But are these transgressions enough to get a first-year coach fired? It’s doubtful.

If an administration already wanted to relieve a coach of his or her duties, however, such reasons would give it the perfect reason to do so.

Maybe the administration felt that the complaint levied by the former team member was a nuisance that must be eliminated. Maybe they felt that the best way to do so would be to eliminate the source—the coach.

Such a conjecture seems logical, but due to both sides’ unwillingness to comment on that issue in particular, it must remain just that.

Either way, this situation should be enough to send a scare into prospective coaches. If Russell was fired as a sacrifice in order to rid the University of an unseemly complaint, then one must question the level to which the athletic department has the back of its coaches. Such a lack of support sends dangerous warning signals in terms of one’s expected job security.

If Russell was fired for the reasons he gave, then Crimson coaches better watch their step, because it’s apparent that every mistake they make is being recorded on a list to be referenced when an impromptu investigation into one’s coaching habits becomes necessary.

Is that the type of situation in which a prospective coach wants to get him or herself involved?

I know I wouldn’t.

—Staff writer Michael R. James can be reached at mrjames@fas.harvard.edu.