Way to GO HS Football Coach

[Hyena Dandy]

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.

I don't think it's a bad punishment, I just wanted to know why Andara thought they NECESSARILY knew

One thing that I would object to is if those who were already getting good grades needed to improve their grades. The rest of it does make sense.

[s_stabeler]

I'm pretty sure he just told the kids that had bad grades to raise their grades, but it depends on what the standards actually were. ( How would I do it|? require a 3.0 grade average minimum ( which corresponds to a B average- so you don't have to be at the top of the class, but you can't be a slacker either.) or you are off the team)

[Greenday]

I'm pretty sure he just told the kids that had bad grades to raise their grades, but it depends on what the standards actually were. ( How would I do it|? require a 3.0 grade average minimum ( which corresponds to a B average- so you don't have to be at the top of the class, but you can't be a slacker either.) or you are off the team)

My high school required a C average and can't be failing more than one class. I still remember my sophomore year where we were huddle up and our head coach asked us to raise our hand if we were in danger of failing more than one class. Everyone but me and two other kids raised their hands. One of the reasons I couldn't finish my four years was because of the level of idiocy of my teammates.

[Hyena Dandy]

I'm pretty sure he just told the kids that had bad grades to raise their grades, but it depends on what the standards actually were. ( How would I do it|? require a 3.0 grade average minimum ( which corresponds to a B average- so you don't have to be at the top of the class, but you can't be a slacker either.) or you are off the team)

It seems likely, but I was saying that was one of the few reasons I'd actually object to the punishment. Beyond that, I think it's an alright punishment, particularly from a highschool football coach. After all, a school football coach for Highschool should have three goals, in order

1) Help the students learn and grow as people

2) Help them forge interpersonal bonds with their teammates

3) Win football games

This punishment helps all 3. Punishing everyone teachs even those who weren't involved that there are much higher priorities than football. It helps the team get closer together, as not only are they going to police each-other, but they'll also be positively trying to HELP each-other. Plus, since they're closer now, more checks in the W column.

[HYHYBT]

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.

Please at least have the decency to provide logical reasons for making the huge leap from "they see each other in the halls and in class" to "they know everything *all* of their classmates/teammates/whatever do every minute of the day."

My high school was a very small one. Graduation went quickly with only 60-something of us. I knew some people well, but *none* well enough to know what they were up to if they were actively keeping it secret… and there's a huge difference between knowing in a general sense who is more likely to cause trouble and knowing that they have done specific acts which need to be reported. (And the former, the teachers also know anyway.)

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.

Nothing in the rules for rejoining the team required innocence. (That I could see, at least.) It wouldn't be a reliable indicator either way.

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.

Exactly. They act as a team *when they're practicing or playing football.* The rest of the time, unless they choose to hang out together, they're individuals with their own lives. Unless the bullying was done or openly discussed at practice, which is far too iffy to just assume, then there is no basis for assuming those who didn't take part had anything to do with it. Or, worse, admitting they didn't and still pretending it's fair to punish them anyway.

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.

Yes, of course. Now: how does that make it *FAIR*? Particularly for those who didn't know Jester and Greenday were misbehaving in the first place?

And no, "life is unfair" is not a valid excuse for keeping a particular, removable unfairness in place. Never.

Perhaps the concept of justice would fit better anyway. It is *unjust* to punish the innocent, ever. Even when it's the most practical way to get the results you want, and even when it's widespread practice. (The latter makes it worse, really.) And, for that matter, even when it's framed so as to disguise the fact that it IS punishment. It is also unjust to re-define the innocent as "guilty" merely for having some unrelated association (such as being on a team together) with the genuinely guilty, whether done directly or by pretending that that association means they just magically know everything that's going on in each others' lives.

Is anyone even going to make a serious effort to provide reasons that punishing the innocent *is* just? (And yes, I'm sure someone will claim they've already done that. No, you haven't. Some of this thread has tried to excuse the punishment on other grounds, and some has gone the "magic knowledge" route, but nothing that's serious, direct to that specific point, and truthful all at the same time.)

[Hyena Dandy]

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.

And... What were they supposed to do, exactly, about knowing someone acts like an idiot in class? Someone mentioned reporting it... Reporting what, exactly? Insulting a teacher or skipping a class is something that, oddly enough, the teachers usually know.

And I'm really not a fan of the "Life isn't Fair" thing either. If we use "Life isn't Fair" as a justification, then we can use it for pretty much anything. Life isn't fair, no. Life will never be fair. But I think we should do our best to make it as fair, and as just, as it can be. Not just shrug off problems we can deal with.

