Way to GO HS Football Coach

[Panacea]

Except that approach is a blatant lie. "These assholes" didn't cause innocent people to be punished. Whoever in charge chose to disregard basic fairness in punishment did that. The only way even to pretend the "punish all for the actions of a few" tactic is fair (as opposed to merely effective) is to make the absurd (in the general case, at least; there surely are specific instances where it's reasonably known) assumption that everyone at least knew what was going on.

The issue really isn't about individual fairness but fairness to the community as a whole. The coach is trying to change the culture of his football team. He can't do that by focusing on individuals; he has to address the team as a whole. Supporters of team sports always claim that it's about character building, but look at how many teams have no character at all.

What this does is teach the up and coming players that certain behaviors will have a wider effect than on them as individuals. It reinforces that sports is a privilege and not a right. It reinforces that honor is something borne by everyone on the team; if one person fucks up, everyone is stained by it and must atone for the actions of that one individual.

As someone else pointed out, it is an effective approach to team building, character building, and discipline.

It's not like the coach canceled the whole season. They didn't even miss ONE game! They missed a practice, and did community service instead. But the coach has set a positive tone, he sent an important message.

So I really don't see the innocent as being punished. I see the entire team being taught what it means to be a good citizen, what it means to have character.

[Greenday]

Since the show was on a 'school night' they could have merely made the next day a compulsory test day with an exam that could not be made up without a doctor's note or other "really good reason."

Now that would have been a learning moment for the students. If you party too hard that you can't get to school and can't take the tests, you lose a letter grade from every class.

My school solved senior skip day by threatening to suspend anyone who didn't show up that day. Surprisingly, attendance was quite high that day.

[HYHYBT]

Well, I could explain how those who were innocent weren't really, but I already did that once.

You did no such thing. That would have required evidence that everyone on the team at least knew what was going on. Instead, you just declared it. How do you make the jump from "a few people are doing this, and a few people are doing that, and they're on the football team" to "this is by some reasonable definition something done AS a team, or at least with everyone on the team's knowledge"?

Is that wrong? Absolutely not. There is no right to play football. Football is a team sport. You win as a team. You lose as a team. When you commit a penalty, everyone suffers. When you excel, everyone benefits. It isn't unfair to ask the team to improve as a group. You see your teammate acting like an idiot, call them out on it. The players who never get in trouble but do nothing to stop their teammates from acting out are not helping the team in any way.

Nobody suggested there is a right to play football. You just made that up. Meanwhile, nothing you said explains why being unfair is not wrong. Unless you, too, are pretending that this was done AS A TEAM. Penalties are a different matter: they occur within a team activity, the game itself.

s for the football team, again, there are no innocent parties. Sure, there are members of the team that didn't actively participate in the bad activities, but they also didn't report them or make enough effort to get their teammates to stop.

...and not reporting them or making efforts to stop them is the only thing that could rationally be expected of them until there is evidence, not just assumption, that they knew about it. What such evidence exists?

[Greenday]

...and not reporting them or making efforts to stop them is the only thing that could rationally be expected of them until there is evidence, not just assumption, that they knew about it. What such evidence exists?

It's safe to assume that they see each other in the halls and in class. Unless the school is huge, everyone knows everything. You know who acts like an idiot and who is giving teachers crap. It's not a mystery.

[Rageaholic]

If you're going to start off like that, you're at least strongly implying that what follows will show how it's *not* really unfair at all. Would you mind doing that, please? Because instead of even addressing the issue of fairness, you instead try to excuse the unfairness on other grounds. And yes, there *are* other ways to solve the problem you list other than punishing the innocent. If there aren't, then they need to be found... and in the meantime, at least don't pretend that the way presented is anything other than grossly unfair, even if it were to turn out to be unavoidable.

I agree with this. As a kid, I've always resented teachers who would unfairly punish the whole class and then blame it on the few troublemakers. You can blame the troublemakers for causing trouble, but the teachers decision to punish students rests on them (whether it's justified or not is a different matter) *end rant*

In defense of this coach though, I wonder if he was in a position where if he suspended just the trouble makers it would effect the whole team. It sounds like there were quite a few trouble makers (cyber bullying is pretty serious).

