Randolph Appeal and Article

cyozzie36 · Post by **cyozzie36** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:39 am

Just wondering what people think of this development? Also, he makes comments about job opportunities in the Twin Cities. Do people still believe this to be Minnetonka? Here is the link to the article from the News Tribune. I hope this works. If not could someone figure it out for me. Thanks. <a href="http://http://www.duluthsuperior.com/ml ... 318499.htm" target="top">www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthtribun ...

diskman · Post by **diskman** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 11:36 am

I find it odd that Randolph would want to accept a job in the twin cities. Like it said in the article...his daughter will be a senior at East and his wife has worked at the same job for 30 years!! Why would he uproot them and leave his job just so that he can coach.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 1:06 pm

diskman, I think you have answered your own question. His life situation is almost ideal for a change. 30 years in the same job is long enough. His daughter will be off to college soon anyways. He has been in the middle of the biggest controversy in high school hockey that I can remember for the last year or so. It is time to get out of Dodge. Sure, it would be nice to wait until graduation but then maybe the same opportunity wont be there. Obviously,he must really want to coach.

cyozzie36 · Post by **cyozzie36** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 1:07 pm

Sounds like he is really considering a few of these offers. Coaching runs deep with him and if he takes a job whoever gets him is very lucky. I'll be a fan of where ever he goes though it will not seem right seeing him behind any bench other than the Hounds. Interesting thats for sure.

diskman · Post by **diskman** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 2:12 pm

True, 30 years at any job is enough!! I'm getting close to that and I sure wouldn't mind doing something different for awhile. I still can't imagine pulling a kid out of her school as a senior. My kids would not have gone with me if I would have done that. Waiting a year or two seems like a better option, but that's just me. Besides that, there can't be too many teaching opportunities this year. There aren't many school districts hiring teachers in the twin cities. I would be surprised if he would give up his position as a teacher, tenure, and all the security.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 2:20 pm

Who knows, maybe the family wants out too. Maybe she stays up in Duluth to finish the senior year living with relatives or close friends. Its only 2 hours away. But I agree, it would be tough to take a child for the senior year. My kids would go kicking and screaming.

Whatwillwork · Post by **Whatwillwork** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:37 pm

GET OVER IT! Does he really think that he's helping anyone by continuing this? They don't want you, move on.

puckheadx2 · Post by **puckheadx2** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 4:13 pm

Ok let me get this straight, the man has the best HS Hockey record in the past 15 years and he should get over it and they don't want him anyway. I don't think Wentworth is the answer...and if they don't want him anyway... why are the best players headed Shattuck... Mr. Get over it.

Whatwillwork · Post by **Whatwillwork** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 8:33 pm

Do you honestly think that he will get that job back?

LSandA · Post by **LSandA** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:11 pm

Hey Puckhead, You say that Wentworth isn't the answer. Go ask the East Greyhound team if they loved their year. When you hear their answer you may never post again. East went 24-9-1 against the best teams in the state. They got within two goals of the state final, then dusted off the third ranked Wayzata team with a skill display in the third period. They basically played four lines, five d's, and three goalies....and still made a run at the state title. In fact....It was the best year East hockey as had in the last five years. I respect the fact that you may love Mike Randolph...but the real fact is East hockey goes way deeper than one hockey coach. It is unfortunate that Mike Randolph trys to continue to be a topic for high school hockey. If he wants to coach so bad there are two openings in Duluth! Why even bring up moving to the cities. Why won't he apply for those positions? I would think that the players deserve the attention. I would rather see an article on Goligoskis from Rapids, or the Johnsons or Maidas from East, or the twins from Hibbing. Cry me a river................

puckheadx2 · Post by **puckheadx2** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 8:11 am

Well I certainly won't cry a river because I am not affiliated with East Hockey, so personally I don't care. The players can say what they want. 7AA was average at best this year, think about this East lost to Centennial 8-2, and according to the coach could have been 15-2, that coach being Wentworth. Now you beat a good Wayzata squad that actually came to win a championship. Mike Randolph was the best thing for Duluth E hockey my opinion.

