Here We Go Again
CFR
in Teams, Coaches, Intelligence, Players, Punditry/Media, Legal
|
15 Comments
By all accounts, Georgia coach Mark Richt is a great human being.
Based on what I've read about him in Every Week a Season and heard about him from those close to the program, he's an impossibly genuine, kind, and humble man.
But he has a problem. He's a big-time football coach.
As I've clearly documented this week, part of being a D-I football coach involves managing a roster of well over 100 players, each with their own backgrounds, personalities, motivations and discipline. When it comes to college football at the highest levels, not every player is going to follow an enlightened path, unfortunately.
Enter Dannell Ellerbe, just one of the many college football players to get himself in trouble this offseason. Ellerbe stole a teammates car and was arrested for DUI after hitting a tree while joyriding in January. To make matters worse he gave false information to police.
His situation worked its way through the courts and the University of Georgia, resulting in several layers of discipline. It is unclear per the article what action the Athens-Clarke County authorities took, but the University was "satisfied" with it---additionally placing him on six months probation and ordering him to take an alcohol-awareness class.
Here's where things get tricky.
After having already gone through the ringer of police, courts, and the University of Georgia and being cleared to rejoin society, his coach also punished him. Sort of.
He was suspended for the first three games of the upcoming season.
It's not a lot. But then, what is a lot? Driving under the influence is a serious antisocial crime, one that could have resulted in something far more serious than a dented tree.
What should coach Richt have done?
I don't know, and that's the problem. On one hand, three games sounds almost laughable. If any other coach had done that, he'd have been roasted. But nobody will make a sound because coach Richt is coach Richt.
On the other hand, the coach isn't a necessary disciplinary figure when it comes to a situation like that. As noted, the player had to go through several powerful layers of authority these last several months in facing the music for his crimes. Here's guessing he learned a lesson and got several months' lecturing from his coach on top of it. That's the coach's job---provide leadership.
Apparently coach Richt's leadership failed. That must mean he's a bad guy, right?
I simply don't buy into the whole fan hysteria over how a coach punishes a player for off field situations. His job is to manage a roster of players, help them win ball games, and set a good example. However, once a player has committed a transgression (or is alleged to have committed one---we have to remember that pesky innocent until proven guilty thing in this unrivaled country of ours) he has to answer to far greater authorities than his coach.
That's why there's no right or wrong way to discipline or not discipline a player. A coach's discipline role is more reserved for internal matters---showing up to practice, not making enemies with teammates, doing one's best, going to class, making grade, etc. That is where he can truly influence a player outside of the day-to-day role as leader and authority figure.
Most of the time, additional punishments by coaches are simply pouring on. But they have to do it to make a show in front of the press and school officials, nevermind that a player is very likely to have already been sanctioned at every stop. That's why I call it window dressing, it's a song and dance to balance out a coach's desire to have his player back on the roster and the field (and under his influence) with the petty demands of the press and other agitators.
Keep in mind that coach Richt is held up as one of college football's shining examples of a good-guy coach who runs a clean program. Yet his team faces many of the same off-field challenges as so-called renegade programs like Ohio State, USC, Miami, Oklahoma and Florida State. In spite of his fine character, not all his players get the message and take after his example.
Does that mean he runs a "loose ship". Most certainly not. Does that make him some kind of cheater because he benefits as a coach from having miscreants on his team? Nope.
Maybe if he wins a national championship people will start singing a different tune... I don't know.
But I do know he's a college football coach, and so long as he's in that line of work, he's just as guilty as any of the other so-called renegade coach of having the audacity to try and lead a roster full of physically talented individuals, many of whom are unfit to handle the burdens of living a squeaky-clean life.
The average college football fan: why build when you can wantonly destroy?
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (15)
I understand that you aren't throwing Richt under the bus, but I can't support the idea that Richt is necessarily soft on discipline because of this instance. Athletes who find themselves in trouble aren't given a multitude of chances. It seems the quota of screwups before the hammer falls is approximately one. After that, the athlete is on double-secret probation and any future instance of trouble has spelled a dismissal (see Derrick White, projected 2005 starter at linebacker).