[s_stabeler]

HYHYBT, it is NOT punishment. The requirements to be on the team were changed, to stricter requirements that were not unreasonable, and none of the team met the new requirements. ( at a minimum, they had not done the required community service) The reason why it happened was because the coach didn't like the ethos of the team.

Second, even if it was a punishment, I can't see what else the teachers could do- the teachers knew that someone on the team was bullying someone else, and had no evidence on exactly who. Note that that requires that the team are actively protecting whoever was doing the bullying. (because either the whole team was together when the bullying occurred, and thus knew who did it, or the team was apart, and the innocent members can exonerate themselves by revealing where they were when the bullying occurred.) when a group is actively protecting the bad apples? you have no choice but to punish the group.

[s_stabeler]

And... What were they supposed to do, exactly, about knowing someone acts like an idiot in class? Someone mentioned reporting it... Reporting what, exactly? Insulting a teacher or skipping a class is something that, oddly enough, the teachers usually know.

And I'm really not a fan of the "Life isn't Fair" thing either. If we use "Life isn't Fair" as a justification, then we can use it for pretty much anything. Life isn't fair, no. Life will never be fair. But I think we should do our best to make it as fair, and as just, as it can be. Not just shrug off problems we can deal with.

report it to the coach- the point is to allow the teachers to do something about the bad apples.

[Kheldarson]

Is anyone even going to make a serious effort to provide reasons that punishing the innocent *is* just? (And yes, I'm sure someone will claim they've already done that. No, you haven't. Some of this thread has tried to excuse the punishment on other grounds, and some has gone the "magic knowledge" route, but nothing that's serious, direct to that specific point, and truthful all at the same time.)

In this case, sure. Reason one, as s_stabeler pointed out, it's a requirement change. This means that the innocent are in the exact same boat as the guilty in that they have to meet, and maintain, the new requirements. It would be as unjust to say the innocent get a pass on initially meeting the new requirements simply because they weren't doing crap.

Two, they are a team, on and off the field. I don't know you're insisting that off the field is vastly different from on the field. Every year I've been on track and field--one of the least teamlike sports out there--coaches impress upon us the idea that we look after each other on and off the track. Why? Because of shit like this. Not bullying, per se, but your teammate's having a hard time in a class? Help them out or tell a coach so they can arrange help. Why? So your teammate can keep playing and helping the team as a whole. This is the reason why you can argue that the number of innocents are limited. Despite the varied ages, given the academic issues, somebody in each of the classes is seeing this--and not stepping up.

Third, honestly, if the problem was as rampant as the articles seem to indicate, who's to say they wouldn't have effectively been suspended anyway? You have to have a minimum number of players do anything with football is my understanding.

[s_stabeler]

In this case, sure. Reason one, as s_stabeler pointed out, it's a requirement change. This means that the innocent are in the exact same boat as the guilty in that they have to meet, and maintain, the new requirements. It would be as unjust to say the innocent get a pass on initially meeting the new requirements simply because they weren't doing crap.

it might not even be a requirement change- it could easily have been simply enforcing the existing requiremenets.

[Jester]

Yes, of course. Now: how does that make it *FAIR*? Particularly for those who didn't know Jester and Greenday were misbehaving in the first place?

And no, "life is unfair" is not a valid excuse for keeping a particular, removable unfairness in place. Never.

Perhaps the concept of justice would fit better anyway.

There is a large portion of the population these days that thinks that everything should be fair. Well, guess what? Not everything is fair. Life isn't fair. And yes, I am going to use that precise item to make my point.

Part of a high school coach's job is to teach his charges about life in general, and how their sport relates to it, and the how the lessons they learn in that sport translate to the rest of their life.

In this specific case, some of the lessons being learned are:
--Life is not always fair.
--It's not enough to be a good person. You have to help out others.
--When you're on a team, everyone's actions affect everyone.

You bring up justice. I believe that this approach was just. It addressed not only the situations of wrongdoing by various members of the team, but the team'S general reputation as well. The coach saw his team gaining a reputation for thuggishness and bullying, and put his foot down.

Again, it must be pointed out that being on a team in school is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT. Had players all been suspended from SCHOOL, I agree that that would have been wrong. They weren't. They were suspended from the team. And then they had to earn their way back on to the team. Which, let's be honest, is how most teams work: you have to EARN the right to be on that team. I did not get my position at The Bar simply by showing up. I applied and interviewed, and based upon my work history and their interaction with me, management decided to make me part of their team. I also did not simply become the rum expert there overnight. I put in the work, extra work outside of work hours, to improving the rum experience of our guests. Management made me the rum expert at their rum bar because I earned my way into that position.

