|
Post by bigfan on Aug 15, 2007 10:43:11 GMT -5
Someone remind me of when Tomasevic graduated...? She hasn't yet......
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Aug 15, 2007 10:44:44 GMT -5
I just wish some others here could meet and observe him before judging him. Instead of being prejudice based on speculation and assumptions -- that is downright wrong and I dont have the willpower to ignore it even though I should. Jealousy is rearing its ugly head!
|
|
|
Post by dishdaball on Aug 15, 2007 12:00:17 GMT -5
Okay - so I read this thread and chuckled a little yesterday when someone said that Jim truly had the best interest of his players in mind and was only interested in seeing his players graduate - Tomasevic and giving her ability to finish. I'm thinking there is someting to this .... Now that post is gone but someone still asked the question about Tomasevic graduating..... as fans we never do get to understand the intentons of actions....all we see are the results. Bottom line is that there are plenty of ways to get an athlete an extra year of college scholarship.
I know many programs that do a lot of damage control and go to lengths so that the program is viewed favorably. What I hear Husky fans saying is that Jim is a great person....he doesn't really care what things look like from the outside. Good coach, admirable person...one of these times though situations like eligibilty, transfers, etc. is going to catch up to him.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Aug 15, 2007 13:27:49 GMT -5
Okay - so I read this thread and chuckled a little yesterday when someone said that Jim truly had the best interest of his players in mind and was only interested in seeing his players graduate - Tomasevic and giving her ability to finish. I'm thinking there is someting to this .... Now that post is gone but someone still asked the question about Tomasevic graduating..... as fans we never do get to understand the intentons of actions....all we see are the results. Bottom line is that there are plenty of ways to get an athlete an extra year of college scholarship. I'm sure that Tomasevic would have had no problem getting a full ride even if she was no longer playing. Most big-time athletic departments will pay tuition, room&board, etc after eligibility is exhausted, and it doesn't count against athletic scholarship limitations. What McLaughlin found was a way to get Tomasevic another year of athletic eligibility when she normally would have been eligible for three seasons. Strangely enough, I think she would had five years to complete those three seasons.
|
|
|
Post by dishdaball on Aug 15, 2007 14:14:15 GMT -5
Okay - so I read this thread and chuckled a little yesterday when someone said that Jim truly had the best interest of his players in mind and was only interested in seeing his players graduate - Tomasevic and giving her ability to finish. I'm thinking there is someting to this .... Now that post is gone but someone still asked the question about Tomasevic graduating..... as fans we never do get to understand the intentons of actions....all we see are the results. Bottom line is that there are plenty of ways to get an athlete an extra year of college scholarship. I'm sure that Tomasevic would have had no problem getting a full ride even if she was no longer playing. Most big-time athletic departments will pay tuition, room&board, etc after eligibility is exhausted, and it doesn't count against athletic scholarship limitations. What McLaughlin found was a way to get Tomasevic another year of athletic eligibility when she normally would have been eligible for three seasons. Strangely enough, I think she would had five years to complete those three seasons. Guess I didn't say it right....BearClause, I agree about the scholarship thing, that's why I was chuckling at the post that disappeared that said Jim was interested in his players graduating!
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Aug 15, 2007 14:24:18 GMT -5
Okay - so I read this thread and chuckled a little yesterday when someone said that Jim truly had the best interest of his players in mind and was only interested in seeing his players graduate .... Did you see "Running With Scissors"? There's a scene in the psychiatrist's office with 13-year old Augusten and his mom (played by Annette Bening). There's a door on the wall behind the desk where the psychiatrist (played by Brian Cox) is seated. Augusten asks, "What's behind the door?" The psychiatrist responds, "Oh, that's a little room where I _________," (word deliberately left blank by me to save the prurient souls of this forum) whereupon Augusten delivered the funniest chuckle I've ever witnessed on film. Then, he looked at his mom, whose shocked look is priceless btw, then he turned to the psychiatrist again and then delivered his hilarious chuckle. Funny scene. Many many days on this forum, I chuckle EXACTLY like that.
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Aug 15, 2007 14:32:08 GMT -5
All you posters spending hours every day portraying coaches as people who deeply care about the training and education of young players are selling yourselves short – your universities are spending $$$ on advertising and public relations and here you are, providing media spin doctor service for free.
Schmucks.
I'm sure it's true that every single coach in the world "is a good person" who "really cares about people" and gets along great with dogs and grannies, but that has nothing to do with the dynamics of the coach-athlete situation at top programs in the Nominally Collegiate Athletics Association. Coaches are not hired at top programs to provide a quality educational experience to kids who happen to be good at sports. They are hired to win titles, break (and make) records, and keep the logo licensing contracts and alumni dollars pouring in.
