If you had been O'Day/Pflu, what, specifically, would you have done differently in the last year or so regarding player behavior issues? Be specific (name incidents). No generalities (like they should have reduced bad behavor, or had a zero tolerance policy without specifics). If you want to mention a zero tolerance policy, then be specific about how you would have administered it in specific incidents. Let's agree that Pflu's recent comments about JJ to the Missoulian could have been shorter and toned down (and rehash that one).
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
What would you have done different?
- Thread starter PlayerRep
- Start date
wbtfg
Well-known member
That's really a great question, and I don't really think there will be a good answer that everyone can agree on, as some will look at the incidents on a case by case basis, while others will look at the collective impact that ALL of the incidents have had.
Similarly, I think the same would go for the Mike Kramer situation. The rallying cry for the Kramer supporters was "how is he supposed to control FORMER players!?!?!?" (I think all but one of the issues happened with former players).
Similarly, I think the same would go for the Mike Kramer situation. The rallying cry for the Kramer supporters was "how is he supposed to control FORMER players!?!?!?" (I think all but one of the issues happened with former players).
I agree that it is a very difficult question...hind site etc...but I would've started with a tighter ship to begin with. Not that I really know what happened behind closed doors. I'm just a little old school with rules and following them and punishment fitting the crimes.
i would've given stiffer penalties to middleton, kemp, tj, kemp again. make them miss full games or more. that's what player's covet the most and doing that gets everyone's attention and might curb future bad behavior. as a coach if you win or lose the game that one of them misses you get respect from the fans, players, administrators because you were still able to win without them or you accepted losing without them.
fans need to learn that if players f up and don't play and it costs us the game, that's really o.k. it's not the end of the world to punish players for the long term benifit of the team, even if that means losing a game and bumming out the big donors.
fans need to learn that if players f up and don't play and it costs us the game, that's really o.k. it's not the end of the world to punish players for the long term benifit of the team, even if that means losing a game and bumming out the big donors.
getgrizzy said:
Yippee, some specifics. Middleton missed the Tennessee game. Am I missing something on this, or is there another incident? So Kemp suspended a game for exactly what? Again, please be specific. Got it on Kemp/Tru for full game suspension for what turned out to be a disorderly conduct plea.
AZDoc said:
Sorry, tighter ship is general. Not allowed. Mods, please delete AZ's post. Just kidding. Actually, I think the athletic department has been doing what you said, i.e. trying to make the punishment (and internal discipline) fit the crime. Sometimes, it's hard to figure out, early on, the crime, or whether it even is a crime or the alleged crime. Sometimes, it looks like the alleged crime is not right and is going to go away or be reduced eventually. Personally, I don't think the punishment should be based on the alleged crime if it looks like the alleged crime isn't accurate or is going to go away or get reduced.
getgrizzy said:
I don't think there are any big or even small donors that would be bummed out for losing a game due to suspensions of players--as long as they believed the suspensions/punishment fit the crime. Big and small donors all want the program to be clean, including reduced numbers of player incidents. Personally, anyway who says that UM was just trying to win at all costs, both doesn't know the program and is a total idiot. That is just plain not true. It wasn't true under Hauck or Pflu.
PlayerRep said:
I understand both sides, but I think, rightly or wrongly, the players are held to a higher standard than other students. Whether criminally significant or not, in the eyes of the public it is bad behavior that has gone unpunished. I know punishment was handed out in all the listed cases, but it obviously wasn't significant enough to deter future poor behavior. I guess I would have a rule that if bad publicity (misdemeanor or not) is brought upon the team by a players actions that player would be subject to a one game penalty at a minimum. I realize not all of these are prosecuted in the court of law but they are in the court of public opinion.
