2014 UNH Wildcats: Ending Strong and Starting Fresh

[Trillium]

Re: 2014 UNH Wildcats: Ending Strong and Starting Fresh

Depends on the player, the situation, and the "threat". If the "threat" is to curtail the player's ice time or even sit them in the stands if certain player behavior continues at the expense of the team, then I'm OK with that. Some players just don't respond to "pretty please with sugar on top" etc. I'd say that a player spouting profanities at the coach on her way off the ice probably falls into that category.

In the end, you gotta let coaches coach - short of egregious misconduct, no? This is a D-1 program, where the coaches get paid REAL money, top players play on scholarship, and getting results is part of the gig - for everyone. When Coach McCloskey's on-ice results began to slip, he became vulnerable ... and let's face it, if UNH was coming off a string of strong seasons, the absolute worst that happens to Coach would have been a game or two off, and more likely a private rebuke - IF that.

See that's what's wrong with this society and college sports....coaches get away with inappropriate conduct and misconduct, egregious or otherwise and, so long as they are winning, no one seems to have any problem with it. Why is winning not only more important than being an appropriate role model for development of appropriate and effective leadership and interpersonal skills, but the only thing that seems to matter? These, after all are supposed to be institutions of higher education. As the NCAA loves to point out, the vast majority of college athletes will never play professional sports.

To be clear, there needs to be firm and consistent discipline and appropriate consequences for inappropriate behaviour by all players. I'm not advocating a country club atmosphere by any means. But mental, verbal or physical abuse by anyone in a leadership position should not be tolerated under any circumstances either. These, after all, are individuals being paid handsomely for their supposed leadership abilities.

 

[Chuck Murray]

Re: 2014 UNH Wildcats: Ending Strong and Starting Fresh

See that's what's wrong with this society and college sports....coaches get away with inappropriate conduct and misconduct, egregious or otherwise and, so long as they are winning, no one seems to have any problem with it. Why is winning not only more important than being an appropriate role model for development of appropriate and effective leadership and interpersonal skills, but the only thing that seems to matter? These, after all are supposed to be institutions of higher education. As the NCAA loves to point out, the vast majority of college athletes will never play professional sports.

OK, let's see here ... when it's all said and done, it's really all about happiness. Alums/boosters/fans all want to support/get behind a competitive winning program, and their donations (and other support) of a program often go hand-in-hand with the level of success for said program. Successful programs make these people happy, and happy people like to continue being happy, so they share more of their re$ource$ with the program, which of course makes the people running said program happy too. IF your program isn't making people happy, then the re$ource$ dry up, because those same folks are unhappy, and that makes the people who run your program less happy because they have to trim their budget, and as a result they will often make YOU unhappy by terminating your employment in favor of someone else they hope makes them all happier than you did.

So everyone just wants to be happy ... and the last time I checked, not too many of these people's happiness is attached to how many of their program's players make All-Academic honors, graduate in the top 10% of their class, etc. Not saying it's right or wrong, and yes these are colleges ... but colleges are big businesses too (despite the academic trappings) and this is a competitive world, where if you fall behind, someone will take advantage of your drop-off. Some colleges actually do go out of business. Believe it or not.

To be clear, there needs to be firm and consistent discipline and appropriate consequences for inappropriate behaviour by all players. I'm not advocating a country club atmosphere by any means. But mental, verbal or physical abuse by anyone in a leadership position should not be tolerated under any circumstances either. These, after all, are individuals being paid handsomely for their supposed leadership abilities.

Why is everything you set forth applicable so prominently to only the coach? Yes, they are paid (handsomely is a relative term I guess) but last time I checked, the athletes are awarded scholarships ... and 90+% of the time it's not because they scored great on their SAT exams or graduated as valedictorian at their high school/prep school(s). Is there not a standard of conduct they should be held to as well??

