Another coach sets an example – a bad one

It’s difficult to criticize anyone for accepting the job of their dreams, in any walk of life.

But this kind of very personal decision becomes a little more tangled when it affects the lives of others—specifically dozens of young people you vigorously recruited and asked to follow you and make a 100% commitment to see a project through.

Now, given the reality of college football, there is no ideal time to plan your departure as a coach. At some point you will leave when players you recruited are still on campus.

But a recent coaching appointment in the United States doesn’t sit well.

My reference point is University of Cincinnati football coach Brian Kelly. He is leaving his post at the University, where he did, by all accounts, a tremendous job, to take on the head coaching job at Notre Dame.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with going to where you want to be.

But like a number of coaches before him in recent years, Coach Kelly, at least on the surface, seems to have let some people down. According to media reports, he had informed his players after the last game of the regular season that he was staying at Cincinnati. He apparently denied a serious interest in the Notre Dame position, though, in fairness, he did concede he would listen to what Notre Dame Officials had to say.

Here is a revealing excerpt from an ESPN.com story by Brian Bennett on December 5, written before Coach Kelly met with Notre Dame Officials and eventually accepted the post on December 10, all of five days later:

But two Bearcats players said Kelly told the team on Thursday that he wouldn't leave Cincinnati.

"He said, 'It's not an issue; I'm not going there,' “safety Aaron Webster said. "He said, 'I love Cincinnati, and I'm staying here.' "

When asked by an ESPN.com reporter after the game whether he had indeed told his players that, Kelly declined to discuss the issue. That also was his stance in the post-game news conference.

"I'm not going to talk about any job situations," said Kelly, whose team clinched its second straight Big East title. "I'm going to enjoy this victory.

"Let's talk about back-to-back-championship teams and these kids."

Kelly also chided the media for spreading what he called "misinformation" and added, "You folks need to get a handle on this, because it's ridiculous."

Kelly has been rumored to be one of Notre Dame's top candidates and told the ESPN this week that he would "entertain" a request from the Irish to speak to him after the Pitt game.

Wide receiver Mardy Gilyard said his coach was emphatic about not leaving in his talk to the team Thursday.

"He said, 'All this foolishness about me trying to go somewhere, that's just foolish,' " Gilyard said.”Coach Kelly, he made us strongly feel [he wasn't leaving]. It's almost like when your mom tells you the sky is blue, and you just know it's blue. You don't even have to look outside.

"With Coach Kelly telling us he's not leaving, we know he's not going anywhere."

Gilyard and Webster, both seniors, have heard that before. Former coach Mark Dantonio told them he wasn't leaving three years ago—and then took the Michigan State job days later.

"There were different incentives then with Coach Dantonio," Gilyard said. "Coach Kelly always shoots it straight to us. In my opinion, I think he'll end up being the Bobby Bowden of Cincinnati, or our new Bob Huggins."

Now, those of us not on the “inside” truly have no idea what the circumstances are that led to all this. And we certainly aren’t privy to everything Coach Kelly actually said to his players before, during and after his discussions with Notre Dame. (I won’t even go into the aspect of blaming the media for supposed misinformation, when it is proven again that the media was in fact correct in their speculation. That’s a comment for another day.)

But it is disappointing to see Coach Kelly leave the team before the upcoming Bowl game in January. He has obviously decided that recruiting on behalf of his new school immediately is more important than seeing through his commitment to his current players—and the school administration that has paid him very well. (Imagine if college players were allowed to leave school and go play for another school because they had a “better” opportunity at the new school to play in a Bowl game.)

Coach Kelly is free to make that choice; just as the West Virginia (now University of Michigan) Coach Rich Rodriguez did a couple of years ago, leaving his team before a big Bowl game. Much like Bobby Petrino left the NFL Atlanta Falcons suddenly, during the NFL season, to take a college job, and Nick Saban, after denying his obvious interest, left the Miami Dolphins to become Coach at the University of Alabama within days of his public pronouncements to the contrary.

I just always find it amazing. These coaches preach non-stop about loyalty, commitment, going to battle together—all the things associated with being a “team guy”.

But when they get the opportunity for a “better” job, they can’t run fast enough for the more prestigious, or lucrative, position.

Again, it’s understandable to go for the job you’ve always dreamed of. For Coach Kelly, Notre Dame is his dream job.

But even for those jobs, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it.

To me it’s clear that, while “recruiting” is tremendously important in U.S. college sports, completing your obligation to your current school should be assumed and accepted by all. Why wouldn’t Notre Dame step forward and agree that Kelly stay at Cincinnati until the Bowl game is completed.

There is no doubt there would be criticism about having distracted attentions, not to mention conflicted loyalties in that scenario.

