|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 2, 2021 17:16:28 GMT -6
FWIW after a little research the average cost per Graduate credit hour at LTU is ~$1200. That will eat up the $10k stipend in a hurry. School will basically be just lending you the money until you enroll in classes. But they are providing housing and many meals, so it is probably still better than many offers from a strict compensation level.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 2, 2021 16:42:25 GMT -6
Coach- In the spirit of full transparency and professionalism, when you subtract the 1/2 tuition the GA is responsible for from the 10,000 ($8,000 after taxes probably) what is the net? Don't forget paying for two months of meals. Like the young bucks are always told when the yearly "how do I get into this profession" thread pops up-- LUCK and the willingness to leap before you look is often how it works unless you already have a nice set of connections. Good luck on the search Coach Beckham.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 2, 2021 16:17:47 GMT -6
Looking for offensive and defensive Graduate Assistant Coaches. If you or anyone you know is a young hard working up and coming coach that wants to get into college coaching please email me at kbeckham@ltu.edu Must be able to get into graduate school. Working hours are essentially 24/7. Compensation is half tuition assistance, 10,000 stipend, housing year round and meal plan for 10 months out of the year. Job starts immediately. Coach- In the spirit of full transparency and professionalism, when you subtract the 1/2 tuition the GA is responsible for from the 10,000 ($8,000 after taxes probably) what is the net?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 2, 2021 13:43:25 GMT -6
Probably have to free up jobs for the new coaches. That video played out exactly as I pictured it. The coach absolutely was trying to create a "private pyle" from "Full Metal Jacket" situation.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 2, 2021 7:55:50 GMT -6
Absolutely nothing to do with what I want. Football is dying from the roots up. Kids are increasingly not playing the game. eh- in 2019, there were approximately 2400 less HS players nationwide than in 2018. Still over 1 Million playing. Sure, it is declining, but data shows declining at a decreasing rate (finding it's level). Also, the data shows that the current participation number is higher than in it was in most of the 70s, and all of the 80s and 90s. So there is that. Things change. Yes, one can make a claim that the world is ending, as that is in fact a true statement. I don't know if one should take credit for such a prediction though.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 2, 2021 7:26:26 GMT -6
larrymoe and 19delta My life is now worse for looking up that reference. I hope both of you experience some type of violent diarrhea this weekend. Also, aceback forgot to add current inmate and rapist in his darren sharper bio
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 2, 2021 7:03:14 GMT -6
But the thing is, he can't get "monetary deals" from the schools per se. No quid pro quo offers from boosters to attend either. Sure, one can say "you know its going to happen, they are going to work around it" but if that is the mindset, then you have to stipulate that those places would have simply done something illegal prior to the new policy. I really think this is going to play out differently than many expect. As I mentioned, an LSU female gymnast with over 1million followers on instagram and over 4 million on tik tok (whatever the hell that is) could very well be the richest NCAA athlete in a few days time. For the record, I am not sure I agree with you that empowering student athletes with regards to transfers a bit, and making the process more transparent at the Div I level is necessarily a big danger to the sport. A danger to the status quo, yes. I don't know if I would consider image and likeness compensation a danger to the future of the sport at all. 1. The sport is screwed regardless of this deal. 2. They most certainly were going to do crooked things before this deal, and they most certainly will do crooked things after it. They'll just augment it with a pile of now legitimate cash. I don't think there is any indication that the sport is screwed to be honest. Not being what larrymoe wants, and screwed are not synonymous. College athletics as a whole are changing, but remember the only constant is change. College football will naturally change. It has been said before, but the brand of football you enjoy was considered by many who went before you as an abomination and was an indication that the game was "screwed". Head trauma is by far a greater threat to the future of college football than name, image and likeness policies. Close to a decade ago when it was first announced. I predicted that instituting a CFP would be slowly killing the golden goose. That, while not killing the sport, is going to be a bigger change than NIL policies. I think a bigger change to the landscape as a whole is going to be the expansion of the CFP. If it goes to 12 teams, I believe the bowl system may be officially dead. The only thing keeping it alive now is ESPN. That may change the landscape. This NIL honestly, is just fairness. There will be hiccups certainly, and obviously abuses as the limits are tested but lets face it, big time "college football" was never COLLEGE football and it has further away from that since its inception.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 1, 2021 20:50:00 GMT -6
