Will Fleck be the first domino to fall next?
- Thread starter villox
- Start date
I didn't read the whole article, but I Crtl+F'd "naked" and "nudity" and nothing came up...so that already puts Fleck in a better position than where NU finds itself.
They’ll give him a raise just like Iowa did with Ferentz. NU is the only school in the Big Ten that would have fired their coach for something like this.
Regardsless, the Pandora’s box has been opened. This is the first of many. Any former college player with a grudge or who didn’t have a good college experience is going to pile on to this to make a quick buck.
Or, just maybe, players who were mistreated by their coaches or harassed/hazed by their teammates will now have the courage to speak out. Because, finally, it seems like someone might pay attention to them and take them seriously.
In what fictional world do you live in? People mistreat or harass other people every day at all levels throughout society. That in and of itself is not a basis for suing someone. How would society function if a lawsuit was filed every time someone felt mistreated? Grow up!
"Speaking out" does not necessarily mean lawsuit. Among other things, it could mean addressing issues in real-time, rather than allowing them to fester.
Overreact much? You seem unwilling to grant that ANY complaint of mistreatment by a player could be valid. I would respectfully disagree. Respect being something you seem not to know much about.
Actually read the article. I guess most of my frustration is with the so called journalist who thought the content of this story was worthy of going to print. A replay of what the The Daily did, which resembled more of an Inquirer gossip column than true journalism. This is a hit job aimed at gaining views and capitalizing on what has transpired at NU. Could there be something newsworthy here? Perhaps, but that would require a lot more work and investigation before determining if there is actually a story here. I guess these so called journalists don’t have the time, patience or work ethic to actually do true journalism.
Are coaches allowed to "make" players run laps or not?
(I mean actually run laps)
Thats all it comes down to.
Some are arguing "No, they may not."
(I mean actually run laps)
Thats all it comes down to.
Some are arguing "No, they may not."
Last edited:
In my world as a high school coach, it depends on purpose. Running as part of a warm up or for conditioning is A-ok. Running as punishment is simply not good coaching. Amount other reasons it leads to students having a negative impression of running or other conditioning, which is exactly the opposite of what I want them to think about it. They should wait to run more, not less.
That possibly could be case if you're talking relations with acquaintances/neighbors but a teacher/coach mistreating or harassing students (which is what the claims are here) is most definitely actionable. Same thing with an employer doing same to an employee (various court cases still in play to see if that comparison holds with NCAA athletes).
Search for “rowing in the buff” and “Jason and the Argonauts” and you will strike gold
As long as the coaches are allowed to order their players to do things, whether it be running, lifting, tackling, whatever, then one man's "excessive" is another man's "warranted."
until it is no longer plausibly related to improving the team.
The need to be first with a story now outweighs the need to be truthful.
Largely agree but it’s not even a question of truth, it’s a question of relevance. The fact that a couple of players felt mistreated is not newsworthy. Are we going to print a news story every time someone feels mistreated by someone else? Am I the only one who was told growing up that no matter what you do, there is always someone that won’t like you and won’t be nice to you? Some types of people just don’t get along or see eye to eye. A few players over a significant number of years who feel they were abused or mistreated by Fleck is not newsworthy. Do the work and find out if there are dozens or hundreds that feel that way and then you can reasonably conclude there is a systemic problem with the program that needs to be addressed. That’s a newsworthy story.
A couple may or may not be newsworthy. But it takes a lot more than a couple having complaints as to how they were treated including what was done, why and a lot more. A kid might feel that the 100 balls he was asked to throw was mistreatment while the actual reason for it was to improve his consistency and accuracy. That is as you would suggest a nothing and should probably be dismissed, But other things might not be. Have to know the details in order to determine
Last edited:
I read the article. My P.E. classes in high school were much worse than what they're describing.
I agree with your thoughts on using running as punishment, but whether or not it is good coaching is not really relative to the discussion...unless you are advocating that all "bad" coaching is abuse (and at that point all coaches should be worried!)
