Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 12:47:24 GMT -5
If somebody buys me a beer, it's during a social situation not during a competition to see who will have the most beers. This was still a game -- and an important one for league standings at that -- and the final score was in doubt the entire way through. Might have been even closer had SHU been down 3 late instead of 5. Maybe Gtown tightens up in that spot. In soccer, when one team stops play and kicks the ball out because an opponent is hurt, the other team ALWAYS plays the ball back to them because they respect the initial gesture and want to try to balance out the competitive aspect of the game. That's what we shoulda done, end of story. It would been doing right by everyone. And yes, when I buy somebody a beer, I never expect that person to buy me one. But when somebody buys me a beer, I sure as hell get the next round.... Look, all the sentimental stuff with Tyler is wonderful for him and the program at large. I don't want to lose sight at the forest-- it was a great day for everyone involved including SHU. And I'm even willing to give a little latitude because it seems like they were caught off guard about what to do after the dunk, as if they weren't expecting. Personally, I think JT3 should have discussed the possibility, and, absent that, given them a bucket after halftime. But am I going to say the moment was a stain on the program? No. It was just something I expected our team to do given the level of class I typically associate with them. Anyway, life will go on and this will be forgotten-- I've already written more about this than I wanted to, and it's mostly just a shame it gets any attention given the special moment Tyler had out there. Now, Jabril's dunk at the end is a different story. That, I have absolutely no explanation for.... Anyway, people can go on arguing this. I think I've made my points and am ready to move on, whoever responds can have the last word.... The analogy is off, and so is your reasoning. Yes it would've been nice to reciprocate, but like many have said, it means much more to Tyler when the opposing coach is doing it out of the kindness of his own heart and not because both coaches agree beforehand to stage something. Read Willard's comment, he didn't have to let Tyler score, but he wanted to and didn't seem to expect anything in return because that's not why good people do nice things. Additionally, this isn't soccer so why are you trying to transplant their unique norms onto basketball?? There's a reason they exists on a 120-yd soccer pitch and not a 90 ft court. Others seem to agree with the analogy/reasoning. Saying soccer is not basketball is maybe the most obvious argument you can make. Do you think I didn't realize they arent the same sport? But some principles of sportsmanship can overlap. You just have to have some imagination and not be so literal. And so many people keep posting the "it would have meant less to Tyler" if we let them even it up as if they are inside Tyler's head. Since when do you get to speak for him? Also, for the last time, this has nothing to do about what Willard expected, it's what we, as Georgetown should have done.... |
|
DanMcQ
Moderator 
Posts: 32,635
Member is Online
|
Post by DanMcQ on Mar 8, 2015 12:52:25 GMT -5
God love Hoyatalk (far from an 'echo chamber'), the place where we can argue about whether we can argue about whether giving up 2 for 2 already gifted is in Roberts Rules of Order rather than celebrating TWO coaches giving a deserving 22 year old the day of his lifetime. I wish the offseason would end already. And it's affirming to know my seat mate is always right... Except when he's not (but he is the judge of when). On edit: add  for those who take posts too seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJones on Mar 8, 2015 12:58:42 GMT -5
I wonder what Van and DoseofReality would think of this discussion?
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,635
Member is Online
|
Post by DanMcQ on Mar 8, 2015 13:08:59 GMT -5
I wonder what Van and DoseofReality would think of this discussion? I feel certain both would go 2-for-1 if given the opportunity. |
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 8, 2015 13:09:49 GMT -5
I wasn't thrilled with Jabril's late dunk, until I realized that this was his exclamation point on a fine Hoya career. It's likely that this was his final game on the court at Verizon Center (unless. . .cough cough. . .he is in an NBA uniform next season), and in that context, I can readily excuse his not dribbling out the clock. Let's face it that was the one time Jabril could do that in his career and not feel the wrath of God from III for that move. III is not going to yell at him for that on Senior day. |
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Mar 8, 2015 13:12:30 GMT -5
I believe Willard told III his plan in the pre-game and III responded not to do it. That is why III was so effusive with his praise of Willard in the post-game. Willard went forward with it in spite of knowing III would not give him a free basket in kind. This reflects very well on Willard. We can debate whether III should have reciprocated, but then the basket would be diminished. I kind of liked the way it went down, Adams basket counted for something competitively speaking and that is all because of Willard. III said as much in his post-game. As for Jabril's dunk, I am OK with it since it was his senior day and it was an exclamation point on his career day. I do not think it was at all intended to be a slight toward SHU. +1000 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 13:14:46 GMT -5
God love Hoyatalk (far from an 'echo chamber'), the place where we can argue about whether we can argue about whether giving up 2 for 2 already gifted is in Roberts Rules of Order rather than celebrating TWO coaches giving a deserving 22 year old the day of his lifetime. I wish the offseason would end already. And it's affirming to know my seat mate is always right... Except when he's not (but he is the judge of when). On edit: add for those who take posts too seriously. it's all in good fun. |
