BleacherCoaches.com

Well said.

How can any Richland taxpayer applaud a situation where it is now creating another administrator position it apprently hasn't needed for years? You should ask your current board members if they have any idea what it is that they are paying a superintendent and high school principal to do if they now need a director of education. Not only doesn't the booster president get his way, the district will now be paying well in excess of $100,000 per year to make sure he doesn't. Ridiculous. Everyone but the head football coach loses.

Well you can blame the people that started this campaign to rid Bailey because they essentially are the ones that created the added administrative position. You know maybe things weren't so bad a few weeks ago before this situation to rid the only coach thats ever had success at Richland in the past three decades.

Why should a "booster" president ever get his way??? Boosters should do there best to raise extra money and support the program, and keep their mouths shut as to how they are run. Period. If they know how things should be run, then they should apply to be a coach.

The only people to blame are those sitting on the school board. They had three choices. Do nothing, fire Bailey as football coach, or fire Bailey as principal. I would have been happy with any of the three choices. Option four stinks. The head football coach isn't the winner in this case either. The new principal will be the winner.

This position already existed just recently. The board didn't fill it after a retirement and with Richland's enrollment projected to rise, well they probably would have filled it eventually. CRWizard hit the nail on the head. But this booster President likes to get things his own way. I am sure he is fuming right now. I would bet a sheetz gas card (or should i bet an Anthony's gift certificate) that he resigns ( he should ) and sends his boys north to be coached by Sponsky. Sponsky was to be their hand picked successor anyways.

oh, and thanks TEA for the compliment but I forgot the "t" in "started"

TAE,
Richland had a winning record two years before Bailey took over. This was in a much more talented Laurel Highlands and a true single A Richland. He took over (on very shady circumstances) and had a senior class that was supposed to be "all that", with many returning starters and upwards of close to 15-20 returning lettermen from the year before (team that won 4 games). Under the apparent great wizard of a coach, they won 2 games that year. 1 or 2 the following year. He did not get more than 3 LHAC wins until 2007(his 6th or 7th season), with the help of a current player for Pitt and a few starting players who transferred.

Since then he has had a losing record, a good season with a great class and exceptional QB in a Ramariez(although still not competitive at all with district best).
This season they went 6-4 and missed the playoffs. A kid who never played QB was forced to throw 31 times the opening game, in which they lost after an illegal tackle eligible was used in the potential game winning drive.The Richland QB subsequently threw 3 or 4 interceptions next game(loss), and lost any trace of confidence he ever had. They do manage to beat 4 teams with a combined record of 6-33 record and gain some confidence. They to end the season on a good note and beat CC. Unfortunately, too little too late as they don't make playoffs and are filled with what ifs instead.

1 playoff win, 5 wins vs teams with winning records, 6/9 losing seasons, 6/9 times did not make playoff.
Argue all you want how richland "didn't have the athletes up there" but just look at men's track, soccer,baseball, or even wrestling in that time span.

Please inform me on how everyone or anyone should be impressed or in awe of this coaching resume?

I am not saying he is a terrible coach, person, or did bad for the program. He just can not be considered some top notch local coach in my eyes.

SARCASM ALERT:
A stunning resolution to an unbelievable "problem". I guess the board found out that when they choose to operate without any "PRINCIPLES", they stand to lose no matter which course they follow. :lol:

Really, this discussion shouldn't even be held in the football section. This entire saga was nothing more than political drama. Performance-wise, what is the discussion about? The team wins six games a year, and the school is among the highest in the region in test scores. Most schools around here would kill for that success rate.

Jumping back to politics, anyone who feels the position was "created" or questions why it was "vacant" should take their case to the board. If you can get enough residents, err voters, to attend the meeting, then maybe you can get the board's attention. Unlike consolidation, repeal is a hot topic these days. But if you truly believe this was a football decision, then consider this interpretation of what transpired... The board abandoned the hurry up, and decided to huddle. They drew up their best play, and instead of going for the touchdown, they worked the ball to the middle of the field so they could attempt a field goal. Even though they didn't win, they didn't get shutout. And to top it off, the whole thing was budget neutral.

No offense, but it truly sounds as if you want the guy gone because of football and personal issues. Apparently a group of people just tried the latter, but were overruled by the majority. Remember, in politics its the majority that wins.

At least they are saying it is budget neutral and that they were going to fill that "director of education" position anyways. Could be the truth or a cover up, but I have not ever even heard of that position, much less that the school district was looking for it. But again I guess this is not that football related. Some people (idealists who have not been around Richland) will view this coach as the second coming of Don Bailey. Others(realist) will look at the numbers and the background and come to a different conclusion.

I wonder how fast the discussion will go back to BM recruiting.