that those two guys turned them down and then [Maryland] promoted from within and then ]the recruits] are going, 'Wait a minute.' What they will notice is when other schools point that out and say: 'Listen, they tried to go after this guy. They tried to go after that guy. They couldn't get him. They promoted a defensive coordinator from within that recruits really don't know a lot about.' The guy [Bradford] did his work at Southern Miss, Oklahoma State and BYU. I can guarantee you there's nobody in the state of Maryland that really knows a whole lot about him. So that will be pointed out for sure by other coaching staffs, but recruits really don't notice that stuff on their own."

As for Dudzinski, the newest and final addition to Edsall's staff, Farrell's assessment indicates the former U-Mass. defensive coordinator likely was hired more for his coaching ability than for his recruiting reputation.

"Honestly, recruiting at U-Mass. is a different level than what we follow," Farrell said. "The I-AA schools, they don't really recruit as much as they evaluate talent. It's not like U-Mass. is beating U-Conn. or Syracuse or Rutgers or Boston College in the area for kids. So he doesn't have a lot of experience recruiting at the Division I level. What you do at [the I-AA] level is you find kids that fall through the cracks, that don't have those other offers. So I don't really know what his reputation is as a recruiter because he's never done it at a level that we cover."

In addition to coaching at U-Mass., Dudzinski has spent time on the staffs at Northeastern, Brown and New Haven. The Dudzinski hire was consistent with the approach Edsall has taken in the past to filling out his coaching staff, according to Farrell.

"That staff he put together at U-Conn., great coaches who can go out and find kids that were under the radar, because at U-Conn. you couldn't go into Pennsylvania and compete with Penn State for a recruit, or you couldn't go into New Jersey and pull a kid away from Rutgers, or even into Maryland and pull a kid away from Maryland," Farrell said. "So you had to find guys who were great coaches, knew their Xs and Os, who could coach kids up and were able to really evaluate talent. And that's not unexpected, the approach he's taken to filling out his staff [at Maryland].

"It's going to be interesting, though, because at U-Conn., it's a basketball school. There wasn't a lot of attention paid to the recruiting of the football program. Certainly, the football program was second fiddle to the basketball program. Maryland is a different story. They've got a higher profile. They're in the ACC. Everybody is sort of following along to see how he's going to be able to recruit in a territory that has so much more talent. And that's what I'm curious about too. Is he going to continue to go get guys that everybody else overlooked? Or is he going to go out and try to get the guys everybody else wants?"

By Steve Yanda  | February 17, 2011; 10:59 AM ET
Categories:  Football, Randy Edsall, recruiting  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Morning links: Yahoo grades Maryland hiring of Randy Edsall
Next: Talkin' Terps: Best-case, worst-case for next season?

Comments

Bravo Kevin Anderson, bravo! You have successfully made the Maryland football program the laughing stock of the recruiting world. Yay for affirmative action!

Posted by: Barno1 | February 17, 2011 11:28 AM | Report abuse

I can't take it any more!!!

To further attract recruits to Maryland, Randy Edsall has implemented weekly locker inspections and players were given a diagram and hand out on how their lockers should appear at all times and players must cover all tattoos and remove all "doo -rags".

This is a train wreck about to happen..

The buck stops with Kevin "Xerox Machine" Anderson!

Posted by: ebitda | February 17, 2011 11:38 AM | Report abuse

can't take it any more!!!

To further attract recruits to Maryland, Randy Edsall has implemented weekly locker inspections and players were given a diagram and hand out on how their lockers should appear at all times and players must cover all tattoos and remove all "doo -rags".

This is a train wreck about to happen..

The buck stops with Kevin "Xerox Machine" Anderson!


Posted by: ebitda | February 17, 2011 11:38 AM | Report abuse

I guess it's a good thing these coaching moves were made, because Edsall is going to have to find the talent that falls through the cracks. Why would any kid want to come to Maryland now?

Posted by: Russtinator | February 17, 2011 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Barnster, dont you typically dismiss the recruiting world whenever it is referenced against Gary? Is football that different? Double standard?

Posted by: jpfterps | February 17, 2011 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Can you say Duffner 2.0? The funny thing about this whole saga is that all we had to do was nothing and we probably would've won the ACC next year.

Posted by: aviscardo | February 17, 2011 11:52 AM | Report abuse

??? I don't dismiss the recruiting world, I dismiss the recruiting geeks who ignore the fact that MD does in fact regularly get top 25-30 classes in football and basketball and the fact taht Gary has a long, long history of winning despite what people said about some of his lesser known recruits. He has always had a knack for recruiting guys like Joe Smith, Juan Dixon, Lonnie Baxter, Jordan Williams, people who weren't highly touted but became stars under him. People who bash his recruiting ignore this--that has always been my point. But I don't at all see what your point is.

Posted by: Barno1 | February 17, 2011 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Also jpfterps, i know you disagree with literally everything i say on the blogs just because you like to disagree w/ me, but it's really starting to get a little old. I mean, I get that you like the banter... I seriously doubt you want the Redskins to change their name but you act like it on the blogs bc I argue against it. It's one thing to want to always be the devils advocate, but come on dude. At least write what you actually believe.

Posted by: Barno1 | February 17, 2011 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Neither Miami nor Penn State has been a top team in recent memory. Shannon was fired by Miami and I don't see big programs falling all over themselves to get him.

As far as Johnson goes, when has Penn State ever had trouble recruiting in Maryland? Maybe the early 50's? Both programs are living on past glory not reality.

Johnson knows he probably couldn't get players for Maryland because it doesn't have the same football rep as Penn State. Why any good assistant would want to stay there waiting for Joe Pa to retire at 110 is beyond me. Penn State since joining the Big Ten has been an afterthought on the national scene.

It's obvious that Maryland desperately wants a black coach from a known program in order to recruit black players who compose the majority of skilled positions on all major college and pro football teams.

I am sure both men are good coaches but they are not the only good black coaches out there. Maryland has had trouble getting the local blue chip talent, which face facts, are mostly black players out of DC, Baltimore or the suburbs.

I don't know how much is ethnic identification or the pizazz factor of playing for a nationally recognized program. It is probably lots of both?

Posted by: fatlabriley2 | February 17, 2011 12:15 PM | Report abuse

fire kevin anderson

Posted by: tony28 | February 17, 2011 12:18 PM | Report abuse

* Penn State dominates UMD recruiting in state of Maryland for years.
* Virginia dominates UMD recruiting in state of Maryland for years.

And now bringing in a guy with no regional experience. Doesn't look bright for locking in the local recruits.

Posted by: VamosUnited | February 17, 2011 12:24 PM | Report abuse

The whole UMD coaching drama is getting old.

Getting rid of the Fridge was a mistake, but all this agonizing over trying to attract some big name to the program is a waste of effort.

Let Edsall do his thing, and see how it works out.

