Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

[pokechecker]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

It's difficult no matter how you look at it. On one hand their personal lives are nobody's business but their own, male or female. On the other hand if their personal lives start to have a negative impact on the team and the team's respectability or reputation in the athletic department and school it becomes a team issue that the coach is forced to address. For example when a hockey party gets our of hand and local neighbors complain to the school president or athletic director the coach gets called to make sure it doesn't happen again and if it does the coach is called on the carpet, so he/she is responsible for how the players behave in their personal lives in a situation like that. When that line gets crossed it's always difficult for everyone concerned. Either way it doesn't sound like this moron handled himself with any level of professionalism or respect to his players. Good to see another pig be forced out of the game just like the former OSU coach.

That’s your opinion, but please make up your mind.

There is a contract between player and coach, the athlete must live by the coach’s rules, simple as that.

Your personal life became our business since you want us to pay for your pregnancy, whether you terminate it or not, pay to cure your STD, and then you ask to provide food, clothing, and shelter for the kid you cannot support. You Utopians want the right, but not the responsibility, the other problem is that college has become merely adult day care for the middle and upper class. That’s why some coaches have to be the baby sitter and do the job the parents didn’t do.

 

[shelfit]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

That’s your opinion, but please make up your mind.

There is a contract between player and coach, the athlete must live by the coach’s rules, simple as that.

Your personal life became our business since you want us to pay for your pregnancy, whether you terminate it or not, pay to cure your STD, and then you ask to provide food, clothing, and shelter for the kid you cannot support. You Utopians want the right, but not the responsibility, the other problem is that college has become merely adult day care for the middle and upper class. That’s why some coaches have to be the baby sitter and do the job the parents didn’t do.

Maybe I didn't get enough sleep last night but I have no idea what you're talking about. You're all over the place here. Very strange. I think it's more about how any given coach enforces their rules that is the key. Grabbing kids or screaming right into their face that you're going to cut their f-ing legs off probably isn't the way to go. And at OSU I don't think those players are ever going to hear their coach tell them to get horny for the puck. On a related note I was right behind the players bench one time and heard very clearly a female assistant coach use the "p" word to her players. It sounds like wussy. The players didn't seem to react one way or the other at that time but I wonder if they ever complained to the head coach or the AD of the school. I was quite shocked to hear it and could only imagine how the players might have reacted if a male coach had used that word to them.

 

[pokechecker]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

Maybe I didn't get enough sleep last night but I have no idea what you're talking about. You're all over the place here. Very strange. I think it's more about how any given coach enforces their rules that is the key. Grabbing kids or screaming right into their face that you're going to cut their f-ing legs off probably isn't the way to go. And at OSU I don't think those players are ever going to hear their coach tell them to get horny for the puck. On a related note I was right behind the players bench one time and heard very clearly a female assistant coach use the "p" word to her players. It sounds like wussy. The players didn't seem to react one way or the other at that time but I wonder if they ever complained to the head coach or the AD of the school. I was quite shocked to hear it and could only imagine how the players might have reacted if a male coach had used that word to them.

go home early tonight and get some sleep

it they didn't, it will be in the future if they ever have an issue with this coach

 

[Rightnut]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

You say, "if the facts come out, and they are as you claim, shame on Clarkson, Q and Seeley.". Here's my answer: "And shame on you too."

You have called the Quinnipiac players "whiny", dismissed them with a "boo hoo" about their problems, and said you are skeptical about the Clarkson players' stories. I'm simply pointing out to you that if the allegations are true, that you are saying some pretty insensitive things.

Please note that in a story today, the AD for Quinnipiac said that the player surveys about Seeley were "terrible" (they do the surveys annually it seems) and that he was made aware after he hired Seeley, that there were also problems at Clarkson. Here's the kicker: He said, “Obviously if we knew what is being alleged, then [the hiring] just wouldn’t have happened.”

It sounds like the AD is treating these stories pretty seriously. But you just want to keep calling out the players.

You clearly lack, to paraphrase someone on these threads, reading comprehension, reading ability and reading comprehension ability. The only person being called out is you for being the Al Sharpton of women's hockey victimization. For the last time, the point being made is that none of these alleged victims "likely" gives a sh** what you or I or anyone says on these message boards and if they do, they need to get over themselves (yes - boo hoo) and deal with their real problems. You need to get over yourself and your crusade to "end the insensitivity". The horror! Please make it stop.

I haven't been "dismissive" of their allegations. As I said, if true, Seeley should rightly have been fired and Clarkson and Q have some 'splaining to do. I have been skeptical of the peeing the pants story. Big difference that your lack of comprehension prevents you from understanding. But being that I am insensitive by nature according to you, I asked my high school age daughter about it. She is apparently insensitive too.

 

[FiveHoleFrenzy]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

You clearly lack, to paraphrase someone on these threads, reading comprehension, reading ability and reading comprehension ability. The only person being called out is you for being the Al Sharpton of women's hockey victimization. For the last time, the point being made is that none of these alleged victims "likely" gives a sh** what you or I or anyone says on these message boards and if they do, they need to get over themselves (yes - boo hoo) and deal with their real problems. You need to get over yourself and your crusade to "end the insensitivity". The horror! Please make is stop.

