UDPride Discussion Forums    
     

Go Back   UDPride Discussion Forums

» Log in
User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!
» Advertisement
View Single Post
  #255  
Old 08-08-2017, 09:57 AM
Gazoo's Avatar
Gazoo Gazoo is offline
General
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 6,563
Thanks: 5,144
Thanked 5,432 Times in 2,372 Posts
Gazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Smitty10 View Post
Why did 18 year olds have to drive across state lines to buy alcohol? Because in most states the legal age was 21. If the legal age was 18 nationally, this wouldn't be an issue right? As far the first part of Englishman becoming knights, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you posted this with tongue in cheek.
21 is a purely arbitrary number, you said it was supported by science. (This is the part where you tell me you never said that, don't disappoint me.) It's not. 20 in Japan, 18 in Europe, etc. The only reason it's 21 is that some states had 18 and others 21 so 18-20 year olds were driving across state lines to get drunk and then driving home. Drunk driving plummeted after going to a national 21 limit, but only because 18-20 year olds weren't driving to bars anymore they were getting drunk at home. There's no scientific support for 21 I've been able to find, it's because there were still enough blue laws and old bitty's who wanted to round up to 21 instead of round down to 18 with the national law.

Originally Posted by shocka43 View Post
And Mr. Grant can walk into their living room and tell the parent..."I am trying to recruit high character kids. I expect high character kids. I expect them to behave on and off the court like high character kids."

Sorry Gazoo. If any parent or recruit wants a HC to treat a player with kid gloves and not hold them accountable, I don't want that player or player's parent a part of this program. As a coach and as an administrator, I wouldn't want players or player's parents being around my program if they don't expect to hold themselves to higher standards that UD can demand. This isn't a minor infraction.

Expectations go both ways. I have expectations of players and parents at a youth level, let alone if I were coaching a college program.

We aren't talking about a player who got a campus referral for hamming it up in the Ghetto one night. We aren't talking about a player who may or may not be attending classes properly. We aren't talking about a kid who made a kid mistake and put himself in a bad position. We are talking about a person who got bagged up, damaged property in a public place, put his hands on a bartender, repeatedly kicked a police car, verbally assaulted police while in a cruiser, disrespected the jail, assaulted a stranger, etc...

Grant can pull him into his office and tell him he is no longer a part of the team. He has a week to publicly pull himself out of school and publicly state he is withdrawing from UD for personal reasons. The whole "resign or be fired" situation applies. If he doesn't want to walk away after being given the chance, then he is removed from the team. If am one of the parents you speak of, I don't want my kid coming to a school that permits this type of behavior without severe consequences. I want my kid to be playing for someone who demands certain things. Allowing my kid to slide under your watch, by issuing soft handed discipline when my kid does something that warrants it, isn't the type of person I want to hand my kid off to for four years.
You missed my point, and by a very wide margin.

I want him kicked off the team. I would expect my own child to be kicked off the team. I want discipline and order and team cohesiveness. All I'm saying is that some people here want BLOOD. That's the wrong way to go. You can have discipline, cohesiveness, and order and also kick Sam off the team quietly and without making a big public spectacle / circus out of it. That's the part which is just for your own personal satisfaction. It does nothing for discipline, order, or team cohesiveness. Actually, while it might temporarily boost discipline, it will reduce team cohesiveness and create dissent over time.

Treating people badly is NEVER the right answer, even when they've done you wrong. There is zero reason to treat Sam badly.

You have to think tactically and strategically. Tactically making a big show of it might bring you some short term gains. But it's a strategic mistake. Same as making a big show of firing an employee who screwed up. You have to treat him with respect (that he does not deserve) and then talk to your other employees who want blood about the fact that you're showing him respect that he doesn't deserve. That engenders loyalty. You can't avoid dealing with the problem--that must happen. But do it the right way and with a purpose.
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to Gazoo For This Totally Excellent Post:
jack72 (08-08-2017)
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement System V2.6 By   Branden

     
 
Copyright 1996-2012 UDPride.com. All Rights Reserved.