Yes Please, stop with the falsehoods.  I have never seen/said everything is perfect.

"Disappointed reaction" would be most here.  You just posted you feel "justified anger."   Very Hayes/Knight of you. Glad you never coached me or mine.

Still with the 'nothing's wrong' after the last two games--good call.

Here's his original post:

Setting aside the other comments, it raises an interesting question. When is it justifiable for a fan to be angry? I know we all feel a lot of emotions after both wins and losses. As I think about it I would argue that it would be rare when a fan can be justifiably angry. In theory, fans are spectators, and supporters. Unfortunately in today's world they often go beyond that, and personalize the wins and losses. They feel they have won or lost, not just the team. I understand that they do it, and I find myself doing it as well, sometimes, and when I do, I try to remind myself - its a game, a diversion, something to enjoy, and not something to get angry about.  Thus, I would argue a fan never can have "justifiable anger" about a normal win or loss.

Are there cases where I think a fan can have "justifiable anger". I thought about that question, and I came up with some situations where I can certainly understand "justifiable anger":
1. Suppose a player or group of players deliberately throws a game?
2. Suppose a player, who in accepting a scholarship, does something to embarrass the University (as in, he runs through a glass door while attempting to rob his drug supplier, or, taking kickbacks from a tattoo parlor).
3. Suppose a coach does or says something to embarrass the University? (Makes vile comments, punches an opposing player, DUI, etc)

Now, suppose that a fan is more than a fan. Suppose he is a major donor, and gives a lot of money. Does that raise his level of entitlement, so that he now has a right to expect specific performance, and a right to feel "justifiable anger" if the performance doesn't meet his levels of expectations? That becomes a more difficult question, but I would argue, no, not usually. In my view donors give out of benificent impulses, not out of pay-for-play. Even in the case of a donor, its worth remembering that the players are still amateurs, technically.

Anyway, that's my take on it. Getting back to Monroe's post, if he had said "We're posting out of justifiable disappointment after the last two blowouts in key games", I would have agreed. I, too, was disappointed, and I sure hope that every player on the team, and every coach was, as well. I also hope they are working hard to identify and fix all of the causes.

Yes, usually, but he has had some unkind words about players, too, particularly belittling their accomplishments against some foes. Others besides Monroe have been more blunt in criticizing individual players.


Yes and no. The fact is that the Universities that are thriving in today's environments are for the most part the ones with good athletic teams, which I think is a sad commentary. A few schools, like MIT, Harvard, U. Chicago, etc, do well on their reputation as top academic institutions, but many others are struggling to raise endowments. Money flows into the endowment for OSU, but a school like, say, Case Western, Marietta, or Oberlin, may have a difficult time because their graduates are instead giving to OSU.

Even if they are donating because they want to win, and I agree, some are, I still don't think that entitles them to be angry at the individual players under normal circumstances. At the coaches, though, yes, since they are paying their salary.

I'm glad you used the word 'may' when suggesting that alums of small private schools might be giving to OSU.  That thought is enough to curdle my blood.

For the record, L.C., and not disparaging your general thesis, Oberlin College just received an $8 million dollar donation to build a multipurpose athletic complex.


 Oberlin's Big Athletic Donation

I very much dislike the whole "oh, you can't blame the players...they're just kids" attitude. It rubs me completely the wrong way.

They are adults and 100% accountable for their actions. If I feel that they're not giving a full effort or making a bone-headed decision, I'm going to call them out for it. I do not (and should not) feel bad for doing this.

Outside the realm of athletics, we're talking about ADULTS that are making their own decisions and living their own lives. They are being EVALUATED every day, by friends, family members, professors and everyone they interact with. We have every right to evaluate their performance on the playing field (and the attitude they display) and develop an opinion based upon that evaluation.

When you were in your college years, do you not think those around you formed an opinion about you? And do you not think that they articulated this opinion on occasion? To me, athletes should be treated no differently. They're not beyond reproach because they're wearing an Ohio uniform. I'll praise them for success and be hard on them in failure. That's the nature of life.

I never use and do not like using the word "student athlete". In my opinion, it places these guys on some sort of pedestal as if to say you can't chastise them...they're only kids. They're not kids - they're adults, and fully accountable for how they go about their business. The fact that they are representing Ohio University on a national stage means that my expectations are HIGHER - and that failure and a lack of effort should not be an option.

What I was talking about whether or not fans should be "angry" or "disappointed".  I wasn't saying that the players shouldn't be held accountable. If a player doesn't  perform, they should be benched. If they don't practice hard and play hard, they should lose their scholarship. I just feel that it's all too easy to personalize the issue, and take their poor play personally, which I don't think is appropriate or beneficial.