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 8, 2015 13:15:57 GMT -5
No, you and the NJ writer are the only people "asking questions." ALL of the other media are focusing on the real story - Tyler Adams. Just admit you're wrong and stop grinding your axe. No axe to grind. It's just not the way I grew up playing the game. BTW, check the posts on casual hoya. read the seton hall boards. even the wapo article had a subtle line about how JT3 didn't reciprocate. and then people commented on that in the wapo comments section. And this is to say nothing of just other friends from gtown that i've talked to that said they were disappointed. or the other posters here that have made reasonable points. You can keep saying "just admit that you're wrong" but you wind up sounding like our friend richard coleman from the other thread with his insular mentality. And to just finish of the axe to grind point, I have absolutely nothing against JT3. When people were asking about replacements I posted about how foolish that is. If he loses in the first round this year and next I'll still think it's foolish to fire him. The man represents the school with dignity and his players are class acts. But people make small small mistakes and nobody is above reproach, much less the smallest chastisement. The thunderous shout-downs of those who don't like how a couple things went down yesterday confirms this place's reputation for being an echo chamber and why we've seen a lot of people move over to casual... Well to be fair if you want to get really anal about it, one could say that Willard tried to upstage III and the Hoyas with his magnanimous gesture and tried to take the spotlight away from Tyler Adams. Also one could argue that it would have been more meaningful to Tyler to score against people trying to defend him then people who just gave up and got out of the way and treated him like he was handicapped or a child who wasn't capable of scoring against real NCAA defense. Afterall, Thompson said he didn't want a hand out or quid pro quo and Willard decided to intentionally ignore it. The whole idea was for Tyler to play in a real, competitive, game and Willard by this move kind of took that away from him. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 13:58:41 GMT -5
No axe to grind. It's just not the way I grew up playing the game. BTW, check the posts on casual hoya. read the seton hall boards. even the wapo article had a subtle line about how JT3 didn't reciprocate. and then people commented on that in the wapo comments section. And this is to say nothing of just other friends from gtown that i've talked to that said they were disappointed. or the other posters here that have made reasonable points. You can keep saying "just admit that you're wrong" but you wind up sounding like our friend richard coleman from the other thread with his insular mentality. And to just finish of the axe to grind point, I have absolutely nothing against JT3. When people were asking about replacements I posted about how foolish that is. If he loses in the first round this year and next I'll still think it's foolish to fire him. The man represents the school with dignity and his players are class acts. But people make small small mistakes and nobody is above reproach, much less the smallest chastisement. The thunderous shout-downs of those who don't like how a couple things went down yesterday confirms this place's reputation for being an echo chamber and why we've seen a lot of people move over to casual... Well to be fair if you want to get really anal about it, one could say that Willard tried to upstage III and the Hoyas with his magnanimous gesture and tried to take the spotlight away from Tyler Adams. Also one could argue that it would have been more meaningful to Tyler to score against people trying to defend him then people who just gave up and got out of the way and treated him like he was handicapped or a child who wasn't capable of scoring against real NCAA defense. Afterall, Thompson said he didn't want a hand out or quid pro quo and Willard decided to intentionally ignore it. The whole idea was for Tyler to play in a real, competitive, game and Willard by this move kind of took that away from him. I don't necessarily disagree with that viewpoint. It's hard to really know without the details of exactly what was said between the coaches and what instructions JT3 gave -- or didnt give -- his players for various eventualities. Willard, in some ways, may have put JT3 in a bad spot to begin with by just letting him score, although I think the final assessment is, and will be, that it was a kind gesture. I will say that before yesterday, my take on Willard, from various sources who would know about him going way, way back in time was that he was not the nicest guy. In fact, yesterday's act of kindness was about 180 degrees from the way he has been in the past. |
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,660
|
Post by guru on Mar 8, 2015 15:13:59 GMT -5
God love Hoyatalk (far from an 'echo chamber'), the place where we can argue about whether we can argue about whether giving up 2 for 2 already gifted is in Roberts Rules of Order rather than celebrating TWO coaches giving a deserving 22 year old the day of his lifetime. I wish the offseason would end already. And it's affirming to know my seat mate is always right... Except when he's not (but he is the judge of when). On edit: add for those who take posts too seriously. I feel just a tiny bit proud that I stoked the flames of this debate early. It would have been a shame not to let this baby roar. |
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Mar 8, 2015 15:20:23 GMT -5
I can't believe this is even a discussion. We should have given them a basket. Jabril should not have dunked at the end of the game. Neither is a big deal, but neither of those was the sportsmanlike or right thing to do.
