Okay, so I read through the entire thread yesterday and tried to answer a few things, but wanted to put everything together somewhere in one post for everyone to be able to see without reading four pages worth of stuff if they didn't want to.
First of all, this isn't about anything illegal or anything along those lines. It isn't really a secret that Ehren Earleywine takes a hard line approach. Honestly, he coaches girls like they're guys. And that's one of his greatest strengths. For a lot of players, it works really well (and obviously the players he's gotten it to work for have been very good players). But for some players, his style is too much. There have been quite a few transfers. There have been a lot of posts on this board over the years about things Earleywine has done or said to his players that might not have gone over well or been appropriate (not like in a sexual manner or anything, I want to make that clear, just in a that went too far manner).
This isn't a new development or revelation. If you've paid attention to Mizzou softball the last few years, you probably know this. A few weeks ago, I got a tip that this was likely to be Earleywine's last season at Missouri (I didn't know the person that told me this and couldn't really attest to the veracity). I started asking around and didn't find much of anything. Eventually a source told me basically that it wasn't impossible, but that nothing had been decided by any means. Basically Earleywine has been told for years he needs to soften his approach and deal better with people and he hasn't really done it.
Anyway, the investigation referenced in the statement from the players revolves around that type of stuff and, as I understand it, was kind of instigated by recent complaints. So if people come to Mizzou with these complaints and Mizzou ignores them, they're in trouble. As it is, people come with complaints, Mizzou looks into them and then different people complain that Mizzou is investigating them. Not sure what Mizzou could have done in that situation exactly.
This is going to be seen as a blind defense of Mack Rhoades. It isn't. I thought he handled the situation in November brutally and have said so a number of times and because of that, now perhaps the softball team saw a situation and said, "hey, we can do this. Our administration panicked and bungled everything when the football team did it and the football team got pretty much everything it wanted. So let's go make sure EE doesn't get fired."
Now, I would argue that yesterday was hardly the most effective way to do that. I mean, if I came on here with a post railing on Rivals and how terrible they were and saying I was covering a game in protest of them and despite how much I think they suck, I'd expect to hear from my boss. The players basically said "We think our coach's boss is terrible at his job and we don't like him and we want everybody to know about it." Does that help Earleywine? Two scenarios:
1. He knew about the protest and let the team do it.
I've got to think that costs him his job. That's absolutely insubordination and no AD is going to be okay with it.
2. He didn't know about the protest and the team did it without his knowledge.
This would be better for his job security. But it also opens up the thought that if I'm Earleywine, I'm thinking "What the hell are you doing? Maybe you had good intentions, but it couldn't possibly have made things more difficult for me."
The other thing is if this whole situation does lead to Earleywine's departure (and again I don't know, I'm just saying it's possible) then I think it also leads to Mizzou having to be pretty specific and detailed about why they fired him. It's obviously not for performance. So bringing the investigation to light by his players may save his job. But if it doesn't, it could lead to Missouri saying, "We fired him and here's why we fired him with details about multiple incidents over multiple years" and that wouldn't really be the best solution for anyone.
I don't know what's going to happen with Earleywine. He's incredibly successful. He's obviously got some or all of the current players in his corner. He's also obviously got a history and has certainly upset some people and players along the way. So again, what happens, I don't know.
As far as thoughts on the protest, I'll say this: I'm kind of tired of this kind of thing. I'm not saying they should be robots and shut up and play, but I also think that playing a Division One sport is a privilege that a ton of people would loved to have been able to experience. These kids work very hard for it and I don't underestimate that, but at the same time, the attitude that they're treated terribly and deserve more than they're getting, etc, is tough for many to accept. In this particular case, one of the complaints is that Rhoades told the players they don't have any say in who their coach is. Well, they don't. And shouldn't. It's the AD's job to hire the coach and the players can play (or not) for that person. But the players don't get to hire the coach. Never have and never should. Shouldn't be asked or consulted.
I said this in the other thread and I think it bears repeating: This isn't about men vs women in any way. It's about football vs softball in a way that football is certainly going to draw more attention and such, but not in a way of gender. That part doesn't matter.
I hope Mizzou learned something about how to handle crisis situations in November. If they didn't, well, it's going to continue to be ugly and the inmates are gonna be running the asylum pretty soon. I'd personally (and this is nothing but my personal opinion) like to see a swift and strong response from the administration. I'm not saying you start pulling scholarships today, but you make it pretty clear "We're in charge of running the programs and the department, you're in charge of showing up and playing. Let's not blur those lines."
