Its Not About The Money

[slick1ru2]

  http://college-football.suite101.com/article.cfm/college_football_coach_tantrums_on_the_sidelines

College Football Coach Tantrums on the Sidelines

NCAA Appears to Have Higher Standards for Players than Coaches

Dec 12, 2009 Carroll Trosclair

A look at the contrasting NCAA treatment of players who stage end zone celebrations and college coaches who throw tantrums and headsets and berate players on sidelines.

Televised football games reveal that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) maintains a double behavior standard for players and coaches. Players doing a little celebrating after scoring a touchdown are subject to 15-yard penalties. Coaches who throw temper tantrums, headsets and other paraphernalia on the sidelines usually get nothing more than a little extra TV coverage.

Are player celebrations worse than the fury demonstrated by some coaches?

Should kids be held to higher standards than coaches who are profiting from the game?

Candidates for Anger Management Sessions

Many coaches are candidates for anger management sessions, but the NCAA could start with a pair of very successful coaches who put on frightening temper demonstrations one Saturday in November 2009. They know who they are and they aren't alone. They slammed headsets and other paraphernalia to the ground with more anger than players show on the field.

At least one television announcer shrugged off the outbursts as admirable passion for the game. But it’s hard to imagine more out-of-control guys when those two get mad at a game official or player. They negate the good generated by those carefully produced university commercials that run during the games.

The coaches' televised outbursts on this particular Saturday were in stark contrast to the sideline calm demonstrated by their opponents.

Game officials must focus on the players and don’t always see the coach antics on the sidelines, so 15-yard penalties are not the answer. Besides, players should not be punished for their coach’s behavior.

NCAA Can Monitor Videos

The NCAA can monitor videos in the following week. They can announce and levy appropriate fines on coaches who display lack of control and damage the NCAA image. Many coaches now make so much money they can laugh off fines of a few thousand dollars, but penalties based on a small percentage of their salaries might get their attention. The highest paid coaches owe the most to the game, so they should pay the most for embarrassing the sport.

Crude behavior is nothing new for coaches in football, basketball and baseball. Some of the worst offenders have been geniuses at winning games.

Are their tantrums part of their success formula, or

Would they be even greater without the uncontrolled anger?

Schools Pay Big Bucks

How do coaches grade their own sideline behavior? Do they care? They receive big bucks from their schools, support from their players and even adoration from their fans, some of whom will accept any behavior that comes with winning games.

Some ferocious coaches are very successful recruiters. Do high school stars see their dark side of these coaches before they are recruited? Are they aware they may be berated in front of thousands of people?

Hayes and Knight Fired

College football has a long history of volatile coaches. Woody Hayes, once the pride of Ohio State football, was well known for his hot temper, especially in relations with game officials and news people. He drew penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct, was ejected from two bowl games and was fired after he struck an opposing player in a bowl game. That was after he won three national championships.

Indiana’s Bobby Knight, a Hayes student, was one of the most successful basketball coaches of all time. But his behavior, on the sidelines and elsewhere, was usually characterized by the story of him throwing a chair across the court. Like Hayes, his behavior eventually got him fired despite his record 900 wins. Not surprisingly, he was hired by another school looking for a winning program.

A little NCAA discipline earlier might have saved both their jobs.

Thanks for proving my point that CJL wasn't some rogue coach and the type of behavior he sometimes exhibited on the sideline is pretty much condoned .... Maybe you and Mr Trosclair can form some type of help group for abused electronics.

Sometimes? Sometimes? You are joking right? Any time anything went against USF, penalty, blown play, etc. that crap reared its head, psycho coach. 120 teams and the article addresses two coaches. Really widespread. Leavitt and Mangino two of the screamers, were assistants together.  As this article shows, its the culture they come from, Knight and Hayes shared it, Leavitt and Mangino do also. What did Leavitt tell Joel? Its how my coach treated me? That BS needs to STOP.

[Brad]

slick is now in a self-created and delusional fantasyland.

[slick1ru2]

Along with all of the columnists I post stories supporting my views. We are all here. Its called REALITY.

[slick1ru2]

Silly me, forgot you guys hero, Woody Hayes.

[slick1ru2]

Seems some of the big money boosters are here with me in my self made fantasyland.  :

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/jan/08/082337/usf-football-program-outgrew-leavitts-antics/

USF football program outgrew Leavitt's antics

By JOE HENDERSON | The Tampa Tribune

No one takes any joy in this.

