The dark side of women's recruiting

**MNCyGuy** · 01-28-2011, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by creightonclone

I lost a lot of respect for BF after this article. By pushing "family" down recruits' throats, he's implying he and his assistants are straight. Until just recently in Iowa, family equated to straight. I'm sure I will catch heat, but I don't care.

Well, I suppose there's always one person that will believe something just because you bothered to write it.

**fulll02** · 01-28-2011, 09:19 AM

As with everything else, people are going to see what they want to see about Fennelly. I have no idea whether he uses "family" as code for we're not gay, it's safe to come here. (Personally, as a gay person myself, that would sting a little.)

I've watched enough ISU WBB to know that he seems to be a smart and comptetive person. I'm guessing he throws "family" out there and knows that the recruits and their families are going to take that how they want. It hurts him more to clarify the how he would define the word. Also, he's been in the business for a long time. Long enough that he should have figured out if he had a problem with gays/lesbians in sports he shouldn't have picked the womens side.

In my gut, I keep going back to thinking that Fennelly would take with open arms a two headed, purple girl from Mars if she could drill 3's, score off the bounce, defend, and do it all with a team first attitude. But at the end of all of this, I keep reminding myself, that I don't go to ISU sporting events to watch the coach. I go to watch the team.

**kcdc4isu** · 01-28-2011, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by creightonclone

I lost a lot of respect for BF after this article. By pushing "family" down recruits' throats, he's implying he and his assistants are straight. Until just recently in Iowa, family equated to straight. I'm sure I will catch heat, but I don't care.

We have followed the womens team for over 10 yrs now and we feel we are part of this family even though we have no one from our family playing. Go to games out of town, see the number of non parents who follow the team. This is all part of what BF means by "family". The problem is there are to many people in this state due to things that have happened in our courts who have abused the word "family" and used it as a code word to push hatered towards people they do not like or understand. As stated in a laer post BF recuits people who want to play his style of basketball.

**Yes13** · 01-28-2011, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by creightonclone

I lost a lot of respect for BF after this article. By pushing "family" down recruits' throats, he's implying he and his assistants are straight. Until just recently in Iowa, family equated to straight. I'm sure I will catch heat, but I don't care.

I assume you are missing one of these

If not then I've lost respect for you. You are basically saying that gay/lesbians can't be part of a family. I've never equated "family" to meaning straight. I believe it means people that would do anything for one another. Kind of like a TEAM.

**creightonclone** · 01-28-2011, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by Yes13

I assume you are missing one of these

If not then I've lost respect for you. You are basically saying that gay/lesbians can't be part of a family. I've never equated "family" to meaning straight. I believe it means people that would do anything for one another. Kind of like a TEAM.

Your definition is completely right. In my opinion, BF's definition is totally wrong. By stating he's married and his assistants were married during a time when gays and lesbians couldn't get married in Iowa, I believe BF was implying he only wanted straight players in program.

There's only one way to settle this: a lesbian player within the program has to go on record. If not, it's simply hearsay.

**BooneCy** · 01-28-2011, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by creightonclone

Your definition is completely right. In my opinion, BF's definition is totally wrong. By stating he's married and his assistants were married during a time when gays and lesbians couldn't get married in Iowa, I believe BF was implying he only wanted straight players in program.

There's only one way to settle this: a lesbian player within the program has to go on record. If not, it's simply hearsay.

I am going to assume that you might have misread some of those quotes due to the poor quality of writing. Because, I did not get that he said that at all. I believe that was inferred by the writer or another person being interviewed.

**MNCyGuy** · 01-28-2011, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by creightonclone

Your definition is completely right. In my opinion, BF's definition is totally wrong. By stating he's married and his assistants were married during a time when gays and lesbians couldn't get married in Iowa, I believe BF was implying he only wanted straight players in program.

There's only one way to settle this: a lesbian player within the program has to go on record. If not, it's simply hearsay.

I don't think the article, poorly written as it was, even said that BF was telling players that all of his assistants were straight and married. What he was saying was that he felt it was ridiculous that he and his staff were getting punished for being married and having families because somebody decided that "family" was a bad word as it relates to gay and lesbian athletes.

**c.y.c.l.o.n.e.s** · 01-28-2011, 11:39 AM

Just for the record. It is possible for some of us that believe in the importance of the "traditional" family to do so without hating on those that disagree.

Based on some of the comments in this thread, the opposite is not always true.

**MNCyGuy** · 01-28-2011, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by c.y.c.l.o.n.e.s

Just for the record. It is possible for some of us that believe in the importance of the "traditional" family to do so without hating on those that disagree.

Based on some of the comments in this thread, the opposite is not always true.

