Yet another college coach leaves his hand-picked recruits out on a limb at the last second

When Rutgers football head coach Greg Schiano signed to become head coach of the NFL Tampa Bay Buccaneers, it was clearly a big day for him—and a major career decision.

As exciting as it no doubt was for he and his family, it was one that left behind many others whose futures were also affected, perhaps negatively.

There is almost no good time for a head coach to leave a major college sports program.  In fairness, while extremely well compensated, these individuals can also be fired at any time, so their looking out for their own future is, on the one hand, entirely reasonable.

The difficulty comes when a coach recruits a player—as Schiano had while with Rutgers—and gives recruits absolutely no indication about his possible intentions to leave the school.

Personal negotiations for that “next job” are always hush-hush, and understandably so, but if a coach recruits a player with the assurance that he, the coach, will be at the school, it does raise an ethical question—at least when that same coach turns around, without warning, and sings to coach somewhere else, either at another school or as in this case, in the NFL.

The story as reported by ESPN explains things more fully here

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/football/story/_/id/7506907/rutgers-scarlet-knight-recruits-wait-greg-schiano-never-arrives-meeting?eleven=twelve

Like most anyone else, a coach has rights.  But I do wonder where all the recruiting talk about values, being a team player and keeping your commitments goes when the person who promoted those “values” leaves town suddenly?

As the ESPN story indicated, some recruits and their families were scheduled to meet with Schiano at 8am on January 26.  No one knew why he was not at the meeting.

Hours later they had their answer:  He had signed to go to Tampa Bay.  Rutgers would have to find a new coach, and the players Schiano recruited would have to decide if they still wanted to go to Rutgers, or look elsewhere—with “national signing day” just days away.

A tough decision for Schiano, no doubt, but an even tougher one, it seems, for the young men who had committed to spend the next four years of their young life attending Rutgers—and playing for him.

Tim Tebow: whether he’s a good quarterback or not, what matters is that he is authentic

We often wonder if there are many (any?) true role models left in sport for young people to look up.

Oh, there are countless individuals in the world who quietly, privately, lead generous lives and influence youngsters in a very positive way.  Those individuals rarely seek—or receive—recognition for what they do.

But when it comes to professional athletes and the example they set (as we’ve touched on here many times), it is sometimes hard not to be let down.  Often the most famous athletes are not necessarily the best role models.  They don’t want to be—and it may not be at all fair to expect them to be.

But sometimes you come across an individual who happens to be an athlete, successful, well-paid, high-profile and still manages to cut through the bravado, ego and clutter of that world—and who make a real difference in the lives of others.

By all accounts, one of those fairly rare individuals is Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow.

Tebow’s sometimes near-miraculous run in helping his team get to the second round of the playoffs came to an abrupt end this past weekend against the New England Patriots.  But in terms of what I’m writing about today, that hardly matters.  The issue is not whether this young man is a great quarterback (he is a wonderful athlete—the jury is out on whether he can be a top NFL signal-caller…).  People can debate that if they’d like.

But when it comes to his being authentic or not, everything I’ve seen and read about Tebow suggests he is just that: real.

This is not about religion, or his particular religious beliefs.  I personally endorse his willingness to talk about his faith.  Perhaps more of us should.  Maybe more high-profile people with a “platform” should.  The opinions on that will vary.

But this individual helps others and seems to genuinely care for others.  A writer for ESPN, Rick Reilly, says it very well in this piece:   http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/7455943/believing-tim-tebow

The thing is, every story, every interview we hear about Tim delivers the same consistent message:  this guy is authentic.

So like him as a quarterback or don’t.  But when we moan and complain that professional athletes don’t “get it”, when one does, we should at least acknowledge it and not turn away and dismiss them simply because he or she expresses themselves publicly about something that we may not endorse or support.

And the truth is, it’s not an act.  With Tebow, it’s not about just “getting it”.  It’s who he is, which makes his impact even more special.

Penn State problems may run even deeper

Many are aware of the unfortunate situation that has unfolded in recent months around former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.  The allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior are still being dealt with through the legal system.

But it was also telling to read of a separate issue on campus to do with the state of the football team, a program that has been a source of great pride at the institution for decades.