I agree that these types of instances occur without regard to the quality of coach or level of prior discipline or whatever. It happens because they are immature adults that have been given free reign thus far in their lives, and they have a little bit of free time and some noteriety. It happens. With regard to traffic violations in Athens, GA...perhaps a little too often.
Someone needs to do a Bruin blog who actually knows about what goes on at UCLA.
Yeh, I definitely wasn't throwing Richt under the bus. I've quietly been a fan of his since learning more of his biographical stuff.
HP-Heh. I think you just found yet another blog to create. Can call it BruinPundit or IKnowBruinFootball.
You're using flawed logic. Just because efforts to avoid off-the-field problems don't always work, doesn't mean that they don't sometimes work. If CPR saves a drowning child 90% of the time, but little Billy died despite CPR last week, should we not bother? I don't mean to engage in histrionics, but the point is that it's not fair to discount the importance of the efforts just because they don't always work (even at 10%).
As I've said, kids will occasionally get themselves into trouble no matter what preventative measures are taken or what deterrents are in place. And I agree that certain realities, such as the youth of the athletes and the varied temptations associated with big time college athletics, increase the likelihood of such troubles. But you are wrong to suggest that coaches don't have a significant role to play. You say:
"[T]here are institutions who these athletes have to answer to: The NCAA, the police, the courts, their families, their universities and also the coaches. The coach is just one part of the equation, and a very small one at that based on how no matter what symbolic punishment is made at these big programs, transgressions persist year after year."
This displays your flawed logic, as well as your view of the minimal role coaches can and should play. This also shows that you are willing to allow coaches to shirk whatever role they do have to the "other guy."
Things may be a bit different in the off-season, but how does this approach work in the real world. Let's imagine. A player has the privilege to play in a big program. Player commits fill-in-the-blank criminal act. He's arrested and released on bail. The big game is on Saturday. The trial in the criminal matter isn't for a year; the NCAA hasn't commenced an investigation; the student affairs counsel hasn't met; the family is upset but hopes player makes it to the NFL.
The coach doesn't have a role here? With all the players watching and taking cues, there's nothing to do? Just "window dressing"? A song and dance"? The "coach isn't a necessary disciplinary figure"?
What about "leadership"? What about "set[ting] a good example"? Is there really "no right or wrong way to discipline or not discipline a player"?
And what about before player got in trouble. Didn't coach have a responsibility to see if curfew was being enforced, or to follow up on those rumors of fake ID's and carousing, or whatever?
Listen, of course the coach isn't the only one responsible when things go wrong. The player is primarily responsible. Also, other institutions have their respective roles. But the coach does have an important role. And there are right and wrong ways to do that job. Even if facing similar obstacles, some coaches do it better than others. Some programs take it more seriously than others. Indeed, some are happy to allow problems to metastasize. Again, there is no moral equivalence.
I'm really not sure what drives your insistence on minimizing the role of coaches in this, and excusing those coaches who take their responsibilities less seriously (sometimes very intentionally) than others. You seem like a smart guy. It kind of reminds me of that guy who goes to rallies in support of the legalization of drugs. He's very well-versed and earnest. He can cite all sorts of statistics. He's developed a detailed philosophy that supports his position. And, oh yeah, he's a serious drug user. Would he believe all that stuff if he wasn't? Would you believe all this stuff if you weren't a fan of USC? I don't know.
For all you know, Pete Carroll could be the strictest guy in the world on his team and Mark Richt the most lax. And the incidences could still occur.
The point CFR is making is that these things happen everywhere. That much we know.
What we don't know is how much coaches are responsible. The only people who try to claim they know the answer to that are people with agendas and axes to grind.
How many BN posters are saying that USC should fire Pete Carroll for the things going on at USC? A lot. And not a single one of them hopes it happens to gain an advantage over their rival, right?
