... is John Cheney a lifelong thug or a senile old jerk who just needs to go away?

http://www.sportsfanmagazine.com/content/view/1301/29/
http://espn.go.com/dickvitale/vcolumn050227chaney.html

FWIW Cheney's had a reputation forever for playing "hard" basketball, he's the poster child for the "cleaning up rough play" POEs over the years. Now imagine you are Nehemiah Gordon's dad, and you have to read in the papers how Cheney has announced to the world that *your* kid is nothing but a goon who gets his playing time under orders to go out there and hunt for heads.

Nice, eh?

I think a better conversation might be about the officiating in that game.

- Cheney declared before the game that he was gonna send somebody out to goon it up. The officials had to be aware of that, I would think. The "goon" that he did put in ended up with 5 fouls including several hard ones, and broke someone's arm. No intentional or flagrant fouls were called, no warnings to Cheney or the player were given, no nuthin'! This aspect of the story has kinda been ignored.

Thoughts?

The 5th foul, which was a two handed shove to the chect should definitely have been a flagrant foul. I can't understand why it wasn't called.

I also can't understand why Chaney isn't catching more crap for calling his player a goon.

Good point.

Kid comes in off the far end of the bench and acccumulates 5 hard fouls in 4 minutes. Someone's gotta take control of this, don't you think?

I'm just taking a break from watching the St. Joes/GW game on ESPN2. I haven't really seen anything that St. Joes does on screens that I thought was even remotely close to being dirty. As for contact, this game isn't even close to the Pitt/BC game that I watched last night. That one was physical as hell.

I've been thinking about the officiating aspect as well. I wonder if the officials maybe didn't know about the comments.

You would think that somebody from the A10 office would be smart enough to say "Hey, Cheney's threatening to send a goon out there because he thinks St. Joes is getting away with illegal screens". He made those comments in a conference call well before the game with all the league coaches and admins listening in, as I understand it. Somebody shoulda given the reffing crew a heads up-- "hey, guys,watch for illegal screens by St. Joes and watch for Temple players trying to blow through screens".

That part of the story seems to be buried, for some reason.

I didn't see the game, but it seems reasonable that the officials would notice that something is unusual. I mean, these guys couldn't have been oblivious. And from what I understand, Cheney had been pretty vocal about the screening thing throughout the entire game. It doesn't excuse the actions of Cheney in the least bit, but I imagine that those officials had a long conversation after the game, and probably a long phone call from their supervisor.

Yep. Probably saying they should have called a flagrant on the goon.

I don't get it, Dan
 

As you can see I never post, but now in 2 threads I still do not understand your beef here.

Chaney is a Hall-of-Fame coach who has had a career, both in terms of success and loyalty, that most can only envy. You seem to not be able to take choice C, "Frustrated Old Icon", and just move on.

There is a lot to discuss here (the reffing, the gooning, the screens, the punishments) but you start by throwing Molotovs at Chaney.

Dan, why are YOU so pissed?

Re: I don't get it, Dan
 

You may as well have replaced Chaney with Woody Hayes (another goon I forgot on my list) or Bob Knight here. A Hall of Fame coaching career doesn't excuse this crap. He may be a frustrated old icon, but he made a choice (with much forethought) that is inexcusable.
He should be fired for one of two reasons. Either he's too senile and crazy to continue, or he's really a thug that can't be trusted to coach.
Tell me what parent is going to want their kid to be a bench warmer for him after this?
My God, people are acting like he got a speeding ticket or something.

Careful calling the guy a goon. Someone might thinks that's racist or sexist or something.

Re: I don't get it, Dan
 

Careful, he might not be man enough to answer your question. That might take intellectual thought to come up with an answer. Not sure that is something many here have.

I said this in the other thread, so may as well say it here also...while what Chaney did was absolutely wrong, and the officials should have figgered things out sooner, why is there no backlash against the "goon" himself? That kid went out there and broke another player's arm...did he get suspended or anything? Chaney got his punishment - and will probably get more- but what about the Gordon kid?

Re: Re: I don't get it, Dan
 

And we would need to include you in that generalization, since you haven't added a whole helluvalot to any discussions here...

Re: I don't get it, Dan
 

Frustrated old icon would fall in my second category, senile old jerk, wouldn't it?

