Another coach being investigated

[HuskyNan]

[Stephen F. Austin] officials are investigating a complaint made by a member of the Ladyjack basketball team, who claims Head Coach Mark Kellogg treated her unfairly during the season.

This coach's wife, Trisha, is the one that wrote the opinion piece on the behavior of today's players.

SFA officials investigating complaint made by Ladyjack basketball player

 

[Biff]

[Stephen F. Austin] officials are investigating a complaint made by a member of the Ladyjack basketball team, who claims Head Coach Mark Kellogg treated her unfairly during the season.

This coach's wife, Trisha, is the one that wrote the opinion piece on the behavior of today's players.

SFA officials investigating complaint made by Ladyjack basketball player

This is getting really bizarre.

 

[bags27]

But probably Trisha knew this was coming and fired a preemptive strike.

Former player Charisma Alexander said she had her scholarship revoked after the 2015-2016 season. She said it came during a season in which Kellogg told her "f--- you" during a practice in October. She said it happened in practice when someone on the team made a joke and Alexander said "Y'all know we can't laugh or else we get in trouble." She said Kellog then said, "What is your f------ problem? F--- you!"

The question of taking a scholarship away from a student is something to give pause in all cases--I'm not just referring to the issue of whether this report is factually accurate. Because it's such a hugely harsh penalty, should it really be exclusively in the hands of a coach? Perhaps there needs to be a review board. Academic scholarships are usually based on objective standards: a student needs to maintain a certain grade point average. But the HC of a team can decide who plays and who doesn't and what constitutes detrimental behavior, etc. The coach's sole prerogative to take away an athletic scholarship may appear to be a hugely arbitrary and subjective decision, and in fact opens the coach up increasingly to legal action. It can be a life changing event for a student and really does require some oversight.

 

[UcMiami]

This gets into the question about athletic scholarships being year to year vs. 4 year. Kicking a player off the team should always be a coach's prerogative, the revue of whether a scholarship should be pulled might be open to revue.

From this report it sure sounds like sort of a wiseass remark being made by the player and a pretty innocuous situation - if that is the extent of her 'complaints' beyond having the scholarship revoked it is pretty lame.

It does sort of support the wife's theme on the face of it, including another father writing to say the coach was a bully (to his precious daughter.)

 

[vtcwbuff]

I wonder how the Auriemma of 25 years ago would fare in today's "me, me, me" culture?

As for this particular player, we are hearing one side of the story. I believe that there is a lot more to it. To me it sounds like this was a disruptive player with an attitude.

It should always be the coach's decision alone about who is on their team. If you can't live with the rules then hit the road and leave the scholarship behind.

 

[bags27]

Kicking a player off the team should always be a coach's prerogative, the revue of whether a scholarship should be pulled might be open to revue.

sounds like the right solution: and, if a student could keep a scholarship even after not on the team, it puts pressure on the coach to make the situation work, so that there's an "empty" scholarship slot.

 

[Checkmate]

I wonder how the Auriemma of 25 years ago would fare in today's "me, me, me" culture?

As for this particular player, we are hearing one side of the story. I believe that there is a lot more to it. To me it sounds like this was a disruptive player with an attitude.

It should always be the coach's decision alone about who is on their team. If you can't live with the rules then hit the road and leave the scholarship behind.

I doubt Geno recruits any "me me me " players. Didn't Stewart have her "College signing press conference" on the hood of a car ?

 

[JordyG]

Geno has hinted at this kind of self obsessed behavior by young players. He has noted that it's becoming harder and harder to find players appropriate for the UConn program. Whether Kellog acted as a bully or not; whether the revocation of scholarships should be put forward for oversight or not; WCBB and WBB coaches everywhere are running up against a generation of petulant me first, twitter obsessed children. Welcome all of us to 21 Century men's basketball.

 

[bags27]

Welcome all of us to 21 Century men's [women's?] basketball.

This is true in every part of our lives. Anyone with a twitter or facebook account now has a personal platform and feels entitled to tell the world everything that's on their mind, 24/7. Every one of us is right, and everyone else is wrong. Everyone's personal space is their own and shouldn't be invaded; etc.

What makes it a bit more complex in college sports is that student-athletes are heavily recruited to play and are part of a very small and especially entitled subsection of a larger "intentional community" at a university. Coaches, however, once having courted the players, now try to discipline them in ways that no other students in that larger university community are disciplined. Even in the classroom, if a student doesn't like the instructor or the material, the student can usually drop the course. But student-athletes have athletic scholarships (except in the Ivies, where they keep their financial aid regardless of whether they ever play a single game) and are therefore beholden to the coach. Add to that helicopter parents who are advising long-distance, and these are all very difficult signals and directions for an 18-21 yr old to sort out.

