Mike Rice - RUTGERS basketball coach - what a psycho!

I know that there is lots I don't know. Even though it might sound like it, I haven't come completely unhinged...just somewhat unhinged.

What I DO know is this:

multiple instances on the tape

"complaining" is only one form of possible action

yes, I have heard some were disappointed in their own inaction

No, I don't know what went on. Obviously ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN ANY WAY EFFECTIVE FOR YEARS, since there are so many instances on tape, over a long period of time, since this came to light a very long time ago.

And if standing up for yourself and your friends and doing what's right when it's time to step up makes you a tough guy, then yeah, that's me.

Along with every 10-year-old altar boy who fights back against the priest, every 20-year-old girl who fights back against the frat boy, every 12-year-old girl who fights back against the camp counselor, every 60-year-old Cypriot who fights back against their government, every migrant worker who fights back against their abusive employer, every working girl who fights back against their pimp.

There will always be those who do something meaningful, and those who only stand around and watch. Every time somebody leads, there will be some who follow.

Who did something meaningful at Rutgers? As far as I can tell, nobody, for years, because nothing seems to have changed, and because nobody seems to have paid any kind of price for even having tried. (I could be wrong on this last point, please enlighten me if I am.)

I don't need to hear apologies for a bunch of self-interested college-age guys who should have displayed better moral judgment, more courage, and better conflict resolution skills than they did.

Like I said, I've been in a similar situation, with vastly different results.

Have any of you been in this type of situation? What did you do, if anything, and how did things turn out?

Young kids and the developmentally disadvantaged get a pass, because they don't understand the nature of authority, and its limits. College age guys? No way.

Unless I'm TOTALLY wrong, and what he did WAS reasonably related to coaching objectives. If that was the case, then why is he now fired and being excoriated?

I don't think it's even a close call.

SG:

Not sure why you describe the situation as 'either you fight the mofo or you are giving him a pass'

Civilized people have found ways to defend themselves without violence. It works pretty well, really.

If one of those kids had been my son, and my son hit the coach, I would have been deeply disappointed in him. Likewise, if one of those kids had been my son and he didn't try to stop the abuse through civilized channels, I would also have been disappointed.

You can't really believe this 'violence or nothing' argument you are making, can you?

ESPN is reporting that Rice will still receive a $100k bonus, and his buyout under the 2 years left on his contract is being negotiated.

So I guess the message is NOTHING is a terminable breach of contract in the NCAA? What a farce.

Let me clarify a couple of things. I don't think what this guy was doing was in any way defensible. It was completely inappropriate behavior and it should have been addressed when the tape first came out, by firing him. There can be no excuse for throwing a basketball close range at a player's head. He should have been canned immediately. And that's only one of the reasons he should have been fired; the tape indicates several transgressions that I think are worthy of dismissal.What I find problematic is your dogged insistence that you would have reacted differently in that situation and that your reaction would have been the only acceptable one. You claim to have been in a similar situation, one that involved your dream at the time, and it ended in a physical altercation, a fight. You now call these players cowards and sheep because they didn't do what you did. Given that we can't know the complexities of their individual situations we can't know how we would have reacted in the same situation. It's impossible to know.My comment earlier about group dynamics was not, in fact, intended to suggest that there is only one group and one dynamic. In fact, group dynamics recognizes exactly the opposite.Imagine, for instance, you've seen this guy blow a gasket in practice numerous times, and you're fed up. You've even spoken to many of your teammates and agreed that this behavior has to stop. The next practice, the coach chucks a ball at someone's head and you decide, That's it, and you call him out. But, the two guys who agreed in the locker room to back you up? Well, one of them is a first generation college student who can't continue to attend without his athletic scholarship...and he gets cold feet and goes quiet. The other? Well, he knows someone has already complained about the coach and he got fired and the coach only got a short suspension. He's not going to risk his spot on the team.There's also a reasonably good chance that at least some of the players on the team supported the coach and had no problem with any of his tactics--the swearing, the name calling, the kicking, the thrown balls. So when you lodge your complaint or are facing expulsion for assaulting the coach, they're not going to back you up--they're going to say Coach is tough but fair, and you're out on your ass. We can't know if any of these sorts of scenarios came into play. I might be totally, completely, utterly wrong and full of sh1te. Happens all the time. But you...you're totally fine sitting on a meaningless internet message board calling these guys names and talking about how YOU would have acted differently in their situation. YOU don't know them. YOU don't know the reality of their situation. But YOU know what's right. Nice work, tough guy.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Unless I'm TOTALLY wrong, and what he did WAS reasonably related to coaching objectives. If that was the case, then why is he now fired and being excoriated?