The question here is should coaches be allowed to "punish" players. Is it okay to kick a disruptive player out of practice or is that abuse? Is it toxic culture to remove a captain title from a player who has failed in that capacity?
Should coaches only be allowed to address technique, skill development, and strategy? It seems like these are the questions we're headed towards wrestling with a little bit as a society.
It's an interesting debate. Which is more damaging - being forced to do naked pull-ups or extremely strenuous workouts that could put players in the hospital (like they did in Iowa)? It doesn't have to be an either/or call in terms of being against them, but it's interesting where we as a society draw hard lines on outrage.
I thought the allegation at NU was only that some players liked to do naked pull-ups and that made other players feel "hazed." Did I buy a pair of rose-colored glasses or is this thing happening in an alternate universe?
I would not personally argue that naked pullups are a fire-able offense.
I would argue that presiding over a program and culture where the threat of undue physical harm - whether in the form of being held down naked and/or by other naked people or unnecessary workouts both cross a threshold of "not okay."
NU declared that mistreatment of players by other players was widespread in the football program.
Schill fired Fitzgerald because he "should have known" about it.
Then NU implied (or said?) that Fitzgerald definitely knew.
Then NU implied (or said?) that Fitzgerald ordered the treatment.
I never felt that NU implied or said that Fitz knew or ordered the treatment.
See...this is where depending on one's personal opinion, they can take extreme examples on either end and magnify or trivialize the circumstances...like using "naked pullups" as the standard incident in question. These same people will insist "nothing sexual" happened (which I think most of us would agree with) and ignore that the term "sexualized" was more appropriately used to describe men who were restrained or bullied into performing physical acts while naked...hazing.
With each passing day, what happened here becomes clearer in my opinion; at least the basic framework: bad traditions were happening through multiple eras that shouldn't under the leadership of a guy who was in charge for almost 20 years, and who built his reputation on integrity and running a squeaky clean program, and unfortunately we've come to learn that just wasn't totally the case. Some stuff was trivial/stupid/not even worth mentioning, Other stuff not so much.
Even though literally hundreds of guys probably went through some version of what we're hearing about, which probably happens in many/most college football locker rooms, and many of them were unscathed by it and still had positive life experiences through their participation in the program and with Fitz himself, it doesn't change that not everyone was cool with some of the more extreme behaviors, and not everyone had on-the-field careers to justify compartmentalizing the other stuff.
I'm still not clear if Fitz knew about specifics or not, but I believe he knew some stuff was happening and he let the fact that 90% of the guys were cool with it blind him to the fact that 10% were not.
When you fall asleep at the wheel and crash, it's your fault. That goes for Harbaugh, Fleck, and Fitz.
See...this is where depending on one's personal opinion, they can take extreme examples on either end and magnify or trivialize the circumstances...like using "naked pullups" as the standard incident in question. These same people will insist "nothing sexual" happened (which I think most of us would agree with) and ignore that the term "sexualized" was more appropriately used to describe men who were restrained or bullied into performing physical acts while naked...hazing.
With each passing day, what happened here becomes clearer in my opinion; at least the basic framework: bad traditions were happening through multiple eras that shouldn't under the leadership of a guy who was in charge for almost 20 years, and who built his reputation on integrity and running a squeaky clean program, and unfortunately we've come to learn that just wasn't totally the case. Some stuff was trivial/stupid/not even worth mentioning, Other stuff not so much.
Even though literally hundreds of guys probably went through some version of what we're hearing about, which probably happens in many/most college football locker rooms, and many of them were unscathed by it and still had positive life experiences through their participation in the program and with Fitz himself, it doesn't change that not everyone was cool with some of the more extreme behaviors, and not everyone had on-the-field careers to justify compartmentalizing the other stuff.
I'm still not clear if Fitz knew about specifics or not, but I believe he knew some stuff was happening and he let the fact that 90% of the guys were cool with it blind him to the fact that 10% were not.
