Coaching Change at Mizzou

[KnoxVegas]

Good luck Kyle! As for the Iowa position, at least his game wardrobe will have the same colors, right?

While the timing may be suspect to some, as a coach, I know that I serve at their pleasure, not the other way around. Whatever your take on the reasons why Kyle was let go, wish both parties well.

[somrandomguy]

what I am saying is that sometimes news reports don't always get the facts exactly right. The players of the team are very dedicated to the team and the sport, and want to get all of the talent at the school to play to their maximum level. I could be wrong, but those are my opinions on the situation.

So translating from doublespeak and veiled language into plain english:

Players who the team thought were good did not want to play for a gay coach, so they fired the coach.


Wow.

[Madlax16]

Good luck to Hawkins in his future coaching. With the loss of some coaches in the grlc it will be nice to see how things play out next year, expecially with certain teams moving up and down in divisions. Ive kept in touch with certain teams and ive seen great strides in the way teams are being run and at the level of players coming in. It should be a very intersting year next season.

[BarefootLacrosse]

Let's open ourselves up to another perspective:

In three years Mizzou has failed to beat Illinois once, failed to beat Lindenwood once, failed to beat a top 25 team once, and failed to make it to the GRLC championship. Mizzou is a giant university very close to St. Louis, a growing lacrosse hotbed, yet for three years the team has had an undersized roster.

Coach Hawkins was nearly fired in 2002 and at the end of last season. Both of these cases occurred before he publicly came out (a fact often overlooked).

The bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of players, alumni, and faculty advisors felt that a change was needed to bring a stagnate program to the next level.

[pstirling]

"So translating from doublespeak and veiled language into plain english:

Players who the team thought were good did not want to play for a gay coach, so they fired the coach.


Wow. "

If you want to pigeon hole Kyle Hawkins, the man, as nothing more than a "gay coach", then your assumption would be correct. Even dating back to 2000 and 2001, I was one of many that liked and respected Coach Hawkins, but I was not blind to the fact that there was significant talent at the school that was not playing.

I understand why ESPN ran the story they did, because they need the catchy headline when writing a story about a Virtual Varsity College Lacrosse coach that was fired after a distraction-filled 6-9 season in Mid-Missouri. ESPN and others feel they need a protagonist and an antagonist, and they chose a group of 18-21 year olds to be the enemy, just as they did a year ago at Duke, because it seems so obvious and clear cut and fits perfectly into everyone's preconceived notions of the Bible Belt. Anyone and everyone is entitled to their own opinions and prejudices, I'm just trying to let everyone know it's not as cut and dry as what ESPN wants you to think with a headline like "Mizzou fires gay lax coach after 1st losing season".

[StrykerFSU]

I'm sure no one at Mizzou will want to comment on possible replacements and I absolutely respect that but it will be interesting to see who they can bring in to replace Coach Hawkins. With all due respect, are their coaches clamoring for the opportunity to take a job that requires full time hours for less than part time pay? In my opinion, it is a special individual that fits the mold of MCLA head coach and I hope that Mizzou is able to find another one. Back to my college football parallel, it's not like there are loads of unemployed lacrosse coaches sitting by their phones in Missouri, right? "Dom Starsia's not walking through that door. Dave Cottle's not walking through that door."

Also, to let a successful coach go because a team thinks it will bring players out of the woodwork is another example of poor decision making. It seems to me that an awfully big risk is being taken to try to entice players who have already shown they are not dedicated to the sport to actually come out for the team. I don't even know that those are the type of players I would want on my team in the first place. And I'll ask the next logical question, why were these players not playing in the first place?

In three years Mizzou has failed to beat Illinois once, failed to beat Lindenwood once, failed to beat a top 25 team once, and failed to make it to the GRLC championship. Mizzou is a giant university very close to St. Louis, a growing lacrosse hotbed, yet for three years the team has had an undersized roster.

This just seems absolutely ridiculous to me. In 2007, Mizzou was beaten soundly by Lindenwood and Illinois by 20-3 and 20-5 respectively. In 2006, they did not play Lindenwood and lost to Illinois 11-9. Two years ago they lost to Lindenwood 12-11 and Illinois 5-4. (stats from http://www.collegelax.us/team.php?id=14) So yes, 2007 was a down year but by everyone's admission it was a year filled with distractions. Why not give your coach, who has given you nine years of service, the chance to bounce back?

[byualum]

"Dave Cottle's not walking through that door."

I don't know...after Sunday night Cottle might be available.

[Adam Gamradt]

It's interesting to read the article, and then read the contrasting opinions here on the board.

The article states "Karen Mitchell, the team's faculty adviser, said Hawkins had unrealistic expectations. He was just no longer compatible with a club sport," she said. He's made lacrosse his life."

So the guys are Missouri want to play better lacrosse, and practice less? I am not calling anyone out, I'm just pointing out inconsistency in the logic of some of the posters on the board.

I'm interested to see who they replace him with, clearly that is going to be a tough gig.

