|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: College futures of David Taylor and Jamie Clark?
Gary Sommers added to this discussion on April 20, 2009
|
|
Quote from Mark Niemann's post:
|
|
"
|
Quote from Gary Sommers's post:
|
|
"So you have no problem with people who break them with you? When did breaking a contract become acceptable?"
|
Easy, Gary. I am partially on your side when it comes to this. My only disagreement is that on the hierarchy of loyalty, I have no problem with family first.
I believe it is wrong to lying to deceive. Over and out. Don't do it. However, if someone breaks in my house and asks where my kid is, I'm telling him the furthest point from the truth. Why would I lie to deceive??? Because loyalty to my family (along with safety) is higher on the scale.
One last point...if Cael is wrong on this, and the University has beef and it is legitimate, what is that to me? I can only cover my six feet of ground and hope I don't do the same!"
|
But did you have a signed contract with the burglar telling him you would be honest? Of course not, and that is where your analogy does not hold up. Assuming Sanderson or Calipari or any other coach who does this has a valid contract in effect they are breaking the contract and their word.
And I agree, none of this is anything to any of us. Including what becomes of Taylor. Yet many wanted to discuss the situation and I am just following along.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: College futures of David Taylor and Jamie Clark?
Gary Sommers added to this discussion on April 20, 2009
|
|
Quote from Patrick Campbell's post:
|
|
"[quote="Mark Niemann
One last point...if Cael is wrong on this, and the University has beef and it is legitimate, what is that to me? I can only cover my six feet of ground and hope I don't do the same!"
|
Teach your kids (future kids?) that Mark. It's the most important thing all of us can do when we scrutinize any situation.
There are a lot of good points about this situation, which in turn allow us all to examine how we should proceed in similar situations. Let's don't get too rough on each other here. None of us really knows what we will do in a situation until we are starring down the gun barrel. Before my daughter had cancer, I thought "why do people torture/poisen themselves with this treatment for what amounts to a few extra good days on this planet?" (I went to medical school...I have seen this first hand over & over.) But when I had to look down that barrel with a family member, my attitude was completely different. Every day with her is a gift and to maintain that gift, I had to break a lot of committments with other people to do what was best for my family. You can argue that this situation is different from Cael's, but when you boil it down, it really is not.
Cael is a good man and a well thought out man. He is doing what is right for his family. There is no way he can be all things to all people he is in contact with in this situation. The Taylors know that, ISU knows that, and PSU knows that.
This is a good debate. We should be much more mindful of our committments (like the good old days), but the world in so many respects, is nothing like the good old days...otherwise, we would not have to have these rediculous contracts to begin with.[/quote]
You are absolutely correct, the world is not like it used to be. But I don't think that is necessarily a good thing, and don't think we should use that as a reason (excuse?) to follow along with the degeneration of honor and integrity that seems to exist. ESPECIALLY not where other people's children are concerned.
Perhaps contracts got so ridicuous because, unfortunately, a handshake and a man's word don't mean squat anymore so these contracts became necessary. And now they don't mean much either, and many condone that. Just very sad to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: College futures of David Taylor and Jamie Clark?
Patrick Campbell added to this discussion on April 20, 2009
|
|
Quote from Gary Sommers's post:
|
|
"
Perhaps contracts got so ridicuous because, unfortunately, a handshake and a man's word don't mean squat anymore so these contracts became necessary. And now they don't mean much either, and many condone that. Just very sad to me."
|
I absolutely agree with you Gary!
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: College futures of David Taylor and Jamie Clark?
Michael Rodriguez added to this discussion on April 20, 2009
|
|
Quote from Gary Sommers's post:
|
|
"The kids are 17, they probably don't know what "big time business is." But yes, the parents should and should do what they can to protect their children. Like I said, my kids didn't know enough to ask their coaches if they are planning on staying, but I did.
I know coaches can leave for many reasons and not be there for the full 4 years, but to just up and walk out (IF there was an existing contract) is about the worst of them. And again, my next question regarding following him or any coach who does this is who is to say they won't do it again. Fool me once shame on you, ............."
|
Ok, I get that in your world all this is really bad stuff and speaks to the character of the coach, but since you have already said that this is a generational think, the 17-year olds likely have no issue with it. Aren't they more likely to see things the same as the rest of the under 50 crowd? So if no one is upset, why the outrage?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: College futures of David Taylor and Jamie Clark?
