article on U of Miami ....

law_bee

law_bee

Dodd-Like
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Messages
6,402
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/seminoles/orl-bianchi10_206nov10,0,2033031.column?coll=orl-sports-headlines-seminoles


IMO Coker made a huge mistake by not taking a heavy hand toward the players involved in the brawl.

Coker's reasoning was he wanted to be competitive and possibly win versus Us and VT.

Well now he has lost both those games and they are road dogs to MD.

Coker could have taken the high road and lost all 3 of those games and probably kept his job. Now that Coker could took the low road (or at least the low/middle road) and has lost 2 and may lose on Saturday.

I think it is a safe bet that Coker will be gone soon.
 
He obviously should have been tougher on the team after the brawl but the punishments aren't why he'll be gone. The ACC freakin' endorsed those punishments and that socialist president of theirs thought that they were more than sufficient. He'll be gone 'cause he's not winning and that's the only reason in my opinion.
 
The ACC has a rule that players involved in a fight miss one game. How they figured out who was fighting I don't know but I think that's about all the league has in it's rules. So to say the ACC endorsed the punishments is wrong IMO. They expect each school to take appropriate action after the league mandated punishment.
 
Actually, Swofford was on record as saying he fully supported the (in)action of the U with respect to the student (sic) athletes involved in the altercation v FIU. That is as strong an endorsement as you can get - the commish supported the response after the U initiated it.

Perhaps he had no choice, but he did in fact endorse the punishments (or lack thereof).

GO JACKETS!!!
 
"These suspensions send a clear and definitive message that this type of behavior will not be tolerated," said Atlantic Coast Conference Commissioner John Swofford.


But either way, that's kind of a side point because Swofford doesn't decide if Coker stays, my main point was that Shalala is ultimately the one who'll that decision will go through and she definitly could have made those suspensions tougher if she thought they should be. Basically, why would they(UM Admins) fire someone for doing something they agreed with?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top