CanAm28 · Post by **CanAm28** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 9:03 am

Puckhead, You say that you won't be crying a river because you're not affiliated with the program, and consequently you don't care. This bodes the question then as to why you made the original post at all. If you're not from the area, then your statements are probably based on the always reliable rumor mill. If you live there, but are not affiliated with the program and don't care as you stated, then I suspect that you're simply trying to stir the pot.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 9:26 am

There is a whole lot more to every hockey program than one head coach. The Randolph situation is unique because of the way his involvement was terminated so that is why it lingers in the news. Usually when a coach is that successful, the job is his as long as he wants it. I dont know anything about the situation with him. All I know for sure is that when a coach has been around for that long, he is going to make enemies. He has to cut kids , decide on playing time, line combinations,etc etc. Not everybody loved Herb Brooks. Noboby who coaches for that long is immune. So, I think you have to be careful about saying East hockey has never been better since he is gone. Its just different now. The current guy will make a lot of enemies if he stays long enough and maybe has a good start already.

cyozzie36 · Post by **cyozzie36** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 9:38 am

Both coaches are great but what happened to Randolph is wrong. Anyone who gives fifteen years of his life to one program, and gets canned for no reason would be upset and would want their job back. He deserved to coach until he decided he didn't want to coach anymore. He is a great coach and a great person, so are the new coaches but come on for what he made and what he did he should still be behind the bench. I would love to see him back behind the Hounds bench thats for sure.

Eddie Shore · Post by **Eddie Shore** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 10:00 am

It was asked in an earlier post why Randolph continues to fight. Well, this has become about much more than Mike Randolph. The Arbitrator's ruling could have an impact on coaches in all sports throughout the state if it is found that Mike wasn't given "due process" in his termination. The high school coaches association doesn't want him to give up the fight because coaches would love to see the "no cause" contracts they operate under become obsolete. This is about much more than Mike Randolph. As for Wentworth, he's a good coach with a different style. East hockey is not better without Randolph. It's not necessarily worse - it's just different. As for Mike and his family - why question if they want to make a move? We all have personal reasons for wanting to switch jobs or move to a new location. I believe most people would also fight for what they believe is right if they feel they have been wronged. That is what he is doing. Cyozzie - the rumor mill still blows toward the western suburbs. All I will say is that 'Tonka still officially has a coach (to the best of my knowledge). However, some folks are saying that Mike already has a done deal in the metro area pending the outcome of the arbitration hearing. He may be "Skipping" down I35. And as for those of you who are asking why Mike doesn't apply for the Central or Denfeld jobs - pick up the phone (if you have the guts) and ask Mike if he has applied for either of those positions. You might be surprised at the answer. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/im ... ns/eek.gif ALT=":eek">

cyozzie36 · Post by **cyozzie36** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 10:31 am

Eddie--You can't just lay that little tip out there and not tell us if he has applied for the other positions? He did start out as a Hunter and brought them to a state tourney? It would be interesting to him coaching against East. Also, makes you wonder if any players would jump ship and head whereever he is? EAst has always had good relations with Tonka. We used to head their every year for preseason scrimmages so the people there got to know coach pretty well. I also agree that this is far bigger than just Mike. He is a teacher and all of this has to do with the union agreements and contracts so I firmly believe he is doing the right thing by fighting this. Besides he truly has been wronged becuase if he hasn't been found to do anything illegal or immoral he should never have lost his position. Go Randolph and Go Hounds!

diskman · Post by **diskman** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 10:49 am

As I understood it - he didn't lose his teaching job though right? It is just the coaching part of his job. As a tenured teacher, he is protected. It is very complicated to get rid of a teacher. I'm assuming the "no cause" separation refers to his coaching position only. I don't think coaches in most districts have a lot of rights when it comes to coaching. I will be surprised if he wins. There would be huge ramifications if they decide to give coaches the same tenure as teachers. Every time a coach is let go for any reason, another lawsuit would result. Our school districts don't have the kind of money to fight every disgruntled coach that comes along. Randolph might be different but I don't think they will set a precedent like this.