 

[BroadwayVa]

Hurray we have a different approach on! First my comment was meant for me--doing the same thing over and over.
So why is she upset wasn't the coach just using "colorful language"?? I seriously doubt any coach would be thrilled with a "committee" approach to taking away scholarships but may be the AD should talk it over--sometimes a clear-disassociated head would fix some problems. Everything she complained about I know a local coach who seems to use some of those methods --probably 90 percent of all coaches--with a less colorful use of adverbs.
The only solution is for the Fathers to sit in on ALL practices and hold signs 1 to 10 saying how colorful the language really was.
Geno has been commenting on the "new type of psyche" individuals now have and the difficulty of communicating with them. Maybe this is why Uconn isn't getting those recruits we fans believe Geno should get?
Who wants to coach with "committee" looking over your shoulder--where you must alway guage the level of tough effort you require and get--did you smile when you told her to get her tush over where she should be --in languages of different hues??

This gets into the question about athletic scholarships being year to year vs. 4 year. Kicking a player off the team should always be a coach's prerogative, the revue of whether a scholarship should be pulled might be open to revue.

From this report it sure sounds like sort of a wiseass remark being made by the player and a pretty innocuous situation - if that is the extent of her 'complaints' beyond having the scholarship revoked it is pretty lame.

It does sort of support the wife's theme on the face of it, including another father writing to say the coach was a bully (to his precious daughter.)

To making scholarships to 4 years and not 1 year--well, I know you made no recommendation but it appears you are in favor of 4 years. I'm in favor of the status quo.
4 years only favors the student --in every exchange there should be some level of control for the organization providing the value--if not, no value received by the organization could be the end results--what do your do with 5 non playing scholarships on a team for 4 years???
Pick any number I just picked an arbitrary 5.o

 

[BroadwayVa]

This is true in every part of our lives. Anyone with a twitter or facebook account now has a personal platform and feels entitled to tell the world everything that's on their mind, 24/7. Every one of us is right, and everyone else is wrong. Everyone's personal space is their own and shouldn't be invaded; etc.

What makes it a bit more complex in college sports is that student-athletes are heavily recruited to play and are part of a very small and especially entitled subsection of a larger "intentional community" at a university. Coaches, however, once having courted the players, now try to discipline them in ways that no other students in that larger university community are disciplined. Even in the classroom, if a student doesn't like the instructor or the material, the student can usually drop the course. But student-athletes have athletic scholarships (except in the Ivies, where they keep their financial aid regardless of whether they ever play a single game) and are therefore beholden to the coach. Add to that helicopter parents who are advising long-distance, and these are all very difficult signals and directions for an 18-21 yr old to sort out.

30 or so years ago--lawyers were available but kids and parent thought them financially unavailable to them.
Also the courts before accepting a case would want to know how and in detail how you were harmed. Lawyers exercised some restraint (albeit evaluating the bucks) in taking case. The number of lawyers has increased and getting one has been almost like getting a taxi in Manchester, or easier. So if some one sneezes in your soup--an apology or offer to buy another is not sufficient--you were emotionally, physically, religiously, and permanently unable to order soup--depriving you a life of bland eating---got to be worth 8.2 billion.
Damn--didn't know about that scholarship at Harvard--I could have taught my daughter to play soccer in Puerto Rico. A very high percentage of Harvard (in the recent past) were getting some level of scholarship.

 

[bags27]

Damn--didn't know about that scholarship at Harvard--I could have taught my daughter to play soccer in Puerto Rico. A very high percentage of Harvard (in the recent past) were getting some level of scholarship.

You didn't lose anything. The Ivies don't give out academic or athletic scholarship. all financial aid is given based on need, not whether or not you continue to "perform".

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

You didn't lose anything. The Ivies don't give out academic or athletic scholarship. all financial aid is given based on need, not whether or not you continue to "perform".

Until I read otherwise recently, I always assumed that scholarships at all schools had a "need" component. You qualified by whatever measure (grades, interest in a particular major, etc.) and then received the scholarship based on needs. The article (opinion piece, really, but no particular reason to doubt the facts) indicated that some schools offer a financial aid package (scholarship) regardless of need to high performing in-coming freshman as an enticement to enroll, assuming Mommy and Daddy will pay after the first year. (The opinion part, completely OT to my comments, was that it hurt diversity and the writer's organization awarded schools that increased diversity, Stanford being one of the schools up for a possible award).

I find the duration of athletic scholarships complicated - Since athletes in many sports do not get "full ride" scholarships, the coach needs the ability to adjust each year between the team members. OTH, with Women's BB (and men's and football) being full ride sports, and the limit on scholarships to 15 (for WBB) you get the various issues that are periodically discussed on this board. I had thought that the offering of multi-year scholarships was one of the reforms the P5 schools were looking at.

