COLUMN: Carothers' firing due

Eric Goldstein, Commentary Bilsky has backed his coach for the past three years, refusing to fire Linda Carothers despite heavy criticism. But on May 12, Bilsky announced he was not going to renew Linda Carothers's contract. In 23 years, Carothers has run up a remarkable record of 201-323 for a .384 career winning percentage. What is remarkable is that a coach would be allowed to rack up over 300 losses in less than 550 games. The Quakers have had 13 straight losing seasons under Carothers, including eight straight seasons with 20 or more losses. It is amazing how Carothers has been allowed to continue driving the softball program further and further into the ground. Neither men's basketball coach Fran Dunphy nor football coach Al Bagnoli would ever be afforded such lenient performance standards. Only once has Penn won an Ivy League championship -- and that was 16 years ago. Carothers's .384 winning percentage seems even worse knowing that she has also lost over 80 percent of her Ivy contests. There is no question it is time for Carothers to go. But the timing of Bilsky's decision begs some questions. For the first time in years, the softball program has exhibited some degree of improvement. Granted, the Quakers finished with a 14-21 record. But Penn managed to win 40 percent of its games after two straight sub-.300 seasons. If Bilsky was going to relieve Carothers of her duties, why not do it after the 1995 season, when the Quakers set a school record with 32 losses? Or why not after the 1996 season, when the team had a pitiful .229 winning percentage? Instead, Bilsky took the easy way out. Instead of taking a stand and firing Carothers, he simply let her contract expire. Sure, the end result is the same. But it makes one wonder if Bilsky was just basing his decision on dollars and cents. If Carothers was fired, Penn would be responsible for compensating her. By letting Carothers finish out her contract, Bilsky saved the athletic department some money. Maybe Bilsky was truly interested in giving Carothers one last chance to prove herself. But if that was the case, why would he fire her after her best season in three years? If money was the deciding factor (or even if it wasn't), the athletic department and the school have done a great disservice to the softball players by allowing Carothers to finish out her contract. One or two years may not be much in the grand scheme of an athletic program or a university, but, to an athlete, that can represent half of a playing career. The company line for four or five years now has been that the Quakers were in a transition phase. But today's graduation will mark the 10th class of softball players that will leave Penn having never experienced a winning season. At some point, the retooling has to end. Eventually, the excuse ceases to be a lack of quality players, and one has to blame the coach. And a look into the Penn dugout would answer many questions. Carothers's ultra-conservative strategy has baffled fans and players alike for years. A double-header against St. Joseph's in 1994 provides two classic Linda Carothers moments. In the third inning of the first game of the twinbill, the Quakers found themselves down by five runs. With one out and runners on second and third, Penn's Stacey Thompson stepped to the plate. Carothers then signaled for Thompson -- the team's leading hitter at .395 -- to bunt. Thompson proceeded to bunt into a double play. One can only speculate what Carothers hoped to accomplish by bunting in that situation. Then, in the second game, Carothers's strategy backfired again. Down by two in the last inning with one out and a runner on first. Carothers signaled a bunt, sacrificing the potential game-tying run. The Quakers ended up losing by one run and fell victim to a St. Joe's sweep. After the game, Penn backup catcher Shannon Hembrough challenged Carothers's strategy. "Sometimes we question decisions," she said. "But it's not our call to make. Apparently, the rules we learned in Little League don't apply in college." Clearly, neither Dunphy nor Bagnoli would be retained for two-plus decades with such a track record of failure and player resentment. The obvious question is: Why wasn't Carothers let go sooner? The inactivity of the athletic department sends a message to athletes that women's athletics do not matter here. By retaining mediocre coaches, Penn is saying that the success of women's programs is not a priority. It is time for a fresh start for the Penn softball team; it has been for some years now. The search for Carothers's successor gives Bilsky the chance to demonstrate a commitment to the softball program and women's athletics in general -- finally.