| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bacabuck
Joined: 28 May 2009
Posts: 245
Back to top |
 Posted: 08/25/16 12:58 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| LegoMyEggo wrote: |
| ????? What new coach would not want to raise the profile of his team? |
Coach is an easy answer. A university might be a bit different.[/quote]
Too clever by half I am sure, but when you are done with your circle dance please let me know as otherwise I might miss the point. Thanks.
|
|
bacabuck
Joined: 28 May 2009
Posts: 245
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/25/16 1:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
She may be a chucker, but she had 114 assists last year, and that's almost twice as many as Diamond DeShields, and 29 more than Tiffany Mitchell, neither of whom are described as "chuckers."
Kelsey Mitchell is the next great player -- and I don't see another one of her caliber on the horizon at this point. |
I am aware, from coming on this site, that you are a professional analyst with a vast knowledge of women's basketball. Your good opinion of Kelsey"s play, therefore, delights me. You did not stay silent and you did not hedge. That means a lot to a fan like myself. Thank you.
|
|
patsweetpat
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2313
Location: Culver City, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/16 9:47 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
And what's wrong with Ohio State buying the best team it can? Schools pay big money for elite coaches, they invest millions in facilities, hundreds of thousands in a sport like women's basketball, and so it makes sense that they want to maximize that investment.
Sure, they hired the dad as coach and gave the sister a scholarship -- but so what? What exactly is wrong with that? |
Okay, well, I guess I'll take a shot at this: I think it's creepy. I think it's creepy from the dad's end, in that he's turned his daughter's (amateur) athletic success into money for himself. And I think it's creepy from McGuff's end, in that McGuff turned the recruiting process (in which you pitch your program as the best opportunity for the high school senior to grow as a person and player) into a bidding process (in which you pitch your program as being directly financially lucrative to the high school senior's immediate family). And furthermore, McGuff *knows* that it's creepy. And the proof is that in his press release announcing the hiring of Mark Mitchell McGuff undergoes the charade of pretending that he hired Mitchell because he "brings tremendous experience as a basketball coach and will play a large part in player development and helping craft an exciting style of play", and on and on and everything except for what everyone knows to be the operative truth (and what you yourself say, above, is perfectly fine): that Mark Mitchell was hired so that his daughter, Kelsey, would come play for the Buckeyes. Read it yourself: the word "Kelsey" doesn't so much as merit a single mention, anywhere!
Clay: if there truly is nothing is "wrong with that"-- nothing wrong with hiring a dad to get the dad's kid-- why would McGuff's announcement of Mitchell's hiring ascribe the hiring to everything in the world besides the supposedly-not-at-all-shameful truth: "we hired the dad to get the dad's kid"?
It's almost as though, on some level, McGuff recognized that perhaps there was something kind of wrong with that.
|
|
bballjunkie
Joined: 12 Aug 2014
Posts: 785
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/16 9:57 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Comparing Mitchell to those others is not helping😜 She is a big time chucker. The irony is Harper going there after not wanting to stay at KU with all the Epps chucking and drama!
Clay, so you think it's professional and ok for the dad to extort his kids wares and then get into a fight with another player on the bench for all to see and not think that there is a boat load going on with regard to nepotism?
What amazes me is any parent or kid wanting to go there, but it is well known amongst AAU that Mcguff and also Walz are the biggest smooozers in the biz. Shame as I actually liked McGuff at WA.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/16 10:06 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Personally I think you have the Mitchell deal wrong. I don't think it was about money. I think it was about control, about a dad who had managed his daughter's career from the time she could walk and was not going to give up that control, and a daughter completely dependant on dad and unwilling to be seperated from him.
Now that may actually be creepier than being about money. And I'm disappointed McGuff would allow a parent to interject himself like that into the coaching of his team. But she wasn't going anywhere without her coach/daddy so if you wanted her, you had to take him. If McGuff hadn't, someone else would have.
He was trying to build a team quickly. And it worked. And he appears to have managed the Mitchell clan fairly well. So I don't really see the problem, no matter how odd it all appears.
And throwing away a scholarship on a sibling happens every day in recruiting. It's tacky, but it's common.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15737
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/16 10:26 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| bballjunkie wrote: |
| Comparing Mitchell to those others is not helping😜 She is a big time chucker. The irony is Harper going there after not wanting to stay at KU with all the Epps chucking and drama! .....What amazes me is any parent or kid wanting to go there, but it is well known amongst AAU that Mcguff and also Walz are the biggest smooozers in the biz. Shame as I actually liked McGuff at WA. |
What amazes ME is that:
A-you feel confident in your definition of what a "Chucker" is, when far better basketball minds than yours have just illustrated why you're judgment is mistaken.
