We’ll start in Pittsburgh where AD Jeff Long had the first statements. Joe Bendel helps explain AD Long’s reason for claiming not to have finished an evaluation on Harris after this season. They were waiting until after the Fiesta Bowl. Right. One of Long’s main point during the press conference, is that Pitt needs a head coach that can recruit. Especially in Western PA. An issue, Shelly Anderson also noted in her article.

Anderson’s piece is a little more detailed, I recommend reading all of it. Long admitted that Defensive Coordinator (and popular target for abuse on this blog) Paul Rhoads will be a candidate for the job. Long also admitted his legacy/how people will view his tenure will essentially be defined in the next month:

Long, who became Pitt AD a few months before the 2003 football season, called this the most significant and important hire of his career. He said he would conduct the coaching search himself, although he will consult with [Chancellor] Nordenberg. He said he already had a mental short list of coaches he would be interested in and he has received many inquiries.

Other than that, no pressure.

The players were on hand, to make sure everyone knew they want Paul Rhoads to get the job. That’s great, but I don’t care. Everyone may like him, but if we are going to criticize and complain about the job by Harris in coaching and preparation, then Rhoads is definitely deserving of as much criticism for the defense. Spare me the — the D stopped them when they needed to — line. They didn’t against Syracuse. ND came down to who had the ball last. Furman was just worn out. WVU and BC was as much coaching and player implosion on the other side. No, I’m not a fan. Why do you ask?

Naturally, just about every Pitt recruit who has verballed is back in play. This should be no surprise. Some are sticking with their verbals — for now.

Coach Harris issued a statement through the Pitt Athletic Department. Everyone noted that he thanked the Chancellor and especially the players, but not AD Long (or even Pederson). Why should he? He didn’t insult them either.

Then there was the Stanford press conference to introduce Walt Harris as their new coach. The original “offensive genius,” Bill Walsh was there to welcome Walt. While Harris used the word “excited,” to describe his feelings, Paul Zeise was at the press conference and didn’t see it.

But his body language told a different story. He barely cracked a smile throughout the entire news conference, he lacked a certain enthusiasm that is usually a part of these events and he politely, but firmly declined to answer questions about a very sore subject — Pitt, and the circumstances surrounding his exit.

“I’m not going to talk about Pitt,” Harris said several times when asked about his relationship with his former employer. “I’m here to talk about Stanford. What’s in the past is in the past, let’s focus on this great university and what we’re going to do in the future. This is about what’s in front, not what’s in back.”

Harris would not discuss Pitt because he’s still very hurt because of the lack of respect and appreciation he feels he has received. He refused to discuss his strained relationship with Pitt athletic director Jeff Long or that members of the administration did not support him — for a number of reasons beyond football — or the fact that despite taking the Panthers to a Bowl Championship Series game, he was not offered a contract extension.

This story really suggests that Zeise believes Harris really wanted to stay at Pitt, but was boxed in to a corner by AD Long either lowballing or saying no to an extension. Time for me to give the Post-Gazette some credit. They have done a great job in covering this story. I’m surprised and impressed they flew Zeise out the California for the press conference rather than simply have him report on it after watching it on video.

Now we have the columns. Joe Starkey of the Trib. decides to back AD Long and the view that Harris couldn’t take Pitt any higher and that Harris didn’t believe Pitt could go higher.

All that matters is that Pitt’s highest-level administrators did not believe in Harris enough to try to retain him, although Long would not admit that.

Instead, Long tried to leave the impression that Harris spurned Pitt, which is why he was asked if he was “disappointed” in Harris’ departure.

“Oh, I don’t know if disappointed would be a term I would use,” Long said.

OK, how about elated?

This couldn’t have worked out better for Pitt, which does not have to pay the final two years of Harris’ contract and can now conduct a search with clean hands.
…
Clearly, Pitt needs a man with more tact, vivacity and vision. School administrators decided months ago they would seek one.

Can you blame them?

Even the people who support losing Harris, admit that this was not Harris bailing on the school. At best it was a sad divorce.

Well, most do. Ron Cook doesn’t believe Harris wanted to stay at Pitt, despite all reports and what reporters at his own paper were saying.

I’m convinced, despite published reports, that he had no interest in staying at Pitt beyond this season. That was clear in June when he was publicly critical of his own football camps, which have become an important recruiting tool for all major-college programs. It sounded a lot like an excuse. If the camps aren’t attracting enough of the blue-chip kids, whose fault is that?

I just have to ask again. Where were all the stories about Harris complaining about the camps in the papers back in June? Were they video and media stories only? Could someone tell me when the newspapers actually treated it as news, not as reasons why Harris would be fired? And it was my understanding about the criticisms, that it was the lack of support/money from the athletic department/administration that was the crux of his complaint. A common thread, really considering the complaints about the way the school didn’t like to pay much for Harris’ coaching staff.

Actually, the thrust of Cook’s column is to complain about letting Harris (and Urban Meyer of Utah) stay on to coach in the bowl game. I have mixed feelings on the issue, but I’m supporting it here because otherwise, it would likely be Paul Rhoads doing the interim job — and while I want Pitt to win — I don’t want to give the Rhoads camp anything else to point to for why he should become head coach.

The Cook column is truly bizarre for another reason. He invokes Michigan’s basketball team in the late ’80s early ’90s. On getting rid of a coach taking another job but wanting to finish out the season. Yeah, Michigan won the National Championship in ’89,but considering the rest of Steve Fisher’s tenure at Michigan, is not something anyone cares to talk about (and to the NCAA and Michigan mostly doesn’t exist any longer); you might not want to make that kind of comparison.