|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Aug 4, 2018 14:57:30 GMT -6
Without going into the drama aspects, moral aspects, duty aspects or legal aspects of what is going on at OSU, I think something that most can take away from the situation is to NOT LIE.
I really believe this situation would be a bit different if on media day, Meyer would have simply said "I am not commenting on that" or some variation.
|
|
|
|
Post by blb on Aug 4, 2018 15:10:25 GMT -6
Without going into the drama aspects, moral aspects, duty aspects or legal aspects of what is going on at OSU, I think something that most can take away from the situation is to NOT LIE. I really believe this situation would be a bit different if on media day, Meyer would have simply said "I am not commenting on that" or some variation.
Yes, or better yet -
He heard about it, sent it up the chain of command, but no charges were filed so he had no grounds to fire Smith.
At Big Ten Media Day he didn't want to have to defend having an assistant who had faced allegations of spousal abuse twice and then had to fire him for violating a PPO.
And the reason he kept said assistant on staff was because he was grandson of his mentor, Earle Bruce.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Aug 4, 2018 15:20:46 GMT -6
Without going into the drama aspects, moral aspects, duty aspects or legal aspects of what is going on at OSU, I think something that most can take away from the situation is to NOT LIE. I really believe this situation would be a bit different if on media day, Meyer would have simply said "I am not commenting on that" or some variation.
Yes, or better yet -
He heard about it, sent it up the chain of command, but no charges were filed so he had no grounds to fire Smith.
At Big Ten Media Day he didn't want to have to defend having an assistant who had faced allegations of spousal abuse twice and then had to fire him for violating a PPO.
And the reason he kept said assistant on staff was because he was grandson of his mentor, Earle Bruce.
I really didn't want to start a speculation as to why meyer made any of his choices, because not everyone knows all of the facts. My point was simply that the easily busted lie created the frenzy. |
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Aug 4, 2018 18:45:56 GMT -6
My dad was in public service. When I got into coaching he told me don’t pick fights with men who buy their paper by the ton and their ink by the gallon. Sometimes the best comment is no comment.
|
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Aug 4, 2018 20:07:51 GMT -6
Why should he start telling the truth over this?
|
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Aug 5, 2018 5:55:00 GMT -6
Try to keep this focused less on him, more on the PR and media relations side of coaching please.
|
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Aug 5, 2018 5:59:50 GMT -6
Try to keep this focused less on him, more on the PR and media relations side of coaching please. Agree. |
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Aug 5, 2018 8:15:45 GMT -6
I understand the message and won't go further than this, but in my mind, this situation isn't anything about coaching. It's about people and their character. And the individual involved in it has frequently engaged in this type behavior.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Aug 5, 2018 8:36:34 GMT -6
I know the focus isn’t supposed to be on the individual coach so I will say this. It’s amazing how detailed and calculated and well thought ahead some coaches are. It’s what makes them successful. It is interesting that some of these finely detailed coaches when off script and in situations they can’t control. It’s becoming an on-the-record world so I imagine coaches at all levels will need start planning for non-football related issues in the same way they approach the game. As the op suggested “no comment” on a question that hasn’t been prepared for may be the optimal answer. I wonder if some coaches have something in them at instinctually feels they have to have an answer so they respond without realizing the damage the weight of their words. When they are on the spot in a game it is rare that they are surprised but their responses are swift and protects them and the same reactionary approach with situations outside of the game has an opposite effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Aug 5, 2018 8:50:34 GMT -6
I would have to imagine that someone within the OSU empire knew that this story was in the pipeline. I can't believe that someone from the PR department didn't give Meyer a head's up..."Hey Coach, you might get asked a question about Zach Smith's history of domestic abuse. If you get asked that question, you need to direct all comments to the athletic department."
