|
|
Post by JT on Jul 25, 2023 14:00:30 GMT -5
This hypothetical you present is a very small majority. According to... I like the (presumed) typo of "majority" instead of "minority." At least, I *assume* MDCoach isn't agreeing that (just barely over) half of 18 year old players are more mature than their 40 year old coaches.  As an aside, my personal view, from talking with the players, is that they are far more mature than I was at their age. Likely something to do with having to carefully organize their time (every waking minute, it seems like!) to handle being both a full time student, and a full time athlete. |
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jul 25, 2023 14:01:31 GMT -5
Odd ranting, seems a little hypocritical here considering your replies are aggressive because you disagree with the common sense factor that obviously is not being utilized by people looking at the information we have here on the surface of public information. I have not suggested that at all, in fact I am looking at you to figure out if you are projecting or some way also have a grudge and are blindly believing this story. But the simple fact you suggest there is a lot going on means you are thinking too broad, are you implying this is in any way relatable to what is happening with the football and baseball programs? Because it is far from it. Plain and simple the accusations levied don't add up and are clearly missing lots of context. The purpose of having him sign something would be liability and insurance for the school to not be sued later and show that this player and coach had a problem. However, if she disliked him that much and she is accusing him of exacting revenge by benching her when she really hadn't shown anything that proves she would have been an efficient player on the floor tell me this is petty and opportunistic when she easily could have transferred elsewhere. If that piece of paper exists then it should be available by information request, so why don't the "journalists" attending one of the most prestiged journalism schools there is, have the maturity and responsibility to cover their bases before publishing? Having him sign something does the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. It documents and memorializes a problem and the University's awareness that a problem existed. It increases the risk of liability--which is exactly what is happening now--and I am fairly certain the HR/Legal people who drafted it understood this. So, we go back to the original question, why do you think they wanted him to sign something? Such a document would be considered a confidential personnel action and would not be available under a freedom of information request. I don't have any connection to this issue. I can see, however, based on your responses that you have no knowledge or experience in the legal or HR realm. No, I don't. I would assume because it was a write up, or written notice of possible infraction of the athletic departments guidelines involving hazing. In 2016 the NCAA posted this article with referenced links. www.ncaa.org/sports/2016/9/26/addressing-student-athlete-hazing.aspxI also wonder what the universities hazing guidelines were, surely that is something that could have been available for these inexperienced young aspiring journalists to add into their article. I still stand by that if it was bad enough they would have fired him, not offered him an extension. It is Big 10 volleyball, people would be chomping at the bit to take a job like that regardless of the school. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2023 14:04:30 GMT -5
IF this is just another opportunistic money grab situation, I hope the coach lawyers up and counter sues.
Coaches who go over the line need to held accountable.
Accusers and lawyers who lie need to be as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jul 25, 2023 14:04:52 GMT -5
You are you misconstruing immaturity and criticism in their reporting for what you claim is trashing. It's fine that is your opinion, but you can easily read this and realize that they are missing context, did not extend past the two players they talked to, and couldn't expound further on what was on that piece of paper those players mentioned or where she was bleeding from. So if you understand that NW is likely NOT subject to FOIA, when you said "If that piece of paper exists then it should be available by information request, so why don't the "journalists" attending one of the most prestiged (sic) journalism schools there is, have the maturity and responsibility to cover their bases before publishing?" how did you expect those "journalists" to exhibit "the maturity and responsibility to cover their base"? What vehicle did you envision them using? My guess was that they are not subject to it, I never said I knew for a fact. The question still remains if they even asked if they could see the paper, and the definitely didn't follow up asking what was within the paper he signed since they clearly knew about it. The point plain and simple is this is a weak article written by very young inexperienced journalists that are doing more damage than good by exaggerating and leaving out context just because they are in a hurry to get their names on a hot topic article. |
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Jul 25, 2023 14:09:58 GMT -5
