Sports

[Didier]

See, the criteria mplsjaromir and MNdible laid out seems so obvious. That's what I mean: Why did this upset people so much? The reaction definitely feels more visceral than it should. Like, people just "feel" a certain way, and nothing we say makes a difference.

I could be reading too much into this, and maybe this is a standard reaction to a coach being fired. But after the election it's hard to ignore.

[David Greene]

Some of this has to do with the bowl victory. Winning that was unexpected and gave people a taste of "what could be." Lose that game and people probably care less.

But there will be some number of people that always get upset because administration=bad and players=good.

What I don't get is the (to me) false equivalency being promulgated that Claeys deserved to be fired but the administration bungled this. Yes, they should not have said Claeys made the decision to suspend. That was either a lie or a very severe miscommunication with the coach. But beyond that, what exactly should the administration have done differently? They did a thorough investigation, took action based on the results of said investigation and are following the appeals process. They couldn't legally release information about the investigation. So what else were they supposed to do or do differently?

[kirby96]

Your response appears to come from the presumption that there is no possible rational reason for being upset about this.

There is very little rational reason to be upset that a coach got fired because 10 of his players had to be suspended because they are accused of campus conduct violations, including alleged sexual violence, and he completely failed to (1) effectively communicate to his team why and what the process is going forward, (2) publicly undermined his superiors, (3) failed to take responsibility for the discipline agreed to with his boss, and (4) simply did not seem to understand the magnitude of the situation.

A month ago, I would have argued pretty strongly for keeping Claeys, in the face of not completely irrational concerns about attendance, failure to take a step forward this year against a soft schedule and a reportedly weak recruiting class. But once you add to that, "was in the middle of a national embarrassment for the institution," yeah, it's a little hard to see a rational reason for being upset they they are moving on.

You can agree that all those things are bad (and some of them are presumptions) and still not think firing is the best action for the football program under the current circumstances (or at the very least think that the benefit of firing doesn't outweigh the real costs and risks of firing).

If the U doesn't land a big coach and fast, the program will take an even bigger hit than it has already. Reputation is already shot. Now they likely add player transfers, an even worse recruiting nightmare with signing day apparently 3 weeks away, not to mention it will cost money (contract buyout plus any potential coach is in the catbird seat as far as negotiations go). To top it off, they've now probably alienated everyone who historically supports football: those appalled at the team behavior, and those that questioned the administration's response. Given those real risks, the firing looks reactionary, and if it's not reactionary (i.e. based on issues other than the sexual assault investigation) it should have been done 6 weeks ago.

You can make a very rational argument that firing him now is throwing gasoline on the fire when you could extend him for just one year to send the message he's not in good graces, and at the same time simply try to bring some stability back as quickly as possible after a really rough stretch.

We don't know yet if there was a big name hire all lined up all along. If so, hindsight will show the anger is misplaced, but given what we know right now (and the U's history of hiring), you can definitely argue that this has added more instability and risk and be justifiably upset about it.

Just for context, I personally don't give a hoot about the Gophers. I like football so I follow them to some extent, but I long ago concluded having emotional investment in teams I have nothing to do with is silly. If there's irrationality about the firing of Claeys, I would argue it's the irrational support of specific football teams and not some cover for rape denial. If football is 'your thing' (silly though that may be), I can understand why people might be very upset.

[amiller92]

Yes, they should not have said Claeys made the decision to suspend.

Disagree completely. They should have said it, and it should have been true. They gave him the opportunity to take credit for doing the right thing and he chose not to. Can you image them doing it differently? "Today, I Mark Coyle decided to suspend 10 players over the objections of Coach Claeys." Yeah, that's a recipe for immediate dismissal of the coach.

But I think things got a lot clearer yesterday, when Claeys went on TV (http://www.startribune.com/tracy-claeys ... 409811485/) to say that he doesn't think there should be Title IX investigations and this morning, when Elmore explained what the players were thinking (http://www.twincities.com/2017/01/05/wh ... -explains/). Elmore in particular says the players wanted more explanation from Kaler and Coyle. What he doesn't say is that Claeys explained it all to them, as was the coach's job.

Which to me says that coach washed his hands of the whole things and put it on his superiors. That was a poor decision.

[amiller92]

You can agree that all those things are bad (and some of them are presumptions) and still not think firing is the best action for the football program under the current circumstances (or at the very least think that the benefit of firing doesn't outweigh the real costs and risks of firing).

If the U doesn't land a big coach and fast, the program will take an even bigger hit than it has already. Reputation is already shot. Now they likely add player transfers, an even worse recruiting nightmare with signing day apparently 3 weeks away, not to mention it will cost money (contract buyout plus any potential coach is in the catbird seat as far as negotiations go). To top it off, they've now probably alienated everyone who historically supports football: those appalled at the team behavior, and those that questioned the administration's response. Given those real risks, the firing looks reactionary, and if it's not reactionary (i.e. based on issues other than the sexual assault investigation) it should have been done 6 weeks ago.

What you're saying is that on the field considerations were reasons not to fire him. Yes, they were. But I think he was fired for off the field reasons that you can't really use on the field reasons to dismiss.

