|
Sat Mar 11, 2006, 11:57pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LOL!
Quote:
At least you're doing it in public! Hopefully your lawyer can use that in your defense. (still laughing, very good!)
__________________
9-11-01 http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/fallenheroes/index.php http://www.carydufour.com/marinemoms...llowribbon.jpg 
|
|
Sun Mar 12, 2006, 09:29am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And you will prove my point by going off on another tirade, which makes you the leader in this thread.
__________________
Never hit a piņata if you see hornets flying out of it.
|
|
Sun Mar 12, 2006, 03:52pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jbduke, I forgot I even opened this can of worms.
 I have argued this over and over with guys I know and their argument is way better than yours. How do you feel sorry for someone who cries all the time and has back surgery when his team is obviously going nowhere? Low blow, I apologize, but you get my point. I will open up a little more and tell you my side of the argument. Keep in mind, I'm from Indiana. Name 10 players of Bobby Knight's. The real fan will have no problem with that but I can tell you it will not start with Jordan, Worthy, Perkins, Dougherty, Wallace, Stackhouse, Fox, Carter, Smith...If you know what I mean. All that and two championships. The last time I checked, they played for the trophy at the end; ask Dean if he would trade 5 20-win seasons for one more championship and see what he says. The colleges with the most talent of all time are UNC, Duke, UCLA and Kentucky. Compare that to championships won and tell me what you have. Roy Williams is running a close third in this argument to me because of the team he finally had to win it all. And you say talent doesn't win championships? Duke's three teams had major talent. UNC's three championships had major talent. Indiana's three championships had a couple of major players, a few coaches and some nice guys. In some ways Knight has put Texas Tech on the basketball map. Coach K's back would get hurt somewhere along the line if he tried that. Another low blow, I'm sorry. Why aren't Jim Harrick, Nolan Richardson, Tubby Smith and Calhoun in the same league with Smith and coach K? They won it all when they had talent. They didn't win it all when they didn't have talent. Year in and year out Duke and UNC stacks the talent up and make it to the final four. What about winning it all? UNC will probably be a #2 seed during a "down" year; they have the best freshman in the country and they are getting 3 more freshmen next year (at least two of them will start).
__________________
"Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are." -- John Wooden
|
|
Sun Mar 12, 2006, 04:55pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I actually spent thirty minutes yesterday composing a response, looked up, realized that I was maybe 10% of the way there, and decided it wasn't worth it, so I ripped off a couple minutes worth and quit. My argument was not and never has been that talent doesn't win championships. Part of my argument is that it is terribly myopic to nearly totally discount a coach because he's had outstanding talent. An interesting question that ties together your post and that of "bebanovic" or whatever, is that you both create false dichotomies between coaches of teams with mediocre talent who play a certain way (the Pete Carrils and Dick Bennetts of the world), and those who play a system utilizing more talented players. All coaches coach what they know, or based on the knowledge they are developing. If Dick Bennett came to Duke and coached his system with K's players, what do you think would happen? I'll tell you what would happen: they'd win a lot fewer games than they currently do. Why? Because his system would create far fewer possessions per game, which mitigates against the superior talent that he'd have. Coaches like Bennett and Carril are wonderful coaches, but the fact that they do more with less doesn't make them superior, it makes them realists. You're absolutely crazy if you think that Carrill would have become the Carrill we know if he'd spent ten years on Dean Smith's bench and gotten an opportunity at a big-time program like Kansas. My sense is that he would have been extremely successful, but he wouldn't have used the system that he has if he'd had better players. You pulled a bait-and-switch on me in bringing Knight into the discussion after starting with Calhoun, but it's an instructive example. My knock on Calhoun is that he hasn't been consistently excellent. My knock on Knight is that he didn't prove to be adaptive at all. He won three titles in 12 seasons, then made only one Final Four in his last what, 13 seasons? You took a junior-high-school-ignorant, petty swipe at K with the back-injury line. If you'll take a look at the record, Duke was in the top 10 in the country when he went down. Further, without him on the bench and starting three freshmen in a conference where UVA, UMd, UNC, and WF all finished 12-4 in the conference, they lost to all of those teams at home by one or two points, and two of those in overtime. You don't think K's presence on a bench is worth even three points a game? Ignorant ACC fans and other Duke-haters have been taking this potshot for years, but the claim doesn't become any more reasonable with time. You're an a** for even using that line. You