Other Recruiting Turley Gone

[Phogge]

Was posted on the Boot.

[BostonCard]

The supposed secret is out on TOS. Got to say that my athlete friends and I did a bit of it in HS IF TRUE. Mostly in cars in the back seat. And mostly at SH guys and old ladies Downtown.

Hey Phogge that facebook post probably isn't the reason.

Fairly sure that Phogge didn't have facebook in HS.  Hell, he might not even have had the wheel back then.

BC

[JJJ]

Slightly OT but I just read the article that goes with this video in print over the weekend re: strength coaches.

http://www.si.com/college-football/video...aaron-feld

And here's the story I was referring to:

Oregon pays Feld $200,000 per year, but that number is likely to go up before long. Iowa pays its strength coach $725,000 per year—the most in the nation—and Clemson pays its $600,000, up 20% from last season's $500,000.

The catch for this new breed of very well compensated assistant? In addition to the 405 pounds on his back, Feld carries the weight of Oregon's program. He and his peers are judged on W's and L's, not just bench-press LBs. In other words: If things go wrong for the Ducks, it's his thick neck.

In today's college football, a strength assistant is the most important hire that a head coach makes. He matters more than either coordinator because he spends more time with players than any other staff member. The NCAA strictly limits how much contact head and position coaches can have with players, but there are fewer restrictions on strength coaches, who run workouts almost year-round. Many of these workouts are officially voluntary, but coaches tend to say “voluntary” with air quotes the size of the Goodyear Blimp.

From the start of August practices through the season's last game, strength coaches have the same access to players as do other staff members. But it's in the offseason where their value escalates: While other coaches are limited to two hours per week with players, they're allowed eight.

http://www.si.com/college-football/2019/...aaron-feld

[Phogge]

No but we did have smoke signals and a tin can sound system connected by string. Amazing how many guys turned up for supposed “secret” parties.

Bobbbbb and I each traveled in gangs in the RF bleachers at Seals Stadium. We kicked their butts because we had our own version of The Terminator, a big kid named Woody.

[Robbie]

So I dug around a little bit to try to identify the rumor. Apparently a student reported that Turley exposed himself. I do not know if it was an athlete student (probably was, though), what team the student was on, when it happened, or any other information. Meant to be a joke? Perhaps. Lots of ways this could have happened. I don't even know if it's true, but seems plausible based on how the university has discussed the situation.

Why am I writing this? It's a potentially important situation to our program. (Could affect recruiting; create lawsuits; cause players to transfer; ...) And clearly some people know more on this board than they are saying. I frankly don't know how much of what I'm presenting is consistent with the reasons that Turley is gone. But seems about right.

Damn, people. Put your pecker away. Take it out when you find someone who wants to take it out. It's more fun that way.

[Phogge]

If that’s the reason is it so important to have possibly ruined the guy’s life? My god what have we become?

[BobK]

I really really don’t believe that to be the reason

[OutsiderFan]

Stanford may think it is doing the right thing by making no statement about what led to Turley’s departure, but it’s pretty clear that by doing that they have created a vacuum that will be filled with speculation. Some of this stuff has the potential to besmirch someone’s character. Stanford should understand this and make more clear what led to the dismissal, at least in broad strokes.

[BobK]

So you don’t think in the nine weeks of suspension Stanford and Turley didn’t reach an agreement and sign NDAs ?

That would be a first

[2006alum]

I'm just going to say it again: no good comes from speculating about this. The more we chase potentially red herring leads, the more false rumors spread that benefit no one. It's not good for him, not for good Stanford, not good for whomever came forward, not good for our football team or our athletics department. Truly, we have no legal right to know. 

Just assume the university investigated thoroughly and exercised good judgment in its decision, and come to terms with the fact that some things aren't going to, and shouldn't be, made public.

[BostonCard]

If that’s the reason is it so important to have possibly ruined the guy’s life? My god what have we become?

Dollars to donuts that Turkey will wind up on his feet.  His life is not ruined as there is almost certainly a school out there that will be willing to give him a second chance.

BC

---

I should say that my comment presumes that Turley is not in legal jeopardy or anything like that.

But the Venn diagram of actions that will get you fired from Stanford and actions that would not prevent you from being hired elsewhere is pretty broad.

