So, what exactly is Bronco responsible for?

A post from another thread got me to thinking about what Bronco has taken responsibility for. Of course, nothing publically. He has let Doman take the fall for the problems. But do his actions warrant credit for making a change? Maybe. On the face of it, it looks like this: Offense was bad; OC got fired; New (retreaded, actually, who was sort of "wrongfully targeted" and left on his own but came back) OC gets hired. Problem solved. Right? Any leader is ultimately responsible for what happens in his/her company/organization. Looks like Bronco has done that. But, that is a fix for the facade. It's the underneath stuff I wonder about. As do others on this site, including Hawk. This character trait of "delegation" like any trait has a "virtue [but] when pressed to an extreme becomes a vice" (BKP)



Bronco may or may not be taking responsibility for the problems, the underlying, recurring problems of too much delegation and not enough HC leadership. I will explain.

Lark said he went and talked to both Bronco AND Doman about the problem of playing Riley when "very injured" (BDoman). Note that Lark didnt speak just to Doman. Bronco knew, but either was too uninvested or too delegating to do something about the problem until week of GT, when clearly he did "something" as was evidenced in his postgame interview. Plausible deniability, I guess. Before: "I love Riley, he's tougher than us all." After game: Riley needs to take better care of the ball." TH: "Riley has hurt this team."



There is a leadership vacuum historically, that IMO, comes out of this over-delegation. If BYU has good leaders like Beck, Cam Jensen, Kehl, Pitta, sort of Hall, Tree, and a few others, BYU has done well. When leaders have gone renegade like Riley, with his obvious upsides and downsides, there has been very little to stop their influence. When BYU had no leadership from an ill-equipped freshman qb, those who should have led in postive ways, didnt; like Matt Reynolds. There was no on-field leadership. And because there was a vacuum, Riley was leading from the sidelines, locker room and yes, with his gutsy play--credit him. But it was not exactly great leadership and it was certainly defiant of Doman in Fall 2012.



When there was a very inexperienced OC, who was busy trying to keep his job and didn't provide the leadership to his staff nor to the offense, an undeterred Sr took liberties that took 2/3 of the season to get any amount of correction. Riley said he wasn't changing and Doman folded like a deck chair and created this running-man scheme to oblige.



While Bronco was off in his defensive, "hands-off" realm, a storm was brewing amongst the Offensive staff in 2010 that led to the departure of Anae. Where was Broncos leadership then? Were his hands tied by TH? Could he not cut Reynolds loose or have him reassigned? Why did he let the Anae/Reynolds conflict fester and tear apart an offense?



If you want to suggest that "taking responsibility" is manifested by firing bad coaches and hiring new ones, then I would suggest to you that the definition of insanity is now in play: if Bronco keeps doing the "same things over and over again, expecting different results," then BYU will continue to struggle on offense. Anae will now provide that leadership for the offense, like his style or not. And there won't be any Sr level coaches like Rynolds to contend with, and Anae will get all "HIS" guys to coach. So, there should at least be unity on the O staff for now. And maybe this is the FIX to the problem previously. I hope. But if there is another failure on offense and with the OC after one or two years, then Broncos stock will go way down. Letting Doman or in the current case, Anae, become the scapegoated, "fall guy" won't work in the future. He gets a pass for now bc a lot of folks wanted BDoman. But even TH has strung up the gauntlet clearly on Bronco by saying he and Anae are "making all the coaching decisions."



No question that Bronco does amazing with his Defensive Staff and players. I hope Doman wasn't sacrificed in vain. I hope three years of offensive woes will not be minimized as "just a few inadequate QBs and an inexperienced OC." Bronco has to find a way to be a HC and not just a fabulous DC and Mission President to the players.



Living ones life thinking that always "heading into the wind" is somehow praiseworthy not to mention smart seamanship, will not get this ship to the destination he hopes for and fans are clamoring for: national attention through a BCS game while maintaining the squeaky clean image. If Bronco keeps seeking out the head winds and steering directly into them, he's going to find himself burned out much sooner than is necessary.

