I wouldnt blame him for taking the higher profile, higher pay job.. but there are good ways and bad ways to go about that.
I'm not mad that Chizik left, because it turned out for the best for both sides.
I'm not mad that Chizik has found success elsewhere, because I make it a point not to dislike people just because they do well.
I disagree with the manner in which he left, but we're two years removed from that, so I'm over it.
What angers me is how the media is painting Chizik as this amazing coach. Gene Chizik, a supposed defensive mastermind, leaves Iowa State, then Paul Rhoads comes in and has to teach the defensive players how to tackle, because their fundamentals were way off. I don't care if, as a head coach, you are supposed to delegate those tasks to your coordinators and assistants. If you're a defensive guy and you see that your team can't tackle properly, you step in somehow and fix it so that your team can win.
What I do grant Gene Chizik is that he is an excellent manager. He clearly knows how to recruit (say what you will about the pay to play allegations), and he's figured out how to build a successful coaching staff. He knows how to get the pieces in place to make a quality team, then let it go from there. But, as I've distinguished, there's a difference between being a coach and being a manager.
What I really don't get is that nobody in the media is asking Chizik, "What is the difference between your 5-19 run at Iowa State and your 20-5 run at Auburn, where you're going to a National Championship and winning Coach of the Year awards?" I would think that would be a question worth asking, but instead the media is content accepting that Iowa State is so helpless that even The Great Chizik couldn't build it into a successful program.
I also wish he had more personality than a piece of cardboard, but that's beyond any control.
I was able to help get over Chizik leaving Iowa State rather quickly. The instant success of Paul Rhoads helped speed that up. But it was the way Chizik left that will leave me feeling bitter, have hatred towards, and will always root against Gene Chizik.
huh... still no rebeccacy?
But seriously.. i like Auburn and what they have done.. but still hate chiz
without GM they wouldn't be that great imo.. Gus does what Cam can do best.. spread the field out and let him play ball.
The fact is that Chizik didn't have good coordinators while he was here and on game day the team seemed un-prepared and Chizik made a lot of bad game time choices. Rhoads in comparison looks like Einstein. I can't believe that so much has changed with Chizik. He might be great at running a program from behind the scenes, but I'm guessing it is he's coordinators you can thank for Auburn's title game appearance.
The only people even pretending to believe that Auburn didn't pay Newton are Auburn fans. The typical BS NCAA time frame will play out and a few years down the road we will hear about vacating wins, championships, and heisman trophies. I swear ISU needs to start cheating. The NCAA has all but shouted to the world that it wants cheaters as long as they bring dollars in.
In retrospect we were "on the job training" for Chizzel. I notice he took a different approach at Auburn:
1. Hired assistants based off resumes rather than relationships.
2.Did not waste the entire practice making players line up helmets properly.
3. Oh yeah, and got roster populated with some of the best money can buy.