Gary Sommers added to this discussion on April 20, 2009
|
|
Quote from Michael Rodriguez's post:
|
|
"
|
Quote from Gary Sommers's post:
|
|
"The kids are 17, they probably don't know what "big time business is." But yes, the parents should and should do what they can to protect their children. Like I said, my kids didn't know enough to ask their coaches if they are planning on staying, but I did.
I know coaches can leave for many reasons and not be there for the full 4 years, but to just up and walk out (IF there was an existing contract) is about the worst of them. And again, my next question regarding following him or any coach who does this is who is to say they won't do it again. Fool me once shame on you, ............."
|
Ok, I get that in your world all this is really bad stuff and speaks to the character of the coach, but since you have already said that this is a generational think, the 17-year olds likely have no issue with it. Aren't they more likely to see things the same as the rest of the under 50 crowd? So if no one is upset, why the outrage?"
|
Sure, and that is why they are considered MINORS and have parents who are responsible for looking out for them.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: College futures of David Taylor and Jamie Clark?
Michael Rodriguez added to this discussion on April 20, 2009
|
|
Quote from Gary Sommers's post:
|
|
"You are absolutely correct, the world is not like it used to be. But I don't think that is necessarily a good thing, and don't think we should use that as a reason (excuse?) to follow along with the degeneration of honor and integrity that seems to exist. ESPECIALLY not where other people's children are concerned."
|
Exactly when are you talking about that the world was so much better? The 80s? The 70s? Your generational thing uses the 50-year-old age determination, so it's not like you're going back much further than that. Are you saying that the 80s were a decade packed with honor and integrity? That the 70s were?
|
Quote from Gary Sommers's post:
|
|
"Sure, and that is why they are considered MINORS and have parents who are responsible for looking out for them."
|
But the coach isn't a minor. And if society is moving this way, as you suggest, don't they just fit into the cluture. Also, it's very possible that David Taylor's parents feel the same way that Daivd does, again the generational thing. So if no one's upset, what's the issue?
Also, in the quote up top, you talk about other people's childern being concerned. Much like Sanderson is making what he feels is the best decision for him and his family, can't we just trust that the Taylor's will make the best decision for David and their family?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: College futures of David Taylor and Jamie Clark?
Hank Kornblut added to this discussion on April 20, 2009
|
An FYI--Cael is not getting high six figures to make this switch. According to his own statement on the topic, he'll make less than 10% more than last season. More to the point--he states clearly that he wanted this job because of the incredible prep talent in this region. He called Pennsylvania the best high school wrestling state in the country and discussed the proximity of PSU to Ohio, NJ and NY--all prep powerhouses.
I think Cael had several motivations for making this move. It allows him to get out from the shadow of Iowa wrestling. It puts him in the middle of the most talent rich hs wrestling region in the nation. The PSU AD is very supportive of wrestling (although that was also the case at ISU). But, when it comes down to it, he made this move primarily because he thought it would give him an even better chance to win national titles. In other words, it was based on what he perceived as best for his own career.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: College futures of David Taylor and Jamie Clark?
Gary Sommers added to this discussion on April 20, 2009
|
|
Quote from Michael Rodriguez's post:
|
|
"
|
Quote from Gary Sommers's post:
|
|
"You are absolutely correct, the world is not like it used to be. But I don't think that is necessarily a good thing, and don't think we should use that as a reason (excuse?) to follow along with the degeneration of honor and integrity that seems to exist. ESPECIALLY not where other people's children are concerned."
|
Exactly when are you talking about that the world was so much better? The 80s? The 70s? Your generational thing uses the 50-year-old age determination, so it's not like you're going back much further than that. Are you saying that the 80s were a decade packed with honor and integrity? That the 70s were?
|
Quote from Gary Sommers's post:
|
|
"Sure, and that is why they are considered MINORS and have parents who are responsible for looking out for them."
|
But the coach isn't a minor. And if society is moving this way, as you suggest, don't they just fit into the cluture. Also, it's very possible that David Taylor's parents feel the same way that Daivd does, again the generational thing. So if no one's upset, what's the issue?