I think the bigger question is, why would Meyer (or ANY highly successful coach) want to have someone like this on his staff? Smith was a wide receiver coach or something? And followed Meyer to tOSU from Florida? There are tens of thousands of good coaches who don't beat their wives who would jump at the chance to work for Meyer. Why would a successful head coach want to drag around a relatively insignificant guy who has so much bad history? I get that Smith was something of tOSU royalty but did Meyer really need that, coming in? I don't think so.
That's the part that doesn't make sense to me. From a purely selfish viewpoint, what upsides were there to Meyer keeping Smith on staff all these years that cancelled out all of Smith's considerable downsides?
|
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Aug 5, 2018 9:17:01 GMT -6
I would have to imagine that someone within the OSU empire knew that this story was in the pipeline. I can't believe that someone from the PR department didn't give Meyer a head's up..."Hey Coach, you might get asked a question about Zach Smith's history of domestic abuse. If you get asked that question, you need to direct all comments to the athletic department." I think the bigger question is, why would Meyer (or ANY highly successful coach) want to have someone like this on his staff? Smith was a wide receiver coach or something? And followed Meyer to tOSU from Florida? There are tens of thousands of good coaches who don't beat their wives who would jump at the chance to work for Meyer. Why would a successful head coach want to drag around a relatively insignificant guy who has so much bad history? I get that Smith was something of tOSU royalty but did Meyer really need that, coming in? I don't think so. That's the part that doesn't make sense to me. From a purely selfish viewpoint, what upsides were there to Meyer keeping Smith on staff all these years that cancelled out all of Smith's considerable downsides? Coaching is who you know...unfortunately Yes. I get that. Initially, Meyer probably needed whatever talent, skill, or knowledge Smith could provide. But, as Meyer's star rose, the necessity of keeping a guy like Smith around had to be significantly diminished. Again...we are not talking about some football guru or even an offensive or defensive coordinator. We are talking about a wide receivers coach. From my position, it looks like Smith got WAY more out of the relationship than Meyer ever did. That's what doesn't make sense to me. |
|
|
|
Post by bleefb on Aug 5, 2018 9:33:05 GMT -6
You don't know what Smith's "unofficial duties" might have been.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Aug 5, 2018 11:13:30 GMT -6
I would have to imagine that someone within the OSU empire knew that this story was in the pipeline. I can't believe that someone from the PR department didn't give Meyer a head's up..."Hey Coach, you might get asked a question about Zach Smith's history of domestic abuse. If you get asked that question, you need to direct all comments to the athletic department." I think the bigger question is, why would Meyer (or ANY highly successful coach) want to have someone like this on his staff? Smith was a wide receiver coach or something? And followed Meyer to tOSU from Florida? There are tens of thousands of good coaches who don't beat their wives who would jump at the chance to work for Meyer. Why would a successful head coach want to drag around a relatively insignificant guy who has so much bad history? I get that Smith was something of tOSU royalty but did Meyer really need that, coming in? I don't think so. That's the part that doesn't make sense to me. From a purely selfish viewpoint, what upsides were there to Meyer keeping Smith on staff all these years that cancelled out all of Smith's considerable downsides? I don't think anyone has enough details to discuss that matter. I DO think it shows a reason why it might benefit people up top to keep an arms length position away, and as @grad17 points out, working with family/pseduo family has the potential for awkwardness. That said, regardless of all the speculation, the take away is still not to lie. If you have knowledge of something and simply don't want to share it, state "No Comment" to the media, or "I am not comfortable talking about that, or I am not in a position to say anything about that" if it is someone else. Don't say "I don't know". This comes up more often than one would think in a school setting. |
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Aug 5, 2018 11:24:18 GMT -6