[Kheldarson]

Nobody suggested there is a right to play football. You just made that up. Meanwhile, nothing you said explains why being unfair is not wrong. Unless you, too, are pretending that this was done AS A TEAM. Penalties are a different matter: they occur within a team activity, the game itself.

...and not reporting them or making efforts to stop them is the only thing that could rationally be expected of them until there is evidence, not just assumption, that they knew about it. What such evidence exists?

You have the issue of cyberbullying, which they can't prove which team member is doing it. But these things don't happen in a vacuum; the bully (or bullies) is sure to have spoken to team mates or been overheard. Add in the failing students and the skipping of classes, you have the perfect storm for the kind of football teams we normally hear about: the bullying jocks who get a pass simply for being the school stars. This is what leads to cases like Steubenville.

Since team sports act like a unit when you have a large scale problem (basically any scenario where you have more than a half dozen people), you have to instill the idea that you function as a group, period. If a significant portion of the team is skipping class, even if it doesn't affect you personally, it affects how the school and community view you as a member of the team. You have to become invested in your group's image at that point.

That's why this an effective form of discipline, not punishment. The end goal is to teach these boys that being a member of a group doesn't mean that you ignore problems just because they don't affect you personally. You address them because it affects how people see you by your associations and because it's the right thing to do.

I guarantee this team won't see any more major problems for several years at least because of the coach doing this now. And if he continues to require volunteer work and community service and good character, you definitely won't see it until after he retires.

[Titi]

HYHYBT, did you read the update posted? Only NINE of the FORTY-ONE seniors on the squad did what was required to remake the team. (Although I am still wondering why you would have 80 on a football team, let alone 41 seniors! )
The coach also said that with the sophomore and junior class he has enough players to play for the rest of the season with backups, I guess his stunt worked.

He gave them rules to play by and if you didn't want to then you wouldn't make the team. The innocent people played by the rules and made the team in less then a week. And he also didn't have to deal with the special parents who make special snookums calling the school and media demanding he be fired because their snookums was suspended and not the rest of the team because EVERYONE ON THE TEAM WAS DOING IT! WAH! WHY WAS MY CHILD SINGLED OUT?????? WAH!!!!!! HE'S NOT FIT TO BE A COACH IF HE DOESN'T REALIZE HOW SPECIAL SNOOKUMS IS AND WILL SUSPEND HIM FOR BREAKING RULES!!!!!!!!! HE'S RUINED HIS FUTURE!

[gremcint]

1. surprised noone's mentioned scholarships yet.
2. it says none of the parents complained
3. I am sick and tired of nobody doing anything about bullying, I was punished more than those that bullied me. I love that this coach is doing something about and I wish he was at my school.

[Hyena Dandy]

Andara - What are you basing the assumption that the ones who weren't involved were aware? You said "When they spend that much time together" but did they really spend much time together? I mean, yes, they did football practice, but that's not exactly socialization time. As far as socializing goes, that's like another class. You might meet someone you like and hang out after school... Or you might meet someone who's just "The guy next to me on the line" who you're acquainted with, but don't really talk to when you're not actually working on football.

I'm not calling it impossible that they knew. But I think "They spent that much time together" isn't valuable enough, because that much time, from what I've seen from people who were in those things, was not really THAT much time.

[Ginger Tea]

If the team is made up of mixed years, then the odds of a freshman (not sure where that is in years I just assume it's first year high as well as college years) might not socialise with a senior about to migrate to college and college football/other sport.

If I was a few years above why would I want to associate off the field with someone in the first year of HS? Yeah he's on the team like I am, but he's in the school like I am too and I don't necessarily want to hang out with people in my own science class etc.

I would not be policing my team mates grades or attendance, if they fail those they should as an individual be dealt with by the coach, if I turn a blind eye to a case of shower shenanigans against a first year student then yes I guess all parties in the room are accountable, the whole "it only takes good men to do nothing for evil to flourish etc."

