FB: Empire 8

[maxpower]

+k to both of you

[Frank Rossi]

1.  The suspensions and aftermath of the incident was handled very poorly by the decision makers involved.  The severity and consistency (compared to other programs' punishments) of the suspensions were incorrect in my opinion.  I also believe the handled it wrong with the media.  With that being said, it is now behind them and the only way it hurts them is the players didn't get a week of reps and a game's worth of situations.  Since the majority are seniors and have been playing for 2+ years it shouldn't matter.

1. How did the media handle it poorly? There was no real editorializing in the Journal that I saw, just a factual report of what happened. Is there something specific you read?

After 15 years of being on the inside and outside of an athletics program, I've gained an appreciation for damage-control issues like these.  That appreciation and education are why I thought it would still be appropriate to invite Coach Welch to join us on "In the HuddLLe" the other night, as I chronicled here yesterday.

I don't think the media handled the situation incorrectly -- rather, I think it was somewhat poorly handled by the program itself from a public relations point of view.  I base this on the lawyer side of me, media side of me, former student side of me and friend of the insiders of an athletics program side of me.

Look at the facts here, based on our interview with Brian Delaney from the Ithaca Journal Sunday night.  The two-deep omitted the suspended players and there were tips being sent to Delaney regarding the suspensions.  It was not something that could've been hidden by the school, even if people inside the school wanted to.  Delaney said that Coach Welch, when asked about the situation, did not hide the matter from Delaney -- he just didn't detail the infraction(s).  This was newsworthy -- I can't remember an entire set of captains being suspended on a football team during my time around NCAA football (any division).  Whatever the infraction(s) was/were had to be serious enough to create this unusual situation.  Delaney reported the facts of the matter and left it at that.

Once the story was released, Ithaca's Athletics Department needed to either do a better job of squelching voices from within the program OR of answering questions and controlling the discussion.  It appears they were not able to do either.  The online comments attached to the Ithaca Journal story pretty muched centered on the incident being some sort of hazing in nature (words like "pranks" were used in those comments and people commenting stated that it would make someone laugh if they knew the whole truth of the matter).  The comments defending the program smelled like they were coming from players inside the program or people very close to the players.  As they tried to defend the situation, they were doing more damage than anything else because, if it was indeed hazing, the attempt to defend the situation as mere "pranks" by upperclassmen toward new players feeds into the actual definition of hazing.  Here's the legal definition from http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hazing --

"Hazing Law & Legal Definition

Hazing is defined as an abusive, often humiliating form of initiation into or affiliation with a group, including:

Any willful action taken or situation created which recklessly or intentionally endangers the mental or physical health of another.

Any willful act by any person alone or acting with others in striking, beating, bruising, or maiming; or seriously offering, threatening, or attempting to strike, beat, bruise, or maim, or to do or seriously offer, threaten, or attempt to do physical violence to another made for the purpose of committing any of the acts..."

By keeping a closed-mouth policy, supposedly based on the privacy aspects of the incident(s), Ithaca allowed these sorts of comments to pile on over a few days, whether or not the comments are true in their bases.  Because of these comments, it was clear that the question both Brian Delaney and us hosts of "ITH" had was relevant -- was/were the infraction(s) serious enough to warrant additional school-based discipline that would potentially affect those players' availability for the Union game Saturday?  This question, too, is noteworthy and relevant -- the media had an absolute right to ask it under the circumstances.

Ultimately, when an embarrassing scenario plays out like this, it's a lot smarter for the individuals who control the situation to face the media if there is nothing to hide.  Damage Control 101 says that if you're offered an open forum to put questions to bed and voice support for your own program, you should take that opportunity and run with it.  That opportunity was offered twice in this case and refused twice.  Perhaps the opportunity was accepted elsewhere, but I'm not sure that is the case.  Coach Welch did state to Brian Delaney Saturday that the suspended players would be available next Saturday -- but it still leaves a shadow over the program as we sit here and still wonder whether or not the matter is truly closed and if it was an overreaction on the part of the decision makers (see the quoted comments above).