I think the "echo chamber" comments stem from the fact that some posters sense of right and wrong seems to realign itself to whatever III does. Everyone seems to be comfortable with "he is not a perfect coach" in the abstract but any concrete criticism (timeout usage, not returning a gifted basket, etc.) no matter how trivial is met with several posts of strong resistance. If the roles were reversed this thread would be full of posts dumping all over Willard and a search for the phrase "great representative of the university" would return 100 results in this thread.
Most mentions in this thread have been in passing as a minor criticism. The backlash against the criticism is insane.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Mar 8, 2015 15:22:04 GMT -5
The analogy is off, and so is your reasoning. Yes it would've been nice to reciprocate, but like many have said, it means much more to Tyler when the opposing coach is doing it out of the kindness of his own heart and not because both coaches agree beforehand to stage something. Read Willard's comment, he didn't have to let Tyler score, but he wanted to and didn't seem to expect anything in return because that's not why good people do nice things. Additionally, this isn't soccer so why are you trying to transplant their unique norms onto basketball?? There's a reason they exists on a 120-yd soccer pitch and not a 90 ft court. Others seem to agree with the analogy/reasoning. Saying soccer is not basketball is maybe the most obvious argument you can make. Do you think I didn't realize they arent the same sport? But some principles of sportsmanship can overlap. You just have to have some imagination and not be so literal. And so many people keep posting the "it would have meant less to Tyler" if we let them even it up as if they are inside Tyler's head. Since when do you get to speak for him? Also, for the last time, this has nothing to do about what Willard expected, it's what we, as Georgetown should have done.... I was talking about the beer analogy. The object of your beer analogy was misplaced. And it's not call being unimaginative, it's called thinking about why those norms exist. In many instances, the scope of the pitch and pace of the game is such in soccer that recognizing and reciprocating those gestures is easier, not to mention you can't ignore that the sports are inherently different. I'm not saying that's they can't be applied, but you have to be conscious of the fact that the European influence in the sport, in regards to acts of respect, makes a difference. If Willard approaches you and proposes to you and you respectfully decline and he proceeds to go ahead and do it anyway out of the kindness of his own heart it would be rude to nullify that gesture, imo. Under regular conditions, yeah instinct tells you to reciprocate asap, but in this situation Tyler will appreciate it more knowing that Willard didn't expect any points back and you don't have to be in his head to know that it's called psychology. And who knows? Maybe III declined because he set up a nice play to get Tyler a legitimate bucket and was robbed of that? Water under the bridge at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 8, 2015 15:40:18 GMT -5
Others seem to agree with the analogy/reasoning. Saying soccer is not basketball is maybe the most obvious argument you can make. Do you think I didn't realize they arent the same sport? But some principles of sportsmanship can overlap. You just have to have some imagination and not be so literal. And so many people keep posting the "it would have meant less to Tyler" if we let them even it up as if they are inside Tyler's head. Since when do you get to speak for him? Also, for the last time, this has nothing to do about what Willard expected, it's what we, as Georgetown should have done.... I was talking about the beer analogy. The object of your beer analogy was misplaced. And it's not call being unimaginative, it's called thinking about why those norms exist. In many instances, the scope of the pitch and pace of the game is such in soccer that recognizing and reciprocating those gestures is easier, not to mention you can't ignore that the sports are inherently different. I'm not saying that's they can't be applied, but you have to be conscious of the fact that the European influence in the sport, in regards to acts of respect, makes a difference. If Willard approaches you and proposes to you and you respectfully decline and he proceeds to go ahead and do it anyway out of the kindness of his own heart it would be rude to nullify that gesture, imo. Under regular conditions, yeah instinct tells you to reciprocate asap, but in this situation Tyler will appreciate it more knowing that Willard didn't expect any points back and you don't have to be in his head to know that it's called psychology. And who knows? Maybe III declined because he set up a nice play to get Tyler a legitimate bucket and was robbed of that? Water under the bridge at this point. Yup, Willard and his players just laid down for Tyler like he was a kid from the Make a Wish foundation. The whole point was for Tyler to get in a "real" game. So given those circumstances, the fact that Willard on his own decided to do that over the objections of III should not make III the "bad guy". III had been planning this for over 2 years and this was Tyler's moment, so it's comical that people are really trying to nit pick and criticize III for this and putting the spotlight on Willard on what should be Tyler's moment to shine. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJones on Mar 8, 2015 15:40:46 GMT -5
I can't believe this is even a discussion. We should have given them a basket. Jabril should not have dunked at the end of the game. Neither is a big deal, but neither of those was the sportsmanlike or right thing to do. I think the "echo chamber" comments stem from the fact that some posters sense of right and wrong seems to realign itself to whatever III does. Everyone seems to be comfortable with "he is not a perfect coach" in the abstract but any concrete criticism (timeout usage, not returning a gifted basket, etc.) no matter how trivial is met with several posts of strong resistance. If the roles were reversed this thread would be full of posts dumping all over Willard and a search for the phrase "great representative of the university" would return 100 results in this thread. Most mentions in this thread have been in passing as a minor criticism. The backlash against the criticism is insane. In the words of rockhoya... +1000 |
|
jld
Member
Posts: 84 
|
Post by jld on Mar 8, 2015 15:47:15 GMT -5
Can we talk about:
How we won a game without our most indispensable player, with the seniors stepping up and a freshman taking over at the point with 15 minutes notice?
