IDS: Did you get a raw deal?
Gerry Dinardo: I think three years is a short time to try and turn a program around. I obviously anticipated having more than 3 years.
IDS: With only one year having the full complement of 85 scholarship players, do you feel that your first two years almost didn't count?
GD: The way the rules are, it's going to take you three years to manage your roster and get to 85. When you take over a program with the numbers so down, I don't know if people understand exactly how the numbers work. When we took over, we had about 65. And then we lost 20 to graduation and other reasons. That knocks you down to 40. And then if you sign 25, obviously you're back to 70. It takes a while. The first two years were very difficult, very difficult to practice, very difficult to be competitive because our numbers were down. There was tremendous attrition from the time Cam left and from the time I took over. There was a leadership void between his tenure and my tenure. It didn't seem like anyone was managing the roster between those things and as a result we lost a lot of players.
IDS: What were the details of the firing process?
GD: (Greenspan) called me Sunday and mentioned that the President was getting a lot of pressure from the board in regard to the Purdue game. He asked if we could get together Monday, and we did. It was probably a couple hour meeting. We visited about the program. We had been having weekly meetings all through the year. This was what I would consider the conclusion of our weekly meetings that we would've been having. It just wasn't scheduled. He called me Sunday and asked if we could get together and I certainly didn't object.
IDS: What was the tone of the meeting?
GD: I think it was the same. I showed him a statistical breakdown of the three years. We talked about the progress that had been made. We discussed staff, recruiting and talked about most major issues in the program. He asked me if I thought building a new facility would help, and I obviously said yes.
IDS: How was it different from your usual meetings?
GD: I left that meeting not really knowing whether I'd be the coach next year. And obviously, that wasn't true of our weekly meetings. I would say attendance was brought up at that meeting. I don't (think) that was a regular occurrence. He brought up the board and the president. Those things were brought up more than they were at the weekly meeting.
IDS: Did you talk of you not being the coach?
GD: We talked about it pretty directly.
IDS: That leads to Tuesday night - 8 days later.
GD: He asked me if we could get together tomorrow. I said we certainly could. I asked him what I should be prepared for, and he said the inevitable. After I asked, he clarified (that DiNardo was fired)
IDS: Why were you fired?
GD: My speculation would be no different than anybody else's explanation. I was fired without cause contractually, which means at any point the University can say at any point that they don't want you to be their coach. They don't have to give you a reason by contract if they fire you without cause - meaning nothing specific caused your firing. And that's certainly what they did. They didn't give me a reason and I didn't ask for one. They had made their mind up.
IDS: What would you have done differently?
GD: I look back and there's no major decision that I made with this program that I would change.
IDS: How difficult was it this season to not get the breaks you needed to win a few close ball games?
GD: We don't really know whether I'd still be the coach. That's only speculation. Once they fire you without cause they don't need to give you a reason. Tyrone Willingham had a winning season - he was fired. Ron Zook had a winning season - he was fired. David Cutcliffe a year ago won 10 games and won the Cotton Bowl. I don't know that it's true that if we would've gone to a bowl game this year that I'd still be the coach. Nothing leads me to believe that that's necessarily true. With new leadership, my third president, my third AD, people tend in these highly public jobs to want people that they picked. There was a change in AD under President Herbert. That's a very big decision on this campus and the head football coach is a very big decision on this campus. I think most people are more comfortable if they choose those people that play a major role in campus life.
IDS: In your experience, in the past have athletics directors wanted their own hire?
GD: I think it's a general rule. I think that's understandable. It's very natural that the people in authority want their own people.
IDS: What did you say to the team the Wednesday you were fired?
GD: In the team meeting I said two things basically. One was that when this game was started 100 years ago it was about education and playing some football. A lot of things have changed about this job. I use Tyrone Willingham, myself and Buddy Teevens as an example of three coaches that we're fired thee years after they took over. I think that's an indication of the fact that the landscape has changed in college athletics. I urge them to never forget what it was all about even though everything has changed. They have to understand that we founded this program on the concept that everybody is going to walk across the graduation stage with a championship ring on their finger. And don't ever lose sight of that regardless of how everything else is changing. I read a little brief thing about Sean May that was in the paper that day. What struck me when I read that paper that morning was Sean May saying when he decided to go to North Carolina instead of Indiana that even teachers at his high school no longer spoke to him. And he learned that not everybody really cares. I made the point that the people in this room care for them and they should care for each other. And once the new coaches come and they get to know them they will also care for them. But people outside the team, whether it be an administrator or a fan, they do not always really care for them. I urged them to listen to Sean May and understand what he was trying to say. Then I told them I loved them and I left.
IDS: Comments on the difficulty of leaving your players?
GD: It hurts. There's nothing I can do about it. I'll be pulling for them, I want them to do well. I want them to graduate. I worry most about the guys in academic jeopardy. The ones that were not ordinarily admissible to IU but because of their special talent. Maybe they're not going to class, maybe they're not seeing their tutors enough. Those are the guys I worry about the most.
IDS: Off the field problems at IU?
GD: I guess I would say that for any coach to be successful at Indiana, it's my opinion the support staff has to be philosophically in line with the coach. Not the coach has to be in philosophical line with the support staff. Whenever the support staff and the coach are not aligned philosophically, it does cause some tension. That could happen on any campus. Decisions have to be made whether there should be a change in support staff and whether there should be a change in support staff. That's also very understandable.
IDS: How much did the blowout loss to Purdue hurt your future at IU?
GD: I would say significantly. That was a bad day to have a bad day I guess. I think all of the board members were there. Obviously the president was there. I think there probably was some embarrassment. I'd say probably significant.
IDS: Where do you go from here?
GD: I seek comparable employment. By contract, I am obligated to seek comparable employment to fulfill my obligation contractually.
IDS: How was your relationship with Greenspan?
GD: It was fine. We just met each other in September. I was fired the last day of November. It was a three month relationship, but it was fine.
IDS: Looking back at three-years, what was the most enjoyment you got?
GD: The players. It's always the relationship with the players. I think no matter where you coach that's the most fun, watching 18 year old guys become 22, or in my case become 21.
IDS: (What about) the unexpectedness of the firing?
GD: I fully expected to coach next year. At no time did I think it was going to be over after 3 years until I was told.
IDS: What is the situation with the assistants?
GD: It's probably the most difficult of everything with how the assistant coaches are. It's been a struggle. There's a lot of uncertainty. I tell you right now it's in the problem stage. They're on the road recruiting right now. It's not the first time it's happened.
IDS: What's it going to take to make a successful program?
GD: I always look at it institutionally. What made the Kelley School the Kelley School. What made the School of Journalism the School of Journalism. My guess is it was commitment and everybody being on the same page. It was digging in. I believe that Kansas St. is out there as a shining example. At some point in Kansas St.'s history, they decided we're going to totally commit to this thing and make it work. I believe when the university does that, whether it's in academia or athletics, they can't be stopped. It'll take very tough decision that won't be entirely popular. But I'll tell you, in nowaday's economy, it often means you're telling one person yes and saying no to a bunch of other units. That's very difficult to do. The attendance problems, they'll get a little boost from a new coach. You know we were 2-1 when we came back and played Mich. St and there was still nobody at the games. Somehow the institution has to figure out how to solve that problem. You know we lost our marketing director, Nikki Borges, last June and we never replaced her. Institutionally, my guess is there always should be someone in the marketing position at the athletic department.
