|
Post by cqmiller on Jul 12, 2006 14:25:54 GMT -6
When you speak w/the parents about this decision, make sure your coaching staff is present (and in agreeance w/you) and, if necessary, have your principal w/you. (I had a similar situation occur to me when I coached and the above is what I did. My principal at the time backed me 100% and was present during my meeting w/the parents and students; it helped that he was a former football coach. Also, as a school administrator myself, at the present, I would back my coach in such a situation.) I agree, but I have seen MANY principals NOT back-up the coach in situations like that...I have seen MANY cave-in, and tell the coach he has to play the players....just what I've observed in my past experiences.
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jul 12, 2006 14:46:26 GMT -6
I always laugh when I hear about coaches and their rules...
Too many rules makes your life difficult, because you have to address said infractions...
Hence, I am from the school of the 1 rule... and that rule is...
"Don't embarass your family, your team, and most importatly, yourself!"
So, when a tough situation such as this is encountered... I go to the rule... how much time in advance did they give me... is it legitimate... if the answers fit... I don't acquit... however, if it smells fishy... I get tough.
And more importantly coaches... we have to change our perceptions... WE are not doing anything to the kids or the team...
The kids... based on their decisions and actions, determine what happens to the teams.... we are smiply translators of their action.... its nothing personal... its simply the rules.
But I'm just sayin'
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 12, 2006 14:56:52 GMT -6
I think some important points in this discussion need to be restated. Lots of coaches here are crapping on the players very quickly. We need to keep in mind that IT MIGHT NOT really be their "choice". The error I can see in the Sr. is simply one of not saying (at the time) "Golly gee, (do kids say golly gee anymore) DR. _________. That sounds great. However, i can't do that. I made a commitment to this team way back then. " That said, it is also important to realize two tings. ONE. The kid is 17, and at 17 girl thingy cats (if you get my drift) is UNDEFEATED. No contract, no team goal, no slogan on a t-shirt will ever beat them. TWO, I can completely see the Sr. in question making some type of response as I typed above, and having the PARENTS in this situation say. "Don't you worry about that, we will take care of this...etc etc." Again, I thank Bluto for bringing this up. I think I would use this EXACT example at any parents meeting I would have. Bring out, IN PUBLIC an example of something that seems SO ASSININE to the public, but seems quite acceptable to the people involved (the week long vacation). I truly believe that if this example was used at a parents meeting (maybe not next years, since the JR.'s dad will still be there...and that could be a bad thing, but at any of our meetings), It would lay the groundwork for any future actions like this. People seem to always just see the idiots around them..not idiot within them. To quote George Carlin "ever notice all of the drivers going slower than you are ____holes, and all the ones going faster are mainiacs" Another thing I found in dealing with groups that try to submarine your authority is to get them all out in the open together. Sounds simplistic, but discussing how this affects EVERYONE to EVERYONE often helps those see it in a different light. Had a situation one time (college coaching) where on of my players thought I was "screwing him" because he wasn't starting. This festered a bit, and since nowadays nobody takes a stand against their friends, the players agreed with him. UNTIL..that is..i had all of the players at that position meet up together. I confronted the player..told him I was glad he thought he should play, but didnt like the manner with which he was handling his dissapointment. Then I told some of the othre players "If I am screwing Billy by not playing him. I should stop that. Who should he start in front of? Chad...should he start in front of you... Ernie, should he start in front of you? Danny, should he start in front of you?" You could see the lights turn on. Chad, Ernie, and Danny...each of who had told Billy that "yeah, coach sucks, he is screwing you" NOW saw the situation from another point of view. You could see that as friends, they really agreed with Billy, that he was being screwed. HOWEVER once they looked at the situation as a PLAYER, and it was presented to them as PLAYERS... They turned to Billy and say.."Coach ain'tscrewing you Billy."
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Jul 12, 2006 14:56:58 GMT -6
I agree, but I have seen MANY principals NOT back-up the coach in situations like that...I have seen MANY cave-in, and tell the coach he has to play the players....just what I've observed in my past experiences. ... shouldn't be a problem since I am the principal. CQ- what I mean is the dad doesn't care about when we start- he is making sure that he and his family (and surrogate family) are at the wedding (really early).
