This is my first post ever!!

[Bando]

And I'm going to use it to advocate firing JTIII. I know I never posted here before, but I really, really am a diehard fan. Really!!

What has the Princeton offense ever given us? Nothing, that's right! Please don't think about it too hard, we've never had any success with this system. What this team really needs are intangible and unmeasurable concepts like heart, chemistry, and leadership.

In conclusion, I am very smart about basketball. Please keep this discussion going for 10 pages.

[bronxhoya87]

Firing? That is a bit premature.

[hoyatables]

Feb 7, 2009 19:41:13 GMT -5 bronxhoya87 said:

Firing? That is a bit premature.

Hahaha - I think Bando left out the [sarcasm] tags

[strummer8526]

Feb 7, 2009 19:41:13 GMT -5 bronxhoya87 said:

Firing? That is a bit premature.

Hahaha post of the year, if only for the shear inability to understand sarcasm that it conveys.

[hoyarooter]

Feb 7, 2009 19:33:39 GMT -5 Bando said:

And I'm going to use it to advocate firing JTIII. I know I never posted here before, but I really, really am a diehard fan. Really!!

What has the Princeton offense ever given us? Nothing, that's right! Please don't think about it too hard, we've never had any success with this system. What this team really needs are intangible and unmeasurable concepts like heart, chemistry, and leadership.

In conclusion, I am very smart about basketball. Please keep this discussion going for 10 pages.

You're a liar. You have 1,378 posts. Therefore, I have elected to not take this post seriously. I get it, it's a joke, right? Sure had me fooled.

[Bando]

Feb 8, 2009 3:35:45 GMT -5 hoyarooter said:

Feb 7, 2009 19:33:39 GMT -5 Bando said:

And I'm going to use it to advocate firing JTIII. I know I never posted here before, but I really, really am a diehard fan. Really!!

What has the Princeton offense ever given us? Nothing, that's right! Please don't think about it too hard, we've never had any success with this system. What this team really needs are intangible and unmeasurable concepts like heart, chemistry, and leadership.

In conclusion, I am very smart about basketball. Please keep this discussion going for 10 pages.

You're a liar. You have 1,378 posts. Therefore, I have elected to not take this post seriously. I get it, it's a joke, right? Sure had me fooled.

Oh no, you caught me!

[cnyhoya]

Blatant, mean-spirited prejudice against infrequent posters. As if the number of posts might correlate with insight, intelligence or desire for the program to do well. I wonder...

[Bay99]

I second the post of the year nomination. (Clarification: I'm referring to Bando's original post.)

Tough times? Absolutely. Sack up. I'm all for thoughtful criticism of the current woes but some of the stuff being said (sometimes by new or infrequent posters) about JTIII is mindless. I chalk it up to youth or bandwagoning ... clearly none of them were paying attention during the Esherick era.

Also: seriously, six posts with a handle "syracusehoya" does not exactly engender sympathy. I'm not a particularly frequent poster but c'mon. Was EvilHoya or IAmTheDevilHoya already taken?

[theexorcist]

Fine, I'll do it, too. Just because people haven't posted here doesn't mean they're not die-hard fans.

[tashoya]

Nicely played bando. Well done you. Nice to call the board out on our paranoia and mania.

[cnyhoya]

Wow. Tough crowd here! Well, my wife and I are both GU alums (C'85), living here in frozen exile, for career and family reasons. I would have thought that would evoke some sympathy .

And exorcist, you are correct too. I say consider each post by its merits!! Sometimes new blood and fresh ideas are good.

[Bando]

Feb 8, 2009 10:22:58 GMT -5 cnyhoya said:

Blatant, mean-spirited prejudice against infrequent posters. As if the number of posts might correlate with insight, intelligence or desire for the program to do well. I wonder...

I'm not against new posters. I'm against people who post stupid inflammatory crap. The newness just makes the trolling easier to spot (again, not saying all new posters are trolls).

[SFHoya99]

It's very simple, people.

No one dislikes new posters.

But like it or not, it says something about you when you have absolutely nothing to say -- for years -- when things are going well. And the post(s) you choose to make are not supportive, but rather rants and criticisms which are often not well thought out.

In addition, like it or not, you have to build credibility as with any social situation. As a new poster, you have ZERO. Imagine working at a job for four years, but doing and saying nothing. Suddenly, the comany is struggling, and suddenly you break out shouting criticism.

Who's going to listen? Most people will just view you as an unproductive jerk who offers nothing.

So stop acting persecuted. If you have a reasoned argument backed up with facts, people will listen. If you just post unsubstantiated things with absolutely no history, why would people listen to you?

[theexorcist]

Feb 9, 2009 11:44:24 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

It's very simple, people.

No one dislikes new posters.

But like it or not, it says something about you when you have absolutely nothing to say -- for years -- when things are going well. And the post(s) you choose to make are not supportive, but rather rants and criticisms which are often not well thought out.

In addition, like it or not, you have to build credibility as with any social situation. As a new poster, you have ZERO. Imagine working at a job for four years, but doing and saying nothing. Suddenly, the comany is struggling, and suddenly you break out shouting criticism.

Who's going to listen? Most people will just view you as an unproductive jerk who offers nothing.

