Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Zelda Zonk, post: 2559490, member: 966"] Almost good points, but tinged with your brand of spin again. Firstly, you take "loyalist" to be a negative. Loyalty, to me, is a positive. If i use the word "apologist," that has a negative connotation. I don't use them interchangeably. Either way, if someone is a loyalist, that doesn't necessitate that there's an opposite appellation. I don't need there to be. If it's necessary, then sure, call them a "JB critic." And even though you paint me that way, you'd be hard-pressed to find a lot of actual statements from me that criticize JB. It comes across that way to some, because i ask the questions that probably lead there sometimes. I'll say it here, though: i'm not a fervent JB fan. I've said that before. I've also said that he's not on my list of "great coaches," and it's also just as important to know how many coaches any given person can have on their list. I have said that i 'like' him, mostly, and that he has been great for us. It's not a simple/simpleminded matter. I'm not sure why it should be. I've never even met him, and i'm supposed to have a binding, immovable, positive-only sentiment about him? There is no one and no thing in the world that i could/would be so singleminded about. No thing in the world that isn't as much subject to critique as praise... I don't like the zone. Regardless of when it's effective. I'd rather watch games in which no zone is played. Sue me. But, if you're objective, you ask any basketball fan in the world what kind of game they'd rather watch and see if you can find many outside of syracuse 'loyalists' who would say "zone." More importantly, ask recruits. If you can find some in the top 25 who say zone is their preference, i'd be suspicious of that kid. You cite some fantastic accomplishments over the 'past decade.' Those aren't ignored. They just weren't relevant to this discussion. And my point is, that in building, continuing, and sustaining a program, the objective is to get great players, and what happened ten years ago just isn't as relevant to them as it is to a fan of 40 years. What Tyler Ennis' team did is eclipsed by what we have done in the past five years. Let's face some 'facts' (as i assume them to be). If you're a top 25 recruit, what are the odds that you want to play for: a coach who is 70+; who berates players on the sidelines and yanks them from games for simple mistakes; a team that finished 8th-11th in four consecutive seasons; hasn't been ranked in... i don't know how long; plays a non-NBA/pro defense; walks the ball up/doesn't fast break; scores in the 50s both routinely and as an objective; is fresh off sanctions; is on the bubble since you were in junior high and first started paying attention to such things... All of those things are things that are recognized and would be noted about the past five years. I don't think a current recruit is going to go back ten years to find great accomplishments toward making his decision [I]today.[/I] I wouldn't. Would you? JB's 'history' is a matter for tv commentators and for long-standing fans—not today's recruits and building toward the next ten years, when, ostensibly, he's not even going to be here. So, again, no, i don't ignore the past. I just weigh what's more relevant toward future success. And it's silly to suggest that i 'ignore the history' when it's the history that has established my 'standards' for what i expect and would be "happy" with. When i started, we had Pearl. The next year, we went to the championship game. We were the captains/co-captains of our conference. That's [I]my [/I]history. And it's largely irrelevant to anyone considering our program. Ignore the effects of sanctions? No. I just don't ascribe as much responsibility to them as others. That's, again, a matter of perspective. For a few reasons. One, we're known for not playing a lot of bodies. Regardless of how many are on scholarship. Secondly, even if we had more bodies, what are the chances they'd be of the quality that would be higher than the ones who were on the team but still weren't getting enough minutes to satisfy them? Thirdly, who's responsible for the sanctions? Debate that all you like, but someone's in the big chair, and absolving him, even if you think we were overcharged (and i do) is still, in effect, apologizing for him. Not sure why you have to twist the words into making such bombastic projections and assumptions for me. The sweet 16 "hurt me?" Where did you get that? You made it up. Entirely. I "knocked" MSU? Christ. Now i can't even be critical of a team we beat, because that somehow invalidates the win? Amazing! Well, i don't know, man. I watched the game. I saw what i saw, and the comment about them 'not having any guard play' came from another poster here in this forum. I merely agree with it. And i also said it was a great and glorious win, or some such. Why are you ignoring that? Duke lost in OT on a horrible call... Alright. I guess if we're going to go in an micro-replay every tournament game, many things would have turned out differently. It's like giving us credit in the AO year/s for 'would've' won those games if not for... You either won them or you didn't. JB would have had a second championship if... You don't consider that to be 'spin?' And no, i wouldn't want to trade Virginia's season for a sweet 16. Again, your erroneous projection. Making stuff up to suit your "narrative." I said what i said, pretty clearly and i meant what i meant. Kinda "pathetic"—to use your unnecessarily inflammatory language—to try to re-state my position and tell me what i'm actually thinking. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?