Replies

But I think they are all parent's of players on the team.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about this. I think the coaches were trying to force the administration to back the coach, and it didn't work.

But to hurt all the other kids on the team over the actions of the principle bothers me. If my son was on the team, and had a chance for a scholarship, I would be pretty upset of the coach and assistants all quit (violating a term of their contracts which required 60 days notice) right before a must-win game.

I'd be upset at the principal as well, but since I can't do anything about what SHE did I'm stuck with trying to help my son's team win so his chances of a career isn't shot.

In the pros, if a player is suspended they can appeal and their suspension is waived pending that appeal. I think that would have been something that could have been done here. The coach could have simply refused to play the player.

The player may deserve to be kicked off, but I think a player deserves to have a "day in court" before punishment.

Perhaps you are correct. The coach might have accepted the offending player back onto the squad but given him zero playing time. It would have had the same effect on the player as punishment but it would also send a quiet signal to prospecting colleges that a stud who is missing from play might be uncoachable or a behavior problem.

The player may deserve to be kicked off, but I think a player deserves to have a "day in court" before punishment.

He had his day in court. The coach is the judge. Period. Shape up or ship out. I can't believe the school did not back the coach. Having been a varsity coach--if you don't have the support of the administration, you don't have anything. There is nothing worse than working for a district that is run by the parents.

I'd be upset at the principal as well, but since I can't do anything about what SHE did I'm stuck with trying to help my son's team win so his chances of a career isn't shot. In the pros, if a player is suspended they can appeal and their suspension is waived pending that appeal. I think that would have been something that could have been done here. The coach could have simply refused to play the player.

There was due process. The coach cut the offending player. The principal overrode the coach, and reinstated the player. The coach then realized that the administration didn't support the coach, so he resigned.

HS sports *used* to be a benevelent dictatorship. Now, it's more live a govenorship, with the parents running the show.

The player may deserve to be kicked off, but I think a player deserves to have a "day in court" before punishment.

Football is not run as a democracy, nor as a comittee.

Realistically, only 1 in perhaps 45 - 80 high school (football) players have a chance at scholarships.

Tragically, sports, (and the performing arts - music, band, drill team, orchestra, plays, chorus) are the ONLY places where the kids' OWN performance and determination and discipline really count.

Here, ONE player (actually, one player's PARENTS) has hurt the rest of the team.