|
|
Post by robtearle on Jul 24, 2023 13:00:51 GMT -5
You may be underestimating university bureaucracy and it’s fear of lawsuits. My thoughts exactly. The university may have correctly identified this athlete as somebody likely to file a lawsuit. But how/why does that translate into forfeits? And - to go the other way - why only two weeks of forfeits but not the full remainder of the season? After the forfeit weekends, they played two-game series against Minnesota and Maryland. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 24, 2023 13:05:31 GMT -5
My thoughts exactly. The university may have correctly identified this athlete as somebody likely to file a lawsuit. But how/why does that translate into forfeits? And - to go the other way - why only two weeks of forfeits but not the full remainder of the season? After the forfeit weekends, they played two-game series against Minnesota and Maryland. Again, I'm not saying this is the CORRECT way to handle this type of situation. But for an ultra-cautious athletic department, it's not crazy to me for them to say "while we investigate possible hazing, we're not going to play matches". Then the team probably got pissed and complained to admin that they wanted to play so it just became the coach on leave. To be clear, that is all conjecture, but seems like a reasonable sequence of events to me. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 24, 2023 13:07:54 GMT -5
You may be underestimating university bureaucracy and it’s fear of lawsuits. My thoughts exactly. The university may have correctly identified this athlete as somebody likely to file a lawsuit. That's quite a stretch. Raising the spectre of a lawsuit is usually a bureaucratic defensive/tactical action to try to change or impede a decision. Most people diminish the potential of a lawsuit in their own minds when they really want to do something. |
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jul 24, 2023 13:09:56 GMT -5
Also, there is only one Northwestern athlete who this timeline lines up for. Not hard to figure out who it is. There are 3 that fit the timeline, only one of them is still playing. |
|
|
|
Post by florfresh on Jul 24, 2023 13:10:10 GMT -5
I value a team choosing a punishment for a player who did not follow team rules. However, the best teammates run along side the player in violation. Does a better job emphasizing we are all in this together - what one does impacts all. Cuts down on the humiliation / hazing charge, too. Guessing they’d like to run this one back?
|
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Jul 24, 2023 13:11:11 GMT -5
But how/why does that translate into forfeits? And - to go the other way - why only two weeks of forfeits but not the full remainder of the season? After the forfeit weekends, they played two-game series against Minnesota and Maryland. Again, I'm not saying this is the CORRECT way to handle this type of situation. But for an ultra-cautious athletic department, it's not crazy to me for them to say "while we investigate possible hazing, we're not going to play matches". Then the team probably got pissed and complained to admin that they wanted to play so it just became the coach on leave. To be clear, that is all conjecture, but seems like a reasonable sequence of events to me. My guess - of course only a guess - is that some faction of the team stood up to Davis for punishing a teammate for getting sick, refused to take the court, the standoff lasted the two weeks, and was only broken when Davis agreed to vacate the bench. Maybe we're a little closer to finding out, after this morning. Maybe not. |
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jul 24, 2023 13:11:58 GMT -5
I value a team choosing a punishment for a player who did not follow team rules. However, the best teammates run along side the player in violation. Does a better job emphasizing we are all in this together - what one does impacts all. Cuts down on the humiliation / hazing charge, too. Guessing they’d like to run this one back? Unless that player willfully decided to go to party or social setting in season or during a "dry period" where her actions could have had larger consequences on the team as a unit. Could be understandable that the rest of the team was pissed at her and decided not to join in. |
|
|
|
Post by vbman100 on Jul 24, 2023 13:34:40 GMT -5
This was probably a poor choice as punishment.
They should have made her smoke a whole pack of cigarettes.
Or she sits and watches while the rest of the team smokes a whole pack. Kind of like Full Metal Jacket.
Or she runs until the team finishes a pack of cigarettes. Or finishes a twelve pack of beer.
Or make everyone else on the team get Covid. While she smokes a cigarette. And drinks a beer! Yeah that’s the ticket!
|
|
|
|
Post by dizzydean on Jul 24, 2023 13:38:07 GMT -5
Why would you have your players in charge of the punishment... When the captains are 22-year-old adults? I don't think this is as uncommon as you think. The team having ownership over expectations and consequences isn't a bad thing. Also, it doesn't sound like an abnormal punishment for a coach to have handed out anyway. Terrible idea, IMO. Being 22 doesn't mean you have a good grasp of proportionality, or how to punish a teammate you'll be practicing and playing beside for the whole year. Bad. Idea. |
|
|
|
Post by OHVBKING on Jul 24, 2023 13:49:22 GMT -5
This is just the tip of the iceberg. More and more will come out in the weeks to come.
|
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jul 24, 2023 13:53:09 GMT -5
This is just the tip of the iceberg. More and more will come out in the weeks to come. Care to share what you might imply to know already? |
|
|
|
Post by katn on Jul 24, 2023 14:20:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jul 24, 2023 14:22:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Jul 24, 2023 14:27:55 GMT -5
Also, there is only one Northwestern athlete who this timeline lines up for. Not hard to figure out who it is. There are 3 that fit the timeline, only one of them is still playing. "The player said she was isolated after the incident, and that Davis refused to properly coach her during practices" (ESPN). "Over the next two years, Davis sidelined her and prevented her from traveling with the team" (DailyBeast) Of the four seniors in 2022, only one of them didn't play a single match in 2021 or 2022. |
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Jul 24, 2023 14:30:37 GMT -5
My thoughts exactly. The university may have correctly identified this athlete as somebody likely to file a lawsuit. But how/why does that translate into forfeits? And - to go the other way - why only two weeks of forfeits but not the full remainder of the season? After the forfeit weekends, they played two-game series against Minnesota and Maryland. In my experience, decisions like these come from above the Athletic department. If a complaint from a parent was received by higher ups and the admin sensed real risk of a future lawsuit, it may have told the athletic department to pull the team back from activities (including competition) before any more damage was done, and until a review was completed and some plan to forestall future issues implemented. I've seen this implemented on the academic side a few times. It's a terrible headache to deal with the downstream effects. Those reviews are never particularly fast and lawyers have the final say to make sure that whatever path is taken has the least legal risk. It could be an action with real teeth (firing the coach) or just a holding or symbolic action that the university can point to as evidence of appropriate and timely concern in future legal actions, should they arise. (Universities are also bound to laws concerning wrongful termination and the interests of the other SAs and their parents). Davis stepping back from the bench could be construed as a compromise that allowed continued review without exposing an employee and the university to greater legal sanction, and that also allowed the season to continue for the student athletes. It may have taken some time to come to that compromise though. It's also worth considering that this was during a Covid year which wouldn't count against the students' scholarships, so the reduced cost to the student athletes may have made it easier to step in like that. Having a broad, or hazy, self-imposed definition of hazing also may have made the university feel more threatened. |
|
