|
Post by onfiya on Jun 5, 2015 15:52:39 GMT -5
It was "done" before this thread was ever created. That doesn't mean they made the correct decision. It being "done", you have felt compelled to reply as many times as anyone on this topic. I think as long as there are folks that are interested in it, and questions about the events that took place, there can and should be discussion about it. There have been only 45 posts and over 16,400 views to this thread. That's more average views per post than any other thread on this site by a long shot!
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Jun 5, 2015 16:28:18 GMT -5
I think it is great that HBO was able to bring so many new volleyball lovers from out from under the rocks to comment on this story. Oh, "I have 9,400 VT posts, so I know so much more than you about volleyball." That would indicate that YOU live under a rock (albeit with wi-fi) more than to the contrary. The idea that because you are a frequent chatboard user, it somehow makes you more qualified to comment on any issue related to volleyball is absurd. I'm pretty sure that the Wake players have never posted on here, but I guess you would refer to them as, new volleyball lovers that live under a rock, completely lacking a valid opinion as well? Ooh, touchy. Did I hit a nerve?
|
|
|
Post by knowitall on Jun 5, 2015 17:31:38 GMT -5
You still didn't answer the question. If it really is 11 players, and their parents that feel abused or mistreated, why are they still there?
|
|
|
Post by sevb on Jun 5, 2015 18:11:11 GMT -5
Oh, "I have 9,400 VT posts, so I know so much more than you about volleyball." That would indicate that YOU live under a rock (albeit with wi-fi) more than to the contrary. The idea that because you are a frequent chatboard user, it somehow makes you more qualified to comment on any issue related to volleyball is absurd. I'm pretty sure that the Wake players have never posted on here, but I guess you would refer to them as, new volleyball lovers that live under a rock, completely lacking a valid opinion as well? Ooh, touchy. Did I hit a nerve? Sounds like someone didn't approve of the admins decision not to clean house w the staff... And because this board isnt unning around screaming that the sky is falling we all must approve... The butthurt is strong w this noob
|
|
|
Post by onfiya on Jun 5, 2015 18:40:19 GMT -5
No butthurt. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I'm pretty sure that the number of posts on VT has no reflection on one's volleyball knowledge or credibility. This "noob" thinks that a major screwup occured and Wake's administration has turned and looked the other way, and that anyone that thinks Murczek's behavior is acceptable is part of the problem. Do you mean to suggest that since the university administration looked in to it, and self-policing themselves said that there's no problem here, we should all just buy it??? Maybe, but HBO Real Sports is pretty credible too. I haven't heard about their retraction or an apology for the misinformation in their story yet...
|
|
|
Post by zenyada on Jun 5, 2015 19:04:10 GMT -5
It was "done" before this thread was ever created. That doesn't mean they made the correct decision. It being "done", you have felt compelled to reply as many times as anyone on this topic. I think as long as there are folks that are interested in it, and questions about the events that took place, there can and should be discussion about it. There have been only 45 posts and over 16,400 views to this thread. That's more average views per post than any other thread on this site by a long shot! Let me tap into NC a bit and say 16,400 views suggests this topic has somewhat of a NASCAR appeal, pre HANS device. Sadly, someone getting "killed" (likeable or not) makes for better ratings. But where can you go with this topic? For me, only 45 posts doesn't suggest there's more to be discussed, but rather many recognizing that this is a goupy complex topic encumbered by misinformation, unknowns, gray areas, and changing social dynamics, where posting serves mostly just to reveal personal bias. Who knows whether the administration wanted to fire him, but was advised not to by an overly conservative HR attorney? Maybe in this increasingly pc world, the administration wanted to extend the opportunity for a coach to change behavior before canning him. Who knows? My bias is this. I can't say with certainty whether this coach falls into the 20% incompetent end of the behavior bell curve, but with what I've heard here, he does strike me as part of what seems to be a growing epidemic of college and high school coaches with a delusional sense of self importance. Nurtured by an archaic NCAA structure, and promoted by the media, its at an annoying level. Less shots of coaches on the sidelines please. Respect the player, have real relationships, and be humble. More Brad Stevens please and fewer knuckleheads.
