Cal and Coach being sued

So now coaches are not allowed to cut players without being sued. Speechless.

 

I doubt the players would win such a law suit.

 

Define “Snowflake State.”

 

This isn't a lawsuit that is designed to be won. Its a suit designed to scare the stuff out of the administration and athletics department.

This sounds like an out of court settlement rather than have the dirt of an athletics department brought out into the open--

“We just think it’s unbelievable that a player with her talent and success would be released in a situation like that,” Siegel said. “We think there’s something going on here that we don’t know about and we’re gonna find out.”

Key word there is -something----the plaintiff's don't care what they uncover just as long as its damning.

 

I don't think California has cornered the market on privileged millennials, and they can be quite annoying. However, I think you sabotage your argument when you admit that you wouldn't be surprised if there was something underhanded going on.
You have no idea what this woman was promised, what choices she made. Why were they dropped in April, much too late to transfer anywhere else? I'm guessing the answer was that the coach needed to make sure his incoming freshman class were all signed sealed and delivered.
I wouldn't be so quick to throw this woman under the bus. Let's see if there was actually anything underhanded going on first.

 

Why release a walk-on that has/can help you? Roster spot? What’s the difference between 36 players and 37?

 

I was born in CA and raised in the Bay too. That’s fine, that’s a general opinion. However, they do have a case in which any trial lawyers would take.

 

Underhanded? Who gets to decide, if not the head coach, how to manage his/her own roster?

 

Totally agree. If there was something ‘underhand’ that the player knew they would have come out and said it- look at the case of Grand Canyon when the players were complaining about the coach there they had specific examples. All this girl and her lawyer have said is it’s not fair because she was better than the other players that were cut and it’s a Title IX issue because the men didn’t cut as many people.

This is a BS case of an entitled kid moaning because she got cut.

 

If you are on scholarship you have certain protections. You can't be cut and dismissed for performance reasons, has to be something else like team violations, etc.

But this kid wasn't on scholarship. So she can be cut, like anyone else not on $. How can parents and the lawyer think she was such a top-caliber athlete, yet wasn't given any $ by Cal in the first place? That scholarship offer, or lack thereof, is a read of how much the coach thinks that player's impact will be.

The most hilarious part of this is the Title IX argument. Cal men's soccer only cut one player, women's soccer cut five. So it's not even. Seriously?! Two totally separate programs, only thing they share is the institution. That argument won't have any wings. If Maguire did something backhanded then that will come out but on the looks of this as of now it seems an entitled kid who was spoiled by mom and dad is upset that life is actually hard and can't deal with reality with no one to cushion her life and is taking it out on someone else.

 

The administration has to put a limit somewhere - else the coach could just sell unlimited "roster spots" (and the associated benefits) to the highest bidder.

 

You guys keep trashing this player and family... and then say you wouldn't be surprised if something underhanded happened, or if something 'backhanded' happened it will come out. So just let it run its course and see if there is anything there.

My guess is no rules were likely to have been broken, but perhaps someone broke their word. That's probably not illegal, but it could be of some value for other kids (and yes parents) who have their hearts set on attending and trying to earn the right to play soccer for the school. Lots of reasons very capable players may have missed out on the partial scholarship train. Hopefully none of those hopeful walk-ons feel 'entitled', but if they were told one thing, and they made life decisions based on those representations, and then the rug got pulled out in April, that isn't a great look for the program.

Let's see what comes out, if anything. Let's not be so quick to pre-judge, label, and bully the 'snowflakes'.

 

A little research - as a Freshman, she started 1 game, played in 12, and scored a goal and an assist. Her playing time was 304 minutes, the lowest of those who scored a goal

https://calbears.com/cumestats.aspx?path=wsoc&year=2018

Her bio says she graduated from Laguna Beach High School, but she doesn't show up on the school's roster in Maxpreps after her Freshman year there, perhaps because she played on LAFC Slammers Girls Development Academy team, which does not permit HS play.

Now a conjecture - perhaps her parents were among those wealthy enough to tell the coach she wouldn't need a scholarship because they could afford to pay the full costs themselves - they just wanted help in admissions. I have seen that happen on the boys side.

 

I have no idea what went down here, but I do not understand a legal argument here at all. A coach can cut or roster whoever they choose. She could have been a great player on scholarship and he could have still cut her for any reason, including that she was a bad fit as a teammate (chemistry issues). Yes, that type of player would have scholarship protection per NCAA rules, but they are not entitled to a roster spot. No one is assured of a roster spot on any team.

I get that the lawyer is trying to tie it to the men's program, but that is silly.

 

Something I'm wondering about is, in reading the article, there's no specific allegation of something wrong going on behind the scenes other than the comparisons to cuts for the men. Rather, the gist seems to be that she got cut so something wrong must have been going on behind the scenes. That seems to me like a pretty big reach and pretty close to filing a frivilous complaint, although I haven't seen the complaint so I'm just relying on the article's description of the complaint.

Something to bear in mind is that Cal had a very poor 2018 season: 5-12-2 overall and 1-9-1 in the conference. I could see the coaching staff, after the season, getting together and asking themselves how that happened, where the problems were, and what steps they needed to take to right the ship. Assuming they did that, it seems likely that the roster cuts they did were one of the steps.

Also, I see that Cal had 31 players on its roster in 2018 and has 30 in 2019. If they wanted to stay around 30, then apparently with the numbers of new players coming in as compared to the numbers of seniors graduating or players otherwise leaving, they were going to have to cut some returning players.

And, I see that the men had 24 players on their roster in 2018 and have 27 in 2019. I think the difference in roster sizes makes questionable a comparison of what happened with the women to what happened with the men.

There's a range of preliminary motions that sometimes get filed, including first a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and later a motion for summary judgment. I'll be interested to see if the case survives either of those motions, if they get filed.

 

Next up. Lauren Isackson sues UCLA for not keeping her on the team

 

If you're going to bash, let's do it properly. The Millenial generation cuts off at 1996 as a birth year so we are actually talking about Gen Z.

Also, I'm always a fan of assigning blame to the generation with alleged inferior or defective characteristics like being whiny (or really bad spellers) while completely missing the point that those people were raised in a society, culture established by a previous generation. The best trope is about participation awards. We blame the recipients when its doubtful they ever made the decision to award themselves trophies; look in the mirror for that one if you're over the age of 30!!!!

Pedantic post over.

 

OMFG

I am not even gonna bother but I do find this obvious bias disturbing and uneducated.

 

If the player is a cancer you need to cut them. Period.
We all know how a bad apple (bad attitude) can destroy a team.

 

Ah.. NO. This type of nonsense is not exclusive to California. There are idiotic parents looking to pave a cushy road for their kids and prevent them from learning about life, in every state...Don't put this on CA.

 

First of all, I am a millennial and I grew up and raised in southeast Los Angeles, and the young woman in question is not really a millennial but a generation Z. What's with so much hatred for CA dude? I really got to love these individuals, types complaining about how annoying it is to live in CA... Here's a radical idea, GO MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE!??? Theres too many people living in this state anyways and traffic would be one less person lighter. This is so uncalled for and inappropriate no matter what your stance is on this case.