The CardBoard

Full Version: Turley Gone
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
I know I'm being a dog with a bone on this Turley issue, but I have a particular problem when large organizations handle things poorly.

This is public reporting from a Rivals free article:

Multiple sources told Cardinal Sports Report that there was an issue brought to Stanford's attention involving a former player. There were no details beyond that as the situation was locked up inside the football offices, and the office of athletic director Bernard Muir, in the Arrillaga Family Sports Center.

So the reality is public reporting has suggested Turley was ousted as a result of an incident involving a former player, that was handled by the football office, suggesting a former football player, but not confirming that. By Stanford not giving any details whatsoever, it invited speculation and we have a post in this thread suggesting Turley was let go because he "exposed himself."  

While this may or may not be true, if Stanford had issued a statement like I suggested, there would less likely be speculation because there would be some clarity about whether the football team was involved. If the football team was not involved, hard to fathom given it was "locked up inside the football offices," then there might be some speculation, but it wouldn't be as much, because nothing is more popular and the S&C coach isn't any more visible than in the football program.

And now that I think about it, the Stanford statement could have closed with "Coach Shaw will be announcing our new S&C coach within X days/weeks. Now let the internet speculation begin!"

That's an even better way to handle, because it actually deflects attention away from Turley on to the new hire, which frankly, is really all most people care about, while also ending on a light note about the reality of how these things get discussed, making the university more fan-friendly and less stuffy.

Alright, I've certainly said more than my fill on this topic.  So I'll "shut up" now!
(04-18-2019, 07:08 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: [ -> ]I know I'm being a dog with a bone on this Turley issue, but I have a particular problem when large organizations handle things poorly.

This is public reporting from a Rivals free article:

Multiple sources told Cardinal Sports Report that there was an issue brought to Stanford's attention involving a former player. There were no details beyond that as the situation was locked up inside the football offices, and the office of athletic director Bernard Muir, in the Arrillaga Family Sports Center.

So the reality is public reporting has suggested Turley was ousted as a result of an incident involving a former player, that was handled by the football office, suggesting a former football player, but not confirming that. By Stanford not giving any details whatsoever, it invited speculation and we have a post in this thread suggesting Turley was let go because he "exposed himself."  

While this may or may not be true, if Stanford had issued a statement like I suggested, there would less likely be speculation because there would be some clarity about whether the football team was involved. If the football team was not involved, hard to fathom given it was "locked up inside the football offices," then there might be some speculation, but it wouldn't be as much, because nothing is more popular and the S&C coach isn't any more visible than in the football program.

And now that I think about it, the Stanford statement could have closed with "Coach Shaw will be announcing our new S&C coach within X days/weeks. Now let the internet speculation begin!"

That's an even better way to handle, because it actually deflects attention away from Turley on to the new hire, which frankly, is really all most people care about, while also ending on a light note about the reality of how these things get discussed, making the university more fan-friendly and less stuffy.

Alright, I've certainly said more than my fill on this topic.  So I'll "shut up" now!

You are talking to a very, very, very selected subgroup of people who care about Turley, let alone know that he was the fired strength and conditioning coach.  For the vast majority of people, even those affiliated with Stanford, even those who are casual football fans, this is about as newsworthy as a random professor in the department of communications being dismissed.  Hell, as Bob noted, a Stanford S&C coach has been dismissed in the past with nary a peep.

BC
So true, BC.  Nobody cares, outside of this group and the football team itself.

I think a point that is getting a bit lost here is that Stanford almost certainly acted rationally in its own perceived best interest, not just with respect to the firing but also with respect the PR approach. I've been around the corporate world long enough to have seen or heard about a few scandals first-hand. In every one of these cases, both of the following were true:
1) If it was at all possible for the organization not to announce the nature of the offense, they avoided it. (In fact, in most cases they avoided announcing any offense at all, but that must not have been possible here.) They did this to avoid the sullying of their own reputation and the possible perception among their employees and customers that the wheels were coming off.  They also did this to avoid any concern about violating the terminated employee's rights.
2) The executive / perpetrator negotiated successfully for a golden parachute in exchange for a mutual confidentiality agreement. Yes, the organizations were essentially extorted by the perpetrators who knew that the organizations would be willing to pay to avoid embarrassment, even though they had done nothing wrong.  I'm not saying that Turley did this here, but just making the point about how much institutions are willing to do to cover up negative information and/or avoid litigation or arbitration with ex-employees that were arguably fired for Cause.

In this case, we have a 12-year employee who is credited with significant contributions to the Stanford Football program achieving its pinnacle of success. It's not like they found this guy last year, determined that he was a bad apple or exhibited poor judgment, and ejected him quickly. His reputation is tightly interwoven with the Stanford Football program's reputation. 

Stanford, having more information than anyone here, probably made a simple and straightforward calculation that it was better for the University and the football program not to divulge the details. Based on what I've seen, the effect on Turley's future would have been a very small consideration next to the effect on the football program.

And BC's point holds true - when a scandal is small enough, you try to say as little as possible about it.  This minimizes how long it lingers, both online and offline. Only when it has reached a boiling point do you fall on the sword and disclose more information, attempting to put your spin on it.  This seems like small potatoes.
Pages: 1 2 3