The CardBoard
This is not good - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: This is not good (/thread-17278.html)


This is not good - BobK - 02-07-2019

Sorry for the title but it’s been reported elsewhere that Turley has been placed on admin leave

RE: This is not good - Griffins78 - 02-07-2019

Oh no!

RE: This is not good - BostonCard - 02-07-2019

[tweet]https://twitter.com/rj_abeytia/status/1093648086696583168?s=21[/tweet]

Not a good look.

BC
[tweet]https://twitter.com/rj_abeytia/status/1093648243701895168?s=21[/tweet]

RE: This is not good - OutsiderFan - 02-07-2019

Perhaps it’s time for Stanford fans to take Turley off the pedestal he has been on for so long? The physicality of the football team has been slipping for a couple years and last season the injuries piled up like rarely before.

Could it be that whatever has him on admin leave could be related to the seeming softening of the football team? Whatever the case, Stanford football needs to improve on the physical player development front.

RE: This is not good - BostonCard - 02-07-2019

(02-07-2019, 09:18 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  Perhaps it’s time for Stanford fans to take Turley off the pedestal he has been on for so long? The physicality of the football team has been slipping for a couple years and last season the injuries piled up like rarely before.

Could it be that whatever has him on admin leave could be related to the seeming softening of the football team? Whatever the case, Stanford football needs to improve on the physical player development front.

This is an insanely dumb take.  People are not put on administrative leave because of the seeming “softening of the football team”.  This is the sort of thing that happens while an investigation of some allegation is going on, or as a prelude to being fired.  I’m not going to speculate what, but something happened, or someone accused Turkey of something.

This is much bigger than a performance slip.

BC

RE: This is not good - BobK - 02-07-2019

Thank you BC. That was a terrible post by Outsider

It’s Turley no matter what auto correct wants

We may never find out but this is worrisome

RE: This is not good - winflop - 02-07-2019

(02-07-2019, 09:44 PM)BobK Wrote:  Thank you BC.  That was a terrible post by Outsider

It’s Turley no matter what auto correct wants

We may never find out but this is worrisome

Agree 100%. I think the increased injuries come from a) Turley no longer focused on just football, b) replacing a head football trainer with an intern, and c) bad luck.

Problem for 2019 is that only one of those 3 can be fixed.

RE: This is not good - OutsiderFan - 02-07-2019

(02-07-2019, 09:30 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  
(02-07-2019, 09:18 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  Perhaps it’s time for Stanford fans to take Turley off the pedestal he has been on for so long? The physicality of the football team has been slipping for a couple years and last season the injuries piled up like rarely before.

Could it be that whatever has him on admin leave could be related to the seeming softening of the football team? Whatever the case, Stanford football needs to improve on the physical player development front.

This is an insanely dumb take.  People are not put on administrative leave because of the seeming “softening of the football team”.  This is the sort of thing that happens while an investigation of some allegation is going on, or as a prelude to being fired.  I’m not going to speculate what, but something happened, or someone accused Turkey of something.

This is much bigger than a performance slip.

BC

I never said he was put on admin leave because of performance slippage of football team. What I said was it’s possible whatever got him put on admin leave may have contributed to performance decline. Like maybe someone dealing with a distraction couldn’t provide adequate teaching or oversight and that led to some performance decline. This is a perfectly logical and reasonable possibility.

RE: This is not good - BobK - 02-07-2019

Well I’ll say this again. Turley has had the department responsibility since summer 2014.

RE: This is not good - Goose - 02-07-2019

(02-07-2019, 09:44 PM)BobK Wrote:  Thank you BC.  That was a terrible post by Outsider

It’s Turley no matter what auto correct wants

We may never find out but this is worrisome

It also could be that Turley asked to be put on administrative leave while he sorted out some things that are issues for him. It may not be a misconduct issue. Obviously, I don't know, but I will not assume it is a misconduct issue unless/until otherwise indicated. Certainly not good, but possibly recoverable.

RE: This is not good - winflop - 02-08-2019

Article in the Daily stated that this was a University decision and not an Athletic Department decision. Would think this likely means we can rule out any type of violation of NCAA rules.

RE: This is not good - 82lsju - 02-08-2019

(02-08-2019, 10:19 PM)winflop Wrote:  Article in the Daily stated that this was a University decision and not an Athletic Department decision. Would think this likely means we can rule out any type of violation of NCAA rules.

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/02/08/stanford-suspends-head-athletic-trainer-gives-no-public-explanation/

RE: This is not good - Mick - 02-09-2019

(02-08-2019, 10:29 PM)82lsju Wrote:  
(02-08-2019, 10:19 PM)winflop Wrote:  Article in the Daily stated that this was a University decision and not an Athletic Department decision. Would think this likely means we can rule out any type of violation of NCAA rules.

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/02/08/stanford-suspends-head-athletic-trainer-gives-no-public-explanation/

Interesting.  The article claims an 87% reduction in injury rates from 2006 to 2013 (Turley joined in 2007).  I suspect a cherry-picked date. Wonder what happened in the last six years?

RE: This is not good - 82lsju - 02-09-2019

J
(02-09-2019, 07:57 AM)Mick Wrote:  
(02-08-2019, 10:29 PM)82lsju Wrote:  
(02-08-2019, 10:19 PM)winflop Wrote:  Article in the Daily stated that this was a University decision and not an Athletic Department decision. Would think this likely means we can rule out any type of violation of NCAA rules.

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/02/08/stanford-suspends-head-athletic-trainer-gives-no-public-explanation/

Interesting.  The article claims an 87% reduction in injury rates from 2006 to 2013 (Turley joined in 2007).  I suspect a cherry-picked date. Wonder what happened in the last six years?

The injury decline item was from this linked article from the NYT in 2013 so likely some easy filler to add to the article

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/sports/ncaafootball/stanfords-distinct-training-regimen-redefines-strength.html