Four Years of Capel (Series of Blogs)

[Apps03]

I was wondering what Laney was up to

[wataugan03]

Wendell Murphy certainly gets his say in, and he might even have enough power to fire an under performing coach, but he doesn't get to pick them all by himself. I find it hard to believe that Mark Harrill (or any other donor I know of) had enough power to just pick Capel. He, and others, certainly pushed hard for us to fire Fancher and bring in Buzz; and he certainly was supportive of hiring Capel. Bu, I just can't believe that he or anyone else is this powerful. He doesn't have nearly enough cash to have that kind of power.

[T-Dog]

It wasn't Harrill who wrote the check to buy out Fancher's last year.

[wataugan03]

It wasn't Harrill who wrote the check to buy out Fancher's last year.

That's interesting. I was now aware that any one person, or group of people, paid to buy out Fancher. I know a few wealthy, influential people were very upset when L-Rob extended his contract in 2005, I wonder if it was one of them . . . I doubt I'll ever find out.

[App91]

Does Echota mean anything?

[Maddog1956]

For what it's worth.

Let's don't put targets on people's back just for being a major APP supporter. We need more of them instead of less.

If there is any "there, there" they're fair game, but I'd be careful otherwise.

[AppGrad78]

For what it's worth.

Let's don't put targets on people's back just for being a major APP supporter. We need more of them instead of less.

If there is any "there, there" they're fair game, but I'd be careful otherwise.

Maddog, you bring up a good point.

For decades, we have yearned for big-money donors who were willing to give our athletic program the financial resources it needed to compete with peers. Lately, however, we've learned that those big-money donors were the puppet-masters behind Fancher's firing, Peterson's hiring, Capel's hiring and Moore's firing.

I have no desire to villainize Mark Harrill or Brad Wilson or G.A. Sywassink or anyone else pulling the strings. I'm sure they meant well. But personally, I see their deeds as more harmful than good.

We need two things at Appalachian State: 1) big-money donors who aren't eager to meddle in affairs they know little about, and 2) an Athletic Director, Board of Trustees and Chancellor with the backbone to stand up to them when they try.

[SpeedkingATL]

Use the "Darcie Method" to bring in the new coach. Find a successful coach at a lower level that has done more with less and been a consistent winner. Hope that coach can take the current roster and coach em up to be competitive from the get-go and then recruit the key pieces needed to be a winner. Then hope App can keep that coach more than 3 or 4 years.

[EastHallApp]

We need two things at Appalachian State: 1) big-money donors who aren't eager to meddle in affairs they know little about, and 2) an Athletic Director, Board of Trustees and Chancellor with the backbone to stand up to them when they try.

I agree, but the reality is that those kinds of donors by definition are powerful people who are used to getting their way, and that often means they expect to have some influence in exchange for their contributions. "Give me your money and get out of the way" just isn't a familiar concept to them - even though that would undoubtedly be the best thing for ASU. That's why I think your second point is the more crucial one.

I don't know anything about the behind-the-scenes politics of Appalachian athletics, but do people think we're the only place where rich guys want the AD to do what they say?

[Appsolutley]

"...and that often means they expect to have some influence..."

And that is not necessarily a bad thing, but it shouldn't include having undue influence when it comes to hiring a head coach.

[AppGrad78]

We need two things at Appalachian State: 1) big-money donors who aren't eager to meddle in affairs they know little about, and 2) an Athletic Director, Board of Trustees and Chancellor with the backbone to stand up to them when they try.

I agree, but the reality is that those kinds of donors by definition are powerful people who are used to getting their way, and that often means they expect to have some influence in exchange for their contributions. "Give me your money and get out of the way" just isn't a familiar concept to them - even though that would undoubtedly be the best thing for ASU. That's why I think your second point is the more crucial one.

I don't know anything about the behind-the-scenes politics of Appalachian athletics, but do people think we're the only place where rich guys want the AD to do what they say?

Another good point. And, no, we aren't alone. It seems like every time UNC has a coaching search or adds something to an athletic building, a rich alum's name comes up in an unflattering way. It's a universal problem.

[Maddog1956]

And let's face it there isn't a 100% right answer or everyone would be in agreement anyway. Not being able to pay the top dollar of a UNC, etc we're always going to be guesting to some degree.

Even Athletic Directors, Board of Trustees and Chancellors make poor decisions sometimes without outside help so it's to be expect that some of the poor decisions will be made with assistance. To me that's understandable and expected. We (like all schools) just have to be sure not to make the poor decision 100% of the time.

[wataugan03]

For what it's worth.

Let's don't put targets on people's back just for being a major APP supporter. We need more of them instead of less.

If there is any "there, there" they're fair game, but I'd be careful otherwise.

Maddog, you bring up a good point.

For decades, we have yearned for big-money donors who were willing to give our athletic program the financial resources it needed to compete with peers. Lately, however, we've learned that those big-money donors were the puppet-masters behind Fancher's firing, Peterson's hiring, Capel's hiring and Moore's firing.