also ignore the total rebuilding job that K did, of his own program, after he came back from his back surgery. After not making the tournament in 1995, Duke struggled through injuries and talent deficiencies in 1996 to get an 8 seed, then managed to win the ACC regular season title in 1997 in a year in which Tim Duncan was a senior with a very good supporting cast. Since 1998, Duke has been a #1 seed 8 times and a 3 seed once. You trivialize what it took from K to get the program back on top, I don't. Okay. What about 1991, though? Do you remember who Duke beat in the semi-finals? Yes, it was a talented Duke team, but they beat the most talented team in the history of college basketball; no sentient being would reasonably claim that Duke had superior talent that day. The most important shortcoming in your argument is that you either totally misunderstand, or completely ignore (I suspect it's the latter), the randomness of sport. Does the fact that Dean Smith (who you would presumably concede is at least a "good" coach), only won two national championships with the talent that he had over the years not tell you something about how lucky you have to be, in addition to be really, really good? It had nothing to do with Smith's coaching that Kenny Smith broke his arm in 1984 and was only able to come off the bench for the Tournament. That Carolina team was absolutely dominant before Smith went down with the Heels 17-0 and #1 in the country. He had even more injuries in 1977, when he still managed to reach the final, only to have injured Phil Ford shoot only 3-10 from the field, Walter Davis play in a splint with a broken finger, and Tommy LaGarde miss the last half of the season with a knee injury. What about John Thompson? Villanova had to shoot 79% for the GAME against him, and he still only lost by two points. How does the result of that one game have any bearing on him as a coach? Does the fact that Freddie Brown threw the ball to Worthy in 1982 reflect on him as a coach? I don't see how it can. When you make national titles your only litmus test of coaching greatness, your analysis becomes so narrow as to approach meaninglessness. ---------- You're right, the ultimate goal is winning on Monday night, but that's not the only goal for coaches. They're all trying to win every time they play; that's part of what makes them great. You posed a question about whether I thought Dean Smith would trade five twenty-win seasons for another title. I think most UNC fans would, but I'm not sure that's true for him (but it might be). Until 2002, UNC had some ridiculous streak of thirty-something consecutive twenty-win seasons (I'm sure Tony can give us the exact figure). They also had a streak of about that many consecutive years finishing in the top 3 of the ACC. That kind of sustained excellence is part of what's made UNC a top program, which is part of what allows them to recruit great players. In the last six seasons, Duke and UConn both have one national championship. Does that make their programs equal? Does it matter that Duke has three regular-season championships and five ACC tournament championships; and that UConn has only two and two, respectively? That Duke has two Final Four appearances and UConn one? How about this question: which history would you rather be able to claim for your school? I eaglerly await a response based on highly-selective editing.
|
|
Sun Mar 12, 2006, 05:50pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Have you got a shrine built in your house yet, fanboy?
|
|
Sun Mar 12, 2006, 08:25pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
When I start this discussion, which has happened before
, I do so as a fan. Indiana is where I'm from and Indiana basketball will always have a place in my heart. Sure I might have holes in my argument, but so do you. Knight DID change his ways; compared to anyone else, he let Calbert Cheaney have free reign. Andre Emmitt also had a permanent green light at Texas Tech which is something most Indiana players didn't have.I admitted the back argument was a low blow, you didn't have to call me an A$$ for it. I was just playing. I would also like to point out, UNC has had more talent than anyone and Dean only has two championships. Kenny Smith getting hurt did not stop the whole show. Who beat UNC that year? Hmmm, I think they wore red and white! John Thompson - great coach, one of the best coaches of big men ever. Let Iverson go more than anyone else because he recognized talent. I still haven't got the smell out of my nose from the Duke/UNLV game. Hey, is that the year Laettner stomped that kid in the chest and got away with it? Please don't take me too serious when it comes to this discussion. I think this whole thread is one of those off-season subjects that is more fun than a discussion about serious officiating.
__________________
"Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are." -- John Wooden
|
|
Sun Mar 12, 2006, 09:13pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
There aren't many sporting contests that I truly believe were shams, but that UNLV loss is about as concrete as the Arizona State point shaving scandal. Take a close look at the ending of that game with Larry Johnson refusing to shoot a wide open three. If you recall during his NBA career he was a rather competent three point shooter and that was from a greater distance. Yes, sadly it really has happened in NCAA basketball. 
