Not that anyone cares, but UAPB is being investigated by the NCAA for compliance issues (as an aside, they haven't had a compliance coordinator in months) as well as for Title IX violations (I believe there may even be a current or pending lawsuit against the school). There were a few (not many) strong applicants, and I believe they were talking to a young guy from Manchester, but after speaking with someone in the athletic department, it seems like they will almost definitely look to hire a female, even if it means an alumni taking over. Especially in light of the Title IX accusations and the previous male head coach being fired for conduct, it seems certain that they will hire a female, but as I mentioned, they had at least reached out to one male international candidate.
Well, there was an internal investigation launched into inappropriate activity and he resigned during that investigation. They are really actively trying to hire more females on their athletic staff. Hired female vball, going to hire female compliance, and probably will hire female tennis coach and soccer coach as well to up their “title IX” appearance...someone should probably tell them that alone doesn’t satisfy title IX, but their female programs (including soccer) are very underfunded.
What criteria would you use to declare a coach "qualified"? Is "willing to accept the offered salary" one of them?
Why would it be inappropriate? Isn't this a rational discussion among adults focused on college coaches?
For real? Art should not be taken seriously??? Her words and message are spot on. If you want to be taken seriously you would educate yourself. She is a very intelligent woman. Don't be so shallow without listening to it, and taking in the message.
It very much depends on the institutional goals. Do they need someone with fundraising skills along with being a quality soccer coach? Do they need someone who can connect with donors? Is winning at a very high level a priority, or is student-athlete opportunities and well-being most important? Is a coach who wins at a high level but has numerous transfers due to player unhappiness ideal? Not to me. Are administrative skills important? To me ....extremely! Recruiting and ethics are important to me, but not necessarily to some admins. As for the other debate about unqualified men ....look at the men who get second and third chances after shady business (financial or inappropriate relationships) at their previous institution(s). Several. That is the good 'ol boys network at play. Those men are clearly unqualified.
You clearly aren't willing to have a rationale discussion on this. Throwing out cliches and teeny bop song lyrics. You have a worthy cause. Maybe shift to stats, facts and rationale thoughts, rather than emotional nonsense. You throw out vague and subtle references. And under the guise of not wanting to bash individuals. I have a challenge. Who are the females who have done a fantastic job where they are, and have gotten stuck due to this oppressive system? Names and schools please?
I’m so sorry you’re so angry. I don’t think anyone here is questioning Taylor Swift’s intelligence. I do, however think it’s hard to make your point across by telling someone to listen to her music. There are good and bad coaches on both genders. Schools make questionable hiring for political reasons and there’s no denying in that. Coaches should be hired just purely based on their coaching ability and quality as a human being. That’s what majorly, if not all players want anyway.
totally get it. We should listen to her music and take that message on board. Also, on a similar note, be sure to listen to Meatloaf and his song ‘Bat Out of Hell,’ as this will also send a powerful message to everyone. Smart man that loaf of meat.
I think that’s how the ULM coaches got away with the recruiting violations. They’re all male- They Good Ol’ Boys club.
Lol, good times and humor. I like this blog. Above mentioned response from ytrs, that many men have inappropriate behavior with relationships and then get second and their chances, let me quote you accurately, "As for the other debate about unqualified men ....look at the men who get second and third chances after shady business (financial or inappropriate relationships) at their previous institution(s). Several. That is the good 'ol boys network at play." Did Brian McManus UCSD coach who bought his team pizza each season for team meal in his 30 some year coaching career and got canned, he get a second chance for a stupid infraction? How bought Yale former head coach getting a second chance at coaching? University of Montana coach for using escort service on recruiting trip? Naw, not really second chances, it ends their careers typically. But yes, people make poor choices. Just from my experience though in coaching college, when I was a young assistant coach, our female head coach was hooking up with players on the team while they played for her and ended up marrying one of them, and went on to have a long college coaching career. She wasn't fired because it was acceptable, whereas if a male did that, had her staying in his hotel room on road trips, taking her on recruiting trips, ect... He'd be canned. Had an assistant coach once I became a head coach who was sending the girls inappropriate pics and hitting on them, I had to let her go. Had a ton of backlash from it because she was very popular with the ladies on the team and some quit the team because of it and were furious at me. Again, double standard. If roles reversed, people would say my firing justified because I'm a toxic male in the "good 'ol boys network" as you call it ytrs. Crap happens on both sides of the isle, how one gender is treated for it is unequal to the other, figure it out.
Moving on, Pine Bluff position, yikes. Yes its a zoo there. I talked to a recent alumni female who was on campus, don't think she'll take it. Has another career, and its all discombobulated there, recruits dropping off, players not training and no spring games. They were talking to a male current SWAC head coach who is at one of the lower paying SWAC schools for the position. Pine Buff job actually pays $20,000 more than what he was making at the other school, so pretty good salary, but no assistant coach help or grad assistants either. And they want you to take care of the field, do everything on own to run the program. Jeremy at PB, I have heard both sides, that he was investigated and they found nothing wrong after interviewing the players, him, and his wife who was around the team. But he was so fed up with it by the end of the 3 month investigation that his wife got a job in KC and so he resigned and went with her. On the flip side, I heard a rumor that he told a player she needed to move and do something or he'd break her arm. I don't know if that is true or if he was joking or not when he said it, but apparently another coach in the conference said he did. Thats a rough place to coach in. Away from civilization and struggling for funding. HBCU's are often underfunded institutions.