I will be honest here... a primary motivation here IS to help us WIN... and I firmly believe that you WIN by doing the right thing regardless of who it is. I honestly think we have a better season (albeit with a week 1 loss) if they SIT as opposed to if they play.
This is still a gray area to me (administrator really means no spine, I guess)... we have a kid who has missed all of June conditioning. He missed team camp, and just showed up a week ago. No way he will make his 80% (which gets you out of the 12 min. run- every day at the end of practice until first pre-game practice). Of course, he was with dad in Nevada (parents are divorced), so I'm giving him a way to recover missed days so he has the OPPORTUNITY to avoid the 12 min. run. And this kid will MAYBE play on the varsity KOR team and that's it. So I punish the starters and not the 3rd stringer? I know- not the same- conditioning is not practice.
I want to send a message that this (the "wedding incident") is not acceptable... However, I do not want to spite the dad by punishing the kid(s), and that is where I'm having trouble here- both players want to change travel plans (or not go)... dad says "no way".
... and re: the 3 unexcused rule- we have it too (see earlier post)- 1 miss (unex.) = 1 game, 2= 2 games, 3 = done. My question is whether or not to excuse these. Their reasons for missing fit our criteria for excused- 1. done before the practice, 2. family (#2) > football (#4) (OK for the JR anyway)... the problem is the amount of days is excessive... and most of you agree with that.
I do appreciate everyone's involvement... it is making me think some things through. If nothing else, it made me realize I need to add this to our parent handbook:
"Student athletes involved in football must participate in eleven (11) days of state sanctioned practice before they can play in a game".
But specifically written out or not- some parents still ignore it and then go screaming off to the board/admin.... and some boards buy it.
Truth is, I know this dad pretty well, and I'm hoping things go well on when we talk Friday... now is not the time... it's not 3rd and 2 with 40 seconds left... it's an August problem we are trying to solve in July... so at least impetuousness on my part should not be an issue.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 12, 2006 15:05:58 GMT -6
Bluto
In a perfect world, you could have that meeting on Friday with the dad....AND the Dad of the back up. That way, the Dad of the back up could say "Umm..Doc. Your kid (and surrage kid) will be missing a week of practice on vacation. My kid will be going through camp.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Jul 12, 2006 16:14:17 GMT -6
Bluto
In a perfect world, you could have that meeting on Friday with the dad....AND the Dad of the back up. That way, the Dad of the back up could say "Umm..Doc. Your kid (and surrage kid) will be missing a week of practice on vacation. My kid will be going through camp.
Great idea!
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 12, 2006 17:09:55 GMT -6
Eh, like I said, it is a perfect world solution. I dont know if in the real world, it is a great idea to try and "turn the parents against each other"...BUT IT SURE AS HELL beats them turning against YOU.
I feel for you. After the Storm (Katrina) screwed up our season last year, you start to view things a bit differently. Priorities start to adjust...etc. NOt just mine, as a coach, but players and parents. Unfortunately, it is being used as a crutch down here now. "Because of Katrina...." prefaces more assinine statments than I have ever seen, yet those words seem to (in the mind of the statement maker) justify whatever is said.
Something tells me (and I bet you) that deep down, this is 99% a PARENT thing, and only 1% a kid thing.
|
|
|
Post by coachchad on Jul 12, 2006 22:20:00 GMT -6
I don't think I will offer any new ideas here, other than giving my assessment of everything people have said and offer an opinion.
Philosophy wise, I do think that whether a kid is a starter or not should not affect your decision. I understand the argument about hurting the rest of the team. If that is to be considered, then I think the pre-established rules should say work has to be made up by the individuals, and then you regain your status with the team. This way missing playing time will and hurting the kids argument won't come up. However, I don't think that should be the case if you wouldn't offer the same deal to a lesser player. That would be being inconsistent based on ability which I don't believe is right in my opinion.
While being consistent is important, I think different players fall into different circumstances sometimes. Before you think I am contradicting myself, let me explain. If there were two kids that commit the same offense, but one of them has never done anything wrong and the other has been punished other times for various things, then I think the individual's situation can come into play with the punishment. They don't have to necessarily get the same punishment in those type of circumstances. Since you said these kids haven't missed anything during the summer and they have not been problems before, I think that is something to consider (although I am not saying they shouldn't have consequences).
