As far as the next Head basketball coach | Page 8 | Syracusefan.com

As far as the next Head basketball coach

Suicide and self harm rates are up massively among preteens and teenagers.

The point where it suddenly got worse exactly matches smart phones becoming omnipresent... "The Anxious Generation" is the book written by the doctors who are on the cutting edge of that portion of psychiatry.

Reading that book was terrifying for me, a guy with a nine-year-old and a six-year-old... Fortunately, the simple solution is no smartphones and to heavily restrict their access to social media. It's more complicated that that, but that's what it comes down to.
My 15 year old didn't get a phone until the end of 8th grade and it is very limited. No social media and limited screen time of all kinds at home. The irony is how much time I spend on this board.
 
Halloween Time GIF by Perecz Annabella
 
When I used to coach youth sports, one of the hardest thing to teach the players was talking to each other on the field. After a soccer game, I said to my daughter, I think it would be easier for you to text your team. One of her team mates, told me it would be easier for all of us.
 
Love all the fond reminiscing without anything but anecdotes.

And now for the rest of the story (and to make our younger board members feel better about their own parents).


No, children were not actually safer in the 1970s. Despite the cultural perception of greater freedom, 1970s kids faced significantly higher mortality rates from accidents and disease, lacked modern safety regulations (car seats, helmets), and lived through higher rates of violent crime. Child mortality rates have dropped substantially since that era.

Key Safety Differences:
Physical Danger: Playgrounds had hazards like concrete surfaces and hot metal equipment, while cars often lacked seatbelts or proper car seats.

Unintentional Injury: Rates of serious injuries and fatalities from, for example, accidents, were much higher than today.

Violent Crime: Violent crime rates in the US were higher in the 1970s than in the 2020s, contrary to popular memory, which often overlooks the danger of that era, as discussed on Facebook.

Environmental Hazards: Exposure to leaded gasoline was common, which impacted children's health and IQ.

Why People Remember it Differently:
Independence: Kids had more unsupervised freedom to roam, often only needing to return by streetlights.

Limited Awareness: News traveled slower, and there was no 24/7 news cycle or instant alerts on local crimes, making the world feel less dangerous, notes Facebook.

While many feel the social atmosphere was more trusting, objective data from sources like BBC News and GibsonSingleton Virginia Injury Attorneys shows that modern children are safer, as noted in Quora.
Ok millennial
 
Idk which thread to post this in because there are so many. I’m here, so let’s try this one.

To the ‘Hodgson or bust’ guys, what is the objective assessment of the talent on his team relative to the rest of the AAC? Is he working with clearly more talent or is the talent on par with x number of teams in that conference?

I ask because we see the metrics are good. The question is, are they good because his scheme/coaching is better or because he recruited better players?

That matters because even if he’s a top notch recruiter, Syracuse will never again have the talent advantage in the ACC. We need a guy who can get enough talent to compete and then win on coaching. Is BH the guy to do that? I’m not a big fan of the Oats offense because it’s highly susceptible to looking atrocious on slightly poor shooting nights, but all schemes have their weaknesses. Does Hodgson have a better twist on the Oats scheme or is that scheme simply effective enough to warrant the hire?
So, is your position that he should be discounted as a HC candidate if he is able to out recruit his conference foes?
 
I don't know whether or not Pitino would've been interested. Remember he was just coming out of the wilderness then (Panathinaikos/Iona) and was perhaps looking to reclaim himself. In hindsight I bet it would've been a feelgood retro-basketball story had RP any inclination to return to Syracuse, and 'Cuse having offered. Oh well, what might've been.
Return? He was a assistant for two years. Not like he was the prodigal son.
 
So, is your position that he should be discounted as a HC candidate if he is able to out recruit his conference foes?

Maybe? Depends how we’re defining discounted, I guess.

My perspective is that context is always important and with any midmajor promotion to P4, recruiting will always be the unknown. Hodgson is regarded as a good/great recruiter; I’m just curious how much of his success as a HC is attributable to talent and how much to coaching.

Out-recruiting the AAC is a different ballgame than out-recruiting the ACC, obviously. Winning 24+ games with a clear talent advantage is different than winning 24+ games without it. Since I’m not confident SU will ever compete with the top of the ACC in NIL money (and therefore talent) I want a sense of what a coach will do without a talent advantage.

But none of this exists in a vacuum. He could be the better recruiter and the better X’s and O’s coach. His recruiting could be so much better than the other candidates that nothing else matters.
 
When I used to coach youth sports, one of the hardest thing to teach the players was talking to each other on the field. After a soccer game, I said to my daughter, I think it would be easier for you to text your team. One of her team mates, told me it would be easier for all of us.
Best drill my freshman soccer coach ever made us do was passing lines where you had to call for the ball and say your teammates name, every time we forgot it was a lap. We got over the uncomfortable “new teammates” phase really quickly and started to realize it was better to over communicate just to be sure
 
Idk which thread to post this in because there are so many. I’m here, so let’s try this one.

To the ‘Hodgson or bust’ guys, what is the objective assessment of the talent on his team relative to the rest of the AAC? Is he working with clearly more talent or is the talent on par with x number of teams in that conference?

I ask because we see the metrics are good. The question is, are they good because his scheme/coaching is better or because he recruited better players?

That matters because even if he’s a top notch recruiter, Syracuse will never again have the talent advantage in the ACC. We need a guy who can get enough talent to compete and then win on coaching. Is BH the guy to do that? I’m not a big fan of the Oats offense because it’s highly susceptible to looking atrocious on slightly poor shooting nights, but all schemes have their weaknesses. Does Hodgson have a better twist on the Oats scheme or is that scheme simply effective enough to warrant the hire?
We were more talented than most of our ACC opponents. We were out coached by most of our ACC opponents.

Syracuse can compete in recruiting and raising money.
 
We were more talented than most of our ACC opponents. We were out coached by most of our ACC opponents.

Syracuse can compete in recruiting and raising money.

Most, certainly. I’m more worried about the top teams; call it top 5 or 6.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
174,858
Messages
5,298,350
Members
6,206
Latest member
Cusealumni2

Online statistics

Members online
334
Guests online
3,484
Total visitors
3,818


Top Bottom