|
Post by emptybackfield on Nov 17, 2011 18:37:27 GMT -6
Reading about Gary Pinkel's DWI got me thinking, should schools drop the hammer on coaches for legal mistakes? Or, should they be treated like most other citizens by just letting the legal ramifications be the sole punishment? I agree that your employer has the right to do as it wishes, but I don't think it should be more severe than the legal consequences. Here is what the Mizzou AD has handed down as his punishment.
-a one game and week long suspension (no involvement with the team) -a week without pay -his salary for his first week back goes to charity -his salary will be frozen for a year -forfeiting a $75,000 bowl bonus -forfeiting a $100,000 social responsibility clause -50 hours of community service
The total dollar amount in this is up over $300,000.
So, my question is this:
They say head coaches should be treated like every other citizen in regards to the law. This isn't close to how every other citizen would be treated for this mistake. Is it fair to punish them solely because they are in a position of power? I'm not talking just big time college head coaches, but high school ones as well. Where is the line, in your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by shamespiral on Nov 17, 2011 19:27:30 GMT -6
But... He's not an ordinary citizen. He is the leader of an organization that has about 200 players, managers, trainers, and video people in it aged 17-23 or so. He should have a severe consequence. He deals out severe consequences to his players.
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Nov 17, 2011 19:47:29 GMT -6
But... He's not an ordinary citizen. He is the leader of an organization that has about 200 players, managers, trainers, and video people in it aged 17-23 or so. He should have a severe consequence. He deals out severe consequences to his players. That's the point of this thread, I wanted to hear some different opinions on this. I guarantee you the president of the university or the head of the English dept. wouldn't be given a punishment like this. Why should someone be punished more because they happen to be a football coach? Should your punishment as a head football coach at your school for a DWI be the same as Mr. Dbag Math Teacher down the hall who got one two weeks earlier?
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Nov 17, 2011 19:54:12 GMT -6
Reading about Gary Pinkel's DWI got me thinking, should schools drop the hammer on coaches for legal mistakes? Or, should they be treated like most other citizens by just letting the legal ramifications be the sole punishment? I agree that your employer has the right to do as it wishes, but I don't think it should be more severe than the legal consequences. Here is what the Mizzou AD has handed down as his punishment. -a one game and week long suspension (no involvement with the team) -a week without pay -his salary for his first week back goes to charity -his salary will be frozen for a year -forfeiting a $75,000 bowl bonus -forfeiting a $100,000 social responsibility clause -50 hours of community service The total dollar amount in this is up over $300,000. So, my question is this: They say head coaches should be treated like every other citizen in regards to the law. This isn't close to how every other citizen would be treated for this mistake. Is it fair to punish them solely because they are in a position of power? I'm not talking just big time college head coaches, but high school ones as well. Where is the line, in your opinion? You can argue it either way but it's hard to argue that he should get the social responsibility bonus.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Nov 17, 2011 19:54:16 GMT -6
as an employer - do you want to discourage your employees from engaging in certain activities or exhibiting any type of behavior that is against the flow of your organization's mission statement and direction? ... especially an individual that present's the public view of your organization.
if yes, then you hand out consequences and punishment that are far greater than that of the legal system in hopes it will be a deterrent. the severe punishment shows the public that this is not what "your about." and is done to help stem any negative publicity that could ultimately affect the bottom line.
if no, then let the legal system hand out punishment and move on.
i would think that most schools don't want their teachers, coaches, staff, etc. drinking and driving. has a way to help prevent this, they deal 'harshly' with any staff member that does drink & drive.
do such punishments always deter future acts or other employees from doing the same? not necessarily, but they would do such at their own 'risk' as it is pretty much assured they will be held accountable by the institution.
moral standards, ethics, 'degrees' of punishment are set forth by the organization based on its beliefs, mission, and the image they wish to project. right, wrong, fair, unjust, whatever ... that's how it is. basically the 'my house - my rules' that we heard growing up.
|
|
|
Post by coachfd on Nov 17, 2011 20:06:16 GMT -6
The head football coach is also one of the largest representatives of the school. At the college level, he often is the face of the program and university. I think the standard has to be high, due to the fact that the head coach not only influences so many young people in the program, but also because his actions affect the school, its sponsorships, its community/state relationships, its corporate relationships, alumni connections, admissions and enrollment, etc.
