Big Ten: Delany firing power not considered

[Dan]

The Big Ten is mulling a proposal that would give its commissioner, already one of the most powerful men in college sports, the authority to fire coaches himself, The Chronicle reports today.

The proposal, part of a plan being circulated among Big Ten leaders, would give James E. Delany, who has overseen the league since 1989, and a powerful committee of conference presidents the ability to penalize individual members of an institution, should their actions significantly harm the league’s reputation.

The sanctions, spelled out in a document obtained by The Chronicle, could include financial penalties, suspension, or termination of employment.

http://chronicle.com/blogs/players/j...-coaches/30771

[KBLEE]

Wow - I don't agree with this at all. If institutions don't take the necessary steps to handle their own issues, the B1G already has the power to penalize after the fact. Allowing them the power to fire coaches is a bit of a overreach IMO.

[Thacher_H_Guild]

I think there are two things going on here. First, the Big Ten wants to make a lot of noise to let the world know they are paying close attention to the Penn State situation (but they won't actually do anything remotely like kicking Penn State out).

Second, they are realizing that they don't have bylaws that deal with the most extreme circumstances so they want to remedy that. Imagine, for example, that the Penn State board of trustees followed local public sentiment and kept Paterno on, even after it came out that he had covered for Sandusky (and obviously, in this hypothetical, Paterno was still living). It would be dumb on the part of the BoT, but I think we have learned that smart people do dumb things sometimes so something like that could happen. The Big Ten wants ways to apply pressure if necessary in such situations.

[Calvin]

The PSU faithful are out of touch on what's happening around the country, but can a conference commissioner do any better? Also, given all the coaches currently under contract, it would seem problematic to implement something like this. Seems to me this could also be a serious issue for schools trying to hire high profile coaches that can get better terms in other conference.

Can't fault Delany for a reactionary power grab and the PR message, but not seeing this as a viable move, at least in the revenue sports.

[Sure Shot]

No way. Absolutely not.

[mattcoldagelli]

I actually don't have a problem with the idea of the Big Ten having the ability to nuke one of its own coaches. As we have seen recently, conferences are not permanent arrangements, but voluntary ones. I'm having a hard time thinking of another voluntary organization that would not have the power to remove an individual that is putting the operating goals of the entire body in jeopardy.

As long as there is a system in place to ensure it is not just Delany acting on his own, is this really that much different than the current avenues the conference has for punishing its members?

[Sybok]

It's the B1G version of the Patriot Act. It's a gross overreaction to a horrible situation.

[DanvIllini]

This would kill any B1G expansion ideas pretty quick.

[mattcoldagelli]

Originally Posted by Sybok

It's the B1G version of the Patriot Act. It's a gross overreaction to a horrible situation.

Except comparing the Big Ten to the nation is not at all accurate.

Does anybody have an example of a club or organization that you apply to join and are free to leave that does not have the right to terminate your membership (or in this case, someone acting on your behalf)?

[RHITIllini]

This is a bit of an overreaction to the PSU situation (sense my sarcasm please), but Jim Delaney needs to lay off the power pills for a while and let things even out. Next thing you know he'll want to pick which teams play in which championship and bowl games (oh wait he basically already does...)

[sbillini]

So when Delany unilaterally decides to fire a coach, who's going to pay for the contract buyout?

Creates an imbalance of power that just doesn't make sense. He, along with some committee board, should have the power to kick out teams in only the most extreme circumstances. But staffing decisions in which he had no say on who gets hired and has no money at stake, being able to fire is just wrong.

I'm sure he already has informal avenues to 'strongly suggest' a coach gets fired in extreme situations. But having official authority makes no sense.

[dgcrow]

Originally Posted by DanvIllini

This would kill any B1G expansion ideas pretty quick.

Totally agree. And the NCAA takes away too much "autonomy" of university athletic departments already. We don't need the conference to make it even worse.

[Sybok]

Originally Posted by mattcoldagelli

Except comparing the Big Ten to the nation is not at all accurate.

Does anybody have an example of a club or organization that you apply to join and are free to leave that does not have the right to terminate your membership (or in this case, someone acting on your behalf)?

:rolleyes:

The comparison was the overreaction/overreach of power. The coaching staff are State of Illinois employees. The State of Illinois citizens have jurisdiction over hiring/firing employees, not the B1G.

[trevdv]

I don't like this at all... nuff said. :rolleyes:

[carmelillini]

Media posturing and overreaction. Way to much power in the conference office. This will never fly.

[mattcoldagelli]

Originally Posted by Sybok

The State of Illinois citizens have jurisdiction over hiring/firing employees, not the B1G.

