T71
Sophomore
Posts: 161
Loc: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-16-05 01:46 AM - Post#4327
A vastly different take on the Scott transition than we have heard most on this board:
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/02/15/sports/12012.shtml
|
Anonymous
|
Re: But, Phil . . .
02-16-05 02:49 PM - Post#4328
In response to T71
Thanks for posting that, T71. It is also, I might say, a better take on Scott than most I've read on this board.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21193
Reg: 12-02-04
|
Re: But, Phil . . .
02-16-05 02:57 PM - Post#4329
In response to
The main blurb begins:
"Over the past 40 years, Orange and Black faithful have been spoiled rotten. The Tigers are the Yankees of the Ivy League — anything less than a championship is a failure. Instead of outspending its rivals for free agents, Princeton flaunts academics and tradition to nab top recruits."
Oh Lord. Let's see, in the last 40 years (starting with the 64-65 season, not including the current season):
PU has gone to the NCAAs 17 times, Cornell, Columbia and Brown once each. And Penn has gone 20 times. From this I can clearly deduce how the writer sees PU as the Yankees of the Ivy League.
I won't even get into that last sentence of his. Oh dear.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: But, Phil . . .
02-16-05 03:01 PM - Post#4330
In response to penn nation
Quote:
The main blurb begins:
"Over the past 40 years, Orange and Black faithful have been spoiled rotten. The Tigers are the Yankees of the Ivy League — anything less than a championship is a failure. Instead of outspending its rivals for free agents, Princeton flaunts academics and tradition to nab top recruits."
Oh Lord. Pride goeth before a fall. Or does it?
I do disagree with the premise of that blurb. After all, Princeton has won many more league championships than have the Yankees in the last 40 years.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: But, Phil . . .
02-16-05 03:16 PM - Post#4331
In response to T71
Yes, I think this is an excellent article. The allusion in it to "alumni experts of internet message boards" indicates that at least someone is paying attention to what is said here. Whether that is a good thing - I'm not so sure.
Baumgarten's article makes generally the same point I did - that the transition from Thompson to Scott was always going to be a difficult one and that the way it's been handled by Scott leaves something to be desired. But this does not mean Scott is the horrible villain some have portrayed him as on this board. Evidently at least some players are willing to speak out on his behalf. In the end, it looks like the best we can hope for now is that Scott's vision for the program can be brought to fruition in the next few years.
Quote:
A vastly different take on the Scott transition than we have heard most on this board:
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/02/15/sports/12012.shtml
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: But, Phil . . .
02-16-05 04:04 PM - Post#4332
In response to
Enough with the player testimonials. What the heck else are underclassmen going to say? "We're being held hostage by our coach, he's insane, you must give in to his demands"?
Of course not, he controls their playing time since they are essentially indentured servants and he's the golden boy of the university. Anything insightful is going to come off the record or when they graduate.
|
RPG
newbie
Posts: 34
Reg: 12-13-04
|
Re: But, Phil . . .
02-16-05 04:24 PM - Post#4333
In response to penn nation
With all due respect, I think you're misunderstanding or at least misstating the author's point. He analogizes post-1965 Princeton to the Yankees, not because both have dominated their respective conferences, but because both have reached a level where their fans consider second place a failure. Re-read:
"The Tigers are the Yankees of the Ivy League — anything less than a championship is a failure.... There's nothing wrong with high standards; the problem lies in what to do when those standards aren't met. Like Yankee fans, Tiger fans don't take it well when things go wrong."
|
Brian Martin
Masters Student
Posts: 963
Loc: Washington, DC
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: But, Phil . . .
02-16-05 04:34 PM - Post#4334
In response to
This did not have to be such a difficult transition. These are all coachable players who long ago established that they played hard and found ways to win. Scott's game plan is not that different from what they played when they won the league.
They lost games they should have won when the coach made almost no tactical changes or substitutions when fairly obvious ones were needed. I do not doubt he can win if he gets exactly the right players to match his game plan and (probably moreso) his personality. But he does have some very good players who should not be 2-5 in the Ivy League.
If you want to talk about transitions, JTIII took a 4-12 Georgetown team picked to finish 11th in the Big East, composed of the sort of players that conventional wisdom says cannot run the Princeton offense, starts 3 freshman including a walk-on, and has them 8-3 in the Big East, in a 3rd place tie with UConn and Pitt, a half game behind Syracuse. You may say they do not really run the Princeton offense, but I would bet Georgetown has twice as many back-doors as Princeton, they have a forward/center leading them in assists from the high post, they play at the slowest tempo in the Big East, and they are setting school records for 3-point attempts.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21193
Reg: 12-02-04
|
Re: But, Phil . . .
