Maryland has players only meeting - coach had no idea
"that’s news to me. I don’t think we had a players only meeting."There's no way this isn't a huge problem for them. All things considered.
September 29th, 2015 at 4:39 PM ^
Ira Weintraub was musing over the amount that a contract buy-out of Edsell would entail for the Terps. Seems like the guy is in a bind over there.
September 29th, 2015 at 4:42 PM ^
"Should Edsall be fired prior to Jan. 15, 2017 – when his initial contract ends – the school would pay him a $2.6 million buyout ($2.1 million from his original contract with an additional $500,000 coming from his extension)."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/terrapins-insider/wp/2015/06/30/ran…
September 29th, 2015 at 5:34 PM ^
Looks like they'll have to ride it out this season and next. Maryland is in a lot of debt - the big driver for them joining the B1G when they were a charter member of the ACC - they can't likely afford to add to it with a big buyout.
I hope it works out for them, just not when they play Michigan. If they knock off Penn State, Ohio State, and MSU, ti will be a great season for them no matter what else happens. Do that.
September 30th, 2015 at 9:51 AM ^
was able to get out of lot of that debt right away with the B1G payments... /s (maybe?)
Also, Maryland's SB Nation page has a good write up that it may be prohibitively expensive to fire Edsall this year:
http://www.testudotimes.com/2015/9/27/9402267/randy-edsall-contract-buy…
Basically, is UMd fires Edsall before 2016, they'll be on the hook for $7.5 MILLION. Holy crap. That's Weis-ian. (Source:http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/tracking-the-terps/bal-marylan…)
September 30th, 2015 at 12:38 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 30th, 2015 at 9:25 PM ^
Edsall did a pretty good job at UConn and was a guy a lot of people were looking at when Maryland hired him... it was actually something of a get for them, people considered it a bit of a lateral move at that time.
September 29th, 2015 at 4:40 PM ^
September 29th, 2015 at 4:42 PM ^
September 29th, 2015 at 4:45 PM ^
September 29th, 2015 at 4:48 PM ^
If you don't have captains, they can't tell you bad news.
September 29th, 2015 at 5:24 PM ^
Thus, you could be aware, but not fully aware.
September 29th, 2015 at 6:57 PM ^
We players are gonna have to find a way to win this one without the coach! Whats your idea Charlie Brown?
September 30th, 2015 at 9:41 AM ^
"Leadership is solving problems. The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help or concluded you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership." - Colin Powell
September 29th, 2015 at 4:41 PM ^
/s
September 29th, 2015 at 4:41 PM ^
it could be a couple of team leaders trying to rally the troops...unless there's something at the link suggesting otherwise.
September 29th, 2015 at 4:44 PM ^
September 29th, 2015 at 5:26 PM ^
No, no, no, they were planning what to buy him for his upcoming birthday - next August - and started collecting money.
September 29th, 2015 at 4:48 PM ^
Team leaders. Probably. But as a leader, you would inform your coach so they aren't hung out to dry. In my experience, this constitutes a mutiny.
September 29th, 2015 at 5:25 PM ^
September 29th, 2015 at 4:53 PM ^
September 29th, 2015 at 5:06 PM ^
I agree in principle with ND Sux. The players only meeting could actually be a good thing. We won't know until the story unfolds. I wouldn't mind an "inspired" MD lose 31-0 instead of 52-0.
September 29th, 2015 at 5:27 PM ^
September 29th, 2015 at 4:41 PM ^
Bad news: The fact that they had a players only meeting in the first place
Worse news: That not ONE of the 90 some players told the coaching staff about it or what they discussed five hours after the fact.
September 29th, 2015 at 4:48 PM ^
In fairness, it was a meeting only for football players, so the attendance was just Will Likely.
September 29th, 2015 at 4:43 PM ^
Did we ever have one of these when we were in the dark ages?
September 29th, 2015 at 4:51 PM ^
redacted pending proof
September 29th, 2015 at 5:00 PM ^
That's not necessarily true. Successful teams sometimes have players-only meetings. It usually isn't about the coach at all - it's usually about the captains wanting to clear the air with their teammates. It gives players a chance to speak their minds to their teammates when they might not feel comfortable doing so in the presence of the coaches.
If the coach doesn't know about the meeting, though, that is a bit weird.
September 29th, 2015 at 4:52 PM ^
I feel like they did at some point, I could be totally wrong.
September 29th, 2015 at 6:52 PM ^
September 29th, 2015 at 4:55 PM ^
Agreed that the players liked Rich Rod and Hoke.
Disagreed that "players only have players-only meetings when they hate their coach". Players have players-only meetings for all sorts of reasons - the common denominator is that they nearly always occur in season when the season has been a disappointment (not necessarily when the season's a tire fire, but when expectations are not being met).
September 29th, 2015 at 4:57 PM ^
yes -- and i have since redacted my comment. Players only meetings happen for lots of reasons.
I guess I was making a specific reference to a "player's only" meeting in which the head coach is unaware of it happening.
One of the things I will remember most about highschool ball is our weekly team meetings on Thursday night, in which a bunch of guys sat around a campfire and talked about feelings and stuff.
September 29th, 2015 at 5:04 PM ^
Certainly it is a sign of dysfunction if there's a players-only meeting and the head coach has no clue it's going on.
Players-only meetings can be hilarious, even if the team is in a bad place. Nearly every large team I've been on has had one self-styled "leader" who at some point was going to "rally the troops" by getting in their face, and it's usually been a good opportunity to collectively tell that "leader" to STFU and that he's part of the problem.
"Johnny's calling a players-only meeting? This will be freakin' GREAT!"
September 29th, 2015 at 5:24 PM ^
(without telling the coach) that jumps to mind is they are trying to solve an internal problem with one or several players that they don't want to get the coach involved with. An example might be some guys who are not pulling their weight. Another might be a theft problem among the players. Who knows? But I'd guess whatever the reason is, to not tell the coaches, is probably negative.
September 29th, 2015 at 8:32 PM ^
September 29th, 2015 at 5:08 PM ^
So much for football being the last bastion of manliness. The only exceptable discussion of feelings is if you are discribing how bad it hurt when you wack your thumb with a hammer.
September 29th, 2015 at 4:48 PM ^
Yes. One that I can recall.
September 29th, 2015 at 4:43 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 29th, 2015 at 4:52 PM ^
September 29th, 2015 at 5:05 PM ^
September 29th, 2015 at 4:53 PM ^
Snitches get stiches maybe it has gotten really bad there in Maryland
September 29th, 2015 at 4:46 PM ^
A players-only meeting is the sports equivalent of agreeing to date other people as a test of your relationship. If it even gets to that point, period, you're pretty much fucked.
September 29th, 2015 at 4:47 PM ^
not true:
#Colts Reggie Wayne says the veterans called a players-only meeting earlier this week to make sure "everyone was on the same page."
— Zak Keefer (@zkeefer) December 26, 2014September 29th, 2015 at 4:57 PM ^
I'm pretty sure the book Fab Five talks about some players-only meetings. It didn't mean the players gave up on Fish.
September 29th, 2015 at 5:03 PM ^
I wouldn't say that. My high school team had a couple and they had nothing to do with being mad at the coach. They were just a chance for guys to get some things off their chest and resolve their issues.
September 29th, 2015 at 4:45 PM ^
Maryland and Rutgers
September 29th, 2015 at 4:54 PM ^