I never said "violence or nothing".

I'm saying you legitimately defend both yourself and those around you from physical actions motivated by anger, immediately. If the first act happens too fast, then you let the guy and everybody else know what happened and that you're watching. If the first act was bad and especially if it was considered and intentional, it doesn't get excused.

Defending yourself is not "violence". It is not done with the primary intent to injure another, yet to preserve oneself. By protecting others in your position, you likewise protect yourself. Not all physical acts are "violent" acts.

And how well did their "strategy" work? "Pretty well", according to you? Are 50 instances of this, or however many times it happened, acceptable to you? Is a pattern of behavior that went on apparently for years acceptable to you? That's only working out "pretty well" if your standards are incredibly low.

How did this guy treat everybody else in his life? What I see is rage, pure and simple. All the signs. None of their strategies have helped either him, or anybody affected by his rage, for at least the past year.

When you rage, you learn to check yourself. If you cannot help but express that rage, YOU DO NOT LAY A HAND ON ANYBODY ELSE. You kick the bleacher, NOT ANOTHER PERSON. You punch the rear view mirror off the windshield, you don't punch ANOTHER PERSON. You throw a ball at the wall, NOT AT ANOTHER PERSON.

I have seen this crap before. It's a bad situation, waiting to get really bad. That coach is the lucky one here. You don't think that over that time feelings of resentment weren't building in his targets? The emotional violence exceeded the physical violence. For now. It's just a matter of time.

Same goes for that a-hole Knight, and everybody else like them. They do it because they can get away with it, because people let them. Knight is unapologetic, as this guy will be, even if he issues some sort of formal apology.

You can't just walk away from everything. Sometimes SHIT finds YOU. And sometimes you have to deal with it right away, and hard. Not all physical acts are violent. Not all physical acts justify a physical response. If someone's coming at me in an obvious rage in that context, I'm doing what I need to to disable him and save myself from whatever is coming my way, because you never know what that will be. If I see someone going after a friend in a rage in that context, I'm stepping in, and dealing with the fallout later.

You guys are arguing over this as if it is in the course of some productive end. We are talking about Rutgers basketball here, please remember. It's a tertiary recreational activity, albeit a (potential, depending on the program) revenue producing department of the school. It's not vital to any higher purpose, such as state or national security, police, or federal law enforcement, etc. It's just a sport where you try to put a round object in a hoop.

The behavior of the coach is completely unacceptable under any sports-related circumstances, no matter what era we are in (by the way, I am 45, so somewhat old school). It may be acceptable to a certain extent in the military (in which I served), but even there, a drill sergeant I knew was removed from our Basic Training for shoving a soldier in the 1980s, never mind today.

HIRE Tony Soprano as new coach

ok, sounds like I misunderstood you - going by what you said in this post, I thought you were saying that you would have stopped the coach physically.

When I wrote 'it works pretty well' I didn't mean this situatuon - I meant civilization's use of police, officials, courts, etc to decide conflicts, rather than clan warfare.

This was a fubar situation because the AD didn't do his job. I'm not sure who else messed up - I don't know the story well enough.

Biggest point I am making is that our culture is based on law and authority as the first option before fighting. Third world countries stay that way largely because they have untrustworthy law and authorities - so people have to take care of things themselves, using violence often. I don't think you are advocating that as a core American principle.

SG, if you read my posts and addressed my comments, instead of fabricating statements by putting quotation marks around words I haven't even used, you might be able to discern my point. That said, I've demonstrated my own idiocy and poor time management by continuing this discussion as long as I have. I'm done.

Haha! Not only am I an idiot, I'm a sollipsitic one! You weren't even replying to me. My apologies--I really am done with this thread.

Er... wrote:

SG, if you read my posts and addressed my comments, instead of fabricating statements by putting quotation marks around words I haven't even used, you might be able to discern my point. That said, I've demonstrated my own idiocy and poor time management by continuing this discussion as long as I have. I'm done.

