Meeting (2/28)

Ken and I went over the Fordham scrimmage with the team. We emphasized the positives and noted how the lack of experience with our brand new offense was acceptable. But we pointed out that there were some mistakes -- poor dumps, easy throwaways, etc. -- that we need to improve on this weekend. We also cleared up some questions about the rules, because we didn't call many fouls or picks last weekend.

In Ken's post on this blog about the meeting, he wrote about the discussion that he and I had with the captains regarding the complaints of a couple of the rookies (see Ken's post for a summary of that complaint).

My take: first, Ken and I never intentionally laughed about the team's play or individual players, nor were we intentionally negative, nor do we have any memory of doing so. On the contrary, I thought we were positive, and our criticisms were appropriate. We have a ton to work on, and the players know it, because they seem to be happy to win but far from satisfied with the way we played. That's a healthy and appropriate attitude.

The problem might have stemmed with the players' not knowing Ken enough to understand his sense of humor (I say Ken, because apparently the laughing complaint was mostly about him, though I was with him so both of us will have to increase our sensitivity). Mia said that one of the complainers admitted exaggerating her initial report of Ken and my behavior, so that indicates that player may simply be taking the criticism about her play personally. There might have been a few occasions -- like when we messed up multiple end-zone plays in a row -- where we expressed the inherent humor in the situation (though I don't remember laughing), while also being frustrated that we were missing easy chances because Ken and I didn't spend enough time going over the plays in practice yet. Had it been a club team or the men's team, Ken and I would have expressed those feelings much more, as would our teammates. Those are the types of teams with whom we're used to playing and being around. Whereas several of our rookies have never played in a competitive team sport environment. That's always an inherent problem at NYU, where the ultimate teams are comprised of a mix of players: serious competitive athletes with lots of team sports experience, and non-athletes or casual athletes who play just for fun or for the social aspects of the team. The trick for the captains, and now coaches, has always been to reconcile the divergent attitudes of those groups. The Femmes are trying to be more competitive and organized than they've ever been before, and the majority of the players like it.

I agree with Ken's point, which he made in his post, about how it's disappointing that at this point in the season, those making the complaint see us as outsiders who would maliciously laugh at them. Ken and I have invested a lot of time, energy and emotion in this team and the things we say on the sidelines are said with the best interest of the team and players in mind. For better or worse, we're a part of this team now.

In the end, it's only a minor problem at this point. Ken and I will be more sensitive, and the players in question must understand that they can't take criticism about their play personally. But it sounds like it's an isolated issue, and certainly not a problem for the majority of the team.