Obnoxious, loudmouthed thug or deranged senile idiot?

You decide.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7031681/

C) All of the above.

Chaney took himself out of the Atlantic 10 tournament tonight too. Don't know about the NIT, which is where Temple is probably gonna end up. Temple and/or the league shoulda suspended him for the rest of the year. There were rumors flying around that Martelli of St. Joes was gonna refuse to coach in the A10 tournament if his team ended up meeting Temple and Chaney was there. Bad situation.

How about basketball genius, too. Invented the matchup zone defense that all the big schools employ. If he had the players that Wooden or Dean Smith had, he would have won national championships too.

Would a basketball genuis resort to this:

BTW, Ingram broke Bryant's arm, ending his senior season. I guess there's genius in that too?

Thug?
 

THUG?

I know what he did was not the best thing or the smartest situation, but thug?

I guess the more things change the more they stay the same.
<a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008_ZSzeb008' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_13_3.gif' alt='Oh Jeez' border=0></a>

BTW, I do not condone anything that he did. I think it is sad. But I also feel he did exactly what many coaches do, he just made the dumb mistake and admitted to it.

Peace

Dan, how many times did Red Auerbach bring in a "goon" to "send a message"? Did it take away from his basketball genius? One has nothing to do with the other. You cannot stand here and say Chaney is not a basketball genius and has not contributed immensely to the game. Let's be fair to Chaney. He mad a mistake and he has admitted it. Move on.

"Chaney warned during an Atlantic 10 conference call on Monday that he would send in a “goon” if the screens weren’t called."

From the article. To me, this tells me it wasn't just a mistake. It was premeditated. He had a long time to think about it before the game even started; and he still did it. If it had been a heat of the moment thing in a highly competitive environment, it would be one thing. But this is premeditated assault. He should be charged, and he should be fired.

"If it had been a heat of the moment thing in a highly competitive environment, it would be one thing. "

What do you call the end of the season with the tourney coming up? While of course what he did was wrong, remember coaches are under constant pressure and competition. They are watching tapes, practicing, scouting, drawing up plays, etc. Some coaches completely make the game their world, especially at this time of the year. The actual gamr for a good coach is the calmest time of their work. If they prepared well, they can sit back and make adjustments.

He didn't say that he wasn't a basketball genius. One can argue that point if you like.

What he's saying is that none of that excuses what he did.

This was a premeditated act that he threatened almost a week before the game was even played. He had pumped himself into a frenzy regarding what he perceieved as illegal screens. He planned this before the ball was even tossed.

And he followed through with it, didn't he?

OK, it was a premediated mistake. You mean charged as in criminally charged???? Any attorneys here. I sincerely doubt this would be considered assault. I've seen some illegal screens that could be construed as assault.......He should not be charged, but he may be fired.

He ordered a player, after considerable forethought, to go out and physically assault the opponents. That's what I call it when someone intends to foul someone hard. Just because it's in a basketball game doesn't make it ok to assault someone. The precedent has already been set for charges against a player. Yes, I think criminal charges could be justified. Doesn't the guy who hires the goons deserve something?

I call it a week of premeditation. In other circumstances, it's the difference between 1st and 3rd degree murder.

Snaq, are you a criminal lawyer? If you are not, your comments are merely your opinion. I've learned in my life it is prudent not to speak expertly on a topic you know little about. By the way, what precedent? For a hard foul?

<img src="http://www.illinoishighschoolsports.com/ubb/graemlins/nono.gif">
Not a good deal. By admitting to this he opens himself and the University up for a law suit.

Why don't you read what I wrote? I said, "I think...." Ergo, it's my opinion. If you're not reading what I write, you probably shouldn't try to disagree with me.
As for the precedent, there have already been cases, in athletic contests, where a player was injured (even slightly) by a "hard foul." The key here is that it was purposeful, and the intent was to foul hard. Or, as Chaney said, to "goon it up."
Now, if you disagree, so be it. This is an opinion board, and I'm offering my opinion.

He won't be fired. But he will retire.

Either way, he's done. He's 72 years old. He won't be back.

John Chaney sends a "goon" out in a premeditated act which causes a player to break his arm. Chaney gets a slap on the wrist.

Larry Eustachy drinks a beer at a frat party and gets canned.

Good to see there's equality working here.

Trigger,
Eustachy earned that canning, also. But, hey, I think Chaney should be fired as well. :)

I just watched a small segment on sportscenter bout this guy, looks like he should have been fired a long time ago, he was a ticking timebomb.