 

[Trillium]

Re: 2014 UNH Wildcats: Ending Strong and Starting Fresh

OK, let's see here ... when it's all said and done, it's really all about happiness. Alums/boosters/fans all want to support/get behind a competitive winning program, and their donations (and other support) of a program often go hand-in-hand with the level of success for said program. Successful programs make these people happy, and happy people like to continue being happy, so they share more of their re$ource$ with the program, which of course makes the people running said program happy too. IF your program isn't making people happy, then the re$ource$ dry up, because those same folks are unhappy, and that makes the people who run your program less happy because they have to trim their budget, and as a result they will often make YOU unhappy by terminating your employment in favor of someone else they hope makes them all happier than you did.

So everyone just wants to be happy ... and the last time I checked, not too many of these people's happiness is attached to how many of their program's players make All-Academic honors, graduate in the top 10% of their class, etc. Not saying it's right or wrong, and yes these are colleges ... but colleges are big businesses too (despite the academic trappings) and this is a competitive world, where if you fall behind, someone will take advantage of your drop-off. Some colleges actually do go out of business. Believe it or not.

Believe me I understand all about business.

I'd say it's highly unlikely that even in the winningest women's hockey programs that the donations by alums/boosters/fans/parents to the program would amount to more than a rounding error in the overall scheme of things for any university, much less that a few less wins would make a whole lot of difference to the athletic budgets. So I'll assume for the purposes of this discussion that we are talking varsity sports in general.

Let's go back to the business-oriented objective of having the school make lots of money to keep the people happy, as you say. If we go to the corporate world for examples, there are those very successful and profitable companies who also value corporate social responsibility, taking pride in cultures which treat their people well (eg. 100 Best Places to Work) and/or which aim to make a difference in the world in some meaningful way beyond merely delivering short term bottom-line results. At the other extreme, are those companies who become perverted by greed to solely maximize profits with unscrupulous labour practices, including using slave labour, child labour, off-shore sourcing in unsafe facilities, or cut corners environmentally to get ahead of their competition etc. These may make more money and achieve bigger wins for their stakeholders in the short term, but inevitably there are usually negative repercussions eventually from their win-at-all-costs mentality--often very severe ones. Coaches/leaders who try to "motivate by fear" or care only for themselves and their winning record are somewhere along the wrong end of this continuum. (As are their employers who fail to provide them training and development to correct their behaviour, or incent different behaviour)

My point is that you might think in addition to being fiscally driven, it should be also important for an educational institution to have more than a passing interest in the greater good beyond profit-taking. i.e. helping make a difference in the world--for example by developing strong, wise and compassionate leaders in its student-athletes, and in caring about the experiences in the institution that form their character as part of their educational mandate. Alums who do not have positive experiences as students are far less likely to become donors later.

Why is everything you set forth applicable so prominently to only the coach? Yes, they are paid (handsomely is a relative term I guess) but last time I checked, the athletes are awarded scholarships ... and 90+% of the time it's not because they scored great on their SAT exams or graduated as valedictorian at their high school/prep school(s). Is there not a standard of conduct they should be held to as well??

I'll turn it around: why is everything you set forth applicable so prominently to everyone (including the mere "fan") but the student-athlete? Why is their happiness irrelevant? It's no secret that happy, motivated employees are far more productive and deliver better results--with an effective and inspiring leader. The reason they are given handsome scholarships is to enable creation of competitive varsity teams....an investment which creates school pride and translates to donations later, presumably in excess of those scholarships.

Of course there needs to be high standards of conduct for student-athletes. There are. The coach alone is generally judge, jury and executioner. But perhaps unlike most of the corporate world, there are generally few checks and balances in place to ensure he/she is treating their "employees" fairly and consistently....for example, ask the student who was cut from her team after she reported she was raped, because she might affect the atmosphere in the dressing room. Players get sidelined or cut for all sorts of reasons based on the peccadilloes of their coach, as well as for valid ones with or without fair warning.

The focus is on the coach here because in the system in place now, it is the coach who often seems to escape accountability. There are numerous examples from numerous schools where problems have been swept under the rug and go on for years before being dealt with only when they could be ignored no longer.