Let's assume for a second that Bronco saw a problem with the decision making on the offensive side of the ball. What would be the proper way to address the issue? Let's assume that he decided that the offense coordinator was not doing his job. Is the right answer to do the offensive coordinator's job for him? If at any point it becomes necessary for the boss to do the job of the worker, the worker has already sealed his fate. So, is it fair to assume that Bronco wanted his offensive coordinator to succeed? He allowed the offensive coordinator the latitude he needed to do his job. The second string quarterback coming to him and saying that he has concerns about the health of the first string quarterback only results in him asking the offensive coordinator if he is confident about the first string quarterback's readiness to play (at best). If you lose confidence in your subordinates, you have three choices, replace them, do their job for them, or put up with them. He didn't have the option to replace him in the middle of everyone's season. He couldn't be the offensive and defensive coordinator at the same time. So, he had to put up with him until the end of the season. Making a bad hiring decision does not necessarily show lack of leadership. Doman was not ready to be offensive coordinator. He was given 2 years to rise the position. He was given every opportunity to succeed. He failed. Bronco owned up to his bad hiring decision by making the difficult decision of changing coaches. That is what is called leadership. Trying to be both offensive and defensive coordinators at the same time would not be leadership. If he succeeded, he would be stuck doing both because you can't fire the offensive coordinator if your football team is doing great. However, more likely, he would fail at both. Trying to change offensive coordinators in the middle of the season would not be leadership. You would only end up with someone you don't really want. The only option was to put up with the lack of progress until the end of the season when he could be properly replaced.

Perfectly said rblack.

Perfectly said if you want to be a community organizer all your life.



For heavens sake, man, those are your only three options? Really?



How about giving a mandate? Or if you prefer a softer version, How about "counseling within your council" and then saying "the direction we will take is as follows...." THAT'S leadership.

You are telling me that The single most important player on the field is left up totally to the OC? If that is the case then Bronco should be fired as well!!!!! That's bupkis!!!



You either dishonor Bronco by suggesting that or you emasculate his coaching style OR you are just trying to totally exonerate him from the the sins of this team, place them all on Doman and send him packing.



What did Bronco say after the NMSU game? Not five minutes after the game when asked going off the field, after Larks fantastic performance? Bronco said, and I think we can safely assume that he did it without consulting the OC, without having some discussion or asking Doman who he wants to start the next game, without prevarication or deep consideration OR something more circumspectly, "we'll consider all of our options"--Nope, Bronco in all of his press hating and fan indifference defiantly and emphatically stated, "RILEY IS OUR STARTER."



So what if Doman wanted Riley (as Hawk has argued). If Bronco did not know that Riley was 65% and impaired on pain killers and then willingly and knowingly "accepted Domans decision" (whatever!) to start Riley or even switch at the last minute after Riley had taken virtually no snaps all week--a stunt a coach pulls only if you have Tom Brady or RG III (oh, wait, SNAP) Then Bronco either has his head in the sand OR he was blindly infatuated with Riley OR as you suggest, he has the pathetic mentality of a community organizer and did not or would not commit the time, resources, etc into making a "proper" decision. Or, I guess, he felt that Lark at 100% who had taken snaps all week, was really that bad. Appantly not since both Lark and Hill would start later games after it was determined that in fact, Riley was actually 65% and shouldn't have even dressed.



I on the other hand, at some level, honor Bronco by believing he has the courage as a leader to not be so uninvolved, spineless, and capitualting. I appreciate your take, because it has given me new respect for Bronco. I may still be angry at the decision to play Riley, particularly at BSU (and other games when he was injured as well) but I would be far more angry if he is as a leader as you suggest, and Hawk has argued, left this decision totally Doman delegated.



I will concede and give you credit that firing Doman mid-season, like he did with Jaime, was not really a good option. Athough, considering that, who would he get? Reynolds? He had zero experience, right? So playing an inexperienced, slightly impaired Doman was better than the veteran Reynolds? I guess that would fit. But you are right, it would have been rash and introduce a whole level of identity disruption and change that could have tanked the Season. So, good to wait, for sure, i agree. So at what point did Doman get a No-confidence vote from Bronco? When rumors came out that Doman was circulating his résumé after SJSU? But I Digress.