I think the situation also has to be case-specific. For instance, there is a difference between a first-time offender and a repeat-offender.
It also has to do with the school. For example: Yale will react different to a coach's DWI than will perhaps a JuCo in the middle of the country. The image of the school is different.
Ultimately, the administration makes the call. There have been a few DWI's this season: one resulted in a coach's immediate resignation, another in a suspension and severe fine, and another that resulted in a reprimand and fine (along with embarassment). In the first case, the coach is gone. It will be hard for him in the future, for making one single mistake. In another, the coach learned from the situation, and then used it to teach his players a valuable lesson about consequences, humility, and decision-making.
It is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Nov 17, 2011 20:07:17 GMT -6
You can argue it either way but it's hard to argue that he should get the social responsibility bonus. No question that should be forfeited, considering it ties directly with the infraction.
|
|
|
Post by insidethestripes on Nov 17, 2011 22:19:51 GMT -6
He's going to lose less than 13% of his salary after the legal process plays out.
The average person that gets arrested for DUI/DWI loses over 40% of their income for the year.
His conduct put sponsorship dollars at risk. His conduct put recruits at risk which puts bowl revenue at risk. He brought negative press to the university that could impact enrollment which puts tuition and state funds at risk.
You can't compare him to the chair of the math department.
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Nov 18, 2011 5:14:33 GMT -6
The average person that gets arrested for DUI/DWI loses over 40% of their income for the year Huh? According to what?
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Nov 18, 2011 7:23:57 GMT -6
I think it is a bigger deal for a person in a particular position than it is for an ordinary citizen. Just like anything else. If your neighbor is on his deck smoking weed, you probably won't say too much about it, if your neighbor is the Mayor, HS principal, Chief of Police...that's entirely different. 300K is pretty steep, but just like I try to tell my kids, YOU have freedom of choice for your actions, but you have no say in the repricussions of those actions. No question about it, but is it fair? Part of me thinks it isn't.
|
|
lyons
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by lyons on Nov 18, 2011 7:52:02 GMT -6
As the coach of the university, he is probably preaching do the right thing everyday to his student-athletes. I bet a DWI is a violation of team rules for his players. I feel if they slap him on the wrist, what is that saying to his team. Just a thought
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Nov 18, 2011 7:56:41 GMT -6
I think it is a bigger deal for a person in a particular position than it is for an ordinary citizen. Just like anything else. If your neighbor is on his deck smoking weed, you probably won't say too much about it, if your neighbor is the Mayor, HS principal, Chief of Police...that's entirely different. 300K is pretty steep, but just like I try to tell my kids, YOU have freedom of choice for your actions, but you have no say in the repercussions of those actions. No question about it, but is it fair? Part of me thinks it isn't. If you want everyone treated fairly then move to a communist country. People in our positions are held to a greater level of responsibility. That's just the way it is. Should your punishment as a head football coach at your school for a DWI be the same as Mr. Dbag Math Teacher down the hall who got one two weeks earlier? Well if we are both teachers first and for most we are both gonna get punished the same in our district. On top of that you should be punished more since you are the leader of a group of young men. You have a higher level of responsibility than a math teacher down the hall. How many times do you think that coach told his kids "Don't be dumb enough to get behind the wheel when your drinking" Think they will listen to him any better now?
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Nov 18, 2011 8:35:30 GMT -6
No question about it, but is it fair? Part of me thinks it isn't. fair doesn't necessarily mean equal. different positions have different standards and expectations. different positions affect the image of the organization and/or the bottom line of the organization differently because of this, the consequences are different for different positions fair is that that they are each punished according to the standards, expectations, and impact of their position.
|
|
|
Post by insidethestripes on Nov 18, 2011 8:39:24 GMT -6
The average per capita income in the US is $39,945. While it may vary by state, I've read many times that a DUI/DWI conviction normally costs about $17,000 by the time all is said and done (bail, towing, lost wages, attorney fees, fines, license reinstatement fees, insurance increases, etc.). 17,000 / 39,945 = 42.6%
|
|
|
Post by blb on Nov 18, 2011 8:49:37 GMT -6
Buddy of mine got a DUI few years ago.