B-You liked McGuff--until he pulled this dog and pony show at ANOTHER school. I'm thinking you'd have LOVED Kelsey, Daddy, and McGuff had he brought all this to YOUR school. 
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| ....But she wasn't going anywhere without her coach/daddy so if you wanted her, you had to take him. If McGuff hadn't, someone else would have. |
Bingo.
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| And throwing away a scholarship on a sibling happens every day in recruiting. It's tacky, but it's common. |
And sometimes, it's The Best Thing Ever  [See: Paris twins, Ogwumike Sisters, Plouffe twins, Cunningham sisters, The Hoovers (Dayton), The Shimmels.....]
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11147
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/16 10:47 am ::: |
Reply |
|
The NCAA is a scummy, dirty organization that is, at its heart, corrupt.
It supposedly supports student-athletes but of course does not. Its only interest is ensuring maximum profits for its members, and maximum advantages for universities in their negotiations with the talent that produces those profits.
So why would one expect those who work under the NCAA's auspices to be anything but shady? Sure, hiring a father to coach just to get the daughter doesn't pass the smell test -- but what NCAA policy does? Restricting transfers? Getting kids to sign a letter of intent that legally binds them when really, they don't need to? Allowing football programs and players to do what they want as long as they don't get caught? Permitting rampant academic fraud with no penalty (North Carolina is just the latest)?
The system is poisoned at the root, and there's too much money involved for any significant change to take place without major outside pressure -- and no one has any motivation to do that.
So McGuff (and most other successful coaches in all NCAA sports) dances around the rules when it suits his purposes. Is this a surprise? Is this out of the ordinary?
Or, let me put it another way. If McGuff followed the rules to the letter, would he be making the same salary, or would someone else be supporting his or her family with a seven-figure annual income?
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
patsweetpat
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2313
Location: Culver City, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/16 11:16 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
The NCAA is a scummy, dirty organization that is, at its heart, corrupt.
It supposedly supports student-athletes but of course does not. Its only interest is ensuring maximum profits for its members, and maximum advantages for universities in their negotiations with the talent that produces those profits.
So why would one expect those who work under the NCAA's auspices to be anything but shady? Sure, hiring a father to coach just to get the daughter doesn't pass the smell test -- but what NCAA policy does? Restricting transfers? Getting kids to sign a letter of intent that legally binds them when really, they don't need to? Allowing football programs and players to do what they want as long as they don't get caught? Permitting rampant academic fraud with no penalty (North Carolina is just the latest)?
The system is poisoned at the root, and there's too much money involved for any significant change to take place without major outside pressure -- and no one has any motivation to do that.
So McGuff (and most other successful coaches in all NCAA sports) dances around the rules when it suits his purposes. Is this a surprise? Is this out of the ordinary?
Or, let me put it another way. If McGuff followed the rules to the letter, would he be making the same salary, or would someone else be supporting his or her family with a seven-figure annual income? |
Seems to me we've moved on from "what's wrong with that?" to "okay, there's plenty wrong with that, but other stuff is gross too, and besides, someone else would've done it if he hadn't." Okay. If those are the principles upon which Kevin McGuff wants to build his program, then who am I to tell him to do otherwise?
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/16 12:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Oh, I don't know. I'm still on the what's wrong with that. Ohio St gets a certain limited number of scholarships and assistant coaches. If they choose to use them on people who aren't necessarily the optimum choices because it helps land a star, what's wrong with that?
How is that any different than taking all three of a group of players who want to play together if otherwise you wouldn't have recruited one or two of them? That never seems to bother anyone.
This is the kind of thing that only seems to bother people when some school other than their favorite does it.
|
|
patsweetpat
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2313
Location: Culver City, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/16 12:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Oh, I don't know. I'm still on the what's wrong with that. |
Again, if tOSU and Coach McGuff didn't think there was anything wrong with hiring the man just to get his daughter, they wouldn't have officially and publicly proclaimed that they were hiring the man for every reason in the world *besides* getting his daughter. I don't know about you, but whenever I lie/dissemble as to why I did something, it's usually 'cause I recognize that what I did was kinda gross.
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| This is the kind of thing that only seems to bother people when some school other than their favorite does it. |
UCLA MBB Coach Ben Howland hired Tony Parker's AAU coach out of Atlanta when recruiting Tony Parker. I thought it was gross then, just like I thought this move was gross on McGuff's part. If Coach Close were to do something like this in recruiting a WBB player to UCLA, it would be disappointing to me, personally. It's not that I no longer would root for UCLA-- I always want the Bruins to do well-- but I know that I'd feel much less personally invested in Coach Close's program and what it purports to stand for.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/16 12:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Notre Dame recently had a highly regarded defensive end decommit, reportedly because his sister was not admitted to ND. If it's important to him ( or his parents) that he go to school with his sister, that's their choice. The school can choose to play or not. In this case ND chose not, and the kid has subsequently committed to UGA.
