Anonymous U football player: Fleck more proactive than Kill/Claeys in accountability

[KillmeNow]

Somewhere out there the best discipline coach in college football who has turned around tons of kids.... is lying awake at night scared one of his kids is gonna do something stupid, and there is nothing he can do to stop it.

In fact the best coach in the world when it comes to turning around the lives of his players might in fact have had a tons of incidents with his team, because he takes those chances.

If there was a coach out there who could somehow pick the best perfect angel football players, he wouldn't be helping anyone, but he'll get the praise for keeping his kids in line...

This is a very good point. Too bad its so risky to do that and too bad those who take those kinds of risks and try to do the most good in the world, often get punished most harshly when it backfires.

 

[Smash em Gophs!]

Not the first time this has been posted or that it was posted after some Fleckster was preaching culture and coaches responsibility on all players actions. Truth is unless PJF was promoting armed robbery he was no more responsible for this than Claeys was the "incident" or that Brew was for the incident that happened on his watch. Too much for some to admit tho.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The problem with this comparison is Fleck kicked those two off the team. Not the WMU prez or AD, Fleck booted them. That makes this comparison completely moot. I think most people (I obviously know not all) understand the HC can't babysit the kids. I think most also realize they are young and stupid. We all remember that age. The reaction was inadequate and you can blame whoever you want but Claeys absolutely had the option to kick them off the team if he desired to.

 

[Spoofin]

The problem with this comparison is Fleck kicked those two off the team. Not the WMU prez or AD, Fleck booted them. That makes this comparison completely moot. I think most people (I obviously know not all) understand the HC can't babysit the kids. I think most also realize they are young and stupid. We all remember that age. The reaction was inadequate and you can blame whoever you want but Claeys absolutely had the option to kick them off the team if he desired to.

Well, without knowing what facts were available to PJF, I can't comment on whether it is a good comparison or not. It is possible both coaches made the right decision for their situation.

Not the point anyway. The comment wasn't about how either coach handled it but rather that it happened. It was directed at those that continue to say the 9/2 "incident" is proof that we needed "culture change". The Fleckers can't have it both ways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BroncoRedux]

Well, without knowing what facts were available to PJF, I can't comment on whether it is a good comparison or not. It is possible both coaches made the right decision for their situation.

Not the point anyway. The comment wasn't about how either coach handled it but rather that it happened. It was directed at those that continue to say the 9/2 "incident" is proof that we needed "culture change". The Fleckers can't have it both ways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seven thousand, one hundred and eighty five posts. I love it! Do you have a life outside of GH?

 

[KGF]

Well, without knowing what facts were available to PJF, I can't comment on whether it is a good comparison or not. It is possible both coaches made the right decision for their situation.

Not the point anyway. The comment wasn't about how either coach handled it but rather that it happened. It was directed at those that continue to say the 9/2 "incident" is proof that we needed "culture change". The Fleckers can't have it both ways.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The public is not privy to the culture inside the program, only the perception of it from the outside. And, every situation can be unique in itself and therefore difficult to compare.
Some (Bob L) choose not to believe the anonymous player though that player obviously has insight that an outsider could not have. I have always suspected that there was not unanimity among the football team about the boycott, but that dessenting players (and coaches) didn't want to appear to abandon their teammates. Those dessenting opinions bubbled up along with parent opinions once it got down to nutcrunching time and the facade of unity broke down quickly. I too suspect that there were many players that found their teammates conduct disheartening and disgusting though some innocents were unfairly lumped in with the others, so it was complicated.
IMO, the bottom line is that whatever culture of discipline and conduct that the TC staff thought that they had, was, in fact, weak, and they did not attend to the potential for misconduct. I think that can easily occur when a staff has been in place for a longer period of time.
When players get comfortable with the coaching staff, they begin to get comfortable with what actions will and won't be discovered. I'm certain that the team has a little discomfort right now, and that is what this player is expressing. Some coaches are better than others at not letting players get comfortable.

 

[Wally]

Thank you Bob for standing up for fairness and rights.

So many on here are quick to give away basic protections we all as individuals deserve.

As much as the moralists hate it Bob is right and the proof is the four players reinstated.

Bob you make me want to go to law school, someone has to give a sh about our rights.