When you fall asleep at the wheel and crash, it's your fault. That goes for Harbaugh, Fleck, and Fitz.
Fitz deserves some of the blame and is culpable for inappropriate conduct that occurred on his watch even if he was not aware of it and did not condone it. In my opinion there is no way NU should have fired him for this. Suspend him but give him an opportunity to fix the program he was instrumental in building. I don’t think many here would disagree with the premise that Fitz at his core is a very good man whose love, passion and loyalty for NU will be hard to replicate. He deserved a second chance but was denied it by weak leadership that is new to NU, doesn’t understand FItz’s legacy at NU and who let themselves be bullied into this decision.
I agree the decision to fire was abrupt, questionable, and void of appropriate deliberation (in practice or at least for the sake of theatre). Could have easily maintained the two week suspension and "explored the possibility of further sanctions" since the whole "turn a one day story into an X week story" was clearly never a consideration.
I'll be honest and say I'm very torn on whether firing was the right call or not, and I am happy to not be the one who has to make such a decision. Under different circumstances I think I would have liked to have seen a public mea culpa by Fitz acknowledging some shame for this happening under his nose with no apparent knowledge, which I think could have gone a long way towards preserving his legacy (and...his job). Instead we're in 100% deny deny deny mode because...lawyers and lawsuits.
Also, @villox : you get a Weinberg F.
“First domino to fall next”, or “Next domino to fall”?
Our fanbase’s lack of attention to grammatical detail concerns me as muchbas anything.
The amount of time I've spent thinking about how I feel about all this is significant, and I hate it, and feel stupider for it. I could have been learning another language or how derivatives work.
I'm certainly not advocating that all bad coaching is abuse. And yes, coaches should be able to impose a penalty for bad attitudes, tardiness, things like that. I would not penalize a player who is giving 100% effort. I try to tell players up front what consequences might be, because bad actions should have consequences.
I can help you with derivatives. They're not as complicated as they appear..
Primarily there are futures and options.
Futures are basically the price of corn or gold or whatever at some future date.
Options are more complicated.
A call option on IBM stock gives the option owner the right to buy 100 shares of IBM stock. The right exists until the option expires (on its expiration date). The price at which the stock can be bought is specified in the option contract - this is known as the "strike price."
A put option gives the option owner the right to sell the stock. The strike and expiration date have the same meaning as they do for call options.
If this helps, copy it somewhere else before it gets deleted.
I think (nearly) 100% of those of us in the NU community deplore the way this was handled. Many of us scoffed at the "Friday evening of a holiday week" news drop. They can all act like they didn't know , didn't read it , were in Italy, whatever. There was no deadline to get it right. It is arguably the biggest decision in university history, although the bad decisions to hire Gragg and Schill do make it arguable. They took the decision, and KNEW the contents. Perhaps they were cowed by Ryan and others. But without and NDA/settlement, Cole Freeman's understudy took it to the press. This is not some stupid armchair quarterbacking. They weren't on the clock. Whether you agree with the suspension ( I dont) or the firing (I do), the situation is orders of magnitude worse now. The cost to the university may be felt for a decade, as I imagine this will drag on more than poor RAW or the Polisky mess.
Does being forced to participate in a watermelon eating contest or dizzy bat event constitute hazing?
Only if you ate the watermelon while being humped by guys in Purge masks.
Also, a quick refresher for others who aren’t following your train of thought:
In a strict sense, yes. Forced participation in things outside the context of your sport could be construed as hazing.
That said, I am guessing that a really good lawyer could probably construct an argument for why mandatory training table is hazing.
He was also denied the second chance because he chose to pretend he had no idea, rather than acknowledging his failing, and accepting an actual punishment.
The optics of a two week unpaid vacation, released on a Friday, during a time when he could have no player and recruiting contact, were terrible.
Every university leader involved in the news release - Fitz included - failed in that announcement and that strategy.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
OT: SF Chron article on Andrew Luck as Stanford football GM- Latest: CoralSpringsCat