My favorite though was Ron Zook. After being fired as head FB coach at UF, he ended up as coach at perennial Big Ten bottom feeder Illinois. After a pair of two-win seasons, he raised a lot of eyebrows when he suddenly landed a highly ranked crop of recruits, led by a 5* WR who is now in the NFL. Most people expected the player to choose among USC, ND and FSU, all of which were heavily recruiting him. The story that circulated was that Zook promised a football scholarship to the player's older brother who was then in a federal penitentiary serving a five year sentence for armed robbery. And indeed when the brother was released, he enrolled at an Illinois junior college (as a 24 year old freshman) and then transferred to Illinois and played football. His football career was, I believe, cut short after he was shot and wounded at a party. But with the one big recruiting class, Illinois had a miraculous turnaround and in the group's freshman year they beat Oh St, Wis and PSU and went to the Rose Bowl. (The success didn't last, but I think it did earn Zook a contract extension.)
|
|
bballjunkie
Joined: 12 Aug 2014
Posts: 785
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/16 12:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Howee do you like putting things in other people's mouths?
I could care less about 2 sisters getting a scolly where the coach wants one of them, my thoughts are about how things are handled and the fight with the other kid is not ok in my book as its sending the wrong message to the team that the only valuable player is Mitchell and daddy can do whatever he wants including what he did in public. You ok with verbally abusing another player by just because you're a dad of one player the coach decided to in Clays words use scummy tactics to obtain just because the NCAA is scummy doesn't give someone the right to do that and it doesn't make it morally ok.
Btw really with far better minds, FYI I have no allegiance to a team unlike you, I just love good team basketball, you know that actually involves the whole team with passing and ball movement.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/16 1:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| patsweetpat wrote: |
| If Coach Close were to do something like this in recruiting a WBB player to UCLA, it would be disappointing to me, personally. It's not that I no longer would root for UCLA-- I always want the Bruins to do well-- but I know that I'd feel much less personally invested in Coach Close's program and what it purports to stand for. |
I get that it offends your sensibilities in some way. I'm uneasy about it as well. But that doesn't truly answer the question of "what's wrong with that"?
It's not illegal, it's commonplace. So why are we uncomfortable with it?
Elite programs don't have to accede to such demands and might choose not to potentially disrupt their team by going along. It's easy to look down their nose at other programs pushing the envelope to improve. But if anyone is free to do it, and a coach is willing to deal with the potential disruption of having a player's dad on his staff or a substandard player on the roster, then what's wrong with that?
|
|
patsweetpat
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2313
Location: Culver City, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/16 1:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| patsweetpat wrote: |
| If Coach Close were to do something like this in recruiting a WBB player to UCLA, it would be disappointing to me, personally. It's not that I no longer would root for UCLA-- I always want the Bruins to do well-- but I know that I'd feel much less personally invested in Coach Close's program and what it purports to stand for. |
I get that it offends your sensibilities in some way. I'm uneasy about it as well. But that doesn't truly answer the question of "what's wrong with that"?
It's not illegal, it's commonplace. So why are we uncomfortable with it?
Elite programs don't have to accede to such demands and might choose not to potentially disrupt their team by going along. It's easy to look down their nose at other programs pushing the envelope to improve. But if anyone is free to do it, and a coach is willing to deal with the potential disruption of having a player's dad on his staff or a substandard player on the roster, then what's wrong with that? |
I answered that above: from my point of view, the conversion of a high school senior's recruiting process into a financial bidding process is unseemly. And Coach McGuff, himself, evidently recognizes the unseemliness, which is presumably why his announcement regarding Mark McGuff's hiring dissembles as to the actual reason for Mark McGuff's hiring. Given that fact-- given Coach McGuff's refusal to admit that he was hiring a man to get his daughter-- maybe we need to ask Coach McGuff exactly what's wrong with it.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/16 2:48 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| patsweetpat wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| patsweetpat wrote: |
| If Coach Close were to do something like this in recruiting a WBB player to UCLA, it would be disappointing to me, personally. It's not that I no longer would root for UCLA-- I always want the Bruins to do well-- but I know that I'd feel much less personally invested in Coach Close's program and what it purports to stand for. |
I get that it offends your sensibilities in some way. I'm uneasy about it as well. But that doesn't truly answer the question of "what's wrong with that"?