Also, in the quote up top, you talk about other people's childern being concerned. Much like Sanderson is making what he feels is the best decision for him and his family, can't we just trust that the Taylor's will make the best decision for David and their family?"
|
There might not be any issue, well maybe not in the Taylor's eyes. Thsi all started because Bob Preusse said Taylor is screwed, and I took exception to that statement without knowing who the new coach will be, if ISU will let him out, if he will follow Sanderson to PSU, etc.
BTW, multiple people feeling it is okay to break your word/bond/contract does not make it right. It is just an further indication of the degradation of society, not a justification for it.
Grass is green, sky is blue, right is right.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: College futures of David Taylor and Jamie Clark?
Gary Sommers added to this discussion on April 20, 2009
|
|
Quote from Hank Kornblut's post:
|
|
"An FYI--Cael is not getting high six figures to make this switch. According to his own statement on the topic, he'll make less than 10% more than last season. More to the point--he states clearly that he wanted this job because of the incredible prep talent in this region. He called Pennsylvania the best high school wrestling state in the country and discussed the proximity of PSU to Ohio, NJ and NY--all prep powerhouses.
I think Cael had several motivations for making this move. It allows him to get out from the shadow of Iowa wrestling. It puts him in the middle of the most talent rich hs wrestling region in the nation. The PSU AD is very supportive of wrestling (although that was also the case at ISU). But, when it comes down to it, he made this move primarily because he thought it would give him an even better chance to win national titles. In other words, it was based on what he perceived as best for his own career."
|
And contracts (if there was one) and kids he turned his back on be damned. The Me Generation at its ugliest IF this is all true.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: College futures of David Taylor and Jamie Clark?
John Flanigan added to this discussion on April 20, 2009
|
|
Quote from Gary Sommers's post:
|
|
"
BTW, multiple people feeling it is okay to break your word/bond/contract does not make it right. It is just an further indication of the degradation of society, not a justification for it.
Grass is green, sky is blue, right is right."
|
Part of the problem, is we do not know what was written into Cael's contract with ISU. You are assuming that he broke the contract, but this may not be true if there was an "out" clause. These clauses are written in to protect both parties, and you would need further investigation to see if this is the case.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: College futures of David Taylor and Jamie Clark?
Michael Rodriguez added to this discussion on April 20, 2009
|
|
Quote from Gary Sommers's post:
|
|
"Grass is green, sky is blue, right is right."
|
I've seen grass that's brown, I look up today and the sky is grey, at night it's black. Your perspective is clear and honest, but it's YOUR PERSPECTIVE. Where you lose me is when you say it's how it should be or how it used to be.
I'll ask again, exactly when are you talking about that the world was so much better? The 80s? The 70s? Your generational thing uses the 50-year-old age determination, so it's not like you're going back much further than that. Are you saying that the 80s were a decade packed with honor and integrity? That the 70s were?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: College futures of David Taylor and Jamie Clark?
Gary Sommers added to this discussion on April 20, 2009
|
|
Quote from Michael Rodriguez's post:
|
|
"
|
Quote from Gary Sommers's post:
|
|
"Grass is green, sky is blue, right is right."
|
I've seen grass that's brown, I look up today and the sky is grey, at night it's black. Your perspective is clear and honest, but it's YOUR PERSPECTIVE. Where you lose me is when you say it's how it should be or how it used to be.
I'll ask again, exactly when are you talking about that the world was so much better? The 80s? The 70s? Your generational thing uses the 50-year-old age determination, so it's not like you're going back much further than that. Are you saying that the 80s were a decade packed with honor and integrity? That the 70s were?"
|
So you have no problem breaking a contract, with or without cause?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: College futures of David Taylor and Jamie Clark?
Michael Rodriguez added to this discussion on April 20, 2009
|
|
Quote from Gary Sommers's post:
|
|
"So you have no problem breaking a contract, with or without cause?"
|
Like most other things, "cause" is in the eye of the beholder. A school can say a coach isn't winning enough or isn't recruiting well enough and that can be used as cause to fire the coach. A coach can say this school does not allow him a good enough opportunity to recruit the eastcoast and doesn't allow the long-term success I'm looking for, and use that as cause to seek out other opportunities.
