Hogwired.com: Chancellor White Affirms Support for Arkansas Head Football Coach Houston Nutt
Rebuffing ongoing speculation and commentary today, University of Arkansas Chancellor John A.White affirmed his support of Razorback head football coach Houston Nutt.
“I want to be abundantly clear - the University of Arkansas is committed to head football coach Houston Nutt’s leadership of the Razorback football program,” said White. “It’s unfortunate that the days and weeks following a remarkable football season, which featured 10 straight wins and an SEC West championship, has been burdened by rampant speculation and sensationalist remarks over the future of the program.”
Also:
- Arkansas Blog: Happy as Hogs in slop
- AP: Arkansas chancellor supports Nutt despite turmoil
- SI.com: Mandel: Nutt faces heat in truly bizarre Arkansas soap opera
- Alex Abrams: UA Chancellor Shows Support For Nutt
- Scott Cain: Nutt has support of White, Broyles
- Nate Allen: White gives Nutt a vote of confidence
Updated 2/23/07 8:00 a.m.
Time to move on to winning a second consecutive Western Division Title and add an overall title this time.
THX,
Chancellor White
Too bad
Bluff, I think you're right….winning cures a lot of ills. If he survives till fall, I think nothing short of an overall SEC Championship can save him now.
I guess Chancellor White is running the PR department now for the Athletic Department.
Chancellor White is doing a terrible job then… kinda of reminds me of when Bill Clinton wagged his finger!!!
White is just saving the dirty work for the new guy? Why do you think Broyes had to leave (because he wouldn't do it).
On a separate note, will it be some sort of record next year if we are paying three head basketball coaches?
I don't understand this continual vendetta against Houston Nutt. He is a good and honorable man, and a good coach. Just ask any one of his players what they think of him. To a man, they support him.
true
It isn't a vendetta. It is about taking a program to the next level and Houston isn't the man. What player doesn't praise his old coach? That is not the only criteria. Stan's a nice guy too but we need a new basketball coach to get back to where Nolan had us in his day.
Trueblu,
I hope and believe you are probably right about Houston and the team. He may do very well with young men. If you have been reading the vendetta posts you will note that there are other issues up for discussion. One is actually winning. Last year was his first outright Division title in nine years. He tied once or twice before and had another appearance in the title game when Alabama was on probation. My favorite stat on this issue is that Houston is the longest serving coach in a BCS conference to not coach a BCS game. How many more years can that remain true? Houston's teams have provided wonderful moments of excitement but very little real success. Another issue is his style of play. LIke Danny, Kenny, and Frank before him, he has been marginally successful with a tired running game (Frank's winning teams were balanced. He actually retired to the murmurs of pooch punt and draw play.) Personally, I believe that Arkansas is QB U in the fan's minds. They long for the days of Jon Brittenum, Bill Montgomery, and Joe Ferguson. Either way, besides winning, there is an entertain, excitement factor to college football. Unless you are Nebraska or Oklahoma in the 70s, there is not much to say for running football. We will see next year if you can bring back the wing T and compete on a national level. Finally, even though we have all known for years that Houston's strength is not public relations, his relationship with the fans is still important. Hiring Gus and promising a passing game last year only to lose the most important games of the year because the team could not complete a pass did damage to his credibilty which can not be recovered without some real work on his part. Even though the loss of Gus, Mitch, and Damian may not be that significant for a college football team, Houston has responded with misrepresentations and conflicting statements that have only depended the mistrust that he has created. This is not a good example for young men or the fans. The fact that there is not a single voice, in the Adminstration, on the BOT, or in the media taking a stand for honesty and accountability only deepens the void that unhappy fans feel. They know they are not represented and are not likely to be.
The reason chancellor White and Frank Broyles are taking such a strong stand behind Houston is obvious. Houston has earned one more year on football field. Weather or not we think he'll get the job done, is beside the point. By actions and words given by these two people, it is a far gone conclusion that Houston will be back. This does not mean, however, he will continue to be HC after next year. If he does not prove his worth next year, then I truly believe the tide will turn. What will it take for Houston to keep his job? Some believe nothing short of an SEC tital. What if he makes it to the tital game again, only to lose a close one? What if it is his only lose of the year, and they are still in the top ten nationally? What if they lose another close one in their BCS bowl game? They finish 12-2, (two games better than last year) and in the top 15 once again. Would this be a sign of improvment under the watch of a new AD? Who knows what were in store for now. I'm just going to hope and pray for D-Mac's sake, that the overall passing game improves. If it doesn't, it will be sad to see SEC defenses crowd the line to key in on the best back in america. Houston Nutt owes it to his players, to see that the passing game improves. If it does, I will be the first to say "very suprised, but job well done!"
Why isn't anybody commenting on the 160,000.00 bump in salary that Houston Nutt is getting with his contract extension. Most likely signed signed from Chancellor White with love and appreciation for a coverup well done. You can find ithe article on any sports website. I found it on the Sports Illustrated webpage. The article said they found it through the Freedom of Information Act and that the University would not comment. I wonder why?