Beth Sullivan making headlines at UT

alanson wrote:

The "no comment" stance taken by UT leads me to believe that the university believes that it might indeed be vulnerable to a lawsuit here.

Or it could mean that nothing was wrong and its no a very big deal because kids get cut.

Hahaha!! wrote:

These parents would be on here complaining if BAS did it in June, September, or the next year when they would be complaining that their daughter lost a year of eligibility.

I have little doubt that she knew which direction the program was going but I will argue with the statement that she did it to keep these young ladies off of another SEC team. Again using Morgan Harvey because she is the only one that I have done any research on - she is not an SEC impact athlete. I would assume that if a team in the SEC spent a full on Morgan Harvey then that would help Tennessee more than hurt them. The only team where Morgan Harvey was worth a full was Vanderbilt and maybe Ole Miss. Any points in those programs are a bonus.

Oh I have no doubt the parents would complain regardless of when it was done to their kids. But if it was done in July, like it should have been, their complaints wouldn't have any legitimacy. I certainly would have tuned them out, and there would be no uproar, no articles, no lengthy thread. Because their kids would have been treated much more fairly and had lots more options.

But it wasn't done in July. Or August. It was done September 24. Specifically, it was done after enrollment but before any serious training had commenced and athletic department resources expended. The question is why was it done this specific way.

We all know why. It was to eliminate their options. Don't be obtuse.

I don't have any specific opinions on Morgan Harvey's worth to a program but if Sullivan truly didn't care where she ended up and where she might score points in the future then she wouldn't have waited until getting her on campus and enrolled in classes to cut her. And yet she did exactly that.

Maybe... wrote:

alanson wrote:

The "no comment" stance taken by UT leads me to believe that the university believes that it might indeed be vulnerable to a lawsuit here.

Or it could mean that nothing was wrong and its no a very big deal because kids get cut.

... in a very specific manner specifically designed and executed to prevent the student from performing anywhere for the first year.

Uh huh. Yeah. Just like any old non-performance cut...

You jokers just keep digging a deeper hole with the failed attempts to reframe the story.

runDirtyrun wrote:

... in a very specific manner specifically designed and executed to prevent the student from performing anywhere for the first year.

Uh huh. Yeah. Just like any old non-performance cut...

You jokers just keep digging a deeper hole with the failed attempts to reframe the story.

If she wanted to keep them from running anywhere don't you think that - as calculated and evil as you claim she is - she would have waited until a few weeks after they came back from winter break, let them race once, and then cut them? Releasing them in Sept gives them a chance to find another school if they wish or to stay in Knoxville. They had a month (plus summer to get in shape) which is a good amount of time to gauge their progress. It's about how often coaches do testing or have time trials. But them what do I know about anything I'm just a joker.

I'll tell you exactly why she didn't cut them in January after an indoor race (which would have burned a year of indoor eligibility) or in March after an outdoor race (thus burning a year of outdoor eligibility too). It's because she wasn't about to have her coaches waste months training these kids, or have them use the trainers and training room for all those months, plus spend shoe money and training table money on them. She didn't want them on her team, and she wasn't about to have athletes she didn't want taking up shares of finite resources (money, time, and effort) that absolutely should be spent only on athletes who are going to be a part of the program.

But she didn't want them on any other team either. That's why she waited until September 24, when these kids were all enrolled, moved in, attending classes, and assimilating to college life - trapped. Had she done it in July, like an ethical person, since that's when she knew she was going to do it, these kids very likely would have found other programs where they could at least get partial money or even walk on but still get all the resources that go along with being on a D-I program, and oh yeah, attend classes from the beginning. But to eliminate even the possibility that somehow, someway, somewhere these kids could even potentially score points against Tennessee, she deliberately waited until September and then locked them out of the program to inhibit their development. Because better safe than sorry I guess. Honestly it's like the Romans salting the fields after conquests. Appalling.

This. A cold calculating move, and it's obviously had some repercussions to the athletes who have taken a step back this year. Time will tell if they can step it up and get back to their development. Now it's all up to them and wish them the best. On the other hand, let's hear it for karma and may the good athletes avoid the program at UT.