You claim that CFR is excusing USC's behavior because of favoritism. I think you are indicting USC because of hatred. So it's a wash. But at least CFR is consistent.
Here it is, only 100 days til the UCLA-Utah opener and there's no preview on BN of what to expect from the Utes, only more whining about Dorrell, along with the usual harping about the UCLA administration.
I think I could do a better job.
If I may respond:
"The problem, cocoman, is that you have no way of gauging the effort put in to avoiding these incidents by coaches. You only go on faith that coach A is bad because he coaches for your rival and that coach B is good because he doesn't."
First off, your right that I don't have perfect information. But enough information is available to give folks who pay attention a pretty good gauge of this sort of thing. And I understand that some fans will be inconsistent, but I've been just as willing to take Toledo/Dorrell to the woodshed on these things as Carroll, even if it's not as much fun.
"For all you know, Pete Carroll could be the strictest guy in the world on his team and Mark Richt the most lax. And the incidences could still occur."
Come now. We know the first part isn't true. And, again, I've said that incidents will occur in both types of programs. But, they'll, on balance, happen less at the strict places, and more at the lax places.
"What we don't know is how much coaches are responsible."
So, just because we don't know for sure, we shouldn't try to hold them to certain standards?
"How many BN posters ar saying that USC should fire Pete Carroll for the things going on at USC? A lot. And not a single one of them hopes it happens to gain an advantage over their rival, right?"
I don't know, maybe some. I don't personally care if he's fired or not.
"You claim that CFR is excusing USC's behavior because of favoritism. I think you are indicting USC because of hatred. So it's a wash. But at least CFR is consistent."
Your first point is fair, from your perspective at least. As I've said, I'm a UCLA fan, so feel free to be suspicious of my motivations. You don't know me, and couldn't be expected to know that I am not that type of person. However, I have been consistant. I demand the same level of vigilance regarding this issue from both my team and yours.
First let me compliment and thank you on your civil tone and courteous discourse. It's something I am not used to coming from BN.
as for your points--
1. I don't think it is necessary to have 'perfect' information. But there is no doubt that the information out there is incomplete. You and I both rely on media reports of the two teams that are in our hometown. But what do you and I know about what Glen Mason or Rich Rodriguez do to run their program? We don't know anything, really. We only know a little snippet based on the rap sheets--the output--but very little by way of concrete information on what coaches actually do--the input. So there is nothing reliable to compare Pete Carroll or Karl Dorrell to in the wider coaching realm. Pete Carroll may be lax, but compared to who? Karl Dorrell may be strict, but compared to who?
2. Do I think Pete Carroll is an especially strict coach? Nope. But I'm not sure that here is a corrollary between strictness and lack of control over players. Look at Richt. He's strict, but incidences continue. Look at Dorrell. Up until three months ago, BN was raving about how he runs a clean program without thugs. What did he do to cause the latest problems? Probably nothing. Yet they occurred nonetheless. The one thing we have perfect information on is this: regardless of whether a coach is strict or lax, players tend to get in trouble. This is the stand I've always taken and why I've always protested inflammatory references to thugs and criminals.
3.Holding coaches to standards is fine. But like I said, what are the standards and who gets to make them? No one knows what goes on inside a program. Most fans don't have access to the circumstances surrounding some issues. Much more is covered up than is revealed. A program in Lincoln, Neb., is not given the same scrutiny as one in Los Angeles. We are led to believe that Callahan leads a clean program because we don't read about the Huskers in the paper. If the standard is set by how much is reported, then that's an unfair standard given the imbalances in media coverage throughout the country.
4. The last, unspoken truth in all of this is that to be successful, schools need to have a certain amount of 'thugs' on their team. That's just a fact. Do I mean literal thugs? No, of course not. I am talking about very mean, violent types (on the field) who possess tremendous athleticism. Unfortunately, many of these types come from troubled backgrounds and hung with the wrong crowd growing up. So, they are somewhat of a wildcard in a program. Yet, as CFR noted, schools are willing to take a chance on them because they will help a coach win and keep his job. In USC's case, they have just done a better job in the last few years at recruiting players that EVERYONE--inluding UCLA--would have killed for. And so, more incidences arise.
