There's a difference between a student forced to have relations with a professor because he's threatening to fail her vs. a student who willingly engages in a relationship with a professor because she likes him and is willing to take the risk.
One is a victim, one is not. Not saying that the player is or isn't a victim, but there isn't enough information out there to make a judgment call...especially if it was going on while both were at Marquette.
I think you will find very few who think he 100% deserves to be fired and probably never be allowed to coach women's basketball again. But the "victim" proclamation is still premature at this point. Once the facts come out, then the labels can be applied.
Let's not conflate a desire to support Tyler with the legal circumstances. In this case, consent does not matter one whit.
I am a college professor. If I had a sexual relation with A STUDENT IN MY CLASS OR UNDER MY SUPERVISION, I would be subject to disciplinary action, including dismissal. Do you understand? This action is a violation of code of conduct policies; you simply can't do it within the regulations that govern faculty behaviors, unless you are very good at keeping completely secret. Once it is known, consenting or not consenting, it is a violation.
These codes are written with the assumption that there is a power discrepancy between faculty and students or coaches and athletes. Tyler had to know the code of conduct policies because that is a part of one's institutional training. In effect, he broke the rules, took the risk, and is now paying the consequences.
Now, in the future, a University who would be looking at Tyler for a coaching spot has to ask: do we trust someone who has violated one of the most important axioms of University code of conduct policies (official)? and who did so while married (a subjective and moralistic assessment that is bound to be made at least some institutions and to be a concern among alumni).
I appreciate the motivation for the counterarguments seeking to defend Tyler Summitt's besieged reputation. In effect, this is Tyler Summitt, Pat's son! We know he is a good guy who would not do a bad thing; if Tyler had an affair it, it must have been a justifiable situation, somehow, someway, just because....
Well, let's put aside the issue of his being married and cheating on his wife; If we just take that small matter out of the equation, then it is very possible Tyler can still be a
good guy if both parties were consenting adults, right?
NO, not in his role as coach!! He had a institutional responsibility to maintain a professional relationship with his athletes. He violated a trust that came with his position. If he did not want that responsibility, then he should have not taken the job.
Let me ask you this. if this were Geno A. in similar circumstances, would you be defending him?