Re: Thug?
 

Thug. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin. I've felt the same way about Huggins for a long time.

Thug. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin. I've felt the same way about Huggins for a long time.
[/B][/QUOTE]Amen to that. That whole program has always been borderline out of control.He wins though, so he gets away with it.

Who said anything.....
 

Well when Bobby Knight does something or Bob Huggins does something, I want to hear the "code words" used towards them. I heard them called insane or simply crazy (which could be applied to a lot of coaches) but for some reason you never hear anyone call them a thug.

As I said, the more things change the more they stay the same. It is not my burden to worry about. It just shows once again why things are the way they are. Not just as obvious.

Peace

What? Rich just called Huggins a thug and I agreed with him. Howinthehell does that translate into "for some reason you <b>never</b> hear anyone call them a thug"? :confused:

How come every time someone says something bad about <b>anybody</b> who might also happen to be black, you intimate that they are racists? That's freaking ridiculous.

JR,

I did not call anyone racist. Maybe that is your guilt running wild. I just pointed out a usage of language that I feel is rather inappropriate and something I do not hear said about other similar actions of other coaches. I have been here when many conversations when Bobby Knight did something. I did not hear anyone call him a thug. Or at least did not go around asking everyone here was he a thug for his actions. I have been a Bobby Knight supporter and he was accused of making contact with a player with a choke hold, he was even arrested in another country in a coaching position. For some reason I do not hear anyone calling him a thug. Now you want to throw in Bobby Huggins in this discussion to try to make it seem as if all is well. Bobby Huggins has not done anything either of these two men has done in his coaching position. He was even arrested for a DUI, but I would not call him a thug.

Let me also say this to you. If race was never a factor, you would not hear a bunch of very rich Black people constantly talk about it when they have a forum to speak on it. Whether it is Jamie Foxx, Halle Berry, Oprah Winfrey or Sidney Poitier, they seemed to be focused on how their race affects their lives and influences others that watch them.

Ron Zook when he was at Florida coaching football this past season took some football players and confronted a fraternity house. Funny, no one called him a thug. But Chaney instructs a player to be physical and a player gets hurt, then all of a sudden the coach is a thug. Again, I never will condone the behavior of Coach Chaney and the actions of his players. I am still trying to figure out why there was not flagrant foul to this player. I just always find it odd when Black players do nothing illegal or against the law they are called thugs and white coaches and players can have the same demeanor or attitude and they have character or they are just simply a bad guy. I heard a radio host in Chicago call Scottie Pippen a "gang leader" and to my knowledge the man has never been arrested for anything while a player in Chicago. I just find it interesting how fellow African-Americans can be thugs for doing certain things and their counterparts that are not Black just made bad decisions. I am sorry, I just find that odd.

Peace

I stopped reading right there. That's the oldest trick in the world. And maybe the rottenest.

I just lost all respect for you, Jeff.

Actually, Bobby Knight is a thug, too. Maybe Chaney can go down and coach at Texas A&M.

Rut is irrevelant to this board. Lots of us regulars just quit responding to a particular post once he weighs in because of his senseless rants.

Z

Well JR I was not looking for your respect in the first place. Sorry, that is not the reason I am here.

Peace

I know you would like to think that, but it is not true. But if you are talking about the self-righteous group of people that talk baseball all the time on this site, think anyone that makes a comment about the war is unpatriotic and hates America and cannot understand what goes on in their state does not apply to everyone else, then please make sure all of those individuals never respond to my posts EVER!!!

<a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008_ZSzeb008' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_218.gif' alt='Raise The Roof 1' border=0></a>

Peace

Codewords...lessee what this codeword stuff is all about:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ionary&va=thug
Hindi...what's that about...

http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/hindiint.html

Hindi is the language spoken by roughly 180 million people in India today, it is a direct descendant of Sanskrit through Prakrit and Apabhramsha and became stable in it's own right in the 10th century. It is called Urdu in Pakistan, where roughly 41 million people speak it. About 300 million people speak it as a second language. This adds up to well over half a billion humans speaking Hindi, primarily in the Indian subcontinent.

I suppose one might be led to believe John Cheney is of Indian or Pakistani descent by my use of the code word "thug". I apologize to any of my Indian or Pakistani friends out there that might have taken offense. But my opinion stands, he's a thug.