So stop acting persecuted. If you have a reasoned argument backed up with facts, people will listen. If you just post unsubstantiated things with absolutely no history, why would people listen to you?

Bah. Just because someone doesn't have posts on a message board doesn't mean that that they have any credibility. And just because someone does have a lot of posts doesn't mean that they do.

Some people decide not to write unless they consider posting something to be worth it. And, with the team mired in a significant bad spell with lots of bad losses, I could see a comment on the state of the team to be "worth it".

[SFHoya99]

Feb 9, 2009 11:54:34 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Bah. Just because someone doesn't have posts on a message board doesn't mean that that they have any credibility. And just because someone does have a lot of posts doesn't mean that they do.

Actually, it does. Or rather, it does mean they have little or no credibility with most of the people who read.

It doesn't mean they don't have a good point, don't know basketball, etc.

But it does mean they haven't built up a cache of trust that the person is knowledgeable, reasonable, etc. I don't know what world you live in, but where I live, you need to earn a certain level of respect before people trust what you are saying.

The result is, if you come on with an unreasoned rant and criticism, why would anyone take you seriously?

I'm not talking about a new poster who presents a highly reasoned argument with backup and concessions to other valid points of view. I'm talking about the posts Bando is lampooning.

Some people decide not to write unless they consider posting something to be worth it. And, with the team mired in a significant bad spell with lots of bad losses, I could see a comment on the state of the team to be "worth it".

Sure. It just says something about a person that when things are going well or even mediocre, that it isn't worth it to post.

But an overemotional rant to make themselves feel better at the expense of 19 year olds and a highly successful coaching staff? That's worth it.

I know what that says to me. You can determine what that says to you.

[kchoya]

SFHoya is right on. As the one who probably trashes more of these members than anyone else, it doesn't matter how many posts they have. What bugs me is when they have 8 posts and 7 of them are trashing the team and advocating a new offensive system.

If you want to lurk and post occasionally, that's fine. But if you're going make 11 posts and 9 of them are in an in-game thread bitching about the team's play, then don't expect people on here to give you much credibility.

If RDF or cambridge or someone like that criticizes the team, I give it much more weight than someone with a handle like syracusehoya or jaywrightisdreamy and has 6 posts to their name.

[cnyhoya]

Or.....

You could try reading the post, but not looking at the handle or the number of posts. Then decide on your ownif you think the ideas and opinions in the post are interesting, well thought out, and additive to the discussion overall.

I think in science, that's called eliminating bias. And I think in society, it is called not being prejudiced...

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Feb 10, 2009 15:00:42 GMT -5 cnyhoya said:

Or.....

You could try reading the post, but not looking at the handle or the number of posts. Then decide on your ownif you think the ideas and opinions in the post are interesting, well thought out, and additive to the discussion overall.

I think in science, that's called eliminating bias. And I think in society, it is called not being prejudiced...

Right, but in economics it's called cross-party trust.

As someone who initially came on this board to advocate the change of coaches at the end of the Eshrick "era" and advocate Dawkins as the candidate that we should hire, I think I have some perspective on both ends of this issue. The issue that I have is that some posters (not necessarily yourself included) do not moderate their views or admit short-comings in their arguments when discussing the current slide. I think we can all agree that its disappointing. I think that when someone is advocating throwing the baby out with the bath water though they should have a good reason for doing so.

We've had JTIII for approximately 5 years now. Are we better off now than we were 5 years ago?

In terms of every metric - game attendance, games televised, coaching compensation, recruiting class rankings, average conference rankings, Big East Tournament wins, NCAA appearances, NCAA wins, total wins, out of conference scheduling, alumni giving, Hoop Club membership, Hoya Blue activity, Hoya Blue funding, student attendance, program relevance, and ex-player involvement - the answer is an unqualified yes. I think that there are several factors for this which include a turn-over in some key staff positions in McDonough and the dedication of many members of this message board in terms of time and money, but the chief reason has to be JTIII putting a winning offense, defense and team on the court.

I think when you take a breath and look at the big picture we are still coming out ahead. I don't think that its time to take drastic steps, we just need to give the team the support and time they need to take the baby steps to get where we expect them to be in the future.

[cnyhoya]

I agree completely. We are very lucky to have JTIII!

In taking up the defense of first-time or infrequent posters (or posters with ill-concieved handles), I am by no means advocating the firing of Mr. III. I am not even sure which poster is being lampooned in Bando's original post of this thread (And why did this even need its own thread?!)

I would say that I am definitely a little concerned though... It does it seem to me that JT III is suddenly "off his game" to a degree that I have not seen before.

[SFHoya99]

Feb 10, 2009 15:00:42 GMT -5 cnyhoya said:

Or.....

You could try reading the post, but not looking at the handle or the number of posts. Then decide on your ownif you think the ideas and opinions in the post are interesting, well thought out, and additive to the discussion overall.

I think in science, that's called eliminating bias. And I think in society, it is called not being prejudiced...

Or, you know, you could try reading my post, like the part that says:

"If you have a reasoned argument backed up with facts, people will listen. If you just post unsubstantiated things with absolutely no history, why would people listen to you?"

The issue doesn't come up when you have a strong argument -- it comes up when you make wholly subjective and/or limited obversations or comments.

And it still says something about you that don't post when things are good. You can decide what that means.