trying to find the middle ground here:
I understand the need for team rules, and I understand that actions have consequences.
But, with Fleck, there seems to be a grey area.
As I understand it, players can be suspended or face other forms of discipline for breaking team rules. that's pretty clean-cut.
But, there seems to be a second layer of consequences based on the team culture, or whether a player is meeting Fleck's standards academically, athletically, socially or spiritually. That is not so clean-cut - at least not to me. Fleck has said that playing time may be affected if a player does not meet his standards in the four areas. That may - or may not - have anything to do with team rules.
Hopefully, all of this has been clearly explained to the players, and they understand the consequences. But, as a fan watching from the outside, it seems a little fuzzy. breaking team rules is clean-cut - you either broke a rule or you didn't. But the culture stuff is subjective - it's based on the coach's evaluation of social or spiritual issues - which are not so black-and-white or clean-cut. Now - to be clear - it's Fleck's program, and he has every right to set standards. I can see, though, why it might be difficult for some players to understand what those standards are, if they are based on subjective observations. It's like the old joke about the guy who got caught cheating on his philosophy test. he peeked at the soul of the person at the next desk.