Hopefully, in the meantime, the school has honed in those who, while trying to defend the program, actually may have thrown the players involved under the bus.  And those that want to keep saying, "It would be treated much more lightly at other schools," need to realize that this is akin to saying, "It's not a crime I'm committing unless the police know about it and arrest me for it."  If an action is wrong, be it hazing or anything else that the infraction(s) might have involved, then it is wrong period and warrants the requisite actions.

So, don't blame the media in this case -- even though it may "only" be Division III College Football we're dealing with here, the players and programs are in the public eye sufficiently to make the issues involved here noteworthy and reportable.  If an effort was being made to truly sweep the matter(s) under the rug, then that's what needs to be questioned here since it really did more harm than good, making us still talk about it over a week later.

[sjfcards]

Well said. I 100% agree.

[maxpower]

The comments defending the program smelled like they were coming from players inside the program or people very close to the players.

Yeah, there's some of that going on here...

[boobyhasgameyo]

By the way, I haven't heard a cowbell at a Fisher home game in quite some time.  It is a thing of the past.  As a matter of fact the home crowds seem to lack excitement in general.  Whenever we score on somebody it is almost a ho-hum type atmosphere, as if they expect it to happen every single drive. 

[Jonny Utah]

While I certainly wouldn't blame the media for something like this (I haven't read anything that would indicate it anyway), I wouldn't really blame the school either since we don't know what happened.  I heard some things and it seemed to me that a former student/players reputation may have been on the line so it may have been unfair to give out any details on the situation.  That would have been unfair to the former player.

The point is that this may not have been about hazing, but it may have been about captains or seniors not being leaders and stepping up for someone that may have needed help or have asked for help.  And that may not have been the case as well. 

If we don't know for sure if hazing was involved, we can't really say if the school acted in the right way or not.  I think the school has every right to say a specific player was suspended because he broke teams rules, or did not fufill his obligation as a student athlete.  If there was hazing and the school did not take the right steps or tried to cover somthing up, then there might be a poroblem.  From what I heard, this did not happen in this case.

[Bombers798891]

1.  The suspensions and aftermath of the incident was handled very poorly by the decision makers involved.  The severity and consistency (compared to other programs' punishments) of the suspensions were incorrect in my opinion.  I also believe the handled it wrong with the media.  With that being said, it is now behind them and the only way it hurts them is the players didn't get a week of reps and a game's worth of situations.  Since the majority are seniors and have been playing for 2+ years it shouldn't matter.

1. How did the media handle it poorly? There was no real editorializing in the Journal that I saw, just a factual report of what happened. Is there something specific you read?

After 15 years of being on the inside and outside of an athletics program, I've gained an appreciation for damage-control issues like these.  That appreciation and education are why I thought it would still be appropriate to invite Coach Welch to join us on "In the HuddLLe" the other night, as I chronicled here yesterday.

I don't think the media handled the situation incorrectly -- rather, I think it was somewhat poorly handled by the program itself from a public relations point of view.  I base this on the lawyer side of me, media side of me, former student side of me and friend of the insiders of an athletics program side of me.

Look at the facts here, based on our interview with Brian Delaney from the Ithaca Journal Sunday night.  The two-deep omitted the suspended players and there were tips being sent to Delaney regarding the suspensions.  It was not something that could've been hidden by the school, even if people inside the school wanted to.  Delaney said that Coach Welch, when asked about the situation, did not hide the matter from Delaney -- he just didn't detail the infraction(s).  This was newsworthy -- I can't remember an entire set of captains being suspended on a football team during my time around NCAA football (any division).  Whatever the infraction(s) was/were had to be serious enough to create this unusual situation.  Delaney reported the facts of the matter and left it at that.

Once the story was released, Ithaca's Athletics Department needed to either do a better job of squelching voices from within the program OR of answering questions and controlling the discussion.  It appears they were not able to do either.  The online comments attached to the Ithaca Journal story pretty muched centered on the incident being some sort of hazing in nature (words like "pranks" were used in those comments and people commenting stated that it would make someone laugh if they knew the whole truth of the matter).  The comments defending the program smelled like they were coming from players inside the program or people very close to the players.  As they tried to defend the situation, they were doing more damage than anything else because, if it was indeed hazing, the attempt to defend the situation as mere "pranks" by upperclassmen toward new players feeds into the actual definition of hazing.  Here's the legal definition from http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hazing --

"Hazing Law & Legal Definition

Hazing is defined as an abusive, often humiliating form of initiation into or affiliation with a group, including:

Any willful action taken or situation created which recklessly or intentionally endangers the mental or physical health of another.

