|
Post by mango on Jun 5, 2008 20:36:01 GMT -5
Thanks for asking. I think that as people realize that the Big 10 and Pac 10 are not champions of female leadership in women's volleyball, there is potential for class action against these conferences. Does that answer your question ?
|
|
|
Post by mervynpumpkinhead on Jun 5, 2008 20:43:24 GMT -5
Thanks for asking. I think that as people realize that the Big 10 and Pac 10 are not champions of female leadership in women's volleyball, there is potential for class action against these conferences. Does that answer your question ? Shockingly, no, as you haven't presented examples, evidence, etc., anything on which to base this opinion.
|
|
|
Post by vbfatty on Jun 5, 2008 21:26:22 GMT -5
I will gladly accept the burden of the sins of generations of white men who came before me. I will also accept that there are a more than a few athletic department leaders who are believe that everything is about revenue (because at some level it is in the model in play) and who are NOT champions of female leadership or female athletics in general. But to state that there is a potential for class action againsst these conferences is pure idiocy. It shows a complete lack of understanding and such unsupportable statements frankly rob you of any legitimacy that you might otherwise have. Sad, just plain sad. I didn't stay at a holiday inn express last night but I am a lawyer, and one who's had a few class action cases before.
|
|
|
Post by bobbyhill on Jun 6, 2008 21:58:32 GMT -5
Will be interested in how this plays out. Looks to me like another case of a female who has sour grapes about not getting what she wanted out of her sense of entitlement, couldn't get the job done because of lack of ability, and looking for a scapegoat. I am sick and tired of female coaches using any excuse possible to sue universities for their own lack of performance as head coaches and looking for someone to blame.....here's a thought Mrs. Draper, the mirror is only a foot away!!! A .326 winning percentage speaks for itself.. Rushing did more than that with less than you had....deal with it and move on!!
|
|
|
Post by Ajava on Jun 7, 2008 14:01:54 GMT -5
Thanks for asking. I think that as people realize that the Big 10 and Pac 10 are not champions of female leadership in women's volleyball, there is potential for class action against these conferences. Does that answer your question ? Where do you ever come up with these thoughts? You are completely off your rocker. Good luck with the potential lawsuits.
|
|
|
Post by mango on Jun 8, 2008 15:18:22 GMT -5
Hillary Clinton's concession speach did a nice historical review of how women advanced their cause over the years. The best line (paraphrased) was "Don't waste time looking back about what could have been, we've got too much work ahead of us." In any event, leagues that have men as 80% of their head volleyball coaches certainly are at risk for gender discrimination.
|
|
|
Post by baldyballer on Jun 8, 2008 15:48:14 GMT -5
I don't know- this case seems like it would work against the cause to hire female head coaches. I think a man gets fired and takes it better than a woman scorn. Most male coaches that I've talked to are happy to just have a volleyball job, while females often think its their birth right. Football and basketball brings in more money and is traditional the sport of choice with majority of casual fans. That's enough reason to give those programs more. As the fight for volleyball support presses on coaches should hope they get more because usually increasing volleyball budgets are not to far behind in proportion. This lawsuit is another great case for administrators to hire the most QUALIFIED man or woman to coach. With that said, I'm sure I'll hear some great comments from all those women coaches out there!!!
|
|
|
Post by mervynpumpkinhead on Jun 8, 2008 20:14:23 GMT -5
Hillary Clinton's concession speach did a nice historical review of how women advanced their cause over the years. The best line (paraphrased) was "Don't waste time looking back about what could have been, we've got too much work ahead of us." In any event, leagues that have men as 80% of their head volleyball coaches certainly are at risk for gender discrimination. Again, anything to base this ridiculous notion on? Anything?
|
|
|
Post by mango on Jun 11, 2008 20:42:12 GMT -5
What don't you get ? 80 percent male. 20 percent female. Pattern of behavior. Male bias.
Here's an unfactual prediction: The two premiere collegiate leagues for volleyball would remain premiere leagues if they were controlled by 100% women head coaches.
|
|
|
Post by mervynpumpkinhead on Jun 11, 2008 21:19:48 GMT -5
What don't you get ? 80 percent male. 20 percent female. Pattern of behavior. Male bias. Here's an unfactual prediction: The two premiere collegiate leagues for volleyball would remain premiere leagues if they were controlled by 100% women head coaches. All the big talk show hosts are men. Should women sue the networks for gender bias?
|
|
|
Post by bluecollar on Jun 11, 2008 22:10:58 GMT -5
I don't know what went on while Chris was there or after Amy took the job. I do know that when Chris left - UT-Martin definitely wanted to hire a women for the head coach. The hire was based more on gender than on the resume. Now the young lady that got the job based on gender has filed a lawsuit based on gender discrimination.
Then they give the interim job back to a male.
That will keep someone up at night...
|
|
|
Post by bobbyhill on Jun 11, 2008 23:23:22 GMT -5
If this lawsuit is read carefully, the only thing that Draper is claiming is she wan't praised enough for having one winning season in 3 years, and not praised enough for winning 32% of her games. BOO FREAKING HOO!!!! The only reason she had the job was because she was female, now is suing because she is a female who was fired for doing a terrible job! What a joke this whole lawsuit is. Bottom line is, nothing was put into a complaint until after Lindy Vivas won her lawsuit against Fresno State. Now, every female who gets fired for not doing well, which happens every day in college athletics to males and females alike, is going to want to sue to get paid. If you read the lawsuit, she even threw her husband's career under the bus by trying to implicate the men's basketball team in rules violations after she was caught breaking NCAA rules. Her husband was on the men's basketball staff at UT-Martin, and he eventually resigned as well. This woman is obviously out for nothing but money, and doesn't care who she has to drag through the mud to get it.....even her own family!