It is further complicated to be by the fact that several Rutgers players who did not graduate in 4 years, but had used up their eligibility, were able to complete their degree the following summer / year on scholarship (or so we were told). If so, I'm not sure how this figured into head count and the rest.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I wanted to post separately that - yes, it is bizarre.

While the "me, me" or entitlement culture or whatever you want to call it is a fact of life, I don't think it is fair to always automatically blame the athlete. Obviously, there is a different general mentality out there, including the "helicopter parenting" and coaches have to be aware of it. At the same time, not every coach / player relationship is going to work, and I think it probably isn't one sided in most cases.

In the instance noted, the story of being yelled at with the "F" word (um, Geno and Vivian don't use it when addressing their athletes?) sounds like the coach may have had his last nerve stepped on for whatever reason, but that October incident by itself is so minor that I can't see why anyone bothered to tell it. If there were 20 incidents like that . . . but the scholarship was not renewed at least 5 months later for whatever reason.

 

[stamfordhusky]

It is further complicated to be by the fact that several Rutgers players who did not graduate in 4 years, but had used up their eligibility, were able to complete their degree the following summer / year on scholarship (or so we were told). If so, I'm not sure how this figured into head count and the rest.

Once athletes have used up their eligibility, they can continue to be given scholarships that don't count against the scholarship limit.

 

[PhillyCoach]

First for me is -- one is innocent until proven guilty. One side of a story does not prove anything. Also, after 44 years in the teaching/coaching/administration field dealing with difficult situations--more times than not these days--a student's recollection of an incident is not totally correct. It is slanted one way (guess which way.)
From personal experience, here is the definition of a bully from a parent's view: the coach/teacher/police officer used their formal authority to inform the student/player that they should follow their directions. The said student is not at the right place, not at the right time or not behaving the appropriate way. The authority figure might have to raise the ante and use more colorful language like dagnabbit or Jimminy Crickets. Maybe the coach has to raise his voice to get someone's attention. **THAT IS CONSIDERED, by the parent, to be a bully. Oh my - One actually used the power invested in them by the Board or Committee and accepted by the parent and student in signing the scholarship letter. (and I get it that there are coaches/teachers that go over the line.)
"Don't tell my kid what to do?" It is not my child's fault. Geno saw it coming years ago. It is here big time.
IMHO, Tennessee caved into this thinking. The players ran the show. Go down the list of the top 15 teams and several have players who control the ball and control the game. Or their attitude controls the climate. The coach gave in. I see it everyday in classrooms where the students control many of the classes. It is sad. There are more and more campuses where the whiney few control the agenda and the administration. Hey people, it is growing out of control. This thread just provides more evidence.
Geno knows. If it gets any worse, Geno won't stay long. Cause it ain't no fun anymore!!

 

[stamfordhusky]

Until I read otherwise recently, I always assumed that scholarships at all schools had a "need" component. You qualified by whatever measure (grades, interest in a particular major, etc.) and then received the scholarship based on needs. The article (opinion piece, really, but no particular reason to doubt the facts) indicated that some schools offer a financial aid package (scholarship) regardless of need to high performing in-coming freshman as an enticement to enroll, assuming Mommy and Daddy will pay after the first year.

Most schools offer some scholarships that are not based on need - academic, special talent, etc. Typically these run for four years, not just one.

 

[j66kicker]

Once athletes have used up their eligibility, they can continue to be given scholarships that don't count against the scholarship limit.

This makes it "fair." Regarding a coach's decision on who plays, etc., what does "fair" have to do with anything? I don't think a coach has the obligation to be "fair" in these matters, unless it's a "participation trophy" youth league.

 

[JordyG]

This is true in every part of our lives. Anyone with a twitter or facebook account now has a personal platform and feels entitled to tell the world everything that's on their mind, 24/7. Every one of us is right, and everyone else is wrong. Everyone's personal space is their own and shouldn't be invaded; etc.

What makes it a bit more complex in college sports is that student-athletes are heavily recruited to play and are part of a very small and especially entitled subsection of a larger "intentional community" at a university. Coaches, however, once having courted the players, now try to discipline them in ways that no other students in that larger university community are disciplined. Even in the classroom, if a student doesn't like the instructor or the material, the student can usually drop the course. But student-athletes have athletic scholarships (except in the Ivies, where they keep their financial aid regardless of whether they ever play a single game) and are therefore beholden to the coach. Add to that helicopter parents who are advising long-distance, and these are all very difficult signals and directions for an 18-21 yr old to sort out.

What adds to the complexity is that coaches are also in many ways beholden and stuck with this recalcitrant recruit. The coach now also has to teach this self absorbed so called student athlete the ways of the real world; has to discipline this young woman, not merely in ways different from others, but because athletically this young woman has never been told no. Unfortunately the ability toward focus and discipline comes before a college coach comes onto the scene. If a coach (yes even coaches make mistakes) finally finds he doesn't jibe or cannot get through to the player he's recruited his only real options toward getting this navel gazers attention are to sit this spoiled brat or to revoke her scholarship. All this yes in a discrete community of vocal boosters, alumni, hovering parents and twittering friends and not so friends. Yeah, its tough all around. I wouldn't coach today's athletes for Microsoft IPO's.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Most schools offer some scholarships that are not based on need - academic, special talent, etc. Typically these run for four years, not just one.

