|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 17, 2014 16:40:50 GMT -5
Only time she can go on official visit is when HS is playing meaningless matches against weaker competition. I can't possibly imagine how that would be the case. More likely, they scheduled the visit first, then presented the coach with a fait accompli. It was a scheduled match. They had plenty of time to schedule a visit that didn't conflict with her team's schedule. Doesn't matter if the opponent hadn't won a match in the last decade. It sounds more likely to me that her parent(s) didn't want to change their plans (or cancel their unrefundable plane tickets?), so blew the coach off instead. Last year, at a top D1 softball program, a freshman player demanded that her coach start her at 3rd base, rather than in left field. When the coach said no, the player quit the team (and her teammates) in the middle of the season. That team fell one game short of playing for the national championship. If that coach had folded to that player (a top recruit), she would have been going against everything she believed in as a coach.
|
|
|
Post by thenetset on Jan 17, 2014 16:42:40 GMT -5
I'm confused -- 960 wins and a 48-2 record? Does that mean the team played 50 matches in one season? That's kind of a lot, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 17, 2014 16:52:21 GMT -5
I'm confused -- 960 wins and a 48-2 record? Does that mean the team played 50 matches in one season? That's kind of a lot, isn't it? Katy Beals' HS team (also in Texas) was 50-0 her senior season (losing only one set). I suspect they're playing two out of three, not three out of five.
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Jan 17, 2014 16:55:21 GMT -5
I'm confused -- 960 wins and a 48-2 record? Does that mean the team played 50 matches in one season? That's kind of a lot, isn't it? it is Texas. Everything is bigger in Texas. even the Volleyball schedules.
|
|
tncoach
Junior
"what we do in life echoes through eternity!"
Posts: 496
|
Post by tncoach on Jan 17, 2014 17:04:53 GMT -5
Only time she can go on official visit is when HS is playing meaningless matches against weaker competition. I can't possibly imagine how that would be the case. More likely, they scheduled the visit first, then presented the coach with a fait accompli. It was a scheduled match. They had plenty of time to schedule a visit that didn't conflict with her team's schedule. Doesn't matter if the opponent hadn't won a match in the last decade. It sounds more likely to me that her parent(s) didn't want to change their plans (or cancel their unrefundable plane tickets?), so blew the coach off instead. Last year, at a top D1 softball program, a freshman player demanded that her coach start her at 3rd base, rather than in left field. When the coach said no, the player quit the team (and her teammates) in the middle of the season. That team fell one game short of playing for the national championship. If that coach had folded to that player, she would have been going against everything she believed in as a coach. Although there may be truth to your point, it also depends on the recruiting tactics and timing of the college in question. The fact that she was a libero suggests there could have been a later decision being made in her situation, as is the case with many DI programs. They may not have opened the door for a visit until late, may have requested that she come during a certain window, may have given her specific dates, there are a lot of variables involved. We have had to work with parents and coaches in numerous situations to try and find a window for a visit early enough in the fall to allow time for decisions, NLI paperwork to be sent, etc , and have run into the issue at times where our open visit dates were all going to conflict with the player's schedule. Sometimes coaches were flexible, sometimes not. Again, not fully disagreeing, but there are other variables that could have affected the timing. I don't know this situation at all, so not passing judgement on the coach, and not passing judgement on the parents. I am sure there is more to the story from both sides...
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 17, 2014 17:05:26 GMT -5
Mr. Rawls complained that the coach benched a player for skipping a match or matches for her official to UT. Rawl's main complaint seems to be that because the kid is a star, she should have been put back in the lineup sooner. It goes beyond just missing a match. It is pretty apparent she was benched for openly defying the coach.
|
|
|
Post by owlsem on Jan 17, 2014 17:08:29 GMT -5
Toutnaments are best of 3. They played 3 tournaments two were two day and one three day. that would account for about 23 three set matches. The balance are best of five and they get about 21 matches plus the state playoff.