How an up and down team finished 12-6 with a 2 seed in a very competitive conference?
|
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 8, 2015 15:51:00 GMT -5
If someone buys you a beer and you didn't ask them to buy you a beer, it is probably common courtesy to return the favor. However, if you don't immediately buy them a beer, it doesn't mean you are wrong or not classy. Again, I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere down the road, III returns the favor. Maybe, in the first game next year. This is all also ridiculous because as GIGA said, to think that Willard would expect something in return defeats the whole purpose of the gesture. If somebody buys me a beer, it's during a social situation not during a competition to see who will have the most beers. This was still a game -- and an important one for league standings at that -- and the final score was in doubt the entire way through. Might have been even closer had SHU been down 3 late instead of 5. Maybe Gtown tightens up in that spot. In soccer, when one team stops play and kicks the ball out because an opponent is hurt, the other team ALWAYS plays the ball back to them because they respect the initial gesture and want to try to balance out the competitive aspect of the game. That's what we shoulda done, end of story. It would been doing right by everyone. And yes, when I buy somebody a beer, I never expect that person to buy me one. But when somebody buys me a beer, I sure as hell get the next round.... .... Your soccer analogy is deeply flawed. In soccer when one player is really injured (as opposed to diving), they will kick the ball out of bounds (not score a free goal, big difference). And then that turnover will be reciprocated. I have never seen a scenario where you let someone score a goal and then reciprocate it as some sort of sportsman like gesture. In basketball when a player turns over the ball because of injury, the opposing team usually just runs the opposite way looking for a 5-4, 4-3, etc fast break. Even in a half court set they will keep playing. And once the injured player is taken off court those points are not reciprocated. In the Tyler scenario he was not injured to the point of incapacity and it wasn't a simple turnover. So there's no "that's what should have been done, end of story". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 15:52:06 GMT -5
Others seem to agree with the analogy/reasoning. Saying soccer is not basketball is maybe the most obvious argument you can make. Do you think I didn't realize they arent the same sport? But some principles of sportsmanship can overlap. You just have to have some imagination and not be so literal. And so many people keep posting the "it would have meant less to Tyler" if we let them even it up as if they are inside Tyler's head. Since when do you get to speak for him? Also, for the last time, this has nothing to do about what Willard expected, it's what we, as Georgetown should have done.... I was talking about the beer analogy. The object of your beer analogy was misplaced. And it's not call being unimaginative, it's called thinking about why those norms exist. In many instances, the scope of the pitch and pace of the game is such in soccer that recognizing and reciprocating those gestures is easier, not to mention you can't ignore that the sports are inherently different. I'm not saying that's they can't be applied, but you have to be conscious of the fact that the European influence in the sport, in regards to acts of respect, makes a difference. If Willard approaches you and proposes to you and you respectfully decline and he proceeds to go ahead and do it anyway out of the kindness of his own heart it would be rude to nullify that gesture, imo. Under regular conditions, yeah instinct tells you to reciprocate asap, but in this situation Tyler will appreciate it more knowing that Willard didn't expect any points back and you don't have to be in his head to know that it's called psychology. And who knows? Maybe III declined because he set up a nice play to get Tyler a legitimate bucket and was robbed of that? Water under the bridge at this point. as much as i'm tempted to just post "ok rock" i'll respond substantively.... you can't have it both ways. you can't say there are norms and then deny being unimaginative. you apply the norms from one to the other. frankly, the whole concept is not that different from a make-up foul call, which is only slightly different in context. you'll never be able to convince me that it couldn't have been an easy thing to prepare your team for to do on the first possession in case it happened. now, as i posted earlier, i agree willard may have surprised the hoyas by unilaterally going forward with his ideas. if so, you have to know the exact details of the conversation between him and jt3. when jt3 declined the offer did williard tell him "i'm gonna do it anyway?" i don't think we'll ever know. this gray area is why i think there is so leeway for the critique about the confusion that seemed to take place after the basket. and if indeed, that was the case, i still don't assume to know how tyler feels about it. maybe he would have preferred not to be the cause of a controversy had georgetown won by anything between 1-5 points, really. maybe he, as the ultimate ambassador of gtown, wanted to show that we payback kindness. it's not called psychology, it's called perspective (difference of). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 15:53:34 GMT -5
