[SUBuddha]

I received an email last week from Coach Virk to the lacrosse alumni and friends. I don't always read them and, this time, I just moved it to a folder. Saturday night the mother of one of the players sent an email blast to the list with numbers to call and complain about coach Virk being fired. I did a double take and then went and read the email from coach.

Drew Virk has been the coach of the team for 10 years and has never had a losing record in conference (a feet for a club team).

Last week Coach Virk and his staff were notified via email that they were being let go and that the university was moving in a different direction. The cause? Apparently there was alcohol at a team party.

I am sorry but this is insane. The coach of a club team and his entire staff let go because the university has changed their alcohol policy since the event?

I am sure there is another side to the story, but if Coach Virk's email is even 70% true I lost a bit of faith in how the AD handles the club sports.

[SUBuddha]

I received an email last week from Coach Virk to the lacrosse alumni and friends. I don't always read them and, this time, I just moved it to a folder. Saturday night the mother of one of the players sent an email blast to the list with numbers to call and complain about coach Virk being fired. I did a double take and then went and read the email from coach.

Drew Virk has been the coach of the team for 10 years and has never had a losing record in conference (a feet for a club team).

Last week Coach Virk and his staff were notified via email that they were being let go and that the university was moving in a different direction. The cause? Apparently there was alcohol at a team party.

I am sorry but this is insane. The coach of a club team and his entire staff let go because the university has changed their alcohol policy since the event?

I am sure there is another side to the story, but if Coach Virk's email is even 70% true I lost a bit of faith in how the AD handles the club sports.

[2006alum]

I am sure there is another side to the story, but if Coach Virk's email is even 70% true I lost a bit of faith in how the AD handles the club sports.

In addition to having already lost faith in how the AD handles varsity sports (see Softball)...

If that is truly the explanation, then the AD has really lost its way.

[2006alum]

I am sure there is another side to the story, but if Coach Virk's email is even 70% true I lost a bit of faith in how the AD handles the club sports.

In addition to having already lost faith in how the AD handles varsity sports (see Softball)...

If that is truly the explanation, then the AD has really lost its way.

[Farm93]

Was everyone at the event over 21?  Tend to doubt it. 
Given Stanford's never ending bad publicity related to an intoxicated former varsity athlete, I am willing to give the University and the AD a pass here.  If the club team doesn't have a single person under 21 on the team, then it might be a bit harsh.  My guess would be the logic for the action was not a new policy, but rather rules/laws related to alcohol at organized events with under age attendees.

[Farm93]

Was everyone at the event over 21?  Tend to doubt it. 
Given Stanford's never ending bad publicity related to an intoxicated former varsity athlete, I am willing to give the University and the AD a pass here.  If the club team doesn't have a single person under 21 on the team, then it might be a bit harsh.  My guess would be the logic for the action was not a new policy, but rather rules/laws related to alcohol at organized events with under age attendees.

[Mick]

Was everyone at the event over 21?  Tend to doubt it. 
Given Stanford's never ending bad publicity related to an intoxicated former varsity athlete, I am willing to give the University and the AD a pass here.  If the club team doesn't have a single person under 21 on the team, then it might be a bit harsh.  My guess would be the logic for the action was not a new policy, but rather rules/laws related to alcohol at organized events with under age attendees.

Agreed.  I think it's perfectly fine for coaches and coaching staff to be fired if there is alcohol at team parties as long as all coaches are (a) notified of that in advance and (b) that all coaches who have ever had alcohol at team parties are also fired.

[Mick]

Was everyone at the event over 21?  Tend to doubt it. 
Given Stanford's never ending bad publicity related to an intoxicated former varsity athlete, I am willing to give the University and the AD a pass here.  If the club team doesn't have a single person under 21 on the team, then it might be a bit harsh.  My guess would be the logic for the action was not a new policy, but rather rules/laws related to alcohol at organized events with under age attendees.

Agreed.  I think it's perfectly fine for coaches and coaching staff to be fired if there is alcohol at team parties as long as all coaches are (a) notified of that in advance and (b) that all coaches who have ever had alcohol at team parties are also fired.