What BAS did was wrong. It would be different if an athlete had equal rights but in the NCAA monopoly system they don't. An athlete couldn't go into her office and say "you are new, I don't want to run for you so I am transferring right now", without sitting out, etc.

Doing what she did will cause more harm than allowing the kids compete for 1 year and then not renewing their scholarship. Every coach will use that against her in recruiting and every athlete will have to decide whether they can trust her. She will lose some recruits for many years.

I am a PSU alum and I am glad she pulled this at UT because there has been enough bad things that happened at PSU. Also, I crack up when everyone says she is a distance coach. I never saw PSU up in the top 5 at NCs (like in the 70 and 80s) in XC or have a bunch of good 5k or 10k runners.

JJ Clark recruited my daughter??? She's eight years old, for goodness' sake.

top hurdler in the country was given a scholarship at UT, which she'd already been offered by BAS at Penn State, and you say she doesn't deserve it?? She may well have been out of shape in the early fall because of injury, but her credentials are easily worthy of a full scholarship. Maybe she was dropped because she had turned BAS down at Penn State. Think about that one.

7th post down,

12th post down,

No.

See above.

No.

Making false claims and employing bad reasoning is not educating someone.

I never claimed that me merely believing her actions were not moral was a necessary or sufficient condition for anything.

Therefore, this objection is irrelevant.

What you typed above is an objection. It isn't a very good one though.

What you typed, however, was not my objection. And from your response above, it is quite clear that you have either:

1) Ignored my replies to you.

2) Lack an even basic understanding of them.

3) Are acting irrationally.

The claim that, as long as she wins or is working towards winning, her actions are excusable, is wrong. This is very easy to show.

Example: BAS, wanting her team to win, decides to break the legs of her athlete's competition. Someone who witnessed this claims that her actions were morally wrong. You reply, "She is there to win, not make you happy."

Attempting to fulfill her purpose for being there does not make bad behavior permissible. And "being there to win, not make [me] happy" is not a sufficient condition for excusing morally wrong actions.

Therefore, this objection is irrelevant.

There is no necessary connection between needing to reduce scholarships, and kicking the athletes who have those scholarships off of the team.

So even if it were the case that they were offered too much money, relative to their abilities, it does not explain kicking them off of the team at the beginning of the school year. Nor does it explain not letting them use various facilities.

Therefore, claiming that BAS's actions were permissible on these grounds, is mistaken.

This is a rephrasing of your earlier claim "BAS is there to win, not make you happy," which I already dealt with. See above.

Again, legality is not a sufficient condition for morality.

If you disagree, then you implicitly agree that slavery was moral, and that Nazis killing Jews in Germany during WWII was moral.

The consequences of an action alone are not what makes an action good or bad.

Example: Someone drinks all night at a bar. At closing time, he decides to drive home, even though he is completely intoxicated and unfit to operate a vehicle. He gets in the car and manages to drive home without harming anyone else.

If the consequences of an action alone are what determines that action's moral status, then because the consequences of this man's actions were not bad, it would be the case that this man driving home while completely intoxicated was not a morally wrong action.

This is not the case. The man's actions were wrong, even if he did not hurt anyone. It is the case then that the consequences of an action alone do not determine that action's moral status.

This is a classic example of the not as bad as fallacy.

It doesn't follow that, because there could have been some worse action taken, the actual action taken was moral.

And even ignoring this, this is also a false dichotomy.

She could have not kicked any of the girls off of the team either.

No you're not.

Being used not merely as a means, but as an end in itself, is not unicorns and roses, it is being treated with respect.

Again, I don't have a daughter.

One can't derive an ought from an is. That is, one cannot make claims about the way the world ought to be on the basis of how it actually is.

The claim BAS ought to have cut those athletes from the team, because Division I athletics is tough and isn't about fairness, falls victim to the is-ought problem.

There is a gap in your logic.

Smile you have to be one of the most ignorant posters I've encountered. The most ignorant part of your posts are that it seems you truly believe

what you write has any direct connection to the real world. People like you and these parents make me glad BAS did what she did.