But who cares? As long as the coach is winning.....

 

[Eeyore]

Re: 2014 UNH Wildcats: Ending Strong and Starting Fresh

It should also be noted that Chuck engaged in a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand. It started out as a discussion of assault in which he said:

Technically, I suppose you could charge someone with assault if they just yelled threatening things at you really loud.

My response was that I think that there are better ways of motivating people than yelling threatening things at them. To which he replied:

Depends on the player, the situation, and the "threat". If the "threat" is to curtail the player's ice time or even sit them in the stands if certain player behavior continues at the expense of the team, then I'm OK with that.

Of course, that sort of threat can in no way be stretched to constitute assault. He's taking advantage of the fact that the word "threatening" has a broad definition and trying to use behavior at one end of that spectrum to somehow justify behavior at the other end. So, let me modify what I said. I like to think that there are better ways to motivate people than yelling things at them that would fit the definition of assault. And, yes, there are plenty of sports coaches that do just that.

 

[Chuck Murray]

Re: 2014 UNH Wildcats: Ending Strong and Starting Fresh

It should also be noted that Chuck engaged in a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand.

Moi? Sleight of hand?? OK, maybe just a little bit ...

Of course, that sort of threat can in no way be stretched to constitute assault. He's taking advantage of the fact that the word "threatening" has a broad definition and trying to use behavior at one end of that spectrum to somehow justify behavior at the other end. So, let me modify what I said. I like to think that there are better ways to motivate people than yelling things at them that would fit the definition of assault. And, yes, there are plenty of sports coaches that do just that.

Perhaps that same broad definition of "threatening" is currently being used at the expense of the former head coach.

And FWIW I agree with you on both of your amended propositions ... yes, there aer better ways, and yes, plenty of folks do just that.

Of course there needs to be high standards of conduct for student-athletes. There are. The coach alone is generally judge, jury and executioner. But perhaps unlike most of the corporate world, there are generally few checks and balances in place to ensure he/she is treating their "employees" fairly and consistently....for example, ask the student who was cut from her team after she reported she was raped, because she might affect the atmosphere in the dressing room. Players get sidelined or cut for all sorts of reasons based on the peccadilloes of their coach, as well as for valid ones with or without fair warning.

Not sure I agree with the "few" checks and balances for an out of control coach. Whether a coach answers to an AD, a general manager, a principal/superintendant and/or a board of some sorts, those are basically the same "checks" that are out there for most working folks, except we call them supervisors, forepersons, the HR department, etc. And if there is inappropriate conduct, we are all accountable. More so in the present-day world than at any time in the past, and it's really not even a close call (coming from my 30+ years in the working world, and close to 35 years volunteering in various roles and capacities). I'm pretty sure it was worse before I started these endeavors, and I know it was worse when I was younger. The athlete - like the general workforce - has never had it so good in general.

As far as decisions on rostering and who gets playing time ... if that's not the coach's prerogative, what's your alternative? You put out an extreme example (which nowadays I'm sure would be better handled than in your example) ... and then expand the discussion into what is a "fair" basis for a player to be "sidelined or cut". Keeping in mind the coach is the one who will be ultimately held accountable for the results of the team he/she has put on the ice ... if the coach isn't going to be able to make the decisions on which players play, how much they play, where and how they play, etc. then what exactly is the coach's job supposed to entail? Running drills at practice, reporting to a board of overseers or a focus group to discuss lines/pairings, and then just implement those directives in a game???

 

[Trillium]

Re: 2014 UNH Wildcats: Ending Strong and Starting Fresh

Moi? Sleight of hand?? OK, maybe just a little bit ...



Perhaps that same broad definition of "threatening" is currently being used at the expense of the former head coach.

And FWIW I agree with you on both of your amended propositions ... yes, there aer better ways, and yes, plenty of folks do just that.



