Pomeroy Nailed It

I have mixed emotions on this subject. I am a GenXer caught in the middle of both worlds. I am leaning toward the way of there are better ways to communicate and getting your point across, doing so without the theatrics. As @HawkGold pointed out it is just a different world now.
 
1) There's no room for physical or mental abuse in any realm of our society.
2) All screaming is not abuse.
3) Coaches mostly scream because they learned it from their coaches. There's no science that says that screaming makes for a better tougher team. It's just the way it has always been done.
4) Some players respond well to this sort of coaching. Many do not. A good coach gets the most out of each player and knows who needs what for motivation and inspiration.
5) My prediction- fifty years from now we will look back at Izzo's behavior and see it to be barbaric, wondering how it could ever have been up for discussion as to whether it was moral or justifiable. Coaching behavior will evolve for the better, and for better on the floor results.
 
HawkGold said:
The training leader at my son's boot camp was relieved of duties. They lost over half of the trainees and had several hospitalizations. Btw, he didn't need to do basic and today is a Captain.

So the short answer is yes. There is very little that is done in basic that really prepares one for combat. Combat is the best experience and after that unit training, but it is no real substitute.

In WW2 at Bastogne, a Captain was shot by his own men as he was yelling and screaming at them under fire. Happens more often that we think.

Lunacy is not leadership. I'll take Bennett any day.

There are reason why the military wants 19 and 20 yo's. Too young to know better and will follow stupidly.

Izzo was nuts. The video is worse than the pic. Why are children abused? It's easier. Many adults who get abused as adults have complex trauma where they can't defend themselves as adults.

It's just plain wrong.

What in the name of God makes you think lunatic military training leaders are doing it right? It's just what they do.
Click to expand...

the objective of boot camp IS to mentally breakdown every recruit so that they can become one unit, take orders without asking questions and to be reliable in battle and not act as an individual. The Battered Bastards of Bastogne didn't panic, retreat or shoot their officers, and they held the line stave off Germany's last ditch push to reach Antwerp.
 
ArvadaHawk said:
the objective of boot camp IS to mentally breakdown every recruit so that they can become one unit, take orders without asking questions and to be reliable in battle and not act as an individual. The Battered Bastards of Bastogne didn't panic, retreat or shoot their officers, and they held the line stave off Germany's last ditch push to reach Antwerp.
Click to expand...

Yes it did happen. The Germans broke thru and had tanks in Bastogne on the south side.

Thest west side did retreat and consolidate.

Gen McAuliff real response was AW NUTS WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO they were so desperate. Not what was aaid to the enemy but what he said to those around him.

The Captain shot was named Evans btw.

The real story is much better than glorified tripe. The Germans several times pulled back when they had a clean shot to run thru. Ince due to a random shell hitting a mobile command center of General Kokott. Another time they though it would be easier to try another place.

Ardennes Offensive never had a chance.They didnt really want to take Bastogne right away or the would have. They left 4 depleted Divisions and thought it would fall easily while the focused on Antwerp with no real ability to capture it.

Maybe you d prefer to argue with the soldiers there.

Abuse wasnt needed then nor now. Its what they did.

The soldiers were scared shitless kids who had no idea what team was going on except to deal with what was in front of their nose to survive.

The real reason they didnt talk later was that they knew they didnt feel like heroes. Many of them lived with the knowledge something they did or didnt do caused deaths of buddies. It was sheer chaos. And yes they at times refused orders. You have a nice painted picture that isnt true. The Soviets may have been more like that as they shot soldiers as examples.
 
ArvadaHawk said:
actually, my point is that people can spend too much time thinking about things that don't really matter. perhaps instead of worrying about whether a football player gets yelled at during practice, or grabbed by the facemask, maybe other things in society should be discussed. you know, there are some real big problems facing this country...and football practice isn't one of them.

are you saying that a coach yelling, screaming and swearing at a player and grabbing a face mask is worse than the actual violent contact during a game? i mean, these football players voluntarily joined the football team knowing they were going to collide at high speeds with other human beings in order to run them over or knock them down. should football plays start suing each other or universities for their injuries?

would you please define extreme discipline? how about making players run stairs for a fumble during practice, or a turnover in basketball during practice? certainly, that can be legislated, also, right? what about a math teacher that simply tells the entire class that a student flunked a test? is that extreme? so, again, society decides and what you described has been deemed acceptable by society. feel free to try and change it.
Click to expand...

Society has pretty much already decided. Coaches and adnin still listen to those wiith money and are old school. There isca reason why the younger arent as involced as fans.

Yes a huge dif between sport contact and bullying/abuse. Its about a power differential. One you have control. The other you have none. Ask a vet about worst experiences. What woll they say? Not close combat but artillery. In the latter there is nothing much you can do.
 
dirtwrap said:
I dont like Izzo or Michigan St at all, i never have. However, there is no denying the fact that he consistently, more than any other school in the country or in the B1G, has the most mentally strong teams. What he has accomplished as a coach is incredible with respect to the talent that he coaches. And, for that matter, all of his current and former players love and respect him, probably because he prepares them to be better players and men than they thought they could be. Much like what our military does.

