|
Post by austintatious on Jan 19, 2014 11:28:28 GMT -5
Austiantatioius, great points. I have now gone back and read the comments from the news paper article. Sure see that Arthur received a lot of respect from a number of his players. Also, it appears that others did not like his approach. I am very opposed to entitlements but I also agree that pride can get in the way of common sense decisions. I do not know Arthur on a personal level. I too have seen him coach for years. Very thankful that my daughter was not getting the tongue lashing that I have observed. To say that he is loud misses the point. I have seen many matches lost due to his technique. I have seen D1 players wilt under his presence. I guess you can argue that it made the girls stronger but I disagree. I believe coaches can be critical without being demeaning. Arthur crossed the line many times. He is passionate but never learned to reel it in. Just my observation. You know, in hindsight, I may be too close to the situation to be really objective. As an official, I pretty much sat on him, and he knew I had a very short cutoff for his behavior, but as a coaching peer, he always was available to help my team, steer his explayers my way if they had relocated to Austin or San Antonio (not juniors, this is when USAV ball was mostly college and excollege players.) Still don't think he deserves the several personal attacks, but is clearly no saint, like the rest of us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2014 11:42:31 GMT -5
I would think that if this was about inappropriate behavior that he would've been terminated quite a while ago. Otherwise, why allow the behavior to continue?
The fact that this is done at this point by a school administration certainly gives the appearance that it is because of choices he made (playing time, etc) that upset parents. The notion that administrators act in the best interest of students at all times is far from true. I was canned fast when, at a private school, I didn't play a girl whose daddy donated $150k/year (I played the kid who was 6'3 and made all-state instead). If we don't know the details--reaching a fair verdict is difficult.
|
|
|
Post by elevationvb on Jan 19, 2014 11:56:06 GMT -5
Exactly. They didn't wait for the coach to have a sub par season to get rid of him. They probably had enough of his behavior.
Elevation, first of all, if it wasn't Cat McCoy, I doubt you would have even posted an opinion. Secondly, and I am not saying this is the case here, but YES, I can imagine an administration buckling under to pressure depending on where and how high up that pressure is coming from. People, like high paying jobs and keeping them. Now that is weak.
Tired of bullies whether it be kids or adults.
Will repeat that it would be nice to see coaches step up and admit they know bullies in the coaching ranks. It took many years before Bobby Knights behavior was enough for the University of Indiana. I suspect the same happened at this high school.
|
|
|
Post by elevationvb on Jan 19, 2014 11:57:28 GMT -5
I would think that if this was about inappropriate behavior that he would've been terminated quite a while ago. Otherwise, why allow the behavior to continue? The fact that this is done at this point by a school administration certainly gives the appearance that it is because of choices he made (playing time, etc) that upset parents. The notion that administrators act in the best interest of students at all times is far from true. I was canned fast when, at a private school, I didn't play a girl whose daddy donated $150k/year (I played the kid who was 6'3 and made all-state instead). If we don't know the details--reaching a fair verdict is difficult. Bobby Knight is an example of one who got away with being a bully for many years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2014 14:51:41 GMT -5
I would think that if this was about inappropriate behavior that he would've been terminated quite a while ago. Otherwise, why allow the behavior to continue? The fact that this is done at this point by a school administration certainly gives the appearance that it is because of choices he made (playing time, etc) that upset parents. The notion that administrators act in the best interest of students at all times is far from true. I was canned fast when, at a private school, I didn't play a girl whose daddy donated $150k/year (I played the kid who was 6'3 and made all-state instead). If we don't know the details--reaching a fair verdict is difficult. Bobby Knight is an example of one who got away with being a bully for many years.I don't disagree. And I know coaches where I am that were bullies--one to the point I would've sued if she was coaching my daughter, but it doesn't change that for every coach I know that is removed for bullying, I know a dozen removed for playing the wrong person, not playing the right person, or other reasons irrelevant to actually coaching. Clearly this person is an intense coach. And from the description, he's not someone I would want my child to play for (and I wouldn't want to play for him either), but that doesn't change the interesting timing of the decision. It looks questionable one way or the other. And with that said--I also know it's quite possible that he DID do something meriting dismissal, and that because it is an employment issue, the school isn't allowed to come out and say something like "Hey, he was waving a shotgun in practice, threatening to buckshot anyone who served Zone 6."
