Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Should College Coaches be held accountable for their players behavior?

The University of Tennessee recently dismissed Nu'keese Richardson and Mike Edwards from the team. Nyshier Oliver, in an unrelated incident was also arrested for shop lifting on November 7th. Oliver is a redshirt freshman that's expected to contribute to UT's rise to prominence next season. Jansen Jackson a third party in the botched robbery, wasn't aware of the activities of the other freshman. Jackson remains on the team but is suspended indefinitely.


Coaches have a huge responsibility in managing the behavior of players off the field. Is it just me or does its seems as though the player gets a slight pass. Can a coach be there with a kid 24/7? Most college football coaches pour their wisdom into these kids weekly about making the right decisions. For some the message sinks in but for others the message seems to go in one ear and come out of another. The million dollar questions that should be asked is what led to the dismissal of two young men from the University of Tennessee. Why would kids risk their full scholarships on such lousy decisions as shop lifting and attempted robbery?


It's a simple answer for someone like myself but for many Americans, the explanation of poverty may come across as an excuse and not a diagnosis. In 21st century America, most major college programs are going to give scholarships to kids that hail from some of the most impoverished areas in the country. That's not to say that all kids from poor neighborhoods will make the same dumb decisions that Richardson, Edwards and Oliver did. However it shouldn't be a shock when some of them revert to the behavior of their former environments. Most major college programs give their scholarship players very little money outside of their tuition and meal plan.


A college scholarship doesn't necessarily compensate for the fast paced world of major college campus. Some of these kids are driving luxury cars, sporting the latest electronics, fashions and have access to a disposable income. Often times, that income is provided by hardworking or privileged parents. In some cases these students are allowed to work part time while attending classes. During the football season (which is now year round) how can a "student athlete" masquerading as a defacto pro football player, survive in this new world. Oh sure, take the self righteous high road and beat your chest while spouting off your college resume. Tell me how hard you had to work while you were in college. Never mind that you didn't have the demands of a major college athlete.


Some of these young men rarely have the financial means to interact with their new peer group. Acceptance from ones peer group at any age is still important. It's one thing to be worshipped for your athletic prowess, but to not fitting one's social circle breeds a different under current of pressures that few human beings will ever experience or understand. It leads some to have illegal contact with boosters, agents, runners and yes commit crimes that can cost them their college careers. Ask Jimmy Johns why he sold cocaine on Alabama's campus. What about Teddy Dupay's gambling ring he ran out of his dorm room at the University of Florida.


Criminality isn't the answer to their problems. But 3 squares and a roof over your head is hardly market value when your athletic talent is responsible for contributing millions to a major college program. Why does a major college athlete have to steal when he's apart of university that has unlimited resources. College coaches are caught between a rock and a hard place because they can't help their kids with any tangible benefit outside of the NCAA's archaic rules. A sensible social stipend should be apart of the student athlete's scholarship package, which could alleviate most of the allure of criminality that takes place among some young college athletes.

When college kids makes a dumb choices, then the coach has to fall on the sword for a system that is already fundamentally flawed.( I'm not crying for millionaire college coaches either) Peter Warrick was sidelined for shop lifting a few weeks before the national championship game. This guy was a four year starter. At the time Warrick was one of college football's most exciting players in the 1999 season. Warrick could barely afford to get a haircut, let alone any gear that was acceptable to his peer group. Coach Bob Stoopes had to get rid of freshman phenom Rhett Bomar for accepting cash for work he didn't do.


What about Maurice Clarett's "job" in the summer at Ohio State? Ever heard the story how Reggie Bush's his family "rented"a luxrious home for a year before he declared for the NFL draft? Booster involvement for star players is inevitable considering all of the lifestyle challenges most college athletes from lesser means encounter. Sure defend the rights of the NCAA while forgetting the plight of kids that are supposed to "amatuers". Some of these "student athletes" never get college degrees or fail to reach the NFL.


College coaches are paid to win not raise our kids when they arrive on XYZ campus. Ask Sylvester Croom how fast he was shown the door after having early success and cleaning up the mess of his predecessors. College athletics is smoke and mirrors. Most of us hate to admit it. Most of us are blinded by our fanatic loyalty. Our inherent addiction of seeing our favorite college teams win skews our judgement. Nu'keese Richardson and Mike Edwards will land on their feet. In most cases having athletic ability seems to always write a ticket to the land of second opportunity. Nothing changes in the grand scheme of things because most of us will accept that this is the risk we take when recruiting these types of kids. Boderline recruiting violations are also an accepted practice by those who aid their respective programs with whatever resources deemed neccessary to keep the program on top.


Coach Mark Mangino of the University of Kansas, is now under fire for his harsh treatment of his players. Is he really under fire for that or is it the 5 game losing streak that the Kansas administration is really concerned about? Rich Rodriguez dodged a bullet at Michigan after allegedly holding extra practices outside of the mandatory 20 hour limit. Now that Michigan is 5-7 , does their fan base care about the percieved whining of its players? These two coaches aren't a full representation of college coaches who care about their players. But where is the meaningful dialouge that should be taking place? It's easy to write troubled athletes off as bad apples but what about the system itself? Any self respecting college sports fan should be able look at the recent events at Tennessee and compare them to these three factors. The misconduct of some college coaches, the sinister underworld of recruiting, and the riches of the NCAA. How do we sit back and blame college coaches? Rich Rodriguez and Mark Mangino still have their jobs but for how long?



Coach Kiffin didn't commit a cardinal sin in extending troubled kids a chance at a better life. It's one thing to have lax rules that aren't enforced by the coaching staff. Apparently that wasn't the case. These young men made their own choice to go against the commitment they made to the team and a fresh start towards the future. Yet the perfect storm of being away from home, struggling to adapt to college life and having limited resources is the perfect explaination of why see these types of choices are made by young men affiliated with major college sports. As the old saying goes, Don't hate the player hate the game. Obviously we have it backwards. WE hate the players but love the game.

No comments:

Post a Comment