I'm not pissed. I'm entertained by the responses I'm getting. A lot of them have been very predictable IMO.

Thanks for posting! :)

Re: Re: I don't get it, Dan
 

And you would be at the top of the list.

I think that "frustrated old icon" may be more to the point. I think that despite all the great things that Cheyney has done for Temple and college basketball in general, he may have hung on longer than is healthy for himself. I mean, coaches all over the country complain every day about calls that are or are not made, you don't see them choosing to deal with it in the way that he did. I think that is a sign of definite frustration and feeling a bit left behind. Temple basketball hasn't gotten much respect in the recent past. I do feel that as a hall-of-famer, he has earned the right to end his career the way he chooses, rather than being fired. I am just very sad that this is the way in which he chose to punctuate it.

We all can think of examples of people in all walks of life who have stayed in their station beyond their relevancy or effectiveness. If this is all that a great coach like Cheyney is able to offer the game of college basketball, then yes, it is time for him to go. Again, I just wish he would have realized it sooner, and this whole ugly thing could have been avoided.

I don't see how anyone can think that Chaney deserves to keep his job. Let's see, he threatened to kill another coach and sends in his "goon" to foul a team he thinks is playing dirty. Is this someone you would want representing your university? Is this the kind of sportsmanship we are all working to build? I think, since another player was injured, he should have been fired on the spot. Another aspect of the story I'd like to hear is what Temple players are thinking.

He might not deserve his job back. No one deserves their job. Someone allows you to keep your job. That is what happens when you work for people. He still might keep his job, whether you like it or not. It is not any of our choice either way. We have a right to an opinion that is different from your opinion.

I don't think the NCAA can really do anything since nothing but common fouls were called against him.

Good grief. A man sends a goon (the coach's word) into the game for the express purpose of committing hard fouls (sending a message), and this whole debate degenerates into a futile exercise in semantics.

I do not think it is semantics to have an opinion. It seems like there are certain people that only accept opinions that go along with their view. And those cannot fathom that someone else has a different view from them. I wonder what this place is supposed to be for.

No, having an opinion is not necessarily semantics. However, debating the meaning of "deserves" with regard to a job is a diversion in semantics. Some could say that debating whether we should use "thug," "bully," or some other word is semantics. I never said you can't have an opinion, and no on else did either.
If you offer opinions, however, it's generally beneficial to defend them with something more substantive than semantics.
We've argued that Chaney should be fired. The only defense has been that he's a HoF coach, or that noone "deserves" their job, or that using the word "thug" could be seen as racially divisive. There's no defense of the proposition that Chaney shouldn't be fired.
And don't sit there and tell me I "cannot fathom that someone else has a different view from" me. I have a lot of respect for those who have a different opinion than me; as long as they can tell me why. I don't have to agree with you to respect you or learn from you. I do have to understand you, though.

And, again, we would need to place you at the head of that list...

I do not see why. I have been ripped because I shared my opinion. I gave my opinion and left at that. I guess telling people what you think is a bad thing. I am sorry massa, I will ask for your permission the next time.

I offer an analogy. Which of these has no place in baseball:

1) a pitcher throwing inside (even if it's at a batter but not high)
2) a pitcher throwing at a batter's head

Hopefully everyone says #2, because that is an attempt to injure your opponent and has absolutely no place in the game.

Analogy to this situation. Had Cheney simply sent in the 'goon' to 'use his fouls up' or to 'roughen up the St Joe's players a lil bit', no harm would've been done. But, to instruct his 'goon' to go in there and try to hurt someone crossed the line.

Cheney's long laundry list of instances overshadow his status as a HoF coach as far as I'm concerned. Being a HoF coach should not give him the power to 'go out on his own terms'. He chose these terms.

I hope the administration at Temple will stand up and show the world that they will not condone these actions, irregardless of whether they were made by a Hall of Fame coach.

Not really expecting the NCAA to do anything, but the A-10 certainly could, and so could the University...

And as for PS2Man, you didn't just "offer your opinion", you told others they were wrong for using the word "thug"...and that's the exact behavior you are accusing others of.

How ironic for you to post such a comment...seems to describe you perfectly.

PS2 Quote: "I am sorry massa, I will ask for your permission the next time."

