This is going to clutter the courts -- not just the hardwood kind

[Norm Peterson]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/womens-basketball-coach-fired-after-suspending-two-players-for-dating/ar-BBr0Ssb?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=DELLDHP

 

This is just so dumb.  So, so dumb.  On so many levels.

 

But let's just start with the non-controversial level.  I don't care how you feel about homosexual relationships -- support or oppose, makes no difference.  When the coach got approval from the administration for her intention of suspending players for dating, and then suspended them, it should have insulated her from getting fired for it.

 

How, I ask, can a university fire a coach for doing something the university told the coach she could do?

 

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

 

Now, the policy itself, to prohibit dating within the team.

 

Again, I don't care how you feel about homosexual relationships.  The policy doesn't prohibit girls on the team from dating other girls; it only prohibits girls on the team from dating other girls ON THE TEAM.  Which, if you think about it, makes total sense and should be the rule for everyone, everywhere.

 

Again, it doesn't prohibit homosexual dating.  It just keeps it out of the locker room.  You don't shit where you eat.  Think of all the potential for problems that can and undoubtedly will and do develop when you have inter-squad dating.  It's my understanding that such an environment was what sank Paul Sanderford's tenure here.  Big-time chemistry issues because of dating and breaking up and all the drama that goes along with it.

 

Who needs the distraction?

 

A policy that says "no dating within the team" makes perfect sense.

 

Now, just leave it to a bunch of government bureaucrats to screw things up.

[cipsucks]

  You don't shit where you eat.

 

True.  But, sometimes, the locations are very close to each other. 

 

Norm, I didn't want you to have a thread where no one commented on it.  In today's politically correct world, people are afraid to say anything on a subject like this.  You are exactly right. Fraternization within a sports team is counter productive.  That, however, pales in comparison to what happens in our military---something that really matters. 

[Norm Peterson]

Thanks, Cip.  I tried to frame the discussion in such a way that you could remove the politically correct aspect to it and just go with common sense irrespective of the PC aspect.  But you're probably right. 

 

It's just that there are legitimate points to be made and unless someone stands up and makes them, it leaves the impression that there's no dispute or disagreement and the issue must, therefore, be settled.

 

But aside from the PC aspect of it, just the relationship part, the military has forbade fraternization for as long as there have been women in the military for the very reason that dating within a unit is bad for morale, unit cohesion, esprit de corps, etc. 

 

Many years ago, a guy I knew was dating one of the secretaries and when they broke up it was frickin miserable for EVERYONE.  Their drama rubbed off on the whole office.  And the boss swore that if anyone ever dated a secretary again, he'd fire them both on the spot.

 

Now, is that discrimination?  Of course not.  It's common sense.  But, in this situation, common sense has taken a back seat to ... I don't know what.

[Huskerpapa]

Relationships within a team are fickle to say the least.  I was involved with a team where one player broke up with his longtime girlfriend and then another player on the team started to date her.  That created a bit of ugliness.  It is hard to set rules dealing with any relationship or friendship.  Each personality is different.  Some handle fractures, others cannot.  Each situation is different and that is what makes coaching and or leadership roles so difficult.

[hal9000]

I've worked at places where employee dating was allowed, just not at the same store.  You could date, or be a spouse of, someone at a different location, just not the same store.  Made sense to me.

[Norm Peterson]

I've worked at places where employee dating was allowed, just not at the same store.  You could date, or be a spouse of, someone at a different location, just not the same store.  Made sense to me.

 

Makes sense to virtually everyone.

[PimpMario]

It's hard not to see this policy as discriminatory because it only affects bi and gay players.

So you can try to defend the policy because "it eliminates distractions" but it is certainly discriminatory.

Teams aren't businesses so it is absurd to me that a coach or administration thought they had the right to tell their students who they could or couldn't date.

And clearly it didn't prevent distractions.

[Norm Peterson]

It's hard not to see this policy as discriminatory because it only affects bi and gay players.

So you can try to defend the policy because "it eliminates distractions" but it is certainly discriminatory.