Not sure I agree with the "few" checks and balances for an out of control coach. Whether a coach answers to an AD, a general manager, a principal/superintendant and/or a board of some sorts, those are basically the same "checks" that are out there for most working folks, except we call them supervisors, forepersons, the HR department, etc. And if there is inappropriate conduct, we are all accountable. More so in the present-day world than at any time in the past, and it's really not even a close call (coming from my 30+ years in the working world, and close to 35 years volunteering in various roles and capacities). I'm pretty sure it was worse before I started these endeavors, and I know it was worse when I was younger. The athlete - like the general workforce - has never had it so good in general.

As far as decisions on rostering and who gets playing time ... if that's not the coach's prerogative, what's your alternative? You put out an extreme example (which nowadays I'm sure would be better handled than in your example) ... and then expand the discussion into what is a "fair" basis for a player to be "sidelined or cut". Keeping in mind the coach is the one who will be ultimately held accountable for the results of the team he/she has put on the ice ... if the coach isn't going to be able to make the decisions on which players play, how much they play, where and how they play, etc. then what exactly is the coach's job supposed to entail? Running drills at practice, reporting to a board of overseers or a focus group to discuss lines/pairings, and then just implement those directives in a game???

In theory the checks and balances may be there, but in reality no.... One of the differences is that in the work world, senior management is likely to have been in a similar position to yours at one point, unlike most ADs, and probably don't even understand the sport that much, nor care to. And most importantly, if even as a senior manager I want to fire employees, I can't arbitrarily just go and do it on my own--I have to involve my superior and HR early on, and ensure I have gone through the process of providing the employee regular performance reviews detailing issues and provide retraining opportunities to change their behaviour over a period of time. If the employee does not agree with the review, they also have the opportunity to discuss it with HR also. And all exiting employees are also given exit interviews by HR. In good companies, how leaders are perceived, liked and respected by their employees is an important part of the evaluation process, so that fair treatment and motivation of ones employees is incentivized along with achieving specific business objectives and profit improvement.

If the checks and balances in the system were truly there, you would not see so much deification of coaches with winning records despite known unhappiness and tension inside the dressing rooms of many of these same programs, nor foot dragging over many years about dealing with serious problems brought again and again to the attention of the AD. The point is that either directly or indirectly, the wrong behaviours are being incentivized such that only winning seems important.

Obviously you have to let the coach coach. There is no alternative, other than to raise the bar in terms of the coaches hired, ensuring better evaluation and retraining of coaches based on anonymous 360 feedback, and asking more questions when roster changes are contemplated. And by the way, the example provided though extreme was not very old....and I could also give you dozens more from several programs within the last 5 years.

 

[Chuck Murray]

Re: 2014 UNH Wildcats: Ending Strong and Starting Fresh

If the checks and balances in the system were truly there, you would not see so much deification of coaches with winning records despite known unhappiness and tension inside the dressing rooms of many of these same programs, nor foot dragging over many years about dealing with serious problems brought again and again to the attention of the AD. The point is that either directly or indirectly, the wrong behaviours are being incentivized such that only winning seems important.

"Deification" is a pretty strong word to attach to a college hockey coach. Can you provide specific examples?

Obviously you have to let the coach coach. There is no alternative, other than to raise the bar in terms of the coaches hired, ensuring better evaluation and retraining of coaches based on anonymous 360 feedback, and asking more questions when roster changes are contemplated. And by the way, the example provided though extreme was not very old....and I could also give you dozens more from several programs within the last 5 years.

FWIW only 3 weeks ago the biggest sports league in North America didn't have a domestic abuse policy in place. Things are moving very quickly out there, so even 5 months - much less 5 years - ago can feel like prehistoric times in some ways.

 

[Trillium]

Re: 2014 UNH Wildcats: Ending Strong and Starting Fresh

"Deification" is a pretty strong word to attach to a college hockey coach. Can you provide specific examples?