I would have to imagine that someone within the OSU empire knew that this story was in the pipeline. I can't believe that someone from the PR department didn't give Meyer a head's up..."Hey Coach, you might get asked a question about Zach Smith's history of domestic abuse. If you get asked that question, you need to direct all comments to the athletic department." I think the bigger question is, why would Meyer (or ANY highly successful coach) want to have someone like this on his staff? Smith was a wide receiver coach or something? And followed Meyer to tOSU from Florida? There are tens of thousands of good coaches who don't beat their wives who would jump at the chance to work for Meyer. Why would a successful head coach want to drag around a relatively insignificant guy who has so much bad history? I get that Smith was something of tOSU royalty but did Meyer really need that, coming in? I don't think so. That's the part that doesn't make sense to me. From a purely selfish viewpoint, what upsides were there to Meyer keeping Smith on staff all these years that cancelled out all of Smith's considerable downsides? I think maybe it comes down to the personal relation and the built in biases. You want to trust and believe in the people that you love. It’s hard to separate from those in our closest circles. Also there might be an intentional ignorance to the harm to protect the innocent in the organization. On top of this there might be trying to protect the self from accepting that you have made a decision to hire a person that has harmed others so at the very least it seems to reflect on you and indirectly be your responsibility. So it becomes: A) I want to believe this stuff never happened B) if this stuff did happen, I don’t want the other coaches and their families, the players and the university to suffer from one persons mustakes C) I don’t want people to think I allowed this D) I can’t believe I allowed this to happen and people are hurt as a result of my action |
|
klaby
Junior Member
Posts: 389
|
Post by klaby on Aug 6, 2018 8:02:58 GMT -6
No comment is a comment. 29 years in public service I can say that the answer no comment means they will dig harder. Direct any "trick bag" questions to your PR person, they are trained to speak double talk and to keep you out of the trick bag. He should have said something like "please direct those questions to the office of public relations", "If you have a question about football I will take those now".
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Aug 6, 2018 15:57:48 GMT -6
I would have to imagine that someone within the OSU empire knew that this story was in the pipeline. I can't believe that someone from the PR department didn't give Meyer a head's up..."Hey Coach, you might get asked a question about Zach Smith's history of domestic abuse. If you get asked that question, you need to direct all comments to the athletic department." Trying to keep this to the PR side, but one clarifying point is that (1) on June 23 the story breaks that Zach Smith's ex-wife had a protective order against him, (2) on June 23 (the same day) OSU/Meyer announced that Zach Smith had been fired and (3) on June 24 (the *next day*), at the B10 media interview, Meyer makes his comments. It seems safe to say Meyer had fair notice that there would be a Zach Smith question at B10 media days? Anyway, the other question is what responsibility do you have as an HC or as a school to not employ people because of things they do outside of the job. If your DC is the second coming of Bill Belichick but he's doing things off the field that he shouldn't -- drugs, domestic violence, whatever -- what responsibility do you have to fire them? Or, more difficult, if you hear rumors or "stories" about that kind of behavior, what responsibility do you have to confront them? It seems like with a lot of these stories (the Joe Paterno/Penn State one being a horrible extreme), there's a strong inclination to bury one's head in the sand -- see no evil, hear no evil. Not sure that approach works in 2018. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Aug 6, 2018 16:04:14 GMT -6
No comment is a comment. 29 years in public service I can say that the answer no comment means they will dig harder. Direct any "trick bag" questions to your PR person, they are trained to speak double talk and to keep you out of the trick bag. He should have said something like "please direct those questions to the office of public relations", "If you have a question about football I will take those now". Only problem was, in this case, it was a personnel based question of a personal nature involving football staff members. Perhaps one doesn't need to use the two works "No comment" Perhaps saying "I will or I cannot comment on Personnel issues", but the fact remains that they were digging anyway. Lying about something only brings inferences of other impropriety. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Aug 6, 2018 16:27:49 GMT -6