Any willful act by any person alone or acting with others in striking, beating, bruising, or maiming; or seriously offering, threatening, or attempting to strike, beat, bruise, or maim, or to do or seriously offer, threaten, or attempt to do physical violence to another made for the purpose of committing any of the acts..."

By keeping a closed-mouth policy, supposedly based on the privacy aspects of the incident(s), Ithaca allowed these sorts of comments to pile on over a few days, whether or not the comments are true in their bases.  Because of these comments, it was clear that the question both Brian Delaney and us hosts of "ITH" had was relevant -- was/were the infraction(s) serious enough to warrant additional school-based discipline that would potentially affect those players' availability for the Union game Saturday?  This question, too, is noteworthy and relevant -- the media had an absolute right to ask it under the circumstances.

Ultimately, when an embarrassing scenario plays out like this, it's a lot smarter for the individuals who control the situation to face the media if there is nothing to hide.  Damage Control 101 says that if you're offered an open forum to put questions to bed and voice support for your own program, you should take that opportunity and run with it.  That opportunity was offered twice in this case and refused twice.  Perhaps the opportunity was accepted elsewhere, but I'm not sure that is the case.  Coach Welch did state to Brian Delaney Saturday that the suspended players would be available next Saturday -- but it still leaves a shadow over the program as we sit here and still wonder whether or not the matter is truly closed and if it was an overreaction on the part of the decision makers (see the quoted comments above).

Hopefully, in the meantime, the school has honed in those who, while trying to defend the program, actually may have thrown the players involved under the bus.  And those that want to keep saying, "It would be treated much more lightly at other schools," need to realize that this is akin to saying, "It's not a crime I'm committing unless the police know about it and arrest me for it."  If an action is wrong, be it hazing or anything else that the infraction(s) might have involved, then it is wrong period and warrants the requisite actions.

So, don't blame the media in this case -- even though it may "only" be Division III College Football we're dealing with here, the players and programs are in the public eye sufficiently to make the issues involved here noteworthy and reportable.  If an effort was being made to truly sweep the matter(s) under the rug, then that's what needs to be questioned here since it really did more harm than good, making us still talk about it over a week later.

+K Frank. Great post. One of my pet peeves is that some athletes/fans believe that the media exists to serve and promote the program, and as such, any criticism or negative publicity is held up as an example of the media doing a poor job.

Welch's first responsibility is to his players, which means he was well within his rights to issue a general statement and leave it at that. Brian Delaney's first responsibility is to the Journal readers, which means he is well within his rights to engage in a fact-finding mission and ask appropriate questions.

I can tell you first hand that Mike and Brian have a tremendous amount of respect for each other. Mike won't try to hide things from Brian and Brian won't throw Mike or the program under the bus. They both recognize that their jobs sometimes cross paths, but nothing in how this was handled strikes me as poor.

[Jonny Utah]

Let's remember that bomber3 is the only person who has said the media has handled it poorly.  Maybe he can clarify it more.

[Jonny Utah]

I am also going to assume that Ithaca College, the NCAA, and the State of New York have their own specific guidelines and laws regarding hazing.

[Frank Rossi]

If we don't know for sure if hazing was involved, we can't really say if the school acted in the right way or not.

Agreed with most of what you said, but this sentence jumped out at me.  If you were inside Ithaca and knew that rumors were flying all over the place about the incident(s) being hazing-related, wouldn't you have the duty and/or obligation to somehow tell people that hazing wasn't involved to protect both the program's and students' reputations?  People aren't just assuming the worst here -- they have some good reasons to assume hazing was involved based on the comments to that story.  There is nothing stopping the school from saying what the nature of the infraction(s) WASN'T here -- that would violate no privacy issues.

[AUKaz00]

Getting back to the action ON the field as opposed to the action AROUND the field, Pep finds it quite interesting that Ithaca and Alfred have two common out-of-conference opponents in Frostburg State and Widener.