I haven't been "dismissive" of their allegations. As I said, if true, Seeley should rightly have been fired and Clarkson and Q have some 'splaining to do. I have been skeptical of the peeing the pants story. Big difference that your lack of comprehension prevents you from understanding. But being that I am insensitive by nature according to you, I asked my high school age daughter about it. She is apparently insensitive too.

This wouldn't be "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is" things, would it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

 

[Rightnut]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

This wouldn't be "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is" things, would it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

LOL! I guess I missed that typo due to my lack of reading comprehension ability.

 

[Trillium]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

Wow. I have to say it's very difficult knowing there are total a-holes like him and the OSU guy that seem to last so long in college coaching when there are so many other good people in coaching that don't seem to land these jobs because winning isn't the most important thing to them. I think I'd prefer to play for a coach that cares more about the players and teaching them life lessons on and off the ice and maybe doesn't win as many games than a coach that feels he/she has to win at all costs.

BINGO!!

The number of former players I know who have zero interest in playing the sport at all after college because their coach ruined it for them is truly mind boggling. The #1 attribute you should look for in a coach is someone who respects and cares about them growing as people, and wants the same from their players. There's not a ton of those in D1.

 

[FiveHoleFrenzy]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

LOL! I guess I missed that typo due to my lack of reading comprehension ability.

I looked at it as adding a little brevity to a thread that could use it so no need to apologize for the typo.

 

[Trillium]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

I'm not saying that I disagree with you, but it is interesting that there weren't players leaving in droves from programs like Ohio State and Quinnipiac. Either the rosters of these teams didn't share this opinion, the players felt they didn't have other options, or other benefits of the schools outweighed any negatives from abusive behavior by coaches.

The attrition rate from both Clarkson and Quinnipiac teams under Seeley's tenure was significantly higher than most other programs in the league. For years his teams--both star and fringe players alike--have told friends at other schools that they were afraid of him. Tough for most families to forego as much as a $60,000 scholarship though.

 

[Rightnut]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

I looked at it as adding a little brevity to a thread that could use it so no need to apologize for the typo.

I agree. I think we have beaten that horse enough. Time to move on.

 

[PuckRush]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

You clearly lack, to paraphrase someone on these threads, reading comprehension, reading ability and reading comprehension ability. The only person being called out is you for being the Al Sharpton of women's hockey victimization. For the last time, the point being made is that none of these alleged victims "likely" gives a sh** what you or I or anyone says on these message boards and if they do, they need to get over themselves (yes - boo hoo) and deal with their real problems. You need to get over yourself and your crusade to "end the insensitivity". The horror! Please make it stop.

I haven't been "dismissive" of their allegations. As I said, if true, Seeley should rightly have been fired and Clarkson and Q have some 'splaining to do. I have been skeptical of the peeing the pants story. Big difference that your lack of comprehension prevents you from understanding. But being that I am insensitive by nature according to you, I asked my high school age daughter about it. She is apparently insensitive too.

Your point has morphed over the course of many posts from accusing the players of being the problem to "none of the alleged victims likely give a ****" about what you say. I give you credit for the improvement.

 

[Trillium]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

You say, "if the facts come out, and they are as you claim, shame on Clarkson, Q and Seeley.". Here's my answer: "And shame on you too."

You have called the Quinnipiac players "whiny", dismissed them with a "boo hoo" about their problems, and said you are skeptical about the Clarkson players' stories. I'm simply pointing out to you that if the allegations are true, that you are saying some pretty insensitive things.

Please note that in a story today, the AD for Quinnipiac said that the player surveys about Seeley were "terrible" (they do the surveys annually it seems) and that he was made aware after he hired Seeley, that there were also problems at Clarkson. Here's the kicker: He said, “Obviously if we knew what is being alleged, then [the hiring] just wouldn’t have happened.”

It sounds like the AD is treating these stories pretty seriously. But you just want to keep calling out the players.

Refreshing to see an administration that isn't just sweeping it under the rug as is typical. But the fact remains that admitting they learned about the prior problems at Clarkson, and that he got horrible reviews at Qpac, he was still allowed to coach uncensured for SEVEN YEARS!! Winning is sadly that much more important.

 

[Trillium]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

Old school coaching is on its way out for both sexes. I just have a hard time believing that incident occurred as stated, and if it did, which would be evidence of a very extreme situation, nothing was ever raised about it before.

Why? There are huge built-in disincentives to reporting, as players and parents have found in various programs.

1) Administrations don't want to know of problems, and are disinclined to believe them especially if they like the coach and/or he/she is winning. History suggests changes are never made until years of recurring problems, and typically only then if the team is struggling to win.
2) Complaints to administration are automatically relayed back to the coach, which results in even greater problems for the player, typically including dismissal from the team. This is true even in situations where players band together and complain as a group, as occurred at Penn State last year.
3) Making information public, either through message boards or media, also is a no win situation. Complaints are seen by a majority as merely as coming from someone "with an axe to grind", and retaliating because of insufficient ice time rather than due to genuine coaching issues. As is done regularly on this board, the usual reaction is to rush to the defence of the poor, maligned coach who is being targeted by whiny, too soft, disgruntled players.