In other words, not every decision is about how to make the football program most successful. There are other values in play.

You can make a very rational argument that firing him now is throwing gasoline on the fire when you could extend him for just one year to send the message he's not in good graces,

That sound to me like the worst possible option. You get all the bad with none of the good. You get criticized for extending a guy who just messed up but don't make enough of a commitment to him to prevent him from being hamstrung in recruiting. Seriously, the worst possible thing to do is delay the firing if that's what you're planning to do.

Anyway, they hired Fleck, which seems to be going over pretty well.

[EOst]

Yeah, I would say that his statements on Title IX alone are grounds for dismissal. If that's the message he was giving to his players, he was probably less of a bystander in the boycott than he lets on.

[FISHMANPET]

Some of this has to do with the bowl victory. Winning that was unexpected and gave people a taste of "what could be." Lose that game and people probably care less.

But there will be some number of people that always get upset because administration=bad and players=good.

What I don't get is the (to me) false equivalency being promulgated that Claeys deserved to be fired but the administration bungled this. Yes, they should not have said Claeys made the decision to suspend. That was either a lie or a very severe miscommunication with the coach. But beyond that, what exactly should the administration have done differently? They did a thorough investigation, took action based on the results of said investigation and are following the appeals process. They couldn't legally release information about the investigation. So what else were they supposed to do or do differently?

I don't at all think you think this, but if someone is less willing to fire Claeys after he won a bowl game, that sounds an awful like "bad behavior is fine as long as you're winning football games."

[Didier]

He probably wouldn't have been fired if he was more established as a winning and popular coach. Morality only matters in college sports when it's useful for somebody, and in this case it was a useful excuse for Mark Coyle to considerably upgrade the football coach.

[mplsjaromir]

I have a feeling that can never be confirmed, but one hears whispers of what happens at other big time college programs that never make the headlines. I would dare say that with the U being in the middle of a large metro area with four major professional sports franchises media outlets and even law enforcement are more inclined to investigate allegations. So while it may seem that the Gopher athletic department is particularly bad, it is possible that it is merely as bad as the others.

[grant1simons2]

Gophers basketball has been decent

[mplsjaromir]

1997 Final Three.

[grant1simons2]

Doesn't count, I wasn't born yet,

I'll be happy if we just beat Wisco this year.

[RailBaronYarr]

Yeah, I would say that his statements on Title IX alone are grounds for dismissal. If that's the message he was giving to his players, he was probably less of a bystander in the boycott than he lets on.

I'm on the fence about this for the sole reason that a misguided tweet that seemed to have been at least slightly misunderstood is.. I dunno maybe not grounds for termination by itself. It's obvious Claeys was not 100% clear on all Title IX requirements or the U's process, and also obvious he should have used the few days between the announcement and the players' boycott to get up to speed and proactively manage the situation with his players (all, by the way, while preparing for a bowl game). But he did actually handle the in-season suspensions about as well as anyone could ask. And (this is an honest question), I'm not sure if he as the coach was allowed to read the EOAA report to even fully grasp the nature of what happened?

Coming back around, the reason I'm on the fence is: it's 2016. How do we expect employers to treat employees when they make a mistake? What are grounds for immediate termination? Why don't we expect the university to use this as an opportunity to implement stronger policies, programs, training, etc for both students and coaching staff? Will firing Claeys/staff actually solve whatever problem is at the U? They sure seemed to hire a coach pretty quickly - do we have any guarantee that Fleck/co will be any better on Title IX issues than Claeys/co? Nothing is apples-to-apples when comparing to a DI head football coach, but I wonder how the (mostly liberal) people calling for his termination would feel if this were some mid-level employee at some company who made a tone-deaf comment online.

We know the Kill/Claeys staff ran a tight ship from a player discipline standpoint. We know they have had the best academic progress in a long time for football. Being actively involved in the recruit being a part of this situation would be grounds for immediate termination (from what we know, they weren't). Being actively involved in a cover-up would be grounds for immediate termination (from what we know, they weren't). The fact that Coyle waited until after the bowl game to fire Claeys, and then heavily mixed in language of ticket sales, fan interest, team performance, etc as a reason tells me he wasn't solely looking at this as a moral firing, but using fan anger over his tweet as an excuse to hire his own coach. I guess my point is: it would have been just as easy if not easier, and a clearer show of institutional change/progress, to keep him on and make a commitment to the things I mentioned earlier. Instead, firing him feels like a convenient way to appease the angry masses while giving the AD the opportunity to make his hire. At the very least, it's interesting to compare this issue to the repeated basketball scandals under Pitino, who still has a job.

[Didier]

Reusse: Fleck was in the wind for Kaler and Coyle several weeks ago http://www.startribune.com/sports/blogs/409918995.html

[David Greene]

Claeys' repeated insubordination was reason enough to fire him. Add on the incompetence of not being able to understand the code of conduct and Title XI, and the inability to convey both to his players and it becomes a slam dunk.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[kirby96]

That sound to me like the worst possible option. You get all the bad with none of the good. You get criticized for extending a guy who just messed up but don't make enough of a commitment to him to prevent him from being hamstrung in recruiting. Seriously, the worst possible thing to do is delay the firing if that's what you're planning to do.