A good indicator of how this may go, may be Illinois' Kofi Kockburn. Initially he declared for the NBA draft and has been doing that deal for a while. Kind of out of nowhere, he entered the "portal" today (which, for my money, is as big a danger to the future of the sport as this). Prevailing theory I've seen so far is that Kofi will basically see where he can get the best monetary deal should he not like his draft outlook. But the thing is, he can't get "monetary deals" from the schools per se. No quid pro quo offers from boosters to attend either. Sure, one can say "you know its going to happen, they are going to work around it" but if that is the mindset, then you have to stipulate that those places would have simply done something illegal prior to the new policy. I really think this is going to play out differently than many expect. As I mentioned, an LSU female gymnast with over 1million followers on instagram and over 4 million on tik tok (whatever the hell that is) could very well be the richest NCAA athlete in a few days time. For the record, I am not sure I agree with you that empowering student athletes with regards to transfers a bit, and making the process more transparent at the Div I level is necessarily a big danger to the sport. A danger to the status quo, yes. I don't know if I would consider image and likeness compensation a danger to the future of the sport at all.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 1, 2021 12:43:09 GMT -6
Several SEC athletes have already announced partnerships on their social media. I’m sure this is true in all parts of the country.
Most people are talking about the main football and basketball sports, but where I really think you’ll see something is in other sports. Read an article this morning as to how one of LSU’s female gymnast might be one of the biggest earners with her 1.1 million followers on social media
I do think that something that a certain portion of the fandom will NOT like is now you will see is athletes taking measures on the field/court to build a brand. The showboating might get a bit distasteful.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 1, 2021 10:26:49 GMT -6
Does Temple ever get a kid that Penn State really wants? How many Ohio Bobcats grew up dreaming of being a Buckeye? I agree that this isn't going to change the power structure of college football much. Maybe something good will happen for some of the teams in "lesser" leagues. Maybe they'll realize that FBS isn't for them and, instead of being bottom-feeders hoping for a shot at the Bahama Bowl, they can be contenders in FCS. It would be interesting to see the financial differences between existing as a low performing football team in a group of 5 FBS league vs competing in FCS. I think between these (and future changes along these lines) as well as the changing/expanding the CFP will result in possibly a quite different college football landscape in the next decade or so.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 1, 2021 7:15:04 GMT -6
The tax part could be interesting. I don’t think it will be that big of a deal but someone is going to use it at a selling point. TX, TN and FL I believe all have no state income tax. So in theory schools could sell the idea a player could keep more of the money they make. Then you get into if you go one place to sign autographs or make an appearance that money I believe is taxable in the state in which you did business. Then you get into the whole thing where your residence and where you go to school could be different. Players will see just the fact they can make money but there could potentially be a lot of headaches that go along with it. There will absolutely be lots of moving parts, and I am sure somewhere down the line some student athlete is going to get in trouble with some tax authority or government business agency and it will play out in the public eye as some poor unsuspecting kid getting taken advantage of... which will likely be true for the most part.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 1, 2021 6:34:34 GMT -6
cqmiller how is this ruling going make anything significantly different? Oklahoma is still going to be Oklahoma. Ball State is still Ball State. I could be wrong, but I am betting Ben Roethlisberger didn't choose Miami over the Ohio State University. The mid level schools are still going to have to survive on the late blooming prospects just as they have. I think wingtol further develops a point I made in the thread regarding transfers. There will be limited opportunities in most cases, although I would be interested to see how the new policies apply. He is now retired, but I wonder what could have happened 10 years ago with Phil Knight (Nike) and Oregon. Could every Oregon Duck athlete have been in partnership with Nike? blb , while I don't think the tax issue matters much for cash compensation cases (since 80% of something is better than 0% of something), it very well may create some issues if the compensation is in goods or services. If you get 10 free dinners valued at $1,000 at Local College Town Steakhouse for doing a promo there, that should be a taxable event. Not sure if the IRS is really going to pursue that though. You also bring up a good point about how this will not be