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Jan 17, 2014 17:14:38 GMT -5
Only time she can go on official visit is when HS is playing meaningless matches against weaker competition. I can't possibly imagine how that would be the case. More likely, they scheduled the visit first, then presented the coach with a fait accompli. It was a scheduled match. They had plenty of time to schedule a visit that didn't conflict with her team's schedule. Doesn't matter if the opponent hadn't won a match in the last decade. It sounds more likely to me that her parent(s) didn't want to change their plans (or cancel their unrefundable plane tickets?), so blew the coach off instead. Last year, at a top D1 softball program, a freshman player demanded that her coach start her at 3rd base, rather than in left field. When the coach said no, the player quit the team (and her teammates) in the middle of the season. That team fell one game short of playing for the national championship. If that coach had folded to that player (a top recruit), she would have been going against everything she believed in as a coach. Didn't Cat McCoy commit to Texas in October of her Junior year? That means she was already committed when she took the visit, right? I think it is funny that everyone thinks that because the parents complained, they were wrong, and the coach was right. I ran a club for over a decade. I had many times that the parents came to me and complained about the coach. Sometimes they were right, and sometimes they were wrong. I had coaches that were doing things that were just wrong for the girls, yet there were still parents who defended him/her. Everyone has a bias.
|
|
|
Post by longhornfan on Jan 17, 2014 17:22:15 GMT -5
Mr. Rawls complained that the coach benched a player for skipping a match or matches for her official to UT. Rawl's main complaint seems to be that because the kid is a star, she should have been put back in the lineup sooner. It goes beyond just missing a match. It is pretty apparent she was benched for openly defying the coach. [brRedbeard...come on...you're smarter than this. There is no way in the world a school like Southlake Carroll would fire a coach based on these speculations. The school produces some of the best student athletes in the country. This is not about any one player....this is about a complete and total breakdown between the coach and his players...the coach and the administration over a number of years and a number of issues.. Do you really think the Administration just let him go for no legitimate reason?
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 17, 2014 17:23:39 GMT -5
Although there may be truth to your point, it also depends on the recruiting tactics and timing of the college in question. The fact that she was a libero suggests there could have been a later decision being made in her situation, as is the case with many DI programs. They may not have opened the door for a visit until late, may have requested that she come during a certain window, may have given her specific dates, there are a lot of variables involved. We have had to work with parents and coaches in numerous situations to try and find a window for a visit early enough in the fall to allow time for decisions, NLI paperwork to be sent, etc , and have run into the issue at times where our open visit dates were all going to conflict with the player's schedule. Sometimes coaches were flexible, sometimes not. Again, not fully disagreeing, but there are other variables that could have affected the timing. I don't know this situation at all, so not passing judgement on the coach, and not passing judgement on the parents. I am sure there is more to the story from both sides... Nor do I. I'm sure there is a ton... Just from the comments to the article it would seem that this incident happened earlier, not later, in the season, and thus well before the late-November early signing date. Sorry, but I can't imagine any D1 coach requiring a recruit to skip one of her team's scheduled matches to make a "take it or leave it" official visit. If the coach says no, you don't just blow him (or her) off. Note, I think there are legitimate reasons for missing a scheduled match, such as an illness in the family, for instance. This was not one of them. The real issue here, however, was not missing the match. It was defying the coach.
|
|
|
Post by longhornfan on Jan 17, 2014 17:27:13 GMT -5
Although there may be truth to your point, it also depends on the recruiting tactics and timing of the college in question. The fact that she was a libero suggests there could have been a later decision being made in her situation, as is the case with many DI programs. They may not have opened the door for a visit until late, may have requested that she come during a certain window, may have given her specific dates, there are a lot of variables involved. We have had to work with parents and coaches in numerous situations to try and find a window for a visit early enough in the fall to allow time for decisions, NLI paperwork to be sent, etc , and have run into the issue at times where our open visit dates were all going to conflict with the player's schedule. Sometimes coaches were flexible, sometimes not. Again, not fully disagreeing, but there are other variables that could have affected the timing. I don't know this situation at all, so not passing judgement on the coach, and not passing judgement on the parents. I am sure there is more to the story from both sides... Nor do I. I'm sure there is a ton... Just from the comments to the article it would seem that this incident happened earlier, not later, in the season, and thus well before the late-November early signing date. Sorry, but I can't imagine any D1 coach requiring a recruit to skip one of her team's scheduled matches to make a "take it or leave it" official visit. If the coach says no, you don't just blow him (or her) off. Note, I think there are legitimate reasons for missing a scheduled match, such as an illness in the family, for instance. This was not one of them. The real issue here, however, was not missing the match. It was defying the coach. Have you considered that the coach said yes...what does that do to your premise?