Anyway, they hired Fleck, which seems to be going over pretty well.

Yeah, it's all water under the bridge now. But regarding your quote above, I completely agree that's a reasonable take. My point is one could also reasonably argue that you could take other courses of action (leave him in place for a year, and allow him a chance to reconcile and also quiet the situation prior to today) and not still not be an apologist for sexual assault. That's what bugs me. This notion that unless you agree 100% with the actions taken in the name of the just cause you MUST be opposed to it. It's not much different than a 'love it or leave it' argument claiming flag burners hate America or something.

Since I'm dancing around it, i'll just say it: there are very real issues/concerns with the way the Title IX expectations have been implemented. There are now hundreds of lawsuits and legal opinions that raise precisely those concerns.

Consider the Innocence Project (an organization I'm a big fan of). It's existence as a progressive cause is basically premised upon the notion that even in a court room, with stringent due process, transparency, the right to representation, appeals, and a process administered by criminal justice professionals, the WRONG decision is made all too often.

...Yet if Claeys challenges the title IX processes, which are by law secret proceedings without stringent due process and which can result in de facto life changing penalties laid down by university officials, he and those that support him are insensitive (or worse) to sexual assault. That strikes me as an absurd non-sequitur.

[David Greene]

Most people are not saying that. We're saying he's demonstrated that he doesn't understand the gravity of the situation and that in and of itself is a big problem.

That's not the same thing as saying he supports sexual assault and/or saying he doesn't think players should be punished.

[amiller92]

And (this is an honest question), I'm not sure if he as the coach was allowed to read the EOAA report to even fully grasp the nature of what happened?

I would assume no.

do we have any guarantee that Fleck/co will be any better on Title IX issues than Claeys/co?

The funny thing about changing coaches is that the failures of the last guy may have next to nothing to do with how you pick the next guy.

The fact that Coyle waited until after the bowl game to fire Claeys, and then heavily mixed in language of ticket sales, fan interest, team performance, etc as a reason tells me he wasn't solely looking at this as a moral firing, but using fan anger over his tweet as an excuse to hire his own coach. I guess my point is: it would have been just as easy if not easier, and a clearer show of institutional change/progress, to keep him on and make a commitment to the things I mentioned earlier. Instead, firing him feels like a convenient way to appease the angry masses while giving the AD the opportunity to make his hire.

Agreed.

At the very least, it's interesting to compare this issue to the repeated basketball scandals under Pitino, who still has a job.

There was an article this weekend in the Strib about the off-court changes Pitino has made (http://m.startribune.com/turnaround-in- ... 409989965/). The timing was interesting.

[go4guy]

Claeys is getting $500,000.00 for being fired. Hard to say he has suffered some injustice.

It's not like he is some genius. Kill/Claeys scheduled soft non-conference games, could not challenge the elite of the conference and had trouble keeping top recruits in the state.

The new AD wanted a head football coach that was his pick. Add to that; the scandal, a questionable tweet, the overall mess that has been the Gopher Men athletic program you get a fired head coach.

The people most upset are the usual reactionaries, so I don't think Kill/Claeys homespun homespunnery had much to do with it.

Agree with all, except the bolded part. They actually have had a pretty good non-conference schedule, including #2 TCU last year. If you want to see soft, check out an SEC school non-conference schedule. And they always challenged the elite of the conference. Have beat Michigan, MSU, PSU and Nebraska recently, and played OSU very close last time they played. But continually blow leads to Wisconsin. With regards to the recruiting, the Gophers have pretty much closed down the border, and haven't lost much for instate recruits.

[go4guy]

I would also like to add that as a 15 year season ticket holder and die hard Gopher football fan, I was very happy to see Claeys fired. Northwestern game, most of our group were obviously cheering for a win, but deep in our hearts we wouldn't mind losing if it ensured Claeys being let go. The face of a football program in college is always the head coach. You need someone engaging, passionate, someone with a personality. Claeys didn't offer any of that. I was beyond bland. He also wasn't a good game management coach and made numerous mistakes in his short tenure as head coach. That was enough for me to want the U to go a different direction. Then you have the assault case. Let's just assume it was all consensual and proven as such. He is responsible for recruits when they visit. A recruit was out at 3am, involved in "train" and was videotaped by a Gopher player. This was known by Claeys back then, as this video was what was used to show she was consenting to that specific sexual encounter. That right there should have been enough for him to kick that player off the team, but he didn't. In fact, he sat back and seemed to not address the issue at all. This warranted termination.

Contrast that to what Pitino has done with the bball team. He had 3 players involved in a few threesomes that were consensual. The phone of a player was stolen, and the person who stole the phone posted the videos on Social Media. The kids really did nothing wrong, except embarrass the program. What does Pitino do? Suspend all 3 the rest of the season. (8 games) And then develops an entire program with speakers, mentors, group outings all designed to teach the team about respect for women, , being leaders, that every decision can lead to future employment issues, all sorts of things to make the players better members of society and better representatives of the U. That is how you lead a team. Not sitting back and hoping things blow over. The U made the right choice.