[SUBuddha]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=15596.msg170214#msg170214 date=1473179597]
Was everyone at the event over 21?  Tend to doubt it. 
Given Stanford's never ending bad publicity related to an intoxicated former varsity athlete, I am willing to give the University and the AD a pass here.  If the club team doesn't have a single person under 21 on the team, then it might be a bit harsh.  My guess would be the logic for the action was not a new policy, but rather rules/laws related to alcohol at organized events with under age attendees.

Agreed.  I think it's perfectly fine for coaches and coaching staff to be fired if there is alcohol at team parties as long as all coaches are (a) notified of that in advance and (b) that all coaches who have ever had alcohol at team parties are also fired.
[/quote]

My understanding was that the coaches were not at the party, but were aware of it. I mean, how many times did the members of this board imbibe underage? I personally remember the swim team putting four kegs out at the sand courts in the sweets and having a 2 day fiesta after the season.

[SUBuddha]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=15596.msg170214#msg170214 date=1473179597]
Was everyone at the event over 21?  Tend to doubt it. 
Given Stanford's never ending bad publicity related to an intoxicated former varsity athlete, I am willing to give the University and the AD a pass here.  If the club team doesn't have a single person under 21 on the team, then it might be a bit harsh.  My guess would be the logic for the action was not a new policy, but rather rules/laws related to alcohol at organized events with under age attendees.

Agreed.  I think it's perfectly fine for coaches and coaching staff to be fired if there is alcohol at team parties as long as all coaches are (a) notified of that in advance and (b) that all coaches who have ever had alcohol at team parties are also fired.
[/quote]

My understanding was that the coaches were not at the party, but were aware of it. I mean, how many times did the members of this board imbibe underage? I personally remember the swim team putting four kegs out at the sand courts in the sweets and having a 2 day fiesta after the season.

[2006alum]

I went to Athlete formal twice during my time at Stanford, and let me just say, based on what happened there (and before... and after...), every coaching staff but baseball (which is sometimes still in season in early June) would have been fired if that was the rule. Easily two of the wildest nights of my life. Unless athlete formal has been replaced with a soup kitchen volunteer shift for the little sisters of the poor, this is an absurd standard to hold coaches to.

[2006alum]

I went to Athlete formal twice during my time at Stanford, and let me just say, based on what happened there (and before... and after...), every coaching staff but baseball (which is sometimes still in season in early June) would have been fired if that was the rule. Easily two of the wildest nights of my life. Unless athlete formal has been replaced with a soup kitchen volunteer shift for the little sisters of the poor, this is an absurd standard to hold coaches to.

[CTcard]

I went to Athlete formal twice during my time at Stanford, and let me just say, based on what happened there (and before... and after...), every coaching staff but baseball (which is sometimes still in season in early June) would have been fired if that was the rule. Easily two of the wildest nights of my life. Unless athlete formal has been replaced with a soup kitchen volunteer shift for the little sisters of the poor, this is an absurd standard to hold coaches to.

Which just might be a hint that the actual issues were something else.


Though to be clear, I know nothing at all about this.

[CTcard]

I went to Athlete formal twice during my time at Stanford, and let me just say, based on what happened there (and before... and after...), every coaching staff but baseball (which is sometimes still in season in early June) would have been fired if that was the rule. Easily two of the wildest nights of my life. Unless athlete formal has been replaced with a soup kitchen volunteer shift for the little sisters of the poor, this is an absurd standard to hold coaches to.

Which just might be a hint that the actual issues were something else.


Though to be clear, I know nothing at all about this.

[Hank 91]

Here's the problem. If you type "Stanford" into Google, look at what autofills. In order, you get:
Stanford
Stanford football
Stanford acceptance rate
Stanford rape victim
Stanford rapist

This is clearly a problem, and this is how the administration has chosen to deal with this. Another alcohol-related incident involving a student athlete would be catastrophic. Things have changed. Many, many people are being punished for the atrocity of the swimmer who shall remain nameless, and that's too bad. I don't know the details of what happened with the lacrosse team, but if this was actually an official team party -- not just a bunch of lacrosse guys hanging out at Kappa Sig, for example -- then it's hard to argue with the penalty. (I assume all coaches had been notified of this new policy prior to the party; if not, then I take all this back.)