That type of response is uncalled for and highly inappropriate in my opinion. It is a blatant attempt to create a racial connotation in a conversation that previously had no such connotation. It is also an attemtpt to discredit the opinions of one person by destroying his credibility through painting him as something he is not (in this case a racist). Accepting one's opinion does not necessitate agreeing with that opinion. No one in this thread or the other has discounted your opinion, some may not agree with it, but everyone has been willing to listen to it. I find it intellecutually dishonest, and appalingly so, for you to disparage the intellectual acuity of everyone else and then come out with a response as ridiculous as the one quoted above. There is no reason to turn a spirited debate ugly. No one on this thread has attacked you personally, which is what you have just done.

On another note:

I think that Cheyney's status as a HofF is very relevant. This is a man who was given, by his peers, the highest honor that could possibly be bestowed upon him. This was done AFTER, and in full light of, his run in with Calipari, and his having slapped a player during a game. After all that, those whose opinions matter (for whatever it's worth) decided that he was worthy of such an honor. As such, I think that he deserves an amount of deference that would not be given to other coaches in the same position. He has not taken advantage of his status; he has not tried to weasel his way out of the situation. Heck, he even went beyond what the school and the conference have been willing to do thus far. As heinous as his actions may have been, I think that he has handled this in such a way that displays a degree of contrition and understanding that has been lacking from him previously. Also, I have not seen anything that suggests that he told the player to go out and deliberately injure anyone. Although I could be wrong. The St. Joe's player was injured, and as soon as that happened, it was Cheyney himself who offered to pay his medical expenses and suspend himself. These were two things that he had no obligation to do. I imagine that he is sufficiently embarassed and sorry for what he has done that he probably will not return next season. I don't see how firing him will make the situation any better. I also don't hear his peers calling for him to be fired, which should count for something.

Do you ever recall a situation where other coaches (peers) were calling for another coach to be fired?

Rolltide makes a good point. That his peers are standing by him is meaningless. That's like saying the MLB players association is standing behind Jeremy Giambi.

I think Chaney's career has earned him a choice. He can choose whether he gets to retire or get fired. Either way, he should be done coaching, and he gets to go out like Woody Hayes.

As for whether he intended for his player to hurt anyone. He's the one who used the term "goon," and that was before the game.

I disagree. If you are condescending in your opinion of someone of a person that does hold your heritage or race when they hold an opinion, that kind of comment is totally acceptable. It is clear he wanted to get a rise out of you and others and that is exactly what was accomplished. Any person has a right to show their distain for a word, opinion or attitude regardless of what any feels about it. It is no different if you call someone a name and they turn around and punch you in the mouth. Not everyone is going to react the same way to words, nor should they. I might personally not know everything that offends someone, but I sure am not going to tell them they are wrong for being offended if I was not personally aware of the overall connotation of my actions or words. What I find very interesting when it comes to many issues of race and even gender on this board is that the white males want to tell everyone how they should think when it does not go along with their point of view. I was the person that took exception to the original comments and I had that right. I did not expect then folks would agree and definitely do not take that attitude now. But I do feel that anyone has the right to voice their opinions here regardless of what side of the fence you are on. I can assume that Ps2man used the term in order to make a point. Too many people of that background say that when there are folks being condescending and tell them how they should feel. This is not the 1950s anymore. We are in 2005 now. People have the right to say what they feel and you do not have to like it. I realize that alone makes many uncomfortable, but that is the world we live in. If you are offended by the word "massa" then we have the right to be offended by the word "thug" when that word is used out of the context that it has meaning. You cannot have it both ways.

Back to the original topic.

I could give a damn what race Coach Chaney is. None of the parties involved were even white (except for the officials). The Temple player was Black. The St. Joseph player was Black. The only people involved that were white were the officials that called nothing but a common foul on the play in question. I think what Chaney did could get him fired and just might get him fired. I do not care that the man was in the Hall of Fame, he used very bad judgment. I think he also should not have admitted or talked openly about the situation either. Because I know this kind of thing happens all the time, it just is not talked about. If the kid did not get hurt, this probably would not have been as much of a story either. In other words there would be no suspensions or massive media coverage over the event. He has even opened himself up to a lawsuit which could easily be won in the favor of the hurt kid. So for those that want to make my opinion on the incident as a race issue, that is just plain say. I only took issue with a use of words that continues a stereotype when this is not a legal issue. It is a civil issue, but not a legal one. I also think the player could have used better judgment as well and not fouled the kid very hard on the shot. I also think he is not totally at fault because he was following instructions. The entire situation is complicated and there is a lot of blame to go around. The Temple administration when the original comments were made could have done something. The officials could have called this flagrant. But I do understand why they did not call it flagrant. You do not see many flagrant fouls so it could have been a complete surprise to the calling officials and he did not do anything as a result. It is easy to second guess while watching the video tape. The conference could have done something and still could do something. I guess we will see what is going to happen in the coming days and weeks.