Posted by: postfan1 | February 17, 2011 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Simply put; a college that cannot recruit its areas best athletes is bound for sustained mediocrity. How many recruits come from DeMatha or other top prep schools? The Georgia's, Florida's, and Alabama's of the world stay home FIRST, and then look to augment their recruiting classes. Gary made a genius hire in Keith Booth; why is the football program hiring guys that recruit for I-AA or BYU? Secondly, where has Kevin Plank gone?

Posted by: duh2mag | February 17, 2011 12:59 PM | Report abuse

What Makes Kevin Anderson an Affirmative Action hire, can you explain that? Because he's a black man in a position of power. He was more that qualified for the job. From the post: "While at Army, Anderson helped develop and manage a $25 million budget and turned an operating deficit of more than $1 million into a $2.73 million surplus in five years. Anderson also has served as chair of the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Issues Committee" while you may be "Hispanic and Jewish" you sure do have a problem with black people


Posted by: jkblodge1 | February 17, 2011 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, jkblodge1, don't worry, seems like every few days Barno has gotta bring up the race issue (while mentioning that he's part jew and part hispanic).

Posted by: P00PY_MCP00P | February 17, 2011 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Only two points, for this article, or any article, to claim that Shannono "turned down" Maryland is more than a bit unfair. He would have had to give up $1.5 million to take a $500,000 job. That's not really a turn down, just common sense.

The other point is @VamosUnited. Huh? What? UVa does not dominate over Maryland for Maryland high school students. In fact, Maryland dominates UVa in Virginia high schools. What are you thinkin' buddy? I'd suggest you concern yourself with your in-state rival.

Posted by: steven09 | February 17, 2011 1:39 PM | Report abuse

jkblodge, to say that I "have a problem with black people" is beyond insulting. I wish there were more blacks and other minorities in positions of power, not less. But I don't think the right way to go about making that happen is by giving minorities an artificial boost in hiring, contracting, admissions, etc. That doesn't serve anyone. And look, I realize it's much easier for people like you to cry racism when you encounter people like me who are against race-based policies than to actually formulate a coherent counter-argument...but just because it's easier, doesn't make it okay. You should be ashamed for saying someone has a problem with blacks without any evidence whatsoever.

"What Makes Kevin Anderson an Affirmative Action hire, can you explain that?"

Sure, no problem.

First of all, UMD has a long, long history of taking race into account in its hiring, promotions, admissions, scholarships, etc. "Affirmative hiring is part of our very fabric here at Maryland" said Debbie Yow publicly. The only reason College Park administrators approved of James Franklin's promotion to head coach in waiting was because he was a qualified "minority", said Debbie Yow publicly.

Second of all, in this particular instance, the final 2 candidates for the position were both black (Warde Manuel and Kevin Anderson). The chances of that happening by sheer coincidence? Oh, about 1 in 100.

Here's my methodology:

12.9% of Americans are black
17.5% of black Americans have at least a bachelor's degree (a requirement for an AD job at a public university)
Multiply .129 by .175, then divide this number by 2 for the 2 black finalists.

= 1%

If you want to nitpick my methodology, go right ahead. You're not going to change that 1% by very much no matter what issue you take with it. Even if I'm way off, it's still extremely, extremely unlikely that they had 2 black finalists by accident--ESPECIALLY given their history of "affirmative hiring" as Debbie Yow put it.

I think any rationale, objective person would come to the conclusion that it was very important to the politically correct powers that be at the University to hire the school's first black athletic director.

Posted by: Barno1 | February 17, 2011 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Poop, I wasn't the first to mention my ethnicity, fushezzi was several months ago when someone else accused me of being some white nationalist. Secondly, the only reason I brought it up yesterday is because I was accused of being a White Citizens Council member, when in fact, that racist group would never have a Hispanic Jew among them. I don't use my race or religion as a defense against the racism charges. I'm well aware bigots come in all colors and creeds.

We've been getting along great for a while Poop, don't go ruining that with comments like the above.

Posted by: Barno1 | February 17, 2011 1:53 PM | Report abuse

I see all of the negative comments and I wonder if anyone has any solutions? Who would you rather MD hire? Shannon, Johnson? Didn't they just turn us down?

Posted by: charles20001 | February 17, 2011 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Barno, I agree with you that Kevin Anderson isn't doing the best job so far, but to call this an affirmative action hire is ridiculous. Who's the magic white AD that should have gotten this job? Was UMD shooting down amazing white candidates left and right? No; at the time he was hired, he was honestly considered the best candidate, having hired Rich Ellison to turn around an Army football program that most people thought was dead. There was some decent buzz about him in the UMD community at the time. He also managed to hire successful coaches in small-money sports. He was legitimately successful at a smaller sports program, so he got a job with a bigger one: it wasn't about race, but about past results. That doesn't mean that he was guaranteed to be successful here; plenty of small-market successes fail on a bigger stage (think of Kragthorpe at Louisville or Rich Rod at Michigan).

I'm not writing this to defend Kevin Anderson's actions as our AD: it seems like a bad hire. That doesn't mean that it was absurd that he was hired here to begin with, or that he was an "affirmative action" hire. He was qualified based on his resume, but has made some crappy decisions so far that are ridiculously controversial, and should be fired if they pan out.

Also, I generally agree with what you post: Edsall was a weak hire, Friedgen was great for this program, and giving Friedgen a contract extension at least through DOB's senior season would have given this program stability while Fridge coached one of the most talented groups he's had since arriving. (Who knows, maybe with an impending lockout, Torrie might have chosen to stay as well if Fridge was coming back.) But I'm tired of having views I agree with about the state of our program associated with these inane racial conspiracy theories that aren't backed up by any evidence whatsoever. If you have something beyond Anderson's race that actually shows that he never should have gotten the job to begin with, or that there was an AD who was clearly a better fit who was turned down because he wasn't black, then come forward with it. Otherwise, drop the damn point already, because it's absolutely ridiculous. Put up or shut up.

Posted by: flyingplates | February 17, 2011 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Barno,

How do you have time to post on every WashPo blog? Just curious.

Regarding affirmative action, start with UMD President, Wallace Loh. While I think it is AWESOME he was born in China and raised in Peru, how does the EVP at Iowa become President of MD's flagship university? What connections to the East Coast does he have? Before Iowa, he was at Seattle University, which is a 7900 student Jesuit unviersity in the Pacific NW. VERY different than College Park. Loh could have also reined in Anderson during his numerous debacles but chose the silent route.

Posted by: duh2mag | February 17, 2011 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Barno,

How do you have time to post on every WashPo blog? Just curious.

Regarding affirmative action, start with UMD President, Wallace Loh. While I think it is AWESOME he was born in China and raised in Peru, how does the EVP at Iowa become President of MD's flagship university? What connections to the East Coast does he have? Before Iowa, he was at Seattle University, which is a 7900 student Jesuit unviersity in the Pacific NW. VERY different than College Park. Loh could have also reined in Anderson during his numerous debacles but chose the silent route.