Somebody remind me of when was the last time (or, for that matter, the FIRST time) any coach was fired because although the team consistently made the Final Four, maybe had a title or two, many players did not complete their degree plans after using up their athletic eligibility.
|
|
|
Post by blob on Aug 15, 2007 16:23:02 GMT -5
Okay - so I read this thread and chuckled a little yesterday when someone said that Jim truly had the best interest of his players in mind and was only interested in seeing his players graduate .... Did you see "Running With Scissors"? There's a scene in the psychiatrist's office with 13-year old Augusten and his mom (played by Annette Bening). There's a door on the wall behind the desk where the psychiatrist (played by Brian Cox) is seated. Augusten asks, "What's behind the door?" The psychiatrist responds, "Oh, that's a little room where I _________," (word deliberately left blank by me to save the prurient souls of this forum) whereupon Augusten delivered the funniest chuckle I've ever witnessed on film. Then, he looked at his mom, whose shocked look is priceless btw, then he turned to the psychiatrist again and then delivered his hilarious chuckle. Funny scene. Many many days on this forum, I chuckle EXACTLY like that. ...and then you run to your little room to _________
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Aug 15, 2007 16:52:50 GMT -5
Little room? No. I have a big room.
|
|
|
Post by SaltNPepper on Aug 15, 2007 18:10:35 GMT -5
Following the letter of the rules doesn't make someone ethically sound. I don't know anything about the Salvo situation, so I don't care about that. Filing for an extra year of eligibility for Tomasevic when you know that it's a long shot with little real basis is pretty unsavory in my mind. It's not enough to keep me up at night, but you can't just say that any criticism of McLaughlin is exclusively because of envy. I would think that we should expect our coaches to "follow the letter of the rules" and that doing so would not create any unsavory opinions of them. It also seems to me that no matter how much of a "long shot" some issue appears to be, that the coach or compliance officer or institution has a responsibility to each student to "go to bat" for them and at least try - I just can't fault Washington for trying. If there is a problem here, we should be bad mouthing the NCAA for the ruling, not JM for supporting his players/team.
|
|
|
Post by StanfordFan on Aug 15, 2007 20:34:27 GMT -5
I do want coaches to follow the letter of the law. I'd also like them to follow the spirit of them. And you're right, just as much fault lies with the NCAA for approving a request. I also agree that coaches should go to bat for their players in a positive and supportive manner. If that means staying late and helping students get tutoring or mentoring to graduate, great. If it means being supportive when a player is having family issues, fine. But if it means trying to create eligibility when you know that the player really should be ineligible just for the sake of making a hail mary--no, I don't think it's ethical. Just like I don't think it's ethical for a coach to assist a player in covering up misconduct so that the player can continue playing. By the way, I'll add that the only thing I know about the Tomasevic situation is what Bearclause has described. We form opinions of people based on the information we have. If you can describe the situation differently than what Bearclause has reported, then maybe I'll change my mind. Ultimately, it's just my personal opinion of the man. Following the letter of the rules doesn't make someone ethically sound. I don't know anything about the Salvo situation, so I don't care about that. Filing for an extra year of eligibility for Tomasevic when you know that it's a long shot with little real basis is pretty unsavory in my mind. It's not enough to keep me up at night, but you can't just say that any criticism of McLaughlin is exclusively because of envy. I would think that we should expect our coaches to "follow the letter of the rules" and that doing so would not create any unsavory opinions of them. It also seems to me that no matter how much of a "long shot" some issue appears to be, that the coach or compliance officer or institution has a responsibility to each student to "go to bat" for them and at least try - I just can't fault Washington for trying. If there is a problem here, we should be bad mouthing the NCAA for the ruling, not JM for supporting his players/team.
|
|
|
Post by huskervbfan on Aug 15, 2007 20:57:39 GMT -5
But if it means trying to create eligibility when you know that the player really should be ineligible just for the sake of making a hail mary--no, I don't think it's ethical. But how can you possibly know they are ineligible if the NCAA says they are eligible? They are the ones that ultimately determine eligibility and they agreed that she was. I think JM did right to ask. He didn't try to sneak her in and pull a fast one that I can tell. He apparently filled out the paperwork and they agreed to it. As a biased Husker fan, I believe it might have turned out differently if Washington would not have had her but the NCAA said she was valid and like it or not, they are the law, so she was legal. I believe JM was right to do what he did and I don't see any ethical issue with doing it either. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Now if he had "cheated" on the paperwork or other reporting to make her appear eligible when she otherwise wouldn't, that would be an entirely different issue. But if he filled it out accurately, then no problem.
|
|
|
Post by StanfordFan on Aug 15, 2007 21:48:28 GMT -5
Different people can have different opinions. I think he stretched for an extra year knowing that it should not have been granted, and got lucky. If someone can explain to me facts different than what Bearclause has described, maybe I'll feel differently. Ultimately, it's just my opinion. The thread asked who you'd want your kid to play for, and people are stating their opinions. But if it means trying to create eligibility when you know that the player really should be ineligible just for the sake of making a hail mary--no, I don't think it's ethical. But how can you possibly know they are ineligible if the NCAA says they are eligible? They are the ones that ultimately determine eligibility and they agreed that she was. I think JM did right to ask. He didn't try to sneak her in and pull a fast one that I can tell. He apparently filled out the paperwork and they agreed to it. As a biased Husker fan, I believe it might have turned out differently if Washington would not have had her but the NCAA said she was valid and like it or not, they are the law, so she was legal. I believe JM was right to do what he did and I don't see any ethical issue with doing it either. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Now if he had "cheated" on the paperwork or other reporting to make her appear eligible when she otherwise wouldn't, that would be an entirely different issue. But if he filled it out accurately, then no problem.
|
|
|
Post by mervynpumpkinhead on Aug 15, 2007 22:46:58 GMT -5
You're right; that does sound like complete BS.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Aug 15, 2007 23:27:48 GMT -5
Someone remind me of when Tomasevic graduated...? She hasn't yet...... Haha... Did her International Relations teacher fail her after seeing the Canadian not shake her hand?
|
|