As the school’s team was preparing for its January 2 Bowl game, it suddenly found itself in a situation where it’s first, second and third-string quarterbacks may not be available to play.

The first team quarterback had engaged in a fight with a teammate.  The second-string quarterback was facing discipline because of an apparent “prank”, as his coach called it, whereby an item was taken from a store on campus.

The third-string quarterback, who has been academically ineligible in 2011, was waiting to see if he would be eligible in time for the Bowl game.

A story in USA Today details the various issues facing the team at

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/bigten/story/2011-12-19/penn-state-uncertain-quarterback-situation/52086586/1

The point here simply is:  Many athletes on scholarship—perhaps most—earn their paid-for education through their talent and hard work, and show their appreciation by continuing to work hard and behave appropriately throughout their years at school. 

It’s impossible to judge the individual circumstances in the case of the aforementioned Penn State players, but id does remind us that some young college athletes may not fully appreciate the privilege of receiving a “free” education—four years, covered in full in return for playing a sport.

The value of such an education, if taken seriously, goes well beyond the tens of thousands of dollars it saves the young athlete and/or their family during the young person’s undergraduate years.  It potentially sets them up for the rest of their lives.  Most of these athletes will not play sports professionally, but they will lead (hopefully) productive and inspired lives- anchored in part by their university and college experience.

The tragic Sandusky episode aside, it is just unfortunate to see a program at an institution like Penn State going through this kind of circumstance, where some players seemingly abuse the privileges that they had earlier earned.

Pujols departure his choice, but not a question of respect

One of the things that can happen to any of us is that, when things in our life seem to go really well, we can feel a bit “heady”.

It’s that sense that we’re on top of things, maybe even on top of the world.  We may feel we can do or say what we want and damn the consequences.  Some may even believe there won’t be consequences.

Sports fans may be aware that baseball star Albert Pujols recently signed a 10-year, 250 plus million dollar contract with the Anaheim Angels.  He decided to leave the franchise (St. Louis) where he was loved by the organization, teammates and fans and helped the team win two World Series championships.

He had already earned in his career millions more than most people would ever earn in their entire life—in the best dreams.  But he decided to leave St. Louis anyway, a city considered one of the most fan-friendly baseball markets in America.

The interesting twist to the “story” is that Pujols’ wife apparently felt it necessary to publicly explain why the family made the decision that it did.  Unfortunately, the explanation has left some observers puzzled, and feeling as though Albert may need what some call a “reality check”.

Here is an excerpt from the recent story published on ESPN.com

"The offer that people have seen on television I want to tell you what, listeners especially, had that offer been given to us with a guarantee, we would have the (Cardinals) bird on our back," Deidre Pujols told 99.1 Joy FM, a St. Louis-area Christian station that received some of its initial funding from Albert Pujols.

Deidre Pujols, speaking with interviewer Sandi Brown, who is her friend, said the couple initially had no plans to ever leave St. Louis or the Cardinals, the only team the first baseman had ever played for.

"When it all came down, I was mad. I was mad at God because I felt like all the signs that had been played out through the baseball field, our foundation, our restaurant, the Down Syndrome Center, my relationships, my home, my family close," Deidre Pujols told the station. "I mean, we had no reason, not one reason, to want to leave. People were deceived by the numbers."

She indicated the key moment was the Cardinals' initial offer of five years and $130 million.

"When you have somebody say 'We want you to be a Cardinal for life' and only offer you a five-year deal, it kind of confused us," Deidre Pujols said. "Well, we got over that insult and felt like Albert had given so much of himself to baseball and into the community ... we didn't want to go through this again."

That Pujols, at the age of 32 still a very talented professional, to be sure, felt a five year contract offer (worth well over 100 million dollars) was “an insult” is seemingly a perplexing comment.

It’s hard to imagine the millions of people in the United States and around the world who are out of work, or working in difficult conditions and drawing a modest annual income or taking on two jobs two stay above the poverty level, won’t find those comments alarming and self-centered, not to mention out of touch.

In particular, it is perhaps ironic that Pujols', who has clearly "done good" in the St. Louis community, in the same breath seems to set himself apart as, at the very least, being on a different level than the everyday people he apparently aids through his charitable endeavours.  If he feels  "insulted" by a 130 million dollar offer because it is not enough, what is the message for those youngsters- and their families- who are truly disadvantaged?