Posted by: duh2mag | February 17, 2011 2:24 PM | Report abuse

That statistical point is not evidence whatsoever. By your same logic, Tony Dungy should never make it to the end of a coaching search, Tubby Smith shouldn't have been considered at Minnesota, and it would be impossible for two black members of the same staff to interview for a promotion. You have to actually look at the resumes of the people involved; this "the AD should be white because most people are white" logic is unbelievably appalling.

Posted by: flyingplates | February 17, 2011 2:25 PM | Report abuse

If Maryland does not win ACC championship let alone GET into the ACC Championship game heads should roll starting with Anderson.

Posted by: khornbeak | February 17, 2011 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Case against Kevin Anderson


(1) Education
You have an AD handling a $40M+ budget who only has a BS in political science from San Francisco State?

(2) Experience
Was only at Army for 5 years with limited success on and off the field. It is not as if they tried to stop him before he left. He came up through the AD ranks as a fundraiser. He worked at good schools and appears to have found success at Cal-Berkeley. BUT, again, where is the beef in his resume?

"Before taking the position with California, Anderson served as executive director of the YMCA of the East Bay from 1995 to 1997. He was director of annual giving for athletics at Stanford University from 1993 to 1995."

Really, YMCA?

(3) Personality
No comments required. As a fundraiser for a university, I do not know how he charms donors with the charisma of a block of cheese.

I am on the fence about all of the AA hiring etc. I am not on the fence about this guy. He is, was, and won’t be qualified for UMD's top athletic job.

Posted by: duh2mag | February 17, 2011 2:39 PM | Report abuse

"Barno, I agree with you that Kevin Anderson isn't doing the best job so far, but to call this an affirmative action hire is ridiculous. Who's the magic white AD that should have gotten this job?"

I never said the AD should be white. I don't care what your race is, I'm saying race should play no role whatsoever. But it is simply naive to believe UMD doesn't consider race in these decisions. What part of "affirmative hiring is part of our very fabric at Maryland" don't you guys understand? Simply hire the best man for the job. If he happens to be black, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, white...who cares? As long as he is the best man for the job.

"There was some decent buzz about him in the UMD community at the time."

Buzz? About Kevin Anderson? Um, no, that's just flat out untrue. Go back and look at what the Maryland fans on the Post thought about his hire. It seemed to puzzle an awful lot of people that the Army AD would get the gig at Maryland. This was before I ever pondered whether race had to do with it.

"the AD should be white because most people are white" logic is unbelievably appalling."

What is appalling is that you would suggest I ever said or implied anything like that. I don't strive for a white AD. That is pathetic that you would stoop to this just because I think race should play no role at all in the hiring of officials at a public university. Again, what part of "affirmative hiring is part of our very fabric here at Maryland" don't you get? What do you think affirmative hiring is? It's taking race into consideration as a plus factor for people of a certain skin color over others.

If people want to keep living in a fantasy land where affirmative action does not exist at the University of Maryland, that's fine. But please stop accusing people of racism for wanting our alma mater to take a colorblind approach in the hiring of it's most prominent positions. If you take a colorblind approach and end up with a black AD, I would be as happy as anyone. As I said before, I want more minorities in positions of power, not less. We just disagree on how to go about achieving that. That doesn't make me a racist. But calling me one does make you and idiot.

Posted by: Barno1 | February 17, 2011 3:02 PM | Report abuse

This is a retarded slant on this situation. Steve apparently has too much times on his hands.

Another angle is that Randy Shannon came to College Park to interview and wanted to be the D.C. here. (In the final details he stood to lose $15.5 million. Let's see if he coaches @ all in 2011). Also the OC from LSU was hired for top tier $. Maryland is a place to be.

Further, how is Dudzinski's background any different than Don Brown's when he came here?

This article is an example of the editor's choice for quantity over quality.

Who is the Def. Co. @ Marquette, Steve? Do they field a club team? Is crapping on the TERPs today result of "football envy"?

Posted by: terpcentral1 | February 17, 2011 3:13 PM | Report abuse

"If people want to keep living in a fantasy land where affirmative action does not exist at the University of Maryland, that's fine. But please stop accusing people of racism for wanting our alma mater to take a colorblind approach in the hiring of it's most prominent positions. If you take a colorblind approach and end up with a black AD, I would be as happy as anyone. As I said before, I want more minorities in positions of power, not less. We just disagree on how to go about achieving that. That doesn't make me a racist. But calling me one does make you and idiot."

...So I'm an idiot for assuming that you have racist views when race comes out in almost every criticism you make of Anderson? If you're so heavy on colorblind thinking, then why aren't you just criticizing him based on his performance? It's not like there's nothing to criticize. But no, every criticism of Anderson apparently has to be racially tinged, because the world would fall down if we just fired him because he was a bad AD without completely repudiating the idea of affirmative action.

Also, I'm not "living in a fantasy world" where there is no affirmative action at UMD; nobody's even suggested that. I'm just arguing that (1) I don't think that's really why he got this particular job, and (2) if he fails as an AD, even if race did play a part in his hiring, it's not BECAUSE of affirmative action, but because he personally wasn't up to the job.

Look, you can get all up in arms when people imply you're a racist, but when you put up statistics that basically imply that there was only a 1 in 10000 chance that we should be interviewing two black candidates, without acknowledging either of their credentials AT ALL until someone criticizes you, then how can you be surprised that someone takes this to its logical conclusion? You started an argument based solely on demographic statistics, then were amazed that people thought you were making an argument against excluding some racial groups.

I don't mean to state that you're personally a racist, and I don't actually think you have anything against black people, but this is how all of your posts come off. If you don't like it, then change the tone of what you're saying. You seem to think that people should look past the words you put on the page to see the magic conclusions you have in your head, but that's just not how the world works. You want someone to read your mind, go to a psychic. If you're gonna post on the boards, then prepare to be criticized for what you say.

Posted by: flyingplates | February 17, 2011 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I do love needling you, but I also am not ready to throw Kevin Anderson out on his ace. His PR has been horrible, but if that was what we judged people on, wouldnt we have to run Danny out of town too? Until the football team plays a few games we wont know how bad of a job KA is doing.

As or the Skins, I dont want the name changed, but I think it's a joke to act like the name is not offensive. Without going too far, even if the polling data is correct I fear that as a group Native Americans have been beaten down so far by society, that perhaps that is why they dont even care when an offensive name is used.

My point with the Skins name: Who are we really kidding, the name is definitely offensive. But now we are crossing blogs, and like at the end of Spaceballs, we will have to work together to untangle our Schwartzs.

Posted by: jpfterps | February 17, 2011 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Here's my methodology:

12.9% of Americans are black
17.5% of black Americans have at least a bachelor's degree (a requirement for an AD job at a public university)
Multiply .129 by .175, then divide this number by 2 for the 2 black finalists.

