Team Cohesiveness - Detroit News
Angelique Chengelis posted a very interesting ARTICLE this morning from the Big Ten Media function in Chicago. The article is interesting in its own right, but the subtext caught my attention even more.
The article focuses on how team leaders have used off-field functions to build team chemistry. That sounds like a great idea, and it also underscores how players like Gardner who have occasionally been derided as insufficient leaders are leading in their own way.
The really interesting thing to me, though, was the implications in the article as to team chemistry last year. Frank Clark's quote struck me:
Strength coach Aaron Wellman has been integral in helping the players bond, Clark said, making a point to encourage offensive and defensive players, and black and white players, hang out together at team dinners or as they arrive or leave strength training sessions.
“Coach Wellman says, ‘Let’s make Oreos, baby,’” Clark said, laughing. “You’re sitting there and you walk out, it’s not about a black or white thing at the end of the day.”
Chengelis notes that this is not an indictment of last year's team, but more of a positive step forward. That may be her being a bit gracious, though, since you would hope coaches and assistants (and upperclassmen) would notice any offense/defense or black/white cliquing behavior and work to address it as a matter of course. As Clark put it "(w)hen you go 7-6 -- when you lose that many games two years in a row, you start to sit down and think like something’s gotta change around here”. Indeed.
I applaud Clark for being forthright on this, and Wellman for addressing this, but I was a bit disappointed that cliques (and cliques based on race) were an issue last year. For all of that, it sounds as though Wellman is doing a great job of going beyond simply conditioning and strength training, and working on team building. He may lack Barwis's growl (most of us do), but he seems to be doing a fine job for the team and strikes me as an undervalued asset of the program.
use to call me an "inside out oreo" in HS. Just assumed it had to do with being fast, being able to dance, and the music i listened to. Was I suppose to be offended?
...because you're white. You're not allowed to feel offended even it was supposed to be offensive or else some politcally-raged poster will call you out for it.
s
In all seriousness, you werent supposed to be offended, because despite using antiquated and played-out stereotypes, it was a likely a compliment.
can't make those on the team unless someone comes down with leprosy.
do they have electrolytes?
Last season, someone (I forget who) said he saw black players and white players sitting separately, and not intermingling (while at a bar or restaurant or something). He was bitched at and flamed massively.
It would appear his observation was correct.
I remember that, too... It forced me to have to get a new account.
I mean, I certainly wasn't trying to stir up any trouble by reporting what I saw, but now it makes a little more sense, whether it's true or not.
Your post was the first thing I thought of when i read this article. Unfortunately at time it is difficult to make a stand/comment that is "agaisnt the flow" here or anywhere else where there is a large contigent all rowing in 1 direction. So I appreciate that you posted it and had no idea you were banned for it. Obviously there were quite a few things amiss from last year's squad and this appears to be one of them.
As for the clustering =- it is only natural. I saw this among the general population as well of the students way back in the 90s and I am sure it happens today. I don't think it has anythinhg to do without any form of outright racism, just you tend to flock with similar people of similar backgrounds. I think it's a lot more socio-economic than race among young folks; your music interests, lifestyle experiences, culture is going to be a lot more similar if person A and B both grew up in south Warren (say 9 mile) then someone who grew up on a lake in northern Oakland county. Don't quote me but I think I've read metro Detroit is one of the top 2-3 most highly segregrated metro areas in the country.
That said I would think the hot iron of fighting together day after day for months on end would break down the walls a lot more than among the general populace where you may have someone on your floor or in your class but don't have as much interraction as football players.
As for what Clark in particular said, it sounds like they've made a comprehenesive effort to address they very thing that Clark himself pointed out almost in passing after the BWW Bowl, where he said something to the effect that they had lost the will to play "as a family". We talked about it much here and it is great to see that get addressed as I think it goes almost as far as coaching and practice in getting these guys to perform 100% every week.
This reminds me of the movie Remember the Titans. Which was about racial integration of two football teams in 1971 in Virginia. Look how far we've come!
I call that jungle fever.
This is not new. There are 120 guys on the team from every conceivable socio-economic background. The S&C has long been the one coach that bridges any particular "gap". When you're out in the hot July sun running sprints with your teammate under the guidance of the S&C coach, there is no black & white / offense & defense. There's just sweat, groans, and the occasional pile of puke.
Is always that everyone is out there struggling, pushing each other to get through things. Hands above heads, huffing, puffing, and then a group looks over and sees another guy yacking, and together they laugh and say "at least we're not that guy." And then another sprint, another set, what have you, and then they're that guy.