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Jan 19, 2014 15:05:14 GMT -5
Hah. Hahaha. Hahahaha hahahaha. A-HAHJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHANAHAHAHANAN HhHahahahahanahahaha Oh my goodness. Thanks. I really needed that laugh today. Translation - nothing to say.No. Translation -- someone has spent almost their entire career working with educators and educational administrations; knows better than to trust administrators to make decisions with best interests of students as Prime Directive and disregard budgetary power struggles, political goals, pet projects, and nepotism. How many different ISD superintendents, board members, and top level administrators did you interact with this past week? If anything, "nothing to say" is how we can characterize your statement of pure faith, with nothing in the way of supporting evidence or explanation, that the administrators must have made the right decision, apparently just because they're administrators.
|
|
|
Post by longhornfan on Jan 19, 2014 15:37:11 GMT -5
Bobby Knight is an example of one who got away with being a bully for many years. I don't disagree. And I know coaches where I am that were bullies--one to the point I would've sued if she was coaching my daughter, but it doesn't change that for every coach I know that is removed for bullying, I know a dozen removed for playing the wrong person, not playing the right person, or other reasons irrelevant to actually coaching. Clearly this person is an intense coach. And from the description, he's not someone I would want my child to play for (and I wouldn't want to play for him either), but that doesn't change the interesting timing of the decision. It looks questionable one way or the other. And with that said--I also know it's quite possible that he DID do something meriting dismissal, and that because it is an employment issue, the school isn't allowed to come out and say something like "Hey, he was waving a shotgun in practice, threatening to buckshot anyone who served Zone 6." Ding...Ding...Ding...you win the prize behind door number 3! Spot on with your last paragraph. Even in his interview, he said he was not surprised this happened.
|
|
dkh
Sophomore
Posts: 112
|
Post by dkh on Jan 20, 2014 0:45:21 GMT -5
I remember when they hired him, ironically, all the talk was about how Southlake parents from his club demanded that they hire Arthur to Coach Southlake.
|
|
|
Post by originalsin on Jan 20, 2014 6:18:50 GMT -5
Wondering if remaining in the high school coaching ranks is still a possibility?
|
|
|
Post by WI FIB on Jan 20, 2014 6:41:39 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure I remember this guy then. Most condescending coach I ever saw coach players, and I've seen many over the years. Not being tough on the girls, more like talking down in the most demeaning manner I've ever heard a coach speak to players.
I remember wondering why any parent would want this guy coaching his daughters, but they were winning, so I'm sure that keeps a lot of mouths shut.
|
|
|
Post by Garand on Jan 20, 2014 10:56:11 GMT -5
I would think that if this was about inappropriate behavior that he would've been terminated quite a while ago. Otherwise, why allow the behavior to continue? You must not be Catholic.
|
|
|
Post by toomuchvb on Jan 20, 2014 11:32:37 GMT -5
Wondering if remaining in the high school coaching ranks is still a possibility? Wondering how his continuing to teach at the school is working, especially if he has players in those classes!
|
|
|
Post by toomuchvb on Jan 20, 2014 11:41:55 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure I remember this guy then. Most condescending coach I ever saw coach players, and I've seen many over the years. Not being tough on the girls, more like talking down in the most demeaning manner I've ever heard a coach speak to players. I remember wondering why any parent would want this guy coaching his daughters, but they were winning, so I'm sure that keeps a lot of mouths shut. Winning forgives a multitude of sins. Perhaps his wife is the voice of reason. One article said: "The Dragons benefit from having a second "Coach Stanfield.'' Arthur's wife Kathy coached volleyball for two decades and was very successful in her own right before going into school administration 17 years ago. She is an assistant principal at Lamar (Arlington). "It's a huge advantage,'' Arthur said. "Kathy gives me feedback after a match. She's not able to go to all our matches, but she is at the big ones. Before we played Heritage, she sent me a text reminding me to be positive on the bench.'' How does it work with them both coaching the TAV 18-2 team? Will they be encouraged to leave the club?
|
|
|
Post by CityTechLegend on Jan 20, 2014 11:47:24 GMT -5
I'm going to chime in, because someone asked for coaches to say something in reference to "bully" coaches.
Bobby Knight, is an example of "TOUGH" coaching. The coach from Rutgers (D1) in New Jersey, is an example of "BULLY" coaching. Now, I'm not saying Coach Knight (from all accounts, not from personal knowledge) had a rougher side than most coaches and pushed his players in a very unique and combative way. A very influential coach came from his program at Army. Mike Krzyzewski was his assistant at Army and played for him before that. So 'tough" coaches ARE good coaches as people. He did become openly combative AFTER Indiana. It was almost as if he wanted to live in the persona, more than just being the good coach he had always been (but this is my opinion).