= 1%
Posted by: Barno1 | February 17, 2011 1:48 PM |

If you want to nitpick my methodology, go right ahead.
**********************************************************************************

Nitpick your methodology? That nonsense doesn't even rise to the level of methodology. I guess the fact that close to 70% of college football players are African American means that they're affirmative action beneficiaries too, right? Don't try to tell us that some careful statistical analysis led you to conclude that Kevin Anderson was an affirmative action hire, especially when all you have in terms of "statistics" is a load of meaningless crap.

Posted by: sonny2 | February 17, 2011 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Two other things:

1. There was definitely some buzz about Anderson, at least among people I talked to about the hire. Maybe this didn't make the Post, but there is a UMD community outside of this blog. (Thankfully, considering how often the writers are slammed.)

2. I do agree with the people saying that it's absurd to think that we should have gotten Randy Shannon when he would have to turn down such a large payment. Clearly, he wasn't coming here, and that shouldn't reflect poorly on us. But to have Larry Johnson turn down an interview? This is a guy who's wanted a coordinator position for years, but hasn't been able to get one with Bradley there. The fact that he didn't even want to come here to talk to the AD, especially considering his ties to the area, is depressing.

Posted by: flyingplates | February 17, 2011 3:31 PM | Report abuse

"...So I'm an idiot for assuming that you have racist views when race comes out in almost every criticism you make of Anderson? If you're so heavy on colorblind thinking, then why aren't you just criticizing him based on his performance? It's not like there's nothing to criticize."

I criticize Anderson all the time for just about everything he has done from the end of November until now. I've brought up the fact that he was an affirmative action hire several times, but far from every time.

"if he fails as an AD, even if race did play a part in his hiring, it's not BECAUSE of affirmative action, but because he personally wasn't up to the job."

Completely disagree. If race did play a part in his hiring, of course that means it was because of affirmative action. Affirmative action comes in many different forms, but the common denominator is always this: giving an artificial preference to someone based on their race, ethnicity, or gender. Affirmative action is not always simply a set policy (like UMD has in their undergraduate and graduate admissions) or quotas (which are now illegal).

Happy to straighten out anyone else's misconceptions.

Posted by: Barno1 | February 17, 2011 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Can you say Duffner 2.0? The funny thing about this whole saga is that all we had to do was nothing and we probably would've won the ACC next year.

Posted by: aviscardo | February 17, 2011 11:52 AM | Report abuse

---------------------------------------

Wow, where to start.... OK Maryland will not win the ACC in 2011 or anytime in the foreseeable future. The Seminoles are on their way back up. Clemson is gonna get it's act together. The Hokies will never be far from the top. Honestly, the Terps *might* be an 8-4 type team, which might ordinarily win the ACC but not anymore.

I wish I was wrong, but I don't think I am.

Posted by: lingering_lead | February 17, 2011 3:46 PM | Report abuse

"I guess the fact that close to 70% of college football players are African American means that they're affirmative action beneficiaries too, right?"

Was this even a serious comment? Athletics are the one area of our society where we actually have a legitimate meritocracy. I wonder if you would still stand for race-based decisions if we made them on the football field as well to level the playing field for whites and Asians. Of course you wouldn't, no one would.

And if you have such problems with my methodology, please explain exactly where I went wrong. You so badly want to believe UMD just happened to have 2 black finalists by coincidence, which is your right, even though the chances of that happening by accident are in the neighborhood of 1%. Show me how I'm wrong, instead of just calling it nonsense.

Even if you somehow find flaws in it that would result that would increase it from 1%, I would simply argue that if I controlled for such factors as age (assuming you'd have to be at least 35 or so to be seriously considered for the AD job) and work experience in the field (assuming you'd have to have at least 10 years in the field to be considered for the job), you'd have even fewer black candidates for the job. Which would make the chances that we coincidentally ended had 2 black males with college degrees who are over the age of 35 with at least 10 years experience in AD departments even less likely.

Just face it, the actual chances that this happened by accident, if we had a statistician here and controlled for all of these factors, would astronomically small (even less than my projected 1% conclusion).

Posted by: Barno1 | February 17, 2011 3:49 PM | Report abuse

jpfterps, I see your schwartz is as big as mine.

Posted by: Barno1 | February 17, 2011 3:49 PM | Report abuse

So now the coach is telling you how your locker must be, yo ucna't wear Do-rags and now yoru tats have to be covered...... I can see why people turned this guy down... as I said before... anal-retentive, task master dictator... where coaches are decling to take the job... so now you promote yes men that are from 1-AA programs..... wow... MD is going to be top notch next year... I can see the ticket and suite sales doubling with this clown :) Edsall, I would unpack everything because once the AD is fired next year, your not that far behind.

Posted by: rvanags | February 17, 2011 4:19 PM | Report abuse

"And if you have such problems with my methodology, please explain exactly where I went wrong. You so badly want to believe UMD just happened to have 2 black finalists by coincidence, which is your right, even though the chances of that happening by accident are in the neighborhood of 1%. Show me how I'm wrong, instead of just calling it nonsense."

The problem with your methodology is that you're trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, you're saying that we should have a colorblind system - demographics shouldn't matter. Then, you're turning around and saying how unlikely it is statistically that these two guys could be the final two candidates. The logic behind the two premises is completely inconsistent; you seem to say that people should be judged on their merits alone, except when it's statistically unlikely that they should get the job, when it's okay to turn to numbers to judge them.

If you want to reject affirmative action, that's fine (I mean, we'll disagree, but it's a perfectly legitimate political viewpoint), but you can't use the same statistics that would be used to justify affirmative action in defending your point. (And this giving you the benefit of the doubt of assuming your method is statistically sound, which it really isn't, considering the small sample size of people who could potentially be hired as an AD at a BCS school.)

Posted by: flyingplates | February 17, 2011 4:20 PM | Report abuse

"I guess the fact that close to 70% of college football players are African American means that they're affirmative action beneficiaries too, right?"

Was this even a serious comment? Athletics are the one area of our society where we actually have a legitimate meritocracy.
Posted by: Barno1 | February 17, 2011 3:49 PM
************************************************************************************
You just made my point. Only 12.9% of the population is African American, and yet almost 70% of college football players are African American. Why? Because of affirmative action? Not according to you. So why would the numbers tell a different story when the "position" in question is athletic director rather than football player? If the top two wide recievers or running backs on a college football team can be African American, why can't the top two candidates for athletic director also be African American? Because African Americans aren't smart enough?

Posted by: sonny2 | February 17, 2011 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Wait until Kevin Anderson fires Gary Williams. That's coming within the next year or so. I wonder what folks will be calling him then.

Posted by: oknow1 | February 17, 2011 4:25 PM | Report abuse

First of all, UMD has a long, long history of taking race into account in its hiring, promotions, admissions, scholarships, etc. "Affirmative hiring is part of our very fabric here at Maryland" said Debbie Yow publicly. The only reason College Park administrators approved of James Franklin's promotion to head coach in waiting was because he was a qualified "minority", said Debbie Yow publicly.

Posted by: Barno1

Source? The only place I could find these alleged public statements is in another one of your blog postings. If you can provide a link to a real source, you have credibility with me. I'm giving you a shot, Barno.