[Hank 91]

Here's the problem. If you type "Stanford" into Google, look at what autofills. In order, you get:
Stanford
Stanford football
Stanford acceptance rate
Stanford rape victim
Stanford rapist

This is clearly a problem, and this is how the administration has chosen to deal with this. Another alcohol-related incident involving a student athlete would be catastrophic. Things have changed. Many, many people are being punished for the atrocity of the swimmer who shall remain nameless, and that's too bad. I don't know the details of what happened with the lacrosse team, but if this was actually an official team party -- not just a bunch of lacrosse guys hanging out at Kappa Sig, for example -- then it's hard to argue with the penalty. (I assume all coaches had been notified of this new policy prior to the party; if not, then I take all this back.)

[2006alum]

(I assume all coaches had been notified of this new policy prior to the party; if not, then I take all this back.)

Based on how SUBuddha described it, I think this party was before the new policy went into effect:

The coach of a club team and his entire staff let go because the university has changed their alcohol policy since the event?

I'm not 100% certain what the difference is between an official team party and a casual get-together. Do they send out e-vites to the coaches? I realize that Stanford is trying to cover its arse for legal liability right now but this is an insanely draconian way of handling it. Well over 90% of students voted against the policy the Administration put into place without any deliberations with students, and now coaches are getting fired because students dared to drink alcohol at a party? I feel really bad for the kids on the Farm this year because this is nothing like the university I went to, and it lamely legitimizes Brock Turner's pathetic defense that the "alcohol made him do it."

[2006alum]

(I assume all coaches had been notified of this new policy prior to the party; if not, then I take all this back.)

Based on how SUBuddha described it, I think this party was before the new policy went into effect:

The coach of a club team and his entire staff let go because the university has changed their alcohol policy since the event?

I'm not 100% certain what the difference is between an official team party and a casual get-together. Do they send out e-vites to the coaches? I realize that Stanford is trying to cover its arse for legal liability right now but this is an insanely draconian way of handling it. Well over 90% of students voted against the policy the Administration put into place without any deliberations with students, and now coaches are getting fired because students dared to drink alcohol at a party? I feel really bad for the kids on the Farm this year because this is nothing like the university I went to, and it lamely legitimizes Brock Turner's pathetic defense that the "alcohol made him do it."

[Hank 91]

I suppose that makes sense. After all, the students aren't even on campus yet, so this must've been a party in the spring, even before the furor of the case his the national conscience. I would guess that an official lacrosse party would something like a year-end celebration labelled as such. The times have changed. When I was a freshman, our RAs would use dorm funds to purchase alcohol for our dorm parties because they were the only ones in the house over 21. I understood the problem with that even then, but I felt that allowing underage students to drink in a safe environment was a good thing. Of course, that was from my eighteen-year-old perspective. If my daughter were a student in that same situation, I'm certain I'd come to a different conclusion.

[Hank 91]

I suppose that makes sense. After all, the students aren't even on campus yet, so this must've been a party in the spring, even before the furor of the case his the national conscience. I would guess that an official lacrosse party would something like a year-end celebration labelled as such. The times have changed. When I was a freshman, our RAs would use dorm funds to purchase alcohol for our dorm parties because they were the only ones in the house over 21. I understood the problem with that even then, but I felt that allowing underage students to drink in a safe environment was a good thing. Of course, that was from my eighteen-year-old perspective. If my daughter were a student in that same situation, I'm certain I'd come to a different conclusion.

[fullmetal]

So now the coaches have to officially forbid their players to have on-campus team parties (possibly private) where alcohol is present?  Who even tells the coaches about these things?  All the coaches have to do is tell their kids they don't want to hear about any of it.  Such legalistic CYA BS, but like Hank said, I understand that the university has a problem of national scope.  This "corrective action" is unjust and foolish, however.

And men's lax is a club sport too.  Ugh.

Write Muir.