So if you understand that NW is likely NOT subject to FOIA, when you said "If that piece of paper exists then it should be available by information request, so why don't the "journalists" attending one of the most prestiged (sic) journalism schools there is, have the maturity and responsibility to cover their bases before publishing?" how did you expect those "journalists" to exhibit "the maturity and responsibility to cover their base"? What vehicle did you envision them using? My guess was that they are not subject to it, I never said I knew for a fact. The question still remains if they even asked if they could see the paper, and the definitely didn't follow up asking what was within the paper he signed since they clearly knew about it. The point plain and simple is this is a weak article written by very young inexperienced journalists that are doing more damage than good by exaggerating and leaving out context just because they are in a hurry to get their names on a hot topic article. "My guess was that they are not subject to it." OK. So then third try: when you said "If that piece of paper exists then it should be available by information request, so why don't the "journalists" attending one of the most prestiged (sic) journalism schools there is, have the maturity and responsibility to cover their bases before publishing?" how did you expect those "journalists" to exhibit "the maturity and responsibility to cover their base"? What vehicle did you envision them using? -------------- "The question still remains if they even asked..." From the article: "Inside NU reached out to the university for comment regarding Davis’ absence and if the coach was required to sign a document, but had not heard back at the time of publishing" |
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jul 25, 2023 14:11:35 GMT -5
I like the (presumed) typo of "majority" instead of "minority." At least, I *assume* MDCoach isn't agreeing that (just barely over) half of 18 year old players are more mature than their 40 year old coaches. As an aside, my personal view, from talking with the players, is that they are far more mature than I was at their age. Likely something to do with having to carefully organize their time (every waking minute, it seems like!) to handle being both a full time student, and a full time athlete. Correct, was a typo. There may be a handful of kids that are more mature than their coaches, but it is a very small amount. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 25, 2023 14:13:34 GMT -5
Having him sign something does the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. It documents and memorializes a problem and the University's awareness that a problem existed. It increases the risk of liability--which is exactly what is happening now--and I am fairly certain the HR/Legal people who drafted it understood this. So, we go back to the original question, why do you think they wanted him to sign something? Such a document would be considered a confidential personnel action and would not be available under a freedom of information request. I don't have any connection to this issue. I can see, however, based on your responses that you have no knowledge or experience in the legal or HR realm. No, I don't. I would assume because it was a write up, or written notice of possible infraction of the athletic departments guidelines involving hazing. In 2016 the NCAA posted this article with referenced links. www.ncaa.org/sports/2016/9/26/addressing-student-athlete-hazing.aspxI also wonder what the universities hazing guidelines were, surely that is something that could have been available for these inexperienced young aspiring journalists to add into their article. I still stand by that if it was bad enough they would have fired him, not offered him an extension. It is Big 10 volleyball, people would be chomping at the bit to take a job like that regardless of the school. I am familiar with that document, I posted that link in one of these threads. What document he actually signed will only be known through the discovery process, so we may or may not ever see it. It is a reasonable to assume that whatever happened, the University did not consider it serious enough to fire him (that's a tautology, because obviously they didn't fire him.) But they did decide that some documentation was necessary. The easiest way to have moved on would have been to have a one-on-one conversation/counseling session with no tangible documentation. Having him sign any kind of acknowledgement is a protection for the University (look, we did something!) and is a hedge against something worse being discovered or coming down the pike. I think it's plausible that the University understood that this was not their most serious issue, and to use an analogy, they wanted to plug the leak and move on to making sure the dam didn't burst. |
|
|
|
Post by JT on Jul 25, 2023 14:15:14 GMT -5
So when you said "If that piece of paper exists then it should be available by information request, so why don't the "journalists" attending one of the most prestiged (sic) journalism schools there is, have the maturity and responsibility to cover their bases before publishing?" how did you expect those "journalists" to exhibit "the maturity and responsibility to cover their base"? What vehicle did you envision them using? "And I am not trashing the reporters" Yeah, you are. You are you misconstruing immaturity and criticism in their reporting for what you claim is trashing. It's fine that is your opinion, but you can easily read this and realize that they are missing context, did not extend past the two players they talked to, and couldn't expound further on what was on that piece of paper those players mentioned or where she was bleeding from. Calling a 20-some year old a "YOUNG child" (emph mine) is trashing them. As noted, they are legally adults and not children. Even with the "maturity at 25" argument, they are not YOUNG children any more. |
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jul 25, 2023 14:41:05 GMT -5
My guess was that they are not subject to it, I never said I knew for a fact. The question still remains if they even asked if they could see the paper, and the definitely didn't follow up asking what was within the paper he signed since they clearly knew about it. The point plain and simple is this is a weak article written by very young inexperienced journalists that are doing more damage than good by exaggerating and leaving out context just because they are in a hurry to get their names on a hot topic article. "My guess was that they are not subject to it." OK. So then third try: when you said "If that piece of paper exists then it should be available by information request, so why don't the "journalists" attending one of the most prestiged (sic) journalism schools there is, have the maturity and responsibility to cover their bases before publishing?" how did you expect those "journalists" to exhibit "the maturity and responsibility to cover their base"? What vehicle did you envision them using? -------------- "The question still remains if they even asked..." From the article: "Inside NU reached out to the university for comment regarding Davis’ absence and if the coach was required to sign a document, but had not heard back at the time of publishing" So I missed that blurb, they appeared to at least ask a general email. Again more contact, the Athletic Department was reach out to and they denied, etc. Because the very common form of these pieces that are not favorable to those they are asking questions of usually get sent out with less than 24 hours to respond. I would be curious for them to provide context where they asked that question and how much time was given to respond. |