Posted by: Kenbeatrizz | February 17, 2011 4:31 PM | Report abuse

(And this giving you the benefit of the doubt of assuming your method is statistically sound, which it really isn't, considering the small sample size of people who could potentially be hired as an AD at a BCS school.)

Posted by: flyingplates | February 17, 2011 4:20 PM
________________________

flyingplates, I tried to express this same information to Barno a while ago when he was on another one of his affirmative action statistics rants. He doesn't seem to understand the fact that since the applicant pool for this position did not include EVERY PERSON IN THE UNITED STATES, his percentages are meaningless. Nothing you say is ever, ever going to get him to understand. Especially when it would require acknowledging that someone else has a valid, opposing point.

Posted by: marylandarlington | February 17, 2011 4:32 PM | Report abuse

"The problem with your methodology is that you're trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, you're saying that we should have a colorblind system - demographics shouldn't matter. Then, you're turning around and saying how unlikely it is statistically that these two guys could be the final two candidates. The logic behind the two premises is completely inconsistent"

Actually it's entirely consistent. If colleges and universities like Maryland completely stopped using race as a factor, then no one would question whether they were using race as a factor. I, for one, would be happy as hell if Kevin Anderson actually were hired, unlikely as it may be, on merit and not his skin color. As I have said repeatedly, I want more minorities in positions of power. I think we can all agree there are too few.


Posted by: Barno1 | February 17, 2011 4:47 PM | Report abuse

"Only 12.9% of the population is African American, and yet almost 70% of college football players are African American. Why? Because of affirmative action? Not according to you. So why would the numbers tell a different story when the "position" in question is athletic director rather than football player?"

Here we go again. Newsflash: black athletes are disproportionately faster than their white, Hispanic, and Asian counterparts. This is by far the biggest reason blacks make up such a disproportionate percentage of college and pro athletes. However, AD positions have nothing to do with speed. The skills required have nothing to do with speed. This is not in anyway to say that blacks are not intelligent enough. That is a disgusting straw man. Absolutely vile and you lose all credibility when you say something like that. No racial group is disproportionately more intelligent than another. That's precisely why see similar percentages of ADs of all races in the applicant pool. There are only a few percentage of D1 ADs that are black, because the applicant pool is made up of a relatively tiny percentage of blacks.

I really don't see why this is so confusing for some of you.

"He doesn't seem to understand the fact that since the applicant pool for this position did not include EVERY PERSON IN THE UNITED STATES, his percentages are meaningless."

What you are implying is that if we looked at just those who are of age to be considered for the position, that the percentage of blacks will increase relative to the number of blacks in the general population. You are saying that my 12.9% of Americans are black is irrelevant because we should be considering only those who are of age. Do you realize that if we controlled for ages above, say 35, this would only strengthen my argument because there would be even FEWER blacks in the applicant pool with college degrees? Do you even realize this is what you are saying?

Amazing to me that people just can't accept the fact that UMD desperately wanted to hire their first ever black AD, regardless of whether he was the best man for the job.

Posted by: Barno1 | February 17, 2011 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Source? The only place I could find these alleged public statements is in another one of your blog postings. If you can provide a link to a real source, you have credibility with me. I'm giving you a shot, Barno.

Posted by: Kenbeatrizz | February 17, 2011 4:31 PM | Report abuse

http://www.accsports.com/articles/200909286049/is-a-succession-plan-really-successful.php

From the article:

Only because Franklin is a “qualified minority,” according to Yow, did College Park administrators willingly agree to his preemptive promotion. “It’s part of our fabric,” she said of affirmative hiring, which at Maryland included the ACC’s first black basketball assistant coach and head coach, the first African-American chancellor, and the first and only female AD. “They were very excited about it.”

Believe me now?

Posted by: Barno1 | February 17, 2011 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Barno, do you have a SOURCE for the Yow quotes?

Posted by: Kenbeatrizz | February 17, 2011 5:07 PM | Report abuse

"Actually it's entirely consistent. If colleges and universities like Maryland completely stopped using race as a factor, then no one would question whether they were using race as a factor."

No, it's completely inconsistent; in fact, it is directly contradictory. Here's your argument, in a nutshell:

1. Maryland should never use race in choosing candidates; demographics should have no role in privileging candidates, because racial statistics have nothing to do with qualifications.
2. I know they did use race to choose Anderson, and have the evidence to prove it.
3. The evidence is that it's really unlikely that they would have had two black candidates as their finalists, because there are relatively few black people in the United States as compared to white people. Therefore, the odds are UMD chose these candidates based on race.
4. But you can totally trust me that if they didn't use race, and they chose a black AD that I just didn't like personally through a color-blind process, that I would not think it was an affirmative action hire. All they need to do is stop using race, and I'll trust that the process is not racialized.
5. Did I mention how fool-proof and unassailable my statistics are? I mean, I don't have other evidence, but there are SO MANY white people in the United States, there's no way that the two finalists for the AD position could have both been black based solely on their qualifications. Q.E.D.
6. Therefore, because it was so unlikely that two black candidates could have been the two finalists, Anderson must have been an affirmative action hire, which is wrong because you shouldn't judge people based on statistics they can't control.
7. Why are you guys insulting me? All I'm asking for is a colorblind system.

All you're doing is arguing in this one long circle. It's completely untenable to say "don't judge on numbers" and "it's so unlikely, it must have been affirmative action." Those are diametric opposites. You're basically saying - if we didn't use race, "nobody would question whether they were using race as a factor...", unless we didn't like the result or thought it was unlikely, in which case it is completely open game on the race front again.

Posted by: flyingplates | February 17, 2011 5:10 PM | Report abuse

How convenient that you paraphrase some obscure article from 2009 that requires a subscription to see. I doubt that is even the verbatim text of the article. I'm calling BS on this one.

Posted by: Kenbeatrizz | February 17, 2011 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Barno, you somehow keep inserting the age factor in my response. I have never made age a factor at all. I don't care about that. What I am saying is this: The way you arrived at your 1% statistic is by using percentages for the population of the entire United States. The population of the entire U.S. did not apply for this position, so you cannot use those statistics. The CORRECT statistic (percentage of African American people "qualified" (which is subjective in itself) to be an AD who were identified by UMD) may indeed prove your point, but you aren't using that correct information unless you were on the search committee and you aren't telling anyone. So your conclusion is wrong. No two ways about it.

Posted by: marylandarlington | February 17, 2011 5:30 PM | Report abuse

kenbeatrizz,

I posted the article when it came out a little more than a year ago. Back then, you did not need a subscription to view it. Several of the regulars on here have seen it, as has the UMD's General Counsel Susan Bayly, who instructed Debbie Yow and the AD department to no longer use such words publicly (since using race as a factor in the promotion of Franklin would have been illegal, and admitting so was clearly a slip up by Yow). So please stop accusing me of making up the quote Or changing it somehow. You are barking up the wrong tree buddy.