02-16-05 05:04 PM - Post#4335
In response to RPG
I don't dispute your conclusions. But to use the Yankees reference implies (at best) that somehow PU (and its fans) occupy a certain niche, or have a certain level of expectations, that is unique to the Ivies.
Frankly, I wouldn't even put PU at the top of the Ivies in this regard, not that this is such a bad thing.
If you've looked at this message board over the past few years+, if you had to give the "Yankee" moniker for fans in terms of being overly critical, exceedingly high expectations, etc. it would have to go to Penn fans--not that this behavior is always something to be proud of, incidentally. Indeed, it itself has been the subject of criticism (and, for a good comparison, is a key reason why most non-NYers dislike the Yankees and their fans, by the way).
There does seem to be some Yankee "arrogance", however, in the subsequent sentence by the writer. I guess the Palestra and Big Five don't count as tradition; clearly, all Penn does is hire "ringers" to play for them, unlike the "pure" PU squad. Clearly that's the only reason why PU isn't winning more Ivy titles, right?
It's one thing for that kind of column to come out on the day of a Penn-Princeton game, when opposing columns appear in the respective student papers for "needling" purposes.
But this is not the case here. To begin a lengthy article about Scott with such arrogant, unchallenged nonsense helps to perpetuate stereotypes that PU and UP students have about each other.
Quote:
With all due respect, I think you're misunderstanding or at least misstating the author's point. He analogizes post-1965 Princeton to the Yankees, not because both have dominated their respective conferences, but because both have reached a level where their fans consider second place a failure. Re-read:
"The Tigers are the Yankees of the Ivy League — anything less than a championship is a failure.... There's nothing wrong with high standards; the problem lies in what to do when those standards aren't met. Like Yankee fans, Tiger fans don't take it well when things go wrong."
|
Red n Blue
Masters Student
Posts: 898
Loc: South Jersey
Reg: 11-29-04
|
Re: But, Phil . . .
02-16-05 05:49 PM - Post#4336
In response to Brian Martin
I think Brian makes a lot of good points. I think the mark of a really fine coach is the ability to use the talents of his players to their maximum. This requires some adaptation and changes to whatever system is run in order to maximize the benefits of the talents of his players.
If Scott is so limited in his ability to adapt that he can only win with a very specific combination of talents, that does not reflect well on his coaching ability.
|
Brian Martin
Masters Student
Posts: 963
Loc: Washington, DC
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: But, Phil . . .
02-16-05 09:03 PM - Post#4337
In response to penn nation
Scott has barely been criticized. He scapegoated the players much worse than anyone has criticized him.
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8220
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
AYF prefers...
02-16-05 09:37 PM - Post#4338
In response to penn nation
to think of Penn as the Yankees of the Ivy League, and Princeton as a bit more akin to the Red Sox.
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1345
Reg: 12-08-04
|
Re: But, Phil . . .
02-16-05 10:17 PM - Post#4339
In response to penn nation
I think this criticism is overblown. The author's point is that Tiger fans are disappointed if they are out of contention for the Ivy basketball title, which they have won more than anyone else, or even if they contend but wind up second (which by definition is to Penn).
The point of the article is not to make sure Penn is honored for its successes, but rather to establish as a baseline that Tiger fans expect to win, not merely contend. Whether they exactly mirror most closely the "Yankees" (of whom I think poorly) or some other franchise is irrelevant. People immediately understand this expectations reference the way they do, say, a "Princeton offense" reference.
Nor does it matter whether Penn is more or less demanding in expectations. Personally I agree that Penn fans are a more demanding bunch (this is news? they're in Philly) when it comes to bball, but the article isn't an expectation rating survey.
Whether you think of PU as being at the top of the Ivy athletic heap or not (and if you don't, presumably your thinking is based primarily on football and basketball combined, your opinion may be persuasive to folks who don't really notice the other sports), the facts are that PU has won more Ivy titles each year than any oher Ivy program in recent years and has achieved a higher Sears (Directors) Cup standing than any other Ivy school, and that these results have fostered an image of athletic commitment in NJ. In light of the earlier article in the Spectator, it seems to me this image exists on some other Ivy campuses too.
I doubt this article will make a difference in the regard for which the Quakers hold Princetonians. If the writer had tried to blame Penn admissions for PU's basketball woes, this might generate some heat.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: But, Phil . . .