Lost his head football job and barely avoided bankruptcy.
Not a beer or Captain 'n Coke in the world worth that.
|
|
|
Post by gdoggwr on Nov 18, 2011 8:50:53 GMT -6
As others have said, he's NOT just some shmoe down the hall. Plus, 300K out of what most say 2.7 million plus a year isn't as severe as it sounds.
On another point. I don't want to even be mentioned in the same sentence as the DBAG math guy down the hall, so you're damn right I accept a greater amount of responsibility (and the consequences that go with them) for my actions.
|
|
|
Post by ajreaper on Nov 18, 2011 9:03:50 GMT -6
I find it a bit unsettling we view the seriousness of an offense based on who did it- impaired driving is extremely dangerous whether its the head coach of state U or Joe public. As the head football coach he is an employee of the state so does he deserve to be treated differently then any other employee of the state? Certainly I have no problem including social responsibility clauses within a contract but to "create" penalties based on who's guilty seems wrong in my opinion. PEOPLE make mistakes, PEOPLE do stupid things, and PEOPLE say stupid things- mistakes and stupid should not be placed on a sliding scale based on one status in life.
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Nov 18, 2011 9:26:54 GMT -6
I find it a bit unsettling we view the seriousness of an offense based on who did it- impaired driving is extremely dangerous whether its the head coach of state U or Joe public. As the head football coach he is an employee of the state so does he deserve to be treated differently then any other employee of the state? Certainly I have no problem including social responsibility clauses within a contract but to "create" penalties based on who's guilty seems wrong in my opinion. PEOPLE make mistakes, PEOPLE do stupid things, and PEOPLE say stupid things- mistakes and stupid should not be placed on a sliding scale based on one status in life. Exactly. That is my entire premise with posting this thread. I know it's reality that people in positions of power are treated differently, so you guys can stop telling me that. The point was to get discussion going on whether or not it was right that people in these positions get hammered on all fronts (legally, socially, by their employer) for making the same mistakes many others make and don't get any of that besides the legal aspect.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Nov 18, 2011 9:28:29 GMT -6
Is it fair? Does he deserve this?
Comes with the territory.
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Nov 18, 2011 9:47:21 GMT -6
He's going to lose less than 13% of his salary after the legal process plays out. The average person that gets arrested for DUI/DWI loses over 40% of their income for the year. His conduct put sponsorship dollars at risk. His conduct put recruits at risk which puts bowl revenue at risk. He brought negative press to the university that could impact enrollment which puts tuition and state funds at risk. You can't compare him to the chair of the math department. I think there are ALOT of variables in that figure.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Nov 18, 2011 9:49:54 GMT -6
this isn't about pinkel. this isn't about the head football coach.
this is about the university and how it is affected should the public have any reason to view it in a bad light. they come down hard because they don't want this type of behavior exhibited in the public, this isn't what they want to portray as their image. so, they try to make consequences either a deterrent (think the basketball coach is concerned about the thanksgiving social next weekend now?) and as a way to make the public (alumni, boosters, taxpayers, prospective advertisors, investors, and students) see that they don't condone nor tolerate this type of behavior.
so, it is less about who committed the crime but who he works for and how that entity (not individual) is affected once this occurs.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Nov 18, 2011 9:57:43 GMT -6
As the head football coach he is an employee of the state so does he deserve to be treated differently then any other employee of the state? see my post above. different positions within an organization have different standards, expectations, codes of conduct, etc. which means, they will be dealt with differently. much of it is perception, confidence, that safe-feeling we all get by knowing that those in charge are "doing what's right" and leading us. if the guy charged with cleaning the field house is going every other night & getting tanked at the bar & driving home it isn't as likely to discourage my "faith" in the university - in the way of its leadership, mission, direction.... if the president were doing the same thing, then i am likely to question his decision-making skills. i probably don't have much confidence in him - meaning i'm not likely to have much confidence in the university and "what it stands for."