Eddie Shore · Post by **Eddie Shore** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 10:49 am

Sorry to leave you hanging, Oz. While I've heard rumors that he may apply or possibly has applied for a Duluth HS job, I can't say that he would truly consider going to either school. The only possiblity would be if he took the Denfeld job to rebuild the program...but that would probably have to come with assurances that Denfeld and Central would combine like they've done at the youth level. Why would Mike apply for the Denfeld or Central job? Think about it this way. His application wasn't considered for the East job after his termination. So? Well, what direction would the arbitration go if he applies for the Denfeld or Central job? If they don't consider him, it would be insane and could sway public opinion even further against the administration, in addition to giving the arbitrator some new facts to deal with. If they do consider him, then why wasn't he considered for the East job given the weak pool of candidates that applied? Granted, we are dealing with different principals (and different principles, for that matter) at Central and Denfeld and a new school board is now in place. The new school board has several Randolph backers. Let's just say this...it will be interesting. I think everyone - including Mike - wants to see this thing over with.

Eddie Shore · Post by **Eddie Shore** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 10:54 am

Diskman - you are correct. He did not lose his teaching job. The "no cause" clause I refer to is on the coaching end. That is the standard contract that most coaches operate under. Which is why this may be important. If a ruling goes in Mike's favor, it could have implications statewide. Do I think he'll win? No. However, this situation is different than most coaching terminations. It'll be interesting to see how it shakes out. And the bottom line is that most coaches are not terminated - they quit for a variety of reasons including parents, kids and their family commitments. Regardless of the outcome of this case, I don't think we'll see many battles like this.

cyozzie36 · Post by **cyozzie36** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 11:23 am

One of the bigger issues is that if a teacher applies for a coaching position he/she is supposed to (I believe guaranteed) the position if they are the only internal candidate. In other words if you are a teacher within the school district and you are the only one that applies for the job you should get the positions. This is way nearly every coach is also a teacher within the district. The system is in place so that if a teacher is willing and wants to coach a team they will have the job before an outside search. One issue I have is that if this was another coaching position this never would have happened. If any other coaching position opens it is nearly always filled by a teacher so why wasn't this one? If there is a "no cause" clause then his application should have been considered like anyone else's and because he is a school district teacher the job should have been his. I'm not positive on all of this but I believe this is how the system is set up. Can anyone else shed more light on the system?

Eddie Shore · Post by **Eddie Shore** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 11:33 am

It's a little different in each school district. However, my understanding of Duluth is that if a "qualified" internal candidate applies, he/she will receive first consideration for the job. At least that's the way it used to be...

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 12:52 pm

They sign a contract to coach? What is it ,about a $5 dollar an hour job? I know they get a little bit of money but it is as close to being volunteer work as you can get and most guys approach it from that basis...its not a job, its an adventure. The point is ..I dont know what the motivation is to appeall and want the "job" back. I am guessing he could find ab nother coaching position.

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:30 pm

Two reasons for an appeal that I can come up with are 1) If you're a teacher, coaching adds to your retirement, or better said, takes years off your retirement age. Used to be a rule of 60 when I taught, years teaching plus years coaching, add them up and if you meet the rule, you are eligible for retirement. Say you teach for 30 years, coach for 30 years and assuming you started at age 25 you could feasibly retire at age 55. 2) To beat the "no cause" clause. It makes being a coach a very delicate problem, especially in hockey where the parents seem to know everything. Maybe there is one, I am not a businessman, but is there any other job where you can be let go for "no cause"?

wild77 · Post by **wild77** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:47 pm

I would hope an employer would always have the ability to terminate someone for "no cause". Hiring is a two way street. I rent out my services for an agreed upon amount. If my employer decides he/she doesn't want to pay me anymore they terminate me. Should be a fairly simple concept until you add unions and lawyers to the mix. No one should be "guaranteed a job". For many employees it takes incentive out of the workplace.

diskman · Post by **diskman** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 2:05 pm

I've never heard of the rule of 60 before. I've heard of the rule of 90 which has nothing to do with coaching. That is a teacher's age plus their years of teaching. As soon as it adds up to 90, they are eligible to retire. Coaching does at $$ to a person's income however and that impacts retirement. I think retirement pay is based on a teacher's last five years of income.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Randolph Appeal and Article

Randolph Appeal and Article

Randolph

why now?

Randolph

moving

why now?

Copyright Dan Barreiro

Re: Copyright Dan Barreiro

Re: Copyright Dan Barreiro

Re: Copyright Dan Barreiro

Re: Copyright Dan Barreiro

Why Do You Care Then?

why all the fuss

Randolph

Re: Randolph

Eddie--Come on

coaching

Re: Eddie--Come on

Re: coaching

More

Re: More

coaching

coaching

No cause

retirement