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 17, 2014 17:48:03 GMT -5
It goes beyond just missing a match. It is pretty apparent she was benched for openly defying the coach. Redbeard...come on...you're smarter than this. There is no way in the world a school like Southlake Carroll would fire a coach based on these speculations. The school produces some of the best student athletes in the country. This is not about any one player....this is about a complete and total breakdown between the coach and his players...the coach and the administration over a number of years and a number of issues.. Do you really think the Administration just let him go for no legitimate reason? I have no idea what the school administration's reasons were. I also don't know whether any of the anonymous critical commenters to the article are saying the truth or dishing bull (anymore than with the increasingly numerous supportive commenters). I'm merely going with what seems to be unrefutable - she blew the coach (and her team) off. My only point is that benching her for multiple matches was entirely appropriate. Note, I suspect the real problem here is her parent(s), not the player, which is why I'm not saying who the player is.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 17, 2014 17:53:55 GMT -5
Nor do I. I'm sure there is a ton... Just from the comments to the article it would seem that this incident happened earlier, not later, in the season, and thus well before the late-November early signing date. Sorry, but I can't imagine any D1 coach requiring a recruit to skip one of her team's scheduled matches to make a "take it or leave it" official visit. If the coach says no, you don't just blow him (or her) off. Note, I think there are legitimate reasons for missing a scheduled match, such as an illness in the family, for instance. This was not one of them. The real issue here, however, was not missing the match. It was defying the coach. Have you considered that the coach said yes...what does that do to your premise? Then she would have had permission to miss the match, and wouldn't have been benched for skipping it...
|
|
tncoach
Junior
"what we do in life echoes through eternity!"
Posts: 496
|
Post by tncoach on Jan 17, 2014 19:43:44 GMT -5
I'm not disagreeing...but have seen some coaches who were very cut-throat in their approach.Not that it was effective... Regardless, all we can do is speculate. Without knowing all the details, we're guessing...but in agreement that somehow she ticked the coach off and he put her in the "doghouse."
|
|
jcvb
Sophomore
Posts: 155
|
Post by jcvb on Jan 17, 2014 21:00:13 GMT -5
If Cat committed in her junior year (again, I'm not saying that I know that she did...but most All Americans do so I believe she probably did), then the official visit was a formality. I'm not saying that it doesn't serve a purpose and isn't an important part of that girl's recruiting process. But that the timing of the official or the necessity of seeing a practice, match, etc. does nothing to secure her spot there. Literally everyone involved with college volleyball knows that.
So she CHOSE to go on THAT visit at THAT time. She made a CHOICE of herself (with nothing more to gain than what she had already gained by committing) over her team. Choices have consequences. If she CHOSE to do so in open defiance of the coach, then she made an even bigger mistake. Bigger choices have bigger consequences. I'm not defending Arthur at all as I don't know what happened specifically and whether the punishment fit the crime. I also have no dog in this fight. But if all that's it sounds like actually went down, Cat and her parents missed a GOLDEN opportunity for her to show maturity, leadership, and accountability. Rather they crucified a coach for doing exactly what every coach should do in that situation...sit the girl down and protect his program's culture.
I, too, would've sat that girl. I would've explained it to her, her parents, the AD, the principal and, most importantly, the teammates that she has to look in the eye and who have to trust her and depend on her for the rest of the season. I, too, would have been fired by SLC. Which is why I left public education and will never go back. It's tragic that the system has fallen so far so fast.
|
|