I think it is a good idea that the players know beforehand that whether it is a good reason or not, they have to make up work when they miss things that others are doing. Even for the wedding of the kid's sister, if we are having two-a-days, I would give him my full blessing to go, but he would still have some make-up work to do. I think having this type of policy makes the punishment seem as just keeping up with the team rather than deciding if it is a good or bad excuse. If this isn't the policy already laid down, then this might be harder to enforce.
Last thing, I don't think the fact that the kids are going to the beach should be a factor at all. I understand why that would upset a coach or other players but the point is that they are missing practice, not where they are for the wedding. If they were sitting in north dakota, it shouldn't matter.
I do think the kid whose sister is getting married can't really be blamed to much for the family booking this deal all together. Of course you would like to see them consider the practice and other things, but the kid really doesn't have much choice. He is still missing work though, and I think he should make it up somehow. The other guy doesn't have as much excuse, and if anybody is missing a game, it would be him.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jul 13, 2006 4:20:53 GMT -6
Borphy-
Zephram Cochrane "SWEET JESUS"!!!
"First Contact" rules...
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Jul 13, 2006 6:18:36 GMT -6
Just currious as to how far away this wedding is from your town? I see alot of people saying day before, day of, day after. Just wondering if that is possible for them to do.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Jul 13, 2006 8:10:38 GMT -6
Just currious as to how far away this wedding is from your town? 1605 mi. according to mapquest. With the nearest national airport 200 mi. from here, I have no problem accepting Thurs. as a travel day (Fri. rehearsal, Sat. wedding).
Anyway, after meeting with captains again this AM... they had some good ideas. While this is in no way finalized, we are getting somewhere.
One thing I really get from this situation... I had thought I needed to have very specific rules in our handbook (x days for wedding, x days for funeral, etc.)... I do think that's overkill. We can handle this within our system that has been in place forever, and I don't want to add in a lot of additional rules that will clutter future situations more. My big dilemma in this whole thing has been "Do I excuse/justify/accept this or not?" Situations like this are hard to qualify- and the best thing you can do is get input (our staff, our captains and guys on the board here) and consider the interests of 1. the program, 2. the team 3. the players- in that order.
In some ways, I wish we had a "black and white" standard policy that is specific to this. However, when you get down to it, though it is more difficult to make a decision based on all of the variables rather than an inflexible policy- and the decision has the potential to be disasterous... it also has the potential to do much more good for our program/team players if we have some flexibility.
|
|
|
Post by ttowntiger on Jul 13, 2006 9:10:39 GMT -6
Sounds to me like these kids, and especially their parents, are tryingto severly take advantage of this situation. To me, you have no choice but to sit them. I believe in working with people if they are reasonable. But this is totally unreasonable for them to be gone that long. Tell me, did they ask you about first so you could try and work out something reasonable or did they just say, "We're going."? Trust me, interest in this DI prospect will go way down if he actually does this. You will have no choice but to be honest when asked about his work ethic and attitude. Explain that to he and his parents. But DI or not, everyone has to put in the work to play. From what you say about their parents, I can see where the attitude comes from. If they go through with this though and the consequences aren't svere enough, you will lose your team. the season will be over before it starts.
|
|
|
Post by ttowntiger on Jul 13, 2006 9:13:00 GMT -6
If the principal tries to force you to play them, I would threaten resignation. I think you would get a lot of backup from the other parents and most of the community. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES GIVE IN!
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 13, 2006 9:14:23 GMT -6
Haha...towntiger...you gotta read the entire thread. Bluto IS the principal!
Also Ttiger... I gotta say that you picked up a different "vibe" than I did. I don't think the kids are trying to "take advantage" of any situation here. They are simply 17 year olds, who have to answer to adults
If anything, I would say the person taking advantage is the Dad making the plans. From reading this thread, it sounds like he is one of those "I am gonna get my way" types.
|
|
|
Post by ttowntiger on Jul 13, 2006 9:23:32 GMT -6
Sorry! I shouldn't have skimmed it so quickly. Still, he needs to get the dads in and explain that that "no practice, no play." And explain to the DI prospect dad that if his son doesn't come to practice, his chances of getting a scholarship will be sverly damaged. And still, don't give in to any higher authorities like the superintendant if they try to push him around. Hopefully, they won't.
