Central's Coach

[DRich17]

Changing what traditional club sports were founded on is exactly what the MCLA is here for. We are supposed to be a an organization of coach-run, coach-driven teams. Without that, the term "virtual varsity" that is thrown around a lot doesn't mean nearly as much.


I agree that athletes, at any level, should have some input into the hiring and firing of coaches. However, no team can run at its best if the same guy who is running the organization, and most importantly deciding who is even on the team through recruiting, tryouts and disciplinary situations, can be fired by the same group he is making those decisions about. It's a clear conflict of interest.

Hiring and firing should be handled by an outside group, whether that's an official university office (Rec. Sports, Athletics, etc.) or an official alumni or booster group. Student athletes should have a grievance process to report to this group if necessary and should have a minority role on a search committee.

Sonny is right. We need to stop thinking of ourselves from a club perspective. I don't think any of us expect all MCLA teams to get to what I've described overnight, but that should be the goal - and in the meantime coaches need to be very wary of what they are signing up for.

(None of my post has anything to do with the Central Michigan situation. I don't know enough details to have an opinion on how that team is run. I do agree with Sonny, however, that it's another knock on how we are all perceived.)

I've got to say that I disagree with this on almost every level. So what's the idea of a club sport being virtual varsity. Well I'll tell you that when a bunch of really good teams, who are club, start getting better, they would like to be recognized more than just a "club team." Let's get one thing straight,I HATE having to explain to someone that I play "Club" lacrosse and then what that is, but It doesn't change the fact that it is club lacrosse for a reason. Someone in another thread wrote that the MCLA wasn't about growing the sport. But isn't it by default about growing the sport? If the sport was full grown, we would all be NCAA. A Club status IS a growth status.

Let me spread some Wolverine love. I think its cool what your school is doing with their sports (i saw the deal with the baseball team and the mets) I think its cool they do stuff like that and your lax invitational with Hopkins. Now if Michigan wants to be a full varsity NCAA program, that's Michigans problem, not mine. If I want MoSt to be a NCAA program that's my problem.

Hiring and firing should be up to the teams themselves. If Michigan wants to make it a third party deal, cool. If we want to do it ourselves, cool. I see the problems with the way it's set up; you pay the coach. How can he ride your ass about not going to practice when you pay him. Yes it has problems. But there is NO WAY I want the league to decide the 'end all' rule for this.

I should have the right to fire my coach whenever I want. After all, its my bill. Would I want to? probably not, buts thats irrelevant here. What's relevant is that its my choice, and there should be no standard. As far as I see it, Im only hurting my team.

And guys PLEASE. we are a club. Here we've got the President of the MCLA voicing an opinion to move away from club status? Please Mr president take your team but leave the league the way it is. All this is doing is tailor fitting the MCLA and its rules to fit the maybe 5% of teams that are like yours. So now the MCLA is thinking of ruling team decisions?

I don't know about anyone else, but this idea scares me. We've got a president of the MCLA who represents a very small portion of the spectrum.

My thoughts are my own and do not represent that of my team or conference.

[Gvlax]

Someone in another thread wrote that the MCLA wasn't about growing the sport. But isn't it by default about growing the sport? If the sport was full grown, we would all be NCAA. A Club status IS a growth status.

I read that thread and he meant it wasnt a developmental league where d2 teams play till they are ready to compete in d1. Thats what he meant about growing the sport. Of course MCLA is about growing the sport or we wouldnt be here today. Next time look into his words more before you take one sentence out of context.

As for saying what john paul said is completely wrong i think you are going to find yourself disagreeing with most of the people on here. Most teams want to be taken serious like a virtual varsity and by giving the power to players to decide that a coach should be fired is not going to give the league a good reputation. Why would a coach want to coach for a team knowing he/she could get fired because the players feel he is being to mean (but in your own word here).

If a lacrosse team does not want to grow their team into a highly reputable team, then mcla is not a place to join. MCLA is working to get the stigma of Club out of lacrosse for schools all around the country.

[DRich17]

Someone in another thread wrote that the MCLA wasn't about growing the sport. But isn't it by default about growing the sport? If the sport was full grown, we would all be NCAA. A Club status IS a growth status.

I read that thread and he meant it wasnt a developmental league where d2 teams play till they are ready to compete in d1. Thats what he meant about growing the sport. Of course MCLA is about growing the sport or we wouldnt be here today. Next time look into his words more before you take one sentence out of context.

