|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Jul 24, 2023 14:37:32 GMT -5
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. Oh boy. So they are claiming that the original event resulted in continued retribution. That's not good. May be hard to prove though. We'll see. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 24, 2023 14:38:01 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. 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. While the facts aren't established, it appears that the plan was altered mid-stream at some point. That suggests that either someone was over-ruled, or someone changed the decision based on a counter-argument, new or different information or other influence. It's not clear where the initial decision was made-- either somewhere in the Athletic Department chain or somewhere in the University's administrative chain. |
|
|
|
Post by vbct3 on Jul 24, 2023 14:46:30 GMT -5
The voices. Oh the voices in my head won't stop. |
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Jul 24, 2023 14:54:25 GMT -5
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. While the facts aren't established, it appears that the plan was altered mid-stream at some point. That suggests that either someone was over-ruled, or someone changed the decision based on a counter-argument, new or different information or other influence. It's not clear where the initial decision was made-- either somewhere in the Athletic Department chain or somewhere in the University's administrative chain. Note, I was only providing a hypothetical explaining how administrative concerns about legal jeopardy might result in forfeits. I am not claiming to know what specifically happened in this case, just that forfeits could have happened given several different scenarios, including the ones mentioned so far, just because the university would need to cover themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jul 24, 2023 15:01:15 GMT -5
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. Found the stats link and historical records and yea, it was pretty easy to figure out. This whole thing just smells fishy, played only 2 sets in 2019, then nothing through 2023. Giving off vibes of a player who got a great opportunity to go to a prestigious school for what I assume was partially paid for (was she on scholarship?), and stuck it out if she was to graduate from there. Seems like she just couldn't cut it and now is seeing an opportunity to get some revenge and maybe even a payday. This definitely has the makings of there being two sides to every story. Also Daily Beast really shouldn't ever be cited for anything, at this point nothing more than a tabloid rag mag. People typically don't travel if they are not good enough, only logging 2 sets in 4 years may give that indication. |
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jul 24, 2023 15:03:28 GMT -5
"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. Oh boy. So they are claiming that the original event resulted in continued retribution. That's not good. May be hard to prove though. We'll see. Right, seems opportunistic at best. Would definitely be easier to prove if she was a productive player, but I am willing to bet there are files of practice stats and film backlogged that could prove otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 24, 2023 15:10:21 GMT -5
While the facts aren't established, it appears that the plan was altered mid-stream at some point. That suggests that either someone was over-ruled, or someone changed the decision based on a counter-argument, new or different information or other influence. It's not clear where the initial decision was made-- either somewhere in the Athletic Department chain or somewhere in the University's administrative chain. Note, I was only providing a hypothetical explaining how administrative concerns about legal jeopardy might result in forfeits. I am not claiming to know what specifically happened in this case, just that forfeits could have happened given several different scenarios, including the ones mentioned so far, just because the university would need to cover themselves. Yeah, I understood that. I'm just curious about what the actual sequence was and whether we will ever find out. |
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jul 24, 2023 15:36:17 GMT -5
Note, I was only providing a hypothetical explaining how administrative concerns about legal jeopardy might result in forfeits. I am not claiming to know what specifically happened in this case, just that forfeits could have happened given several different scenarios, including the ones mentioned so far, just because the university would need to cover themselves. Yeah, I understood that. I'm just curious about what the actual sequence was and whether we will ever find out. I would be willing to bet that if this is the same person making the claims, and NU didn't fire Shane back then - he will not be fired now as long as there is no new information or claims. She may just have seen an opportunity to take advantage of a potential payday, or get her petty revenge on someone she probably blames for a poor college career. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 24, 2023 15:50:40 GMT -5
Oh boy. So they are claiming that the original event resulted in continued retribution. That's not good. May be hard to prove though. We'll see. She doesn't have to prove her claims - this will never go to court. NU doesn't have to decide to write checks - that has already been decided for them. They are going to be writing checks - at this point it's just who gets in line to get one. I would be willing to bet that if this is the same person making the claims, and NU didn't fire Shane back then - he will not be fired now as long as there is no new information or claims. There is a good chance that EVERYBODY moves on from NU in one fashion or another. When you cut out the cancer you make sure you got it all, and want to do this all at once. The president, the AD, and a whole lot of coaches and trainers are going to be fired, resigned, or bought out depending on how many times their names are mentioned. The football and baseball staff are going to almost certainly going to be moved along, and at that point what's a few hundred K to buy out the volleyball staff? The new decision makers get to bring in their people and won't have to get any of the stink of this thing on them. |
|
|
|
Post by Kingsley on Jul 24, 2023 16:01:32 GMT -5
Almost time for Big Ten Media Days.
|
|
|
|
Post by comet on Jul 24, 2023 16:07:01 GMT -5
Can anyone get Emily Ehman on the line? She could clear things up for us...
|
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on Jul 24, 2023 16:14:03 GMT -5
However, the best teammates run along side the player in violation. They did. |
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jul 24, 2023 16:15:32 GMT -5
Can anyone get Emily Ehman on the line? She could clear things up for us... Pretty sure she has an account on here where she participates in threads. Would have been around in 2019 and more than likely still sources within the program/school - but highly doubt she will speak on anything at all either by personal choice or employer. |
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jul 24, 2023 16:18:20 GMT -5
I would be willing to bet that if this is the same person making the claims, and NU didn't fire Shane back then - he will not be fired now as long as there is no new information or claims. There is a good chance that EVERYBODY moves on from NU in one fashion or another. When you cut out the cancer you make sure you got it all, and want to do this all at once. The president, the AD, and a whole lot of coaches and trainers are going to be fired, resigned, or bought out depending on how many times their names are mentioned. The football and baseball staff are going to almost certainly going to be moved along, and at that point what's a few hundred K to buy out the volleyball staff? The new decision makers get to bring in their people and won't have to get any of the stink of this thing on them. IF this is truly about a scorned player and the suicides they had to run for breaking team guidelines by being at a party or other large social gathering that would put the team's health and playing status in danger then it would really do no good. If this "hazing" really is about running sprints, carrying bags, or cleaning the locker room I can promise you subtle nothing burger things like that will only continue with multiple coaches you bring in. |
|
|
|
Post by karellen on Jul 24, 2023 16:54:29 GMT -5
|
|