standardized across the country. Not only will state income tax be considered, but also states have different laws about this very topic, and the schools that don't have state law on the books will be writing and regulating their own policy. In some states the players will not be allowed to wear their school gear, in some they will etc. I think where we are going to see some big differences are in things like championship posters. You have to pay those guys now. PLUS, how do those guys get picked? Is the Athletic Dept picking them? The SID? The HC? Same with anything else sold in the bookstores. Another issue is that this very well may create a void to be filled by agents/agent type "wranglers". Who is the contact point between the student union Zaxby's or Raising Cane's and the players? How will that happen? Will be interesting for sure, but I don't think we will see much difference on Saturday's to be honest. The differences and free for all will be behind the scenes.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 30, 2021 19:43:05 GMT -6
They are going to allow players to get money from coaching, autographs, appearances etc. I feel like the big boys are just going to set themselves even farther apart from the pack due to the amount of exposure($)the top players can receive I used to think that, and to some extent it is true. However will it have a substantial impact? Weren’t the big boys already setting themselves apart with all of the other “recruitings armrace attractions”? Arent you already picking LSU over Louisiana Monroe because of the ridiculous lockerrrom beds/sofas, the fancy student athlete center, the SEC network etc? I do think we may see and even further increase in the amount of transfers because of this rule. The athletes are now going to be looking to test the market place yearly. Is Mac Jones sitting behind Tua those years when he could be playing for somone else and sponsoring the local pizza joint, radio station, and car dealership? How will this impact highschool coaches as far as giving receuiting guidance and protecting athletes from even more nefarious individuals looking to profit off the kids
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 30, 2021 19:35:06 GMT -6
So you got congratulatory messages for wearing pink socks and an armsleeves or having a "cool entrance" at the drive in? I agree with you that issues are long before the locker room, but I don't necessarily think it is driven by the social media stuff exclusively. As I alluded to, with youth sports often mirroring big time athletics through all of the fancy trappings (fancy uniforms, alternate uniforms, multiple sets of warm up gear, sound system backed "run throughs", getting rings every weekend from tournaments etc) do kids have much to look forward to as the get older like they did "back in the day". I would argue that the difference between youth and HS ball today is quite different than that difference was years ago. No congratulatory pink wearing..... b/c no guy would wear pink/was a thing/etc... BUT getting to wear a certain facemark, having a forearm pad, and CERTAINLY getting a neck roll was a big deal. When the HC called me in to give me 1st pick on a helmet and shoulder pads, THAT made my day as a young shave tail player. When I was a senior getting to break out of the banner and touch the 'hive' was a big deal (we were the hornets and it was like touching Howard's Rock at a Clemson game). Kids aren't really that different today than I was. I played football to try and see if I was tough enough to hurt people. BUT was also that insecure kid who wanted to fit in. I liked the Nike Sharks, wrist bands, neck rolls, etc.... I would argue that the only difference is the method of broadcasting youth football. If my dad wasn't at the game, he had to get the recap from me or my mom. The only record of my 6 YO undefeated championship season is a tiny trophy in my man cave. I don't think we are arguing two different points of view, I think we are discussing two different perspectives of the same thing. Somewhat – the things you were describing though we’re all things that happened to you as a high school player correct? Not an 8 year old? My point is that now 8 year olds are running through the banners (or inflatables) and touching “the hive”. So it isnt a thing as a highschooler. You were excited to do that as a senior- now the kids are “doing that” for 5 years before they play Frosh ball. Those things become the allure, not the actual act of playing football.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 30, 2021 16:06:48 GMT -6
I.E. all the 'stuff' that isn't part of the game In my sports psychology class 30 years ago we spent a lot of time on the intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation stuff. Back then it was focused on how to shift from extrinsic to intrinsic, and where to draw the line between the two; however it was still a huge topic. The difference now obviously is an easily accessible extrinsic 'hit' that is is magnified and happens much more often, but it is still about how to create a switch mechanism to change the behavior. And that is the world we live in and we can't roll back the clock. Here's another way of thinking about it; what do gangs and terrorists do that we want from our teams? Both have dedicated members, both have members committed to a cause, both have a common identity, both have give the members a sense