Interesting discussion
 

You can be a smart *** all you want to be about this Dan but I agree that your comments were out of line. Just because you did not come out and use very specific language that signifies someone as racist or insensitive does not make them right or not offensive. Just because you did not use a specific racial slur does not make your comments right or justified. I have seen people get offended over a lot less and that is OK. I guess when it comes to race or issues of race we still have not gotten around what is acceptable and what is very inappropriate. The "N" word is not the only word that offends people of color.

Re: Interesting discussion
 

PS2Man, if you post the "codewords" that push your buttons I'll try & avoid them. But don't expect me to guess what they are, and don't hold me responsible if I stumble into one of them every now & then. OK?

Re: Re: Interesting discussion
 

I never said anything about "code words." That was someone else. I just stated that your comments could be seen as insensitive or offensive by the way you characterized an African-American person. Especially if that very same language is not used to characterize a Caucasian coach that does similar or has similar character. I cannot tell you what they are if you are not familiar with people that are not white and what might offend them. I do know that if you are ever around a lot of people in your personal life that are do not look like you. I think you not trying to offend people come from what is deep inside. I cannot tell you what words to use when you have no core in you sole to know what could be seen as upsetting to people.

The issue of whether "thug" is a racist term, or if it is used selectively to refer to African Americans of questionable ethics, could have been raised without the subtle accusation that came with it.
And yes, the subtle accusation is there.
Frankly, my list of thugs is rather short. Bill Lambier, Ron Artest, Bob Knight, and now John Chaney. I'm judging only by behavior here.
But, as Dan said. I can't be expected to know which words push which buttons if we haven't been told. This is just rediculous.

Re: Re: Re: Interesting discussion
 

You've got to be kidding. So if you say something about someone that happens to be black and your comment happens to have a negative connotation, then it's racist unless you also include someone white in your comment as well? That is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a long time.

Wow, I never realized until I read this thread that the word "thug" is a racial slur. I guess is thug is a racial slur, so is the word "bully" since they mean the same thing.

Here's a list of men who are bullies and thugs, IMHO!

John Chaney
Bobby Knight
Bill Laimbeer
Bob Huggins
Ron Artest
Latrell Sprewell

Sorry but I'm just not into political correctness.

BTW, Scottie Pippen was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon while he played for the Bulls, early in his career. He was arrested for DUI while playing for Houston in '99. Not sure what Scottie has to do with this discussion. He certainly doesn't make the list above.

No one said anything about the word "thug" being racist or a racist term.

As a matter of fact, I never said the comments were racist. I said the comments were inappropriate considering the double standards of how people talk about when talking about different people.

I remember when someone used the word "retarded" and folks from all over jumped down that person's throat for making a joke. I did not see many talking about sensitivity of those that took offense to that word and their opinion about why that was offensive.

I am not going to stop being who I am because it makes someone uncomfortable. Myself and others took on an association member that kept making comments about all the Black officials that stand and talk after meetings and tried to imply we were "up to something" in a joking way. His comments were not received well by fellow Black officials and we wondered why he did not make those some comments about the many white officials that stood around and talked to each other. Those comments were a double standard, so is the characterization of Chaney being a thug to me is. I think I have that right to voice my opposition like the others that were offended by the "retarded" comments.

Peace

Re: Re: Re: Interesting discussion
 

Sorry, I really can't figure out what you're trying to tell me here. Except that somehow you're offended by something I might have said that you really cannot put your finger on. But it wasn't a codeword. And I think you're trying to insult me, but I'm not sure. :shrug:

I can't do much about any of that.

BTW, go google "hockey thug" and see how many hits you get. I got over 80,000. Last time I checked there weren't many "people of color" in hockey.

edit: check out "nazi thug". 96,000 hits on google.

redneck thug got only 52,000 hits.

Mafia thug got 148,000 hits!

Russian thug: 176,000 hits!!

And a particular russian got 55,000 hits on his own: Stalin thug.

I guess you get the idea...

[Edited by Dan_ref on Mar 1st, 2005 at 02:37 PM]

Rut,
When you wrote, "guess the more things change the more they stay the same," it sure looked like a subtle accusation to me. If that's not how you intended it, fine. That's how it was taken.
And it's not nearly as subtle as any perceived racial double standard when it comes to use of the word "thug." Good grief. When discussing the ethical misgivings of an African American, are we now obligated to find a white man who did the same thing so we can be even handed in our disgust?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting discussion
 

That is not what I said. If that is what you want to read out of my words then that is your problem.

So after reading everything so far, I have several questions...1)What word other than "thug" would characterize what Chaney did??? 2)Why is no one talking about the kid who actually did the "thugging" - or is that an insensitive word also? 3)Whatinthehell is PS2 trying to say???