The public associates winning records and championships with great leadership, (especially as compared to less successful programs) though it's quite often not the case. Winning coaches are therefore rewarded with huge salaries, and the incentive to win at all costs accelerates---regardless of the coaches' methods. Many famous winning coaches have eventually been exposed for egregious conduct. A few of the most prominent examples that come to mind include Joe Paterno, Bobby Knight, Woody Hayes, Dave Bliss, Mike Rice, Pokey Chatman....and the list goes on and on. There have been several women's hockey coaches eventually let go after long time coaching careers, and many unhappy tales of angst within the programs well ahead of the removals. I'm sure you know the names; there's more housecleaning to be done.

FWIW only 3 weeks ago the biggest sports league in North America didn't have a domestic abuse policy in place. Things are moving very quickly out there, so even 5 months - much less 5 years - ago can feel like prehistoric times in some ways.

Very true.

 

[Chuck Murray]

Re: 2014 UNH Wildcats: Ending Strong and Starting Fresh

A few of the most prominent examples that come to mind include Joe Paterno, Bobby Knight, Woody Hayes, Dave Bliss, Mike Rice, Pokey Chatman....and the list goes on and on.

When we talk about "deification" of coaches, I'm not sure any of those examples ever rose to the top of their profession, at least not in the more prominent sports. I guess when it comes to "deification" I'm saving that level of reverance for the likes of Vince Lombardi, Bear Bryant, John Wooden, Pat Summit, Geno Aurigemma (sp?) and Scotty Bowman. Arguably Jerry York (at least on a D-1 Men's Hockey level) approaches that level in college hockey. Most of those older coaches (barring York) had reputations for being hard-nosed, no-nonsense leaders. How do you weigh in on their various successes, and their ability to achieve that success without any real notoriety arising from it?

There have been several women's hockey coaches eventually let go after long time coaching careers, and many unhappy tales of angst within the programs well ahead of the removals. I'm sure you know the names; there's more housecleaning to be done.

Actually, I'm admittedly a relative newbie on the women's side of college hockey, so don't assume I know anything/anyone, especially if they're not coaching in Durham. So if you have specific examples, I'd be happy to become educated on them.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: 2014 UNH Wildcats: Ending Strong and Starting Fresh

When we talk about "deification" of coaches, I'm not sure any of those examples ever rose to the top of their profession, at least not in the more prominent sports. I guess when it comes to "deification" I'm saving that level of reverance for the likes of Vince Lombardi, Bear Bryant, John Wooden, Pat Summit, Geno Aurigemma (sp?) and Scotty Bowman.

I think you are defining it much too narrowly. Joe Paterno, Bobby Knight, and Woody Hayes absolutely were not only at the top of their profession but also deified. There's a reason I referred to the first of those as St. Joseph of State College for several decades before he died. Look at the trauma and denial that has engulfed Penn State over the last couple of years. Or look at the way that those at IU defended Knight against all sorts of egregious behavior during his time there. You may not revere coaches at that level but lots of other people do.

 

[Chuck Murray]

Re: 2014 UNH Wildcats: Ending Strong and Starting Fresh

I think you are defining it much too narrowly. Joe Paterno, Bobby Knight, and Woody Hayes absolutely were not only at the top of their profession but also deified. There's a reason I referred to the first of those as St. Joseph of State College for several decades before he died. Look at the trauma and denial that has engulfed Penn State over the last couple of years. Or look at the way that those at IU defended Knight against all sorts of egregious behavior during his time there. You may not revere coaches at that level but lots of other people do.

Point taken. I guess when it comes to "deification" my approach to that concept is more of a global one than a local or even a regional one.

Sticking with the college coaches ... I don't think there's any question that beyond the local bounds of State College PA or Columbus OH, few would compare what Paterno and/or Hayes accomplished to what Coach Bryant accomplished. Heck - OSU arguably has enjoyed national success at a higher level both before Hayes AND after him. He's almost now a footnote lost to history (for which I'm sure a fair share of modern-day Buckeye Nation is eternally grateful). Ditto those beyond Bloomington IN comparing the accomplishments of Knight to Coach Wooden, or even nowadays Coach K at Duke.