 

[beatles]

Thank you Bob for standing up for fairness and rights.

So many on here are quick to give away basic protections we all as individuals deserve.

As much as the moralists hate it Bob is right and the proof is the four players reinstated.

Bob you make me want to go to law school, someone has to give a sh about our rights.

The players would have been given the January hearings and the subsequent reinstatements with or without the boycott. So no, that is not proof Bob is right that the boycott was a success.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

The players would have been given the January hearings and the subsequent reinstatements with or without the boycott. So no, that is not proof Bob is right that the boycott was a success.

I don't want to get into this whole thing but I don't think the existence of a January hearing really addresses the ideas behind the boycott.

They could have been all reinstated by a coin flip... it still wouldn't have addressed the point.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I disagree completely...

Will this be the 5 or 10 minute argument?

 

[60's Guy]

All Excellent Points

Having read the article - the player who approached the Daily was opposed to the boycott, so there's an agenda involved here. He also requested to be anonymous - suggesting that his viewpoint may not be popular with at least some - if not a majority - of the other players.
if this player was not a big Claeys fan, it's not surprising that he would come out in support of Fleck.

As to the substance of the article, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that Fleck - or any coach coming into this situation - would take the 'zero tolerance' stance. The players had better understand that they're in the spotlight, and any misbehavior is likely going to draw a more severe punishment than might have happened under different circumstances.

Very well stated.

 

[60's Guy]

The majority of Minnesotans are dead wrong and so is this kid. Half of the players suspended and being thrown under the bus by the administration have been exonerated by the University, itself! It doesn't matter if kool-aid drinking ideologues refuse to admit that the process was absolute garbage. The players boycott was an astounding success and a bright spot in the entire ordeal. I get that is going to be over quite a few people's heads, but it doesn't make it wrong.

As to the actual subject matter of the article. That all sounds good. I guess more accountability is better than less. This article appears to be an obvious dig at a pretty clean program. It's not doing PJ Fleck any favors.

Agree whole heartedly

 

[joshvanklomp]

Not the point anyway. The comment wasn't about how either coach handled it but rather that it happened. It was directed at those that continue to say the 9/2 "incident" is proof that we needed "culture change". The Fleckers can't have it both ways.

Culture change doesn't necessarily mean bad things will never happen, but it's also about how you respond to those situations.

 

[60's Guy]

The inability on this site to allow someone to like TC & PJF is quite amazing. I like them both but have been labeled a PJF hater because I don't like him enough, or every thing about him. Make a couple comments about his abundance of offers and next thing you know people claim you don't think we should ever offer a 4-Star and that you claimed recruit A, B, and C wouldn't visit. Hard not to get sucked in to pissing matches sometimes when that is the approach.

I've been here a while and GH is at a low point right now as far as hostility towards others goes. Usually a good place for sarcasm to shine, but even that not so much lately. TBH, I think the 9/2 incident is the main reason. Strong story with strong opinions and it got a little too serious in here. I'm guessing things will get back to normal when Spring Ball starts up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed. And it's a message board. It would be really boring on here if every one agreed with every policy, decision, strategy or comment the coaches make. Discussion about them is fun. Attacking people for their comments...not so much. Tracy couldn't prevent Sept 2nd, whether something nefarious happened or didn't. PJ couldn't prevent two of his guys being accused of committing armed robbery. If Coyle is going to fire his coaches for these kinds of incidents because people in the public scream, we will be introduced to lots of coaches. I support PJ but don't believe the culture was broken. Administration Leadership mishandled an incident.

 

[Spoofin]

Seven thousand, one hundred and eighty five posts. I love it! Do you have a life outside of GH?

I used to, but I found it hard to get in here and do what I really love.... badmouthing teenagers. I had to decide so I quit my job and left my family so I could do that full time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bigticket1]

The problem with this comparison is Fleck kicked those two off the team. Not the WMU prez or AD, Fleck booted them. That makes this comparison completely moot. I think most people (I obviously know not all) understand the HC can't babysit the kids. I think most also realize they are young and stupid. We all remember that age. The reaction was inadequate and you can blame whoever you want but Claeys absolutely had the option to kick them off the team if he desired to.

So you know that Fleck did not consult with his AD before booting the players ? Or someone higher in the food chain ?