Actually, I always assumed so - sort of the academic side of athletic scholarships, and I actually knew someone in high school that got a very nice scholarship as you mention. Of course he was headed to a very expensive school. In 1974, the cost of college was a lot more reasonable than today.

Yet, in general, I always assumed the vast majority were need based - or, as I said, you "qualified" but didn't get the money if you didn't need it. Then again, I'm approaching 40 years since graduation.

As to the 1 year "enticement" scholarships, it is supposedly a fairly new thing. The column writer heads an organization that awards funds to colleges that increase their diversity. He argued that many colleges are decreasing diversity by giving the one year scholarship to folks that don't need it (to entice the best students without requiring them to take out a loan) and therefore they are depriving students who have financial need (and are, arguably to his point, more diverse).

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Most schools offer some scholarships that are not based on need - academic, special talent, etc. Typically these run for four years, not just one.

Actually, I always assumed so - sort of the academic side of athletic scholarships, and I actually knew someone in high school that got a very nice scholarship as you mention. Of course he was headed to a very expensive school. In 1974, the cost of college was a lot more reasonable than today.

Yet, in general, I always assumed the vast majority were need based - or, as I said, you "qualified" but didn't get the money if you didn't need it. Then again, I'm approaching 40 years since graduation.

As to the 1 year "enticement" scholarships, it is supposedly a fairly new thing. The column writer heads an organization that awards funds to colleges that increase their diversity. He argued that many colleges are decreasing diversity by giving the one year scholarship to folks that don't need it (to entice the best students without requiring them to take out a loan) and therefore they are depriving students who have financial need (and are, arguably to his point, more diverse).

 

[DaddyChoc]

Grandparents... your kids are the same way with your grandkids, defensive and don't talk to my child like that

 

[CocoHusky]

This makes it "fair." Regarding a coach's decision on who plays, etc., what does "fair" have to do with anything? I don't think a coach has the obligation to be "fair" in these matters, unless it's a "participation trophy" youth league.

I disagree, I think "fairness" is really a minimum easily achievable standard for coaches. Really think about, the alternative is unfairness-who wants that? Fairness doesn't start with a decision on playing time but unfortunately that is the only part of the process that fans see and often overreact to. A long as the players know what the standard is for playing time and the standard is administered the same for everyone that is best situation. UCONN players know what the standards are for playing time. That standard hasn't changed in 30 years or so.

 

[UcMiami]

I disagree, I think "fairness" is really a minimum easily achievable standard for coaches. Really think about, the alternative is unfairness-who wants that? Fairness doesn't start with a decision on playing time but unfortunately that is the only part of the process that fans see and often overreact to. A long as the players know what the standard is for playing time and the standard is administered the same for everyone that is best situation. UCONN players know what the standards are for playing time. That standard hasn't changed in 30 years or so.

Yes - very important to make the distinction between 'fair' and 'equal' and one of the issues in team sport is that treatment in games and in practice is never 'equal' because skill and effort and attitude is never identical.

 

[JoePgh]

Geno knows. If it gets any worse, Geno won't stay long. Cause it ain't no fun anymore!!

Actually, I think Geno has affirmed that UConn hasn't had this type of problem recently or to a significant degree. The latest comment I recall from him (from a few weeks ago) was (roughly), "As long as they [meaning the assistant coaches] bring me players like the ones we've had, I can coach for a long time. If that changes, that would be another story."

I don't think any player on the current team, or by all indications any of the incoming freshmen next year, have any feelings of "entitlement", and they expect to be coached hard. I'm sure they expect not to be verbally abused, but they can distinguish between needling, or merited criticism of their work or their effort, and genuine verbal abuse.

That has not always been the case. I remember reading that back in 1985 when Geno and CD both were first-year coaches, some of the inherited players on the team were just like the "entitled" players of today, and didn't react well to the Geno/CD coaching style. So they made sure not to recruit any more players of that stripe, and they have fairly well succeeded. But in relatively recent times, I do remember one freshman player whose scholarship was terminated because she persistently did not make the required effort, and another high-ranked recruit who was turned away apparently because either she or her parents expected a quasi-guarantee of playing time.

But almost universally, UConn has been able to avoid the problem. It helps that 11 NC's allows you to be selective. I see no reason to expect that will change in the foreseeable future. Fortunately there are still some players who don't feel entitled, and UConn will always draw from that subpopulation, even if it is ever-smaller as a percentage of the total recruiting pool.