|
|
|
Post by ajreaper on Nov 18, 2011 10:07:46 GMT -6
this isn't about pinkel. this isn't about the head football coach. this is about the university and how it is affected should the public have any reason to view it in a bad light. they come down hard because they don't want this type of behavior exhibited in the public, this isn't what they want to portray as their image. so, they try to make consequences either a deterrent (think the basketball coach is concerned about the thanksgiving social next weekend now?) and as a way to make the public (alumni, boosters, taxpayers, prospective advertisors, investors, and students) see that they don't condone nor tolerate this type of behavior. so, it is less about who committed the crime but who he works for and how that entity (not individual) is affected once this occurs. That is only a true statement if every other employee of the university has recieved similar penalties for similar transgressions and if these penalties are clearly communicated to all employees- otherwise its about who got caught and nothing more. If its about what behavior is absolutely unacceptable and will be dealt with in the strongest terms then I am sure these things are clearly stated in an employee handbook or during the oreintation new employees go through otherwise, again, its about who got caught. I have no issue with the penalty only with the frame of mind that says whats acceptable or unacceptable and the penalties for those transgressions is placed on a sliding scale based on who you are or what you do. Both the janitor and the head football coach can kill themselves and others while driving impaired.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Nov 18, 2011 10:21:58 GMT -6
this isn't about pinkel. this isn't about the head football coach. this is about the university and how it is affected should the public have any reason to view it in a bad light. they come down hard because they don't want this type of behavior exhibited in the public, this isn't what they want to portray as their image. so, they try to make consequences either a deterrent (think the basketball coach is concerned about the thanksgiving social next weekend now?) and as a way to make the public (alumni, boosters, taxpayers, prospective advertisors, investors, and students) see that they don't condone nor tolerate this type of behavior. so, it is less about who committed the crime but who he works for and how that entity (not individual) is affected once this occurs. That is only a true statement if every other employee of the university has recieved similar penalties for similar transgressions and if these penalties are clearly communicated to all employees- otherwise its about who got caught and nothing more. If its about what behavior is absolutely unacceptable and will be dealt with in the strongest terms then I am sure these things are clearly stated in an employee handbook or during the oreintation new employees go through otherwise, again, its about who got caught. I have no issue with the penalty only with the frame of mind that says whats acceptable or unacceptable and the penalties for those transgressions is placed on a sliding scale based on who you are or what you do. Both the janitor and the head football coach can kill themselves and others while driving impaired. so, sounds like you should be beeching about how the janitors and cafeteria workers are getting off easy rather than how hard the university came down on their head football coach. It is unfortunate that the public views things differently. it is unfortunate that the university will face much more scrutiny from the media, boosters, alumni, fan-base, student body, public when their head football coach does this than when the librarian does this. The university didn't create this 'problem'. They do, however, have to deal with it. They do have to act in such a manner that the public, fan base, alumni, boosters, student body, media deems "right" so they levy harsher penalties. Beech to the public hysteria & outcry that is the "American way". Don't hate the player, hate the game. Mizzou is merely acting in accordance to what they feel 'pressured' to do by how the rest of the world views them and their mission. They likely aren't getting this pressure when the assistant transportation director gets a DWI. Since there is less pressure, they may not take the same action - their image, the bottom line, wasn't affected as much. Right, wrong, fair, just... it is what it is and we all helped create it.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Nov 18, 2011 10:34:43 GMT -6
this isn't about pinkel. this isn't about the head football coach. this is about the university and how it is affected should the public have any reason to view it in a bad light. they come down hard because they don't want this type of behavior exhibited in the public, this isn't what they want to portray as their image. so, they try to make consequences either a deterrent (think the basketball coach is concerned about the thanksgiving social next weekend now?) and as a way to make the public (alumni, boosters, taxpayers, prospective advertisors, investors, and students) see that they don't condone nor tolerate this type of behavior. so, it is less about who committed the crime but who he works for and how that entity (not individual) is affected once this occurs. I think your second statement contradicts the first. I certainly agree that the university is (correctly) protecting its public image. That's why I disagree that it has nothing to do with the fact that it's Pinkel. Coach Pinkel is the public face of Missouri Football. For most people around the country all that we know about The University is Missouri Football. Off the top of my head I couldn't tell you what city it's in. I have no clue how good their physics or their math or their drama departments are. How beautiful is the campus? Might be Emerald City for ll I know. Not that those things aren't important but I live in Virginia and have no particular need to know much about the University of Missouri. I do watch football, though, so I know about Coach Pinkel. He's the only employee of the school that I can name. When a biology professor gets arrested he embarrasses himself and, to some extent, the University locally. When the Face of The University gets arrested it embarrasses the school all over the country. The cliche is true: THAT'S what the big bucks are for. TMZ doesn't follow character actors around.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Nov 18, 2011 10:39:31 GMT -6
I just double checked for the "Life's Fair" clause on my birth certificate; it's still not there. There's a huge issue in this country and it's a serious case of the "it's not fair". Now, Mr. Pinkel and his representative from the Millionaire Coach's Union Chapter 126 can raise an objection to the fact that they were treated harshly in comparison to the drunken janitor. I'm pretty sure no one is going to give a sh-t. "With Great Money Comes Great Public Scrutiny and Less Room To Screw Up."