Face it, if Izzo was our coach we would immortalize him, as we should. He is there to do a job, and that is to win basketball games and championships. If he changes his approach he probably ends up fielding typical Iowa teams that fold up like a cheap tent when they face adversity and fade at the end of seasons and he gets fired.

It is voluntary you know, if kids or their parents dont want to get coached like that they just dont have to go there. And because of that i dont see why anyone has a problem with that, because its not like Izzo is trying to hide it.
Click to expand...

Maybe you mistake politeness wth being better. Have you looked at the spouse abuse and suicide rates of current and former soldiers?

Iz wins due to talent. He wins due to strategy.

Its been shown over and over again that scared straight dowsnt work.

How old are you?
 
trj said:
I have mixed emotions on this subject. I am a GenXer caught in the middle of both worlds. I am leaning toward the way of there are better ways to communicate and getting your point across, doing so without the theatrics. As @HawkGold pointed out it is just a different world now.
Click to expand...
I look at it along the same lines as withholding water in practices as a punishment/reward. It's archane, counterproductive rather than productive, and will be defended to the last breath by old guys who want other people to think they have way more testosterone than they really do.

Once science showed that withholding water had the opposite effect on your team, and that making sure players had as much as they needed benefited it, everyone did a 360 (except for the old codgers who were "in the war" and had to walk uphill to school in asshole deep snow even in the summer).

And to the dickbags comparing a kids game to the military, the attack on your senses in boot camp is to weed out people who might freeze up during combat. Because it could get them killed, and get their fellow soldiers killed. Try as you might to make football comparable, you'll fail.

Football ain't war, folks. Ask Nile Kinnick; we hear it from him every Saturday afternoon before the game.

Not all successful coaches are screamers. Izzo certainly isn't the best, and there's no reliable connection to temper tantrums and wins. We see it happen with guys like Saban and Izzo and just assume that the reason that they win is because they flip out and lose their tempers...well look no further than Iowa City. Fran has the self-control of a three year old and if you look up the word "mediocre" in the dictionary there's a picture of his W/L record at Iowa.
 
Last edited:
HawkGold said:
Maybe you mistake politeness wth being better. Have you looked at the spouse abuse and suicide rates of current and former soldiers?

Iz wins due to talent. He wins due to strategy.

Its been shown over and over again that scared straight dowsnt work.

How old are you?
Click to expand...

First of all, don't be so defensive, nobody is peeing in your cheerios. This is a discussion and a debate, and it can be done friendly without accusation and assumption.

I never said what the military did was right. I only asked a question if the motivational techniques should be stopped. I myself have not been in the military and all i know is the perception from the movies and what friends have told me.

The parallel i drew between sports and military is like you described. There is a leader who establishes dominance so that they can have their group of people follow their orders, explicitly and without question. The leader knows that the success of their task is dependent on everyone working together as a unit.

Personally, i dont like the dictatorship style of leadership, however, it cannot be argued that sometimes it works. And sometimes, and i think most would agree, that it is the only style that works. One specific example i can think of is the boot camps for troubled kids. By that time all the second, third and fourth and beyond chances have been given, reason has been trampled on and their parents have run out of options. And sometimes it works.

With Izzo specifically, that whole outburst made him look like a fool, but as much as it says about him that he blew up at the one kid, it also shows a lot about the other kids getting between them. They obviously felt comfortable to do that. But i am not condoning what he did or saying it was right, but i am saying that Izzo is a hell of a coach, better than anyone we have had, and his results speak for themselves.

So can we be friends Hawkgold?

I will leave it with another question, one that i am not leading an answer to, just for discussion. Do you think Tyler Cook would be more or less or the same.prepared for the NBA if Izzo coached him?
 
oregonhawkeye said:
1) There's no room for physical or mental abuse in any realm of our society.
2) All screaming is not abuse.
3) Coaches mostly scream because they learned it from their coaches. There's no science that says that screaming makes for a better tougher team. It's just the way it has always been done.
4) Some players respond well to this sort of coaching. Many do not. A good coach gets the most out of each player and knows who needs what for motivation and inspiration.
5) My prediction- fifty years from now we will look back at Izzo's behavior and see it to be barbaric, wondering how it could ever have been up for discussion as to whether it was moral or justifiable. Coaching behavior will evolve for the better, and for better on the floor results.
Click to expand...

What do you mean it will be for better on court results?
 
Fryowa said:
I look at it along the same lines as withholding water in practices as a punishment/reward. It's archane, counterproductive rather than productive, and will be defended to the last breath by old guys who want other people to think they have way more testosterone than they really do.

Once science showed that withholding water had the opposite effect on your team, and that making sure players had as much as they needed benefited it, everyone did a 360 (except for the old codgers who were "in the war" and had to walk uphill to school in asshole deep snow even in the summer).