I'm also curious which of the players who quit after Coach Hawkins came out, will come back next year. Please know I'm not accusing anyone of bigotry, I don't pretend to know what is in your head. Maybe all those guys who quit last year just didn't like Coach Hawkins, and didn't want to play for him.

My point is this, the statement that Coach Hawkins took things too seriously, and the statement that you want to take your program to the next level, are inconsistent.

[A.J. Stevens]

In 2006, they did not play Lindenwood and lost to Illinois 11-9.

Mizzou lost to Lindenwood 20-4 in the 2006 GRLC tournament. Coaching most teams at the club level has a challenge that varsity teams do not. At the end of the season you have to face the players that you coached and hope they give you another year. I knew I would eventually get fired when I decided to coach at Illinois. It is only a matter of time unless you can take the players out of the roll of employer (Something that is not likely to happen at most schools in the MCLA) I had to answer to players this season after being named coach of the year for the second time in two years along with a second consecutive top 25 finish. (We were not ranked at the end of the season for the five years prior to my arrival) Should I be fired? Not in my opinion but there were players that lobbied strongly for a change. That is how it is when you choose to work for the players that you coach. You coach your way and if they want something different then you buy a new jacket and move on. Coach Hawkins did a nice job getting his team ready for Illinois in the GRLC semi-finals. I wish him well in the future. While change can be disappointing it is often a good thing.

[davewiley]

Before Kyle's arrival Mizzou was an organizational joke in the GPLL, which didn't require much of its teams other than showing up, which Mizzou had a nearly impossible time doing. While playing I was playing in KC, Mizzou managed to play us ONCE in a span of about 4 years, in Columbia.

The Mizzou women's team has been without a coach for nine years. I don't know that a town that size is going to be crawling with potential coaches. Maybe the change will mean more people on the roster in future years, but I'm pretty skeptical that Mizzou will be more competitive in the near term.

That said, the team is a student organization, and the student members have the ultimate say, and I'd imagine that the student leadership of the team has gotten some valuable life experience in trying to sort through this decision. Hopefully both sides of the decision will benefit in time.

[BarefootLacrosse]

The article states "Karen Mitchell, the team's faculty adviser, said Hawkins had unrealistic expectations. He was just no longer compatible with a club sport," she said. He's made lacrosse his life."

So the guys are Missouri want to play better lacrosse, and practice less? I am not calling anyone out, I'm just pointing out inconsistency in the logic of some of the posters on the board.

My point is this, the statement that Coach Hawkins took things too seriously, and the statement that you want to take your program to the next level, are inconsistent.

This quote by Karen Mitchell is somewhat out of context and does not fully represent the views of the Mizzou Lacrosse team. "Unrealistic expectations" was in reference to a California trip that had to be canceled this year. The trip had to be canceled because the team simply could not afford it. Financially, it was unrealistic and over-ambitious. No one is talking about practicing less or taking the work load off. If anything, the players want more challenging and efficient practices. Taking things "seriously" means working hard on fundamentals, conditioning, and team unity...Not extravagant trips to San Francisco that would have put the team in debt when money is already in short supply.

[Beta]

Barefoot's post clears up a lot. From the article, it was made to believe/implied that Mizzou wanted to be less serious of an organization.

[Daren Turner]

In regards to several of the comments that others have posted in regards to "not all the talent being on the roster" - I can assure you that this is legit. For several years I've watched several high school kids graduate from the local team who intended to play for Mizzou. Inevitably, they would not show up on the roster and every time I heard through the grapevine it was because they had problems with Hawkins. This was before any knowledge of his orientation was made public.
Just my two cents....

[DRich17]

I have heard from a lot of people both involved with Mizzou lacrosse and with the GRLC, that have expressed dislike and even disgust with Hawkins (in terms of sportsmanship, professionalism, etc.) Then again there are always two sides to it. He had a good track record. There are certain people involved in the GRLC and MCLA that are out to 'taylor' the league to fit their teams. THe political side of our league is really upsetting to me with the way its conducted sometimes. But for reasons the Mizzou team decided, they wanted a change. So what? They had their reasons for doing it. I dont think we should feel sorry for the gay coach, i really doubt that had ANYthing to do with it. Its a fine line when you coach the people that pay you.

[LAXFAN]

Quoted from the article

Among the concerns: dissatisfaction with his practice regimen and the coach's negative reputation outside the school.

"Those are laughable," Hawkins said. "A week and a half before the meeting, they had sat in front of the ESPN cameras and said what a great coach I was."

This seems like kind of an interesting point Hawkins attempts to make here. In interviews where Hawkins was obviously either present, or interviews which he was surely going to see afterwards, is a current player in the middle of the season going to rip apart his coach? I really don't think so.

Analogy:
After a game during a locker room interview where his teammates and/or coaches are present, when asked about Joe Torre is A-Rod going to say how he hates his Manager?


P.S. After a situation such as the one at Duke where the public was so quick to blame the players, it saddens me that many, especially in this lacrosse community, are so quick to blame the players with wrongdoing.