Just like every parent has a different way to discipline, so does every coach. I honestly don't envy the job of a head coach with today's athletes. I am not sure there is more trouble but with Facebook, eGriz, and other online media outlets it all goes noticed.
wbtfg said:
I wanted to see specifics, and I planned to comment on every response that I didn't agree with. I see that, so far, you haven't been able to explain the 2 things I thought needed explanation in your prior post. Where is there any argument in my prior comment on your post? I asked some simple questions.
grizd said:
What incidents that resulted in "bad publicity" didn't result in at least a one-game suspension, other than the Kemp/Tru party/police incident? By the way, I'm excluded the other minor Kemp thing because it didn't really get any publicity, until it was mentioned at the bottom of one article. This question is for everyone, not just GrizD.
I agree that Kemp/Tru should've been suspended one full game. Even knowing what I know now. Just too many negative circumstances around the whole situation to not suspend them a full game.
Other than that I don't know what else I would do different besides being a little more tight lipped about JJ which you already mentioned.
My biggest thing is just when talking to the media make sure it is known that you are doing everything possible to have solid students/athletes/citizens. I believe they took it seriously but I would stress as much as possible how serious I took it.
Other than that I don't know what else I would do different besides being a little more tight lipped about JJ which you already mentioned.
My biggest thing is just when talking to the media make sure it is known that you are doing everything possible to have solid students/athletes/citizens. I believe they took it seriously but I would stress as much as possible how serious I took it.
grizcountry420
Well-known member
wbtfg said:
+1
What an ass jack......... :jack:
I don't think its unpunished behavior, its behavior. If I was JOD I would have made it clear that There needed to be a better image of the team period. That even the appearance of "evil doing" would need to be dealt with. I would not have suggested anymore than a 1 year contract until things improved and made it clear to Pflu he was at best on a buuble. I would then have met with Engstrom and made it clear to him that Foleys "help" and spin doctoring was not helping but hurting.
tnt said:
What does your first sentence mean? What's JOD mean? Do you really think that O'Day, etc. didn't discuss the need for better image (and behavior) of the team? Pflu only had less than one year remaining on his signed contract. What "spin doctoring" did Foley do? Let's hear some specifics.
What exactly is the point of this? Keep beating that dead horse if it makes you sleep better at night. There was a perception of apathy in the university about the bad publicity. Pflugrad's statement regarding JJ. Straw meet camel's back. The firings were as much about public perception than anything else. Doesn't make it right or wrong in my book. People get fired all the time for the perception of things, especially people in a position of leadership. Please...............................................let it go. Move on.
PlayerRep said:
middleton came here after being booted off or quitting uw under suspicious circumstances, then he got a dui last summer. he should've been given a 3-4 game suspension, because we did him a favor and gave him a second chance and he didn't care and abused it.
i don't know if kemp got a ticket for peeing in the street first or got into a row with the cops first, but after the second one he should've been benched for a full game at least. second time offender.
tj had been in trouble for gang-banging at a frat, then got nailed f'ing with the police. he should've been benched for two games.
i don't have a problem with not suspending montana or duncan since they were first time busts. i believe in giving a guy a second chance.
sorry, we have a lot of cry-baby big donors and small donors and non-donors who pout every single time they don't get their way. they want to fire the coach, fire the president, blame the press, blame the cops, and can't fathom anyone being accountable. it's what this program has become for that group. you're their unofficial leader. congrats.
getgrizzy said:
I guess the usual suspect started this one?
PlayerRep said:
You are kidding right? Read the national articles. In this case THAT perception is reality. The concept of beyond a reasonable doubt exists ONLY in criminal court. A new three year contract I believe is what was mentioned (and supposedly is the basis of current negotiations and possible future litigation) Very little media failed to mention Foleys involvement in the tazer episode (nor his statement that his job was to protect the image of the university when these episodes occur)
But then you really don't want an answer to any of this do you. Somehow seem to hope that everybody will wake up having all of this was a big mistake and that anyone having a less than perfect impression of the U of M and its football team will see the error of their ways and line up with the fanboys to make sure JOD and Pflu are reurned to their former positions and everyone will hold hands and sing kumbyah.
Its not gonna happen. After labor day few people will care, (even fewer do now) by Christmas there won't be a whole lot that even will remember why they are gone. In two years there won't even be many who remember who they were.