Rather than making yourself look like a total fool with that silly accusation, why don't you try signing up for a subscription. I see they have a 30-day free option. When you're done, feel free to post your apology to me on here.

http://www.accsports.com/subscriptions.php

Posted by: Barno1 | February 17, 2011 5:34 PM | Report abuse

"Therefore, because it was so unlikely that two black candidates could have been the two finalists, Anderson must have been an affirmative action hire....'it's so unlikely, it must have been affirmative action.'"

What you completely (intentionally?) ignore is all the other evidence and context I provided, other than simply the 1% estimate figure. If someone is accused of a serious crime, you don't just look at what proof you have from the day of the crime. You look at other issues, such as
-does this person have a history of this type of crime?
-Do they have any pattern?
-What is their criminal record in this area?

Does UMD have a long history of using racial preferences (i.e. affirmative action)? Have they been caught doing this kind of thing before?

Well, we know for a fact that Maryland gives a massive, massive degree of preference to black applicants over their white, Hispanic, and Asian counterparts in admissions--all of which has been well documented by public policy groups. Put into context with the fact that UMD takes race into heavy consideration in its undergrad admissions, med school, hiring, and faculty promotions--again well documented. Put into context that 2 federal courts have struck down racially-reserved scholarships at UMD. Well, again, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize UMD factors race and gender heavily when they make their decisions.

Not to mention, look at the recent history...the chances that they would have the first black assistant coach, then the first black head bball coach (Bob Wade), followed by the first female AD, followed by a black chancellor, followed by a minority president, followed by a black head coach in waiting, followed by a black AD whose only competition for the gig was also black---well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize how important race is to UMD officials. The school goes out of their way to point out the skin color in their press releases each time a minority is hired. Do you really, honestly, seriously think that is by sheer coincidence? Keep kidding yourself.

And lastly, it doesn't make you a bigot for pointing this stuff out. Just the opposite, those of us against race-based hiring feel that in order to achieve a colorblind society, we need to end these divisive, discriminatory practices and treat everyone equally regardless of skin color, ethnicity, or national origin.

Posted by: Barno1 | February 17, 2011 5:47 PM | Report abuse

NOBODY CARES ANYMORE. STOP TALKING ABOUT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

You are a nameless, faceless, anonymous poster on an internet message board. Forgive us if we don't take you at your word on all things Maryland. Everyone is clear on your opinion about this. Why can't you just shut it down?

Good lord.

Posted by: marylandarlington | February 17, 2011 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Marylandarlington, I know you specialize in one thing and one thing only on the blogs: contradicting yourself. You've done numerous times before, the best of which was when you lectured everyone on the evils of name-calling, and followed it up literally a few minutes later by calling people stupid and idiots. That was my favorite.

So it comes as no surprise that today you lecture on how others should "acknowledge that someone else has a valid, opposing point" and immediately follow that up by screaming in all CAPS (which makes you sounds like an unstable, loose cannon) that nobody cares. If nobody cared, why are several people trying to argue that my claims are untrue. Clearly people care, even if they're wrong about this.

We both know you can't possibly go toe to toe on this issue, so trying to shout me down is your only tactic. It's weak, and it makes you look defeated.

Posted by: Barno1 | February 17, 2011 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Haha Barno, you are so transparent. I'm guessing you were bullied a lot in school which is why you think blind intimidation is logical tactic when faced with a problem.

You do, however, have an excellent knack for completely ignoring select parts of people's responses that you know prove you wrong. I explained totally how your 1% logic is flawed and you have no response. Admit that you're wrong on this. And then stop talking about it.

The fact that people are debating you does not mean they are interested in the fact that someone may have been an affirmative action hire. They are debating you because you keep spewing the same tired, wrong stuff and stating that it is fact and they are trying to get you to stop. Big difference. I have never witnessed you have a "discussion" on here, only a debate because you have no self-awareness or ability to see the big picture.

Posted by: marylandarlington | February 17, 2011 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Maryland needed Mike Repole to pay out to get Shannon...Repole funded most of St. John's coaching hires...wait a minute we have Kevin Plank...huh? What happened Kev?

Posted by: terptek | February 17, 2011 7:10 PM | Report abuse

"I'm guessing you were bullied a lot in school"

Again from the guy who preached about the evils of name-calling. Talk about a lack of self-awareness. You really don't see how big of a hypocrite you are, do you?

"which is why you think blind intimidation is logical tactic when faced with a problem."

Blind intimidation? Where did I try to "intimidate" someone. Let me quote Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"You do, however, have an excellent knack for completely ignoring select parts of people's responses that you know prove you wrong. I explained totally how your 1% logic is flawed and you have no response."

Yet another contradiction from marylandarlington. First tells me to shut up because no one cares. Then tries to get me to respond to his arguments. Which is it?

I'll answer your question for the umpteenth time, so long as you don't keep claiming the percentage of blacks in the U.S. population is irrelevant. You say "The CORRECT statistic (percentage of African American people "qualified" (which is subjective in itself) to be an AD who were identified by UMD) may indeed prove your point, but you aren't using that correct information". Just because you say the percentage of blacks in the U.S. population is irrelevant, doesn't make it so. You can keep repeating this all you want, which you've done here and on Steinberg's blog. It is impossible to know the exact percentage of blacks who are "qualified" to be ADs, but we do know that there are certain requirements that we can control for, such as 1) Adult Americans with a bachelors degree and a breakdown of those by race, 2) those with at least 10 years experience in the field.

I stand by my assertion that the more of those variables that we factor in, the more it's going to show how unlikely it is that we ended up with 2 black finalists by sheer coincidence. You don't have to be a brain surgeon to realize this, but apparently you do have to have an IQ above a toaster..so that eliminates you Marylandarlington.

Also, as for the "excellent knack for completely ignoring select parts of people's responses that you know prove you wrong." you already conceded this argument by responding to my previous about all the other irrefutable evidence of a pattern of affirmative action at MD by screaming "NO ONE CARES." You might as well have said "damn it, he's got me and I have no counter-argument so let me change the subject."

Posted by: Barno1 | February 17, 2011 7:27 PM | Report abuse

My god Barno1, you must have a lot of free time on your hands. How many hours a day do you devote to this going back and forth with people over Maryland sports? Whew... you make my head spin dude! Get a life!

Posted by: ckuhn05 | February 17, 2011 10:39 PM | Report abuse

My god Barno1, how many hours a day do you devote to this ridiculous banter between you and others? Get a life man... please!

Posted by: ckuhn05 | February 17, 2011 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Bravo!! Flyingplates...Bravo!! I hope people like you continue to call Barno1 what he is, a race-influenced-troll-excuse-maker. I think racist maybe an appropriate desciption of him as well.

I do NOT care Barno1 thinks being Jewish and Hispanic gives him the cover to start his racist post with 'affirmative action hire'. I wonder how society perceives this Jewish-hispanic without the star of david around his neck and a hispanic last name...I digress, Barno the racist is so confused by his prejudice views he has even himself convinced that he has no racial hang-ups. I would have more respect for him if he would accept who he is and the racial lenses he uses to see through his life.

