| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
patsweetpat
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2313
Location: Culver City, CA
Back to top |
 Posted: 08/30/16 4:05 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| 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. |
Let's make this simpler, Clay. Upthread you acknowledged that hiring a kid's father to get the kid doesn't pass "the smell test", and I agree with you, so let's just go with the smell test, as your nose (Clay Kallam's nose) happens to adjudicate it.
Are there any college coaches you know of who-- so far as you personally can determine-- both coach college ball at a high level *and* abstain from engaging in behavior that fails your smell test? Or have you never seen any such animal?
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11148
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/31/16 11:46 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| patsweetpat wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| 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. |
Let's make this simpler, Clay. Upthread you acknowledged that hiring a kid's father to get the kid doesn't pass "the smell test", and I agree with you, so let's just go with the smell test, as your nose (Clay Kallam's nose) happens to adjudicate it.
Are there any college coaches you know of who-- so far as you personally can determine-- both coach college ball at a high level *and* abstain from engaging in behavior that fails your smell test? Or have you never seen any such animal? |
Good distinction ... I think, though, it would be hard to answer because, for example, I have no idea what actually went down in the recruiting of Kristin Anigwe -- and she's at Cal. What's happening in the SEC is a mystery to me.
But my educated guess would be that 90-95%, if not 100%, of P5 coaches have danced on that fine line between smelling sweet and emitting foul odors.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63777
Back to top |
|
patsweetpat
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2313
Location: Culver City, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/31/16 1:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Happened to UCLA last year. Our McDonald's All-American guard Recee' Caldwell transferred away to Texas Tech just when her father happened to get hired as an assistant coach at Texas Tech. Sigh.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/31/16 1:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Technically, if the person could be shown to be so completely unqualified for a coaching job (or office job which also happens) or scholarship as to clearly be a sham, it could be sanctioned as an extra benefit.
But the NCAA is not going to get involved in second guessing a school's choice regarding who to hire or who to offer a scholarship, nor should they. The limits on scholarships and coaches act as a major restraint on these practices.
So opponents will raise their eyebrows, but all of these dads had resumes that arguably made them qualified for the job.
|
|
patsweetpat
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2313
Location: Culver City, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/31/16 2:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| But my educated guess would be that 90-95%, if not 100%, of P5 coaches have danced on that fine line between smelling sweet and emitting foul odors. |
Well, I confess I'm disappointed to hear that. The rampant rottenness of men's college basketball makes it not at all fun for me to watch/follow anymore (and I used to be a *GIANT* fan of the men's college game... seriously, beyond huge). One of the things I'd come to enjoy about WCBB was the supposition-- naiive as it may have been-- that the sport was generally on the up-and-up, and that it was possible for WCBB programs to do things the right way and still enjoy some success. I'd even flattered myself into believing that maybe my own school's WCBB program was perhaps comporting itself with integrity. But it sounds as though that was maybe foolish of me to believe.
Oh well, I guess the kid's gotta learn there's no Santa Claus at some point.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11148
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/31/16 3:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Maybe there isn't Santa Claus, but the women's game is much, much cleaner than the men's game, if only because there's a lot less money involved.
High school sports are far from pure, as far as that goes. Human beings tend to do human things no matter what they're up to.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/31/16 4:17 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
Maybe there isn't Santa Claus, but the women's game is much, much cleaner than the men's game, if only because there's a lot less money involved.
High school sports are far from pure, as far as that goes. Human beings tend to do human things no matter what they're up to. |
My impression of HSs is that at most places sports are an extra curricular activity and are played at a pretty mediocre level. Most HSs aren't sending anybody to top tier Div I FB and BB programs.
But that all gets distorted by private and parochial HSs who are free to recruit the best players, to give scholarships, to travel to tournaments, and who get much of the attention, and some public schools that cheat in order to circumvent residency rules and build teams to compete at the top levels with the non-public schools.
There are over 35,000 high schools in the US, so why is it the same hundred schools across the entire nation that produce a vastly disproportionate share of the big name stars, win all the state titles, and garner all the publicity, year after year?
Girls basketball is probably a little different because the talent depth is so thin that one talented girl can propel a team to the top. In boys BB, that kid would quickly take off for some BB factory because the amount of money available at only age 19 is so enormous. But with some exceptions like Blair Academy, Riverdale Baptist, etc. , It hasn't seemed to have hit GBB as badly yet.
We've had a couple examples around here of "schools" that have been created by coaches, that have no real classrooms or facilities, where the total number of students is basically the same as the number of players on the football roster, and which are basically just football travel teams masquerading as high schools. It's ridiculous. But their players still get recruited by big time colleges.
My impression is that of those 35,000 high schools, 30,000 play sports the way Div III colleges play them and have little motivation to cheat.
And then there's Texas HS football, which is something else entirely.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11148
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/01/16 10:12 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Let me put it this way: I coached at 300-student private school in the Bay Area with $35,000 tuition. We were in a league with three similar schools plus some Christian schools with lower tuition. I was also the assistant athletic director.
