Punishment Philosophy

[cm husker]

I brought up a question in a other thread. I agree with those who think that thread should be allowed to die. Still curious what everyone's thoughts are regarding the following.

 

Question: should a coach consider the impact a punishment has on innocent team members when assigning punishments to individuals? For example, if TA had been charged with suspicion of DUI a week before the MSU game last year, should he be suspended even if that likely means a loss suffered by the rest of the guys?

 

Or if it might mean the difference between a win providing a coach with security versus a loss leading directly to his firing? At 4-8, that might have been a real possibility.

 

I don't think it's a simple answer. I do think it should be a factor.

[Hunter94]

you either have values or you don.t ........."what if" should never enter into it.........

[Redux]

Well yeah it hurts the team, but rules are rules. If you start picking and choosing punishment based off how important they are to the team winning they will start ignoring the rules and exploit their immunity and eventually they will suck on the field.

 

The rules are there for a reason. Why is this even a question?

[cm husker]

you either have values or you don.t ........."what if" should never enter into it.........

Why is punishing everyone, guys who have worked their tails off and coaches with jobs on the line, automatically the appropriate value?

[Redux]

 

you either have values or you don.t ........."what if" should never enter into it.........

Why is punishing everyone, guys who have worked their tails off and coaches with jobs on the line, automatically the appropriate value?

Tommy goes out, gets in trouble, gets benched.

 

Who should the team be pissed at? A) The coaches for punishing him or B) Tommy, for breaking the rules they ALL UNDERSTOOD AND WERE AWARE OF

[cm husker]

Well yeah it hurts the team, but rules are rules. If you start picking and choosing punishment based off how important they are to the team winning they will start ignoring the rules and exploit their immunity and eventually they will suck on the field.

 

The rules are there for a reason. Why is this even a question?

As far as I know, there is no schedule of punishments that Riley (or the majority of coaches) maintains. Just saying it's conceivable that third party harm should be a factor in punishment.

[Redux]

Yeah it sucks when a starter acts like a college kid and gets caught doing something stupid.

 

But that doesn't mean the coaches should look the other way. Is this thread serious?

[cm husker]

 

 

you either have values or you don.t ........."what if" should never enter into it.........

Why is punishing everyone, guys who have worked their tails off and coaches with jobs on the line, automatically the appropriate value?

Tommy goes out, gets in trouble, gets benched.

 

Who should the team be pissed at? A) The coaches for punishing him or B) Tommy, for breaking the rules they ALL UNDERSTOOD AND WERE AWARE OF

That doesn't answer the question. And I didn't bring up anything about who should be mad at whom.

[Redux]

 

 

 

you either have values or you don.t ........."what if" should never enter into it.........

Why is punishing everyone, guys who have worked their tails off and coaches with jobs on the line, automatically the appropriate value?

Tommy goes out, gets in trouble, gets benched.

Who should the team be pissed at? A) The coaches for punishing him or B) Tommy, for breaking the rules they ALL UNDERSTOOD AND WERE AWARE OF

That doesn't answer the question. And I didn't bring up anything about who should be mad at whom.

The answer is and was: Yes, punish him, even if he is the starter. It's a no brainer, anything else sets a TERRIBLE example.

[cm husker]

Yeah it sucks when a starter acts like a college kid and gets caught doing something stupid.

 

But that doesn't mean the coaches should look the other way. Is this thread serious?

Look the other way??? There are dozens of punishment options besides just suspension for the next game.

[Redux]

 

Yeah it sucks when a starter acts like a college kid and gets caught doing something stupid.

But that doesn't mean the coaches should look the other way. Is this thread serious?

Look the other way??? There are dozens of punishment options besides just suspension for the next game.

Yeah, that ultimately mean squat. If a player knows they can go get in just a "little bit" of trouble without any meaningful consequences because it would "hurt the team", I mean yeesh. You really wanna open Pandora's box?

[StPaulHusker]

 

you either have values or you don.t ........."what if" should never enter into it.........

Why is punishing everyone, guys who have worked their tails off and coaches with jobs on the line, automatically the appropriate value?

That's what being part of a TEAM means. You are accountable for each other.

[Redux]

 

 

you either have values or you don.t ........."what if" should never enter into it.........

Why is punishing everyone, guys who have worked their tails off and coaches with jobs on the line, automatically the appropriate value?

That's what being part of a TEAM means. You are accountable for each other.

Exactly.

 

You play as a team and you win/lose as a team.

 

It is your team mates who are responsible for holding each other accountable.

[cm husker]

Some of these black and white, harsh responses do make me wonder who had played college athletics.

[Redux]

Some of these black and white, harsh responses do make me wonder who had played college athletics.

That's a cop out, most of us on this board have not.

 

The same ideals stand outside college athletics. You screw up, you pay the consequences. And the people around you will be disappointed.