More Eustachy

One of the cool things about this little effort is that occasionally I get far better feedback than I deserve.

For example, check out this sarcastic little entry from a few days ago.

And check out this commentary from my good friend, Dave Hamby:

First, a strict reading of the article doesn't mention that Eustachy or his attorneys are specifically looking into ADA protections. The reporter was the one who brought that issue into the story, and Eustachy's lawyer replied that they would consider all relevant statutes. As I think any reasonable person would. I think that alcoholism is a disease, and should be given some protections when considering employment issues. The amount of protection? Well, I'm undecided there and that can be discussed later. But I think that the first public airing of his alcoholism and resulting actions is not a firing issue.

Second, Eustachy's actions were stupid, moronic and certainly unbecoming of a university representative -- especially one who has such a high national profile. That said, can the university claim the moral high ground that this is the first it had heard of his actions? If so, the athletic department was not keeping very close tabs on the state's highest paid employee. Actions like his don't stay quiet for long. How could they have missed it?

Also, throughout the years, Eustachy has made numerous references to drinking after tough losses. Specifically, I'm surprised no one has brought up this item from March 2001, when ISU flamed out in the first round against Hampton:

"While I was there, I hit every bar in Boise. I can tell you the name of
every bar from Boise to Ames."

-- Iowa State coach Larry Eustachy, on how he stayed in Boise after his
team's first-round NCAA tournament upset to 15 seed Hampton in Boise.

(http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/college/2002/ncaa_preview/big_12/)

Until there is evidence to the contrary, I think that the university and the athletic department failed to protect their investment in Eustachy by not trying to help him help earlier.

Finally, do you think that Eustachy is the only alcoholic coach working in a Top 50 program nationally regardless of the sport. I doubt it. But I think they were willing to tolerate his lapses when he was winning. But when the program slipped to being only three games over .500 this year, I think he became expendable. If he had gone to the Sweet Sixteen this year, I doubt the AD would be calling for his head.

OK, those are the arguments against. There are also the facts that so far this year he's had an assistant busted on child porn charges, had three players busted for alcohol related offenses (and one drug charge) and one assault charge on a player. He lost control of the team and himself. But why did no one around him -- friends, family, co-workers -- step up earlier?

Do I think he should be fired? No. Severely disciplined? Yes. Do I think he's got a future at ISU? No, especially when his AD seems so trigger happy to dump him. So, firing should be the best thing for him. Hopefully he'll get it together, stay sober, and continue to be a darn good coach -- somewhere else. But, I suspect that he will collect a potload of money from the university for mishandling the situation.

And, those are my thoughts.

DH

Man oh man. It's always nice when a sarcastically tossed bomb generates such good commentary! Kinda makes me feel like I shoulda posted something more substantive.

I don't find much that I disagree with here. No doubt, the slippage in Iowa State's won-loss record under Eustachy has probably influenced their tolerance level for embarrassing incidents.

And Eustachy himself may not pursue action under ADA. I doubt he will, actually, because that's not how the game is played in big college athletics. If he takes his settlement, goes away, and spends a year (at most) as a commentator, there will be plenty of big-money gigs that await. Jim Harrick is a great example of a winning coach who knows how to work that system.

Still, it's disturbing that the ADA came up at all. One can indeed believe that alcholism is a disease while upholding certain expectations for employees. For example, we don't expect to see pilots frolicking with the hottie stewardesses in the middle of a flight, alcoholic or not (for that matter, we hope he's not flying under the influence!). I would hope not to see the head coach of a major college program doing the same with college coeds, whatever his disease. I may be hopelessly naive (I've been accused of that!). Hell, I would have fired Barry Switzer when he took the gun in the airport as coach of the Cowboys (let's not even revisit the machine guns in the dorms).

But I'm not so sure this is a case that lends itself to black/white resolution. That is to say, if Iowa State decides to retain Eustachy, get him counseling, set guidelines to his behavior, and generally stand by him -- I won't regard that decision as unjustifiable. On the flip side, if they can his ass tomorrow, I think they can justify that decision.

But is it really necessary to involve yet another expansion of federal power via the courts, with a statute whose authors would probably call it a reach? That is more problematic for me.

[Posted at 20:38 CST on 05/04/03] [Link]