Disagree with just about all of this. Don't know why you're going to a whose bad thing is worse than whose analysis (the original point by UCMiami was that all coaches make mistakes), but since it's on the table:
Because I felt like talking about it. Apparently, so did you. I was of the impression that so long as it's not outside the rules of the Boneyard, it's allowed. Now I'm sure you can find some bylaw and tangentially relate it to this if you want. But I hardly think the comment was above and beyond the pale.
1. "Grown man" is just a swipe. The players aren't toddlers. They're grown women. You're verging on calling him a child molester.
Are you kidding me with this JS? How you can possibly say "berating one of his kids" can remotely be compared to being "on the verge of calling him a
child molester", one of the single worst crimes in known to man? That's crazy, even in hyperbole. If you are using it as hyperbole, and it does not read as such, you used a poorly thought out analogy.
How you can even think overly harsh yelling is in the same universe as child molestation is beyond me. Nowhere did I bring up child molestation or anything close. Ironically, much like Stringer did to Geno, you are insinuating something that I did not remotely come close to saying, nor would ever have any intention of saying.
And grown man = adult, despite whatever you want to read into it. We have certain expectations for adults in society. Especially those in a position of power, working with 'young adults' (if you prefer) no less.
2. He lays into people who are screwing up. He's done it a thousand times without taking it too far. He's not Mike Rice or Bobby Knight. (Were they called "grown men" in contrast to their players, BTW? Or just serially abusive coaches?)
He absolutely does that and I have zero problem with it. But for better or worse in our society, we have rules/expectations about bullying, especially concerning those in a position of power.
Of course he's not Mike Rice or Bobby Knight, but the fact that it isn't repeat behavior doesn't justify or absolve an action. That makes no sense. For example, if college student lays into another kid so badly that the affected kid tries to commit suicide, it makes no difference that the original kid hadn't done anything that harsh before. I'm not equating the two scenarios, just showing how it doesn't matter if there is a pattern of behavior or not.
Sue Bird is a tough, tough female. To make her cry (and for Geno to actually regret it), he'd have had to said some pretty harsh things.
5. A coach making up stuff about another coach -- including inflammatory innuendo -- and publicly stating it in order to cover her own program's butt is reprehensible. It's smearing a fellow professional, and it's bearing false witness
I didn't say I agree with what Stringer did, nor condone it. But two 'opposition' public figures battling it out in the media is par for the course these days. Stringer was slinging bullcrap, and while terrible, Geno's an experienced adult, with the full support of an administration behind him, who can handle those things, as reprehensible as they may be.
6. Of course public or in-house matters. Public events, on live TV, were the whole problem in Cappiegate. That's why sensitive criticism is delivered behind closed doors, in the business world or elsewhere. Right or wrong, anyone would rather get chewed out in private than with lots of people watching.
I meant that (public/private) didn't matter in terms of the direction of the offense in my opinion. My point was that
who was receiving the 'sensitive criticism' was more important.
Other than those points, you're right on target.
I think it's more important that you care about how you treat the people in your own program (your family) more than slights/insults, no matter how harsh, you receive from opponents.[/quote]
)