I can tell you that every one of those schools' athletic directors and coaches were very aware of the middle school athletes who were potential attendees, and if they did not actively recruit, they certainly made their interest known. And the parents and students were definitely concerned about the coaching and level of play of the sports' teams.
At the public school level, where I've coached for many years, there are some schools, usually the poorer ones, where athletics is not an issue. But for a sizable majority, the same awareness of middle school athletes by coaches occurs, and even though the elite players are cherrypicked by the top schools, the public schools compete over the next group.
For example, Bishop O'Dowd in Oakland gives full scholarships (called "merit scholarships") and the elite athletes will go there. But coaches will tell you they can win with the kids who sit on the bench at O'Dowd, and the recruiting process is essentially to deliver the message "You can be a star for us or not play at all at O'Dowd, and if you are good enough to play in college, this is a better setting."
To imagine some pure world of sport, it is best to think of Plato's Ideals (or Forms), as with everything, they are corrupted when translated to flesh and blood.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/01/16 3:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
Technically, if the person could be shown to be so completely unqualified for a coaching job (or office job which also happens) or scholarship as to clearly be a sham, it could be sanctioned as an extra benefit.
But the NCAA is not going to get involved in second guessing a school's choice regarding who to hire or who to offer a scholarship, nor should they. The limits on scholarships and coaches act as a major restraint on these practices.
So opponents will raise their eyebrows, but all of these dads had resumes that arguably made them qualified for the job. |
I'm thinking that perhaps a rule that Daddy (or Mommy) can't be hired the same year that student/athlete starts school would be appropriate. That just 'reeks'. But we don't question (so much) situations such as Mulkey's daughter playing for her, especially if the kid has other offers/interest as well. If a school really wants Daddy/Mommy then they can hire them a year earlier...or a year later, and we can sigh, but the smell isn't quite the same reek.
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11148
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/01/16 5:50 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
Technically, if the person could be shown to be so completely unqualified for a coaching job (or office job which also happens) or scholarship as to clearly be a sham, it could be sanctioned as an extra benefit.
But the NCAA is not going to get involved in second guessing a school's choice regarding who to hire or who to offer a scholarship, nor should they. The limits on scholarships and coaches act as a major restraint on these practices.
So opponents will raise their eyebrows, but all of these dads had resumes that arguably made them qualified for the job. |
I'm thinking that perhaps a rule that Daddy (or Mommy) can't be hired the same year that student/athlete starts school would be appropriate. That just 'reeks'. But we don't question (so much) situations such as Mulkey's daughter playing for her, especially if the kid has other offers/interest as well. If a school really wants Daddy/Mommy then they can hire them a year earlier...or a year later, and we can sigh, but the smell isn't quite the same reek. |
Not a bad rule ...
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/02/16 5:49 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Clay, here's a good example of how "convenient" and incestuous things can be. It's football, but you might enjoy it.
Right now on ESPNU, ESPN is televising a HS FB game between Paramous Catholic - a large perennial football power in NJ - and St Frances of Baltimore - a tiny Catholic inner city school in Baltimore that is a total newcomer to big time sports. BTW game is being played at University of Michigan Stadium.
How did this come about?
Well, the Gillman School is a prep school in Baltimore that has long competed well above its size and sent lots of big time recruits to top national colleges, especially in football and lacrosse. The godfather of the football program, and primary fundraiser, has been longtime (19 yr) head coach Biff Poggi. Well, Jim Harbaugh hired Poggi on to his staff at Michigan this year. (Poggi 's son plays football at Michigan already.) He also hired a Paramus Catholic coach. Which explains why the two schools are being paid to play at Michigan. And which obviously gives Harbaugh a huge recruiting advantage with both schools.
But how did St Francis get to this level overnight? Well after Poggi left Gilman, his staff of FOURTEEN coaches packed up and moved across town from Gilman to St Frances. Twenty players transferred in from Gilman and other local high schools. And overnight a tiny 200 student Catholic HS became a national football power. It's rumored that Poggi is expected to return to Baltimore and take over the St Francis team with his old Gillman staff in a couple of years.
You might enjoy this article about it. The situation is actually even worse than it sounds. And there is a lot of money behind the whole thing.http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/high-school/bs-va-sp-st-frances-football-0809-20160808-story.html
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11148
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/02/16 6:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I wish I could say I was surprised ...
But since that kind of thing happens in girls' basketball (though not the 14 coaches), the fact that it also goes on in high school football is like news that this year is the hottest on record.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/02/16 6:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
I wish I could say I was surprised ...
But since that kind of thing happens in girls' basketball (though not the 14 coaches), the fact that it also goes on in high school football is like news that this year is the hottest on record. |
You have to just laugh though when a crew of 14 coaches like that descends on a tiny, poor, inner city school with volunteer coaches and no field on which to play which won two games last year and within six months the school is playing on national TV in Michigan stadium.
That's pretty extreme even in a world of corruption.
|
|
|
|