I firmly believe that Chaney is getting what he deserves, but am wondering why the Nehemiah kid isn't being punished in some way...every human being has a sense of right and wrong, and that kid should have been known that what he was told to do was wrong..."Coach, I will run thru walls for you, but I can't purposefully go out and hurt someone"...pretty simple answer, seems like to me.

Since Rut is the one who brought up baseball, I guess I can say this without being off-topic: ESPN opens its Spring Training coverage with a game between the New York Mets and the brand-new Washington Nationals! Wednesday at 1 pm Eastern time. Come on Spring!!!

Oh, yeah, and I almost never respond to Rut's posts. Can't say "EVER", tho :)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting discussion
 

I don't believe I have a problem. You said: "Especially if that very same language is not used to characterize a Caucasian coach that does similar or has similar character.". So what did you mean by that, if not that it's only ok to call a black coach a thug if you call a white coach a thug in the same sentence? Educate me....please.

I was not accusing anyone of anything. I was just making an observation. Making an observation is my right. Just because someone makes an insensitive comment does not make them racist (but for some reason there are people deathly afraid of that label and do everything to get that off their back). But when those comments are seen as acceptable and the double standards are constantly perpetuated, then things have not changed. The attitudes thrown at me just tell me what kind of society we live in and confirm what many of my officiating brethren talk about constantly. If you think your fellow officials of color are not talking about these issues behind your backs and out of your presences, then you are sadly mistaken. I am just not afraid to say it here or anywhere. I guess it comes from what values I hold and say what I feel is wrong. Sorry if that offends you, but I would rather make a comment that is what I am thinking than keep it to myself and accomplish nothing in the process.

Peace

JR,

If you lived below the Mason-Dixon line, think how guilty he would try to make you feel. I know, I have felt his wrath and it only had to do with WHERE I lived.

Mulk

Ronny, I have no guilt at all. I know exactly who I am and what I am. I also have no use for people who intimate that you a "racist" simply because you disagreed with them. As I said before, sadly, that's one of the oldest tricks in the world. Unfortunately, I've seen Jeff use it many times before. It's one of the most despicable thing a person could do imo. You really can't defend yourself and it's a waste of time trying. The best thing to do is simply avoid people that pull this crap. That's what I intend to do.

This makes sense. I readily admit that there's a lot I don't understand when it comes to racial relations. That said, with regard to this particular issue, I'm not sure I agree that "thug" is being used disproportionately towards thugs of color. I could be wrong, but I don't see it.
I'm not offended, by the way. I've been participating in political, racial, religious, and geographic discussions on line long enough to pretty much be oblivious to getting offended. And that doesn't even address the thick skin I've developed as a ref.

JR,

Neither should they imply that you are racist based upon where you live. Hope you didn't think that I was implying that you should feel guilty.

Mulk

I would not expect you to see it. No matter what the issue is, there are a lot of double standards out there. Maybe you do not see it because you are not personally affected by those double standards. Just as an official I see many double standards that are not openly spelled out. Just look at the OSCAR coverage and what the actors were saying about their opportunities. Hell there was people that got offended by what Chris Rock said about President Bush in his monologue. I guess those have the right to be offended by Rock's comments and anyone else cannot find things out of line about a characterization that seems to fall on every African-American when they make a mistake.

Oh well, I am not going to convince anyone here. I know who I am talking to. It was a great conversation and I think you for having it. I voiced my opinion and it still stands. I am done with it from this point on.

Peace

Ronny, the last time I checked they had black people in the South too. If you use the same stoopid logic, that would automatically make them racists too, wouldn't it? Iow, the whole premise was ridiculous from the git-go, and also not worth worrying about.

T'was the other poster that was implying that I should feel guilty. I don't. I never have.

I didn't know anyone had any respect for Jeff. You must have been the last one.

Did you really say this?

So you mean the many people that were lynched and not allowed to go to the same schools as a certain group of people separated by class are racists? Now if that is what you are saying that is very stoopid logic if you ask me.

There is an old saying called "up south and down south." Many of the very same things that happen in the south took place in the north. The main difference is that many people of color could not do many things in the south based on grandfather laws and segregation. The south gets a bad rap when some of the very same racist acts took place in the north all the time and many blacks were not legally segregated in the more industrial north.

So by calling a coach a thug, we are now relating it to slavery and lynching. Brilliant. This is the dumbest thread I've seen.

