|
Post by bc1900 on Apr 25, 2014 10:58:19 GMT -5
...But is it possible they wanted to give the players the Spring season to make an evaluation of the players to see if they wanted to keep any of them? ... The ethical way to approach this would be to tell the girls as early as possible (January?) that no one's position is secure and the spring season was essentially a tryout to remain on the team. I think even that is shady but that would have been better than what they actually did.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Apr 25, 2014 11:16:25 GMT -5
Another reason why I believe incoming scholarships should be guaranteed for two years. Scholarships should be canceled by a set date or automatically renewed. I'm not in favor of 2 or 4 years guaranteed. Nothing in life is guaranteed. However, I think that if a coach is going to "encourage" transfers, that should be required before spring practices start. They should get more time to find new programs. A two-year commitment is not onerous, in my opinion. Just means that if your going to dump players, you can't dump the one-year players (true frosh). After that, it would be a one-year guarantee.
|
|
|
Post by d3coach on Apr 25, 2014 12:11:29 GMT -5
The only issue I have with this is the timing. They should have let them know as soon as they made this decision, which was obviously before yesterday. That's the issue. That's the ethical dilemma. The reality, it may also be an administrative issue. If a coach went to their AD in February and said we don't want to keep any of these kids, can we grant them their release now, the admin may say no, especially since it could effect another varsity sport (sand VB, if I'm understanding the situation).
With regards to making players better, etc... If you have players that have have a 6 potential, and you feel like you need to have a team with 8's to win the conference, and you can go out and bring in players who have that potential, personalities that you feel are more conducive to your style of coaching and team development, yada, yada, then the reality is this is going to make it quicker. If your admin says I want you to win a conference championship in 5 years or your fired, then starting that process now versus in 2 years is important. If your goal is to keep moving up the ladder, and you want to to coach at a higher level, then quickness matters. If you're going to have players on the team that you don't want on your team, those players are probably not going to want to be there anyway once the fall hits and they are "not being treated fairly". Now you potentially have team dynamic issues, with players you didn't even want to begin with.
Also... parents aren't going to hold this against them. They did the same thing previously, to players they didn't recruit, didn't bring in, and didn't think fit their vision. They did NOT do it (at least it hasn't been brought up here) to players they recruited. So if I'm a recruited athlete, and she says listen, we are doing exactly what we did at our last school. We are removing players who don't fit our vision, and bringing in players that do fit our vision. We did it quickly so that those players aren't going to waste a season of eligibility playing for a program that isn't the right fit for them. [Maybe say they offered those players the chance to be walk-ons if they wanted to, so they could finish at SJSU on the team, especially seniors] And then finish by saying in 3 years we went from being 0-fer, to a 20 win team, and we expect an even bigger turn around here.
Recruits aren't going to doubt that. If I was a parent, I wouldn't be upset with that explanation, and if I were a student-athlete none of that would give me reason to believe she would treat me poorly. I'm not saying this would be my way of doing things, but I also think the greater issue is with the NCAA and its policies, rather than coaches doing what they feel is in the best interest of their programs (with the exception of the timing, I think that's a low ball, but it may NOT have been under their full control).
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Apr 25, 2014 13:56:47 GMT -5
The only issue I have with this is the timing. They should have let them know as soon as they made this decision, which was obviously before yesterday. That's the issue. That's the ethical dilemma. The reality, it may also be an administrative issue. If a coach went to their AD in February and said we don't want to keep any of these kids, can we grant them their release now, the admin may say no, especially since it could effect another varsity sport (sand VB, if I'm understanding the situation). Just curious, but is it obvious they knew before this week? Their last match was Saturday. Could they have decided over Easter dinner? The word is there are 5 players now, but we don't know if that number was 2 or 8 if they had let them know 3 weeks ago. Even if they did know, I would judge it harsher if a coach told an in-season athlete that they were done and not being given a chance to prove themselves. That's like going to a job after you know you've been fired - I can't imagine how that would have been an improvement. They were given a chance to stick and apparently a few players earned that right. I'm not saying what they did is right, but what you are suggesting would have arguably been even worse. On a possibly unrelated, possibly not, sort of issue. Despite having 14 players on the sand vb roster, SJSU had to forfeit the 5th pairing in both matches on Saturday because they only had 8 players. Where were the other 6 players? Diffine was a senior so I guess you can't punish her but are the other 5 kids who didn't go the 5 who were cut?
