Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Zelda Zonk, post: 4063961, member: 966"]
Pretty sure I recognized he was an assistant. Like when I said “…he was an assistant for us.”

I guess the entire conversation depends on what the purpose is of a “coaching tree.” I would suggest that the mention of it is the “agenda” and it’s meant to be an assertion of significance. I think it can be significant in some instances and not so much in others.

If you don’t want to consider my earlier question about JB fitting under K’s “tree,” how about this question: how long do you have to work for the HC to be considered ‘under his tree?’ And if “jumpstarting his career” is part of the criteria, what if the assistant was already on staff before the HC’s hire? People with the agenda need to be able to think about this in the simplest, binary way because it favors their hero. But if it is significant, then what about the converse? If you’re ’claiming‘ successful coach—the outlier with the most limited tenure, but ignoring that he is such an extreme outlier—then how objective is that argument?
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?