In all the years I have coached I’ve never been told by my AD ‘you have to hire a male as an assistant,’ but I have been told i ‘have to hire a female.’ I’ve also never witnessed the old boys club. In fact nowadays I know a lot of male coaches who will make an effort to hire females in order to progress their careers and promote more coaches of this gender. What you have said is simply wrong. Regarding head coaching positions this year more than any has shown that there is a bias for administrations to hire a female coach even if they are not as qualified as a male- UNLV is a prime example, Washington hire (I do consider this hire as a solid hire though) there were more experienced/successful coaches who didn’t get a call that were male (so the admin wouldn’t know that persons views on how to connect with alums, fundraise, priorities academics etc), and LSU demonstrate there is a clear bias to hire women. I’m good with the bias if a resume and experience is close with a male, but these are so blatantly biased it warrants the term the good ol’ female admin club.
I know this thing was done and dusted but one of my buddies in Kentucky gave me some more of this ULM images.
No, Collegewhispers, I am not wrong. I could cite some blatant examples of really bad and unethical coaches getting picked up by their buddies after getting canned. Yes there are admins who want female leaders for their female athletes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact it is quite logical. Who better to develop our future leaders than women leaders themselves??? I am done arguing with men who want to leach off the women's game financially, yet not be allies for them. I know I do not want some of you coaching my daughter. You are not their advocates at all. It is mind boggling how sexist some of you are, and you have no idea. The men's game is 99.9% coached by men. The women's game is also dominated by men. You can cite two examples you do not like this year. But there are many more I can cite. Does it occur to you that some of these men have better paper resumes because their buddy hired them as an assistant? Think a little deeper. I am checking out of this conversation. You really cannot fix sexism with people who refuse to open their minds and look in the mirror.
Good decision to check out. You cite no actually examples of sexism and actually agree that discrimination occurs because women get opportunities over men simply because of gender. The ULM thing has been seen and discussed on here. Guy is a dick and broke some rules. Let’s move on.
No I did not say that. Do not lie. I said some admins prefer woman, and, some prefer men. A female leader desired for female athletes is perfectly logical. It has been happening in the men's game for all of time. What you ignore is the decades of bias in favor of men. I will cite two examples of the good 'ol boy network picking up their buddies. Michigan head coach hiring the dirtbag who got fired from Miami to resurrect his career. Cal head coach hiring the guy who got fired from Georgia, helping him resurrect his career despite his unethical history at Georgia. That is the good 'ol boys network in play. Those are two highly unqualified men currently head coaching in the women's game. Your sexism is really disgraceful. Keep leaching off the women's game. Us poor men have been discriminated against for decades. LOL What idiot can ever say that. Ciao!
We shouldn't talk about some of the coaches who you think have done unethical things unless they were fired for them. Stories do get blown out of proportion. The coach you are referring to that go hired at Cal by a friend was a head coach at Rollins before he went to CAL. Oh and he was hired by a FEMALE Athletic Director at Rollins. So his circumstances must not have been that bad or as bad as you think. Please do not throw mud around. We do have a lot of friends in this profession. If someone has done something that was UNETHICAL I would hope we would not be friends with them anymore. MALE or FEMALE. Yes they should not coach anymore. Like sleeping with players. I hope we can talk about the Hirings and coaching changes again soon. CIAO CIAO if that means hello and goodbye
The point I think you are missing, however eloquent your arguments are, is that by limiting to gender, age, sex, creed, religion is completely and utterly against the law. I think you can have preference but ultimately that is gender bias. You really cannot fix sexism with people who refuse to open their minds and look in the mirror, or by being sexist the opposite way to correct "decades of bias" the other way. you can only hope to do better moving forward. Right?
I knew a male coach who.........I knew a female coach who.......this unqualified person got hired because.......yes, yes, yes.....there are unjustified hirings and unethical people in all vocations. Do we accept it? No. Do we try to make it better? Yes. But to continually cite anecdotal evidence solves nothing. Read Malcolm Gladwell's spin on the acceptance policy at the University of Michigan law school. His position (supported by hard evidence) is that you don't necessarily need to have the best resume in order to excel (or get accepted to their law school), you just need to have a "good enough" resume. And in some cases, in terms of production, the "good enough" candidate actually excels in the professional world beyond who everyone thought was the "best" resume/candidate. And in terms of balancing the social pendulum concerning discrimination, this is key. A minority may not have the "best" resume or better than another candidate that has been rejected, but it may be "good enough". They then are productive/successful while also addressing the issue of discrimination and/or lack of opportunities. Obviously there are cases on both sides of the aisle where a person is hired who is just clearly not "good enough". Should it happen? No. Welcome to the real world. Try to fix it without painting a group of people with the same brush - Male coaches "leaching" off the women's game is just a stupid statement.
I think we are would agree that regardless of gender that the best candidate “should” be hired. I will add however, that if you asked a women’s soccer team if they would prefer to be coached by a male or female, you would find about 80% of the team want to be coached by a male. This is fact. I’ve asked a club team and two college teams and the answer was in fact 95%-male.
I think a lot of that is because a male is the only coach they have had as well. We don't like change. There are not that many club coaches that are female as well. You run into the same issues.