But where is a person’s credibility when they deny, deny, either to their own players or to the media, then days later end up doing the very thing that they claimed they weren’t going to do?

And what message does this send to young people?

Patrick Kane: Beginning to understand

Patrick Kane is a wonderfully talented forward with the Chicago Black Hawks. He is already emerging as an extraordinary talent on the ice - a significant component of the major Hawk resurgence over the last year.

Off the ice, it’s been a bit more of a struggle. This past summer, Kane was alleged to have been involved in an incident with a taxicab driver, leading to assault charges that were eventually dropped. (Kane pleaded guilty only to disorderly conduct.)

Athletes often face a burden - and a responsibility - that those in some other professions may not have to deal with in quite the same way. The expectations are high, even if they don’t necessarily include being a “role model”. Their perceived successes and failures on and off the ice/field – as well as their behaviour – occur in a very public setting.

They face often intense public scrutiny, fair or not. They are expected to be accountable on the playing field- and off.

For his part, Kane, in speaking with NHL.com recently, made some observations that suggest he has learned from his misstep this past summer. The story indicated Kane has changed the manner in which he conducts himself in public.

"I still feel I'm the same kid at heart. Obviously situations like that open your eyes a little bit. It was a tough situation. You never want to go through that. Obviously, the only story you guys heard was what the cab driver said,” Kane is quoted as saying.

"The worst kind of came out of the situation, but at the same time, I think maybe it was better that it happened sooner rather than later. You can take a positive from a bad situation. Pretty much every (situation) I treat now, when I'm out to dinner or walking down the street, I'm going to treat like it's going to be publicized, and like it's going to be put in the media."

I always try to tell my young clients in the sports field, “You can be yourself. Just be your best self”.

An NHL agent whose clients I have advised on occasion over the years told me some time ago that he regularly reminds the athletes he represents to behave in public expecting to run into someone they know- and whose opinion matters to them.

It’s great advice for all of us, and nudges people-high-profile or not- to be aware that behaviour matters, wherever you are.

Clemmensen and the team player approach

Sometimes a comment made in frustration can taint a player’s reputation.

A couple of weeks ago, Florida Panthers goaltender Scott Clemmensen was quoted as saying something to reporters that hundreds of goalies before him at various levels of hockey have probably thought. The comment: he described his team’s defensive zone coverage when the puck was in the slot as “total chaos”.

By all accounts Clemmensen has been a respected player. He has largely been a back-up goalie at the NHL level, but last season was thrust into the number one job when New Jersey all-star Martin Broduer was felled by a serious injury. Clemmensen stepped up and played well, landing a free agent contract this past off-season.

But in his first 4 games this season, he gave up 16 goals, and his comments were likely not welcomed by the coaching staff (who establish the team’s system”) or teammates.

Florida Head coach Peter DeBoer , not amused, didn’t even mention Clemmensen by name when he was quoted the in the newspaper in a story I saw circulated by the National Post.

“I understand where a goaltender who has let in (12) goals in his last two starts would be frustrated, but it’s misdirected,” DeBoer is quoted as telling the Florida Sun Sentinel. “When things aren’t going well, I think it’s important we all self-reflect and see what we can do better in order to help the situation. I don’t think finger-pointing is real productive at this point.”

Being a team player is easy to talk about but hard to be sometimes when things aren’t going your way.

But just like credibility is something that takes a long time to earn but can be thrown away in an instant, having a reputation as a team guy can be lost quickly, too.

It’s a lesson for young athletes to keep in mind.

It’s past the time to take a step back

Credit should go to Ryan Pyette of the London Free Press for his recent thoughtful piece on serious hockey injuries as an issue leaders in the sport simply have to look at.

The column came on the heels of an incident in which a young 16 year-old Ontario Hockey League player was seriously injured when checked, arguably from behind, by a 20 year-old player.

The league has now suspended the aggressor for the rest of the season.

As Pyette points out, hockey is a fast, skilled and physically tough sport. Injuries will happen, many without any intent on the part of the person who caused the injury.

Toughness and hard-hits have always been a part of the game, and applauded by almost everyone. No one wants to see a hockey game without physical contact. It’s part of why millions love NFL football, and professional hockey.

But we have reached a point where the physical nature of the sport –fueled by how those in the sport still think about toughness - may well have pushed the envelope too far for the good of the players and the game itself.

Pyette raises the issue of whether parents will now –more than ever- consider college hockey as a better and safer alternative for their sons.

Here’s the reality: As I mentioned above, the history of Canadian hockey is that we like our skill, we like a fast game, but we seem to love that hard-hitting, tough style.

It leads to a macho mentality. You have to finish your checks, and hit hard. Very hard. I’ve had hockey parents come up to me and talk about their son playing youth hockey, “You should have seen my son drill that guy”. It’s a source of pride to be tough.