of value, and both use extrinsic motivational techniques to draw members into the fold. Do we want to let these organizations out work us? I hate all the FaceTwitterGramTok crap too. But the kids are getting all these social media messages, links, hits, gratification long before they ever step foot into our locker room. I'm not saying we have to like it, but in reality other than the speed of the response/gratification/dopamine hit, it is no different than the message a kid got 'back in the day' at the barber shop/drive in/church/grandparents Sunday dinner table when I was growing up. So you got congratulatory messages for wearing pink socks and an armsleeves or having a "cool entrance" at the drive in? I agree with you that issues are long before the locker room, but I don't necessarily think it is driven by the social media stuff exclusively. As I alluded to, with youth sports often mirroring big time athletics through all of the fancy trappings (fancy uniforms, alternate uniforms, multiple sets of warm up gear, sound system backed "run throughs", getting rings every weekend from tournaments etc) do kids have much to look forward to as the get older like they did "back in the day". I would argue that the difference between youth and HS ball today is quite different than that difference was years ago.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 28, 2021 15:44:39 GMT -6
I am hesitant to bring this to the discussion, as I know how some twist these things into political argument type things, but I feel it is a fair discussion to have. Today, the supreme court ruled in favor of Brandi Levy. Levy, a teenager who posted a profanity laced snapchat post against her high school cheer team after failing to make varsity, was suspended from her JV team after the post. Her parents sued the school and the supreme court ruled in her favor- basically stating it didnt meet the Tinker standard for being disruptive to the learning environment. Now, maybe I missed something here, but I was always led to believe that extra curriculars were given a different standard in leeway to suspending participants. Regardless, if a player of yours did something similar, posted publicly online "F@#* (your school), and F@#* (the football team)" would you suspend or reprimand them? I believe this very much disrupts the team, and would lead to conflicts in the locker room. Thoughts? Because the court laid down no hard rule here, nobody knows. They were fairly specific in saying their ruling only applied to the particulars of this case and was not intended to set precedent. Make your rules. Stand by them. Make them go through the legal process if they don't follow them. ( Make sure the school will support you---and the upshot of this ruling is that the school may NOT because they're scared)That is my biggest concern. That districts and admin will be even more wary of threats than before and parents (more likely organizations) will be more emboldened by the ruling to scream "lawyer" at their first inconvenience.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 28, 2021 8:58:41 GMT -6
that's some funny stuff, I can't stand all this pj fleck made up used car salesman bs hype train crap nor do I really care if "the kids" like it if they like that stuff more than the game, they won't be great at the game I think that is such an under-discused part of youth/HS athletics AND I think it has been magnified greatly by youth/travel ball. I never really thought about it in these terms before, but I am now quite positive that kids become so enamored with all of the "trappings" of these fancy youth sports clubs/travel ball teams (the fancy uniforms, bags, warm up gear, rings, travel, etc) that competing in the sport becomes secondary to those things. This becomes problematic for them and for coaches as they get older because now it has become the expectation of players and parents (insert eyeroll) to have all of glitz. The "fun" in youth sports is being shifted from playing the sport and competing to all of the other aspects they see. Just spent Saturday at an AAU track meet. Watched an 8 year old run the 100m with sunglasses, necklace, armsleeves etc in 23.35 (for reference the slowest qualifying time for the 8 year old Junior Olympics from this region was 15.63 and there was a 6 year old who ran 17.78). Obviously my issue isn't that the young guy is slow, but it is that his parents/coach whoever is essentially having him play dress up like an Olympian in the pursuit of his fun. Just like older generations might have done by wearing their favorite Roger Staubach or Terry Bradshaw or Archie Manning Jersey. The difference being those generations played dress up in the front yard and there was a clear division between actual contact football and yard football. For this athletes, the adults are trying to make it "fun" with all of the added stuff which essentially replaces the actual sport as the source of pleasure for the kids.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 27, 2021 9:31:27 GMT -6