|
|
Sun Mar 12, 2006, 09:28pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are." -- John Wooden
|
|
Sun Mar 12, 2006, 10:03pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
|
|
Sun Mar 12, 2006, 10:10pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 Dick Bennett does not have a "system," in the conventional sense. Because he has never been at one of the bigger name schools he has never gone in search of players to fit what he does. I think you essentially conceded that much in your previous post. To say that Bennett would bring a system to a big-name school that would fail "(b)ecause his system would create far fewer possessions per game" shows that you have not followed Bennett for any length of time. Bennett has been an innovator everywhere he has gone and, although I have never seen him with a fastbreaking style, to brush him aside as a coach who creates fewer possesions is not a very solid or accurate argument. He used to advocate forcing baseline on defense because statistics helped show he could force teams into low percentage shots. A lot of high schools adapted this successfully but he had to abandon this strategy when he started playing higher end Division I opponents and he didn't miss a beat in moving on to his next innovations. You would be on more solid ground sticking to that argument for Carril, but I would challenge that too. While high school coaches were dying to run his offense (stupidly, I thought because you ain't running that with 2 1/2 hours of gym time per day) I thought his simple matchup zone was genius. I don't care what talent you put in there, that's a biyatch to score against. You conveniently dropped the other two coaches I mentioned as mentors; Bud Pressley and David Arsenault. Pressley is considered by many to be the father of modern pressure man-to-man team defense. Coach K can't go a day without referring to something Pressley taught even though his is not a household name. Arsenault's team's scoring is down a little this year at 117.3 per game but not bad considering he is in a group of coaches you dismissed by saying they create fewer possesions. You said that I helped "create false dichotomies between coaches of teams with mediocre talent who play a certain way." My response is that lumping the coaches I mentioned into a category of coaches who play a certain way to compare them to Coach K and Dean Smith would indeed create a false dichotomy. I think one of us did create a false dichotomy but, yes, I do know what that means and, no, it wasn't me who did it. There is more than one way to win with mediocre players. I have chosen my mentors because they have shown genius in thinking about the game or have a deep understanding about a particular aspect. Remind me again what I'm supposed to learn from Coach K? By the way, this is real classy: '"bebanovic" or whatever.' It's not that hard to check the spelling or just misspell it but to announce that you don't care is just terrific. I'm trying to continue to show respect for you, see if you can reciprocate. [Edited by bebanovich on Mar 12th, 2006 at 10:58 PM]
|
|
Sun Mar 12, 2006, 11:24pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
bebanovich,
I apologize for not going back into the thread to find the spelling of your name. I didn't want to go back and risk losing my text. I could have opened a new window and checked, but I didn't consider that, and for that I apologize. Your points are all fair. You're certainly right that I have not followed Bennett's career closely. I must concede to your expertise in all matters regarding his career. As for Arsenault, I'm guessing he's the coach at Grinnell? Certainly an innovator. I would not question your decisions on whom to model your own coaching on, because I have no idea what kind of players you have to work with. I certainly hope that I did not indicate that I believe that anybody anywhere could win trying to use the tactics used by those with the best talent. My point was that it seemed to me--possibly an erroneous perception--that you were faulting the "top" coaches for using systems that can't be effectively utilized with marginal talent. It's clear to me now that such was not your intent, and again, my hat's off to you for your insightful post.
|
|
Sun Mar 12, 2006, 11:33pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
tomegun,
Laettner never "stomped" anyone, and he didn't "get away with" anything. Check the tape. He "stepped on" Aminu Timberlake's chest in the UK game in 1992. How hard? So hard that Timberlake popped right up, with a smile on his face, and started clapping. Clapping for what? FOR THE TECHNICAL FOUL THAT HAD JUST BEEN ASSESSED. Geez. You sited Cheaney and Emmett as evidence of Knight's great adjustments. If he'd adjusted a little more, like, say, away from choking his players in practice, maybe that would have been enough for me to give him credit for being able to truly adapt. Also, just curious, but how do you think Indiana would have fared in 1981 with Isiah "the worst GM in the history of professional sports" Thomas coming off the bench for fifteen minutes a game with a cast on his wrist? [Edited by jbduke on Mar 13th, 2006 at 12:13 AM]
|
|
Mon Mar 13, 2006, 12:55am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I do think that coaches in the top programs could be more dominant. There seems to be a prevailing wisdom that if you have the athletes you let them go and I don't buy it. I would love to see a special coach convince his top athletes to really work on carving up opponents in the early-season games while they are drubbing people by 30. What might be sacrificed early would pay huge dividends in terms of national championships down the road. If someone does decide to do this, it won't be Boeheim.
|
|
Mon Mar 13, 2006, 06:05am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I saw the game. I saw the replays. They all showed Laettner deliberately stepping on a player's chest. He shoulda been tossed- period. He surerashell did get off lucky on that one. And.....did Mr. Sportsmanship coaching him ever do anything about it- at that time or post game? Nope. The W was all that mattered to good ol' Coach K.
|
|
Mon Mar 13, 2006, 08:54am
|
|||
|
|||
|
You pulled a bait-and-switch on me in bringing Knight into the discussion after starting with Calhoun, but it's an instructive example. My knock on Calhoun is that he hasn't been consistently excellent. My knock on Knight is that he didn't prove to be adaptive at all. He won three titles in 12 seasons, then made only one Final Four in his last what, 13 seasons? ----------------------------------------------------------- I am mildly surprised that you are disparaging the guy who gave Coach K his start in coaching. Your knock on Calhoun is based in ignorance [as in lack of knowledge, not as in namecalling]. He was a consistent winner at Northeastern and I saw his club many times at UVM. He went to a fledgling UConn program that was in a doormat position in the Big East after it left the Yankee Conference. Yes it took a few years to build up the program, but let me ask you this: Is it easier to recruit a kid by saying 'We are ready to take the next step here. We are not on TV that often, but once we build up, we will be.' OR 'We are in one of the most storied basketball conferences in the country. You can count on national TV games when we play UNC & NC State and our conference from top to bottom is second to none.' ? And who do you suppose had a tougher job recruiting between Calhoun's start at UConn and the NIT championship? I think you know the answers to these questions but they are not important considerations as your tai chi would be disrupted.
__________________
Never hit a piņata if you see hornets flying out of it.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
