Story about ISU and Chizik in KC Star
- Thread starter cycloneML
- Start date
"Except the Tigers hit the jackpot by hiring a coach who won the Outback Bowl in his first season, persuaded Blinn Junior College quarterback Cam Newton to wear an Auburn jersey — and not one from Mississippi State — and guided a remarkable comeback victory at Alabama in what might be the greatest triumph in program history.
Read more: From lose-lose to win-win for Auburn coach Chizik and Iowa State - KansasCity.com
Persuaded is an interesting choice of words.
Read more: From lose-lose to win-win for Auburn coach Chizik and Iowa State - KansasCity.com
Persuaded is an interesting choice of words.
Found it interesting that some of the players walked out on Chizik's exit speech. Didn't know that. I'm greatful we have Rhoads but I'll always think Chizik's an ***.
Arnaud said. “I’ll be pulling for him.”
Wow, Austen taking the high road. Very few would be able to do that in this situation, and I'm one of those that can't take the high road.
I hope Chizik gets embarrassingly pummeled.
Wow, Austen taking the high road. Very few would be able to do that in this situation, and I'm one of those that can't take the high road.
I hope Chizik gets embarrassingly pummeled.
Must be story ISU/Gene Chizik day. The Keeler also has a story, sorry if it's been posted. Keeler: Mixed feelings about Gene Chizik | desmoinesregister.com | The Des Moines Register
I feel the whole Chizik matter is water under the bridge. The program must move forward. I am happier with PR at 5-7, than with Chizik at 7-6, just from a respect standpoint.
Ya Ill buy that. Just to much passion here to let that fly.
Arnaud; that hard to think of word to describe that.... probably means it too, I dont think he minces word just to say them: good for him....
Should be and I should personally thank him CPR is the bomb, I dont really think Chiz knew how to get us to 7-6 or maybe I should say his coordinators didnt.
“There’s always going to be a few people that disagree with anybody’s hire in college or the NFL,†Chizik said.
Whatever Gene, it has nothing to do with the hire, it has everything to do with the manner in which you handled yourself and lied to ISU and fans during the process.
You made a choice to leave, fine most can live with that - no harm no foul. That's college football coaching business. But you lied about it while spinning how entrenched you are in Ames and went on about how much character you have from your daddy. Blah blah blah. You can't opperate under two different sets of morals - EAD Gene.
Whatever Gene, it has nothing to do with the hire, it has everything to do with the manner in which you handled yourself and lied to ISU and fans during the process.
You made a choice to leave, fine most can live with that - no harm no foul. That's college football coaching business. But you lied about it while spinning how entrenched you are in Ames and went on about how much character you have from your daddy. Blah blah blah. You can't opperate under two different sets of morals - EAD Gene.
Chizik couldn't have won 7-6 at ISU this year given what Rhoads was given. All Chizik knows is how to run a big program, he was clueless about what to do at ISU. Rhoads has been here before, he has been at Pitt (which has more success but really isn't any bigger) and he is just a better head coach for us.
I do think that the strength of Auburn is in the coaches under Chizik.
My opinion on Chizik has not changed. I disliked him from his first game (to the constant bashing from some folks on here...) Even now when I see him in a Ford commercial I want to vomit. The guy has very little character, end of story. I assume that he paid Newton. But does the NCAA ever punish its money makers...at least before the checks come in? He can win the national championship but he will always be a ****** in my book.
The thing that really bugs me about Chizik is he acts like he was never at ISU. He learned a lot at ISU to get him ready for the Auburn job. His success at Auburn shows how important a good staff is and how important it is to have an outstanding QB.
Chizik has been a good pro football coach this season.
Any "journalist" reporting anything else should be fired for massive willful ignorance. How could any grown adult be so naive? When I buy a newspaper or go to a website, I expect the content to at least be a little insightful and not complete fantasy land.
Any story involving Auburn this year that doesn't mention they would be just an 8-4 team without a professional quarterback is dog $hi+. The whole Chiz-ISU connection is meaningless to me, the fact that Chiz, Auburn, Cam, etc... are getting props for being cheaters is what burns me. Beat Tom Brady and the Patriots and then I'll have respect for what you're doing Chiz/Auburn/Cam.
The thing is they all ignore the problems with the NCAA. They love the coach that doesnt follow the rules. They dont want to burn bridges so they kiss these coaches ***. ESNP and DP are the worse about this. Say what you want about Bobby Knight but he maybe the only one on ESPN that wont kiss a dirty coaches ***.
Agreed, couldnt even make it a year before he was telling his friends how much it sucked up here. (the source of what led to the 'firmly entrenched' comment)
I wouldnt blame him for taking the higher profile, higher pay job.. but there are good ways and bad ways to go about that.
What if Chiz stayed because he did not get an offer and he then hired PR as DC?
Ok Ok this is getting weird and Im not for sure how to answer aside.
I'm not mad that Chizik left, because it turned out for the best for both sides.
I'm not mad that Chizik has found success elsewhere, because I make it a point not to dislike people just because they do well.
I disagree with the manner in which he left, but we're two years removed from that, so I'm over it.
What angers me is how the media is painting Chizik as this amazing coach. Gene Chizik, a supposed defensive mastermind, leaves Iowa State, then Paul Rhoads comes in and has to teach the defensive players how to tackle, because their fundamentals were way off. I don't care if, as a head coach, you are supposed to delegate those tasks to your coordinators and assistants. If you're a defensive guy and you see that your team can't tackle properly, you step in somehow and fix it so that your team can win.
What I do grant Gene Chizik is that he is an excellent manager. He clearly knows how to recruit (say what you will about the pay to play allegations), and he's figured out how to build a successful coaching staff. He knows how to get the pieces in place to make a quality team, then let it go from there. But, as I've distinguished, there's a difference between being a coach and being a manager.
What I really don't get is that nobody in the media is asking Chizik, "What is the difference between your 5-19 run at Iowa State and your 20-5 run at Auburn, where you're going to a National Championship and winning Coach of the Year awards?" I would think that would be a question worth asking, but instead the media is content accepting that Iowa State is so helpless that even The Great Chizik couldn't build it into a successful program.
I also wish he had more personality than a piece of cardboard, but that's beyond any control.
I'm not mad that Chizik has found success elsewhere, because I make it a point not to dislike people just because they do well.
I disagree with the manner in which he left, but we're two years removed from that, so I'm over it.
What angers me is how the media is painting Chizik as this amazing coach. Gene Chizik, a supposed defensive mastermind, leaves Iowa State, then Paul Rhoads comes in and has to teach the defensive players how to tackle, because their fundamentals were way off. I don't care if, as a head coach, you are supposed to delegate those tasks to your coordinators and assistants. If you're a defensive guy and you see that your team can't tackle properly, you step in somehow and fix it so that your team can win.
What I do grant Gene Chizik is that he is an excellent manager. He clearly knows how to recruit (say what you will about the pay to play allegations), and he's figured out how to build a successful coaching staff. He knows how to get the pieces in place to make a quality team, then let it go from there. But, as I've distinguished, there's a difference between being a coach and being a manager.
What I really don't get is that nobody in the media is asking Chizik, "What is the difference between your 5-19 run at Iowa State and your 20-5 run at Auburn, where you're going to a National Championship and winning Coach of the Year awards?" I would think that would be a question worth asking, but instead the media is content accepting that Iowa State is so helpless that even The Great Chizik couldn't build it into a successful program.
I also wish he had more personality than a piece of cardboard, but that's beyond any control.