The fact is that players have no recourse other than quitting. The only means of affecting change, is for future players, by getting the word out through their networks to get recruits to stay away from certain programs. However, because so many have stars in their eyes about the prospect of D1, too many families tend not to conduct sufficient due diligence anyway, or discount the negative accounts from current and past players.

 

[Trillium]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

"I think if you looked at it, you'd see that the best programs are also doing the best at helping the girls become women. Great coaches don't teach to win, the teach their athletes to be winners. The wins come as a result."

+1

Very naive, if you think the winningest programs do this well. Maybe some do. But I agree with the sentiment that those programs doing the best job of helping grow their players into successful women are how I too would define the best programs.

 

[PuckRush]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

Refreshing to see an administration that isn't just sweeping it under the rug as is typical. But the fact remains that admitting they learned about the prior problems at Clarkson, and that he got horrible reviews at Qpac, he was still allowed to coach uncensured for SEVEN YEARS!! Winning is sadly that much more important.

Agree 1000%.

 

[Rightnut]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

Your point has morphed over the course of many posts from accusing the players of being the problem to "none of the alleged victims likely give a ****" about what you say. I give you credit for the improvement.

Really? Please point out where I accused the players of being the problem. Maybe you should move your lips while you read. That may help you.

 

[PuckRush]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

Really? Please point out where I accused the players of being the problem. Maybe you should move your lips while you read. That may help you.

Here are quotes from your posts accusing players of being the problem:

"I am a bit skeptical of any top athlete who pees their pants when they get yelled at." (in other words, the player is making this up)
"I just have a hard time believing that incident accusing Seeley occurred as stated." (in other words, the players is making this up)
"Are (the players) so sensitive that some poster on a message board giving his opinion hurts their feelings? Boo hoo." (in other words, they shouldn't have these feelings)

In summary, you are saying that the players, their stories, and their feelings are a problem.

 

[Rightnut]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

Here are quotes from your posts accusing players of being the problem:

"I am a bit skeptical of any top athlete who pees their pants when they get yelled at." (in other words, the player is making this up)
"I just have a hard time believing that incident accusing Seeley occurred as stated." (in other words, the players is making this up)
"Are (the players) so sensitive that some poster on a message board giving his opinion hurts their feelings? Boo hoo." (in other words, they shouldn't have these feelings)

In summary, you are saying that the players, their stories, and their feelings are a problem.

Ok - where do any of those accuse the players of being the problem? How do you define the "problem"? I think most of us would define Seeley as the problem based on the info provided. Being skeptical of a story does not accuse the player of being the problem. That deals with 1 & 2 which both relate to the pants peeing claim. With regard to the third - that is not accusing the players of being the "problem". It is pointing out that if those players are upset by this message board (which I highly doubt), they need to get over it. Boo hoo. They can have whatever feelings they want. You are the self-professed guardian of their feelings. The real issue is your "horrified" reaction to anyone expressing any opinion other than unfettered solicitude for them. You never explained your crusade. What is your stake in all this?

 

[shelfit]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

BINGO!!

The number of former players I know who have zero interest in playing the sport at all after college because their coach ruined it for them is truly mind boggling. The #1 attribute you should look for in a coach is someone who respects and cares about them growing as people, and wants the same from their players. There's not a ton of those in D1.

A big part of the problem is a lot of coaches are under a ton of pressure to win so at some point in time at any given school if they are not winning enough the coach will obviously try very hard to survive and keep their job. That amount of pressure can easily change a coach and their approach and how harshly he/she reacts during games and off the ice throughout the season. Not saying it's justified but it's happening every year at all levels. Until administration is willing to also take responsibility this trend is going to continue in one form or another. You also have lots of examples every year it seems of players that complain when it's not justified in an effort to get the coach fired because they learn they have that kind of power and they get their parents involved too to make their complaints have more power. It's the pack mentality that the administrators then have to try to deal with. The easiest solution is to get rid of one person instead of losing a bunch of student-athletes so coaches that are good people sometimes lose their jobs in those situations and that's not "fair" either. With that being a known factor in women's hockey I can see where posters here have room in their minds for doubt about certain stories that are coming out at this time. That being said I'd say there's plenty of truth to enough of the stories to support the firing (resignation) of Seeley and Handrahan for sure. It's a tough time to be a college level coach, player, and administrator.

 

[SamB]

Re: Quinnipiac 2014-2015 Women's Thread: "Kelly Who?"

That’s your opinion, but please make up your mind.

There is a contract between player and coach, the athlete must live by the coach’s rules, simple as that.

Your personal life became our business since you want us to pay for your pregnancy, whether you terminate it or not, pay to cure your STD, and then you ask to provide food, clothing, and shelter for the kid you cannot support. You Utopians want the right, but not the responsibility, the other problem is that college has become merely adult day care for the middle and upper class. That’s why some coaches have to be the baby sitter and do the job the parents didn’t do.

hahahahaha..... where are you from?? the upper edges of god knows where. go back and hide in your cave....