That said, I think that the latest round of things at USC are not especially indicative of a thug program like we are used to seeing in college football--an honors student QB gets arrested on a bogus charge; some agents go to town on some foolish parents; a linebacker punches a guy in the nose.
Not to minimize--these are all embarrassing for a program--but this is not like Nebraska or Colorado in the mid-1990s or Miami or Oklahoma in the 1980s when players were going around with guns and drugs and terrorizing the local populace. About the only USC scandal worthy of that level of late is Eric Wright. In a major media center like L.A., not a whole lot has come to light, which says a lot.
--OJ visits practice. I had a friend who was at that practice. OJ just walked up (there was no security) and started watching. Carroll was in the middle of practice and didn't notice his presence until the end. What was he supposed to do? Kick OJ out of practice? I think Carroll was sort of caught in a bind and chose being accommodating over creating a scene by removing him. It sounded to me like a surreal moment that just got out of hand. Either way, it's a stretch to list this as an example of Carroll's program being corrupt.
--Steve Smith and Dominique Byrd getting into a fight. These two were friends who got into an argument over a video game. They were friends after the incident as well.
--Hazing of Mark Sanchez. They shaved his head. Whoop de do. A water fight. Amazing.
--The LenDale White prank. Laugh or not, it was a prank. Big deal.
--Leinart being temporarily ineligible because an ESPN reporter got him to do a promo after practice for an upcoming interview. This is maybe the weakest one.
--The Papadakis violations. Which of course, have never amounted to anything, either from the Pac-10 or NCAA.
After all of those stretches are removed, we are left with the following:
--two minor incidents involving Winston Justice
--no charges or arrest made against Hershel Dennis
--Rey Maualuga punches a guy in the face
--no charges against Eric Wright for rape, but 137 ecstasy pills found in room
--Mark Sanchez arrested, no case is likely
--Bush's housing issue
--Jarrett's housing issue
That's eight incidences in six years for Pete Carroll, involving seven players.
Let's look at what he/USC did in response to that:
--suspended Justice for a year
--suspended Dennis and then buried him on the depth chart
--forced Eric Wright to transfer
--suspended Mark Sanchez
--referred Jarrett case to Pac-10
The Bush case is regarding a now former player and is out of USC's hands.
The only thing that could be seen as being lax on players is the treatment of Rey Maualuga.
As it is, not a single one of those players was charged with anything. Say what you want about USC supposedly having a connection with the D.A. and the police--it didn't stop Sanchez from doing the perp walk.
I'd say the biggest problem USC has right now is that the players are drinking and partying too much. Carroll has definitely been to lax on that. Overall, there are a couple bad apples, but are they thugs? Nah.
Coach Richt, though, is *the* class of college football. He runs as squeaky-clean a program as I can imagine, and from all accounts he is the most pious, kindest guy around.
What sucks is he'll never leave Georgia. I will probably have to wait ten or fifteen, maybe even twenty or thirty years until UGA has a Coach I can rag on.
There are other issues, too. What about a place like Auburn where there isn't much to do? Their kids may not get into trouble, but it could be because it is pretty hard to find there, or maybe the Alabama police are a little more apt to let a football player slide. Who knows? And I think that is the point that HP and CFR are after.
A guy like Urban Meyer came touted as a disciplinarian, but his actions have shown nothing of the sort. Recently, he let a player's council that he created vote on the dismissal of a player, CB Avery Atkins. They voted to kick him off, and then Meyer stepped in to overrule and let him stay. Does it sound damning? Yes, but none of us really know the circumstances around it. Because I dislike Florida, I like to think that he's guilty of running a program full of thugs (I really do think this, given the Percy Harvin incidents, Dee Webb's assault rifles, and the lack of punishment for starters), but of course I am biased. I think that's really the only point that these guys are trying to make.