But again with the age gaps, as it's done via social media, again why would I hang out with someone 5 years younger than me let alone friend them on face book? so if someone who's a first year student gets a chip on their shoulder about student or teacher X I probably wouldn't know about it, or at least know the extent of the size of said chip.

Also, if I was in first year and a group of jocks older than me were renown for being dicks and I never associated with them out side of the field, I may not even see them do whatever they did.

Also if punished for them hazing a freshmen when I was either in another building or away that day I would be pissed, more so if those around who witnessed but did nothing got zero in the way of punishment, if a bystander watching a bullying incident gets nothing and I get cut from the team, I would be pissed.

I can see both sides of the coin, but you have to have a clear set of boundaries where your responsibility to the team ends when it comes to collective punishment.

[Kheldarson]

Let's boil it down this way: the coach didn't like the culture and character his team was becoming known for. Period. End of story. Whether it was the bullying or academic failure, his boys were obviously gaining a poor reputation.

Instead of letting it continue, he decided to force a change of culture. And the quickest and most memorable way? What he did. The boys who he'd really want came back; those that didn't, he wouldn't want anyway. And those who came back will remember this.

[s_stabeler]

First, it wasn't exactly a punishment as such. The way I see it is new requirements were imposed to be on the football team. The way I read it, it is new requirements to be on the football team, and considering the numbers of people that apparently couldn't be bothered to a) attend one extra class b) put in effort to help the community and c) study hard he is probably right. This is about a coach wanting to make sure the members of the football team are examples to the rest of the students, not people using it as an excuse to be lazy assholes.

[lordlundar]

I agree with this. As a kid, I've always resented teachers who would unfairly punish the whole class and then blame it on the few troublemakers. You can blame the troublemakers for causing trouble, but the teachers decision to punish students rests on them (whether it's justified or not is a different matter) *end rant*

That's a different case though. The goal of the classroom is to behave and learn on a mostly individual basis. Punishing everyone for the actions of a few is a bad course in that instance. This is a team however and it's role is to function as a cohesive unit, a group of people acting as one. It is a different environment and should be treated as such.

I also have the issue with the claim that this is punishment. It's not uncommon for schools to require their athletes to maintain a particular level in their school performance to remain on the team. This coach is essentially enforcing that policy which has probably been ignored for long enough where the team thought they could do get away with just about anything.

[Greenday]

(Although I am still wondering why you would have 80 on a football team, let alone 41 seniors! )

Because it's not just one team. High school football includes three teams: varsity, junior varsity, and freshmen. You don't just need 11 players for offense and 11 for defense. You need special teams players. You need substitutes. You need backups. An NFL team is 53 players. So realistically, 80 kids isn't enough for 3 or even just 2 teams. A lot of kids are going to have to play both sides of the ball, not get rest, and it's going to hurt in the long run.

[Jester]

I find it rather amusing that on of the members here is getting far more upset about this than any of the players or parents seemed to, at least according to the article.

If the coach had disbanded the team outright, yes, that would have been grossly unfair. He didn't do that. He suspended everyone, and then gave everyone the opportunity to earn their way back on to the team. Those who cared enough about being on the team did just that. Those who preferred their laziness, thuggishness, or shenanigans did not.

I find this the logical extension of punishments in sports practices or military training. One person fucks up, everyone does laps. Another person fucks up, everyone does laps. You don't want to do laps? Then tell Jester and Greenday to stop fucking up.

Since being on the team is a privilege, and the coach has the say of who can be on the team, I have no problem with this. As a society we often bitch about coaches who espouse a "win at all costs" mentality. This is a refreshing change, turning that whole idea on its head. This coach is teaching football AND character, and I for one applaud him for it, as well as his staff and the school administration for supporting it. And yes, the parents as well, for not being douchebags about it. "You have to let my son play!" No. No, we don't. "You can't do this!" Yes. Yes, we can. And we have.

The coach challenged his entire team, as I would want a coach to challenge my son if I had one. Most rose to the challenge. Some did not. Each one made their own choice. To blame the coach for this is ludicrous.

"But it's unfair!" Perhaps. But life is unfair. So we can just call this a lesson on life. The parallels to the "real" world after high school are unmistakeable.