Well, isn't the conversion rate of the 1 pt kick also less than 100%? I think this topic has been touched on several times, usually (mistakenly in my opinion as it is not the same topic) in the "moneyball" threads. The issue that always seems to come up when discussing game theory/percentages etc. is that those things work best in a continuous setting over a long period of time. Football data analysis is looking at a compilation of small, discrete events. Factors that contribute to one data set are often quite different than the factors that contribute to another. Were they playing 3 because they were concerned about a mismatch in the undercoverage weeks 1 and 2, but not as much in week 3? Or not as much with YOUR team? Maybe they have pressured the last few weeks because of favorable matchups, but they don't like their chances against your OL. Maybe there was an injury? Factors change from week to week that probably influence the data such that trying to rely on game theory to pick the "perfect" choices is likely a fruitless endeavor. So, would you say any playing of the percentages in football is fruitless? No, but that is not what you are asking. You are trying to dissect these percentages using game theory to a level that I believe would be fruitless when you introduce the idea of deciding between trying to match C3 beaters to the scouted C3% and C1 Beaters to C1 % but then factoring in you won't know when they will be in which so is it better to try and just run all 3 beaters etc. Plus, you haven't factored in the notion that the opponent may be self scouting, so they know their percentages too, and my change things up. Now we enter into the "You know that I know that you know that I know ....." realm. PLUS, trying to put it into practice as the 40 second clock ticks down leaves you with : "Ok, the last 3 passes I am pretty sure they were in Cov 3 so they are probably due a Cover 1 so lets call a cover 1 beater, but wait, maybe they called cover 1 several times but we were running the ball so we don't know they were in cover 1 so then they might be due to call cover 3 and if we call a 1 beater they may be sitting in 3. What personnel do we have in the game? Ah crap, clocks running down, just throw it to the guy who is being recruited to USC." I would say that when truly reflecting on scouting, the #1 advantage that HS's can gain would probably be match up based. Schematically, it is important to find out what they do well, what they don't do well etc. But in the vast vast majority of cases, being heavily numbers reliant probably doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 27, 2021 8:07:09 GMT -6
The one I have heard countless times is in regards to going for a 2-pt conversion: 50% on 2-pt conversions is just as good as 100% on 1-pt conversions. In theory, it makes sense. In practice, I have never seen it work. Well, wouldnt it not working be because the percentage on two point conversions is actually less than 50%? I guess that is what you were getting at? Well, isn't the conversion rate of the 1 pt kick also less than 100%? I think this topic has been touched on several times, usually (mistakenly in my opinion as it is not the same topic) in the "moneyball" threads. The issue that always seems to come up when discussing game theory/percentages etc. is that those things work best in a continuous setting over a long period of time. Football data analysis is looking at a compilation of small, discrete events. Factors that contribute to one data set are often quite different than the factors that contribute to another. Were they playing 3 because they were concerned about a mismatch in the undercoverage weeks 1 and 2, but not as much in week 3? Or not as much with YOUR team? Maybe they have pressured the last few weeks because of favorable matchups, but they don't like their chances against your OL. Maybe there was an injury? Factors change from week to week that probably influence the data such that trying to rely on game theory to pick the "perfect" choices is likely a fruitless endeavor.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 26, 2021 18:30:33 GMT -6
When you choose to play the percentages, what percentage should you use relative to your opponent? For example, say your opponent likes to run Cover 3 70% of the time they are aligned in 1 high, and Cover 1 30% of the time they are in 1 high. Obviously, you would prefer to run Cover 3 beaters against Cover 3 and Cover 1 beaters against Cover 1. However, because you don't know which snaps will have which coverage, you have to decide which percentage of the 1 high snaps you will use C3 beaters and which percentage you will use C1 beaters (Note: Yes, there are pre-snap indicators as to which coverage it is, just using this to help illustrate what I am talking about) What is the optimal percentage mix? Should you match them, with 70% C3 beaters and C1 beaters, or should you slightly increase the C3 beater percentage? Or, are you best off just calling Cover 3 beaters 100% of the time, because that way, if the defense's percentages hold true, you are right 70% of the time, and wrong 30% of the time, not bad odds... I think you are trying to apply some game theory principals here, but unfortunately I do not think you have a a large enough sample of data to really be effect in those efforts. Structurally on offense, can't you implement a 3 beater to one side and a man beater on the other?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 25, 2021 10:30:27 GMT -6
I will say this, I think school systems are ridiculously overreaching in some aspects. This case here is not even close to the most ridiculous case I have heard recently. In Jefferson Parish in Louisiana- a boy was suspended, FROM VIRTUAL ONLINE SCHOOL, because there was a bb gun visible while he was in an google meet lesson.