|
|
|
Post by optionguy on Jul 13, 2006 9:54:07 GMT -6
When you speak w/the parents about this decision, make sure your coaching staff is present (and in agreeance w/you) and, if necessary, have your principal w/you. (I had a similar situation occur to me when I coached and the above is what I did. My principal at the time backed me 100% and was present during my meeting w/the parents and students; it helped that he was a former football coach. Also, as a school administrator myself, at the present, I would back my coach in such a situation.) I agree, but I have seen MANY principals NOT back-up the coach in situations like that...I have seen MANY cave-in, and tell the coach he has to play the players....just what I've observed in my past experiences. You're right CQ. Many principals would not do this, and I have coached and ADed for such principals. Nonetheless, in such a situation, the coach needs to make sure his principal is, at least , aware of the situation. As an administrator myself, I will back my coaches and teachers fully (unless they do something illegal, immoral, or unethical). If they are wrong (but not illegal, etc.), I will back them 100%, but we will have a "private discussion" about the matter.
|
|
|
Post by optionguy on Jul 13, 2006 10:01:39 GMT -6
Bluto
In a perfect world, you could have that meeting on Friday with the dad....AND the Dad of the back up. That way, the Dad of the back up could say "Umm..Doc. Your kid (and surrage kid) will be missing a week of practice on vacation. My kid will be going through camp. Great idea! It is a good idea, but it probably violates confidentiality policies, not to mention it probably violates FERPA, a federal law about privacy in education. Off the top of my head, I don't know if FERPA applies to extracurricular activities, but to be safe, I never discuss a student/athlete's performance with other parents.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 13, 2006 10:54:24 GMT -6
You must be willing to lose in order to have discipline.
If you don't have discipline, you're going to lose any way.
You must be fair in order to maintain morale. The status of a player in question cannot alter the consequences.
|
|
|
Post by tye2021 on Jul 13, 2006 12:05:56 GMT -6
I could see both sides of this argument.
As a player: As a kid I missed summer practices at the end of my Frosh year and JR year. Because my mom lived out of state. And because we all agree that FAMILY comes before football, there was no way I wasn't going to visit my mother period! The coaches and the players on the team understood my situation so I wasn't punished for spending time with my family (2 weeks). HOWEVER, it was made clear that I would lose my starting spot when I got back because I would be behind, and playing catch up as far as learning the system (2 new offenses that year, too long to explain!) Though, I wasn't the starting RB upon my return my coaches gave me the oppertunity to WIN my starting spot back. I had to work hard during practice to learned the system and i had to work even harder after practice to get back into FOOTBALL shape. hitting wasn't an issue because we couldn't hit until a couple of weeks before school started
My opinion is if the kid comes back and bust his but too get into shape, learn the system and understand his responsibilites, you sit him because he is NOT prepared, you don't sit him for spending time with family.
As a coach:
If you have team rules in place, and they have been made clear to the players and their parents, you MUST stick to those rules. If you change the rules for one player you NO LONGER HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON with the other players on your team. If your rules states that a missed practice equals a missed game....they miss a game.
Its ARROGANT for any coach to expect parents to schedule their family life around your team schedule and rules. BUT, its not UNREASONABLE to hold players responsible for decisions made by their parents that will ultimately affect the team.
Good luck coach!
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 13, 2006 12:57:12 GMT -6
option...just to be argumentative...I don't see how it violates ANYTHING. It will be COMMON KNOWLEDGE that the child isn't at practice. You aren't discussing anything other than his attendance.
Now, as to the common reply "win the job back" that many (including myself) have stated, I think that is a bit too theoretical. Especially considering the Sentator has stated that he is at a small school, and the kid is a D1 prospect. Chances are he would "win the job back" on performance with one of his legs in a cast. That is just the nature of small school football. WORLD of difference from the haves and have nots.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 13, 2006 14:39:10 GMT -6
Both athletes have the opportunity to compromise between attending the wedding and making it to practice- yet they are CHOOSING to spend the week on a vacation. This isn't a custody situation that they have no control over- they are making a choice to screw off while everyone else is working hard for the team and the program. They both need to be held accountable for their actions, as they are detrimental to the team and the program.