And to the dickbags comparing a kids game to the military, the attack on your senses in boot camp is to weed out people who might freeze up during combat. Because it could get them killed, and get their fellow soldiers killed. Try as you might to make football comparable, you'll fail.

Football ain't war, folks. Ask Nile Kinnick; we hear it from him every Saturday afternoon before the game.

Not all successful coaches are screamers. Izzo certainly isn't the best, and there's no reliable connection to temper tantrums and wins. We see it happen with guys like Saban and Izzo and just assume that the reason that they win is because they flip out and lose their tempers. Well look no further than Iowa City. Fran has the self-control of a three year old and if you look up the word "mediocre" in the dictionary there's a picture of his W/L record at Iowa.
Click to expand...

I was the one who brought up the military, but I clearly didn't compare it to sports. I compared it to a math class to counter a point by someone saying acceptable behavior shouldn't vary in different walks of life. I don't think there is anything wrong with treating people different in the military than you would at a daycare. Sports should fall somewhere in the middle of the two, which it does.
 
Either boorish behavior such as throwing chairs, grabbing players by their jerseys, berating officials in private in the tunnel after the game, dragging players by the helmet in practice, screaming like a spoiled child at officials during the game, grabbing players by the giblets, or forcing a student manager to go up on an elevated platform in 50 mph winds (talking to you Brian Kelly) is right or it is wrong. Reasonable rational human beings, especially grown ass adults, should be able to identify the above behavior as wrong.
 
Look, I'm not saying yelling to be heard, or yelling if there's a ton of grabassery going on with your team is bad. In fact, I'd expect that as well in the classroom or in the workplace (workplace isn't so common because you get fired if you don't cut the mustard).

But Pomeroy is right. It happens nowhere else other than college football and college basketball, (and apparently Iowa women's field hockey). Someone brought up that it's a team-dependent thing so the analogy of a classroom is wrong...

Let's say you were at a math bee and your kid bombed some questions that cost the team 1st place and his teacher stormed up on stage, grabbed him by the shirt and started screaming mf'ers and goddammits, and as the teacher walked off grabbed a book and threw it down in front of the judge and yelled "That's fuckin bullshit!"

Let's say the same thing happened at a SkillsUSA competition to a college-aged kid...

None of that would be acceptable, it'd result in a teacher or prof getting fired, and if they put their hands on someone there'd be a trip to jail involved.

You can debate the right/wrong all you want, but there is a definite double standard, made even worse by the fact that temper tantrum level doesn't lead to improved performance.
 
dirtwrap said:
First of all, don't be so defensive, nobody is peeing in your cheerios. This is a discussion and a debate, and it can be done friendly without accusation and assumption.

I never said what the military did was right. I only asked a question if the motivational techniques should be stopped. I myself have not been in the military and all i know is the perception from the movies and what friends have told me.

The parallel i drew between sports and military is like you described. There is a leader who establishes dominance so that they can have their group of people follow their orders, explicitly and without question. The leader knows that the success of their task is dependent on everyone working together as a unit.

Personally, i dont like the dictatorship style of leadership, however, it cannot be argued that sometimes it works. And sometimes, and i think most would agree, that it is the only style that works. One specific example i can think of is the boot camps for troubled kids. By that time all the second, third and fourth and beyond chances have been given, reason has been trampled on and their parents have run out of options. And sometimes it works.

With Izzo specifically, that whole outburst made him look like a fool, but as much as it says about him that he blew up at the one kid, it also shows a lot about the other kids getting between them. They obviously felt comfortable to do that. But i am not condoning what he did or saying it was right, but i am saying that Izzo is a hell of a coach, better than anyone we have had, and his results speak for themselves.

So can we be friends Hawkgold?

I will leave it with another question, one that i am not leading an answer to, just for discussion. Do you think Tyler Cook would be more or less or the same.prepared for the NBA if Izzo coached him?
Click to expand...

He would be so much better. Noce point btw.

Iz did look the fool. Was surprized he went that far.
 
I think that Izzo does it so often with his players that they start to ignore it, and secretly laugh it off. Izzo is almost a cartoon character, but I think his kids overall like playing for him. He recruits tough kids who know what they are getting into in advance.

Izzo is definitely "old school" but gets away with it because they win championships. It certainly is not the style you see from Ferentz, who also has won championships at a school that hasn't won very many over 120 years. I'm guessing you will see fewer and fewer coaches using the old "military" style for their coaching.
 
ChosenChildren said:
I think that Izzo does it so often with his players that they start to ignore it, and secretly laugh it off. Izzo is almost a cartoon character, but I think his kids overall like playing for him. He recruits tough kids who know what they are getting into in advance.

Izzo is definitely "old school" but gets away with it because they win championships. It certainly is not the style you see from Ferentz, who also has won championships at a school that hasn't won very many over 120 years. I'm guessing you will see fewer and fewer coaches using the old "military" style for their coaching.
Click to expand...

Generally I sort of agree up until this incident. That was over the top.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top