Troll on Barno the racist, troll on! I am sure you will be the first to post on an upcoming UMD football story...I am sure it will start off something like "affirmative action hire does it again..." I did not mean to steal your thunder BarnoRacist1.

Posted by: mlh5173 | February 17, 2011 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Lol. The thing about not have a racist bone in my body, is I don't get bothered in the slightest when people on a blog call me a racist. I'm fully aware guys like mlh4173 can't defend the use of racial preferences by a public university other than to A) comically deny they exist and b) call anyone who disagrees a racist. Why don't you just say what you really feel: that if you are against affirmative action, you must be a racist. Why don't you say that? Because it's a laughable position and you must know it, on some level at least. Considering more than 70% of the American public is against race-based affirmative action. But I guess in this simpleton's mind that must mean 70% of the American public are racists.

As for "he thinks being Jewish and Hispanic gives him the cover to start his racist post", not sure what part of this comment of mine he didn't quite understand: "I don't use my race or religion as a defense against the racism charges. I'm well aware bigots come in all colors and creeds." Nor am I sure what part of "I didn't reveal my race or religion first on this blog, a friend did" he didn't quite get.

But here's the thing about the affirmative action issue I learned a long time ago. If you call those out who use racial preferences, the ONLY defense they have is to call you a racist--because it's impossible to defend using race as a factor in hiring, promotions, contracting, admissions etc. The public is so overwhelmingly against it, that their only defense is to call you a racist. Sad, but true.

If wanting more minorities to succeed, to hold positions of power, and to create wealth for themselves, makes me a racist...well then I must be the world's biggest racist.

Posted by: Barno1 | February 17, 2011 11:31 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Barno, you sit on these boards all day long and try to intimidate people into going away or agreeing with you. You call people stupid and ignorant and uneducated and say that they must not have "an IQ above a toaster" (intelligent wording there, coming from someone criticizing intelligence). It should be noted that no matter how rude you are to me, I don't recall ever saying that you have a low IQ or that you're stupid.

You sit on here and call people stupid when they don't agree with you. That is because you know you aren't right and I guess you can't think of any other way to continue the conversation. You can say whatever you want on here and so can anyone else. But maybe it's not just coincidence that most of what other people have to say is "Barno, shut up" or "Barno, you're wrong" or "Barno, why do you spend the majority of your life on these blogs?"

Seriously, I question anything you say on here about anything because how much life experience can a guy have who so very clearly spends an incredibly inordinate amount of time staring at sports blogs and fighting with strangers

If affirmative action is something that you feel so strongly about, do you think this is the venue to discuss that? I mean, seriously, man. Your activism is pretty worthless here.

Posted by: marylandarlington | February 18, 2011 12:01 AM | Report abuse

Just spent 5 minutes googling to see if anyone else felt the same way as me on this issue...
-----------------------------------------

Athletic Director Kevin Anderson was an affirmitive action hire and a token, his choice of Mike Leach is a joke.

Posted by: waterboard | December 20, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Personally, I think the univ. made a mistake hiring him. And, I wouldn't be surprised if he is there because of the univ. policies of affirmative action.

Posted by: mi6-007 | February 4, 2011 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Anderson is scum that was an affirmative action hire. I called it the day it was announced.

Posted by: rscott251 | February 6, 2011 7:15 AM | Report abuse

Eric P., you were slack-jawed that this subject engendered a heavy debate about affirmative action hiring policies? I don't get quite as hot under the collar as Barno does but can see where he and others are coming from. It's certainly a legitimate debate to have.

Posted by: jake177 | November 15, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

As for our new AD being a affirmative action hire is crazy. race DOES (unfortunately) play a roll in EVERYTHING in this country whether we like it or not. Its a part of our fabric, its in the county's DNA it can't be avoided. I personally have been a victim of it MANY times in my life, its not fun...

Posted by: dasilva_ryan | December 20, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Political correctness is simply a reverse discrimination...this really does stink for UMD for years to come. Not merely the Edsall hiring but the PC is illogical, and not rational, not truly a reasoned approach but rather a deceptiveness behind decision making.

Posted by: RedskinRay1 | January 3, 2011 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Until the school gets over the Len Bias tragedy, it will continue to be what it currently is...the over commitment to diversity is a very troubling trend.

Posted by: CapsNut | September 6, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Man...look at all these "racists". Lol.

I guess it's more than just me who believes A) Kevin Anderson was hired because of his skin color and B) Kevin Anderson shouldn't have been hired been hired because of his skin color.

Posted by: Barno1 | February 18, 2011 12:16 AM | Report abuse

If you want to win more people over, you might try not name-calling...

Posted by: marylandarlington | December 29, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

I have to question your intelligence. If you believe that Eric Prisbell contributed to Friedgen being fired, you are stupid.

Posted by: marylandarlington | December 31, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

hyp·o·crite
noun \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\
Definition of HYPOCRITE
--a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Posted by: Barno1 | February 18, 2011 12:21 AM | Report abuse

I must say this has been one of the more entertaining threads. All of the you'e a racist he's a racist stuff is lame. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. No matter how intelligent or stupid it is.

The way I see it is Kevin Anderson is the AD. Like it or not, agree with how or why he was hired or not. He will be here until the football team or BBall team tanks. I am hoping that when Gary Williams leaves it will be his decision. As much as the Fridge was entrenched here, GW twice as much. When was the last FB Nat'l championship? Not in the last 10 years.

It will all come down to winning. If the football team wins and fans come back and the BBall team can find a way year after year to compete and win, I don't think KA is going anywhere. I also don't think 7-8 win seasons will do it. I also think it is a long shot to win the ACC especially with Fla St on the rebound and VT always looming in the other division. As crappy as it is, I think it will probably be 3 years before we see how the program is going. If we have a down year or two, it will be blamed on the regime change and all of the inherent problems with recruiting. Let's continue to support the teams (and the student-athletes most of all).

It will be interesting to see what the recruiting classes are in 2011 and 2012. If we can only land 2 and 3 star players (or lower) that fit into RE's scheme we are going to have a tough time competing with Fla ST, Miami and Clemson who regularly pull in 4 and 5 star recruits, but time will tell. I do think it a load when people dismiss the 4 and 5 star recruits as prima donnas and hard to coach. The big boys (Ohio State, Texas, Alabama, etc) don't seem to have a problem with them and they consistently win championships. I think the only reason you dismiss the rankings is if you don't have the pull to bring those caliber or players into your program. Building relationships with local coaches and players takes time. How long will it take for coaches to recruit the players they want when they have no roots here. I think I would be wary of someone showing up at my school after the train-wreck the last few months have been at UMD. And I think we all appreciate the job GW does with the recruits he gets, but how do you think he could do with some 5-star players?

I hope I am wrong because I want those kids to succeed. I have my doubts. but will always support the teams.