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Jun 12, 2008 7:42:52 GMT -5
It is as ridiculous to lump all the recent lawsuits into one narrow explanation as it is to make a general statement about having 100% female coaches in DI volleyball. The three cases, as I see it from the outside are all different.
1) Fresno State wasn't just Lindy Vivas getting fired for non-performance. The head women's basketball coach, and an associate AD all sued. The salacious tidbits that came out from the trial definitely suggest a caveman mentality when it comes to women's sports. Lindy Vivas also isn't some rookie coach who is suing because she had her feelings hurt. She was a head coach for 20 years, and she was a protege of Andy Banachowski. She did not uindertake this frivolously.
2) FGCU. I don't understand this one, it is so convoluted and complex that I pity the judge. On the one hand it looks like the school is retaliating, on the other, Jaye Flood was running roughshod over her team, abusing her club, and was trying to have improper relationships with female employees of the university.
3) UT-Martin. This is a bit more cut and dried. Rushing left and they went for the young, translated: cheap talent. It didn't work out and she gets canned. I am sure, if the whole basketball story is true, that there are some retaliation going on too, but her record speaks for itself, AND it also speaks for the kind of job Rushing did at UT-Martin.
|
|
|
Post by rileystar on Jun 12, 2008 10:36:04 GMT -5
I clearly don't typically post, but read often. This thread has been very annoying because people will take what they want out of the situation and only post those things. I have to believe there was SOMETHING going on if Draper has e-mails dating back to 2006 (right after her team completed a great season compared to the previous year). The information below is enough for any clear-minded person to see that for whatever reason, Draper felt the need to have someone present in a meeting, or at least be allowed to tape it. Again, AFTER a very strong season...
"The discrimination faced by Draper led her to e-mail Dane and Fabianich on November 16, 2006, stating "I sense that you are targeting me for unequal treatment here at the athletic department. I sense this could be due to the fact that I am a strong and capable woman. I believe that gender may be playing a role not only in the investigation into my meal expenditure but also in other forms of treatment I receive."
A meeting was scheduled for the following day to discuss Draper's allegations. According to the suit, Draper requested that she either bring her graduate assistant coach or be allowed to tape record the meeting.
Dane said he would not meet under those conditions, and held the meeting as planned. Draper's suit states that Dane and Fabianich criticized her during the meeting, threatened to pull some of the team's scholarship money, and Dane told her that if her allegations of discrimination continued he would "bring the curtain down" on her."
The next season did not live up to expectations, but find me a college coach out there that would want to show progress like she did in 3 years, have to recruit to those facilities and that town and get fired after a mediocre season. They hand-picked the interim basically before Draper was out the door. If it had opened up, do we really think any decent coach would have looked at this situation and taken that job? Knowing that you can show major improvement and if you have one rough season, you are fired? I doubt it very seriously.
Maybe there was more going on (people say she was breaking rules, but I don't know if this is true or not), but the fact is I HOPE there was more going on. If you are a college coach in this climate, you can only hope she was fired for more than a weak 3rd season after showing that she was able to turn it around after year 1.
I really hope more facts come out about this case, because all we have had on this board is female-coach bashing and I am getting tired of reading it. There are good and bad female AND male coaches. So lets not lump any of them in together and keep saying "another case of a woman scorned", or whatever terms we are choosing to use.
And to the posts about revenue...any intelligent person understands how revenue works in a college athletic department. You will never find me complaining about how much our football or men's basketball team gets, because I understand that the more successful they are, the more money people give to the school allowing me to get the budget increases I need this year even though we are having budget cuts across campus. Now, I work at a school that is not giving volleyball the shaft so that these other teams can have these things. We have what we need, so I can't complain. I realize it is not like that everywhere. I have seen UTM's gym, it is one of the worst places I have ever seen. Were the girls treated unfairly? I don't know, but there facilities were very sub-standard. If Draper was fired for standing up for her program, then she has a legitimate claim in her lawsuit.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Jun 12, 2008 10:49:33 GMT -5
1998 15-15 .500 8-10 .444 7th --- Chris Rushing
1999 8-22 .267 3-15 .167 9th --- Chris Rushing
2000 21-6 .778 13-3 .813 2nd Runner-up Chris Rushing
2001 25-8 .758 14-2 .875 1st Runner-up Chris Rushing
2002 24-6 .800 15-1 .937 1st Champions Chris Rushing
2003 7-25 .219 5-11 .313 8th --- Chris Rushing
Rushing went from 8-22 to 21-6. 0.266 to 0.777. A 0.512 increase
Draper went from 2-29 to 18-13. 0.0645 to 0.580. A 0.515 increase.
So they were compatible. But the next year Rushing came in second in the conference with his team. Next year Draper went 10-22 with her team.
Part of what she was dealing with had to do with elevated expectations from Rushing's record.
Also, given the successes that Rushing had with the program, he must have gotten a certain amount of administration support, budget etc. which Draper benefitted from.
Also what was the teams record the year before Draper got there? Her first season wasn't 2004 was it?
|
|