|
|
|
Post by knowitall on Jun 5, 2015 19:12:40 GMT -5
So you are saying that the university, who had access to all of the student-athletes and coaches involved, covered up something, but HBO, who only interviewed a couple of people, were able to find out the real truth? Wouldn't a more simple explanation be that there were a few disgruntled players (probably based on playing time) didn't get what they wanted, so they and their parents set out to crucify the coach? I have seen the latter scenario a lot more than the former.
Again I ask, if the situation is as bad as Onifya has depicted, why would the 11 players stay, and how in the world would their parents allow them to stay?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 5, 2015 19:51:35 GMT -5
Sounds like someone didn't approve of the admins decision not to clean house w the staff... And because this board isnt unning around screaming that the sky is falling we all must approve... The butthurt is strong w this noob Whoa whoa whoa... I haven't even posted in this thread!
|
|
|
Post by roadkill on Jun 8, 2015 6:47:52 GMT -5
So you are saying that the university, who had access to all of the student-athletes and coaches involved, covered up something, but HBO, who only interviewed a couple of people, were able to find out the real truth? Wouldn't a more simple explanation be that there were a few disgruntled players (probably based on playing time) didn't get what they wanted, so they and their parents set out to crucify the coach? I have seen the latter scenario a lot more than the former. Again I ask, if the situation is as bad as Onifya has depicted, why would the 11 players stay, and how in the world would their parents allow them to stay? Only if the administration gave them assurances that the behavior will never happen again. This situation is far from over. I'm told that Murczek has been leashed and the situation has improved. This key result here is if they renew his contract. Then you will know which way the administration really went and only then will it be over.
|
|
|
Post by BabyDuck on Jun 8, 2015 13:31:36 GMT -5
Again I ask, if the situation is as bad as Onifya has depicted, why would the 11 players stay, and how in the world would their parents allow them to stay? We heard this a lot in our "bad coach" situation, and it's not really fair to the athletes (or their families). Of the several families/athletes on our team who complained, only 1 quit the team because of it. Returning players were all told the coach would be monitored in practices and games to guard against more abusive behavior. That lasted all of 2 practices. Administrative types are very busy with the other aspects of their jobs, and can't be there all of the time. In our situation, the coach was told they had reached the final straw, and behavior was much better for a while. Eventually, the ugliness resurfaced, and the following season, 3 more athletes quit the program. The sad thing is that new athletes keep coming, not knowing what is waiting for them. At the end of the day, responsibility in dealing with issues like this (if all accusations are correct) falls directly on the administration.
|
|
|
Post by vbfamm on Jun 23, 2015 17:34:25 GMT -5
It's a good thing P Diddy didn't have a daughter playing VB at WF. No telling what would have happened between these two.
|
|
|
Post by onfiya on Jun 24, 2015 19:05:36 GMT -5
Somebody's noggin would have been "Puffy"
|
|
|
Post by roadkill on Jun 25, 2015 8:14:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vbfamm on Aug 5, 2015 17:11:13 GMT -5
Some have written that actions by Ken Murczek have no place in college athletics. Others on this thread have downplayed and/or defended him. No longer surprised by that as some are defending/reasoning Rick Butler's past actions. I'm not saying it's the same people. Just saying some are.
|
|
|
Post by netdirector on Aug 5, 2015 18:06:58 GMT -5
Some have written that actions by Ken Murczek have no place in college athletics. Others on this thread have downplayed and/or defended him. No longer surprised by that as some are defending/reasoning Rick Butler's past actions. I'm not saying it's the same people. Just saying some are. I'm no psychologist, but rationalizing systematic abuse is most likely a defense mechanism. You see it commonly among victims of abuse themselves, who haven't been able to confront the situation or the implications. There's no other reason I can imagine to justify the actions of predators.
|
|