As for saying what john paul said is completely wrong i think you are going to find yourself disagreeing with most of the people on here. Most teams want to be taken serious like a virtual varsity and by giving the power to players to decide that a coach should be fired is not going to give the league a good reputation. Why would a coach want to coach for a team knowing he/she could get fired because the players feel he is being to mean (but in your own word here).

Players already have the power to do this. They always have. You are trying to take their power, and right, away.

If a lacrosse team does not want to grow their team into a highly reputable team, then mcla is not a place to join. MCLA is working to get the stigma of Club out of lacrosse for schools all around the country.

Will you please go to the mcla.us website and check what the "About Us' section says.

I still am unconvinced how a bad seed playing in assville, nowhere is going to discount the fact that Michigan played very well with Hopkins. Anybody whos anybody in lacrosse knows Michigan can ball, but not because they know Michigan is in the MCLA, but because Michigan has built their program into what it is today.

Why does their standard have to be mine?

[Gross]

DRich, I think you can sleep easy tonight and not worry about the league imposing any rules regarding hiring/firing of coaches. Just think about the logistics of attempting to implement a rule saying something to the effect of "hiring and firing of coaches shall only be done by outside groups, not by team members." How could this possibly be enforced??? For starters, this would likely be in conflict with the standards that many schools have for how their clubs run. I know from my experience as both a player (and team president) and coach at St. Thomas, the school, for the most part, had a "hands-off" approach, and all the decisions regarding coaching were handled by the players. We could hire who we wanted, when we wanted; all we had to submit to the school was the personal info for our coach. You seem to be worried that the MCLA is going to implement a rule such as this, and then clear it with the ~200 schools in the MCLA? Not going to happen.

If I understand the message of JP's post (and JP please correct me if I am wrong), he was simply voicing his OPINION on who he feels should handle the coaching decisions. I should also state that I, personally, am in complete agreement with that opinion. There are too many inherent problems that come with allowing the players to hold a coach's fate in their hands, which I think you have accurately pointed out.

I think that we would all agree that a key element to the development and stability of a program lies in coaching stability. Allowing players the discretion to fire a coach at any point won't help a program grow and develop. As I see it, it is potentially dangerous in that it could lead to players making decisions based upon the wrong information (i.e. lack of playing time, the coach riding them too hard in practice, etc.). Having the outside observer who can can objectively look at the situation (with player opinions and input) would, in my mind, be a better situation. In the ideal situation, a team's coach is planning on being there for several seasons, and the decisions of one year's team could have major negative ramifications on future teams and the future of the team, in general.

[Mikelaw84]

It seems as though the two schools of thought here are that 1.) Players shouldn't handle their coaches fate and that 2.) Players should have complete control of their coaches employment.

I think it is important to note that club lacrosse (as most teams operate as, though not all) is primarily run by the student-athletes themselves. Due to this fact, they are an integral part of how their team's are run and the status of their coach is inherently apart of this situation.

I believe the best process is a hybrid of what has been mentioned in this thread thus far: An objective protocol used by all MCLA teams (obviously tailored to meet the needs of individual institutions) which does not grant sole power to the players, but does give them a voice in matters involving their team.

Lets not forget that part of college athletics is to educate the players how to conduct themselves not only on the field, but off it for years to come. Responsibly involving them in the inner workings of a college team is an invaluable experience unique to the "club" atmosphere.

[Sonny]

I should have the right to fire my coach whenever I want. After all, its my bill. Would I want to? probably not, buts thats irrelevant here. What's relevant is that its my choice, and there should be no standard. As far as I see it, Im only hurting my team.

Me, me, me, me. It's all about me.

What's next? Will you take your ball home when Mom calls you home for dinner?

[jgratson]

I think if a team would like to be taken seriously, they need a coach who is a leader. What if a coach finds out a good portion of his kids were getting drunk or hi before a game (not all that unlikely in club ball)? If he was afraid of what the kids would think, maybe he wouldn't do what is in the best interest of the team. And that could result in what is not in the best interest of the sport.

If what a coach does is THAT bad, the players can complain to a third party, the rec department or whatever, and the situation will be taken care of.

If you aren't willing to let a coach punish players for being late or skipping practice, you're just setting your team up for on the field failure (which is fine if that is what your team really wants).

[NELAX21]

Something that we are in the process of is changing out club constitution (which i am sure most of the team in the MCLA have) to give our coach some more power in the team, or at least some more control on how he could be released from the team and it is not just "we dont like him so we want him gone". I think other clubs might want to look at their constitutions to see what they can do.