Which is why every time there's a hiring/firing decision to be made, it goes on a ballot measure or into the hands of an elected official, right?

[Sybok]

Originally Posted by mattcoldagelli

Which is why every time there's a hiring/firing decision to be made, it goes on a ballot measure or into the hands of an elected official, right?

So did you come into the thread to post up an opinion on the B1G taking over employment duties of all the coaches or are you just trying to split hairs?

[mattcoldagelli]

Originally Posted by Sybok

So did you come into the thread to post up an opinion on the B1G taking over employment duties of all the coaches or are you just trying to split hairs?

That's not splitting hairs. Suggesting that the citizens of Illinois have a say over the hiring and firing of all individual state employees is not even close to correct. How much say did you have over Ron Zook's firing (granted, I don't know if you live in Illinois, but the point stands)?

Ultimately, I don't think the Big Ten would do this, because, as others have pointed out, coaching candidates don't want to hear "Oh, by the way, there's a whole other entity that could fire you, even if we don't." The existence of this ability would probably do the league more harm than the good it could do in the few instances in which it would need to be used.

I'm just saying that this is not as out-of-bounds as some people are making it.

[Hoppy2105]

There is a pretty distinct hierarchy: Delaney > Institutional Presidents > Athletic Directors > Coaches. (I'm sure I missed a few steps in between, but that is close enough for my argument)

If Delaney doesn't like how things are looking let him put pressure on his immediate subordinate as it should be. Going further down the list is micromanaging and is a well known way NOT to lead. Plus, the S#%T rolls down hill as we say, so if enough pressure is put on the prez, then the AD, the coach will be gone.

[Sure Shot]

Originally Posted by Hoppy2105

There is a pretty distinct hierarchy: Delaney > Institutional Presidents > Athletic Directors > Coaches. (I'm sure I missed a few steps in between, but that is close enough for my argument)

If Delaney doesn't like how things are looking let him put pressure on his immediate subordinate as it should be. Going further down the list is micromanaging and is a well known way NOT to lead. Plus, the S#%T rolls down hill as we say, so if enough pressure is put on the prez, then the AD, the coach will be gone.

You have that entirely wrong. Jim Delaney serves at the pleasure of the University Presidents. The Big Ten is a creature of its membership, just as the NCAA is a creature of its.

[Sybok]

Originally Posted by mattcoldagelli

That's not splitting hairs. Suggesting that the citizens of Illinois have a say over the hiring and firing of all individual state employees is not even close to correct. How much say did you have over Ron Zook's firing (granted, I don't know if you live in Illinois, but the point stands)?

:laugh:
If you want to be technical, you've taken the post so to the extreme, that Illinois is a democracy. As you should know, we live in a republic. The point still stands. Jim Delaney should have no hiring/firing power of an employee of the State of Illinois and any suggestion by any B1G committee of him having that ultimate authority over a non-B1G employee is ludicrous.

[Illinifanatic33]

Delany is a dunce

[Hoppy2105]

Originally Posted by Sure Shot

You have that entirely wrong. Jim Delaney serves at the pleasure of the University Presidents. The Big Ten is a creature of its membership, just as the NCAA is a creature of its.

I'd agree that it's SUPPOSED to be like that...just as the U.S. government is supposed to serve at the pleasure of it's citizens. I don't see it being that way though and this sort of proposal proves that Delaney is the head honcho, able to practice authority over those presidents who "allow" him to keep his position.

Maybe the universities will stand up to him and remind him of where his power comes from. The first will have to be PSU, though, with some sort of self imposed punishment/regulation to show that having daddy step in is not necessary.

[Sure Shot]

Originally Posted by Hoppy2105

I'd agree that it's SUPPOSED to be like that...just as the U.S. government is supposed to serve at the pleasure of it's citizens. I don't see it being that way though and this sort of proposal proves that Delaney is the head honcho, able to practice authority over those presidents who "allow" him to keep his position.

Who would have to vote this proposal into an actual rule? The presidents. Who would fire Jim Delaney if he lost his mojo and we started losing money and having teams want to defect? The presidents.

Jim Delaney has power because he's great at making money for the people that actually hold the power.

[Hoppy2105]

Originally Posted by Sure Shot

Who would have to vote this proposal into an actual rule? The presidents. Who would fire Jim Delaney if he lost his mojo and we started losing money and having teams want to defect? The presidents.

Jim Delaney has power because he's great at making money for the people that actually hold the power.

Then let's hope the presidents do their job and don't let him take all that control. I still submit that Delaney has power over schools because that's the current climate. What it should be and what it is are different things. Maybe they will equal out now that the president's see Delaney reaching over his bounds.