Seeing Jim Leavitt fired from the program he founded as head football coach the University of South Florida is no victory to his enemies or anything else, except maybe the truth. There are no winners here, not after USF saw its name and reputation dragged through the slop for the last month after an online news service wrote that Leavitt had put his hand around a player's throat and hit him in the face at halftime of a game.

Investigators have spent most of the last month interviewing eyewitnesses and we'll know their findings sometime later today. The news of Leavitt's removal just broke a little while ago and everyone is still absorbing it.

I have talked to people this morning at USF who say the firing is not necessarily related to the alleged incident, but rather to the events that followed – included a possible attempt to cover up the facts.

Ultimately, you may recall, Watergate wasn't about the break-in, either, but the cover-up that ensued.

Those same people tell me of big-money boosters who had enough of Leavitt's antics, on the field and off. A sizeable portion of Bulls Nation wanted a change, even if it was proven Leavitt didn't do what Fanhouse.com accused him of doing.

A lot of people would say this day was inevitable, that Leavitt's antics – head-butts, slamming head-first into lockers, running around on the sidelines like some out-of-control maniac. We've seen his forehead bloodied from these collisions and I think anyone being honest would say they do believe it's possible he did what was alleged.

He could be a bully, vindictive, and he was a control freak to the highest degree.

He could also be caring, thoughtful, and go out of his way to help those in need – often with no fanfare. Over the years I've tried to talk to him about some of those times, such as the way he cared for USF booster and uber fan Jeff Wagner during Wagner's lengthy illness. Leavitt wouldn't open up, saying it was too personal. He was often that way.

I know that he grew distrustful and combative with the media the last few years but I have to be honest and say he wasn't often that way with me. He didn't like scrutiny of his program though, especially when its flaws were exposed. In many ways he wanted USF to be on par with Florida, FSU and Miami but didn't want the other things that came with that – negative headlines, especially.

He was furious with The Tampa Tribune after then-beat writer Brett McMurphy reported a couple of years ago that some starters had been suspended because of failed drug tests. He never got over it, or at least never seemed to. I tried to tell Leavitt once that had a similar incident happened at Florida, it would be national headlines for weeks.

He didn't get that.

No one will forget how Leavitt built the Bulls from the ground up into a team that once rose to No. 2 in the nation and it's pitiful that it has to end this way. But it has to end. This needs to be over and USF needs a fresh face, a more stable face.

Leavitt brought USF some of the highest highs, such as wins at Auburn and Florida State and five straight bowl games.

The Bulls are in the Big East, largely because of the football program Leavitt built. They are players on a national level and should contend for a BCS bowl every year. The days of living out of trailers are long gone, and that's why Leavitt's antics couldn't be tolerated.

But it's not a good day when something like this happens.

That doesn't mean it wasn't necessary.

[slick1ru2]

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-07/sports/17470329_1_texas-tech-s-mike-leach-college-football-south-florida-s-jim-leavitt

Coaching bullies sully game of college football

January 07, 2010|By Gwen Knapp

Now a third coach at a major college football program, South Florida, has been accused of abusing at least one player. If the NCAA isn't frantically preparing a new code of conduct, with training sessions and serious penalties, the institution might as well shut down. Every coach who knows how to motivate young people should be lobbying for a crackdown.

The recent allegations against Texas Tech's Mike Leach, Kansas' Mark Mangino and South Florida's Jim Leavitt hint at an approaching storm. College football could be headed toward Spree Redux.

If that comes to pass, and a college coach ends up with a player's hands wrapped around his larynx, he can't automatically become the beneficiary of the indignation wrought by Latrell Sprewell's assault on P.J. Carlesimo. There is too much evidence that the culture of college football not only tolerates, but encourages, extreme bullying as a form of motivation.

That's not to say that most coaches engage in abusive tactics, but since the first round of accusations surfaced, against Mangino, expressions of outrage from his peers have been in short supply. Perhaps they kept quiet because they didn't have enough information to warrant comment. But if they believed in the principle of presumed innocence, they should have stayed out of the fray entirely. Instead, some fellow coaches - including Leach - rallied around him.

The NCAA treats "student-athletes" as quasi-criminals if they accept under-the-table payments, but it treads very lightly around its millionaires-with-whistles. The coaches' employers may lose scholarships and postseason eligibility if NCAA violations occur under their watch, but for the most part, they can take off for other jobs with minimal consequences. The athletes left behind can't switch schools with nearly the same ease.