The strength and conditioning is equal opportunity all the way.
I'm not sure how the black & white guys get along at M, but I've seen sillyness like this before.
At my high school in the 70's we had a pretty good group of guys that got along better than the general school white/black population. I would not have traded the black players on the team for anyone else. Not one of them.
My sons team a few years ago the Dads hosted a team dinner every Thursday night. I worked every dinner. The white kids grabbed their food and the nearest seat. We had one black player that had always lived in the city did the same. The black players that moved to the city at some point all moved far away from the rest of the team to eat together.
I ws pissed about this, but did not feel it was my place to fix it. I'm not sure if it was a lack of comfort or why that group sat away from the rest of the team. Hopefully our M players are going to be a tight group this season.
Just because there are cliques, does not mean the players didn't still love each other and that they only wanted players that looked like them. It's not that they'd trade anyone on their team for anyone else. It's more just the natural chemistry that happens between people when they hang out all the time. I'm sure, for the most part, all the players get along pretty decently. But to fight as a close family, it has to be closer than that, it has to be family off the field as well.
I think that's what is being discussed here. It's getting better than what they were.
I think you're interpreting this in the most controversial, least charitable way possible. Your post suggests that there were bad offense-defense and black-white divisions last season. The article explicitly says that there weren't (e.g., "Not that the Wolverines needed a message attitude change last season. That hasn't been it at all. It's been about getting to know each other and bonding and sharing mutual respect."). I'm not sure why you're just writing that off as Chengelis being gracious. She could have just not said anything about last year if she sensed issues. She went out of her way to say there weren't.
Good organizations keep an eye on these things, and to me this is an article about keeping an eye on them as part of the natural cycle of team-building with a new group of guys. (And trying to make sure that everything is as ideal as possible this year after last season sucked.) I think you're reaching a bit for nasty subtext.
Personally, the news here is that I've hit the point where I think Aaron Wellman is f-ing awesome.
You put this into words much better than I could.
But cumong, man. "I think you're interpreting this in the most controversial, least charitable way possible." Hyperbole much?
If this seems like a hatchet job to you, I can't help you. It's a risk that comes with broaching the topic of race, which is one we all perceive differently.
But we're not that far apart, it seems. My core point is that I expect my organization and my alma mater to keep an eye on cliques that run counter to team goals and address them on an ongoing basis. (And it's not lost on me that some clustering behavior is relatively benign and driven by socio-economic factors beyond race.) That seems like your core point too.
And we agree that Wellman is awesome. How about an internet hug?
Sorry, I don't hug racists.
No, just kidding. (I mean, I don't think I do, but anyway...) I read Chengelis's piece as an article about all of the active team- and culture-building they're doing this year without any serious between-the-lines suggestion of racial division last year. We've heard that chemistry wasn't ideal last year - and guys naturally segregate themselves at least a bit - but I don't think this story is getting at some intense racial lines that emerged last season.
This just feels like the kind of story that gets twisted easily, and I thought that Chengelis was deliberate about trying to prevent that. Your post definitely could have been a lot worse, but I think there's a much more charitable interpretation of the article (namely, the article as it was written).
I think where we're getting crosswise is where you suggest I'm saying that "this story is getting at some intense racial lines that emerged last season". I never said or suggested that. What I suggested is that any good organization's leadership should recognize cliques and clustering and work to break down barriers. I never implied that there were intense racial lines.
I love to see any team that I pull for build cohesiveness, and love that Wellman is using his position to encourage breaking up cliques. As Space Coyote and others have noted, the weight room is a great place for team-building and the squat rack is a great equalizer. The puke bucket knows no race, creed, gender, or orientation.
My only point on the subtext side is that I was disappointed that cliques (offense/defense and black/white were the only ones referenced in Chengelis's article) were not addressed on an ongoing basis. Leaders should be tuned into that stuff.
or your lack of knowledge of any previous efforts to address cliques does not mean there has been no ongoing effort. In fact, this might well be the next iteration of that effort. In other words, yes, they are tuned in to that stuff. There are historical articfacts in Schembechler, but I'm guessing the staff has not found the magic wand to date.
You may be disappointed, but you are drawing a mental picture using crayons of omission.
I agree with most of your first paragraph. Certainly some clique-breaking work had been done in prior years. I could have mentioned that in the post, and it's fair of you to bring it up. But Frank Clark was the one who said, speaking directly to the clique issue, that "when you lose that many games two years in a row, you start to sit down and think like something’s gotta change around here." So some of this is news, and cliques had at least in Clark's mind been an issue.