In that case, Louisiana's own Attorney General even joined the suit AGAINST the school district. Earlier this month the case was settled.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 25, 2021 10:16:01 GMT -6
I agree there. My point is how much support will a district now give coaches/school site administrators who are faced with similar (but not exact) situations? Who is going to make the decision that the narrowly tailored 8-1 ruling here would not cover a new situation. I guess what I am asking is who is going to trust that a lower level court will side with the coaches/schools in similar situations, vs just saying "we are not going to support/fight this" I just got done reading the majority opinion (written by Breyer) on Oyez. The school lost their case at the district level, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. That's all three levels of the federal judiciary kicking the school district in the nuts. Additionally, after making the decision to suspend the student for the next year, the student offered to apologize for what she had said. However, the school told her to go pound sand and upheld the suspension. The lesson school officials should take away from this decision is that discipline should be meted out precisely and proportionately. The only one to blame for the school district's defeat is the school district officials themselves, whose heavy-handed and uncompromising punishment gave this student no recourse other than filing a lawsuit. Long story short, if I was a superintendent and found my school in a similar circumstance, the decision-making process would begin with the idea that we don't want to end up in the Supreme Court. 😆 All of this is about a past case though coach. I am not arguing about the court's ruling on this case, but rather on how it will impact coaches and school site admin going forward. I believe that the school district and school associations pushed the appeals on the grounds of finding out "ok, what is the landscape here" regarding first amendment and schools in our new online social media world. Not just because they thought they were right.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 25, 2021 9:56:55 GMT -6
My question is that based on this ruling- couldn’t she have sued and won given your punishment too ? You can sue for anything and have the potential to win any case. But if I asked you to apologize and move on I doubt you would've sued me, especially if I said, "Hey people make mistakes, just apologize and let's move on and make it a great season." Being in admin sucks. That's why I quit. I agree. I am talking about going forward. Based on this ruling, I am certain that SOME student/parent/family/group is going to decide that they don't need to apologize. "You can't make this child apologize based on 'Levy' ".
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 25, 2021 9:34:21 GMT -6
I agree with you regarding what happened. What I am saying is that going forward, this ruling essentially says that those coaches who have stated "I would have ________" would be not be supported in doing so should situations arise in the future. Again, I argue that based on this ruling, the speech is protected correct? It is protected from being suspended for a year, it is protected from being told to apologize to the team, it is protected from having to run an extra gasser or two. My concern is that now who will be the deciding factor how different something has to be to NOT be protected. Could this lead to off campus "cancers" suing because of playing time if indeed a coach reduces playing time because of that? I didn't read the opinion in entirety. But typically, these kinds of decisions are tailored narrowly to fit the specific facts of the case at hand. The Supreme Court usually tries to avoid setting precedents. Not every Supreme Court decision qualifies as a "landmark" case. I agree there. My point is how much support will a district now give coaches/school site administrators who are faced with similar (but not exact) situations? Who is going to make the decision that the narrowly tailored 8-1 ruling here would not cover a new situation. I guess what I am asking is who is going to trust that a lower level court will side with the coaches/schools in similar situations, vs just saying "we are not going to support/fight this"
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 25, 2021 9:29:25 GMT -6
The court did not rule that all punishment of off campus behavior is unlawful. The legal standard just says whether, and to what extent, the first amendment applies, but once it applies there still are other standards like due process, proportionality, whether she signed a code of conduct/social media policy, etc. I didn't make any of those claims. I believe he was replying to me and my statement that based on the ruling, those saying "one year suspension was ridiculous, this is what I would have done" would still have found themselves losing this ruling.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 25, 2021 9:27:21 GMT -6
