The answer depends on whether this was a “rant” or a “rant and rave”. A “rant” is defined as “a very loud, aggressive, or bombastic speech that is usually long and repetitive” as opposed to a “rant and rave” which is “to speak at length in a wildly irrational, angry and agitated fashion.” I think the addition of the “rave” gets you an EAP referral. It’s the difference between a yellow and red card.

What distinguishes a rant from a rant and rave? It’s like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said when defining obscenity “I know it when I see it.” Rants have a purpose, context and maintain control. Rants and Raves don’t plus they tend to turn personal. It’s the difference between Mike Krzyzewski and Bobby Knight.

Anyone who has ever sat in the locker room after a particularly poor first half performance knows that every good coach must have a rant. Coaches are expected to rant, but not too frequently least it lose its power. The rant has the purpose of turning the team around and the context of competition. It usually doesn’t attack a particular player.

Business leaders aren’t expected to rant because it’s too emotional. However, good leaders could probably benefit from using a rant to make it emotional at the right time, for the right reason. Would anyone who sits in a sales meeting after a particularly disastrous first quarter expect a rant? If the rant had a purpose and a context, it might just work. However, a business rant crosses the line when it becomes personal. It’s like Don Lucchesi said, “It’s not personal. It’s business.” If the rant becomes personal, it becomes a threat. If it becomes a threat, welcome to the EAP office.

On its face, I would consider Coach Grudy’s actions to be no more than a rant, but not a particularly good one. However, he may have crossed the line, if he was targeting an unnamed reporter, because then it is personal.

I've had a look at the video and the column. It's pretty awful. Steve's comments nailed it pretty well.

But the rant (Michael's got that one right)? Well I don't think I'd send coach off for anger management, but I think he might benefit from a timeout and some communications skills training.

One thing about being a leader is that the people you lead take their cues from how you act. Gundy is undisciplined, loud, and abusive. He calls people and their work "garbage." Is that a good example?

If he wanted to take on the newspaper columnist, he could have done that by outlining her points and then refuting them. He didn't do that, He says that "three fourths of this is inaccurate" but doesn't tell us what except for two points where he says "that's not true" but doesn't tell us any more. He tells us that it's "fiction" but doesn't tell us why.

Instead, he resorts to a form of the ad hominem argument, attacking the person and not the argument. I don't know if the person writing the column has children. Gundy says "she couldn't."

He's not just defending his player. He's also defending his decisions about who should start.

Gundy is a leader because he's in a leadership position which means that people look to what he says and does as a guide for behavior. Is he a good leader? I don't think so. He says he's defending his player, but he's also defending himself. He's ranting against someone who's not there to respond. He's calling people and their work "garbage."

I wouldn't want him leading a team I care about and I sure wouldn't want him coaching my grandsons. What kind of language do you think he might be using in the locker room? What kind of example is he setting?