Teams aren't businesses so it is absurd to me that a coach or administration thought they had the right to tell their students who they could or couldn't date.

And clearly it didn't prevent distractions.

 

No, actually, that's not true.  If you read the article I posted, the coach began the policy because of a staff member dating a player.  That staff member could have been a straight male dating one of the straight girls.  Like Pat Summit's son dating one of his players, which was an affair that apparently started before he was a head coach.

[Norm Peterson]

Besides, while the policy might affect mostly just the gay or bi players, it's clearly not intended to discriminate.  The purpose of the policy has nothing to do with discriminating against gays but just keeping things away from the office.

 

I told someone else on here I used to work in a place where one of the male co-workers started dating one of the females.  It was a small office and when they broke up it was really awkward and uncomfortable for everyone on a daily basis.  The boss man basically told everyone that if anyone started dating within the office again, he'd fire them both on the  spot.

 

I don't see how anyone could say that the purpose of this coach's no-dating policy was to discriminate against lesbians on the team.  Yeah, she's just trying to make dating life tough on lesbians and gays.  Going out of her way to make it tough, in fact.  Sorry, no.

[atskooc]

Maybe they should change it to a no-break-up policy.

 

[PimpMario]

I agree that administrators (coaches etc) should not be able to date students.

But what if a school said no one in intramurals could date?

These are students not employees.

It would be different is student athletes got paid.

[Norm Peterson]

Seriously?  You're playing the intramurals card?

 

There's a good reason Dan Hawkins said college football wasn't intramurals.

 

You want 3 weeks vacation before summer conditioning?  You wanna date someone on the team?  Go play intramurals, brutha.

[Norm Peterson]

Lemme ask you this, PimpMario:  How many intramurals teams have coaches who get paid millions of dollars a year and get fired and lose those million-dollar jobs if their teams don't win?

 

Get back to me when you find the answer.

[PimpMario]

Seriously? You're playing the intramurals card?

There's a good reason Dan Hawkins said college football wasn't intramurals.

You want 3 weeks vacation before summer conditioning? You wanna date someone on the team? Go play intramurals, brutha.

We arent talking about major college football (if you can call Colorado that).

We are talking about basketball at a small school. It is closer to intramurals than major college football.

[PimpMario]

Lemme ask you this, PimpMario: How many intramurals teams have coaches who get paid millions of dollars a year and get fired and lose those million-dollar jobs if their teams don't win?

Get back to me when you find the answer.

How many small college women's basketball coaches make millions? I let you get back to me.

I fail to see how much a coach gets paid somehow makes students employees?

[Norm Peterson]

 

Seriously? You're playing the intramurals card?

There's a good reason Dan Hawkins said college football wasn't intramurals.

You want 3 weeks vacation before summer conditioning? You wanna date someone on the team? Go play intramurals, brutha.

We arent talking about major college football (if you can call Colorado that).

We are talking about basketball at a small school. It is closer to intramurals than major college football.

 

You're lucky some of the posters on the women's board aren't hear to see you say that.

[PimpMario]

Seriously? You're playing the intramurals card?

There's a good reason Dan Hawkins said college football wasn't intramurals.

You want 3 weeks vacation before summer conditioning? You wanna date someone on the team? Go play intramurals, brutha.

We arent talking about major college football (if you can call Colorado that).

We are talking about basketball at a small school. It is closer to intramurals than major college football.

You're lucky some of the posters on the women's board aren't hear to see you say that.

Not because it's women's but because it's at a no name school. Their mens and women's team both probably lose money.

These women are not employees and their coach wasn't making millions.

[Norm Peterson]

 

Lemme ask you this, PimpMario: How many intramurals teams have coaches who get paid millions of dollars a year and get fired and lose those million-dollar jobs if their teams don't win?

Get back to me when you find the answer.

How many small college women's basketball coaches make millions? I let you get back to me.

I fail to see how much a coach gets paid somehow makes students employees?