But this is the age of celebrity, and as I mentioned earlier, when things go well, people feel pretty special, and things get “heady”.

No doubt Pujols has done some important charitable things in St. Louis and will continue to do so in Anaheim.  But it may now be difficult for many to see him in the same light he was seen in before these comments were made.

'No celebration' rule costs high school team a championship- a life lesson or an absurd regulation?

We read with interest this week about how a high school football team in the state of Massachusetts lost a championship game because of a rule that disallows “celebrations”.

Now, many sports fans likely believe that excessive celebrations in sport have become somewhat tiresome at the professional level.  Simple plays lead to fist-pumping and a range of theatrics that, depending on your point of view, are either entertaining, a part of freedom of expression, or ridiculous and overdone.

And yes, it is clear that how professionals behave impacts how impressionable younger athletes/people sometimes respond, whether on Club teams or at the high school level, for example.

This particular situation in Massachusetts occurred in a state championship game—an event that all those involved with will remember for the rest of their lives.  One team scored a touchdown in the final moments of the game, a touchdown that would have given them the victory and the state championship (see original story with video clip here).

http://espn.go.com/boston/story/_/id/7327275/celebration-penalty-td-costs-cathedral-high-school-team-title

But the league rule is “no celebration”.  Because the player scoring the touchdown put his hand up well in advance of the goal line, that evidently met the criteria for a “rule infraction”.  There wasn’t just (as there is at higher levels of play) a penalty on the point after attempt or the ensuing kick off—the actual touchdown was nullified, as though the play had never happened.

It’s difficult to comprehend the thinking here.  While we write regularly and passionately here about sportsmanship and examples of such, this, on the surface, appears to be a case where a well-intentioned “rule”—one intended to send a message and alter over-zealous and unsportsmanlike behavior—sends a troubling message.

You will note in reading the explanation from the “league”, that it says, essentially, the young people affected will have this sort of thing happen in life.  That is, that those in charge will sometimes made decisions that they don’t agree with or feel is fair in life and they will have to learn to deal with decisions that go against them.

While that is inarguably true on the one hand, it covers up a different type of  injustice.  The other “reality” is that the play (the touchdown) was a fair play.  There was no deceit, no cheating, no “holding” or other true football foul on the field of play.

Because a young person showed joy and exuberance, they were penalized.  Not just penalized a few yards on the field of play, but a state championship honor that they had clearly, rightly, earned.

Those around at the time all remember Joe Namath walking off the field after Super Bowl III, holding up a single finger to show fans his New York Jets were "number-one". He was bragging, feeling proud.  It was a natural, spontaneous show of emotion.

It was human.

Did he "show up the opposition"? Not really.

When teams celebrate championships they get excited.  It reflects hours, sometimes years, of dedication and tireless effort to improve skills and build team harmony, all good things.  A show of extreme joy is surely understandable and should not be seen as in some way showing a lack of respect for the team you competed against.

When baseball players at the major league level hit a home run to win a big game in the 9th inning, the player circling the bases is ecstatic and shows their emotion as the other team is walking of the field.  Their teammates rush out to the field of play to celebrate.  Again, it's natural.

Being happy is not poor sportsmanship.

Now, if this team had acted inn an un-sportsmanlike fashion throughout the game and the on-field officials had warned them and they had ignored warnings, and then the refs felt they had no chance but to make an "extreme" call on a subjective ruling, this would be a bit easier to understand.

But if that was not the case (and there are no reports to suggest that it was) are we—and more especially those who worked so hard to achieve that success— supposed to believe that life is about technicalities?  That the winning play, legal as it was, never actually happened?

And how will the new “state champions” feel?  They won not on the field of play, but essentially because of a “fair play” rule that, while valid on the surface, does not pass the real life test of competition here.  They will always remember being “champions”—not because they earned it, though they no doubt worked hard to get as far as they did—but because a bunch of adults were trying to impose a standard of behavior that they probably couldn’t meet themselves when they were the same age.

But it’s OK to raise the bar for someone else, apparently.

Yes, sportsmanship is tremendously important. It always has been and always been in in all aspects of sports, and life.  And coaches, schools, leagues and those in authority, in positions of leadership, have a responsibility to set rules that establish important values.