I have no desire to villainize Mark Harrill or Brad Wilson or G.A. Sywassink or anyone else pulling the strings. I'm sure they meant well. But personally, I see their deeds as more harmful than good.

We need two things at Appalachian State: 1) big-money donors who aren't eager to meddle in affairs they know little about, and 2) an Athletic Director, Board of Trustees and Chancellor with the backbone to stand up to them when they try.

Are you saying that a real-estate developer, a lawyer, and a business man with a combined 0 years experience of playing, coaching, and administration in college athletics might not know who we should hire as a basketball coach? Even when they try hard to pick the right person? Impossible!

[appgrouch]

Use the "Darcie Method" to bring in the new coach. Find a successful coach at a lower level that has done more with less and been a consistent winner. Hope that coach can take the current roster and coach em up to be competitive from the get-go and then recruit the key pieces needed to be a winner. Then hope App can keep that coach more than 3 or 4 years.

Please don't let her be the complete mold that we are using. Sometimes there are reasons that those coaches don't get moved up. She has gotten wins, but not without some baggage. And from her own mouth, she can't coach seniors.

[appgrouch]

We need two things at Appalachian State: 1) big-money donors who aren't eager to meddle in affairs they know little about, and 2) an Athletic Director, Board of Trustees and Chancellor with the backbone to stand up to them when they try.

I agree, but the reality is that those kinds of donors by definition are powerful people who are used to getting their way, and that often means they expect to have some influence in exchange for their contributions. "Give me your money and get out of the way" just isn't a familiar concept to them - even though that would undoubtedly be the best thing for ASU. That's why I think your second point is the more crucial one.

I don't know anything about the behind-the-scenes politics of Appalachian athletics, but do people think we're the only place where rich guys want the AD to do what they say?

Another good point. And, no, we're aren't alone. It seems like every time UNC has a coaching search or adds something to an athletic building, a rich alum's name comes up in an unflattering way. It's a universal problem.

But with UNC has a big donor that wants to exert influence, there are a couple that will back the admin and give them cover to do it the way that they see fit.

[appgrouch]

For decades, we have yearned for big-money donors who were willing to give our athletic program the financial resources it needed to compete with peers. Lately, however, we've learned that those big-money donors were the puppet-masters behind Fancher's firing, Peterson's hiring, Capel's hiring and Moore's firing.

Don't shoot me, not a Moore defender or attacker, but his contract ran out and there was a time for looking at changing.

[EastHallApp]

We need two things at Appalachian State: 1) big-money donors who aren't eager to meddle in affairs they know little about, and 2) an Athletic Director, Board of Trustees and Chancellor with the backbone to stand up to them when they try.

I agree, but the reality is that those kinds of donors by definition are powerful people who are used to getting their way, and that often means they expect to have some influence in exchange for their contributions. "Give me your money and get out of the way" just isn't a familiar concept to them - even though that would undoubtedly be the best thing for ASU. That's why I think your second point is the more crucial one.

I don't know anything about the behind-the-scenes politics of Appalachian athletics, but do people think we're the only place where rich guys want the AD to do what they say?

Another good point. And, no, we aren't alone. It seems like every time UNC has a coaching search or adds something to an athletic building, a rich alum's name comes up in an unflattering way. It's a universal problem.

Another recent example: http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... trong-hire

My guess is this is the more common scenario - the booster wants to make a splash by hiring a big name rather than an up-and-comer he's barely heard of. Regardless, though, as you say - it happens everywhere.

[App91]

For what it's worth.

Let's don't put targets on people's back just for being a major APP supporter. We need more of them instead of less.

If there is any "there, there" they're fair game, but I'd be careful otherwise.

FWIW, I completely agree, I just cannot stand to see someone badmouth another when they have no clue what they are talking about. If such a person is doing a bad job, hey, let 'em have it. But in this case, we know the story.

[MountainMan]

We need two things at Appalachian State: 1) big-money donors who aren't eager to meddle in affairs they know little about, and 2) an Athletic Director, Board of Trustees and Chancellor with the backbone to stand up to them when they try.

This, this, and this. +10

If we could do/see/have this, we would be in good shape. Right now, I'm not sure we have No. 1, and I'm pretty sure we don't have No. 2.

[PBR1893-BEER-HAT-GUY]

ive said this before and ill say it again...do big donors at the hospital ask to perform surgeries since they did give money??? so why is it that one person who gives has the possibility of influencing the hiring of coaches/staff? last i checked, those people mentioned as big hitters with the dinero don't have that much of a sporting/coaching backround. if its that way, how much do these people actually give? im curious...whats a lot of money in terms of having influence? you wanna give? great...thanks...we all do our part...you wanna influence coaching decisions...go to the back of the line...with the rest of us and let those hired to make these decisions do their jobs.