It's not illegal, it's commonplace. So why are we uncomfortable with it?
Elite programs don't have to accede to such demands and might choose not to potentially disrupt their team by going along. It's easy to look down their nose at other programs pushing the envelope to improve. But if anyone is free to do it, and a coach is willing to deal with the potential disruption of having a player's dad on his staff or a substandard player on the roster, then what's wrong with that? |
I answered that above: from my point of view, the conversion of a high school senior's recruiting process into a financial bidding process is unseemly. And Coach McGuff, himself, evidently recognizes the unseemliness, which is presumably why his announcement regarding Mark McGuff's hiring dissembles as to the actual reason for Mark McGuff's hiring. Given that fact-- given Coach McGuff's refusal to admit that he was hiring a man to get his daughter-- maybe we need to ask Coach McGuff exactly what's wrong with it. |
But it was never a "bidding process". The player made clear that she would go where her sister and father would be with her. Indeed, they brought their AAU teammates Hart and Waterman along too. Kept the whole gang together.
What do you think McGuff "bid" and who was he "bidding" against? If someone had offered to hire dad as an equipment manager for $500,000/year and some other school countered with "photographer for $600,000", you'd have a good argument. Here I don't even think it was his idea or offer. I think the package was put together by the player's family. Not much different than a player saying "I'll only consider schools that promise me a starting spot as a freshman". Or even more trivial conditions like a favorite or famous jersey number.
I think the explanations were simply a response to some people questioning whether daddy was qualified to be an assistant. McGuff explained why it wasn't completely ridiculous to have Mitchell on his staff.
Last edited by ArtBest23 on 08/26/16 2:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11147
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/16 2:48 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Hypocrisy runs by the quart in the bloodstream of the NCAA. If it wasn't hypocritical, they probably couldn't even put it in a press release.
Of course, they dissemble and deflect. That's how any organization that generates billions in revenue can convince itself it shouldn't pay its workers and should prevent those workers from seeking the best possible situation as they see it.
As you point out, it is not incumbent on any individual to become as corrupt as the organization he is affiliated with, but if you're going to play the game at that level, you have to do so wholeheartedly.
Those coaches who truly believe in student-athletes and modeling moral behavior need to work in situations where cash flow is not dependent on wins and losses, and athletic directors' seven-figure contracts are not dependent on how well certain programs compete. (Most P5 administrations do care somewhat about women's basketball, and thus so does the AD.)
Division III and high school, in general, are the best places to coach if you don't want to get your hands dirty. Otherwise, if you mix it up with the pigs, you'll wind up covered in slop.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/16 2:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
Division III and high school, in general, are the best places to coach if you don't want to get your hands dirty. Otherwise, if you mix it up with the pigs, you'll wind up covered in slop. |
We have constant scandals around here involving illegal (and often completely absurd from the student's standpoint) high school recruiting, including in women's basketball. The most recent trend has been coaches essentially starting charter or "Christian" schools just to be able to have a year round travel team. I'm not sure when they attend class because the teams are constantly on the road to Tennessee or Florida. Some of them have been banned from playing in their own state by the state HS sports association, so they hit the road.
|
|
mzonefan
Joined: 15 Oct 2005
Posts: 4878
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Back to top |
|
zvyn3
Joined: 20 Jul 2013
Posts: 418
Location: away from here
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/16 3:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| bballjunkie wrote: |
Comparing Mitchell to those others is not helping😜 She is a big time chucker. The irony is Harper going there after not wanting to stay at KU with all the Epps chucking and drama!
Clay, so you think it's professional and ok for the dad to extort his kids wares and then get into a fight with another player on the bench for all to see and not think that there is a boat load going on with regard to nepotism?
What amazes me is any parent or kid wanting to go there, but it is well known amongst AAU that Mcguff and also Walz are the biggest smooozers in the biz. Shame as I actually liked McGuff at WA. |
She's not a chucker at all. She's an outstanding player. If she's such a chucker then how did Ameryst Alston average 19.8 and 18.3 PPG playing with her the last two seasons? When you're as good of a player as she is, you're going to get hated and criticized no matter what.