Peace

I agree completely. Calling people racists just because they don't agree with you is despicable.

Calling someone "massa" is not calling them racist. Then again if that is calling someone "massa" means you are calling someone racist, so is calling someone a thug for an unrelated issue. See how that all workout?

Peace

For whatever it's worth, here are my 2 cents. The feeling I've had is that "racism" has evolved over the years from intent to perception. It used to be, (and unfortunately in some cases still today), that racism involved one race feeling they were superior to another and putting and keeping that second race down, intellectually or physically. There was obvious intent. However, it now appears that racism is perception; one race feeling that they are inferior to another due to actions and words, no matter the intent. A particular word uttered by one person could have a different meaning to the person on the receiving end due to their own experiences. But who is at fault if the word is taken the wrong way? If I use the word "thug" to describe John Chaney, and my intent was to use it as a "code word" that means "a black, gang-banger, low-class indiviual", then I think most people would agree I was in the wrong and should be considered a racist. But what if that's not what I meant? What if my only intent was to imply a large, muscular individual with a bad complexion, wearing sunglasses, and who knows the Godfather's cell phone number by heart? Am I just as much a racist now? Most people I know would say no. But there are some people who would take offense due to their own personal experiences with the use of that word. So, who's at fault - the person who used the term without taking into account how the other person feels about it, or the person who is offended by the use without taking into account the intent?

I have watched with interest a local (and somewhat nationwide) issue of whether or not Chief Illiniwek is racist. One side of the issue is that it most certainly is racist, because the people it portrays are ashamed of the use, and it demeans their race by someone else using that likeness. It is their perception of the symbol. The other side of the issue is that it is most certainly not racist, but in fact just the opposite - the symbol is used to honor that race. It is their intent for that symbol. So, who's right? Perhaps both sides, to some extent - that's why it is such a devisive issue and there is no apparent compromise. But how do you reconcile the difference between "intent" and "perception"?

M & M-

Excellent point. Intent v. Perception has been the reason for many a fist fight, and probably a few wars even. I can even see how it affects this situation. Coach Cheyney had no intent to see anyone get injured. . .perception on the other hand may be what does him in.

Might I suggest...

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/09...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

I knew what I was saying.
 

I used the word to make a point. You were offended along with other folks. See how words can offend people. Why are you offended by being accused of something you say you are not, but you cannot understand why someone is offended by a word used in an unrelated to the issue? Being an African-American and having been stopped by the police for God knows what while being asked more about the car I drive than the and where I am going than what I actually did. I am sorry but I take great offense to someone of color being called a thug when they did not do anything to break the law. Do not tell me it is wrong to call you a racist then try to get self-righteous when someone is called a name that in my mind is just as inappropriate. Was Chaney wrong for his actions? He sure was and probably should lose his job over it. But do not tell me I do not have the right to my opinion about this issue. If it makes you uncomfortable that really is more your problem than mine. At least I knew what I was saying and the impact it was going to cause.

Exactly how do you know that I'm <b>not</b> black? Or that the other posters that disagreed with you aren't black either? Ot that the posters that called Chaney a "thug" aren't black either?

I await your answer.

Btw, Nobody <b>ever</b> said that you don't have a right to your opinion. You even have the right to label someone a racist just because they happen to disagree with you. But I have my rights too, which is why I still stand by my previous statements. Labelling anybody who disagrees with them a racist is a despicable act made by a despicable person. I have absolutely no respect for any person that would do something like that, no matter what color they might happen to be.

Your statements don't make me uncomfortable at all.They make me sad.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Mar 3rd, 2005 at 02:45 AM]