Part of the Core of Truth About UCWBB | The Boneyard

Part of the Core of Truth About UCWBB

Status
Not open for further replies.

RockyMTblue2

Don't Look Up!
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
21,884
Reaction Score
95,782
He said it about the Olympic team, but it is one of the keys about how UConn breaks down, wears down, exhausts opposing teams:

“I don’t want to know what we’re doing next,” Auriemma said. “Because if I don’t know what’s coming next, the other team certainly doesn’t know what’s coming next. I don’t want to be predictable—every time the ball goes here, we’re going to go there. No, when the ball is passed there by some of our guys, they may go there, they may go there, they may go there, they may do this. Doesn’t always look good, but when it looks it looks great.”

For Team USA women, the element of surprise fuels dominant offense
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
712
Reaction Score
10,839
At the risk of creating another 400 post thread:rolleyes:, there is an interesting quote in the article:

“With our offense, what I try to do is say, like when you’re a kid, here’s your sandbox,” Auriemma said, holding up his hands in a square, “and it is this big, and within that sandbox you can do whatever you want. And if you fall outside that sandbox, you better hurry up and get back in. Because you’re not allowed to play out there and just do whatever you want. But within the box, you don’t have to be specific.”

That was one of the few issues that arose with Team USA in London in 2012. Star forward Candace Parker tended to go outside the sandbox a little too much, and the offense tended to bog down. Parker was eventually moved to the bench. There was some controversy when Parker was not chosen for the 2016 Olympics, but the reason can be traced back to the sometimes awkward fit Parker had in the offense in London.
 

UcMiami

How it is
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
14,056
Reaction Score
46,330
He said it about the Olympic team, but it is one of the keys about how UConn breaks down, wears down, exhausts opposing teams:

“I don’t want to know what we’re doing next,” Auriemma said. “Because if I don’t know what’s coming next, the other team certainly doesn’t know what’s coming next. I don’t want to be predictable—every time the ball goes here, we’re going to go there. No, when the ball is passed there by some of our guys, they may go there, they may go there, they may go there, they may do this. Doesn’t always look good, but when it looks it looks great.”

For Team USA women, the element of surprise fuels dominant offense
Interesting piece, and I think the first one I have read that specifically stated at least the author's opinion on why Parker was not included in the team.
It is not a novel concept in athletics either, though usually the permutations are finite within the offensive flexibility. In basketball particularly the unpredictability tends to have three or four options at most, before resetting and going through a new sequence. With Geno, it is more often a continuous sequence with infinite options, though occasionally it gets so messed up that a restart does happen.
 

JoePgh

Cranky pants and wise acre
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
3,625
Reaction Score
21,052
At the risk of creating another 400 post thread:rolleyes:, there is an interesting quote in the article:

“With our offense, what I try to do is say, like when you’re a kid, here’s your sandbox,” Auriemma said, holding up his hands in a square, “and it is this big, and within that sandbox you can do whatever you want. And if you fall outside that sandbox, you better hurry up and get back in. Because you’re not allowed to play out there and just do whatever you want. But within the box, you don’t have to be specific.”

That was one of the few issues that arose with Team USA in London in 2012. Star forward Candace Parker tended to go outside the sandbox a little too much, and the offense tended to bog down. Parker was eventually moved to the bench. There was some controversy when Parker was not chosen for the 2016 Olympics, but the reason can be traced back to the sometimes awkward fit Parker had in the offense in London.
You didn't put quotes around your last paragraph, so I had to read the article to see that this text is actually from the article and not just your opinion.

I think it is momentous that this appeared in print in a place where the WCBB world would read it. I have to think that it comes from Geno, although the words are not attributed to him. I wonder if Carol Callan approved of the publication of this thought. It really amounts to a specific public explanation of CP's exclusion from the 2016 team. I never expected to see that, and I doubt that most people did.