I have had unfair and unjust things happen to me in my life, many of them not of my own doing in any way. I could bemoan how each of these things were not fair, or were not just, and whine the day away about it. Instead, I chose, and continue to choose, to make each of those a learning experience to better improve myself. As many of the kids on that team also chose to do.

Don't get me wrong, I will still speak out against things that are unfair or unjust, such as the Montana rapist's pitifully short prison sentence, or the pastor in Iowa who raped several boys "to get the gay out of them" receiving only a suspended sentence, and no jail time, or corporations raking profits on one hand while slashing their workers' pay and health care on the other.

But a coach teaching kids on his team an important team and life lesson? From which many of them will grow and improve as people? Not only will I not rail against this unfairness or injustice, I consider it neither unfair nor unjust.

I consider it as this coach doing a better job than the vast majority of high school and college coaches out there, who ignore such idiotic behavior by their athletes and sacrifice morals and ethics and teaching opportunities at the altar of Winning.

[Ginger Tea]

Coming from a UK stand point, the whole look out for the team off the field just doesn't work, football (soccer) is a class/form event, we do have a school team(s), but when it came to PE, it would be 2 forms playing against each other and not for the 90 minutes of league time, just the length of the lesson.

No one got cut from the team as depending on class size you needed to face another to get a whole team out of one else it would be one class and 5 a side rules.

Also football has a lower overhead than it's American counterpart, two jumpers and a ball and Wembley rules used to suffice for break time matches.

As for policing team mates school grades and attendance, that should just be teacher/coach interaction, I don't care how good the quarterback is, if grades are what keeps him on the team then his coach should be told in the staff room of any failing players so he can stand them aside and have a chat about bucking up their ideas, if the only way to get extra curricular learning is to skip a few practice sessions then so be it.
The High School on TV trope was the coach always coercing teachers to cook the books about failing star players.

There is no I in team, but there is also no you either, most of this falls down to the cultural significance of sport between two countries and two totally different games. I am all for the see it say it aspects of jocks being jocks, but I am not my brothers keeper, nor am I some unrelated nob-shank's personal tutor.

[Hyena Dandy]

report it to the coach- the point is to allow the teachers to do something about the bad apples.

...Wait, what? WHY would they report it to the coach? And how does that help the teachers do something? What, if anything, the coach should be doing about it is something that the teachers and administration should bring up, not the coach.

And "Life is not fair" is not a lesson we should be teaching by doing unfair things and saying "That's a lesson to you." Perhaps we should be starting the game out with one team up 24 points? That can be defended the same way. Life isn't fair, and we need to teach them that.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

...Wait, what? WHY would they report it to the coach? And how does that help the teachers do something? What, if anything, the coach should be doing about it is something that the teachers and administration should bring up, not the coach.

Who do you think the players respect more? Their teachers/administrators, or their coach?

Honestly, if they are bullying other students/being disrespectful to teachers, I'm going to say that the only person they'll listen to is the one who has control over if they get to play a sport they like or not.

And "Life is not fair" is not a lesson we should be teaching by doing unfair things and saying "That's a lesson to you." Perhaps we should be starting the game out with one team up 24 points? That can be defended the same way. Life isn't fair, and we need to teach them that.

Uh... good job on that logical fallacy right there, you sure showed us the flaw of our argument.

It's a logical fallacy because you are putting forth the assumption that the only thing that was set out to teach the players was that "life ain't fair." You are over simplifying the entire situation to try and make your argument stronger, and it's not working.

The coach was not trying to teach the players that "Life Isn't Fair" at all anyway; it was that you as a person need to hold yourself responsible for the actions of those you associate yourself and work with. You need to stand up when you see others doing wrong, and you need to not allow others to tarnish your own reputation. Along with that, there were several other lessons that the coach set out to teach.

Life isn't fair wasn't one of them.

[HYHYBT]

Note that that requires that the team are actively protecting whoever was doing the bullying. (because either the whole team was together when the bullying occurred, and thus knew who did it, or the team was apart, and the innocent members can exonerate themselves by revealing where they were when the bullying occurred.)

At least two blatantly obvious problems with that: the ability of the guilty to lie about where they were, and the fact that this is specifically *online* bullying, and therefore can be done from anywhere.

