I agree that this looks bad, but the article is so one-sided that it constitutes virtual fiction.  My experience is that there is always way more to it than one young man would ever tell, and to bury any possible explanation or rebuttal in an avalanche of accusations is a smear worthy of a political party.

Tipton should be disciplined for this, IMHO.  It was wrong, and nobody can convince me otherwise.  He is entitled to his opinion, but this is simply a hit piece that belongs in the opinion section instead of being reported as news.

He had a right to kick Mills off the team because he didn't comb his hair right, as far as I am concerned.  But refusing to give the kid a chance to defend his actions, bitching him out the way he was alleged to have done, and using profanity and then lying about that factto Tipton is wrong, looks bad on Gillispe and looks damn bad on the University.

Bottom line -- if this is how he handles the least of players, who would want to trust him with their children's future?  How you treat the little guy speaks volumes about your character, and this does not speak well of Gillispies, if true as written.  It is fait accompli that he would not treat a scholarship player this way, despite several past assurances that he treats everyone the same.

:-)

None of those worthies has anything to do with the instant case, anyway.  Leaders do not do what Mills described.  But absent any other facts, we can only draw conclusions that require Mills to be dishonest or simply misremembering the events.  I rather doubt the latter, and I also doubt the former.

I have two main issues -- One is that Mills was allegedly simply abused by Gillispie, both verbally and psychologically.  That's wrong, no matter what.  Whether he had granted him an explanation or not is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.  The second is that Gillispie denied using harsh language, and Mills explicitly refuted that.  I would bet my entire checking account that Mills was accurate on that account.  In my mind, that diminishes Gillispie's credibility and enhances Mills'.

Let me ask you this -- have you ever berated an employee, and in the process, refused to allow him/her an opportunity to defend his/her actions and then fired them?  I seriously doubt it, to your credit.  A "zero tolerance" policy does not give a person the right to abuse a subordinate who fails that policy, ever.  Gillispie was well within his right to dismiss him, and I have no truck with that whatsoever.  It was how it was done, and the dissembling afterward, that make me unhappy.
 

REEEEEJected!  Just kidding.  Thanks for reading.

:-)

Tru has opinions and he lets them out. We all pile on of back them up.

Do you have anythign to add to the conversation of just a rip of the site and Tru?

CEO's don't do this to people, otherwise they wind up as a defendant in a lawsuit.  As I have said more than once, Gillispie owes his charges more respect than he allegedly gave to Mills, regardless of their status.  Second, I think Gillispie lied.  I don't like lies.  Lying about little things make me wonder about the big ones.  Gratuitous lies are the worst.

Maybe you don't care.  That is certainly and unquestionably your right.  I do.

A walk-on Mills may be have been, and a privilege it may be, but that doesn't excuse bad behavior on the part of the coach.  He should know better.  He should do better.  And as he is in the public fishbowl at Kentucky, I expect better, or at least something more than what he gave.  It looks as if I won't be getting that.  Fine, I'll forgive him and move on, and hope we never have to have this discussion again.

I haven't tried to have it both ways.  I have no idea how Gillispie has treated Crawford, only the word of others that he has been tougher on him than Smith apparently was.  Did that include a rude, abusive dismissal from the team without a chance to defend himself?  I'm thinking not.

I have no idea about Doherty, just as I don't know what Rupp or Pitino or Brooks do to their players.

If this is symptomatic of some sort of "dysfunctional personality," there will certainly be more reports than just this one.  I am not standing in judgment here, except with respect to the instant case.  Maybe he had a bad day, or maybe the kid had been given 25 chances against Gillispie's better judgment.  But because Coach has decided not to enlighten us, we must draw conclusions with what we have.

My conclusion is that it was bad behavior, hopefully a one-time thing.  It's ugly, but it doesn't look that serious in the larger context.  After the firestorm dies down, I'm inclined to forget about it and move on.

That isn't funny.