I think I agree with what you're saying (although it's just vague enough that it could be taken a bunch of radically different ways), I just feel that BF was a pretty unjustified target and that a lot of what he says was taken the wrong way to make it fit into the point the writer wanted to make.

**creightonclone** · 01-28-2011, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by c.y.c.l.o.n.e.s

Just for the record. It is possible for some of us that believe in the importance of the "traditional" family to do so without hating on those that disagree.

Based on some of the comments in this thread, the opposite is not always true.

Traditional family? You sound like that crazy congressman/preacher from DM who thinks women shouldn't work outside the home.

Unfortunately for your argument, that are certainly many, many dysfunctional families out there. Believing a "traditional" family is the best way to raise a child is short-sighted, unintelligent, and bigoted.

**MNCyGuy** · 01-28-2011, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by creightonclone

Traditional family? You sound like that crazy congressman/preacher from DM who thinks women shouldn't work outside the home.

Unfortunately for your argument, that are certainly many, many dysfunctional families out there. Believing a "traditional" family is the best way to raise a child is short-sighted, unintelligent, and bigoted.

I took it as "I wish someone could say family is important to them without it being labelled secret anti-gay speech." I think two people seeing such different things in the same post kind of proves my point that if you're looking for "code words" you're going to see them.

**SenorCy** · 01-28-2011, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by creightonclone

Traditional family? You sound like that crazy congressman/preacher from DM who thinks women shouldn't work outside the home.

Unfortunately for your argument, that are certainly many, many dysfunctional families out there. Believing a "traditional" family is the best way to raise a child is short-sighted, unintelligent, and bigoted.

Your reply was short-sighted, unintelligent, and bigoted. I love how the people that call other people bigots have a very closed mind themselves.

**fulll02** · 01-28-2011, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by MNCyGuy

I took it as "I wish someone could say family is important to them without it being labelled secret anti-gay speech." I think two people seeing such different things in the same post kind of proves my point that if you're looking for "code words" you're going to see them.

I agree 100% that anyone looking for "code words" will find them and wishing it not be veiwed and anti-gay speech just shows how you also see things as you wish.

Any Div 1 womens basketball head coach has to know that there are lesbians that play basketball and it may help or hinder the coach's ability to land other recruits if his/her team is portrayed as being a "gay" team. If they don't at least understand that there are implications +/- to this, their head is in the sand.

They also should know that people on both sides know what the "code words" are. They use them at their own risk. Now in an ideal world there are no "code words", but we don't live there.

**MNCyGuy** · 01-28-2011, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by fulll02

I agree 100% that anyone looking for "code words" will find them and wishing it not be veiwed and anti-gay speech just shows how you also see things as you wish.

Any Div 1 womens basketball head coach has to know that there are lesbians that play basketball and it may help or hinder the coach's ability to land other recruits if his/her team is portrayed as being a "gay" team. If they don't at least understand that there are implications +/- to this, their head is in the sand.

They also should know that people on both sides know what the "code words" are. They use them at their own risk. Now in an ideal world there are no "code words", but we don't live there.

Oh, I get that. I'm just saying, part of the appeal of playing for ISU would have to be the familial environment, in a sense that has nothing to do with sexual orientation of anyone on the team or staff. How the hell else is he supposed to describe that? Again, I am pretty damn sure that there have been gay members of ISU squads during Fennelly's tenure and he didn't really appear to treat them any differently. However, he can't come and say that or prove it without naming names, and it's really none of that writer's or her reader's damn business. Really, he should have had to prove anything.

**fulll02** · 01-28-2011, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by MNCyGuy

Oh, I get that. I'm just saying, part of the appeal of playing for ISU would have to be the familial environment, in a sense that has nothing to do with sexual orientation of anyone on the team or staff. How the hell else is he supposed to describe that? Again, I am pretty damn sure that there have been gay members of ISU squads during Fennelly's tenure and he didn't really appear to treat them any differently. However, he can't come and say that or prove it without naming names, and it's really none of that writer's or her reader's damn business. Really, he should have had to prove anything.

I agree that he's between a rock and hard place. I'm not too worked up about his interview b/c I don't think he's the second coming of Rene Portland at Penn State. It's always seemed in the past that he's played the best players, his personal favorites determined by ability to score and defend. (And I am pretty sure as well that there have been gay players on the team.) Mostly, I'm not too interested in what he says to get them to play for ISU, as long as he doesn't run them off when they get here for ... (Insert your own personal bias here).

Fennelly does sometimes create his own problems with an occasional bout of Foot in Mouth Disease. Which I'm sure made it easy for the reporter to manipulate his statement. Nothing to base the next statement on other than my conjecture, but I would guess he walks the recruiting line pretty tightly. We all love ISU and only can see the good, but it can't be an easy job to recruit to top level talent to the middle of Iowa. With the success he's had, he must work his sales pitch hard.