And players were outraged at the administration. Like these guys had nothing to do with what transpired that cost the coach his job.
You want to unleash some anger, players? Find a mirror. Sure, maybe Claeys didn't handle the situation well. Maybe the administration could have handled it (the scandal, suspensions, boycott, firing) differently, too. But the players played a part in this as well. They're not 100 percent victims.
Some football players were involved in the sexual encounter with a woman that took place Sept. 2. Ten players were suspended last month. Then the entire team decided to boycott football activites just ahead of the bowl game - an act that lasted not even two days and didn't seem to be thought through completely.
Boycott was misguided
The stand here was about the football team wanting their suspended teammates to get due process in this case. I understand the point they wanted to make, in that they were frustrated with the lack of information given to them with the administration citing privacy concerns.
I just don't agree that it's the real issue here. I get that there's unrest among players because some of the players suspended allegedly didn't have sexual contact with the woman and their names are now supposedly smeared. And maybe there's a point there. But what about the guys who did have sexual contact with her?
To me, the players not focusing on that part, or hardly at all, shows that it's not the main concern for them. In the various statements, Tweets and comments from players, it's come across as using 95 percent of their chosen statement to focus on the many other issues with what happened (suspensions, administration handling, boycott), then just 5 percent throwing in there that, oh, by the way, you don't condone sexual violence and it has no place on campus. It just doesn't seem entirely sincere.
Reactions to Claeys firing were emotional, still with finger-pointing
Players, with the boycott and reactions after Claeys was fired, gave the perception that they cared about their teammates not being able to play in a bowl game and pointed fingers at the administration. I'm not saying they don't have valid points there. But they're not blameless either.
I understand these guys like their coach and want him around, but it's not like there were zero off-field issues, he took the team to 9-4 with a bowl win and was suddenly fired for no apparent reason.
I don't believe Claeys was let go before of football performance, an opinion that I don't think is an unpopular one. Claeys took over the program after Jerry Kill and took his teams to a pair of bowl-game wins, plus the nine victories this year.
A big sticking point was a Tweet that Claeys sent out after the boycott. Many think he'd still have his job if he would have kept his fingers off the keyboard.
Some football players were involved in the sexual encounter with a woman that took place Sept. 2. Ten players were suspended last month. Then the entire team decided to boycott football activites just ahead of the bowl game - an act that lasted not even two days and didn't seem to be thought through completely.
Since it was a report from the Office for Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action at the U of M, some have questioned a bias that might exist. I read the report and can understand that. Some have picked a part little details, like: How many players were actually involved in the sexual conduct? Were some players just "around," or did they all line up to have their way with the girl? I don't care if it was 5 guys, 10 guys, 20 guys, 8 guys, 12 guys. Whatever. The number that matters? One. As long as even one player was involved in this situation, that's too many. It's not right.
These matters are delicate, which is why so many don't go all the way to criminal charges (this case did not) or prosecution. But I think there has been too quick of a dismissal about thinking of the victim, the woman, in this case.
These matters are delicate, which is why so many don't go all the way to criminal charges (this case did not) or prosecution. But I think there has been too quick of a dismissal about thinking of the victim, the woman, in this case.
Nitpicking about who should or shouldn't be suspended based on their involvement isn't for me to decide or judge, and to me, it's really not the heart of the issue either.
Boycott was misguided
That's what's disappointing about this whole ordeal, too. The players decided to boycott football activites because their teammates got suspended. As wide receiver Drew Wolitarsky put it, they wanted to "make the program great again."
Later, in answering questions from reporters, Wolitarsky and the players near the microphones responded "no" when asked if they read the EOAA report. Then, Wolitarsky had this to say when asked if there was worry among players about losing their scholarships. "We're all in this together. What are they going to do, pull 120 guys off the team? They won't have a team if that's the case."
It struck me as a very cocky response that speaks to an attitude that is focused on football above everything else. I'm sure it's not realistic, but it would have been interesting if the administration would have called the bluff and started pulling scholarships.
It struck me as a very cocky response that speaks to an attitude that is focused on football above everything else. I'm sure it's not realistic, but it would have been interesting if the administration would have called the bluff and started pulling scholarships.
The stand here was about the football team wanting their suspended teammates to get due process in this case. I understand the point they wanted to make, in that they were frustrated with the lack of information given to them with the administration citing privacy concerns.
I just don't agree that it's the real issue here. I get that there's unrest among players because some of the players suspended allegedly didn't have sexual contact with the woman and their names are now supposedly smeared. And maybe there's a point there. But what about the guys who did have sexual contact with her?
To me, the players not focusing on that part, or hardly at all, shows that it's not the main concern for them. In the various statements, Tweets and comments from players, it's come across as using 95 percent of their chosen statement to focus on the many other issues with what happened (suspensions, administration handling, boycott), then just 5 percent throwing in there that, oh, by the way, you don't condone sexual violence and it has no place on campus. It just doesn't seem entirely sincere.
Reactions to Claeys firing were emotional, still with finger-pointing
Players, with the boycott and reactions after Claeys was fired, gave the perception that they cared about their teammates not being able to play in a bowl game and pointed fingers at the administration. I'm not saying they don't have valid points there. But they're not blameless either.