Anyway, sorry for the length, those are my thoughts and wanted to put everything together in one place for everyone. Eli will be at the game today and will talk to the players (assuming they're allowed to talk).
First of all, this isn't about anything illegal or anything along those lines. It isn't really a secret that Ehren Earleywine takes a hard line approach. Honestly, he coaches girls like they're guys. And that's one of his greatest strengths. For a lot of players, it works really well (and obviously the players he's gotten it to work for have been very good players). But for some players, his style is too much. There have been quite a few transfers. There have been a lot of posts on this board over the years about things Earleywine has done or said to his players that might not have gone over well or been appropriate (not like in a sexual manner or anything, I want to make that clear, just in a that went too far manner).
This isn't a new development or revelation. If you've paid attention to Mizzou softball the last few years, you probably know this. A few weeks ago, I got a tip that this was likely to be Earleywine's last season at Missouri (I didn't know the person that told me this and couldn't really attest to the veracity). I started asking around and didn't find much of anything. Eventually a source told me basically that it wasn't impossible, but that nothing had been decided by any means. Basically Earleywine has been told for years he needs to soften his approach and deal better with people and he hasn't really done it.
Anyway, the investigation referenced in the statement from the players revolves around that type of stuff and, as I understand it, was kind of instigated by recent complaints. So if people come to Mizzou with these complaints and Mizzou ignores them, they're in trouble. As it is, people come with complaints, Mizzou looks into them and then different people complain that Mizzou is investigating them. Not sure what Mizzou could have done in that situation exactly.
This is going to be seen as a blind defense of Mack Rhoades. It isn't. I thought he handled the situation in November brutally and have said so a number of times and because of that, now perhaps the softball team saw a situation and said, "hey, we can do this. Our administration panicked and bungled everything when the football team did it and the football team got pretty much everything it wanted. So let's go make sure EE doesn't get fired."
Now, I would argue that yesterday was hardly the most effective way to do that. I mean, if I came on here with a post railing on Rivals and how terrible they were and saying I was covering a game in protest of them and despite how much I think they suck, I'd expect to hear from my boss. The players basically said "We think our coach's boss is terrible at his job and we don't like him and we want everybody to know about it." Does that help Earleywine? Two scenarios:
1. He knew about the protest and let the team do it.
I've got to think that costs him his job. That's absolutely insubordination and no AD is going to be okay with it.
2. He didn't know about the protest and the team did it without his knowledge.
This would be better for his job security. But it also opens up the thought that if I'm Earleywine, I'm thinking "What the hell are you doing? Maybe you had good intentions, but it couldn't possibly have made things more difficult for me."
The other thing is if this whole situation does lead to Earleywine's departure (and again I don't know, I'm just saying it's possible) then I think it also leads to Mizzou having to be pretty specific and detailed about why they fired him. It's obviously not for performance. So bringing the investigation to light by his players may save his job. But if it doesn't, it could lead to Missouri saying, "We fired him and here's why we fired him with details about multiple incidents over multiple years" and that wouldn't really be the best solution for anyone.
I don't know what's going to happen with Earleywine. He's incredibly successful. He's obviously got some or all of the current players in his corner. He's also obviously got a history and has certainly upset some people and players along the way. So again, what happens, I don't know.
As far as thoughts on the protest, I'll say this: I'm kind of tired of this kind of thing. I'm not saying they should be robots and shut up and play, but I also think that playing a Division One sport is a privilege that a ton of people would loved to have been able to experience. These kids work very hard for it and I don't underestimate that, but at the same time, the attitude that they're treated terribly and deserve more than they're getting, etc, is tough for many to accept. In this particular case, one of the complaints is that Rhoades told the players they don't have any say in who their coach is. Well, they don't. And shouldn't. It's the AD's job to hire the coach and the players can play (or not) for that person. But the players don't get to hire the coach. Never have and never should. Shouldn't be asked or consulted.
I said this in the other thread and I think it bears repeating: This isn't about men vs women in any way. It's about football vs softball in a way that football is certainly going to draw more attention and such, but not in a way of gender. That part doesn't matter.
I hope Mizzou learned something about how to handle crisis situations in November. If they didn't, well, it's going to continue to be ugly and the inmates are gonna be running the asylum pretty soon. I'd personally (and this is nothing but my personal opinion) like to see a swift and strong response from the administration. I'm not saying you start pulling scholarships today, but you make it pretty clear "We're in charge of running the programs and the department, you're in charge of showing up and playing. Let's not blur those lines."
Anyway, sorry for the length, those are my thoughts and wanted to put everything together in one place for everyone. Eli will be at the game today and will talk to the players (assuming they're allowed to talk).
