http://www.uscho.com/news/2005/04/06_010545.php
[Q]Trotsky Wrote:
[/q]
They'll have to send the Monitor. ::nut::
heh...I thought you meant revolting the adjective, not revolting the verb :-P
Wow, me too. The saddest part is, I still didn't realize it until you spelled it out for me. Ulgh, rough week.
He might have meant it both ways. :-P
In any case, this is the second player revolt against a coach this year. No matter how bad a coach Serino is, the situation still sets a bad trend that the players can in theory stage a coup against their coach anytime something doesn't go their way. It might not always work, but if players get it in their head to try this a lot, it will seriously destabilize D-I college hockey as we know it.
Yes, this is a bad trend. On the other hand, if it gets to this point the coach has totally lost the trust of his players and won't be able to run a decent program regardless. How can a coach recruit when his current players are likely to badmouth him behind his back?
http://www.startribune.com/stories/512/5310312.html
[q]Maturi pointed out that players being unhappy with a coach is not unusual.[/q]
This is the only way to handle the situation. Like dealing with a child arguing that they shouldn't have to clean their room, you nod your head sympathetically and say, "okay, then, time to clean your room."
The only time players should even be given a hearing with the AD or president is if there are allegations of misconduct (i.e., Morris). If it's just a matter of the "ability" of the coach (translation: "my daddy and my pee wee coach thought I was great but here I'm on the bench, so my coach is obviously incompetent"), the player shouldn't even get a day in court. That way lies madness.
Great choice for the subject line.
When a team goes 8-26-2, is it always the coach who should be replaced? (Isn't that a Casey/Yogi-ism? Maybe Ralph Houk? -- "It's just easier to fire the coach than all the players")