I understand these guys like their coach and want him around, but it's not like there were zero off-field issues, he took the team to 9-4 with a bowl win and was suddenly fired for no apparent reason.
I don't believe Claeys was let go before of football performance, an opinion that I don't think is an unpopular one. Claeys took over the program after Jerry Kill and took his teams to a pair of bowl-game wins, plus the nine victories this year.
A big sticking point was a Tweet that Claeys sent out after the boycott. Many think he'd still have his job if he would have kept his fingers off the keyboard.
Coyle said in his released statement that Claeys' Tweet after the suspensions was "not helpful."
Coyle also addressed three things with one sentence: "I determined that the football program must move in a new direction to address challenges in recruiting, ticket sales and the culture of the program." To me, that last one is the most important. Find a leader to address the culture.
I'm not here to debate whether the firing was justified. However, I don't think his Tweet was a good choice, and I'm sure others share the opinion. Whatever his intentions were, it gave the appearance that he supported his players in the boycott mode.
Have never been more proud of our kids. I respect their rights & support their effort to make a better world! 〽️🏈— GoldenGopherHFC (@GoldenGopherHFC) December 16, 2016
Coyle also addressed three things with one sentence: "I determined that the football program must move in a new direction to address challenges in recruiting, ticket sales and the culture of the program." To me, that last one is the most important. Find a leader to address the culture.
I'm not here to debate whether the firing was justified. However, I don't think his Tweet was a good choice, and I'm sure others share the opinion. Whatever his intentions were, it gave the appearance that he supported his players in the boycott mode.
I don't agree with that. Either don't say anything at all, or come out and stand up against sexual violence. I can understand why he Tweeted what he did, but it doesn't mean I agree with it. The support for players should have been talking them out of the boycott.
This isn't about being 9-4, but player reactions didn't reflect that
Now, do I think Claeys or the football players are pro-rape/sexual violence? No. I'm still frustarted with some of the player responses though.
From freshman receiver Hunter Register via Twitter: "Win games, get fired. I'm not a math major, but something just seems odd about that equation."
Freshman defensive back Ray Buford via Twitter: "Wanna learn how to destroy a football program that's on the rise, follow the blueprint of this administration."
Cornerback Jalen Myrick via Twitter: "Fire the coach that stick with his players .. it's sad how this administration doesn't care about the players at all."
This isn't about being 9-4, but player reactions didn't reflect that
Now, do I think Claeys or the football players are pro-rape/sexual violence? No. I'm still frustarted with some of the player responses though.
From freshman receiver Hunter Register via Twitter: "Win games, get fired. I'm not a math major, but something just seems odd about that equation."
Freshman defensive back Ray Buford via Twitter: "Wanna learn how to destroy a football program that's on the rise, follow the blueprint of this administration."
Cornerback Jalen Myrick via Twitter: "Fire the coach that stick with his players .. it's sad how this administration doesn't care about the players at all."
The more I think about everything that's happened, the more I realize it's just a big mess.
This is an entitlement problem
There's this theme that keeps going through my head that isn't some new and radical idea, and I think it applies here: Why is there such an entitlement with certain (no, not all) athletes/football players? Why should they think they can essentially do whatever they want without consequences? The answer is apparanetly because they can play football and wins games. Period.
As far as athletic ability, I'm not denying these guys have football skills. Their play on the field has nothing to do with the kind of men they are outside the stadium. Being an athlete, scholarship or not, at a university does not make you better than anybody else. Not better than the other students on campus who cheer you on at games. Not better than the students who participate in non-athletic activities.
So stop acting like it. Stop acting so superior just because you play arguably the most popular sport in this country. Be responsible and accounatable for your actions. As much as college students get dubbed "kids," they are still adults. They have the ability to act like it.
This kind of entitled, superior behavior isn't just a problem here. I imagine it's all over the country. We've all heard the stories floating around, right? Florida State's football program is a good example. Police were called to a domestic distrubance with a man beating a woman. The officers apparently did not do their due dilligence in the case, except to report it to their sergeant "due to the fact that it was an F.S.U. football player." The sergeant filed the complaint as "unfounded."
The list goes on and on of how these players get special treatment when it comes to potential criminal cases against them.
It's all ridiculous. All it does it throw a big batch of lighter fluid on the fire of entitlement for the football players.
These cases, sticking with the Florida State example, have been reported though I don't think enough has been done to administer consequences. Maybe there's more incidents, too. I just watched the movie "Spotlight," the film that gives all newspaper journalists more fuel as a reminder to do what they love. It centered on cases where Catholic priests sexually assaulted children - and the archdioese covered it up.
To me, this is the same kind of thing when you start looking at college athletes getting passes for their mistakes. Just because they can play football. That's not right.
There needs to be more accountability at the University of Minnesota right now. I'm not seeing it. Be leaders, be responsible, be respectful. Be adults.
There needs to be more accountability at the University of Minnesota right now. I'm not seeing it. Be leaders, be responsible, be respectful. Be adults.
No comments:
Post a Comment