Rblack, I may sound intense, please don't take it personally. You seem like a very resasonable person. Moreso, I am contending with ideas propagated by some on this site that Bronco is so beneficently delegatory and free from responsibility in this whole matter, that its clearly somebody else's fault for this years problems. I don't expect a public confession from Bronco, but as we sit around wasting time on the sidelines, shaping CC recorded history, I refuse to accept some of this sugary syrup version, all packaged nice and neat that like Hllary, like Obama, like Colonel Jessop, Bronco also didn't know and didn't weigh in, if not strongly encoourge, if not mandate, on a most critical decision for the fate of his team.

The right QB played in every game. The only question I had was the timing of the hook for Riley at BSU. I would guess that Riley's health deteriorated during that game. If I recall correctly, he spent a significant amount of time during that game picking himself up off the ground and re-situating his helmet after getting blasted in the mouth time and time again (o-line problem). In hind sight, clearly RN should have cozied up on the bench after half time. Even with that, BYU was in a position to tie, or win the game late.



It's funny how a forum post with a title questioning Bronco's leadership turns into yet another crucify RN thread.



1. We're lucky to have Bronco (for numerous reasons)

2. The O-Line's poor play directly impacted the play of our QB's and was the most significant influencer of the 5 in the loss column.

3. Brandon Doman was an under-experienced / under-talented OC and his contributions were the second biggest influencer to the 5 in our loss column.



It seems to me that Bronco is addressing #2 & #3 in the best way he can.



2013 will be significantly better than 2012.

Cougs, your assertions assume that nothing happened behind closed doors, that no review happened and that Bronco blindly ran the defense only. I believe that he wanted Doman to succeed. He empowered Doman to succeed by backing him up publicly. To do otherwise would undermine Doman and assure his failure. Airing any conflicts within the coaching staff, even after the fact, is not leadership. Blaming publicly Doman for the problems is also not leadership. Leadership is recognizing that changes need to be made, despite all efforts to help those involved succeed (without doing their jobs for them) and having the courage to make the change.

Yes......keep going.....You are on the right track.

So should Bronco have resigned instead? Would that have shown he is responsible enough for the offense?

Yes, cougs_rule, please reveal your endgame in a manner that takes less than 3 days to read. (And I thought bib was long winded.)

And did he just compare Bronco to President Obama?

Cougs Rule, are you the former DM? Write like soul mates to me. Reading your posts methinks you really don't want to know the answer, but fool that I am, here goes. Bronco is responsible for the success of the football program. Winning is very important, although not the only thing by a long stretch. He also has specific responsibility for the defense, because he took that role. Pretty simple really in my view.

BroncoBot wrote:
Yes, cougs_rule, please reveal your endgame in a manner that takes less than 3 days to read. (And I thought bib was long winded.)

I already stated the end game, but here is the last paragraph of my second post above.



"Rblack, I may sound intense, please don't take it personally. You seem like a very resasonable person. Moreso, I am contending with ideas propagated by some on this site that Bronco is so beneficently delegatory and free from responsibility in this whole matter, that its clearly somebody else's fault for this years problems. I don't expect a public confession from Bronco, but as we sit around wasting time on the sidelines, shaping CC recorded history, I refuse to accept some of this sugary syrup version, all packaged nice and neat that like Hllary, like Obama, like Colonel Jessop, Bronco also didn't know and didn't weigh in, if not strongly encoourge, if not mandate, on a most critical decision for the fate of his team."

SpiffCoug wrote:
And did he just compare Bronco to President Obama?

I compared Bronco to any leader who goes silent, refusing to take accountability publicly or provide any explanation, in order to protect his status. I give Bronco credit for taking enough responsibility to make The necessary changes.