If somebody buys me a beer, it's during a social situation not during a competition to see who will have the most beers. This was still a game -- and an important one for league standings at that -- and the final score was in doubt the entire way through. Might have been even closer had SHU been down 3 late instead of 5. Maybe Gtown tightens up in that spot. In soccer, when one team stops play and kicks the ball out because an opponent is hurt, the other team ALWAYS plays the ball back to them because they respect the initial gesture and want to try to balance out the competitive aspect of the game. That's what we shoulda done, end of story. It would been doing right by everyone. And yes, when I buy somebody a beer, I never expect that person to buy me one. But when somebody buys me a beer, I sure as hell get the next round.... .... Your soccer analogy is deeply flawed. In soccer when one player is really injured (as opposed to diving), they will kick the ball out of bounds (not score a free goal, big difference). And then that turnover will be reciprocated. I have never seen a scenario where you let someone score a goal and then reciprocate it as some sort of sportsman like gesture. In basketball when a player turns over the ball because of injury, the opposing team usually just runs the opposite way looking for a 5-4, 4-3, etc fast break. Even in a half court set they will keep playing. And once the injured player is taken off court those points are not reciprocated. In the Tyler scenario he was not injured to the point of incapacity and it wasn't a simple turnover. So there's no "that's what should have been done, end of story". Actually, these types of situations, more or less, have happened.... www.businessinsider.com/italian-team-lets-opponent-score-video-2014-3 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 15:58:33 GMT -5
I can't believe this is even a discussion. We should have given them a basket. Jabril should not have dunked at the end of the game. Neither is a big deal, but neither of those was the sportsmanlike or right thing to do. I think the "echo chamber" comments stem from the fact that some posters sense of right and wrong seems to realign itself to whatever III does. Everyone seems to be comfortable with "he is not a perfect coach" in the abstract but any concrete criticism (timeout usage, not returning a gifted basket, etc.) no matter how trivial is met with several posts of strong resistance. If the roles were reversed this thread would be full of posts dumping all over Willard and a search for the phrase "great representative of the university" would return 100 results in this thread. Most mentions in this thread have been in passing as a minor criticism. The backlash against the criticism is insane. In the words of rockhoya... +1000 +1001, and I am sure there are more. the original post sums it about it. worse yet the backlash is full of spite, literalism that takes certain points or analogies out of context to the farthest corner of the room to be used for their own agendas and ignorance about the sport(s) people profess to know so well.... |
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 8, 2015 15:59:47 GMT -5
Your soccer analogy is deeply flawed. In soccer when one player is really injured (as opposed to diving), they will kick the ball out of bounds (not score a free goal, big difference). And then that turnover will be reciprocated. I have never seen a scenario where you let someone score a goal and then reciprocate it as some sort of sportsman like gesture. In basketball when a player turns over the ball because of injury, the opposing team usually just runs the opposite way looking for a 5-4, 4-3, etc fast break. Even in a half court set they will keep playing. And once the injured player is taken off court those points are not reciprocated. In the Tyler scenario he was not injured to the point of incapacity and it wasn't a simple turnover. So there's no "that's what should have been done, end of story". Actually, these types of situations, more or less, have happened.... www.businessinsider.com/italian-team-lets-opponent-score-video-2014-3If you look at that situation the reciprocation was initially going to be just a change of possession. The reciprocating goals was more to rectify the error/mishap caused by the reciprocation of possession. So that is a very rare circumstance. Would you not agree that the standard reciprocation for an injured player is change of possession not exchanging of goals? |
|
for those who take posts too seriously.
