who's got your support on football issue? claeys or kaler/coyle?

[Iceland12]

Here is my take and I am sure I will get flamed. I think Tracy Claeys and the staff did a great job in the bowl game and in general I was satisfied with the season even though it could have been better with better QB, Oline, and receiver play.
The incident wasn't Tracy's fault, but the disaster it turned into is inexcusable. None of us know how it went down, but if Coyle left the decision up to Claeys whether to dismiss the players back in September that shows poor leadership on his part. That was the first mistake.
If Coyle sat Claeys down when the report came out and said this is bad, I can't tell you what's in it but I need you to support our decision to suspend 10 players, and Claeys did not support that decision and let it fester, then Claeys needs to go. If I was Coyle, I would be furious and would want to make a change.
I know that letting Claeys go will set this program way back, and it will be expensive, but you can't have your head coach not suppport the AD and President during a time of crisis like this.

Not flaming, no reason to, but some questions certainly come to mind.

1. In September there were a lot of questions to be answered. Particularly the issue of consent and who was or wasn't involved. The chances of the A.D. or the President leaving the decision to suspend 5-10 players, before all the facts came to light, solely up to a first year Head Coach, one with a pretty tenuous contract, seem remote at best.

You'd probably have to believe that Coyle wasn't really involved for that to be the case. Maybe he did leave the final decision up to Claeys. Just doesn't seem reasonable to assume that.

2. On the scenario you described in the 2nd point. That meeting took place well after the 60 day period took place for the investigation to be completed and without the hearings that are mandated to take place before a decision is to be made. The decision to suspend/expel the 10 students had already been decided! Best scenario is Tracy said that he wouldn't go along with it, IMHO the right decision considering that he would have known that there was a big question of the lack of direct involvement of 5 players at least.

Then Coyle want out and made the announcements that he, Kaler AND Claeys were involved in the discussion to suspend. Deliberately leaving the impression that T.C. "concurred" with the decision. That's that led directly to Claeys tweet saying he supported the players.

Here I agree. M.C. could certainly have grounds to dismiss T.C. for insubordination. Though after the A.P. story came out with the offer of unsuspending the 5 players who shouldn't have been suspended in the first place, it's hard to make the insubordination charge stick. That offer was a tacit agreement that what the players and Claeys were lobbying for was correct. There were players who, without getting that hearing, were being dispatched to satisfy the screaming from the public.

Would love to see the press conference where Coyle has to explain why the tweet really happened. Particularly after the offer of reinstatement. Though with KSTP, Pioneer Press and others already lining the lynching up, maybe he wouldn't even have to answer that question.

We "sort of" agree on your last point. The people in the three positions have to work together. We just disagree on who should go. I've got a lot of admiration for a guy who was willing to put his job on the line, no matter how clumsy that he went about doing it.

I have little admiration for a guy who knew what he was doing was wrong, but went ahead and did it for P.R. and to expedite the situation. Though, I'm honestly sure that Coyle/Kaler did it for "big picture" reasons.

If you are right, and my friend you usually are, then after talking it over last night, our four Season Ticket seats won't be renewed.

That decision will also be one down on principle.

 

[CoMn]

I was a big Claeys supporter before his many missteps over this issue. I don't support him because the players said they were boycotting the bowl...not until due process was received but until ALL 10 players were reinstated to the team. Supporting the boycott was just wrong...not having enough control of his players to prevent them from boycotting and as a result of the boycott, putting this mess at the university in the national spotlight (and thus damaging the entire university), was wrong. They didn't want due process...Wolitarsky's words will "We are boycotting until...all 10 players are reinstated." Which basically said screw the Holiday Committee that picked Minnesota over Nebraska. Screw the stupid fans who spent their money traveling to San Diego. Screw the alleged victim because whether or not she was raped, until our buddies are back, we are boycotting. And screw the university...we want the world to know that if we find a really drunk girl who allegedly consents, we can all screw her. Claeys missed the opportunity to teach the players that the world doesn't revolve around football and that football players represent the university. While most on this board are also more interested in football than the greater university....most of the big time donors are more interested in the greater university. In addition, Claeys knew that Djam involved the recruit Hafiz in the alleged rape. Because he didn't expel him on the spot...whether or not it was consensual, is probably why Claeys doesn't have control of his team. While I respect his ability to win games and teach football, he is a total failure in teaching players how to represent the university and whether you like it or not, at the U, that is more important.