 

[joshvanklomp]

So you know that Fleck did not consult with his AD before booting the players ? Or someone higher in the food chain ?

“Having heard this news early this morning, I took action to immediately suspend both freshman players indefinitely. We expect to learn more about these allegations today. I'm extremely disappointed and want to assure the community that this kind of conduct is unacceptable and does not represent the values of this team or this university.

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/2016/08/27/western-michigan-university-football/89489270/

So in less than 24 hours after the incident, they were off the team. Doesn't sound like someone who waited around for higher-ups to tell him what to do.

 

[Maverick]

Yes, completely agree.

I'm not too sure whether I agree with this whole thread or not.... could be just a good point/counterpoint discussion..... not arguementative...

 

[PMWinSTP]

I don't want to get into this whole thing but I don't think the existence of a January hearing really addresses the ideas behind the boycott.

They could have been all reinstated by a coin flip... it still wouldn't have addressed the point.

Very true. Concerns about due process for students trying to defend themselves against Code violations is not new, just new to some posters here...I've posted many times, with the link, that the Chair of the BoR has expressed publicly he's had concerns and talked multiple times with Kaler about those concerns. That's just here at the U...it's been a concern nationally for some time.

 

[FireDaveLee]

Back to the article & the anonymous player.....I think if you put the pieces together, you can come up with an educated guess on who it may be.

I do agree with him that there were probably a few in addition to himself that may not have totally been on board with the boycott, but were afraid to say anything as it would look like they're not supporting their teammates. Peer pressure at it's very highest. I have always maintained that I think the biggest mistake the players made was an "all 10 suspensions reversed or else" ultimatum.

I do think that the boycott was a success in terms of the attention it brought to the process. They may have had a hearing in planned hearing in January, but I think it would have gone a lot more under the radar. I think it definitely made the U more aware that it was going to be watched in terms of fairness.

 

[bigticket1]

“Having heard this news early this morning, I took action to immediately suspend both freshman players indefinitely. We expect to learn more about these allegations today. I'm extremely disappointed and want to assure the community that this kind of conduct is unacceptable and does not represent the values of this team or this university.

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/2016/08/27/western-michigan-university-football/89489270/

So in less than 24 hours after the incident, they were off the team. Doesn't sound like someone who waited around for higher-ups to tell him what to do.

It would take, what, 10 minutes to call/talk with his AD ?

 

[MennoSota]

Correct. Fleck drew the line in the sand and it should be obvious to all the players that such conduct will not be tolerated, no need for a hearing. It is easy to say that is what any coach would have done, but obviously that line was not draw by the coaches before the incident.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kill drew a rigid line in the sand after the Brewster fiasco. Remember those first practices and the intensity that Kill required?

 

[MennoSota]

What you're asking for is illegal. PJ cannot draw a line in the sound regarding consensual sexual activity. It doesn't matter if it's a team rule or however you want to try to circumvent this simple fact. We cannot kick people off the team for engaging in consensual sexual activity. If it is non-consensual. . .it will require a hearing.

Missionary position only...except for an occasional 69.

 

[Smash em Gophs!]

So you know that Fleck did not consult with his AD before booting the players ? Or someone higher in the food chain ?

I couldn't care less who he consulted with. He took it upon himself to kick the players off the team after their behavior didn't meet up to the standards of the WMU program.

 

[Spoofin]

I couldn't care less who he consulted with. <b>He took it upon himself to kick the players off the team </b>after their behavior didn't meet up to the standards of the WMU program.

Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know if he made that call or was told to make that call. You are right that it doesn't matter, but you are making that assumption in an effort to defend a point that is otherwise falling apart.

All coaches can have these issues. PJF, TC, any. It is odd to say our incident was the fault of the "culture" whereas WMU's incident wasn't solely because you want that to be true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Smash em Gophs!]

Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know if he made that call or was told to make that call. You are right that it doesn't matter, but you are making that assumption in an effort to defend a point that is otherwise falling apart.