Adam James, the player who accused Leach of locking him in a utility closet when he missed practice because of a concussion, was ruthlessly booed at the Alamo Bowl after the coach's firing. He is a sophomore. He had a concussion. Why would the audience take sides in this dispute, much less land on the side of the guy with a $12.7 million contract? Apparently, certain colleges have failed in their primary mission - training critical thinkers.

In sports arenas, authority figures receive knee-jerk support. At the professional level, where coaches make less money than star players, that might make sense. But in college, where the coaches receive more compensation than Nobel laureates, the genuflection is nonsensical.

James may have taken heat because, relatively speaking, he lives a privileged life - as the son of ESPN analyst and former SMU running back Craig James, who may have stoked the controversy about Leach. But the antipathy toward the young receiver seemed to come from people who saw him as a crybaby simply because he challenged authority. They endorse bullying because they a) embrace blame-the-victim ideology and lack the imagination to envision more effective means of inspiration.

For the most part, defenders of Leach and Mangino did not argue that they had been falsely accused. They labeled the complaining players wimps, new-age advocates of political correctness who couldn't endure the rigors - both psychological and physical - of college football.

But the most absurdly PC element of the Leach scandal was the insistence on referencing James' concussion as "mild." Well, that certainly made everything OK.

Anyone who follows football knows the custom of shunning injured players, treating pain as shameful. It is, and always has been, idiocy. Yet countless online commenters on the Texas Tech dispute supported this coaching philosophy - without even knowing whether Leach subscribed to it.

Reading these posts would lead you to believe that the commenters had all played college football and upgraded their character by enduring a difficult coach. More likely, they're losers in horrible jobs who wouldn't dare stand up for themselves. They really need to apply the same standards to coaches as players. If a concussion can be classified as mild, so can a job loss.

E-mail Gwen Knapp at gknapp@sfchronicle.com.

© San Francisco Chronicle 2010

[Triple B]

Seems some of the big money boosters are here with me in my self made fantasyland.  :

Which ones? .... Let me guess ... The same "boosters" who were ready to hand over millions to Huggy.... Fantasyland is a perfect description.

No secret that CJL wasn't the darling of the local media, which I had no problem with, so i wouldn't expect anything less from the paper that spawned Sherlock McMurphy ... I also have no problem with Skip kissing asses of the press.... Different strokes for different folks ... What matters is results on the field.

[Triple B]

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-07/sports/17470329_1_texas-tech-s-mike-leach-college-football-south-florida-s-jim-leavitt

Coaching bullies sully game of college football

January 07, 2010|By Gwen Knapp

[slick1ru2]

Seems some of the big money boosters are here with me in my self made fantasyland.  :

Which ones? .... Let me guess ... The same "boosters" who were ready to hand over millions to Huggy.... Fantasyland is a perfect description.

No secret that CJL wasn't the darling of the local media, which I had no problem with, so i wouldn't expect anything less from the paper that spawned Sherlock McMurphy ... I also have no problem with Skip kissing asses of the press.... Different strokes for different folks ... What matters is results on the field.

If you notice, the other paper is across the country. Plenty of articles from different sources across the nation after coach #3 went down for player abuse.  Leavitt's sideline behavior was an embarrassment.  Much rather have  a Dungy type coach at USF. And its not just results on the field that matters. IF that were true USF would be trying its best to break every NCAA rule to win, including performance enhancing drugs without getting caught. Theses kids are supposed to be getting an education and learning. Football is part of that and may be the only reason they can get into college, but its not the end all.

[slick1ru2]

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-07/sports/17470329_1_texas-tech-s-mike-leach-college-football-south-florida-s-jim-leavitt

Coaching bullies sully game of college football

January 07, 2010|By Gwen Knapp

There YOU go again. Did your mother leave you at a young age or something? I am sorry if she did. Heaven forbid you need medical attention and, gasp, the ER doctor is a WOMAN. OMG.  You criticize everyone who doesn't share your view. Oh, the local media doesn't like Leavitt. Oh, a woman wrote that or had an opinion, they know nothing about college football. (Just like Antonio Gates, never played college football) I get it. Only your opinion counts. Got that a long time ago. Now go ahead and tell me why my opinion of you is wrong.