Coach K

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

This post gives me a chance to share without baiting trolls.

'Mitigate' comes from a Latin root meaning to soften or lessen the harshness of something bad or painful. So one can't mitigate something good.

In another thread, you used the term 'fluxuation', employing an archaic spelling that I actually like. Takes me back to Hume and reading of causal "connexions" and such...

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...

1. "moderate"
2. "fluctuation." (I knew better as I was typing. My sentence was in a state of flux up until I sent it and I was too lazy to fix it.)
3. Shut up.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

1. "moderate"
2. "fluctuation." (I knew better as I was typing. My sentence was in a state of flux up until I sent it and I was too lazy to fix it.)
3. Shut up.

1. "diminish" would be better.
2. I said I liked it!
3. Tu quoque.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Tu quoque.

Tu quoque or tu volleyball - those are always tought decisions at our family picnic.

But isn't that a little off-topic?

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Tu quoque or tu volleyball - those are always tought decisions at our family picnic.

But isn't that a little off-topic?

Maybe not as some on here claim to officiate quoque.

[TussAgee11]

I wrote out a pretty detailed response JR, but I won't get preachy on you!

I will disclose that I root for Duke, have familial ties to Duke and to the basketball program under K. I will not pretend to know everything that goes on there, but I do understand most sides of the anti-Duke issue, including the program's side of it.

I could tell stories about alot of good K has done with this world. I'm not going to defend him for "sticking up for his kids" or "a drive to succeed" when he gets on officials, because I think that is crap. But that same attitude serves a coach well in all other facets of coaching. It does produce a negative on the officiating crew on any given night. It isn't desirable, and it doesn't have to be that way. But unfortunately with K, it is.

For me, the good far outweighs the bad. I could tell countless good stories, some well-known, some not. For me, the good outweighs the bad because I choose to evaluate him not from an official's standpoint but at overall face value. Overall, I think he's been good for the university, good for the kids in his program and their families, and good for the community in Durham.

Its not to discredit your opinion JR, you choose to evaluate him with the criteria which is important to you, the officiating portion. That's fine, and I respect that as long its not done with blind dislike like it is for many others in regard to all things Duke.

[Adam]

In my opinion, people should be judged by how they treat people who they consider "lesser" than they are. How do you treat the kid behind the counter at McDonald's? How do you treat the waiter at Chili's? How do you treat the customer service rep at your cable company after you've been on hold for an hour? How do you treat the cleaning lady at the hotel, or the gate rep at the airport when your flight has been cancelled?

How do you treat the pimple-faced classmate when everyone else is stealing his pencils and shoving him into the lockers?

How do you treat the officials when everyone else is dumping on them?

That's why I was so impressed by Boeheim that morning; he delayed answering a question about his team to tell Gottlieb those unnamed coaches were full of crap. Before that point, Gottlieb really came off sympathetic towards that view; only afterwards did he clarify that it was the opinion of some coaches (unnamed sources). He could have been quiet, he could have played along; but he spoke up.

I'm sure it's a character flaw for a man who's otherwise an upstanding person. From a basketball perspective, though, I don't like to see that sort of court-side behavior rewarded with a win. It sends the wrong lesson to kids and coaches we deal with at the lower levels.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

In my opinion, people should be judged by how they treat people who they consider "lesser" than they are. How do you treat the kid behind the counter at McDonald's? How do you treat the waiter at Chili's? How do you treat the customer service rep at your cable company after you've been on hold for an hour? How do you treat the cleaning lady at the hotel, or the gate rep at the airport when your flight has been cancelled?

How do you treat the pimple-faced classmate when everyone else is stealing his pencils and shoving him into the lockers?

How do you treat the officials when everyone else is dumping on them?

I'm sure it's a character flaw for a man who's otherwise an upstanding person. From a basketball perspective, though, I don't like to see that sort of court-side behavior rewarded with a win. It sends the wrong lesson to kids and coaches we deal with at the lower levels.

Very astute as well as being verbose, concise, succinct and...menopausal.

I was kinda running out of adjectives so I just stuck the last one in to see if anyone was paying attention.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Its not to discredit your opinion JR, you choose to evaluate him with the criteria which is important to you, the officiating portion. That's fine, and I respect that as long its not done with blind dislike like it is for many others in regard to all things Duke.

I don't think that any of us has any real dislike for Duke per se. It is kinda fun though to poke all of the precious l'il Dookie fans and listen to 'em squaller though. It's kind of an annual rite of passage here, also used on BoSox and Cubbie fans(you know who you are).

Seriously, you are correct in thinking that my opinion definitely does come from an officiating standpoint. I have never met or talked with Krzyzewski, so it is really impossible for me to form any kind of rational opinion about him as a person outside of his sideline behavior. A good analogy might be to compare Coach K with Earl Weaver. Weaver was recognized as a great manager and is rightfully in the Beisbol Hall of Fame. However, he was universally detested by ALL of the umpires that had to deal with him during games. And those umpires detested Weaver for the exact same reasons that basketball officials detest K. Weaver whined, b!tched and complained constantly, always looking for that little edge. Krzyzewski is the basketball equivalent. They're both whiny l'il hemorrhoids from an officiating standpoint.

Hey, Krzyzewski might be the re-incarnation of St. Theresa, except I can't see St. Theresa b!tching if the miracles aren't going her way.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Tu quoque or tu volleyball - those are always tought decisions at our family picnic.

But isn't that a little off-topic?

Is Elmer Fudd part of your family?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Is Elmer Fudd part of your family?

Shhh...I'm hunting wabbits.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Shhh...I'm hunting wabbits.

Wascally wabbits?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Wascally wabbits?

That's wight.

And, just fyi, I dislike Duke just as much as I dislike the Yankees. For essentially the same reasons - too successful over time. I don't know if I would put the Steinbrenner family in the same category as Coach K, but each has their own annoying aspects. So, when the baseball thread starts, don't be one of them annoying Yankee apologist fans.

Also, aren't these very similar arguments used as to why people either like or dislike Bob Knight? All the good he's done/graduation rates/great teacher/etc. vs. bully/intimidator/anger management issues? Wonder if it's simple coincidence?