That was my point and Mulk's point. Just because someone lives in the South doesn't automatically make them a racist, contrary to what some other people might believe. If you're gonna use twisted logic, you'd better apply it to everybody.

Btw, if you want to debate this further, find someone else. You have my views.

I think you completely misread his intent. I believe he was saying racists can be anywhere and can be any color.

Now to your statement...the people that were lynched and otherwise treated horribly may or may not have been racists. The fact that they were treated horribly doesn't yield any information as to how they thought of others...just that they were the victims of racism.

Smitty, you're witnessing an unfortunate truth. There are people who all too frequently look to turn non-racial issues into racial issues.

This is simply the case of a man (who happens to be black) that was criticized an undisputably egregious act. He wasn't criticized because he was black no matter how much some would like others to believe it.

Absolutely. It's those same people who turn things like this into something racial that do the most harm to race relations. I find it absurd.

It sounds like we have some people that are more concerned with being called a racist than having a real discussion about the comments that were made and how they are perceived. I will not speak for rut but I do not care if you are or you are not a racist. That is something you have to deal with. What I do concern myself is your actions and the words you use. If you use words that are seen to be offensive, it does not matter what label someone attributes to the person that made them. All I care about is the fact the comments were made.

Rut was right on. The more things change the more they stay the same. It is just sad really.

I think you completely misread his intent. I believe he was saying racists can be anywhere and can be any color.

[/B][/QUOTE]That's exactly what I was saying, Camron.

It sounds like we have some people that are more concerned with creating racial issues where there are none than addressing the actions on their own merit.

Words to describe and offensive act should be offensive. Thug is no more racist than bully or meanie. If someone perceives it as racist, we might as well give up because every word in the dictionary would be racist.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Mar 1st, 2005 at 08:28 PM]

OK. Comment on this: a powerful 73 year old man publicly calls a 20 year old kid a goon and orders him to go into a basketball game to hunt heads.

Your comments?

(BTW, I really don't think you'll respond to this, you aint man enough. Like your buddy rut.)

How 'bout that SUM***** ought to be fired. ANY sum***** that did that ought to be fired. No preferential treatment BECAUSE of race, either.

No free passes on this one. No "well, he said he was sorry", either.

If Temple University doesn't can him, they ought to be ashamed.

Mulk

Are you really asking?
 

When you decide to grow up and have a real conversation I will tell you what I think.

Had I called Huggins a thug in a thread about Huggins, Rut wouldn't have come on here and said anything. He only did so because of the racial issue.

Thuggery and stupidity know no color boundaries. Reading this thread, I'm reminded of this. In black and white.

Rich,

It is nice you seemed to know why someone makes a comment or not. Maybe we should call Ms Cleo and Deon Warrick to find out for sure why someone said something or not.

You are right that being a thug has no color but stereotypes sure do. ;)

Having been born and reared in the South, and still living in the South, I find this thread to be very interesting. I have to agree with PS2Man when he said: "Your are right that being a thug has no color but stereotypes sure do." It works both ways, my friend, both ways.

Now that's about the smartest thing stated, or at least sums it all up the best, IMO, that I have read this whole thread.

[Edited by RookieDude on Mar 2nd, 2005 at 08:31 AM]

I think that in the black community, "thug" has the implication of being a gang banger or drug dealer. Not the same as "bully".

Why so few criticisms of the league and the officials on this topic? Chaney had a press conference and threatened to use a goon - he should have been suspended then. If not, the officials should have been alerted to be on the lookout for this behavior and acted swiftly. How did this kid get 5 shots at the St. Joe's players? He should have been bounced after the first hard foul.

That may be true but how are those of us who are not in the black community supposed to know that? I'm curious to know where we can find a list of these politically and racially incorrect terms, so we don't offend these who are so easily offended.

Actually, there is another thread where the fouls and the officials are being discussed. Bruno, the commissioner, is catching a lot of crap for her role in all of this.

This is quite possibly true in some areas of the country. However, to me, "thug" connotes "mafia" more than "gang." And that's how I see Chaney in this, as the boss having some of his goons go out and deliver a message. To me, that's a thug.

I was born in the South too. I grew up in the South. I had gone to a predominately black school. I currently live in the South I have family members that were not allowed to go to schools other than predominately black institutions. I have lived in different parts of the country because of my career. Do not tell me what goes both ways. Maybe your family had choices where they could go to college or what types of professions they went into. Many were restricted or had very few choices on how they wanted to achieve those things in life. I take very seriously the stereotypes that are perpetuated.