Was Mark Rice Wrong in Coaching Technique?

In recent news Mark Rice, the coach at Rutgers University was fired amidst a "scandal" involving his verbal and physical "abuse" of players during practices. Video was obtained showing Rice cursing at his players and calling them "faggots". Also in the video, it shows Rice pushing players and throwing basketballs at them. The question is whether he was wrong in his coaching techniques or whether his actions were ok.

Coaches have had a long history of pushing their players to be the best that they can possibly be, but where does the line need to be drawn between pushing players and "abuse"? In earlier years "old school" coaches like the late "Bear"Bryant and Bob Knight used to do far worse to their players and not a word was said. Today it is different. People these days are so sensitive to words and feel so entitled to be respected that society has put an unnecessary strain on coaches ability to push players.

Mark Rice was an agressive coach with a fiery passion for excellence with his players. His passion extended to aggressively pushing his players to be the best. If a player is too sensitive for a coach to curse at them or call them names then they do not have the mental fortitude needed to play a sport at the highest level. People have vilified Mark Rice for his actions when his actions were understandable for a coach to engage in.  People need to not be so sensitive and if they are they need to find a new passion or career to engage in.

Does the NCAA Have a Lack of Institutional Control?

Recently the NCAA has come under fire because of illegal and morally compromising actions of its investigators in the case of the University of Miami violations. The NCAA hired the alleged booster that paid players, Nevin Shapiro's, attorney to gather more information about the UofM's violations that the NCAA did not have the power to obtain through subpoena. 

Mark A. Emmert, the president of the NCAA, often levies the most serious charge on institutions who's coaches and players violate the rules. This charge is called "lack of institutional Control". This can occur when a coach or player unbeknownst to the school officials violates NCAA rules. The schools administrators do not have to be implicated in the actions, and they can be cited for failure to promote an atmosphere of compliance. Either way they school is responsible for the actions of their coaches, players, and boosters. 

The question is whether the NCAA has a lack of institutional control that they accuse colleges of possessing. Like college administrators Mark Emmert did not know of the actions of his subordinates, and they did things that were against the rules. Because of this and the way that the NCAA levies penalties, The NCAA is directly guilty of a lack of institutional control and should be punished for their actions. 

Guaranteed Contracts: Good or Bad for the Game?

The NFL, unlike the MLB, NBA, and NHL, does not have guaranteed contracts for their players. Often times you will hear of an NFL player signing a new deal and it would be for a specific amount of money and only a portion of that money will be guaranteed. For example Joe Flacco of the Super Bowl Champion Baltimore Ravens just signed a 6-year $120 Million contract and only $52 Million was guaranteed. This means that if at any point the Ravens decide to cut or release Flacco then of his $120 Million he will only receive a maximum of $52 Million, depending on the date and time of his release and also on the production incentives that he receives as well.


The question is whether that is good or bad for the game. The other major sports have contracts that will be paid out whether or not the player even suits up for that particular team. If they sign for $100 Million they will get every dime of the $100 Million. It doesn't matter about injury, illness, unproductiveness, or insubordination. The player will receive all of their money unless they have stipulations in their contract for specific instances. I believe that it is good for the game to have non-guaranteed contracts because it forces the player to uphold their end of the bargain. If a player wants to collect their money then they should also have to produce enough to collect that money. This way the owners are protected from players being busts or failing to live up to expectations.

Without guaranteed contracts it prevents people from pulling a "Derek Rose". Derek rose has been out for the entire NBA season with a torn ACL that he suffered a year ago. He has been cleared 100% by team doctors to return to play but he has held himself back saying "he isn't mentally ready yet". This is absurd. He is sitting back and collecting pay checks for not producing and scoring a single point this year. With a non-guaranteed contract players would have to produce rather than sit out after being medically cleared to play. This is a protection of the owners investment.