There's always cause. There's always a reason that people do what they do. I just see how you can question a man's character who you don't know personally because he spoke to his boss ahead of time and asked permission to talk to Penn State, and then accepted an offer Penn State extended to him.
And I've asked the question three times now, when was this time you speak of? I think you are romanticizing and era that never existed. I don't doubt that it exists in you, but I think you're attaching attributes to society that have not been there.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: College futures of David Taylor and Jamie Clark?
Gary Sommers added to this discussion on April 20, 2009
|
|
Quote from Michael Rodriguez's post:
|
|
"
|
Quote from Gary Sommers's post:
|
|
"So you have no problem breaking a contract, with or without cause?"
|
Like most other things, "cause" is in the eye of the beholder. A school can say a coach isn't winning enough or isn't recruiting well enough and that can be used as cause to fire the coach. A coach can say this school does not allow him a good enough opportunity to recruit the eastcoast and doesn't allow the long-term success I'm looking for, and use that as cause to seek out other opportunities.
There's always cause. There's always a reason that people do what they do. I just see how you can question a man's character who you don't know personally because he spoke to his boss ahead of time and asked permission to talk to Penn State, and then accepted an offer Penn State extended to him.
And I've asked the question three times now, when was this time you speak of? I think you are romanticizing and era that never existed. I don't doubt that it exists in you, but I think you're attaching attributes to society that have not been there."
|
Fortunately, and I thank my parents for this, they have been there for me. And just as fortunately, for most if not all of my business dealings.
BIG difference between "cause" and "I don't like my job". Cause is typically legal, or at the very least grievous ethical issues. All the employer commits to is paying you for the length of the contract. If he terminates you for crappy performance, unless you have legal or ethical issues I spoke of, you get paid for having been crappy. Not a bad gig at all for the crappy employee. Now if you want to leave because you don't like a term or condition of the job, that is too bad for you. The contract will end, man up and deal with it until it does. AGAIN, if there is a legal or ethical issue that can mitigate this but those are not common and certainly did not seem to be the case here.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: College futures of David Taylor and Jamie Clark?
Michael Rodriguez added to this discussion on April 20, 2009
|
|
Quote from Gary Sommers's post:
|
|
"Fortunately, and I thank my parents for this, they have been there for me. And just as fortunately, for most if not all of my business dealings.
BIG difference between "cause" and "I don't like my job". Cause is typically legal, or at the very least grievous ethical issues. All the employer commits to is paying you for the length of the contract. If he terminates you for crappy performance, unless you have legal or ethical issues I spoke of, you get paid for having been crappy. Not a bad gig at all for the crappy employee. Now if you want to leave because you don't like a term or condition of the job, that is too bad for you. The contract will end, man up and deal with it until it does. AGAIN, if there is a legal or ethical issue that can mitigate this but those are not common and certainly did not seem to be the case here."
|
That doesn't answer the question as to when was this time you speak of? I guess we'll just skip that.
How is getting fired for poor performance and then collecting a check for it honorable? You've really lost points on that one. I look at that as far more dishonorable than asking for permission to make a change, being granted that permission, and then making the change.
You say man up and deal with a situation that you don't feel is right for you...and to you that is good character. I say man up and change the situation to one that meets your needs...and that's good character. The difference is I don't think a guy who does it your way is a liar and a bad guy. You have questioned Sanderson's character now on two different threads. You don't know him, you don't know the details of his contract or his situation. You just come online and say he lacks honor and integrity, and suggest that those who agree with what he did lack it as well.
The problem isn't the way you feel about Sanderson's choices, it's that you say he's a bad guy for making them, and then you condem a generation to dishonor and lack of integrity because they don't agree with you. You've said a couple of times how grass is green and the sky is blue, but people with strong convictions feel that many issues are black and white and clearly they're not or there wouldn't be so many varying stances on issues. Your way is the way of integrity and any other way is the way of dishonor...I respectfully disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