 

Never said it did.  But colleges don't field teams just so that their players can get participation ribbons.  Like, "Hey, why don't we field a women's basketball team so that some of the fat lesbians on campus can have a way of getting some exercise and find a place to get dates."  Nobody does that!  Nobody.  That's not the purpose of intercollegiate athletics. 

 

Athletic directors are judged by how successful their team sports are.  Sure, they want their programs to graduate players.  Have them take really easy courses if necessary.  We're not worried about the quality of learning going on, just that they attend class and advance towards a degree in something.  Anything really.  That's just a part of the overall package, like wearing the team uniform at appropriate times.  But the bottom line is winning.  ADs whose teams under their supervision don't win get fired.

 

And college coaches are ultimately judged by how well their teams perform on the field or the court.  Classroom performance isn't really a big deal as long as you're really winning.  Fail to win and every aspect of your program invites greater scrutiny.  Ultimately it's about winning.  Coaches who don't win don't remain employed no matter how high their graduation rates.

 

No college athlete goes to play for a school where they really believe it's all about the relationships you form and the friendships you make and has nothing to do with winning.  They don't play sports in college for that reason.  If that's what it was about, they'd have played intramurals instead. 

 

I'm sorry, but intramurals is just not a good example for you to use.  Totally not analogous situations.

[PimpMario]

 

 

Lemme ask you this, PimpMario: How many intramurals teams have coaches who get paid millions of dollars a year and get fired and lose those million-dollar jobs if their teams don't win?

Get back to me when you find the answer.

How many small college women's basketball coaches make millions? I let you get back to me.

I fail to see how much a coach gets paid somehow makes students employees?

 

Never said it did.  But colleges don't field teams just so that their players can get participation ribbons.  Like, "Hey, why don't we field a women's basketball team so that some of the fat lesbians on campus can have a way of getting some exercise and find a place to get dates."  Nobody does that!  Nobody.  That's not the purpose of intercollegiate athletics. 

 

Athletic directors are judged by how successful their team sports are.  Sure, they want their programs to graduate players.  Have them take really easy courses if necessary.  We're not worried about the quality of learning going on, just that they attend class and advance towards a degree in something.  Anything really.  That's just a part of the overall package, like wearing the team uniform at appropriate times.  But the bottom line is winning.  ADs whose teams under their supervision don't win get fired.

 

And college coaches are ultimately judged by how well their teams perform on the field or the court.  Classroom performance isn't really a big deal as long as you're really winning.  Fail to win and every aspect of your program invites greater scrutiny.  Ultimately it's about winning.  Coaches who don't win don't remain employed no matter how high their graduation rates.

 

No college athlete goes to play for a school where they really believe it's all about the relationships you form and the friendships you make and has nothing to do with winning.  They don't play sports in college for that reason.  If that's what it was about, they'd have played intramurals instead. 

 

I'm sorry, but intramurals is just not a good example for you to use.  Totally not analogous situations.

 

 

You right intramurals is not analogous.  But comparing PVAM basketball (mens or womens) to major college basketball is absolutely absurd.  

 

Comparing lower college teams to major college teams is somewhat absurd.  

 

The fired coach was the 3rd highest paid coach for the school at 100K.

 

If you think the point of small colleges sports teams are there to make the school money you are wrong.

 

Maybe a better comparison would be debate, chess team or mens volleyball (or other club sports) or swimming or theatre (lord knows there can be some drama in drama).

 

Universitys pay debate coaches.  And a small schools debate team might bring in just as much good press as their basketball teams.  Should debate teammates (weather hetrosexual or homosexual) not be allow to date?  That is absolutely absurd.  They are freaking students.

 

If you would argue that maybe football player shouldn't be able to date each other I could at least see some arguments for that and I would probably simply say, pay them and then you can treat them like employees.