|
|
|
Post by Vballin on Apr 25, 2014 14:02:17 GMT -5
The only issue I have with this is the timing. They should have let them know as soon as they made this decision, which was obviously before yesterday. That's the issue. That's the ethical dilemma. The reality, it may also be an administrative issue. If a coach went to their AD in February and said we don't want to keep any of these kids, can we grant them their release now, the admin may say no, especially since it could effect another varsity sport (sand VB, if I'm understanding the situation). With regards to making players better, etc... If you have players that have have a 6 potential, and you feel like you need to have a team with 8's to win the conference, and you can go out and bring in players who have that potential, personalities that you feel are more conducive to your style of coaching and team development, yada, yada, then the reality is this is going to make it quicker. If your admin says I want you to win a conference championship in 5 years or your fired, then starting that process now versus in 2 years is important. If your goal is to keep moving up the ladder, and you want to to coach at a higher level, then quickness matters. If you're going to have players on the team that you don't want on your team, those players are probably not going to want to be there anyway once the fall hits and they are "not being treated fairly". Now you potentially have team dynamic issues, with players you didn't even want to begin with. Also... parents aren't going to hold this against them. They did the same thing previously, to players they didn't recruit, didn't bring in, and didn't think fit their vision. They did NOT do it (at least it hasn't been brought up here) to players they recruited. So if I'm a recruited athlete, and she says listen, we are doing exactly what we did at our last school. We are removing players who don't fit our vision, and bringing in players that do fit our vision. We did it quickly so that those players aren't going to waste a season of eligibility playing for a program that isn't the right fit for them. [Maybe say they offered those players the chance to be walk-ons if they wanted to, so they could finish at SJSU on the team, especially seniors] And then finish by saying in 3 years we went from being 0-fer, to a 20 win team, and we expect an even bigger turn around here. Recruits aren't going to doubt that. If I was a parent, I wouldn't be upset with that explanation, and if I were a student-athlete none of that would give me reason to believe she would treat me poorly. I'm not saying this would be my way of doing things, but I also think the greater issue is with the NCAA and its policies, rather than coaches doing what they feel is in the best interest of their programs (with the exception of the timing, I think that's a low ball, but it may NOT have been under their full control). Sorry, don't buy your statement about parents and potential recruits not holding it against them. My daughter was a D1 recruit and I definetly would have factored in their ability to so easily cut kids loose as a problem. I would not trust them at all. They could just as easily turn on my daughter in favor of another athlete. This is one parent who would be very leary now that they have done it twice. No thank you. Would not be for us. Too many other options out there to take the chance. We would have and did chose a coach with a loyal reputation and puts a very good team on the court.
|
|
|
Post by longintooth on Apr 25, 2014 14:16:58 GMT -5
Makes a lot of sense. Any Division I recruit that does not know that their tenure on a team ends when a better player comes on the scene was operating under the assumption that their first priority at the university was to obtain an education accompanied fully funded by a big scholarships. In fact, this is a business where students take classes that do not conflict with practice, where a supervisor(coach) may not even teach classes, and where they are required to put in so many hours in the off season, while, all the time,operating within rules formulated by the NCAA rather than the school. This situation at SJSU is just another painful illustration of how parents, school administrators, and fans of competitive sport have tracked all sorts of things into a university setting. Observe recruiters in the market for club players; watch parents invest thousands of dollars in travel, personal coaches, and marketing seeking a "full ride;" follow the shenanigans of coaches and boosters trying to outsmart the NCAA; examine the convolutions that the NCAA go through trying to perpetuate the myth of the "student athlete." You may conclude that most everything is out of control.