BC

[PVTree]

Didn't Harballs try to steal him before? Perhaps he'll land in Michigan...or Vandy.

[Snorlax94]

I'm just going to say it again: no good comes from speculating about this. The more we chase potentially red herring leads, the more false rumors spread that benefit no one. It's not good for him, not for good Stanford, not good for whomever came forward, not good for our football team or our athletics department. Truly, we have no legal right to know. 

Just assume the university investigated thoroughly and exercised good judgment in its decision, and come to terms with the fact that some things aren't going to, and shouldn't be, made public.

+1, well said.

[admin]

I just finished reading this thread and wasn't sure whether to respond from my personal account or the admin one. I think it's an important enough issue that I should weigh in officially. Several times in this thread I've seen allusions to potential wrongdoing and one person directly naming an infraction that hasn't been corroborated. "I heard... " "I read on [some other fan board]"

Sure, humans are naturally attracted to salacious stories, the crazier, the better. But what if what you heard isn't true? You've just soiled someone's name and reputation. Please consider the potential consequences of  your posts, and better yet, please do not engage is speculation about others.

[OutsiderFan]

So you don’t think in the nine weeks of suspension Stanford and Turley didn’t reach an agreement and sign NDAs ?  

That would be a first

I’m not an expert on NDAs, but, like any contract, the more specific one is, the more enforceable it is. This means an NDA can be signed and still allow general statements to be made. Like, I can have an NDA signed with a company that prohibits me from disclosing partnership discussions with that company. But I can say I have a signed NDA with a company that prohibits me from disclosing partnership discussions, that still reveals I have partnership discussions going on with someone.

In the Turley case, everyone knows the name of the person involved in an incident, and everyone knows he was removed from Stanford employment. That’s publicly available information Stanford released and would seem to raise the specificity required of NDA involving him.

But again, whether Stanford sheds more light on what happened or not, speculation will occur, as evidenced by this thread, that may unfairly damage someone’s reputation. And the less that is said, the more speculation there will be.

All parties would be better off if Stanford released a statement indicating an investigation revealed Turley did something inconsistent with Stanford’s code of conduct and if it involved the football program or not, because frankly, that is all anyone really cares about.  I’m confident there would be littlle discussion had a assistant men’s cross country coach been dismissed in similar fashion as Turley.

[2006alum]

But again, whether Stanford sheds more light on what happened or not, speculation will occur, as evidenced by this thread, that may unfairly damage someone’s reputation. And the less that is said, the more speculation there will be.

All parties would be better off if Stanford released a statement indicating an investigation revealed Turley did something inconsistent with Stanford’s code of conduct and if it involved the football program or not, because frankly, that is all anyone really cares about.  I’m confident there would be littlle discussion had a assistant men’s cross country coach been dismissed in similar fashion as Turley.

I'm starting to feel like a broken record here, but what you are asking for would just raise more speculation - if it was the football program, what specifically? And how long ago? And if it wasn't the football program, then what was it? How truly bad could it have been? And the more info disclosed, the more likely that people would pry to get the details. When it's vague, and broad, there are fewer leads for reporters, fans, etc., to try to go down. As it should be.

Honestly, if you have a good faith desire to reduce speculation and the divulging of (possibly harmful) information (whether relevant or not), then stop speculating and demanding more information. I truly don't understand why people feel entitled to know the reason or to expect that fans' desires for closure should be fulfilled at the expense of potential harm to the university, to Turley, to whomever came forward, etc. From the standpoint of an employer-employee relationship, Turley is not different than the assistant men's cross country coach. Or any other employee. It's none of our business. So please stop.

[OutsiderFan]

I am not and have not speculated about the Turley situation, simply reacted to what I have read others report or post, including Stanford. Nor am I personally requesting any more information myself.  The irony here, is I'm much more on your side than seems apparent.

My position is not how I am reacting, but how others are. I can easily sleep at night not having a clue what led to Turley's ouster.  My concern is that because so little has been said, and how there has been dribs and drabs of information reported on the situation, that Turley's reputation will be damaged by the speculation others - not me - are engaging in as a result of so little being disclosed.