Frostburg State is likely working its way into the Empire 8 schedule; but the common opponent in Widener is interesting. Also, Ithaca has one of the "Shoes" with Union (LL) visiting Butterfield this Saterday, while Alfred will travel to RPI (LL), the "other Shoe," and play in the new (UNKNOWN) ACRONYM Stadium in Troy Oct. 16.

Gotta take the Golden Saxon to task on this one.  Alfred and Ithaca share Widener and St. Lawrence as OOC opponents.  The Larries also play Utica this year and the Saxons share RPI as opponents with the Pioneers as well.  Frostburg State plays both Alfred and Fisher, who also both play UofR as commone opponents.

I expect more rom you, Pep.  Stop thinking of ways to get your "Rudy" story worked into a post and get back to fact checking.

[Frank Rossi]

I am also going to assume that Ithaca College, the NCAA, and the State of New York have their own specific guidelines and laws regarding hazing.

Ithaca's is in some ways more vague than the common law definition I posted last night:

"7.6.3.1.3 Hazing
Hazing, defined as subjecting a person to treatment intended to put him/her in a humiliating or disconcerting position, is prohibited and is cause for disciplinary action. The forced consumption of alcohol, drugs or any other liquid, gaseous or solid substance for the purpose of initiation into or affiliation with any organization on the College-owned or -operated property or at College-sponsored activities is prohibited and is cause for disciplinary action.

Any action or situation involving verbal, mental, or physical assault and/or abuse, including harassment, intimidation, or other conduct that recklessly or intentionally endangers or threatens the health, safety or welfare of any person on College-owned or -leased property or at College-sponsored events is prohibited and is cause for disciplinary action. This provision includes bias-based acts that violate another person's rights as described under section 7.1.2.2.1, "Freedom from Discrimination.""

(From http://www.ithaca.edu/attorney/policies/vol7/Volume_7-70603.htm)

[Jonny Utah]

If we don't know for sure if hazing was involved, we can't really say if the school acted in the right way or not.

Agreed with most of what you said, but this sentence jumped out at me.  If you were inside Ithaca and knew that rumors were flying all over the place about the incident(s) being hazing-related, wouldn't you have the duty and/or obligation to somehow tell people that hazing wasn't involved to protect both the program's and students' reputations?  People aren't just assuming the worst here -- they have some good reasons to assume hazing was involved based on the comments to that story.  There is nothing stopping the school from saying what the nature of the infraction(s) WASN'T here -- that would violate no privacy issues.

Maybe legally it is better just to say nothing at this point except the basics.  Who knows if there are future lawsuits involved and what issues actually are involved.  I have a feeling that the issue wasn't really "hazing" but somewhere close to it.

[JQV]

Ultimately, when an embarrassing scenario plays out like this, it's a lot smarter for the individuals who control the situation to face the media if there is nothing to hide. 

Looks to me like Coach Welch talked to both Brian Delaney and The Ithacan.  Both papers are media, right?

Maybe your problem is that Coach Welch doesn't think your internet show counts as legitimate media?

[AUPepBand]

Getting back to the action ON the field as opposed to the action AROUND the field, Pep finds it quite interesting that Ithaca and Alfred have two common out-of-conference opponents in Frostburg State and Widener.

Frostburg State is likely working its way into the Empire 8 schedule; but the common opponent in Widener is interesting. Also, Ithaca has one of the "Shoes" with Union (LL) visiting Butterfield this Saterday, while Alfred will travel to RPI (LL), the "other Shoe," and play in the new (UNKNOWN) ACRONYM Stadium in Troy Oct. 16.

Gotta take the Golden Saxon to task on this one.  Alfred and Ithaca share Widener and St. Lawrence as OOC opponents.  The Larries also play Utica this year and the Saxons share RPI as opponents with the Pioneers as well.  Frostburg State plays both Alfred and Fisher, who also both play UofR as commone opponents.

I expect more rom you, Pep.  Stop thinking of ways to get your "Rudy" story worked into a post and get back to fact checking.

...and Pep is still waiting for a fan poll...   

...but since you mentioned Pep's "Rudy" experience....heck, no time right now!