If you want to see a real chucker, maybe you should check out Jasmine Nwajei and these stats.
http://www.wagnerathletics.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=6478
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15737
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/16 3:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Plain and simple, it's a standard capitalistic marketplace, governed by the laws of supply and demand. What McGuff's done is try to take the fast track to the top, and it's not illegal. Unethical? Debatable. But I'd say he recognized a (future) gold mine when he saw it, and capitalized on it.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
LegoMyEggo
Joined: 02 Apr 2010
Posts: 284
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/16 9:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| Plain and simple, it's a standard capitalistic marketplace, governed by the laws of supply and demand. What McGuff's done is try to take the fast track to the top, and it's not illegal. Unethical? Debatable. But I'd say he recognized a (future) gold mine when he saw it, and capitalized on it. |
I'd say that's pretty fair and it's a route McGuff has used before when at Xavier. If my memory is correct, he hired the daughter of a prominent AAU program to land high level talent from that AAU program. So, this is not a new "shenanigan".
It's worked very well. Mitchell is a fantastic player. If she stays healthy, she's an Olympian. Last season fell apart on them. Two left to see if they can achieve new heights.
|
|
Nixtreefan
Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 2539
Back to top |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11147
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/30/16 9:48 am ::: |
Reply |
|
It's really an interesting ethical dilemma.
1) You want to be basketball coach at a high level.
2) The system is inherently corrupt.
3) To become a basketball coach at a high level, you must operate within the system.
4) Therefore, you too will have to act in a corrupt manner.
So choice one: Don't aspire to be a basketball coach at a high level.
Choice two: Try to be as ethical as possible while trying to coach basketball at a high level but accept the fact that you will have to do some things that are questionable ethically.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
patsweetpat
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2313
Location: Culver City, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/30/16 11:58 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
It's really an interesting ethical dilemma.
1) You want to be basketball coach at a high level.
2) The system is inherently corrupt.
3) To become a basketball coach at a high level, you must operate within the system.
4) Therefore, you too will have to act in a corrupt manner.
So choice one: Don't aspire to be a basketball coach at a high level.
Choice two: Try to be as ethical as possible while trying to coach basketball at a high level but accept the fact that you will have to do some things that are questionable ethically. |
Clay, you've seen a lot over the years. Are there any college coaches you know of who-- so far as you can determine-- both coach at a high level *and* abstain from ethically-questionable actions? Or are all successful coaches just cheats and crooks?
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11147
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/30/16 3:08 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| patsweetpat wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
It's really an interesting ethical dilemma.
1) You want to be basketball coach at a high level.
2) The system is inherently corrupt.
3) To become a basketball coach at a high level, you must operate within the system.
4) Therefore, you too will have to act in a corrupt manner.
So choice one: Don't aspire to be a basketball coach at a high level.
Choice two: Try to be as ethical as possible while trying to coach basketball at a high level but accept the fact that you will have to do some things that are questionable ethically. |
Clay, you've seen a lot over the years. Are there any college coaches you know of who-- so far as you can determine-- both coach at a high level *and* abstain from ethically-questionable actions? Or are all successful coaches just cheats and crooks? |
An interesting question -- which begins with what would be defined as "ethically questionable actions"?
Let's say that out-and-out rules violations are by definition ethically questionable.
But let's take this one: The rules say a program can only view high school games on 30 dates a season (or somewhere around that number). The head coach has used up all 30 and it comes to his attention that a very good player who lives in his town is suddenly interested. He stops by her game just long enough for her to see him on his way home, thus violating a rule.
There are many such rules in the books -- phone calls, conversations, etc. Let's take another one. The coach runs into a top recruit while on vacation, completely by chance. She and the recruit chat for a while and the recruit asks her if the school has a particular program. The coach answers and the recruit asks if the basketball team is taking a foreign trip next summer. The coach says we're going to Italy.
Another violation, maybe two. But should the coach just turn and walk away?
So I would say, pretty definitively, that every P5 coach has committed similarly ethically questionable actions. I would guess that most coaches have at one point or another said something negative about another program or coach. If someone does it once in five years, by most ethical standards, that's the same as doing it 20 times. Or maybe not, in your view.
When we get into other things -- discouraging players from staying at your school to open a scholarship, forcing smaller schools to sign disadvantageous home-and-away playing contracts, treating staff in an unprofessional manner -- the line gets blurrier. Let's take the first one: It becomes clear that a certain player isn't working out. She's unhappy, the coaches are unhappy and she's affecting team morale. So
a) Coach calls her in and says "You're a good player but it just isn't happening here. Do you think it would be better for you to play somewhere else? If so, I'll be glad to help you find a happier place and recommend you for it."
b) Coach screams at her in practice, treats her unfairly and makes her run over and over again.
Player leaves. Are both courses of action ethically questionable? Is one worse than the other in terms of the result (not the process)?
The same is true in most businesses, I think. Some people spend their whole lives on the high road, but I don't think there are very many.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
|
|
Oh of course as long as it doesn't hurt your favorite team or it helps the team that beats you.