Speaking as someone who works as a developer, (although not in games) - You do find sometimes you are forced to release "unfinished" buggy software against your will due to pressure from above. I blame Konami for this more than Seabass, at least he's had the honesty to hold his hands up and say it wasn't good enough.
Also the end results also stem from the resources Seabass has been provided from above by Konami in terms of designers, programmers, artists and ancillary staff, physical resources in terms equipment, motion capture studies, recording studios, outsourced work etc etc etc. It is dependent upon the policy at Konami in terms of how many platforms these resources are stretched across, the policy set out by Konami in terms of how many products they wish to release over a set period (the development cycle), dependent upon Konami’s scheduling/deadlines and financial obligations etc.
How much control Seabass actually has upon many of the crucial factors involved in development release date and quality are probably only known internally within Konami and by Seabass and his staff.
He unequivocally will NOT have a comparable level of control to that of a football manager.
I know it's all been said before but the game stalled along time ago, they hit onto a good thing and just milked it too long. They should have been working on expanding the product as well as doing some development for the next generation game play in the background... instead they looked at other ways of getting more money from the brand, ie the deplorable manager offshoot... Why else would you release a product that was already inferior to several titles already on the market... The seeming desperation to release on all formats come what may is also a bad sign.
Over the long term Seabass might have had a part to play in the direction that Konami has taken and have some responsibility over the end results; then again maybe he has not. The key decisions/reasons for the current situation could just as easily be due to the policies/decisions taken from above or from poor/inadequate resources/logistics at Konami.
The only people who know exactly how much control and responsibility Seabass has had are like I have said people within Konami.
The industry and basic position has so many variables and pitfalls it is crazy. I mean there are a million and one ways to fail and controlling anything with the best of situations is fuzzy to say the least.
The bottom line is Konami as a whole ultimately have to carry the can for any inadequacies.
Your analogy is well wide of the mark. Publishers dictate the release date as it's their money that funds the project. Most developers would want wice as much dev time as they get, but the reality is this is a business and deadlines have to be set and met.
Developers always tend to want more time, and greater resources, whether that is because they are lazy and want an easy life or because they want to develop a quality product, that is the nature of development and developers.
Publishers are almost always primarily interested in the bottom line and quality of product is almost always a secondary concern, sometimes it isn’t even that!
You very often get a tug of war between the differing interests of developers and publishers or even office politics and infighting between differing opinions in development and you don’t always have the level of control you would like.
Decent publishers learn that the quality of the product is key to long term success and profit and try and bare this in mind accordingly. Likewise decent developers learn one way or another that you always have to compromise on certain aspects of development as there is never enough time to make the exact game you want. So as a developer at the start of a project you often find yourself debating with the money men (even if you don’t have a separate publisher but the developer is the publisher…someone still has to make monetary decisions and be answered to). You have to pick your fights accordingly and get in the important features and designs you can and learn what battles you can win and what you can’t. You might want feature b in the game but you might also know that if you argue hard for that having argued hard for and won the debate for feature a, that you might lose the goodwill of the people paying the way and this can cause more problems later down the line and make for a worse game.
So sometimes as much as you want to do things a certain way, you realize and reluctantly accept the fact that you do not have total control and try and maximize the product you can develop with the control you do have…
Sometimes developing an average game in dire circumstances with limited time and resocurces can be said to be a far greater achievment than developing a great game where everything has gone swimmingly and you had everything that was required to make a great game. Equally you could develop a fairly good game with brilliant decision making and work with limited resources that is outshone by inferior decision making and work of a hugely resourced competitor...
The problem is as a producer, director, designer, programmer, artist etc....you are ultimately an employee and you can only fight your corner where you know you have some leeway. You cannot for instance argue as a producer or games designer for a new animation system or overhaul of the A.I system say if you know you are asking for time or resources beyond that which your paymasters are prepared to sign off.
This was my experience anyway…