The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(05-05-2021 09:16 PM)levydl Wrote:  

(05-05-2021 08:39 PM)eroc Wrote:  

(05-05-2021 08:16 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-05-2021 08:02 PM)eroc Wrote:  

(05-05-2021 07:37 PM)Bearcatbdub Wrote:  I read the article by Wittry, very telling.

It doesn’t seem to me that the details about the practice that were revealed were horrible. Seemed tough but not unreasonable. But we don’t get all the story. If there was a bunch of conditioning without access to frequent water breaks- that’s just incredibly stupid. If Branned ignored, antagonized, or otherwise hindered the training staff- that’s just unacceptable. And the tone of the article makes Brannen come off as incredibly paranoid and suspicious.

My only concern is the last recorded incident in the article was December. Why did it take the administration until March to do anything else about it? Where was the followup? Or we just don’t have any of the details? It kinda seems like the administration waited until it was more “convenient” i.e.- the season was over- to deal with it.

Does that sound fishy to anyone else?

i was thinking the exact same thing. While that article featured entries that draw largely on a single source, anecdotally, and provide details that color Coach Brannen is a very poor light, there is a 4+ month period of time that is undocumented. i'm not saying there isn't documentation of additional issues of Coach Brannen. in fact, i'm inclined to believe that there will likely be additional issues that come out. i'm more curious about why did Cunningham wait? if you know, as far back as November, that the players are subject to such behavior and at risk, isn't it his responsibility to eliminate that risk?

Initially, this was my thought too.

But my brother (a high school basketball coach) pointed out that the departure of 6 players might have triggered a review of everything that's happened since the initial incidents.

And in fact, that fits the timeline of what Cunningham actually did.

i believe it was documented that upon their exit, some, if not all, of the transfer out players interviewed with Cunningham. But that was several months since December. if the allegations are true, it begs some disbelief that nothing actionable, especially in light of the November reprimand, happened in that time frame, imo. i mean Cunningham is trying to terminate w/cause. The optics of the timing look very suspicious but that's just my opinion.

I don't get what you think is suspicious. You believe that they are actually firing him for some other reason that's unrelated to this stuff and all the players transferring?

No. i believe that he's being fired for player endangerment and creating a hostile work environment. i'm curious that for five months or so, there was a monthly anecdotal accounting of his abusive behavior, including behavior that resulted in a letter of reprimand, followed by a four month period of nothing until the player mutiny and his termination. What did the player interviews reveal that he didn't know/act on in that four month period? Coach Brannen isn't being terminated solely for what happened between August and December. if that was the case, they could have did him months ago, and possibly curbed the mutiny. Maybe suspicious is the wrong word but it does seem odd to me.