 

[Iceland12]

I was a big Claeys supporter before his many missteps over this issue.... And screw the university...we want the world to know that if we find a really drunk girl who allegedly consents, we can all screw her.... .

You're either a troll or a deeply twisted S.O.B.

 

[#2Gopher]

We need to remember that the misdoings took place in September. The players were suspended then and I would have thought that Coyle sat down with Claeys then to discuss things. From there Claeys I'm assuming met with the players There has been no incidents since then except for what Coyle and Kaler have been up to.

No I don't support rape etc. I just support a due process system as I believe people have a right to know what they are being charged with and so forth.

 

[CoMn]

Not twisted...when you have friends who have been raped on campuses when they were drunk, perhaps you would feel differently. And again, the players were not going to stop the boycott when due process was achieved...Wolitarsky said they would only go back when all 10 were reinstated...whether or not they were rapists. While I am in a minority on the board, I am in the majority outside the serious fans found on this board.

 

[#2Gopher]

Not twisted...when you have friends who have been raped on campuses when they were drunk, perhaps you would feel differently. And again, the players were not going to stop the boycott when due process was achieved...Wolitarsky said they would only go back when all 10 were reinstated...whether or not they were rapists. While I am in a minority on the board, I am in the majority outside the serious fans found on this board.

I'm under the impression that a couple players weren't there. Was that false? I guess I was looking for due process for those who weren't around and felt that they should be able to participate accordingly. No I don't support rape. The matter was handled poorly then by someone in September. If the 4 games suspension wasn't enough, then the accused should have said so as I understand it. I must say, we have must misinformation.

 

[Iceland12]

Not twisted...when you have friends who have been raped on campuses when they were drunk, perhaps you would feel differently. And again, the players were not going to stop the boycott when due process was achieved...Wolitarsky said they would only go back when all 10 were reinstated...whether or not they were rapists. While I am in a minority on the board, I am in the majority outside the serious fans found on this board.

It would be hard to believe that anybody doesn't know somebody, doesn't have a friend or loved one who has been the victim of assault or rape. The closer the relationship, the shorter the time could understandably lead to anger, empathy, sympathy, depression and/or mental illness. None of that supports your position in any way. If that's how you truly feel, I'd hope you're "in the minority" where ever you go. Maybe not at a Rape Crisis Center or a KKK meeting but hopefully everywhere else.

And you don't get to play the victim card now either. Why?

Because you typed, and since even though you edited your post you didn't take out this: that the players statement meant " And screw the university...we want the world to know that if we find a really drunk girl who allegedly consents, we can all screw her.... .

And then in this response you doubled down on it!

That certainly isn't nearly as sick or depraved as assault or rape, but it's pretty damn sick. If you think that was the reason for those players to threaten the boycott despite everything that has come out about what was going on behind the scenes over at the U, was so they can rape any women they can get their hands on, then you can't claim any moral high ground against anybody on the team.

Suspended or not.

Though I'm pretty sorry that I spent any time responding to you at all.

For everybody's sake, it's better to think you're trolling. Though the subject you picked to troll about would make you a pretty sick puppy too.

 

[Some guy]

None of the above

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Not twisted...when you have friends who have been raped on campuses when they were drunk, perhaps you would feel differently. And again, the players were not going to stop the boycott when due process was achieved...Wolitarsky said they would only go back when all 10 were reinstated...whether or not they were rapists. While I am in a minority on the board, I am in the majority outside the serious fans found on this board.