On your second paragraph, I'm not exactly sure what a "crayon of omission" is. It sounds pretty highfaluting, but then again I'm probably deciphering it with fingerpaints of comprehension.
and [insert black player here so I don't look like I think all black people look the same; but that is about the size Clark was as a Freshman, just saying]
How quickly we forget. Barwis was welcomed as the second coming of Christ around here while people poked fun at Gittleson.
They all do the same things - their own way. The most important function as far as I am concerned is to serve as the Gatekeeper.
It is impossible to look at Gittleson and not see the many players he sent to the NFL.
It is impossible to look at Barwis without seeing the same, or recognizing the fact that many professional athletes who can train anywhere in the country choose to train with Barwis.
Wellman is the next man up. He seems like a good guy - I would expect nothing less.
Edit - for my money, the most telling thing I have seen or heard came from Troy Woolfolk (Tloy Woolfork) when he was running the stadium during the rehab of his ankle. I'm paraphrasing, but he described the feeling, or lack thereof, in his legs and then added that Wellman ran with him.
Took someone that had a 1% chance to walk again and...made him walk again.
Plus, he has his own show.
We can embrace all of them, each in their own way. Praising one does not take away from another.
Would you like to see the video in which Barwis refers to Gittleson as the father of modern strength and conditioning?
This is a positive development. To the people in this thread trying to create controversy where none exists due to ZOMGSOMETHINGRACIALWEALLMUSTLOSEOURSHITOVERTHIS, kindly shut the F--- up plz. TYIA.
and Rich Rod era's, no one should be surprised Michigan has a clique problem. It ingrained in the fanbase as well.
but as of 2000, if you went to South Quad to eat in the cafeteria, you would see the cliques of non-student athletes, so I'd be surprised if athletes were any different.
That said, good on Wellman for encouraging everybody to hang out with each other.
I think that the take-away here is that an emphasis on senior leadership (which Hoke probably amplified, but which goes back to at least Bo) doesn't work when you have a small group of seniors, because in a small group the entitled types (I don't think that I have to name any names) have much less peer presure to stop acting entitled. That Hoke didn't see that is on him, but I don't think it is an indictment of that philosophy (which worked for decades). I'm glad to see that they are taking steps to address the issue (because they need to; the senior class is small again), but I can't say that I would have predicted the problem, nor do I think the coaches should be overly criticized for not predicting the problem as well.
In the end, this issue may be a blessing in disguise, if it gives underclassmen more of a voice even when the senior classes grow back to their typical size.
The bottom line is we were 7-6 last year.
You take a group of 100+ people and there's naturally going to be groups formed as people associate with people they have things in common with, be it race, geography, position, etc. You also are going to have some people who rub some other people the wrong way. All that's normal and expected in a football team. When you're winning and doing well, all that stuff is in the background, but when you start struggling then it becomes into focus a little more. The friction gets a little hotter, people start blaming others and other groups, etc. A lot of people are looking at the product on the field last year and looking for clues of internal drama that may have caused it, but IMO, it's probably at least as much the other way around. Now, I think it's a great thing for the coaches to recognize the situation and nip it in the bud. You definitely don't want any bad blood to carry over the new season and fester or spiral out of control.
This clique thing has always gone on and probably always will. We all hung out, got along, and I can honestly say the majority loved each other enough as "brothers" to take a bullet for one another. But there was a tendency to break off into racial cliques. For example, there were very few white/black dorm mates. Now, there was never any racial tension whatsoever, it was just sort of a natural, subconscious grouping of the tight groups of friends.
Interestingly, the only group that was completely immune to this phenomenon was the OL. I guess being fat is more of a personal identification than having a particular skin color.
My brother also played college ball, at a different school in a different state. He had the same experience, even down to the OL being a clique unto itself.
[EDIT]: In an effort to preempt any accusations of bigotry, myself and my brother were both fat OL. But some of our best friends are skinny.
I like eating the black cookie and the white creme filling together-never liked seperating the Oreo.
Playing well and winning the big games will go a long way to building team unity.
Actually, it is overcoming adversity that builds team unity, not success per se. Merely playing well and wining the big games won't build unity; winning when you were originally expecting to lose definitely builds it. So, you are right, in a way, but not, perhaps, for the right reasons.
I work in a factory, and this kind of behavior is rampant. On breaks and at lunch there is a black table and a white table that just naturally happens. We always laugh and make jokes about it. We all really do get along, even hang out together outside of work regardless of race. But for some reason at break..there's still a white table and a black table. I'm an arab so I always joke around and ask them if I should just go eat in my car.