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Apr 25, 2014 14:22:26 GMT -5
What is so creepy about husband and wife coaches? There are lots of them with varying degrees of success and longevity. I'm just saying that when I watch the Rosens and Kreklows, I get the creeps. There is a dynamic between them, their asst. coaches and players that just seems strange. But you have no problem with a coach dating or marrying an ex-player?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2014 14:28:17 GMT -5
If NCAA athletes unionize and essentially become employees, won't this type of behavior happen more often/all the time? If an employee doesn't cut it, they are gone. Generally speaking, the NCAA, as it exists today, protects athletes from this happening en masse.
|
|
|
Post by d3coach on Apr 25, 2014 14:36:44 GMT -5
The only issue I have with this is the timing. They should have let them know as soon as they made this decision, which was obviously before yesterday. That's the issue. That's the ethical dilemma. The reality, it may also be an administrative issue. If a coach went to their AD in February and said we don't want to keep any of these kids, can we grant them their release now, the admin may say no, especially since it could effect another varsity sport (sand VB, if I'm understanding the situation). Just curious, but is it obvious they knew before this week? Their last match was Saturday. Could they have decided over Easter dinner? The word is there are 5 players now, but we don't know if that number was 2 or 8 if they had let them know 3 weeks ago. Even if they did know, I would judge it harsher if a coach told an in-season athlete that they were done and not being given a chance to prove themselves. That's like going to a job after you know you've been fired - I can't imagine how that would have been an improvement. They were given a chance to stick and apparently a few players earned that right. I'm not saying what they did is right, but what you are suggesting would have arguably been even worse. On a possibly unrelated, possibly not, sort of issue. Despite having 14 players on the sand vb roster, SJSU had to forfeit the 5th pairing in both matches on Saturday because they only had 8 players. Where were the other 6 players? Diffine was a senior so I guess you can't punish her but are the other 5 kids who didn't go the 5 who were cut? I don't know any of the parties, or have any inside info, I'm just going by what I'm reading here. I would say the only way they wouldn't know if they wanted to keep someone so late in the game, is strictly if they were trying to figure out who they could bring in to replace her. And the reality is that may have delayed the process as well.
|
|
|
Post by d3coach on Apr 25, 2014 14:47:01 GMT -5
The only issue I have with this is the timing. They should have let them know as soon as they made this decision, which was obviously before yesterday. That's the issue. That's the ethical dilemma. The reality, it may also be an administrative issue. If a coach went to their AD in February and said we don't want to keep any of these kids, can we grant them their release now, the admin may say no, especially since it could effect another varsity sport (sand VB, if I'm understanding the situation). With regards to making players better, etc... If you have players that have have a 6 potential, and you feel like you need to have a team with 8's to win the conference, and you can go out and bring in players who have that potential, personalities that you feel are more conducive to your style of coaching and team development, yada, yada, then the reality is this is going to make it quicker. If your admin says I want you to win a conference championship in 5 years or your fired, then starting that process now versus in 2 years is important. If your goal is to keep moving up the ladder, and you want to to coach at a higher level, then quickness matters. If you're going to have players on the team that you don't want on your team, those players are probably not going to want to be there anyway once the fall hits and they are "not being treated fairly". Now you potentially have team dynamic issues, with players you didn't even want to begin with. Also... parents aren't going to hold this against them. They did the same thing previously, to players they didn't recruit, didn't bring in, and didn't think fit their vision. They did NOT do it (at least it hasn't been brought up here) to players they recruited. So if I'm a recruited athlete, and she says listen, we are doing exactly what we did at our last school. We are removing players who don't fit our vision, and bringing in players that do fit our vision. We did it quickly so that those players aren't going to waste a season of eligibility playing for a program that isn't the right fit for them. [Maybe