Yeah, we've all been to college. Stop virtue signaling, we are all opposed to rape. Everyone.

 

[kellyleeks]

Good to see you back Kelly. I agree with everything you say here. My vote is "all of the above" and "none of the above."

PS--Not to make light of a serious situation, but do you have any idea what Kyle Kessel thinks about this?

Kyle has had some tough times. He's currently on parole after breaking into a recruit's house and going through the kid's room to get some premium recruiting inside info. Although, while in prison he did time with a good number of college players' parents so he could still talk recruiting.

 

[Jack jones]

Some day maybe - you do realize that the Gophers were three plays away from playing on New Years day? And Claeys handled the situation actually has it is written in Coaching 101, you always support your team, "come hell or high water". Given the facts at that time, he did what any D1 coach would have done.

 

[CoMn]

I'm under the impression that a couple players weren't there. Was that false? I guess I was looking for due process for those who weren't around and felt that they should be able to participate accordingly. No I don't support rape. The matter was handled poorly then by someone in September. If the 4 games suspension wasn't enough, then the accused should have said so as I understand it. I must say, we have must misinformation.

The question on the board was should we keep Claeys. The players were boycotting until all 10 players were reinstated...including Djam who had the recruit screw a drunk girl with him. Djam didn't deny that...heck he took a video. The players thought that was just fine. If they had boycotted until the players who allegedly weren't there...didn't cover up for other players etc. got reinstated that would be different. Claeys supported the boycott (that received national attention that embarrassed the university) that demanded all 10 players not 2 or 3...all 10, get reinstated...and reinstated...not receive due process which means whether they were rapists or not...they were not going to play football until every single one of them was back on the team. In addition was the boycott the only avenue to address grievances? Could Claeys not make it a teaching moment and perhaps come up with better ways to get what they wanted than to make the university a laughingstock and potentially screw the fans who bought tickets to San Diego on top of failing to mention the victim at all. The whole thing...much like leading the nation in targeting calls...shows a lack of discipline that comes from the top as it involves so many players.

 

[GopherBulldog]

The question on the board was should we keep Claeys. The players were boycotting until all 10 players were reinstated...including Djam who had the recruit screw a drunk girl with him. Djam didn't deny that...heck he took a video. The players thought that was just fine. If they had boycotted until the players who allegedly weren't there...didn't cover up for other players etc. got reinstated that would be different. Claeys supported the boycott (that received national attention that embarrassed the university) that demanded all 10 players not 2 or 3...all 10, get reinstated...and reinstated...not receive due process which means whether they were rapists or not...they were not going to play football until every single one of them was back on the team. In addition was the boycott the only avenue to address grievances? Could Claeys not make it a teaching moment and perhaps come up with better ways to get what they wanted than to make the university a laughingstock and potentially screw the fans who bought tickets to San Diego on top of failing to mention the victim at all. The whole thing...much like leading the nation in targeting calls...shows a lack of discipline that comes from the top as it involves so many players.

Your facts and reasoning are so flawed I can't believe I'm taking the time to type this.

 

[WorkingMyTailOff]

The question on the board was should we keep Claeys. The players were boycotting until all 10 players were reinstated...including Djam who had the recruit screw a drunk girl with him. Djam didn't deny that...heck he took a video. The players thought that was just fine. If they had boycotted until the players who allegedly weren't there...didn't cover up for other players etc. got reinstated that would be different. Claeys supported the boycott (that received national attention that embarrassed the university) that demanded all 10 players not 2 or 3...all 10, get reinstated...and reinstated...not receive due process which means whether they were rapists or not...they were not going to play football until every single one of them was back on the team. In addition was the boycott the only avenue to address grievances? Could Claeys not make it a teaching moment and perhaps come up with better ways to get what they wanted than to make the university a laughingstock and potentially screw the fans who bought tickets to San Diego on top of failing to mention the victim at all. The whole thing...much like leading the nation in targeting calls...shows a lack of discipline that comes from the top as it involves so many players.