As time passes, and the folks in State College move forwards and away from the *glory days* of Joe Pa and his creepy beyond belief accomplices and sycophants, I'm guessing his *legacy* will gradually fade into footnote status, just like Hayes has at OSU. Other than of course to learn from those mistakes so as not to repeat them. Especially the PSU crap, which actually makes the escapades of the Hayes era in Columbus seem almost tame by comparison.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: 2014 UNH Wildcats: Ending Strong and Starting Fresh

As time passes, and the folks in State College move forwards and away from the *glory days* of Joe Pa and his creepy beyond belief accomplices and sycophants, I'm guessing his *legacy* will gradually fade into footnote status, just like Hayes has at OSU. Other than of course to learn from those mistakes so as not to repeat them. Especially the PSU crap, which actually makes the escapades of the Hayes era in Columbus seem almost tame by comparison.

If you think that the cult of Woody Hayes has faded to footnote status, I suspect that you haven't spent much time actually in Columbus, Ohio. But for the purposes of this discussion, whether the adulation of a current coach will fade at some point in the future is entirely irrelevant. How much power they have to avoid the consequences of bad behavior depends on their status now, not in two decades.

 

[Trillium]

but for the purposes of this discussion, whether the adulation of a current coach will fade at some point in the future is entirely irrelevant. How much power they have to avoid the consequences of bad behavior depends on their status now, not in two decades.

this!!

 

[Chuck Murray]

Re: 2014 UNH Wildcats: Ending Strong and Starting Fresh

If you think that the cult of Woody Hayes has faded to footnote status, I suspect that you haven't spent much time actually in Columbus, Ohio.

Correct - I've barely spent ANY time in Columbus OH. Again, I'm not approaching "deification" of coaches being a local phenomenon. Let's face it - every state, and lots of towns in every state - everyone has their share of coaching "icons". Most of us have never heard of most of them. And I don't think it's all that unusual for said state/town or institution's supporters to hold a successful coach in some degree of reverence. That goes back to the whole "happiness" concept I mentioned a few posts ago. And I'm willing to bet that most of these local "icon" coaches didn't seek that level of recognition, but have had it thrust on them by the local press or said same supporters.

And I'm sure there are likewise a minority of these local or regional "icons" who fell far short of the mark when it came to living up to the iconic status thrust upon them, or were downright hypocrites in some cases where they ambitiously pursued becoming an "icon" at any and all costs to their integrity, or to the integrity of their program.

Speaking of which ... do you feel comfortable mentioning Hayes and Paterno in the same sentence? I know I don't ...

But for the purposes of this discussion, whether the adulation of a current coach will fade at some point in the future is entirely irrelevant. How much power they have to avoid the consequences of bad behavior depends on their status now, not in two decades.

I think I'm still waiting for specific details of modern day D-1 college hockey coaches (Men or Women programs) who have been wrongly adulated and/or elevated to "deity" status in the face of really bad personal conduct "behind the curtain" ... not saying it's not out there now OR in the not-too-distant past, but it seems like this discussion is only taking place conceptually so far.

You can only go so far in any discussion harpooning the proverbial "straw (wo)man".

 

[Eeyore]

Re: 2014 UNH Wildcats: Ending Strong and Starting Fresh

Speaking of which ... do you feel comfortable mentioning Hayes and Paterno in the same sentence? I know I don't ...

It depends upon the sentence.

And, yes, the deification is primarily a local phenomenon, but its effects are also local. Just as it doesn't matter what the coach's status will be in 20 years, it doesn't really matter whether people two time zones away have ever heard of him. Their ability to survive a scandal is going to depend upon their status within that community, which pretty much just means locally and within alumni networks. In fact, their power will likely be greater if they are unknown outside that community because it reduces the number of directions that pressure might come from.

Now, you are probably correct that there are few places where a D-1 hockey coach would have that kind of power but that's mostly because hockey isn't that big a deal at most places. In places where hockey is more important, they have a greater ability to get people to look the other way.