I would have to imagine that someone within the OSU empire knew that this story was in the pipeline. I can't believe that someone from the PR department didn't give Meyer a head's up..."Hey Coach, you might get asked a question about Zach Smith's history of domestic abuse. If you get asked that question, you need to direct all comments to the athletic department." Trying to keep this to the PR side, but one clarifying point is that (1) on June 23 the story breaks that Zach Smith's ex-wife had a protective order against him, (2) on June 23 (the same day) OSU/Meyer announced that Zach Smith had been fired and (3) on June 24 (the *next day*), at the B10 media interview, Meyer makes his comments. It seems safe to say Meyer had fair notice that there would be a Zach Smith question at B10 media days? Anyway, the other question is what responsibility do you have as an HC or as a school to not employ people because of things they do outside of the job. If your DC is the second coming of Bill Belichick but he's doing things off the field that he shouldn't -- drugs, domestic violence, whatever -- what responsibility do you have to fire them? Or, more difficult, if you hear rumors or "stories" about that kind of behavior, what responsibility do you have to confront them? It seems like with a lot of these stories (the Joe Paterno/Penn State one being a horrible extreme), there's a strong inclination to bury one's head in the sand -- see no evil, hear no evil. Not sure that approach works in 2018. Yes, the timeline of events definitely points to a high probability of a question or two regarding the WR coach's dismissal. Your second paragraph leads to the reason I subscribe to "I will not comment on personnel issues" instead of lying about it. Assuming evidence doesn't come out that exonerates the asst coach, it still may very well play out that the only thing "wrong" done by Meyer was to believe him when he said things weren't happening. I don't think it is the HC duty to investigate. Meyer very well may have done everything required, but because of that lie to the media, the magnifying glass and scrutiny will be much greater. |
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Aug 6, 2018 18:54:40 GMT -6
The other issue with lying is that reporters typically aren't going to ask questions to which they don't already have the answer.The lesson should be, if a coach gets asked a question like this, it's not going to do any good to lie because the person asking the question already knows.
I don't think that this situation is particularly relevent to high school coaches. With that being said, I think there is a lot to be said for practicing being "on message" when talking to the media. Coaches should be prepared to answer a non-football question and should have some kind of standard, vague, non-committal response ready for those occasions.
|
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Aug 8, 2018 8:50:15 GMT -6
Is don't lie when asked a question really a coaching advice or tactic though? I mean, I kinda thought that was common sense/morality. Is this where we are that we need to remind people not to lie?
|
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Aug 8, 2018 8:52:33 GMT -6
Yes, the timeline of events definitely points to a high probability of a question or two regarding the WR coach's dismissal. Your second paragraph leads to the reason I subscribe to "I will not comment on personnel issues" instead of lying about it. Assuming evidence doesn't come out that exonerates the asst coach, it still may very well play out that the only thing "wrong" done by Meyer was to believe him when he said things weren't happening. I don't think it is the HC duty to investigate. Meyer very well may have done everything required, but because of that lie to the media, the magnifying glass and scrutiny will be much greater. If all Myer is guilty of is lying to the media, and he loses his job? Everybody and their wives and children should be scared to death. For my money, it should be first and foremost about tolerating your assistants beating women when one of your core values posted in your locker room is treat women with respect. Then, about the lying and cover up. Which, coincidentally, they've already fired a HC for. |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Aug 8, 2018 9:53:39 GMT -6
Is don't lie when asked a question really a coaching advice or tactic though? I mean, I kinda thought that was common sense/morality. Is this where we are that we need to remind people not to lie? Of course don't lie. The point of the thread, is that you don't have to answer. Just say no comment. You don't have to answer everything someone asks. |
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Aug 8, 2018 10:18:06 GMT -6
Is don't lie when asked a question really a coaching advice or tactic though? I mean, I kinda thought that was common sense/morality. Is this where we are that we need to remind people not to lie? There are certainly some situations in which honesty is definitely not the best policy. If my wife asks me, "Do I look fat in this?", the answer will always be "No", regardless of how she looks. I think this entire thread can be boiled down to the most practical reason why lying is wrong. If you lie, you might get caught. And then you are either going to get caught in a lie and have to clumsily walk it back or even apologize OR you will have to tell more lies to cover for the initial lie. So yes, lying (or at least telling a lie like the one Meyer told) is immoral and unethical. But, from a PR perspective, there are very practical reasons why public figures should not lie. |
|
