Survey: How clean do you want Michigan's coach to be?
There's some question about how "clean" a coach the fanbase wants, so I thought a survey would be in order.
Here's a link.
Michigan coaching: How clean do you want your coach to be?
And remember, this is for posterity, so please, be honest.
Get a hobby
Winning is never worth compromising your integrity.
Someone's clearly never been in a life-or-death fight before.
Context. This is college sports here man.
In a life or death, god or country fight, cheating isn't just accepted its required.
O.k. Saadam. Mustard gas is illegal to use in war.
So they did have WMDs!
College sports do not qualify.
Lol. thats the joke. ?
Someone clearly never took Carl Cohen's Logic & Language class!
It's not as black and white as that. If you're literally the only one following all the rules, how is that fair? What advantage are you gaining if you're only doing the same thing as your competition, probably a lot less actually. Breaking certain NCAA rules is about as a victimless crime as there is, and in fact in most cases there's direct benefit for student athletes. If the coach looks the other way when the bagmen come around, I really don't care.
At the end of the day, Michigan is an institution of higher learning who actually cares about its mission, unlike UNC. If Michigan decided to drop all D1 sports because of rampant cheating, I would be perfectly fine with it. The number 1 goal for all sports program must be, even before winning, to never do anything to embarrass the institution. If that means we are the only ones following the rule, and losing so be it.
If players getting paid embarrasses the institution, maybe it's time to question that institution and its true values.
So I guess the whole Fab Five and payola, forfeited tournament runs, sanctions, etc. was not embarrassing at all? I guess we have completely different standards when it comes to painting University of Michigan in a negative light.
Yes it is. Life is short, just win baby.
I think that's a question better answered by our new coach's wife or significant other. Although in extreme cases, it could be a recruiting issue.
The only thing that should be clean is his loss column.
(No, but seriously, I took your survey and think this is a fun experiment)
I'd prefer to be Bama/Clemson than Porter's Potty.
I'd prefer to have us win everything and be squeaky clean more. I'd prefer to have a unicorn morest!
I have no idea what you're saying.
Ah, guess it wasn't clear. What I'm trying to say:
1.) I'd prefer wins over cleanliness. (If I could only choose one or the other).
2.) I'd prefer to have both (wins and clean coach), but I don't think that's likely. I think people who dream of a "clean coach who also wins championships" are asking for a unicorn -- one does not exist.
Specifically, any champ coach who is also clean is not leaving their school to come here. So like, maybe Wright is clean. But he ain't an option.
This is depressing.
To anyone who wants an 100% clean coach: There are maybe <5 coaches out there who are clean and contend for a championship, none of which we are going to get. Keep that in mind. Beilein was a luxury that we probably won't ever have again in terms of being clean and contending
Lol. Good luck trying to speak logic to crazies. ?
IT WAS A BLOCK.
In all seriousness, there are a number of false choices there. And just because a place is dirty doesn't mean they get Alabama Football results. See: Ole Miss under Hugh Freeze.
The survey doesn't presume that Iowa/Bama are the only two possibilities. It just clarifies that, given the choice of ok and clean or great and dirty, how many people would accept dirty to be great?
We gripe about Bama's ethics, but it is my opinion that if Michigan were as successful as Bama, there wouldn't be a lot of people wringing their hands that they'd really rather be mediocre and be clean.
I needed a neutral pairing of teams for the proper level of objectivity.
But the space between Iowa and Alabama is vast. Both in quality and in cleanliness. What about Oklahoma? I (admittedly) don't pay attention to recruiting with the devotion of many on this board, but OU seems (to me anyway) a clean alternative and a tougher choice to make because they have won their league and been to the CFP in recent history (even if they didn't have a legit shot to win it all in their most recent trip).
To bring it back to Bball, what about if a coach ran a 100% clean program, and routinely got to the Sweet 16, but rarely to the final 4.