Beyond that I do not give him any credit, as some on this site do, almost ad neaseum, believing that the absence of some clear public explanation of his role eliminates the possibility that fault actually exists. Some posters are a little bit like a one year old who puts his hands over his eyes and actually believes that either he (the child) or the other person ceases to exist. Or it is like some who preferred to believe the world was flat. Bronco lovers cant handle the possibility that their hero has some flaws. Bronco may be smart enough to not admit any responsibility for his involvement in deciding which qb to play. He made the changes, credit him. Do I expect a public explanation. No. Am I demanding one and until one emerges, remain unsatisfied? Absolutely not.

But again, in this little Cougar corner of the world, like that matters to very many in the real world (no offense intended) its just oversimplification to accept that the absence of public explanations renders certain possibilities impossible. If anyone really believes that Bronco would place his trust entirely on the OC for who plays the most important position on the team, in the least it's a slam to Bronco, as though he wouldn't care at all. I'm suggesting there was far more than that.

BoiseBYU wrote:
Cougs Rule, are you the former DM? Write like soul mates to me. Reading your posts methinks you really don't want to know the answer, but fool that I am, here goes. Bronco is responsible for the success of the football program. Winning is very important, although not the only thing by a long stretch. He also has specific responsibility for the defense, because he took that role. Pretty simple really in my view.

Of course. Entertaining that the world is flat isn't all too tragic or limiting, it makes things really simple.

Next, you or someone else can role out a "non-sequiter" distraction, similar to what a Hillary pulled off this past week and say, "Why does it matter at all at this point"....the season is over, Riley is gone, Doman is gone, Anae is in. What good can come from re-hashing this. And while there may be some practical value in "moving on" I'm just raising the voice/opinion that there is always more than meets the eye. Ask Doman if it matters to him. Clearly he let some of his feelings known in some interviews during the season but left them sufficiently obscured that left folks guessing. But Bronco knew and its one more reason why he cut him loose.

it's people like you that drive coaches like Bronco away. We've had no poorly-handled scandals under his watch. The team has largely been excellent BYU standard bearers, which to the Board of T, is more important than wins.



Bronco is a student of football. A student of running organizations. he is a learner, one of the winning-est coaches in D-1 football and ran a top 5 defense last year. He's made mistakes. he's honorable and honest. Last year we were one or two players and one or two coaches away from beating the NC losers, Notre Dame, on the road with an offensive line that has seen more injuries than a 3rd World lumber yard. He's a brilliant defensive mind and one of his players will be a first round draft pick this year. He'll probably send another first rounder next year. He's also a rare coaching talent in a relatively tiny BYU head coaching list.



and should he leave BYU, he could easily go to about 10 BCS schools in a heartbeat that would love to triple his under-market BYU salary. That's the guy you're trying to chase out of town right?



Geez. What IS enough for you?



(Sorry, Mrs Crowton. We're not bringing your husband back. :lol: )

CougarClaw wrote:
it's people like you that drive coaches like Bronco away. We've had no poorly-handled scandals under his watch. The team has largely been excellent BYU standard bearers, which to the Board of T, is more important than wins.



Bronco is a student of football. A student of running organizations. he is a learner, one of the winning-est coaches in D-1 football and ran a top 5 defense last year. He's made mistakes. he's honorable and honest. Last year we were one or two players and one or two coaches away from beating the NC losers, Notre Dame, on the road with an offensive line that has seen more injuries than a 3rd World lumber yard. He's a brilliant defensive mind and one of his players will be a first round draft pick this year. He'll probably send another first rounder next year. He's also a rare coaching talent in a relatively tiny BYU head coaching list.



and should he leave BYU, he could easily go to about 10 BCS schools in a heartbeat that would love to triple his under-market BYU salary. That's the guy you're trying to chase out of town right?



Geez. What IS enough for you?



(Sorry, Mrs Crowton. We're not bringing your husband back. :lol: )

You can claw-back some of your misplaced accusations. Bronco doesn't read CC. I am pretty certain after meeting and chatting with him twice at his charity events that I'm not the one running him out of town.

Is this site anything more than a place where avid Cougar fans come to chat, argue, speculate or report what they have heard?

I have stated what would be enough.

