Obviously there’s been a lot of talk about Brian Kelly and his decision to come to Notre Dame. In the last two days, he’s been on a media tour that would have an A-list movie star complaining of over-exposure. But after listening to Kelly on multiple radio stations -- whether it be national outlets like ESPN or Dan Patrick or a local South Bend station -- the message has been the same. Say this for the man, he is as media savvy as any coach I’ve seen.
Over the past few days, debate has swirled about Kelly’s honesty during the entire process. Whether it be in the comments section here or among talking heads on ESPN2, people seem intent on questioning the integrity of Kelly for making the difficult decision to leave his team before the Sugar Bowl. The fact that none of us know what truly happened is immaterial. This incident will likely be Brian Kelly’s “decided schematic advantage.”
This is how it starts:
A coach is put in a terrible position because everybody with even a conversational knowledge of college football concludes that Brian Kelly is a candidate for the Notre Dame job. Whether or not he’s even thought about the job, whether or not he’s been contacted, whether or not his people have even talked to Notre Dame’s people, the rumors of Brian Kelly to Notre Dame -- however manufactured they are -- become a story. And as the hot-seat warmed for Charlie Weis, the speculation around his potential replacement swirled, to a point where even ESPN was talking about Brian Kelly as the front-runner for the job.
Both Brian Kelly and Jack Swarbrick have been adamant and consistent on the timeline regarding Kelly taking the job. While I’m not naive enough to believe that a search firm or somebody representing Notre Dame didn’t contact Kelly’s agent and gauge his interest in the job, there’s no reason not to believe him.
(If you’re interested in reading about the reality of coaching hires, check out Andy Staples excellent breakdown of the machination. That gives me every reason to believe that Swarbrick and Kelly probably only spoke briefly before ever agreeing on anything.)
Still, people are quick to attack Kelly for lying to his players in Cincinnati, often sourcing the anger-filled comments of star wide receiver Mardy Gilyard as their “proof” that Kelly purposefully mislead his former team. (No doubt, someone will quickly link to this article, but if you’re to believe the timing, Kelly had yet to hear from a single-soul at Notre Dame.)
If time heals all wounds, Mardy Gilyard is a quick healer. The All-American wide receiver, who flourished both on and off the field with Brian Kelly as his head coach, has already tempered his comments greatly, backing off his previous stance. Here’s what Gilyard said on a radio appearance two days ago:
“I have no problems with Coach Kelly. My message got skewed because I was speaking out of anger. I just want to make it clear: He didn’t do anything but help me personally. When nobody wanted to, he took it upon himself to deal with Mardy, and I thank him for that.
“I know he has a family. He has to do the best he has to do to support them. That’s what a man should do. For him to come to Cincinnati was a blessing for us. That’s the one thing that people should remember about BK. He came and he helped spring board us to where we needed to be in the national spotlight.”
The fact that Gilyard has already moved on -- without even talking to Kelly yet --should be enough for most people. Yet this controversy, one that plagues nearly every coach that leaves for a better job in college football, will quickly become the source material used by people who either dislike Notre Dame football or Brian Kelly to label him dishonest or a liar. This will be his “decided schematic advantage” moment, the genesis for the arrogant and brash tag that Charlie Weis was never able to shake off.
During Kelly’s media tour these past few days, he’s been asked repeatedly about the decision and his response has mirrored his comments from his introductory press conference:
For many of us, it’s easy to look at Kelly’s track record, the evidence presented, and give the man the benefit of the doubt. But for just as many others, it’ll be easy to merely bang the liar drum, and do it long enough until it just becomes accepted as true.
Whether those people are talking heads, anonymous message-board posters, or rival coaches in recruits living rooms, I fully expect the dishonesty/liar card to be played constantly by those who either root or recruit against Notre Dame.
Whether it’s true or not is hardly the issue. When you’re the head coach of Notre Dame, it simply comes with the territory.