Agree. He didn't even have the stones to fire Holbroke. He allowed him to resign and still gave him a buyout. He would've been justified in having security literally throw him out of the building and putting it on Twitter for ruining Carolina baseball. Yes, I'm being somewhat facetious. But by handing out those unearned bonuses, he's clearly dug his heels in and will support Muschamp until the bitter end -- which we all know is coming.
To go off on a tangent, I'll start by saying I like and respect Tanner. He's a hell of a baseball coach, easily the best we've had.
But he's also clearly loyal to coaches, whether to a fault or not depends on perspective. My own is I'm not someone who believes you fire a coach in emotion or anger after a loss. Maybe I'm laid back, but I think we're too quick to pull triggers these days.
Anyway, the whole finger pointing at Tanner route makes me wonder whether it's good or bad to have a coach in the AD position.
On the one hand, they certainly know the pressures coaches face. And I would think they have a more realistic understanding of what goes into success, and could therefore judge more accurately whether or not a coaching change is in order.
On the other, maybe they don't have the emotional distance to be able to hold coaches fully accountable to the extent the more demanding fans demand.
In short, they know how hard it is to win. So maybe the best AD is someone who looks at everything as a business decision and wouldn't know a baseball bat from a tennis racket from a soccer ball.
Maybe the best way to do it is to have an AD who sets a standard of Ws and Ls and expect it to be met. X amount of wins in year 1, Y amount in year 2 and in year 3 and from then on the bar is Z amount of wins and if one falls short then one is shown the door and someone else is brought in.
I don't think that's the way to go, but I don't know that it ain't.