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jul 25, 2023 14:43:05 GMT -5
You are you misconstruing immaturity and criticism in their reporting for what you claim is trashing. It's fine that is your opinion, but you can easily read this and realize that they are missing context, did not extend past the two players they talked to, and couldn't expound further on what was on that piece of paper those players mentioned or where she was bleeding from. Calling a 20-some year old a "YOUNG child" (emph mine) is trashing them. As noted, they are legally adults and not children. Even with the "maturity at 25" argument, they are not YOUNG children any more. It is not trashing them, it is criticism of inexperience. And semantics, Young kid - that better? Still immature and inexperienced, and no where near adult from a professional standard. |
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Jul 25, 2023 14:56:18 GMT -5
"My guess was that they are not subject to it." OK. So then third try: when you said "If that piece of paper exists then it should be available by information request, so why don't the "journalists" attending one of the most prestiged (sic) journalism schools there is, have the maturity and responsibility to cover their bases before publishing?" how did you expect those "journalists" to exhibit "the maturity and responsibility to cover their base"? What vehicle did you envision them using? -------------- "The question still remains if they even asked..." From the article: "Inside NU reached out to the university for comment regarding Davis’ absence and if the coach was required to sign a document, but had not heard back at the time of publishing" So I missed that blurb, they appeared to at least ask a general email. So could one say that you failed to exhibit the maturity and responsibility to cover your bases before publishing your post? LOL |
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jul 25, 2023 15:15:10 GMT -5
So I missed that blurb, they appeared to at least ask a general email. So could one say that you failed to exhibit the maturity and responsibility to cover your bases before publishing your post? LOL You think got one over on me with that? I am not a journalist at the Medill School of Journalism, I am someone at work that is probably spending way too much time arguing semantics after reading quickly over something young KIDS (even though they are children) wrote trying to get their clicks and help incite drama over something that is happening in at least 50+ other collegiate volleyball gyms across the country. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 25, 2023 15:19:47 GMT -5
So could one say that you failed to exhibit the maturity and responsibility to cover your bases before publishing your post? LOL You think got one over on me with that? I am not a journalist at the Medill School of Journalism, I am someone at work that is probably spending way too much time arguing semantics after reading quickly over something young KIDS (even though they are children) wrote trying to get their clicks and help incite drama over something that is happening in at least 50+ other collegiate volleyball gyms across the country. My mature professional opinion is that you should take a short break from this discussion.  |
|
|
|
Post by JT on Jul 25, 2023 15:20:21 GMT -5
Calling a 20-some year old a "YOUNG child" (emph mine) is trashing them. As noted, they are legally adults and not children. Even with the "maturity at 25" argument, they are not YOUNG children any more. It is not trashing them, it is criticism of inexperience. And semantics, Young kid - that better? Still immature and inexperienced, and no where near adult from a professional standard. No, it's not better. "Young adult", "college-age kid", or possibly "older child" would be better. And you are trashing them, because you are making an assumption based on their age that they are inexperienced, and making presumptions about the accuracy of their reporting based on your own conjectures and guesses about what happened. |
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jul 25, 2023 15:24:01 GMT -5
It is not trashing them, it is criticism of inexperience. And semantics, Young kid - that better? Still immature and inexperienced, and no where near adult from a professional standard. No, it's not better. "Young adult", "college-age kid", or possibly "older child" would be better. And you are trashing them, because you are making an assumption based on their age that they are inexperienced, and making presumptions about the accuracy of their reporting based on your own conjectures and guesses about what happened. You can call it trashing and be entitled to your opinion, but the fact of the matter it is criticism regarding the poor reporting and lack of context in the article that is being used for clicks because of the temperature around the topic with no other major stories going on. I am not making assumptions, anyone who has been around volleyball knows that there is context missing and they have no clue what is involved with those drills otherwise there would have been way more follow up questions. The article proves they are inexperienced, there isn't an assumption based on age - it is based on quality. The fact they can't even purchase a beer just adds to it. |
|
