A response to your final question:

Posted on: August 5, 2016 at 18:32:20 CT

Number one, I don't claim to be correct. Everything I'm expressing here is my opinion and the personal conclusions I've reached about the situation. I could very easily be incorrect. I believe Earleywine should be fired, although I am almost certain he will be returning for the foreseeable future.

Second, those of you who have followed this board know I'm a big supporter of Missouri softball, especially the women who don the black and gold between the white lines. If you want to argue the points I make, that's completely fair, but don't argue whether or not I want the best for this program and this University. I hope my explanation of why I support firing Earleywine will help answer the question of "How could firing EE at this point be considered a good resolution by anyone?"


Now for my response:

First of all, there have been several incidents (mainly the 2014 Alabama dogpile fiasco and the emails with Missouri St.) that have cast Mizzou in a negative light. He received the NFCA censure for a reason. There are legitimate arguments that, even without abuse, that he's not fit to lead a major athletics program.

Putting that aside, although there are no Title IX violations, that only means there has been no sex-based discrimination. It does not necessarily mean that Earleywine was not abusing players.

I have heard from a variety of people that, in the past, he has overworked players to dangerous levels, forced players back from injury before medically ready, and restricted players' diets to extreme levels (leading to some players developing eating disorders. The alleged abuse is more than yelling at players and cursing too much, and it's hard to prove that it specifically occurs due to sexual discrimination.

I believe that, if Earleywine is fired, the University will have no choice but to release the allegations and evidence. It is my expectation that many Earleywine supporters will feel like fools if the treatment of players has been as bad as I think it has been.

Many have accused those who filed complaints as bench players upset that they didn't receive enough playing time, but it could be that, as bench players, they were subject to abuse that others were not.

Finally, many believe that this was spurred on by a personal vendetta that Mack Rhoades had against Earleywine. Put yourself in Rhoades's shoes: after the protests in November and the horrific on-field performance by football and men's basketball, why on Earth would he purposefully pick a fight with arguably the best coach currently at the school if there was nothing of substance going on? Plus, players have complained about the "hostile feminists" looking to get Earleywine fired, which is a complete misrepresentation of what feminism is and seeks to accomplish. I don't think that those accused of being out to get Earleywine have any incentive to attack him personally.

In conclusion, if Earleywine was abusing players (and again, I don't mean screaming and cussing), and I believe he was, that's enough reason to fire him. Combine that with his public persona, and, for me, it's a no-brainer to get rid of him and move on.

Edit: Just to clear up any possible confusion: I DO NOT CLAIM TO BE CORRECT. I know nothing for certain. These are simply conclusions I've reached that have led me to stand against Earleywine, and, if the administration fires him, they likely will have followed a similar line of reasoning.

Edited by El_Tigre at 18:36:35 on 08/05/16