Krackman asking him about the Embree thing. "Why is it that so many are so quick to dismiss." (Leading question, IMO.) Floyd, "People do not want to face the facts. You have a CU alum who got his dream job. Takes over a bad program. He was committed. Signed 5 year deal and told he'd have time. Told to clean up school's image. He did all that. But he lost badly. Sac St. hurt. Season was the worst in history. Magnifies the problem. But Hawkins was renewed but, granted, he went to a bowl. You gave Hawkins a chance but not a CU alum? He only had 1 1/2 recruiting classes. He was stuck with a young class. No leadership. 15th interview. I've talked to a number of people. Majority is that he should have had more time. He was an alum. Patience should have been a virtue. If JE had been here 5 and Hawkins took over, I believe Hawk would have gotten more time."
Do you really want answers?
Okay, here we go.
1. We are so quick to dismiss this, because the broader discussion of black coaches and a lack of opportunity are unrelated to our current situation. We dismiss it, because it's a dangerous topic to indulge, because people will start believing it's relevant to Embree. It's safer not to touch it.
2. The bigger picture dialogue might be a worthy one to hold.
3. If we didn't want a black coach to succeed, why did we hire one? Especially an underqualified black coach. Most minority complaints come when an overqualified candidate is ignored, or the equally qualified draw always goes to the white guy. But our case is an unusual one.
4. Hawkins and Embree are completely different situations. Honest to God, apples and oranges for a variety of reasons.
a. Hawkins showed enormous promise in his second year. He beat a top five team and went to the wire with Alabama in a bowl game. He brought in a top 20 recruiting class. Things were looking up. In contrast, Embree coached the worst team in the nation, and the worst team in CU's history. His meager recruiting class is unraveling. things are looking down.
b. We were resource constrained in the case of Hawkins. We couldn't afford to buy him out (also his buy out was much higher). We have more money now, and could afford to buy out Embree (whose buy out was much lower, by the way).
c. We held on to Hawkins for too long and we learned from our mistake. This comparison is so silly for so many reasons, but the one that drives me the most nuts is that we're apparently not permitted to learn from our mistakes in the past. We held on to Hawkins too long and didn't want to repeat that. If we learn from our mistakes we're somehow racist, as an organization?
5. We didn't give Embree enough time to turn this around, but we gave him sufficient time to determine that he wasn't the man to turn it around. Our team was gawdawful laughably bad, in a way that can't be described.
6. We were at a point where our credibility, as an institution which promotes excellent, was in question if we returned the worst coach in the nation. Hawkins wasn't there until the end of year 4.
7. We lost 2.5 million in ticket sales revenue this year, with an avalanche of threats of non-renewal. When that happened for Hawkins he was let go.
Floyd is barking up the wrong tree in this case, and it's bugging the **** out of me.
EDIT: Sorry about the formatting...the tabs didn't take.
