I say we just call them meanies....we don’t want to offend anyone that’s breaking and stealing stuff.
Narduzzi being called out by Pitt players
- Thread starter mikemauti42
- Start date
Good for you because it sure doesn’t take much to cause people to be OUTRAGED these days.
Chip Kelly taking some heat.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-ucla-players-criticize-coach-001333628.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-ucla-players-criticize-coach-001333628.html
I know we can all agree that any middle-aged white football coach (and people who look like them) is RACIST.
. Couldn’t not be.I know we can all agree that any middle-aged white football coach (and people who look like them) is RACIST.
It's the only possible explanation.
I am very uncomfortable with the idea that you can call a man a racist if his communications are not sufficiently virtue signaling.
Narduzzi has many years of coaching experience. He has coached hundreds of young men. He does not deserve this nonsense.
Narduzzi has many years of coaching experience. He has coached hundreds of young men. He does not deserve this nonsense.
the fact so many are coming out like this shows a culture problem in Pitt’s locker room. Not a good thing. Don’t be surprised if Pitt players quit on Narduzzi at the first sign of trouble
There’s always one 4/5 star prospect who falls for the stay home and play for your city hype. They end up attracting no other big names in their class and play 3-4 years in front of an audience comprised of yellow chairs. Donald will be this year’s sucker...
I don't like Pitt Football, I don't like Narduzzi and I visit The Lair for belly laughs......but because a former player or three has something to say, means nothing. Not every player past and present buy Coach Franklin's program either.
Do you think it is fair to say that if Donald chooses to go elsewhere Nar Doe Doe loses his job?
That is a very interesting comment.
There is some room for interpretation as stated, but I don't know what you have in mind so I don't want to assume anything. I'd like to hear more of your perspective, if you care to expound.
Members of the Mafia were routinely called thugs in newspapers and on the streets for years
It becomes much harder to quash free speech and political dissent without a completely subjective, ever changing definition of racism. The young are finding it increasingly difficult to engage with ideas. They first have to check out the credentials of the speaker. It is by design I would argue.
Too often when something isn't a favorable out come for a minority, it's labeled as racism, even though there's absolutely zero evidence for it. But the media then runs with it.
Bob78, to be honest....sometimes getting an outside perspective is a great thing. When I was in my young 20's and serving shore duty in NOLA I had a black roommate. Guess what his perspective and mine on racism were varied and I learned a lot in a year and a half with him. Sometimes people forget their own perspective on what is and isn't racism isn't the only one. I find it hard to listen to some older white people that just blame the media or downplay racism as if it doesn't exist. Their perspective won't marry up with everyone else, but somehow they tend to speak out as if it is the only one. Perspective is a funny thing as it comes from all angles....and the older I get the more I find out how glad I was to move around this country and see various perspectives. It certainly changed my perspective from growing up in suburbia.
Last edited:
I am not going to defend any football coaches opinion but the hardest lesson that the academy never taught me was men that served under me came from broken homes and needed a father figure. College coaches especially in football and basketball imho sometimes have to be a father figure to these gentleman.
I'm a Pitt grad that got blacklisted on the Lair because I said Narduzzi should respond and everyone attacked me as a troll. Never said anything bad about Narduzzi. I don't even think he did those things. Absolutely unreal.
It is a slippery slope if you respond. I think LaJolla Loin said it best, it is all about perspective. I had Captains that if someone said their name my response would have been very pejorative. So what if some of his players liked the post. You can’t let the inmates run the jail. Did you ever tell your child to get a hair? Did you ever tell your child to dress a certain way? Big time college football and basketball players, not all, have an entitlement attitude that grows exponentially with social media.
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate that you took the time.
Not arguing or disagreeing here, just replying based on my experience, and why I think that the perception of the audience is paramount imo. Media aside - we agree that the media gets a whole lot wrong in their quest for speed to publish and drawing in their audience over accuracy.