The space between Iowa and Alabama is not what you think it is. AJ Epenesa was offered six figures and the first number wasnt a 1 to got Georgia, and he went to Iowa. He didn't get the same, but Iowa football players are usually given quite a bit of money.
Nobody is claiming that this is a scientifically valid poll. The OP doesn't need to describe all 50+ shades of dirtiness/cleanliness. It's just a fun poll to get an idea of how much ethically questionable behavior people here will tolerate in order to win.
Would be interesting to have asked people whether they are alumni. Wouldn't assume this would be telling, but would be interested to see.
Just win.
Huge difference between looking the other way over a little cash dirty, and covering up for sexual crimes (cough::Izzo::cough) dirty or being a totally dispicable human being like Pitino.
Perhaps I should have better specified that this presumes no toleration of criminal activity, only NCAA violations.
Nice survey. There is a spectrum, and I would have liked to see some options regarding academic fraud like what went on at North Carolina, Minnesota, and possibly Memphis. I would think most UM fans wouldn't tolerate cheating in that regard.
I'm down to pay players, but 2 important stipulations
1.) Only cash payments. Those are ethical, while free cars and tatoos are Not Ethical!
2.) We retain the right to claim the moral high ground. Because we only pay players because everyone else does, and no one else pays players "because everyone else does." Even tho everyone else does!
Like Coach K then?
shaved and showered seems enough
if you take away the pay for play is Calipari that great of a coach? Not a leading question, I honestly don't know. Is he great only because he gets the talent, or would he still be a great coach with a more level playing field recruiting wise
He is not a Beilein level wizard, but with basically a brand new roster every year, his teams always seem to get better as the season goes on and are typically a force by March.
I don't get your question. Calipari isn't buried in controversy about paying players. He was loosely tied to it once with Marcus Camby, other than that, it has never come up.
He's a decent coach but his teams are almost always exactly as good as the talent they have on the roster. He had a future All-Star a couple of years ago in KAT (plus some other elite players) and he won a ton of games. Two years later he had Jamal Murray and not much else and they were a fine-if-unremarkable team.
He'd be a fine coach but I honestly don't think he could be "Coach Cal" without the shadiness.
John Calipari at UK = Urban Meyer at OSU.
For what it's worth, recruiting is at least, if not more than half the job. If a coach is really good at recruiting, then he's going to win a lot of games.
Exactly. I like Bill Connolly's explanation from SBNation that at least with football there's basically 3 buckets. You have Recruiting, Development, and Deployment. You need to do all three at a high level to be successful nationally/compete for championships.
Urban Meyer did the first two incredibly well, Jim Harbaugh did the first two slightly less well. Mark Dantonio did the second two well, James Franklin did the first and the third one well. Saban and Swinney are the only ones I've seen consistently do all three at a high level. Recruiting is a major part of coaching and anyone that chalks up Calipari to just being a recruiter is a moron. Sean Miller also recruits insanely well, and hasn't had a tenth of the success as Calipari.
As long as he's not covering up crimes, he can be as dirty as a firt sandwich
But Dave Bliss is available.
In the words of the aptly named band Anarbor: Always dirty, I am never clean
I want the high level of integrity that Beilein built to remain in tact. Those are big shoes to fill from that front, but something close is what I would prefer.
I respect your opinion, but disagree.
The NCAA is simply looking the other way these days. I don't agree with our coaches having to spend more time, probably WAY more time, recruiting and losing on recruits(or backing off cuz he's dirty) cuz of some bagman.
Our roster isn't as talented, from a BBall perspective, as other schools cuz kids and their families want a piece of the NCAA money pie.
As long as Beilein and/or Warde aren't going to go public and shame the system, then join them.
Hated to say that, but my opinion on this has evolved. Completely changed to 'join them'.
Does anyone get in trouble for major NCAA violations anymore? Is anything going to come of this FBI investigation at all?
I hate to say I'd tolerate breaking NCAA rules, but if there are no consequences for rule-breakers and you give up a competitive advantage by being 100% clean, I dunno.
It just sucks that this is the state of affairs we are in.