But everyone in the state knows who the “real” winner of the championship is.  Sanction the team in some way, but depriving them of a championship they earned makes no sense.

Hiring a new coach often seems to take precedence over ethics

Maybe “ethics” is too strong a word, but it has always been a concern to me when sports organizations fire a head coach and immediately—on the very same day— turn around and announce his or her replacement.

My concern? 

Well, since, especially in this day and age of lawyers, agents, advisors and such realities, hiring a new coach takes a long time. Given the complexities of finalizing contractual arrangements, one thing is clear:  while the now former coach was still very much on the job and trying to do that job to the best of their ability, the organization was interviewing and negotiating with their replacement.

Recent examples?  In the National Hockey League, three teams have recently made changes this season—the St. Louis Blues, Carolina Hurricanes and Washington capitals.  In each instance, the “new” coaches (Ken Hitchcock, Kirk Muller and Dale Hunter) clearly “knew” they were getting the jobs while the previous coach was still coaching games and running practices.

It just seems to be a deceitful way to run a business, though not uncommon in the world of high-level, “what-have-you-done-for-me-lately” professional sports.  There was a similar situation that cropped up in the English soccer Premier League within the last year or so.  The incoming coach was signed, sealed and delivered when the outgoing guy was still on the sidelines.

Not classy—and not right.

A glaring example, of course, is what has just happened at Ohio State with their football program.  So apparently desperate was the school to hire another big-game (after they pretty much had to let Jim Tressel go this past off-season), they obviously had negotiated with Urban Meyer to be their new coach, even though the incumbent, Luke Fickell, was preparing his team for their biggest game of the season, against arch-rival Michigan.

While Meyer was denying a deal was done, it is now clear that he will, in fact (and of course) be the new coach.  (Interestingly, when Meyer stepped down from his last job not even a year ago, citing health factors and claiming he needed to spend more time with family.)

Too often college coaches, for example, leave a team or program and jump ship to another, because the timing suits them, even if it leaves their former employer, players or school in the lurch.  Bobby Petrino and Nick Saban are two names that pop to mind in this regard.

And, as recently as the end of the just-concluded Major-League baseball season, long-time Chicago White Sox manager was so anxious to take on his new job in Miami, that he left the White Sox on the final weekend of the season, not even fulfilling his existing contract to the end of the season.  He could not wait  two more days to make it "official".

So yes, sadly, it works for ways.

Is it just the way things have to be?  Absolutely not.  But it seems to be the way some organizations –and even institutions of “higher learning”—have to do business.

And it’s a shame.

Penn State allegations yet another wake-up call

The legal charges and sexual abuse allegations against a former Penn State assistant football coach  suggest, at least on the surface, a kind of classic “cover-up” on the school's part an effort to conceal the institution’s reputation and perceived integrity.

That it has taken this long for charges to be laid, again, is a concerning tale, to be sure.  Many stories about the allegations are available, including this one by Michael Rosenberg at Sport's Illustrated.

It’s difficult for someone on the outside to write about this, because while there are many allegations, how does anyone on the outside truly know the “facts”.

What those of us interested in youth sports (and the lessons that adults "teach" and model) can do, though, is wonder why Penn State officials seemed so lackluster in handling the seriousness of the allegations that were apparently made many years ago.

Institutions seem to have a propensity for keeping things “in house”.  And the school is not the first and likely won’t be the last institution or organization that handles things like this very poorly.  But that is no excuse for inaction or looking the other way.

An accusation does not always mean that something terrible happened, of course.  But my sense is, the more that is uncovered in the weeks to come, it will become clear that Penn State, as an institution of higher learning, likely failed to meet even minimum reporting standards for a case such as this and as importantly, failed miserably on ethical grounds.

We can’t always protect young people or young athletes.  But surely those entrusted with caring for young students and young student-athletes on campus have a serious obligation to do their best.  And if and when they can’t protect everyone, they certainly have an obligation to respond and investigate when serious questions are raised.

If this did not happen at Penn State, then many should indeed fall on their proverbial sword.  Many people in Canada and the United States enjoy and support college athletics in one way or another.  This kind of story, however, is a discouraging one and yet again suggests the undue emphasis on sports (and protecting those in and around big-time sports like football) too often outweighs almost everything else—including a sense of common decency.