RFDC wrote:
Brick wrote:
The story made no sense for anyone knows how these firings work. Was this guy even a sports reporter?
This is the only way these things go.
1) Decision is made by management to fire. Fired immediately.
2) Decision is made by management to fire. Coach is offered to finish the season.
3) Decision is made by management to fire. Coach is not told until things get bad enough that they are fired.
You aren't telling a coach they are being fired in season but they still get to coach the team until after the next game. What's the point of doing that?
I agree that is how things normally work. But that is not taking into consideration how the Bears have managed to pretty much screw up every thing they seem to put their hands on, so is it really that much of a stretch to think they screwed the pooch on this one too?
But the Bears' ineptitude only goes so far as a defense for shoddy reporting. He could have said that Virginia herself was going to coach the team and then say, "well, based on how bad the Bears have been at PR over the years, anything is believable."
I think Bears ineptitude and proper reporting are two different things. The Bears can be inept and the report could have been accurate/not made up.
I agree with RFDC in that Rick's post assumes the Bears are run competently. I think we can all draw on personal experiences where we've witnessed incompetence - may have even been complicit in it. Incompetence runs against logic. And by doing so the idea that the Bears made a decision and then reversed course once news leaked becomes more plausible. It wouldn't be the first time they failed to inform a coach/would be coach of a major decision in a timely fashion.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