Phrasing it as a change in requirements rather than as a punishment is just that: rephrasing it. Calling it something else, insisting that it be looked at as something else, does not make it not punishment.

It would be as unjust to say the innocent get a pass on initially meeting the new requirements simply because they weren't doing crap.

That would be true.... but ONLY if the change in requirements were unrelated. It's not. In this case, it amounts to the same thing as punishment; the only difference is that it can be called something else to make it appear otherwise.

Two, they are a team, on and off the field. I don't know you're insisting that off the field is vastly different from on the field. Every year I've been on track and field--one of the least teamlike sports out there--coaches impress upon us the idea that we look after each other on and off the track. Why? Because of shit like this. Not bullying, per se, but your teammate's having a hard time in a class? Help them out or tell a coach so they can arrange help. Why? So your teammate can keep playing and helping the team as a whole. This is the reason why you can argue that the number of innocents are limited. Despite the varied ages, given the academic issues, somebody in each of the classes is seeing this--and not stepping up.

Two problems with this: first, the pretense (still with no attempt to prove it's true) that any of this means that you would know what teammates are up to *even if they don't want you to know,* and second, that "somebody is seeing this." There is no rational reason to expect teammates to report on each others' academic progress to the school. The school has that information already!

Again, it must be pointed out that being on a team in school is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT.

That lessens the severity of the injustice, but does has no bearing on whether it *is* injustice or not.

You bring up justice. I believe that this approach was just. It addressed not only the situations of wrongdoing by various members of the team, but the team'S general reputation as well. The coach saw his team gaining a reputation for thuggishness and bullying, and put his foot down.

Again, how is what comes after the first two sentences supposed to make punishing the innocent a just action?

As for teaching them that life isn't fair: they know that already. Everybody knows that. The existence of unfairness in the general sense is in no way a justification for a particular instance.

It's not enough to be a good person. You have to help out others.

Which, again, bears no relevance whatsoever *unless they can be proven to have known.* Anyone even bother trying?

When you're on a team, everyone's actions affect everyone.

When you're acting as a team, or when you're together, yes. On your own time, no. At least, there's no valid reason for it to.

[qiuote]I did not get my position at The Bar simply by showing up. I applied and interviewed, and based upon my work history and their interaction with me, management decided to make me part of their team. I also did not simply become the rum expert there overnight. I put in the work, extra work outside of work hours, to improving the rum experience of our guests. Management made me the rum expert at their rum bar because I earned my way into that position.[/quote]All well and good. Now, if you were to be fired from The Bar because one of your coworkers, who you have no direct control over outside working hours, said nasty things about someone else online while on their own time, would you not have a problem with that?

I have had unfair and unjust things happen to me in my life, many of them not of my own doing in any way. I could bemoan how each of these things were not fair, or were not just, and whine the day away about it. Instead, I chose, and continue to choose, to make each of those a learning experience to better improve myself. As many of the kids on that team also chose to do.

Indeed, but choosing to move on and not dwell on something that's past is a totally different matter than claiming it wasn't bad in the first place.

But a coach teaching kids on his team an important team and life lesson? From which many of them will grow and improve as people? Not only will I not rail against this unfairness or injustice, I consider it neither unfair nor unjust.

All right. So: injustice is OK, and even ceases to be injustice, if it yields desirable results such as a better-behaved football team and is more convenient than finding out who actually did wrong. That's a GREAT lesson to teach.

And "Life is not fair" is not a lesson we should be teaching by doing unfair things and saying "That's a lesson to you." Perhaps we should be starting the game out with one team up 24 points? That can be defended the same way. Life isn't fair, and we need to teach them that.

Exactly.

Who do you think the players respect more? Their teachers/administrators, or their coach?

What does that have to do with anything? Is there something preventing school staff/faculty/whatever from *telling each other* when there's a problem rather than relying on other students to pick up on it (despite not having access to each others' grades) and spread the word?

It's a logical fallacy because you are putting forth the assumption that the only thing that was set out to teach the players was that "life ain't fair." You are over simplifying the entire situation to try and make your argument stronger, and it's not working.

Nope. If "Life isn't fair" is being used specifically to defend the existence of unfairness, as it is in this thread, then there's no fallacy. The 24 point bonus thing illustrates the absurdity of that approach and that defense only.

Mainly, the reason I'm so frustrated with this thread is that people I never would have suspected of any such thing are essentially defending the position that injustice is OK if it leads to desirable results.