In my friendly relationships with black men (because mostly these types of conversations have been with men and not women in my experience), many of whom have played professional sports and/or have been in the business world, I have had the chance to talk with them about such issues. In just getting to know them, conversations with them about their experiences and backgrounds consistently have included some WOW! tales of both blatant and subtle racism that are heartbreaking. From those perspectives, I've come to firmly believe that the impact of words or actions may often be different than the intent of the speaker or doer. I know that these guys are savvy enough, and have been through enough, to understand good intentions and bad intentions of the folks they are dealing with. But still, at some point, enough is enough if the well-intended person just fails to 'get it'. If the other person can't or won't get it, the impact is the same as yet another veiled racist to them.
And I've seen a few of these guys take the time to try to explain their perspective when someone says something that is 'awkward' but not malicious. They are experienced enough to put the ball back in the other person's court, and then they can figure out the other person's true character from there.
That's why I say I've worked to make sure I am not careless or sloppy with my words. Like I said before, I still don't really know the whys and hows that some words ignite, but I'm ok with that. And that goes for not just race-related words, but anything for anyone I respect and care about. If a buddy gets genuinely upset when someone calls him as stoopid (ala Barry), I will not call him stoopid if I care about the health of the relationship. That doesn't mean I have eliminated 'stoopid' from my vocab entirely, but it does mean I think about it more anytime I use it. If person A gets upset, maybe person B does also? There are other, much better ways to convey disagreement than by name-calling anyway.
I find it easier all the time to alter my vocab usage so that I do not overshadow a conversation with words that are going to disengage someone from that conversation, and ultimately end an enjoyable relationship. It's not even an inconvenience, and while others may refer to it as "PC", to me it's just being respectful of another's experiences and perspectives. I do not expect that in return from anyone, but then again, I don't share the scope and volume of really awful experiences that these men have gone through. Any bias triggers that I feel personally land in a different area of my heart and mind.
So that's why I chosen the path I have in this regard; it works for me, it seems to work for my friends and acquaintances as we aren't unnecessarily distracted, and I have learned an awful lot from these far different perspectives than I would otherwise (I listen more than I talk, despite what you see in these posts!). I like how that approach challenges me to think critically and from a different perspective, and not just reactively. Again, not trying to convert anyone to this approach, just laying it out there and saying what has worked for me over a long time.
And almost without exception, those men and women can tell the difference between a sincere, caring, genuine, from the heart 'father figure' in those coaches and officers, and those who are reading from a script.
It's a primary difference between success and failure in those coaching professions.
That is one great board handle there, Sprockets. Ya gotta be of a certain 'vintage' to get it. I am.
I think in your post you hit upon a theme which is important to highlight and can not be repeated enough, particularly to kids. Social media warps context. When talking to my father, I am going to speak a different way than if I was speaking to, say, a player of mine. Context is everything and there is none of that, or nuance of any kind, when you send out a Tweet. You have no idea who will be reading it. And the notion that anything you place on social media will be a part of your life for the rest of your existence has to be considered as well.
Narduzzi was in a no win situation from his perspective. He is a terrible communicator in person in almost every way. There is zero chance he was going to say the “right thing.” It is why I hold Franklin in such esteem. He studies everything it seems. His communication skills are extremely well developed. While the coaching dinosaurs stumbled around for some means to address the issues, he put out a message which was an absolute homerun.
Yes, indeed social media can and often does screw up the context, or intent, of the message. It's just another example of being sloppy in the desired dialogue. Social media marketing skills are a valuable tool, and the few good examples stand out from the 'wtf?' examples more and more.
CJF used social media to convey his message, and most everyone agrees that he drove home a very effective message that way. His perspective as a black man, combined with being savvy enough to craft the message to a wide audience, was key in making that work so well, imo. It came across as heart-felt and sincere, yet I bet he edited and rewrote and rephrased and maybe got his wife's reaction many times being posting it.
Social media can also be used effectively to help us think differently, even if the message seems warped to us, if someone wants to take the time to do that. Most often, I don't; I tend to simply ignore the warped ones. But sometimes those are the ones that make me wonder why that person has that perspective, and it causes me to look a little further. Probably not often enough. And most times, I still think the message is one I disagree with or don't understand. But if there's enough supporting posts for that other pov, now it has my attention. There's often something there that is not apparent to me on the surface. Now I have a chance to learn something, regardless if I agree or not. Those are relatively rare, of course.