Cougs_Rule wrote:

Cougs Rule, are you the former DM? Write like soul mates to me. Reading your posts methinks you really don't want to know the answer, but fool that I am, here goes. Bronco is responsible for the success of the football program. Winning is very important, although not the only thing by a long stretch. He also has specific responsibility for the defense, because he took that role. Pretty simple really in my view.

Of course. Entertaining that the world is flat isn't all too tragic or limiting, it makes things really simple.

Next, you or someone else can role out a "non-sequiter" distraction, similar to what a Hillary pulled off this past week and say, "Why does it matter at all at this point"....the season is over, Riley is gone, Doman is gone, Anae is in. What good can come from re-hashing this. And while there may be some practical value in "moving on" I'm just raising the voice/opinion that there is always more than meets the eye. Ask Doman if it matters to him. Clearly he let some of his feelings known in some interviews during the season but left them sufficiently obscured that left folks guessing. But Bronco knew and its one more reason why he cut him loose.

DM, what's with the vitriol? And seriously I have not a clue what your second sentence means. But if the point of all this is that there is always more than meets the eye, well, I guess your thread here is proof of that!

BoiseBYU wrote:
Cougs Rule, are you the former DM? Write like soul mates to me. Reading your posts methinks you really don't want to know the answer, but fool that I am, here goes. Bronco is responsible for the success of the football program. Winning is very important, although not the only thing by a long stretch. He also has specific responsibility for the defense, because he took that role. Pretty simple really in my view.

Yes, he is the former DM.

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:
Cougs Rule, are you the former DM? Write like soul mates to me. Reading your posts methinks you really don't want to know the answer, but fool that I am, here goes. Bronco is responsible for the success of the football program. Winning is very important, although not the only thing by a long stretch. He also has specific responsibility for the defense, because he took that role. Pretty simple really in my view.

Of course. Entertaining that the world is flat isn't all too tragic or limiting, it makes things really simple.

Next, you or someone else can role out a "non-sequiter" distraction, similar to what a Hillary pulled off this past week and say, "Why does it matter at all at this point"....the season is over, Riley is gone, Doman is gone, Anae is in. What good can come from re-hashing this. And while there may be some practical value in "moving on" I'm just raising the voice/opinion that there is always more than meets the eye. Ask Doman if it matters to him. Clearly he let some of his feelings known in some interviews during the season but left them sufficiently obscured that left folks guessing. But Bronco knew and its one more reason why he cut him loose.

DM, what's with the vitriol? And seriously I have not a clue what your second sentence means. But if the point of all this is that there is always more than meets the eye, well, I guess your thread here is proof of that!

Not much vitriol. Just an Opinion in a vain attempt at staving off the myopia and selective memory that occurs once the scapegoat has been outed and the leader starts getting falsely exonerated, vindicated, and even venerated for his moves. Doman, not unlike Heaps, had many faults and reasons to be removed, but they were casualties in a system that has several notable faults. Heaps may have had horrible interpersonal/entitled attitudes that led to a lot of problems. Doman did not have a horrible attitude and was a BYU guy through and through. But one commonality is that both were pressed into service way too early (yes, I was wrong about Doman when he was hired--I was very hopeful; and yes they both wanted it badly) and both are now casualties of that system. If that doesn't strike people as a pattern (add in Anae) so be it. But I am not ok burying my head in the sand preferring a glossy, happy version that everything is all good. I like Bronco. I want him to stay. And I am of the opinion that he did have a significant influence, if not mandate that Riley, even though he was "very injured" and did not practice ALL WEEK still trot out there and start.

So, on the one hand folks have to acknowledge that Bronco was far too uninvolved or blinded by Doman or Riley's M.O. Of covering up his medical condition (happened more than once) or he was complicit in the very outcomes that ended up with Doman being the fall guy.

So, my issue is far less with Bronco, he can do what he wants with his team, than it is with blue-goggled posters who won't see beyond the superficial facts and realize that yes, there is always more than meets the eye.

The problem is that dm/cougs_rule became more of a fan of the potential of Jake Heaps than of the program and ever since he didn't pan out he has been obsessive in his searching for someone else to blame for it. From Anae to Reynolds to vast conspiracies to Bronco, they all are responsible for Heaps not being successful at the college level.