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Nov 18, 2011 10:47:46 GMT -6
the public face of Missouri Football. I stand by my statement ... it's about this ^^^^^ (and the university as a whole) Now, we can get into semantics here, but the bottom line is that if an employee that is viewed as the public face (and there are more than just 1 at each) does something to negatively affect that public view then they will face harsh consequences.
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Nov 18, 2011 10:58:50 GMT -6
There have been a few that missed the point of this thread.
I'm not arguing that life isn't fair, we all know it's not. Gary Pinkel knows life isn't fair and is taking his medicine. He's not going to challenge what has been thrown at him.
What I'm saying is there are many who say, "coaches should be treated like every other citizen and should not be allowed to get away with things others do not", yet on the flip side of that why should we not be treated like every other citizen when it comes to punishment?
It's a philosophical question that forces us to look deeper into our roles as coaches.
|
|
|
Post by ajreaper on Nov 18, 2011 11:00:13 GMT -6
No one else finds it ironic that the university has a "Social responsibility" clause that apparently only applies to those whose profile is great enough to give us bad press? I mean is that really about being socially responsible or being about not wanting us to look bad publically?
Beat your wife or kids and we'll not have an issue here with it UNLESS it gives us some bad press. Got a thing for promoting Neo- Nazi ideas and beliefs in your off duty hours, well we are all about free speech, unless it gives us a problem with the press.
Its institutional hypocrisy and we do accept it almost without question in fact many of us defend it. Whatever happened to right is right and wrong is wrong and regardless of your station in life those things hold true and the consequences do not change either way? Just food for thought. This would be a great debate over wings and a few adult beverages (and I ain't driving).
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Nov 18, 2011 11:27:34 GMT -6
No one else finds it ironic that the university has a "Social responsibility" clause that apparently only applies to those whose profile is great enough to give us bad press? I mean is that really about being socially responsible or being about not wanting us to look bad publically? Beat your wife or kids and we'll not have an issue here with it UNLESS it gives us some bad press. Got a thing for promoting Neo- Nazi ideas and beliefs in your off duty hours, well we are all about free speech, unless it gives us a problem with the press. Its institutional hypocrisy and we do accept it almost without question in fact many of us defend it. Whatever happened to right is right and wrong is wrong and regardless of your station in life those things hold true and the consequences do not change either way? Just food for thought. This would be a great debate over wings and a few adult beverages (and I ain't driving). Where would it stop? Who gets to decide what's right and wrong? Sometimes it's obvious but how far do you go? Yesterday I read that a teacher in Illinois got suspended for showing clips from Jon Stewart's Daily Show in class. I love The Daily Show but I think if you've eveb watched it you realize that showing it in class may cause problems. I have no problem with the suspension. When I read the comments after the article, though, it was obvious that some people don't think that ANYBODY should watch The Daily Show anytime, anywhere. Behavior only becomes the employer's business when it affects his job. If it hurts the business they have a right to do something about it. If I get a tatoo on my a$$ it's nobody's business but mine. If I drop my pants in class to show it to my kids it becomes the schools business.
|
|