I will always place team discipline and player accountability over winning, even if it gurantees me a loss or even a losing record. There are a lot of kids that aren't spending two-a-days in a beach house- do whats equitable for them.
|
|
|
Post by ttowntiger on Jul 16, 2006 20:51:33 GMT -6
You must be willing to lose in order to have discipline. If you don't have discipline, you're going to lose any way. You must be fair in order to maintain morale. The status of a player in question cannot alter the consequences. Amen Coach!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2006 7:46:15 GMT -6
I guess I think about the senior who, as you said, doesn't have a lot, is dating the hot, rich girl, and maybe doesn't care about going so much. So I think he is waiting and maybe EXPECTING you to put your foot down on it--that gives him an Out without being the bad guy to the girl or her family. "Baby, you know I want to go but coach says that I can't." Even if he's pleased as punch that you said no, he'll avoid all trouble with the girl because right now he can't tell her "I can't go. It's more important for me to stay with the team for that week." I really think he's waiting for your decision to bail him out a bit.
And if the good doctor tries to stick his nose in about the senior, then I think you can jump back to the FERPA idea. That doctor has no business discussing another student's social engagements and/or punishments, unless of course he is willing to consult with you on his patients.
As for the junior and brother of the bride, it sounds like it's one of those perfect situations--the trip is planned and far away so he can't just scoot back to town after the wedding so he's got the built-in excuse whether he wants to be there or not. But just because everything is so planned that coming back isn't a real viable option for him (distance, dad, etc.) doesn't mean that it's okay. Fine. You could excuse him for that time, but I'm sure your Excused absences carry some conditioning with them, and team rules that discuss absences should be observed.
Easier said than done.
|
|
|
Post by chiefscoach on Jul 17, 2006 8:01:47 GMT -6
I think some important points in this discussion need to be restated. Lots of coaches here are crapping on the players very quickly. We need to keep in mind that IT MIGHT NOT really be their "choice". The error I can see in the Sr. is simply one of not saying (at the time) "Golly gee, (do kids say golly gee anymore) DR. _________. That sounds great. However, i can't do that. I made a commitment to this team way back then. " That said, it is also important to realize two tings. ONE. The kid is 17, and at 17 girl thingy cats (if you get my drift) is UNDEFEATED. No contract, no team goal, no slogan on a t-shirt will ever beat them. TWO, I can completely see the Sr. in question making some type of response as I typed above, and having the PARENTS in this situation say. "Don't you worry about that, we will take care of this...etc etc." Again, I thank Bluto for bringing this up. I think I would use this EXACT example at any parents meeting I would have. Bring out, IN PUBLIC an example of something that seems SO ASSININE to the public, but seems quite acceptable to the people involved (the week long vacation). I truly believe that if this example was used at a parents meeting (maybe not next years, since the JR.'s dad will still be there...and that could be a bad thing, but at any of our meetings), It would lay the groundwork for any future actions like this. People seem to always just see the idiots around them..not idiot within them. To quote George Carlin "ever notice all of the drivers going slower than you are ____holes, and all the ones going faster are mainiacs" Another thing I found in dealing with groups that try to submarine your authority is to get them all out in the open together. Sounds simplistic, but discussing how this affects EVERYONE to EVERYONE often helps those see it in a different light. Had a situation one time (college coaching) where on of my players thought I was "screwing him" because he wasn't starting. This festered a bit, and since nowadays nobody takes a stand against their friends, the players agreed with him. UNTIL..that is..i had all of the players at that position meet up together. I confronted the player..told him I was glad he thought he should play, but didnt like the manner with which he was handling his dissapointment. Then I told some of the othre players "If I am screwing Billy by not playing him. I should stop that. Who should he start in front of? Chad...should he start in front of you... Ernie, should he start in front of you? Danny, should he start in front of you?" You could see the lights turn on. Chad, Ernie, and Danny...each of who had told Billy that "yeah, coach sucks, he is screwing you" NOW saw the situation from another point of view. You could see that as friends, they really agreed with Billy, that he was being screwed. HOWEVER once they looked at the situation as a PLAYER, and it was presented to them as PLAYERS... They turned to Billy and say.."Coach ain'tscrewing you Billy." I think this misses the point. The reason why the SR. for sure and possibly the Junior should be benched for at least the first game is because they are missing practice therefore are not on the same page as the team and honestly will probably not be in shape to play an entire football game. So, the fact that it's not their Choice makes no difference. And just because most teens are going to cave into a girl like you stated I hope I can instill a little more character in my kids/players than that.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Jul 17, 2006 10:13:38 GMT -6
