Post by guru on Jan 20, 2017 11:46:32 GMT -5
It's really not fruitful to engage hoyasaxa2003 at this point. He refuses to see what's obvious - the common thread in this downward spiral is JT3. He blames the players and their lack of talent, which a) isn't true and b) even if true, is also JT3's fault, for either recruiting the wrong kids or failing to develop them and turn them into a cohesive unit.
To say nothing of the fact that it's utter balderdash to claim that only the most talented teams (based on rankings or NBA potential) are capable of success in today's college environment. There are so many example of how wrong that is it's impossible to list, but one need only look back to last April for one. Of course, he somehow consistently dismisses Villanova's success because... why again? He has a different reason every time. God bless his optimism and his excuse-making for JT3, but at this point he has been proven wrong beyond a doubt. Disengage.
But, I don't blame the players. It's not their fault. In fact, what makes your post truly ridiculous is the fact that I frequently defend our players. For example, (1) I was generally supportive of Josh Smith when others ripped him, (2) I have defended the team against posts implying that they do not put in enough effort, and (3) I have defended other players who have been criticized for not being dedicated, like Lubick. So before you try to represent my viewpoints, make sure you get it right.
Also, I have never dismissed Villanova's success. I am not sure what you're talking about. What I have said is that most teams that have won national championships in the modern era have not done it the way Villanova did (i.e., relying largely on 3-4 year college players). Nearly ever team that has won a national championship in recent years has had NBA talent (and by that, I mean players that actually make the NBA, not fans saying so). I actually do think Villanova is a good model for being competitive in the college landscape.
As far as your assertion that I have been "proven wrong beyond a doubt" that pretty much tells everyone what agenda you're pushing, not to mention your lack of understanding of what it means to prove something. To act like discussions about the coaching staff, etc., are easy and clear cut, and so clear that there shouldn't be debate just shows the lack of thought that some have put into the situation.
On Villanova, you recently wrote:
"Generally, I agree with you. But, Villanova's example really isn't a good one."
That's what I'm referring to when writing that you dismiss Villanova as a comparison. And that's just one of many similar statements you have made when people point to Villanova as proof that a school like Georgetown can succeed. You know, your line of argument that goes "no private schools have won the national championship besides Syracuse, Villanova and oh right Duke, because IT'S JUST TOO DARN HARD and by the way it has nothing to do with coaching only players."