I totally disagree that more information will lead to more speculation. The reality is there has been speculation that his paid leave was a result of something involving a former player.  That most likely means the football program, which also carries the most public attention. But because he was involved with other sports, it may not be football related.  That expands the pool of intrigue to include women's sports, which brings in natural assumption that it could be sex-related, which is obviously a hot button issue these days.

Stanford should have said something like this to shut down the speculation:

Shannon Turley was put on paid leave while an investigation into violations of Stanford's code of conduct took place. After a diligent examination of the facts, and in consultation with Mr. Turley, Stanford and Mr. Turley decided to part ways.  While we will not and do not believe it is important to go into any details, to help Stanford University, its athletes, coaches, and fans move past this incident, it...

A) did not involve any past or current members of the Stanford football team, all differences have been settled and there will be no further comment.

B) involved a former member of the football team and all parties have agreed to settle their differences with no further comment.

C) occurred with the football team in the 20xx academic year and all parties have agreed to settle their differences with no further comment.

This would pretty much shut down any credible speculation, and take the main issue off the table. Satisfying the biggest curiosity, which is if and when the football program might have been involved, does that. There would be no point speculating about which football player it was, because there are hundreds of possible players.  And if it wasn't football, nobody would much care, because that's even more potential parties than football.  


To reiterate, I don't care what happened. I'm just interested who the new S&C coach is going to be, but I am also not ignorant to how others have reacted and how the vacuum created has been filled with seemingly baseless speculation that may unjustifiably damage Turley's reputation. I'd like it to stop too, but just saying you want people to stop talking about it isn't a solution. Something has to be done to satisfy an appetite for some information. My suggestion may not actually prove effective, but it would be better than a 20 word no comment that we know wasn't an effective tactic to stop speculation from happening.

Just look at the circus surrounding the Mueller Report for what happens when there isn't enough transparency on topics a lot of people care about. I'm not equating the two, just illustrating a point, while recognizing some situations call for more transparency than others.

[needle]

From the standpoint of an employer-employee relationship, Turley is not different than the assistant men's cross country coach. Or any other employee. It's none of our business. So please stop.

What about the softball coach? Just look at the recent case of the Stanford softball coach, whose firing we ended up learning a great deal about because of various news reports. In that particular case, the disclosure of details was probably beneficial to both Stanford and John Rittman (now HC at Clemson).

There is definitely a scenario where having info out there is actually good for the fired employee.

[2006alum]

Rittman and Turley are not analogous for a number of reasons. Chief among them is that public NCAA sanctions and a show cause penalty administered outside of Stanford's control are not the same thing as a private personnel matter entirely within Stanford's purview. And there is a 0% chance Clemson hired Rittman on the basis of only news reports and didn't first contact Stanford and the NCAA -- indeed, the very definition of a show cause penalty is that universities must liaise with the NCAA when considering hiring someone subject to such a penalty. The idea that public gossip helped Rittman get a new job is not, IMHO, very plausible. And it just so happens that in Rittman's case, various fans and alumni decided for themselves that Rittman's offenses weren't very bad, so in their eyes, Rittman looked rehabilitated (not everyone agreed with that assessment, incidentally). There's no guarantee that more information about Turley would make matters better, and lots of reasons to think it could make them worse. Be careful what you wish for.

The Mueller report is even less analogous. That concerns the integrity of our democracy and potential obstruction of justice by the President of the United States, and an investigation paid for by taxpayers and involving public servants. Turley's dismissal is a private personnel matter at a private university with almost no direct public fiduciary responsibilities when it comes to hiring and firing.

I also respectfully disagree about whether more information would satiate public speculation. If Stanford disclosed whether it involved football players or not, all that that would encourage would be reporters to focus specifically on the relevant subset of Stanford athletes/administrators/staff/parents. Your desired level of disclosure might satiate your curiosity, but there's no reason to think it would satiate others. The best way to stop inquiries is to give no new leads. 

Hopefully we can move on to other topics.

[BobK]

To be clear Rittman has been a college softball coach since leaving Stanford. He is in year 2 at Clemson which doesn’t presently have a softball program but will next season. His recruiting has been outstanding

Also the previous Head of S&C was also dismissed and few cared as he was t directly involved with football as he was with softball

Hope we hire a great department head