[fullmetal]

So now the coaches have to officially forbid their players to have on-campus team parties (possibly private) where alcohol is present?  Who even tells the coaches about these things?  All the coaches have to do is tell their kids they don't want to hear about any of it.  Such legalistic CYA BS, but like Hank said, I understand that the university has a problem of national scope.  This "corrective action" is unjust and foolish, however.

And men's lax is a club sport too.  Ugh.

Write Muir.

[SUBuddha]

Here is an excerpt from the email sent on Thursday. From this, it may have been the coaches were there, but complied with laws regarding who could consume?

Stanford Lacrosse Alumni and Family,

After 10 seasons with the Stanford Mens’s Lacrosse team, it is with both gratitude and disappointment that I report that I will no longer be at the helm of the program.  After a report of alcohol at an event, the Human Resources Department recommended against the rehiring of the current coaching staff, and the Club Sports Office "decided to go in another direction moving forward". 

In the wake of recent University alcohol policy reforms, this coaching staff was not rehired due to the potential liability of a non-occurance.  This coaching staff has always complied with Federal, State, and local laws.  If the University wanted us to enforce stricter policies and guidelines, I wish they had communicated that, so that we could have moved forward together, in support of one another.

Our program is 100% focused on healthy lifestyle choices around athletics and competition. The teamwork, camaraderie, and community that our sport provides is the magnetic force.

[SUBuddha]

Here is an excerpt from the email sent on Thursday. From this, it may have been the coaches were there, but complied with laws regarding who could consume?

Stanford Lacrosse Alumni and Family,

After 10 seasons with the Stanford Mens’s Lacrosse team, it is with both gratitude and disappointment that I report that I will no longer be at the helm of the program.  After a report of alcohol at an event, the Human Resources Department recommended against the rehiring of the current coaching staff, and the Club Sports Office "decided to go in another direction moving forward". 

In the wake of recent University alcohol policy reforms, this coaching staff was not rehired due to the potential liability of a non-occurance.  This coaching staff has always complied with Federal, State, and local laws.  If the University wanted us to enforce stricter policies and guidelines, I wish they had communicated that, so that we could have moved forward together, in support of one another.

Our program is 100% focused on healthy lifestyle choices around athletics and competition. The teamwork, camaraderie, and community that our sport provides is the magnetic force.

[fullmetal]

That's not a small staff either...head coach, offensive coordinator, defensive coordinator, asst defensive coordinatory, S&C coach, athletic trainer, and team physician.  Not sure if the rec dept decided to bludgeon them all or just the top three.  Ugh.  What a way to eviscerate a program.

[fullmetal]

That's not a small staff either...head coach, offensive coordinator, defensive coordinator, asst defensive coordinatory, S&C coach, athletic trainer, and team physician.  Not sure if the rec dept decided to bludgeon them all or just the top three.  Ugh.  What a way to eviscerate a program.

[JJJ]

This just sounds so wrong on so many levels. I kind of hope there is more "there" there, or it is just too depressing. What has become of our alma mater?

[JJJ]

This just sounds so wrong on so many levels. I kind of hope there is more "there" there, or it is just too depressing. What has become of our alma mater?

[bay_bird]

Based on the facts as we know them, this is absurd.  Every team, student group, fraternity, etc. is subject to being handled the same way?

I guess this makes sense b/c the swim team coaching staff that is responsible for bringing a rapist to campus also lost their jobs, right?!

Coaching lacrosse players, who occasionally drink alcohol = offense that will cost you your job.

Coaching a rapist that you recruited to campus = no problem at all.

Nice job Stanford Administration.  You've demonstrated the courage needed to make the truly difficult decisions in life.  The real important decisions.  #shameful

[bay_bird]

Based on the facts as we know them, this is absurd.  Every team, student group, fraternity, etc. is subject to being handled the same way?

I guess this makes sense b/c the swim team coaching staff that is responsible for bringing a rapist to campus also lost their jobs, right?!

Coaching lacrosse players, who occasionally drink alcohol = offense that will cost you your job.

Coaching a rapist that you recruited to campus = no problem at all.

