Why did Idaho fire Verlin? Was it just be-'cause'?
Maybe the theory goes like this…
“Hey, nobody EVER pays attention to what we do in the wilds of the Palouse.
“It’s pretty cool. Why bother with rulebooks, regulations or even some explanation necessary when you fire the most successful basketball coach in school history?
“What? You think any school could make a case for unloading Don Verlin after a 5-27 season?
“No, no, no.
“See, you’re thinking of those 27 losses. And so we would be firing Verlin for cause, and THAT means that you have to pay whatever money might be left on his contract.
“You can’t do that unless you want to waste a load of cash and two terrible recruiting cycles. You can fire a coach for too many losses or if you don’t like the color of his sport coat on game night — but if you actually ’fess up to such a thing, you might be on the hook for a truckload of money.
“A better idea is getting a picture of him hugging a cheerleader.”
ADMITTEDLY, THE argument over Verlin’s behavior on the job didn’t cause quite the same chaos that we’ve seen at Arizona.
Surely you’ve heard about the situation where Sean Miller has NOT been shown the door for, uh, overseeing a program where valid U.S. currency found its way to improper places.
Remember, we’re talking about the Palouse — where the mail arrives every three days.
On horseback.
But still…
Firing a coach “for cause” better include a lock-solid case. They actually do have attorneys and judges and all that stuff in Moscow — and rulings carry the same weight as a gavel slamming down in Boise.
And no, outgoing AD Chuck Staben doesn’t get off the hook because he was leaving UI a few hours later.
Just because news might take a few days to reach civilization, you don’t get a free pass on what might constitute an NCAA violation and, even more critically, what could actually be a violation of a national labor law.
This needless mess seemed to be winding down when Verlin was asked if he’d accept a suspension of one to five games — something he’d already said he’d do in a written rebuttal.
Bear in mind that, other than going 5-27 this past season (after winning 62 games the previous three years), the case against Verlin was basically about allowing a noncoaching staffer to participate in practices and hold up dummy play cards during games.
Oh, and failing to fill out some forms before workouts.
Verlin conceded that — minor or not — they WERE violations for which he had to accept a hand-slap.
But then leadership of the athletic department changed, and Verlin suddenly was being fitted for a guillotine.
The new administration didn’t want any hangover from that 5-27 nightmare last season — not when there’s a new arena in the works and cash to be raised.
Suddenly the phrase “termination for cause” had a more appealing look.
CAN WE agree that being fired for cause is a hell of a lot different than accepting a suspension for a few non-conference games?
Likewise, we also should accept the university had nothing but some ticky-tack violations last fall when it offered Verlin a short suspension.
So how do you just jump from a couple games banishment to…
“Be out of town by sunset, padnah!
“We know people who can handle the likes of you.”
It gives me an upset stomach to go this direction, but…
Remember when we saw that brawl over whether Idaho football should stay in Division I-A, and build a classy new stadium for maybe 28,000 people?
They’d stay in Moscow (or Lewiston) for a nice long weekend and have a terrific time at games.
Yes, yes, I know the Vandals wouldn’t have a home conference, at least not until that spiffy new stadium was complete — but why not take a gamble?
We’re seeing it in basketball, where a coach who’s actually WON some games is being tossed aside by a gang of suits.
That gamble should work out well.
Steve Cameron’s “Cheap Seats” columns for The Press appear on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Steve also contributes the “Zags Tracker” package on Gonzaga basketball once monthly during the offseason.
Email: scameron@cdapress.com