Let it be a lesson

Dial it up and Hahaha, or any other apologist buffoons from Knoxville, are not going to get the last word on this. As it is, the program at UT has no credibility.

Just Curious... wrote:

Why has this conversation been almost completely about Morgan Harvey?

Well, since Beth Shitehead though enough of her to give her an 80% ride to Penn State, it goes to prove that she was good enough for Tennessee.

The whole affair seems to have ended up well for everyone except the program at Tennessee.

Morgan Harvey landed at Pitt with a scholarship at a much better academic institution. Pitt picked up a highly recruited athlete.

http://www.pittnews.com/sports/article_039a022e-b271-11e4-aab7-fb24d3be469c.html

And of course, Tennessee looks like a collection of a$$holes that J.J. Clark is far better off being away from. It would have served them right if Morgan went to Kentucky instead. I would think the highly rated high school athletes in the area are also forewarned about the integrity of the athletic program at Tennessee: They have other options.

83&)Vtoo wrote:

[quote]BET wrote:

One thing that's interesting is that no former athletes, insider alums, or colleagues have stepped in here. Makes you wonder if this is something of an anomaly or does she have a 20+ year history of throwing athletes under the bus?

Not one person, who was coached by her, worked with her, worked for her, or any of her coaching peers has ever stepped up and identified themselves by name and defended THAT wretched woman. Not one?

If that doesn't tell you what you're dealing with nothing will.

Where are her defenders at Penn State? Where are they at Stanford? Chirping crickets.

What if your assumptions are wrong? This might help you understand why others are not fine with BAS' actions, because they haven't accepted these assumptions.1) Huh? Is this even true? This sounds like an after the fact rationalization, and a baseless assumption on your part. The athletes were not cut because of their ability, or lack thereof. They were cut because a new head coach developed a new strategic vision.2) Well, not completely. Part of a track scholarship is for the university to let the athletes compete in track. This part is important to the athletes, and developing any potential career, and this promise was taken away without cause, or fault of the athlete.3) They needlessly wasted everyone's time.4) She could also have given the new vision, and let the girls compete for a full year, giving them time to form their own "Plan B" for next year. It's OK to lose a year of eligibility if you spend it training and competing.By many accounts, what BAS and UT did, the way they did it, was pretty much unprecedented in the history of NCAA track. Since UT "honored" the scholarships anyway, it doesn't seem that it would have cost UT much to announce the new direction, and give sprinter/hurdlers fair notice that their scholarships are in jeopardy after this year, but still give them the option to compete, and perhaps prove themselves worthy. That's how other universities usually do it, after a change of the head coach.The main issue seems to be not so much the cuts, or the change in strategy, but the timing of the cuts (putting aside for the moment the callousness). Do it a few weeks earlier, and no waiver is required. Wait until next year, and everyone is forewarned, and the students have time to prepare better alternatives. How did the urgency of the cuts benefit UT this year?

Dial it up wrote:

...

Why am I fine with her actions?

1) Those girls were initially given scholarships FAR beyond their ability. No way can BAS win with that much money tied to mediocrity.

2) the scholarships were honored.

3) the girls did not lose eligibility.

4) she could have allowed them to compete a few times, burned a year of eligibility, and then cut them like I would have but she didn't.

I'm sorry this whole thing wasn't unicorns and roses for you and your daughter, but welcome to the real world. Division 1 athletics is tough, it's a privilege and it isn't about handouts or being fair.

Sucker.

Def: A journalist is a person who collects, writes or distributes news or other current information. I have never done any of that.

The vision was SEC champions, not an NCAA title. BAS thinks she can do it without sprinters/hurdlers.No one cares about indoors.We don't know where these girls would have fit in, because they need 4 years more to develop.Seems like a lot of assumptions on your part to attempt to characterize the "unprecedented" timing of her actions as "business as usual".

They could use the track, but not the equipment (e.g. starting blocks, hurdles). They can also train in a parking lot.And what's with all this "real world" rationalization? College is not the real world. Neither is sports. What's a "real world" example of a "free ride 100% athletic scholarship".