Yes. The school failed to meet the required legal standard. So any "punishment" should theoretically result in the Court ruling in the cheerleader's favor. With that being said, I would argue that if the school had imposed a less severe penalty or simply issued a warning, the likelihood of a lawsuit being filed would be considerably lower. I think that's the biggest reason that I agree with the Court's decision. The severity of the punishment handed down by the school left the family with no alternative other than a lawsuit. Given the 8-1 ruling, I think it is fair to say that the school district received poor counsel from their lawyers. The court did not rule that all punishment of off campus behavior is unlawful. The legal standard just says whether, and to what extent, the first amendment applies, but once it applies there still are other standards like due process, proportionality, whether she signed a code of conduct/social media policy, etc. But from a coach's or school site administrators perspective, how does this ruling now affect the support you may receive in similar issues? Who is going to make a decision that saying "F Coach Spreadattack" is substantially different than just "F school, F football"?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 25, 2021 8:55:48 GMT -6
My question is that based on this ruling- couldn’t she have sued and won given your punishment too ? Yes. The school failed to meet the required legal standard. So any "punishment" should theoretically result in the Court ruling in the cheerleader's favor. With that being said, I would argue that if the school had imposed a less severe penalty or simply issued a warning, the likelihood of a lawsuit being filed would be considerably lower. I think that's the biggest reason that I agree with the Court's decision. The severity of the punishment handed down by the school left the family with no alternative other than a lawsuit. Given the 8-1 ruling, I think it is fair to say that the school district received poor counsel from their lawyers. I agree with you regarding what happened. What I am saying is that going forward, this ruling essentially says that those coaches who have stated "I would have ________" would be not be supported in doing so should situations arise in the future. Again, I argue that based on this ruling, the speech is protected correct? It is protected from being suspended for a year, it is protected from being told to apologize to the team, it is protected from having to run an extra gasser or two. My concern is that now who will be the deciding factor how different something has to be to NOT be protected. Could this lead to off campus "cancers" suing because of playing time if indeed a coach reduces playing time because of that?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 25, 2021 7:12:33 GMT -6
She f*cked up, the consequence should've fit the f*cking action, as a former school admin I would've made her apologize to her coaches and teammates and would've put her on a f*cking behavior contract (which is total fake bullsh*t) and had her meet with guidance to see where the f*ck she's at / return to play. She's 14? Impulse control is low. She been an issue otherwise? Grades? Etc? Might've been a bad f*cking week. Off-campus On her Snap that people filmed and sent out Social media has changed society, and people, on all ends in all ways But young adults make mistakes (as do reglar adults) Apologize and move on. More embarrassing to go back to JV and have to be a model citizen than to win a SCOTUS case on TV. My question is that based on this ruling- couldn’t she have sued and won given your punishment too ?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 24, 2021 12:55:13 GMT -6
What has me concerned is as 19delta pointed out it was an 8-1 ruling. I am with you, it seems like the facts of the case would be worthy of at least more of an argument, but by hearing the case and then making an 8-1 ruling it seems the court is basically saying that whatever a kid says off campus is fine as long as it isnt threats or bullying And if you keep her on the team and her teammates disapprove of her attitude those teammates will be considered the bullies. Well, the court seemed to consider this a slam dunk- so unfortunately out of the hands of coaches
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 24, 2021 12:45:36 GMT -6
Ok...so I was being hyperbolic. But, for a 14-year-old kid, getting suspended for a year is a huge deal. Probably felt like a death penalty to her. My point was that there were much less severe measures that could have been taken that would not have ended up in the Supreme Court. And yes...if a football captain or starter (and not some run-of-the-mill malcontent) is saying such negative things publicly, I think that is probably indicative of a poor culture. Kavanaugh concurred with the ruling because the Instagram post did not disrupt the workings of the school. I agree and if the girl had been suspended from school I agree that that's overkill. But, since her post definitely could be disruptive to a team, I do think that suspending her from the team was appropriate. What has me concerned is as 19delta pointed out it was an 8-1 ruling. I am with you, it seems like the facts of the case would be worthy of at least more of an argument, but by hearing the case and then making an 8-1 ruling it seems the court is basically saying that whatever a kid says off campus is fine as long as it isnt threats or bullying
|
|