[hskr4life]

I am going to have to agree that this in now way is discrimination.  Its looking out for the best interest of your team.  If there were CO-ED major college sports, this would certainly have already been a consensus.  Dating someone you work or play with just causes problems... even if you never break up.  Too many times that D word gets thrown around these days.  There are instances where it should never have entered the picture.  The coach had every right to have a no dating policy within the team.  School probably don't fire the coach 10-15 years ago, but with that D word thrown in there these days... it was either that or pay up which is absolutely ridiculous.  I stand with the coach on this one.  Her team, her rules... don't like it?  Transfer somewhere where that would be allowed.  I would be interested to see where that would be though.

[Norm Peterson]

It's hard not to see this policy as discriminatory because it only affects bi and gay players.

So you can try to defend the policy because "it eliminates distractions" but it is certainly discriminatory.

Teams aren't businesses so it is absurd to me that a coach or administration thought they had the right to tell their students who they could or couldn't date.

And clearly it didn't prevent distractions.

 

So I read in this morning's Journal-Star that a female former Nebraska track athlete is suing the University for discrimination.  Seems she was dating one of the male track athletes and an incident occurred wherein she filed a domestic violence complaint. 

 

She felt the disciplinary system was inadequate because, after reporting her domestic violence allegations, she alleges that other male track athletes ostracized and harassed her.  Hmmm.  Maybe a policy that would prohibit intrasquad dating would help eliminate these kinds of situations.

 

Except that would be discriminatory against people who date. 

 

 

http://journalstar.com/news/local/911/after-title-ix-complaint-former-husker-track-athlete-sues-unl/article_1cab1f5c-1782-51de-9e32-095945ea3ba5.html

[PimpMario]

It's hard not to see this policy as discriminatory because it only affects bi and gay players.

So you can try to defend the policy because "it eliminates distractions" but it is certainly discriminatory.

Teams aren't businesses so it is absurd to me that a coach or administration thought they had the right to tell their students who they could or couldn't date.

And clearly it didn't prevent distractions.

So I read in this morning's Journal-Star that a female former Nebraska track athlete is suing the University for discrimination. Seems she was dating one of the male track athletes and an incident occurred wherein she filed a domestic violence complaint.

She felt the disciplinary system was inadequate because, after reporting her domestic violence allegations, she alleges that other male track athletes ostracized and harassed her. Hmmm. Maybe a policy that would prohibit intrasquad dating would help eliminate these kinds of situations.

Except that would be discriminatory against people who date.

http://journalstar.com/news/local/911/after-title-ix-complaint-former-husker-track-athlete-sues-unl/article_1cab1f5c-1782-51de-9e32-095945ea3ba5.html

Maybe students at the same university shouldn't be allowed to date?

And clearly Connie Yoris divorce caused distractions so maybe university employees shouldn't be allowed to be in relationships.

Am I being hyperbolic, sure. But my current point is this:

I don't think businesses should have a policy restricting relationships between employees in equal positions. I really don't think universities should restrict unpaid students from having relationships.

[Silverbacked1]

I wish that these a$$hole would stop assaulting women.  That would help the most. 

[PimpMario]

I wish that these a$$hole would stop assaulting women. That would help the most.

I wish it wasn't off season.

[Norm Peterson]

They're not paid but they can choose to be on a team or choose not to be on a team.  If they're on a team, then there are issues of cohesion and chemistry and esprit de corps that don't apply to the student body at large. 

 

Sure, it would be a fantastic thing not to have domestic violence.  Sadly, it's a non-solution to suggest "well, if guys just didn't hit girls, it wouldn't be a problem."  While that's true, you can't just sweep domestic violence away by message-board fiat.  That's like suggesting that the way to solve world hunger is by just having people eat more.  We're leaving out a few details on exactly how that's going to work.

 

Having said that, the domestic violence was an issue vis-a-vis this one particular guy she was dating.  It wasn't the reason the University got sued.  Let me repeat that:  The domestic violence was NOT the reason she's suing the University.  The reason the University got sued was because of the way she was treated by other male student athletes on the track team AFTER she filed her domestic violence complaint.

 

Obviously, whatever the situation was, it caused turmoil within the team.  I'm sure the track coaches would have just as soon there not be any dating and breaking up and drama within the team.  Maybe they could fix that drama issue by just banning intra-squad dating.