One more thing before I end this long winded post. It has been stated that KA turned around the Army programs and made them profitable. Did he do that by growing the programs or by cutting costs? How many championships the the cadets win in all sports? Were their facilities improved? you can cut and cut until you make money no matter what your revenue stream is. Should have done my research but it just popped into my head.

GO TERPS - GO TERPS - GO TERPS - GO TERPS

Posted by: SCTerpFan | February 18, 2011 12:24 AM | Report abuse

You sit on here and call people stupid when they don't agree with you.

Posted by: marylandarlington | February 18, 2011 12:01 AM | Report abuse

I have to question your intelligence. If you believe that Eric Prisbell contributed to Friedgen being fired, you are stupid.

Posted by: marylandarlington | December 31, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

hyp·o·crite
noun \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\
Definition of HYPOCRITE
--a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Posted by: Barno1 | February 18, 2011 12:27 AM | Report abuse

LMAO you guys are making Barno punch holes in the walls of his mama's basement. Give Edsall a chance and lets see what he can do.

Posted by: MrWillie | February 18, 2011 12:29 AM | Report abuse

good coaches don't want to work in this mediocre program for low pay. MD needs to bump up the salaries big time with tons of benefits and incentives to get anyone good.

Posted by: Socialistic | February 18, 2011 12:48 AM | Report abuse

good coaches don't want to work in this mediocre program for low pay. MD needs to bump up the salaries big time with tons of benefits and incentives to get anyone good.

Posted by: Socialistic | February 18, 2011 12:49 AM | Report abuse

Wow...just wow. I feel like this lame phrase has lost it's punch over the years but you so, so badly need to get a life. I actually am starting to feel sorry for you because I imagine that your life is not a very pleasant one.

I said "stupid" one time two months ago. You have brought this to my attention at least 12 times. I am going to roughly estimate that you have called people stupid at least 1,000 times on here. I guess since you never said that name calling is bad, you can feel free to shout "idiot!" as often as you wish. Logical.

And I'm sorry but your little collection of supporters (which, again, HOW much time do you spend doing this?! How many of those are you? Absolutely frightening) does not really prove anything to me. As soon as someone starts quoting someone who says that they hate affirmative action because "it has hurt them many times" I lose all interest. People who blame affirmative action when they DON'T get a job or a spot in school most likely weren't qualified in the first place. If it's a recurring theme in someone's life, I think they need to look again at themselves. The fact that you count this person as an ally tells me a lot about you.

Posted by: marylandarlington | February 18, 2011 12:57 AM | Report abuse

I also realize that posting on this thread so much is making me look as bad as Barno here. So that's all. Feel free to continue quoting the dictionary and pasting from your archives. It's going to be nice out today, Barno. Try to get outside.

Posted by: marylandarlington | February 18, 2011 1:01 AM | Report abuse

LMAO you guys are making Barno punch holes in the walls of his mama's basement. Give Edsall a chance and lets see what he can do.

Posted by: MrWillie | February 18, 2011 12:29 AM

==========================================

Are you kidding? Barno the troll is jerking off over all this attention!

The only way to kill the troll is to stop feeding him. It's not like anyone's arguments, no matter how fact-based or persuasive, will have any effect on him anyway, he just loves to hear himself talk.

I'd love to see Barno and Poopy taking each other down, that's a win-win right there.

Posted by: spunkydawg1 | February 18, 2011 1:04 AM | Report abuse

But I'm tired of having views I agree with about the state of our program associated with these inane racial conspiracy theories that aren't backed up by any evidence whatsoever. If you have something beyond Anderson's race that actually shows that he never should have gotten the job to begin with, or that there was an AD who was clearly a better fit who was turned down because he wasn't black, then come forward with it. Otherwise, drop the damn point already, because it's absolutely ridiculous. Put up or shut up.

Posted by: flyingplates | February 17, 2011 2:21 PM | Report abuse

*******************************************

Is Perception Reality? One only has to listen to Anderson's Press Conference introducing Edsall to determine and gain some perception of his Qualification for his current position. Maryland, being an Institution of Higher Learning seems to have failed in preparing their New AD for the Media Spotlight, or perhaps their selection of Anderson to the AD Post. In any event the program appears to somewhat in disarray under his Leadership and Questionable Qualification.

Posted by: Spanglerg | February 18, 2011 3:55 AM | Report abuse

Why stop there? Who needs Johnson? Penn State? Who r they? Let's look at what Alabama can offer. Or USC? Florida? They got talent. Who wouldn't want to be at a big time program here in the Mid Atlantic?

Posted by: KraftPaper | February 18, 2011 7:01 AM | Report abuse

Bravo Kevin Anderson, bravo! You have successfully made the Maryland football program the laughing stock of the recruiting world. Yay for affirmative action!

Posted by: Barno1 | February 17, 2011 11:28 AM | Report abuse
------------------------------------------
Barno1 is a prick!!! KA only got this job because of affirmative action, not because he has a good resume? Those who rail against affirmative action actually illustrate why it is needed, moron. You would have never given the guy an interview to see if he were qualified. That's what affirmative action is about....to try to bring objectivity to closed, racist minds like yours. Idiot!!

Posted by: BlameGibbs | February 18, 2011 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Maybe kids want to leave their home area to get away. It's not automatica that all recruits want to stay in Maryland. What an asinine theory. Plenty of kids want to leave home.

Posted by: BlameGibbs | February 18, 2011 9:42 AM | Report abuse

@ Barno1

It has nothing to do with affirmative action, he's just an idiot like yourself!

Posted by: nell99dar | February 18, 2011 9:47 AM | Report abuse

PSU can out recruit UMD every year, but they will not sniff a title as long as Joe Pa is still there. The only reason there are so many long term assistants at PSU that don't want to leave is because they are holding out hope that they will replace Joe Pa. I hope he coaches until he is 100.

Posted by: garrett4 | February 18, 2011 10:44 AM | Report abuse

I so get tired of the WaPo's anti-(fill in the blank on DC sports team) slanted articles. Did anyone aske Larry Johnson why he declined to be interviewed? Does he think he might get the HC job at Penn St when Paterno kicks out? Or maybe a better gig at Penn St? Maybe he just like living in Happy Valley? Why does it have to be an anti-Maryland thing? And if someone told you have to give up over $1mil to go BACK to work..would you do that? Or would you maybe take a year or two off and evaluate your options? Leave it to the post to look at the most negative denominator of a situation. I'm not an Edsall fan until I'm convinced he can win at Maryland, but I don't necessarily start from the proposition that he will fail either. The Post writers suck.

Posted by: mmcghee701 | February 18, 2011 12:25 PM | Report abuse

I have never seen such a fall from grace since Len Bias. I was hestitant to say it before, but now I believe in firing Kevin Anderson. I don't his probably admirable intentions, he's just horrible at the job.

Posted by: h20andoil | February 18, 2011 2:03 PM | Report abuse

real dumb article yanda

Posted by: slick3 | February 18, 2011 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company