“Toughness” can be a great quality in life. Mental toughness is important. Many sports do demand a kind of physical toughness.

But like most “good” things, taken too far, it’s a problem.

Players can say they don’t hit to injure, but they certainly hit to hurt, and given the reality of the human body, that’s really no distinction at all.

Players are bigger and skate faster than ever before. The huge equipment players wear is a big problem. It makes players feel they aren’t vulnerable, yet they are, in part because of the equipment they wear.

Football and hockey were both probably safer (still “hard-hitting” but safer) when players dressed more like rugby players than gladiators.

Think about: fans -and the media - have spent countless hours in recent years discussing the apparent epidemic of serious injuries—head shots (many still “legal” in hockey terms); hitting from behind situations; concussions; knee injuries and more.

It really does have to stop.

When you have 16 year-old playing against men, the risks are already there. Unless hockey authorities begin to absolutely, once and for all, outlaw hitting from behind or even the side, this problem will continue.

NHL GM’s met this week, and reports suggest movement was made about creating new rules to reduce dangerous hits. Too often in the past the league talked around the real issues. They can’t seem to decide what types of hits should be “legal”.

To me, the question is not what is legal in hockey terms, but what is dangerous.

The game has changed. Rules, and what is—and isn’t—allowed, should evolve as a result.

It has taken generations to get people to recognize the problems associated with smoking, for example, and to change behaviour. And still, probably 20% or more of people smoke in Canada and the United States.

Changing the mentality around hockey won’t be easy. You don’t want to lose the great parts of the action, but surely protecting the basic safety of vulnerable athletes—especially at the younger ages—must be a priority.

When a Dad goes too far

I recently came across a story out of the United States, which indicated that a “football dad” in the Boston area actually slugged his son’s coach.

As the story goes, the coach of the 12 year-old youth team apparently had disciplined the boy, who had arrived a few minutes ‘late’ for practice.

Given what occurred afterwards, it’s hard to imagine this was anything other than a situation that had been brewing for some time. Surely no father, no matter how over-invested they might be, would react to an isolated situation where their son may have had to do laps, or whatever the ‘punishment’ might have been for being late to practice. There seemingly had to be something more to this situation.

While youth coaches often try to instill a kind of overall team discipline, the focus in this instance may have been misdirected.

Clearly, like most youth involved in sports, a 12 year-old relies on busy parents to get to practices at all, much less, “on time”.

Perhaps there were fully discussed “rules” in place that all families had agreed upon. Maybe not. I don’t know the details.

Setting aside this particular circumstance, and speaking in general terms, there are steps a youth coach can take to at least try to prevent disappointment, misunderstanding, bitterness—or worse, on the part of families involved in his or her Club program

For example, the youth coach should host meetings with parents as a group at the beginning of a season, and then individually with parents and their son/daughter.

The objective is to establish the coach’s priorities, as well as those of that particular ‘team’ and the Club in general, so all parties understand and are on the same page. From there, he/she works toward, if it is possible, agreement on mutual expectations when it comes to discipline, attitude, punctuality and all the other things that make up being part of a youth team, whether house-league or “all-star”.

If the family can’t abide by the coach’s program, then it is likely the wrong program for that child and family. There is then time to look for options elsewhere.

But again, it’s important to establish priorities and expectations early on, so everyone is understands specific expectations and individual family limitations and hostile feelings don’t build and build.

There is no way to defend punching a youth coach, even if the coach was off-base in handling a particular situation – whether it was about playing time, foul language, unfair disciplinary methods, whatever.

It’s difficult enough to find good role models to work with other people’s children.

Now, it’s easy for us to make judgments from hundreds of miles away, but some questions come to mind:

1. If a coach has made it clear a player must arrive on time, is that actually reasonable, given the age of the children?

2. Is punctuality more important than the attitude and work ethic of a young player when they are at practice?

3. What were the actions on both “sides” in this situation that preceded the punch-up?

4. How will that 12 year-old look at his dad in future? What has he “learned” about handling disagreements?

5. How will the rest of the team look at the coach? What have they “learned” about handling disputes?

Youth sports organizations exist to give young people outlets and opportunities for healthy activity. They aim to “hire” volunteers with the best approach and skill set to act as positive role models.

They don’t always bring in the right people, and mistakes will inevitably be made.

The more the sports association, local clubs, individual coaches, players themselves and parents communicate their mutual objectives together, very early on, the better off everyone is.

All the parties may not agree, and if they don’t, thankfully parents have the freedom to protest, ask for change, and ultimately leave a ‘club” if it’s obviously not the right club or team for them.

Punishing a kid for being late- and punching out a coach, is never healthy, much less a solution.