All coaches can have these issues. PJF, TC, any. It is odd to say our incident was the fault of the "culture" whereas WMU's incident wasn't solely because you want that to be true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What I want to be true is my alma mater didn't get its name dragged through the mud nationally. That's what I want. I have already said you can't control every kid on a team. That's obvious to anyone who is semi-functional. What you can control is your reaction

My point isn't falling apart. A couple of you are attempting to make a circular argument. Like it, hate or be indifferent, but TC kept trying to get the kids back on the field. Fleck permanently removed them from the field. It's not difficult and it's not debateable. I will take the proactive coach who sets clear standards for the team. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I can promise you my uncle in NY never heard about the WMU incident because it was swiftly dealt with. That same uncle has asked me many questions about the U fiasco.

 

[Spoofin]

What I want to be true is my alma mater didn't get its name dragged through the mud nationally. That's what I want. I have already said you can't control every kid on a team. That's obvious to anyone who is semi-functional. What you can control is your reaction

My point isn't falling apart. A couple of you are attempting to make a circular argument. Like it, hate or be indifferent, but TC kept trying to get the kids back on the field. Fleck permanently removed them from the field. It's not difficult and it's not debateable. I will take the proactive coach who sets clear standards for the team. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I can promise you my uncle in NY never heard about the WMU incident because it was swiftly dealt with. That same uncle has asked me many questions about the U fiasco.

The stories and known facts weren't the same tho. What you are saying is essentially TC should have thrown the players off the team for being accused even tho they were not charged with a crime and the EOAA's "due process" was still months away? Things may have been much more black/white in WMU's scenario.

We will agree that the U handled the whole thing terribly. You are blaming the wrong guy, however, IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

The stories and known facts weren't the same tho. What you are saying is essentially TC should have thrown the players off the team for being accused even tho they were not charged with a crime and the EOAA's "due process" was still months away? Things may have been much more black/white in WMU's scenario.

We will agree that the U handled the whole thing terribly. You are blaming the wrong guy, however, IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That raises a separate tangent that I'm not sure I've ever seen occur.

1. Player does thing.

2. Title IX office (whatever it is at the given school) investigates.

3. Coach preemptively tosses the player.

Is that a thing that has occurred anywhere? Is the coach obligated to wait? or would he maybe feel obligated to wait for the Title IX folks to do their thing?

Coach is in the dark and not in contact with the folks doing the investigation (understandably) so I don't quite get how those very different paths work...

I'm not really wondering related to our situation, just how these two groups, the coach and Title IX investigators who have no coordination operate ... around each other.

 

[Vandy]

per the Daily:

As a new Gophers football coach and athletics director try to change the culture of the program, one football player says the new tone is more serious than that of previous coaches.

The player spoke with the Daily Friday and asked to remain anonymous to preserve his standing with teammates as he discussed the boycott, how the team has changed under the leadership of new head coach P.J. Fleck, and past run-ins with sexual assault training.

He said Fleck told the team if any of them are involved in incidents similar to the alleged assault, “there’s no place for you in this program.”

“The big thing that [Fleck] said was, ‘you can’t change whatever did happen,’” he said. “’But either way, this is the new standard.’”

This approach to misconduct is more proactive than those taken by former coaches Tracy Claeys and Jerry Kill, the player said. “There’s definitely some walk behind the talk [with Fleck].”

http://www.mndaily.com/article/2017...player-says-p-j-will-hold-players-accountable

Go Gophers!!

Silly article.
Your damn right the new regime, and remaining team will be more vigilant.
The new regime saw what happened to the last, and the remaining players survived it.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Back to the article & the anonymous player.....I think if you put the pieces together, you can come up with an educated guess on who it may be.

I do agree with him that there were probably a few in addition to himself that may not have totally been on board with the boycott, but were afraid to say anything as it would look like they're not supporting their teammates. Peer pressure at it's very highest. I have always maintained that I think the biggest mistake the players made was an "all 10 suspensions reversed or else" ultimatum.

I do think that the boycott was a success in terms of the attention it brought to the process. They may have had a hearing in planned hearing in January, but I think it would have gone a lot more under the radar. I think it definitely made the U more aware that it was going to be watched in terms of fairness.

Well, do tell. Using my super-sleuth skills it would more likely be a white player with progressive parents, likely from the metro area. Blake Cashman, Conor Rhoda... your turn.

 

[FireDaveLee]

It's an educated guess; by no means fact. I sent you a PM to my thoughts.