An update for those that are curious: As it stands now, the captains recommended that these guys could play IF they make up all of the missed conditioning before our pre-game practice. Eleven days worth of conditioning in 5 days… possible, but pretty dang tough (this in addition to normal conditioning). That has been our policy on any miss (making up a test, sick, funeral, etc.). The junior is still planning to go. I support his decision to attend his sister’s wedding, though I still think he is taking 3 vacation days along with the trip- but tickets have been bought, the trip has been arranged by his dad… so he really has no choice. Depending on whose viewpoint, the fortunate/unfortunate thing is that this kid is really being pushed at cornerback. He will likely not start on offense anyway… and now a sophomore and freshman (the freshman is as good an athlete as the senior in this little scenario is) will probably play over him in the first game (the freshman may have him beaten out right now through camp and 7 on 7… it’s close anyway). The senior now says he is not going. Irishblitzer … I think you hit it RIGHT ON. I can always count on the Montana guys. I just told him that after “discussing” this with other coaches, most felt that he should not play. I also told him that while having a week off might be fun, I can’t see the trip being worth $90,000 (approx. price-tag on a full-ride). I tried to get this across: without any practice he will be one of the best players in our class in the state. With practice, he might be the best in our class and one of the best in the state. Finally, the biggest thing I told him is that his presence at practice makes the team better. Without him there, the team suffers. That is not the sign of a captain. If it is unavoidable, then we pull together for you. If not, then we have to pull together in spite of you…and if we have to do anything in-spite of you- you are not captain material. He does not want to miss any game time… and I think more importantly to him, he did not want to be removed as a captain. He seemed mad at me last Friday, but today, he was his usual self. He even stayed after conditioning to be a spotter for me during my workout (which, given my workouts, is “chat time”), so I think all must be well with the “other half”. Kids (people) will do some dumb things… but they are not really stupid. As far as our rules go, I know a few coaches here have questioned them… I may add in a minimum practice clause, but overall, all of this was- and can continue to be handled by our current system. I do not like to have a lot of restrictive rules that back me in to a corner. The only issue here is what do I accept as reasonable- I was told ahead of time, and it is a family issue, so the reason is valid. The amount of time is the only problem, as I find it to be excessive. As it is, I am still not happy about all this (and still wonder what the senior was thinking… or thinking with, to get in this mess in the first place), but I find the stipulations to be acceptable at least. Dad of the junior agrees- even when I told him it is very likely his son will get beat out, he thinks what we are doing is fair… so I’ll live with this decision. By the way re: FERPA and confidentiality… I kind of laugh…no such thing as confidentiality in a town this size. People know what someone does before they do it here…
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Jul 17, 2006 10:14:53 GMT -6
By the way, thanks for all the input...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2006 12:47:57 GMT -6
Hope it all works out.
|
|
eagled
Freshmen Member
Posts: 57
|
Post by eagled on Jul 18, 2006 1:25:01 GMT -6
Senator,
One of the best threads I have read in a long time. Lots of food for thought. Congratulations on the way you have handled the situation. There's lots of ways this whole thing could have gone down, but it looks to me like common sense won out in the end. I agree about not having to have a special rule to cover anything that might happen.
It sounds that the discussion with the junior's dad turned out OK. I think the junior might enjoy his vacation a little less knowing that other players have a great opportunity to bet better and take his place. Good luck this season.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Jul 18, 2006 8:51:38 GMT -6
Thanks eagle, irish and others.
Good luck this season. Thanks. We will need it.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 18, 2006 10:31:21 GMT -6
Truth be told bluto- I think you have a great kid in that senior. It sounds like the decision he made wasn't just based on his ego, but on the team and its continuity. I have coached a lot of kids who would have told me to go screw myself and then drag the administration into the situation. It sounds like you have a great program going, one that develops men from boys. Good luck with the situation.
|
|