say they offered those players the chance to be walk-ons if they wanted to, so they could finish at SJSU on the team, especially seniors] And then finish by saying in 3 years we went from being 0-fer, to a 20 win team, and we expect an even bigger turn around here. Recruits aren't going to doubt that. If I was a parent, I wouldn't be upset with that explanation, and if I were a student-athlete none of that would give me reason to believe she would treat me poorly. I'm not saying this would be my way of doing things, but I also think the greater issue is with the NCAA and its policies, rather than coaches doing what they feel is in the best interest of their programs (with the exception of the timing, I think that's a low ball, but it may NOT have been under their full control). Sorry, don't buy your statement about parents and potential recruits not holding it against them. My daughter was a D1 recruit and I definetly would have factored in their ability to so easily cut kids loose as a problem. I would not trust them at all. They could just as easily turn on my daughter in favor of another athlete. This is one parent who would be very leary now that they have done it twice. No thank you. Would not be for us. Too many other options out there to take the chance. We would have and did chose a coach with a loyal reputation and puts a very good team on the court. That's fine, I'm not saying that every person would "buy into" what they did, just the vast majority. Every person wouldn't have bought into what she was selling regardless, otherwise every coach would get all of their top kids every year. But I can assure you, this won't be something that holds them back with any significance. My proof is that they've already done it once, and it clearly didn't haunt them the first time. People close to the situation, or who are disconnected but hear about it and get passionate about it, are going to take extreme sides (either way). The reality is that most recruits, if they have an interest in the school/program, aren't going to be as emotional, and will be very much open to hearing their side of the story (if they're even aware of it, which will probably not happen after a year for 95% of the recruits they talk with). Like I said, they aren't cutting kids they recruited. If they were this would be a completely different story. Any good recruiter would be able to explain what happened in terms that put a recruit/parents at ease. Could it turn off some, sure, but if they can get a kid to campus, I don't see it holding them back.
|
|
|
Post by bc1900 on Apr 25, 2014 14:51:28 GMT -5
If NCAA athletes unionize and essentially become employees, won't this type of behavior happen more often/all the time? If an employee doesn't cut it, they are gone. Generally speaking, the NCAA, as it exists today, protects athletes from this happening en masse. Not sure if the union thing will make it's way to women's volleyball; the point the football and basketball players make is they bring in much revenue but don't benefit from it. A union, however, would provide another layer of protection; it can be difficult firing a unionized employee.
|
|
|
Post by PSUVolley on Apr 25, 2014 16:52:40 GMT -5
I'm just saying that when I watch the Rosens and Kreklows, I get the creeps. There is a dynamic between them, their asst. coaches and players that just seems strange. But you have no problem with a coach dating or marrying an ex-player? Do you?
|
|
|
Post by wonderwarthog79 on Apr 25, 2014 21:27:38 GMT -5
I'm just saying that when I watch the Rosens and Kreklows, I get the creeps. There is a dynamic between them, their asst. coaches and players that just seems strange. But you have no problem with a coach dating or marrying an ex-player? Hell, I don't have a problem with a coach dating or marrying a current player!
|
|
|
Post by ja on Apr 25, 2014 21:58:45 GMT -5
But you have no problem with a coach dating or marrying an ex-player? Hell, I don't have a problem with a coach dating or marrying a current player! NCAA does!
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 25, 2014 22:43:38 GMT -5
But you have no problem with a coach dating or marrying an ex-player? Hell, I don't have a problem with a coach dating or marrying a current player! That seems like a violation of professional ethics. There are good reasons why many organizations prohibit (or at least discourage) such things between people who have a supervisor/subordinate relationship. I guess that's also potentially an issue with respect to head/assistant coaches. But it seems like most of the time when head coaches are married to assistant coaches they are hired with the relationship already established. But it does raise issues about, for instance, how another assistant coach might be treated compared to the one who is married to the head coach.
|
|