The Rutgers coach (who's name escapes me - I think it was Rice) was a straight "BULLY." Members of his staff came out and stated they weren't fans of his style. Not one or two players complained, but MANY complained. He was caught on camera being a bully and it seemed (in the footage) there really wasn't a reason for his actions, except lack of execution. As a coach you can get players to execute better without throwing things at them and berating them.
As a volleyball coach we try to teach in a different way. We're asked to put our athletes through comprehensive SELF EVALUATING practice scenarios. "Yes/No/Maybe" is something we ask our kids to do during practice to insure improved performance. Whether it is in an individual drill or team exercise our expectations are always set to a high standard both on and off the court. We ask players to do the same evaluations in character of themselves and those of the people around them. With that being said, and like another poster - I have no dog in this fight - I have observed a few things.
1) Based on the article and comments; Coach Stanfield wasn't a very liked man by MANY people because of his verbalization towards his players. However, many players have come out in support. My take on it is "YOU CAN'T PLEASE EVERYONE." He had his detractors yet, most of his players feel he made them better as people and players. Bobby Knight has a similar legacy.
2) Stanfield seemed to be the kind of person that didn't take kindly to "opposition." That means, anyone who bucked his system was in his doghouse. From his video interview he was fairly "dismissive' when he stated "Well, there were PROBABLY some decisions made back in the season, that were unpopular decisions and I knew, when I made then, it could come back to haunt me." He continued to say, "Lets just leave that it was unpopular and not throw anyone under the bus..." All this after saying "I wasn't caught completely by surprise." He knew this was coming. IN my opinion this means he didn't care. What he decided at that time was what was needed (disciplining a player for an infraction; whatever) and anyone who opposed it could go screw off. He knew whatever DECISION he made at the start of the season, was going to bite him in the end. So are the riggers of being a coach. You live with your decision, popular and unpopular AND the consequences of those decision. Obviously, he could.
3) And I am surprised no one has caught on to this...For all of the bluster of how MEAN a coach he is; how ADMINS make decisions in the best interests of students. The way in which parents first WANTED Stanfield and now spew venom his way. No one mentioned that, though Arthur is no longer the coach, he is STILL a teacher at SLC. This tells me that the incident IS more politically related (in terms of team issues). If what happened was about something improper, he would have not been allowed to be a teacher as well as a coach. If this was a matter of his attitude towards the players and ONLY his attitude, I can see where some ADMINS would turn a blind eye. However, this just screams of a parent on a board NOT being happy with a decision made at the beginning of the season, that they felt HURT the team. I'm not sure how a team finishing 48-2 and making it to the State Semifinal is hurt, but we all see things differently. IF, and I do mean IF a parent is on that board and what transpired happened to do with a board member's child, well "throwing someone under the bus..." would be Stanfield's way of getting out of trouble.
Ty Willingham, built a winning team at Notre Dame, for Charlie Weiss. Ty was a tough coach and was known to be unyielding when it came to his discipline and expectations. Sounds to me (outside of the verbal barrages) Stanfield was the same way. If a player wasn't willing to conform (back to the bucking the system thing) that athlete was set in the doghouse. Most of the clubs in this country have a rule, PARENTS DON'T TALK TO COACHES, in any fashion. If a parent has an issue with a coach, they go straight to the club director. Parents aren't allowed to coach or have any say in team decisions as pertaining to play time or discipline. Unfortunately, at certain high schools, in certain regions, parents have lots of power. I can't say this is what ACTUALLY happened. Its only my opinion, but you can see how this could be an issue.
Now, this all is just my opinion and take on the matter. Do I like coaches who belittle players? NO! I don't do it and I don't think it should be a part of coaching. However, there are those who think this type of coach is fine. Really this all comes down to a HE SAID/THEY SAID matter. Unless and UNTIL all the facts are out there, we'll never know WHY SLC decided to "go in a different direction..." We do know this, Arthur Stanfield is a good coach maybe not a good person. In the end, who he IS did him in and not what his accomplishments have been.
Thanks for reading... :-)
|
|
bags
Sophomore
Posts: 120
|
Post by bags on Jan 20, 2014 14:55:06 GMT -5
Ty Wilingham? Where is he coaching now?
|
|