An interesting article on former Clarkson coach Mark Morris is on The Crimson's website:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=357603
Seems to be a bit one-sided, but for those of us who wondered where he went, it's a good read.
This is old news for those who know Mark but good to read it nevertheless.
In what manner do you find it one-sided? Now that the entire affair at Clarkson is over, what would you like to have seen in a current story?
I'm also confused as to what you saw as "one-sided" in that story, and I've always believed that Morris deserved to be fired for what he did. Does that mean he should NEVER be hired to coach hockey again? No. But I think Clarkson did the right thing to fire him at the time - he was punished for his actions, and now he's moving on with his life. So what? ::screwy::
OK, I retract the phrase "one-sided" because an attack on Morris isn't what I meant at all. I hastily grabbed that phrase to mean (in the context of my sentence) that the Crimson writer seemed to assume that the Harvard community already had a good understanding of the complexity of the incidents involving Morris. I didn't think the 2 sentences provided were sufficient to that end. Actually, re-reading the article, I don't think including more of the background would've added anything to the overall gist of the article anyway, so feel free to ignore me altogether. All I wanted to do was to post this article because I thought it was interesting. Sheez.
Giving it more thought, I'm wondering whether The Crimson did this story to subtlely suggest possible coaches with D-1 experience that might be available to coach a certain school that publication may be affiliated with. *cough*. I, for one, hope they stick with their current coach...he's doing a fine job, and putting that team right where I like to see them. :-)
Well, it reads as a pro-Morris article. To be in favor of a Div I program hiring Morris could be right, could be wrong --honestly, I'm not really interested in debating it-- but the article has the dressing of a news piece, not a opinion/editorial (the writer is not identified as an editor and the item appears on the "Sports" page, not the "Opinion" page). As an opinion piece, it's pretty good (except for my big gripe below), as a news piece it comes across as somewhat "one-sided".
The one part of the article that does really bother me is the following (the emphasis is my addition):
"But the administration stuck behind Eaves—and is undoubtedly satisfied with his performance since. Wisconsin poss a 17-9-6 record this season and is a good bet to make the NCAA tournament, while Eaves won a Gold Medal last month as head coach of Team USA at the World Junior Championships.
You also might remember Bobby Knight, the Neil Reed tape and alleged Kent Harvey arm-grab/cuss-out incident. Indiana had enough of him, but he's found a new niche at Texas Tech and has made the Red Raiders a Top 25 program."
Success on the playing field somehow absolves a coach of battery against his players?!?! It shouldn't matter a bit what Coach Eaves's or Coach Knight's win-loss record is in deciding if they learned from their mistakes and made amends.
EDIT: Rich H, I jump in to try to offer a defense of your statement and you go and walk away from the fight while I'm putting together my post, what are you doing to me? :-)
Post Edited (02-25-04 23:59)
QuoteJason N '95 wrote:
As an opinion piece, it's pretty good (except for my big gripe below), as a news piece it comes across as somewhat "one-sided".
Well, I first read it as an "interview piece," which doesn't necessarily have to fall in either category (then again, I've never been a journalism major, so I may be wrong). It's up to the writer as to how much external commentary he/she supplies. This one certainly has a great deal of opinion. After all, the title "Former Clarkson Coach Morris Deserves Second Chance" is pure opinion.
[Q]Success on the playing field somehow absolves a coach of battery against his players?!?! It shouldn't matter a bit what Coach Eaves's or Coach Knight's win-loss record is in deciding if they learned from their mistakes and made amends.[/Q]
I agree with that. Well said.
QuoteEDIT: Rich H, I jump in to try to offer a defense of your statement and you go and walk away from the fight while I'm putting together my post, what are you doing to me? :-)
Heh. Sorry, but I really didn't mean to start a fight. :-)
QuoteJason N '95 wrote:
Success on the playing field somehow absolves a coach of battery against his players?!?! It shouldn't matter a bit what Coach Eaves's or Coach Knight's win-loss record is in deciding if they learned from their mistakes and made amends.
My reaction exactly, Jason.
Knight recently had a nasty altercation with the Texas Tech president in, of all places, a supermarket. The fact that he continues to earn praise is indicative of how screwed up big-time college sports are.
Sorry Rich - didn't mean to pick a fight! Just wondered what you saw as one-sided. I now understand better where you were coming from. I didn't conclude from the "Eaves and Knight are doing well," comments that the author was advocating that Morris shouldn't have been fired - I just saw it as evidence that a coach CAN be effective even after such an incident. In Eaves's case, at the same school, in Knight's case, at a different school. I just saw that as showing that there very well COULD be a school out there who will someday be willing to take a chance on Morris. I didn't see the article arguing that Morris definitely SHOULD or definitely SHOULD NOT ever be hired again (which I would have considered one-sided), just that it is a possibility.
Sorry I didn't articulate better in my first post!
All this talk of Morris makes me remember the cheer that broke out the first time Clarkson visited Lynah after the whole ordeal....
"Your coach beats you!" *clap*clap**clapclapclap*
bump:-D