Nice job Stanford Administration.  You've demonstrated the courage needed to make the truly difficult decisions in life.  The real important decisions.  #shameful

[winflop]

I think the only way to resolve this is with transparency, but given the history of not having said transparency I doubt we'll ever get the real story.

I'm going to assume it was more than just having alcohol at a party where the coaches were not present.  That's just too inane/stupid even for Muir.

[winflop]

I think the only way to resolve this is with transparency, but given the history of not having said transparency I doubt we'll ever get the real story.

I'm going to assume it was more than just having alcohol at a party where the coaches were not present.  That's just too inane/stupid even for Muir.

[CTcard]

I think the only way to resolve this is with transparency, but given the history of not having said transparency I doubt we'll ever get the real story.

I'm going to assume it was more than just having alcohol at a party where the coaches were not present.  That's just too inane/stupid even for Muir.

I am not quite sure what the law allows, but it is certainly both standard practice and general courtesy with respect to privacy issues, that Stanford, universities, and pretty much all large organizations, do not comment on personnel issues such as firing. For a head coach, typically there is a statement thanking the past coach for their service and possibly noting that the institution has chosen to move in another direction.

So, we will not hear Stanford's story of what occurred here.

Your options are to assume that the athletics administration is composed of unreasonable and dramatically incompetent people or that there is more to the story (which wouldn't necessarily absolve the administration of those particular qualities).

[CTcard]

I think the only way to resolve this is with transparency, but given the history of not having said transparency I doubt we'll ever get the real story.

I'm going to assume it was more than just having alcohol at a party where the coaches were not present.  That's just too inane/stupid even for Muir.

I am not quite sure what the law allows, but it is certainly both standard practice and general courtesy with respect to privacy issues, that Stanford, universities, and pretty much all large organizations, do not comment on personnel issues such as firing. For a head coach, typically there is a statement thanking the past coach for their service and possibly noting that the institution has chosen to move in another direction.

So, we will not hear Stanford's story of what occurred here.

Your options are to assume that the athletics administration is composed of unreasonable and dramatically incompetent people or that there is more to the story (which wouldn't necessarily absolve the administration of those particular qualities).

[Mick]

Your options are to assume that the athletics administration is composed of unreasonable and dramatically incompetent people or that there is more to the story (which wouldn't necessarily absolve the administration of those particular qualities).

I personally know two people in administrative capacities at Stanford -- not in the athletic department.  I've dealt with about half-a-dozen other administrators -- again, not in the athletic department.  So I can't say how unreasonable and/or dramatically incompetent the athletics administration is, I can only observe what I know of these administrators and how the softball fiasco was handled.  And based on those factors, I would give the benefit of the doubt to the coaches.

[Mick]

Your options are to assume that the athletics administration is composed of unreasonable and dramatically incompetent people or that there is more to the story (which wouldn't necessarily absolve the administration of those particular qualities).

I personally know two people in administrative capacities at Stanford -- not in the athletic department.  I've dealt with about half-a-dozen other administrators -- again, not in the athletic department.  So I can't say how unreasonable and/or dramatically incompetent the athletics administration is, I can only observe what I know of these administrators and how the softball fiasco was handled.  And based on those factors, I would give the benefit of the doubt to the coaches.

[needle]

Your options are to assume that the athletics administration is composed of unreasonable and dramatically incompetent people or that there is more to the story (which wouldn't necessarily absolve the administration of those particular qualities).

Actually, I don't see any reason to believe there is "more to the story," except that, obviously, someone informed the AD that alcohol was served. If a coach/coaches organize a party that includes students under 21 and alcohol is served in anything close to a casual manner, that's enough reason for a firing.

Welcome to 2016.

[needle]

Your options are to assume that the athletics administration is composed of unreasonable and dramatically incompetent people or that there is more to the story (which wouldn't necessarily absolve the administration of those particular qualities).

Actually, I don't see any reason to believe there is "more to the story," except that, obviously, someone informed the AD that alcohol was served. If a coach/coaches organize a party that includes students under 21 and alcohol is served in anything close to a casual manner, that's enough reason for a firing.

Welcome to 2016.