I think CoMn is saying what the majority of non hardcore and even some hardcore Gopher fans are thinking

 

[GopherBulldog]

I think CoMn is saying what the majority of non hardcore and even some hardcore Gopher fans are thinking

The 9 out of 94 that don't support TC and are filling in the blanks to support an anti TC narrative? Likely because they haven't supported TC from the start? Okay, I see that.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

I have no idea what Claeys has done / did, but to some extent he has to support his players / students regardless... even if the boycott was a mistake, they're students right, they're learning.

Meanwhile Kaler / Coyle as far as I can tell just are doing everything they can to keep themselves out of the mess rather than righting the ship.

I'm not picking between the two but I'm pretty disappointing in the leadership of Coyle, or lack of it.

 

[Seany]

I have no idea what Claeys has done / did, but to some extent he has to support his players / students regardless... even if the boycott was a mistake, they're students right, they're learning.

Meanwhile Kaler / Coyle as far as I can tell just are doing everything they can to keep themselves out of the mess rather than righting the ship.

I'm not picking between the two but I'm pretty disappointing in the leadership of Coyle, or lack of it.

Absolutely.

"Claeys said he felt a parental responsibility to stand behind his players’ decision on the grounds of them receiving a fair hearing.

“It was all about me supporting their actions to try to improve the due process, not just on this campus but other campuses,” he said."

A parental responsibility towards his players, as any coach worth his salt should take on. Maybe Claeys tweet was a little tone-deaf, but hey, actions speak louder than words, and the 50K he's pledged to donate to victims of sexual assault speaks very loudly as to how he feels about this whole situation and maybe serves as an acknowledgment of the fact that his tweet while well-meaning might have been a bit off mark.

Everything I've read about this guy has led to my own personal viewpoint that he is a highly decent human being, so he has my full support.

Meanwhile, Coyle, Kaler? Hmmmm...

 

[bizzle22]

No one looks good in all of this. I don't support any of the three.

Coyle -- dropped the ball on communication. Was in a tough spot, and I get why he is staying the shadows, but he could have nipped the boycott in the bud by communicating better with Claeys and the players in the beginning. With as bad as this has become I think he is making the right call staying in the shadows and not drawing more attention. Let things die down before doing anything or it will just further fuel the flames.

Claeys -- recruits having group sex with cheerleaders where all parties are likely under the influence should not happen. The tweet was at best poorly worded and unnecessary. He's in a tough spot as well. Well done on getting the team to rally for the bowl win. (EDIT: Also props for the 50k donation. Good move.)

Kaler -- seems arrogant and somewhat dishonest in his public statements. Has inserted himself into this situation, and one would hope that would make it better, but it actually seemed to get worse the more involved he became. Not a good look for him when the players get a meeting with the BOR.

I don't think it is fair to make Coyle (who has toed the company line which he kind of has to do) or Claeys (who has supported his players which he kind of has to do) the scapegoats of all this. If you absolutely have to have a scapegoat I say make it Kaler. But at the same time don't know how I feel about firing a school president over an issue with the football team. He shouldn't have to deal with this kind of thing though he has very publicly inserted himself into this situation so maybe he has caused his own demise. I'm honestly not familiar with other issues Kaler has had. (Not saying they don't exist, but I'll be honest, I recently graduated from the U and only have really ever paid attention to athletics headlines. I know, pathetic.)

Bottom line: No one looks good...not the players or accuser or EOAA. (And NO. I am not blaming the victim. My point is that while her name may stay out of the headlines most of the students at the U have or eventually will find out her name and judge her for this whether consensual or not.)

 

[MplsGopherFan]

Claeys

Oh, and let's not forget, the accuser is a badger cheerleader from madison, wisconsin.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MplsGopherFan]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk