..the public should at least be informed as to why he was fired....
nowadays there are privacy laws, and also a desire to say as little as possible since the local media plays up anything whether it's true or not..
(case in point...note the comment
"It is not much of a secret, for example, that Stowell and head coach Jim Les have had no relationship to speak of.." then the immediate concession that such a fact had nothing to do with this!
Then the writer speculates on a "conspiracy theory" and again immediately concedes that there isn't one and the two issues are unrelated)
Here are some facts that it seems everyone is agreeing with...
-Joe Stowell has been employed and revered at BU and by BU for well over 50 years, but that he is almost 84, doesn't get around well, and cannot travel to road games. 99.8% of all people are retired or end their active employment by age 84, and there are reasons...but in this case, many reasons are not being stated.
-Joe Stowell was not fired by Bradley from his broadcasting gig. This was stated clearly to be the decision of WMBD alone.
-Despite the swipe at JL in the paper, the writer clearly acknowledges that BU and JL had nothing to do with the broadcasting decision, plus that decision was made by WMBD and was unrelated to the issue with the committee.
-How many D-I basketball head coaches are fired by a school from that capacity, but then retained and employed in some other capacity for 30+ years more?? I'll bet you cannot name many...thus I think BU has been every bit as loyal to Joe Stowell as vice-versa.
BU even has one of their top awards named for Coach... -
http://is.gd/fvzlc
-the committee decision was back in August and unrelated to this WMBD decision, but Coach Stowell had been given the opportunity to serve on the committee since the 1960's -- way longer than anyone in history has been given to serve.
Since it was back in August that the decision on the committee was made - couldn't they find at least one quote -- maybe a comment from Stowell or anyone on that topic...but we see none.
Even when Stowell was quoted - he mentioned only the separate broadcasting issue and even then he did not seem unhappy.
The story also notes that two other members of the committee also had their terms expire and were likewise replaced, but those members remain unnamed, thus it doesn't seem like this was in any way aimed directly at any one person...perhaps just the relatively new administration's desire to make the changes they brought in here to make? Seems like that's the biggest complaint we ever hear -- people wanting to make changes and bring in "new blood"...right?