02-17-05 12:17 AM - Post#4340
In response to Jeff2sf
So, now you're saying that players are not being truthful just because what they say doesn't match your evaluation of the situation? They didn't have to say anything at all, let alone profess that they "love" him, if they didn't want to.
Quote:
Enough with the player testimonials. What the heck else are underclassmen going to say? "We're being held hostage by our coach, he's insane, you must give in to his demands"?
Of course not, he controls their playing time since they are essentially indentured servants and he's the golden boy of the university. Anything insightful is going to come off the record or when they graduate.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: But, Phil . . .
02-17-05 12:31 AM - Post#4341
In response to
Brian, your description of JT3's task at Georgetown makes clear why his transition was easier than Scott's. Georgetown was a 4-12 team picked to finish 11th. Expectations were low. JT3 was able to take a fairly young team (as you say, 3 freshman starters) and mold them in his style.
Scott came in to coach a veteran squad picked to finish first in its conference. Some of his players were even a bit overconfident. I remember reading an interview with Wallace early in the season in which he said their goal was to get beyond round one of the NCAA tournament. As the DP said, as well, Scott's coaching and personal style is very different than JT3's. Veteran players used to one approach I think were bound to have trouble with Scott's style.
So, yes, I do think Scott's transition was going to be hard no matter what. However, as I have said clearly many times before, I also think that Scott botched the transition, making a difficult situation worse by not adjusting like he should have. Can I say it any clearer?
However, unless you are seriously going to suggest that Scott be fired, what other choice do we have but to hope that he can turn things around in the next couple of years?
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: But, Phil . . .
02-17-05 01:12 AM - Post#4342
In response to
No, I'm saying they're not being truthful because they have no incentive to be tell the truth and every incentive to lie as underclassmen held hostage by a "jerk" coach. It's simple really. What could they say? No comment? HAHAHAHA, Scott would really love that.
|
T71
Sophomore
Posts: 161
Loc: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Reg: 11-23-04
|
Re: But, Phil . . .
02-17-05 03:01 AM - Post#4343
In response to Jeff2sf
Isn't there a Penn board? It amazes me how many Penn posters who have nothing better to do than track what is said on this board for no other purpose than to be intrusive. (I do apologize to any Penn fans who post to this board that are actually trying to be constructive with their opinions and observations.) So, if you don't have anything constructive to say on this board, wouldn't it be a better use of your time to spend it exchanging congratulations on how great Penn is on that board? If you are so attracted to this board and have all that extra time to spend, however, perhaps you could just read it and keep your smug and disruptive posts to your self. I may be wrong but if I were to go on the Penn board, I would try to behave like a guest not an antagonist. I'll make you a deal, if you don't post on the Princeton board unless you have something really really insightful to say, I'll never post on your board.
|
Brian Martin
Masters Student
Posts: 963
Loc: Washington, DC
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: But, Phil . . .
02-17-05 04:43 AM - Post#4344
In response to
Of course I'm not suggesting he be fired. I'm just dismayed by the article and other attempts to portray Scott as the poor victim of unfair criticism. He is the coach of the team that was favored to win the league and is now in last place. He should accept some responsibility instead of scapegoating the players.
This should not have been a hard transition for any basketball reasons. These players are very coachable.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: But, Phil . . .
02-17-05 12:17 PM - Post#4345
In response to T71
No, No deal. I'm not being rude and there aren't any "boards". I post where the active topics take me. Deal with it.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: But, Phil . . .
02-17-05 12:24 PM - Post#4346
In response to Jeff2sf
I think it is reprehensible to suggest that players are lying without direct (and I mean direct) evidence to the contrary. Why call someone's integrity into question just because their words don't fit your "Scott is a hostage-taking maniac" theory? You can speculate all you want about players' possible motives to lie, but it remains just your speculation. I assume Baumgarten of the DP did his work as a journalist and actually talked to the players both on and off the record. I also assume the tone of his article reflects what he found. And yes, I do think a player can simply decline an interview or a question without repercussions. I'm sure it happens all the time.
Quote:
No, I'm saying they're not being truthful because they have no incentive to be tell the truth and every incentive to lie as underclassmen held hostage by a "jerk" coach. It's simple really. What could they say? No comment? HAHAHAHA, Scott would really love that.
|
|
|
Report Post
Quote Post
Quick Reply
|
|
Print Topic
Email Topic
2981 Views
|
|
|
|
|