Er...--

I acknowledged all those things. Sometimes you have to stick your neck out and get a bloody nose. Society is built of leaders and followers, at any time you are either one or the other.

The only leader I'm seeing in those vids is the coach, and he's leading in the wrong direction.

I know what I would have done, because I know what I did.

I also know how it turned out, which was well. I think you would be surprised at how good people can be when the chips are down, and I mean really down.

Having said that, I find as I have gone through life that I have had to be a leader in all sorts of capacities. People complain a lot about a lot of things, but they rarely, if ever, do anything about it themselves. Everybody is so risk-averse, that is likely a big reason most never achieve anything significant in life.

I can't stand complaining. Either do something about it, or STFU, unless your complaining is really "thinking aloud" and working out a problem.

There are lots of people who have others do their dirty work for them, while living off their avails. There is room for that in the world, but there is room for me, too. I know how to pick my spots, but I'm not afraid to mix it up when called for, but most people are.

dog--

I'm about the same age, from the same era, from the military, too. My deal also involved a sergeant in basic. What are the chances?

"The law" does not absolutely proscribe the use of force, and does acknowledge that it is appropriate, to different extents, in different circumstances.

It is appropriate, to some extent, to defend oneself and others against the imminent threat of physical harm, the extent often depending on the reasonably-held belief of the degree of potential harm.

Let me ask you a question: do you think that if a player had deflected a ball, or broken his grip forcefully, or turned aside his kick or punch, that he would have continued to come after them?

And what is the basis for your answer?

Sprintgeezer wrote:

dog--

I'm about the same age, from the same era, from the military, too. My deal also involved a sergeant in basic. What are the chances?

I went through Fort Leonard Wood. The drill sergeant shoved a recruit to the ground for having dust on his weapon. The recruit got back up and had to be restrained, so he would have gone after our drill sergeant. I have no problem with self defense and retaliation under the circumstances at Rutgers. If a soldier isn't punished (the drill sergeant was), a basketball player who is repeatedly abused, assaulted, etc., should have every right to defend himself, especially given it is all on tape in his defense. I think these guys were essentially similar to "battered-child syndrome" under Rice, and knew he had them by the balls with the scholarships and position on the team's pecking order. The Lithuanian kid transferred out to Rhode Island, not clear if he ever retaliated.

Wow, it's strange talking to myself.

I don't know about the Lithuanian kid.

I agree with the analogy to the "battered child" or "battered spouse" syndrome, but how did they get like that? Were they conditioned in HS, or did Rice somehow ease them into it himself, through escalating levels of intimidation and rage?

So is geezer, are you going to tell us the story of your stoic fortitude or just keep alluding to it?

ESPN just reported Rutgers fired the assistant coach Martelli (some are reporting he resigned before getting fired) and the AD Pernetti.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

"The law" does not absolutely proscribe the use of force, and does acknowledge that it is appropriate, to different extents, in different circumstances.

It is appropriate, to some extent, to defend oneself and others against the imminent threat of physical harm, the extent often depending on the reasonably-held belief of the degree of potential harm.

Let me ask you a question: do you think that if a player had deflected a ball, or broken his grip forcefully, or turned aside his kick or punch, that he would have continued to come after them?

And what is the basis for your answer?

I don't know enough about the group dynamics or the coach's personality to answer. I can guess that if a player challenged the coach's authority in front of the whole team, the player would have been benched for while, and I could foresee the coach keeping up his behavior. But if done in private it might be different.

Of course sometimes we have to defend ourselves physically - I wouldn't suggest otherwise. But in the context of the academy...you don't want to start fighting because someone threw a ball at your head. College admins hate that primitive crap and will punish it quickly.

And let's keep this in perspective - kids were humiliated but weren't in physical harm. This was more of a mental attack than a physical attack. If a kid were actually in physical danger from a coach, then it would be easier to recommend a violent reaction.

chinocochio wrote:

Was he even a college basketball player? I looked on his wikipedia page and it didn't say anything, just a bunch of coaching jobs. I'm curious how he got his position if he wasn't part of the "club". (no playing history, I mean)

Played point guard at Fordham, father was a long time coach at Duquesne and Youngstown State.

His anger issues were apparently well known, so either the Rutgers AD didn't do his due diligence or a lot of people lied for him.