Colorado University Athletics
Perspective On QB Situation
October 16, 2009 | Football
REPRINTED COURTESY OF MILE HIGH SPORTS MAGAZINE
By James Merliatt (Oct. 15, 2009; originally distributed via e-mail)
If you're confused about the CU quarterback situation, you aren't the only one.
Here's what is known: After throwing two second-half interceptions at Texas on Saturday, one of which was returned 92 yards for a Longhorns touchdown that changed the complexity of the game, Cody Hawkins was pulled. That's not really all that strange, as quarterbacks, especially those who aren't superstars, are commonly yanked when they struggle.
It started to get interesting, however, when Hawkins was replaced by sophomore Tyler Hansen. When Hawkins started over Hansen in the season opener against CSU, the Buffs coaching staff informed everyone that the junior would be the quarterback this season and the sophomore would redshirt. Unless Hawkins got injured to a degree that would cause him to miss significant playing time, Hansen would save a year of eligibility by spending the entire season on the sidelines. So when the switch was made on Saturday, it completely contradicted what everyone had been told; it was a deviation from the plan.
Yet, it gets weirder. After the game, head coach Dan Hawkins and his staff let it be known that the switch was permanent. Hansen was the Buffs new starting quarterback, a move that would last the rest of the season, and Hawkins was his backup. This was odd because it wasn't as though Hansen shined during his stint against UT. He finished the game 3-for-5 for 17 yards, and failed to lead Colorado to a single score. Yet he was promoted to the first team.
All week, I was wondering what I was missing. There were only two explanations for this move, and neither was very good. Perhaps Hansen is better than Hawkins. But if he is, why wasn't he starting all season? That raises the dreaded question of nepotism once again. Or maybe the CU staff felt guilty for burning Hansen's redshirt after four-plus games, so they feel compelled to let the youngster play. If that's the case, it raises serious questions about the decision-making process in Boulder. After all, sentiment shouldn't play a role in determining playing time at the Division I level. (Insert your own “This ain't intramurals” joke here.)
So Tuesday, when the head coach seemed to flip-flop on the decision to play Hansen the rest of the season, I was relieved. It was a move that actually made sense.
“Everything is fluid,” Hawkins said. “Tyler's going to start. It's Tyler's show. How that goes? I don't know.”
To me, that makes perfect sense. At 1-4, the Buffs need a spark, especially on offense. So going with Hansen is a worthwhile experiment. But if he struggles mightily, there's no reason to keep in the game. If he doesn't outperform Hawkins, switching again would be the right move.
Based on yesterday's outrage, however, I'm in the minority. This apparent indecision has Buffs fans far and wide in a tizzy; they're fed up with the head coach's insistence on playing his son, even when he's already publicly stated that he's finally seen the light and is going with someone else. That's the rationale behind the firestorm. I'm just not buying it.
“I think Cody has kind of known that if things didn't go well, there would be a possibility that Tyler could come in,” the coach explained this week. “I think Tyler knows the same thing about Cody.”
Seems reasonable enough to me. Every player should know that if they don't perform, they could be benched. That's the harsh reality of sports.
“But that doesn't mean if he throws an interception or two interceptions, or we stumble for two or three series, that that's going to be it; that won't be the case,” Hawkins continued. “We won't do that to him. We have to fair to him, as fair as we can be.”
So while a hook will be present, it won't be a quick one. Again, this seems like sound coaching to me. Only if things get really bad will Hansen be benched. Wouldn't that be justified?
Everything Hawkins the coach is saying about Hawkins the player makes perfect sense. The problem, however, lies in the fact that they have the same last name. If Hansen was replacing a guy named Jones, but Jones might get back onto the field if Hansen struggles, no one would think twice. But because the man making the decision happens to be the father of one of the parties involved in the controversy, onlookers immediately suspect that something is amiss.
Is this fair? Of course not. But it's also human nature. And it's what Dan and Cody Hawkins knew they were getting themselves into when the son decided to play for the father. If things didn't work out, and a tough decision had to be made, the line between coach and dad would be viewed as blurry by many. To not see this coming would have been na?ve, at best.
At this point, the head coach is a no-win situation. The only solution is to turn back the clock and not have Cody enroll in Boulder. But unless Dan Hawkins is driving a DeLoreon, that's ain't happening. So perhaps, he should simply heed the advice of the two young men at the center of the controversy.
“It probably causes me more angst than it does those guys,” the head coach admitted, when talking about his son and Hansen. “I had a big discussion with them and they were looking at me like, ?Why are you wasting our time with this? We're good. Let's go.'”
That's what the coach should do, too. Make a decision, one based on football and nothing else, and live with the consequences. It won't quiet all the second-guessers, but it's the only option that leads to a free conscience. And in the end, that's the best anyone can hope for when making a tough choice.