I just think that right now, if you're a public figure and people who know you personally accuse you of being racist, you need to respond. Either defend yourself or take the soft approach and say you never intended nto offend anyone any you'll try harder. The pea brains don't get that. Wait till black recruits see that crap with no response. But yeah, I'm apparently a troll for that take.
I'm pretty sure that a couple of those guys are trolls that act like complete morons just to make pitt fans look bad. I've literally never crossed paths with any pitt grads that act like that. Zero chance those dudes went to Pitt. None.
Since the lock down I have taken four different courses pertaining to coaching and coaching development with a particular emphasis on communication. One of the things we discussed which gets left out of a lot of discussions is the way younger people are losing the ability to consider ideas for their own sake instead of simply the speaker or conveyor of the message. I understand the impact a prominent black coach’s statement will have on the dialogue will probably be taken more seriously, in a lot of cases, by black players, because they feel he shares more of their experience. What worries me is that we seem to be losing the ability to judge things on their own merits. The idea which seems to creep in is that one can not have an informed opinion about an issue without being X. For example, no man can hold an opinion about a women’s issue. I feel this damages society in two ways:
1) It separates us further from our common experience as human beings into smaller and smaller tribes. Not to get too political, but the Floyd video bothered me so profoundly because it made me sad to see one human being not able to see another as a human being.
2) It takes value away from the power of empathy. One person oppressing another harms my soul when I am made aware of it, because it is one human being oppressing another human being. Period. It makes no difference the surface differences between the two people. This phenomenon is making it harder, not easier, for people to apply universal truths regarding right and wrong like “Violence is always bad, unless used for self-defense.” Now we can have a robust debate regarding what constitutes self-defense, but we should not have to consult a chart of who gets to have an opinion over issue X, before agreeing that some things are universally wrong.
Last edited:
I am not calling you a troll in any way shape or form. I didn’t go to Pitt, grew up a Pitt fan, I went to the Naval Academy. I am not sure what the correct response is supposed to be I am not a PR person. If you claim not to be a racist imho it is like trying to answer the question “when did you stop beating your wife?”
I applaud you for furthering your learning and career growth.
Imo, the difference here is what constitutes an informed opinion vs. a gut-reaction opinion. Again, speaking for myself only, I consider my opinions to be informed when I've considered other input besides my gut reactions.
An example: I used to be of the mindset that a little flirting or a comment here or there in the workplace targeted at a woman (and for this example, I'll talk about women and not harassment in general) could be and should be shrugged off, and that the woman should simply tell the person to knock it off. I have your back on taking this approach, so toughen up, Sally. That's my opinion, and it was a solid one. Who would argue it? Certainly none of my male buddies argued it.
Ok, but as I found out by actually talking with Sally about it, that is only the surface of the issue in her eyes. The real issue is that if the bad behavior is ongoing, or widespread, and not addressed seriously, it is tacitly approved and now becomes a bigger part of her workday. Even if the behavior is idle for a few days, she may worry about it at home, she may be distracted at work and maybe cannot perform at her best. I believe it is in every employees best interest to help everyone be able to max their contributions. If someone is concerned with how they are treated and believing they are objectified at work, they have an artificial barrier to performing to their max. They may be a great employee, earn accolades and promotions, but may still be looking to leave because the unaddressed behavior of a few overshadows all the great stuff about working there, in their mind. The better approach is to handle the offender early and get rid of that nonsense with no doubt about how seriously the company takes the issue.
And same with the person who harasses another - they may be a great employee in many ways, but their behavior harms the team as a whole. As a coach, you no doubt have seen this in a few of the team dynamics you've been involved with... great player, bad for the team, team better off without him or her if they can't change their behavior.
So I agree that an informed opinion is extremely valuable, and to me that means my opinion is based on relevant input from a couple of viewpoints other than my own.
When I first started reading this thread I figured it would be the I hate Pitt which it was but imho it has turned into a very interesting and good conversation.