I have two conflicting thoughts about it: (1) it is an understandable and rational explanation of the decision to leave Candace off the team, and I hope it will convince some people who have not made up their mind already that the decision was not simply arbitrary or vindictive; BUT (b) it is another case where I don't really agree with Geno providing this much information to the public about a decision whose rationale should have been kept private. He has done this in the past, and in several cases I don't think he should have. He said way too much in public about why Charde Houston wasn't playing more, revealing information that was personal and should have stayed that way. When Samarie Walker transferred, he recounted conversations with her parents that (IMHO) should not have been publicly aired. It helped us to see why he made the decisions that he made, but at a real cost to the individuals involved. In this case also, his reasons for not wanting CP on the team should have stayed private, even if it caused criticism from the Orange crowd. They certainly aren't going to accept this explanation even if it makes sense (which it does, in my opinion).

I wonder if anyone from VolNation will find this article and this quotation. I'm sure they will have a field day with it if they do.
 

JoePgh

Cranky pants and wise acre
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
3,625
Reaction Score
21,052
Sean Deveney, the article author provided the CP explanation not Geno.
But from whom, other than Geno, could he have obtained that information? How else would he know that Candace's play in London had caused problems for the offense?

And certainly Geno knew that by talking to him, the explanation would become public even without his being directly quoted.
 

RockyMTblue2

Don't Look Up!
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
21,884
Reaction Score
95,782
But from whom, other than Geno, could he have obtained that information? How else would he know that Candace's play in London had caused problems for the offense?

And certainly Geno knew that by talking to him, the explanation would become public even without his being directly quoted.

Uh, he could have watched the games and noticed the bench? I'm just sayin' :rolleyes:
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
5,306
Reaction Score
28,416
You didn't put quotes around your last paragraph, so I had to read the article to see that this text is actually from the article and not just your opinion.

I think it is momentous that this appeared in print in a place where the WCBB world would read it. I have to think that it comes from Geno, although the words are not attributed to him. I wonder if Carol Callan approved of the publication of this thought. It really amounts to a specific public explanation of CP's exclusion from the 2016 team. I never expected to see that, and I doubt that most people did.

I have two conflicting thoughts about it: (1) it is an understandable and rational explanation of the decision to leave Candace off the team, and I hope it will convince some people who have not made up their mind already that the decision was not simply arbitrary or vindictive; BUT (b) it is another case where I don't really agree with Geno providing this much information to the public about a decision whose rationale should have been kept private. He has done this in the past, and in several cases I don't think he should have. He said way too much in public about why Charde Houston wasn't playing more, revealing information that was personal and should have stayed that way. When Samarie Walker transferred, he recounted conversations with her parents that (IMHO) should not have been publicly aired. It helped us to see why he made the decisions that he made, but at a real cost to the individuals involved. In this case also, his reasons for not wanting CP on the team should have stayed private, even if it caused criticism from the Orange crowd. They certainly aren't going to accept this explanation even if it makes sense (which it does, in my opinion).

I wonder if anyone from VolNation will find this article and this quotation. I'm sure they will have a field day with it if they do.
Sorry, I'm confused. Do you think that it was Geno who actually mentioned why Parker was left off? That's not how I took it. I thought it was the writer of the article, Sean Deveney, who drew that conclusion: that discussion is sandwiched between two direct quotations from Geno, and I just assumed Deveney was explicating the larger point himself. There's no way to decide which interpretation is right here, but, unless it is known for certain, I think we shouldn't criticize Geno for it.

Indeed, if Geno did say it, it's not only unfortunate, but it describes an action that was entirely avoidable. Say that Geno came to realize in 2012 that Parker just wasn't playing his idea of team ball--which is what that paragraph suggests. Wouldn't Geno have been better off back channeling to Parker before the try outs that she wasn't going to make the team, so that she could make up an excuse and save face (and save Geno and the rest of the Committee a lot of grief)?

No way to know any of this for sure, of course. Just seems unlikely that Geno would have gone out of his way to bring Parker into this discussion. When in doubt, I'd rather blame sloppy reporting/writing than Geno being a sloppy communicator (though, Lord knows, he can be).
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
635
Reaction Score
1,432
Sorry, I'm confused. Do you think that it was Geno who actually mentioned why Parker was left off? That's not how I took it. I thought it was the writer of the article, Sean Deveney, who drew that conclusion: that discussion is sandwiched between two direct quotations from Geno, and I just assumed Deveney was explicating the larger point himself. There's no way to decide which interpretation is right here, but, unless it is known for certain, I think we shouldn't criticize Geno for it.

Indeed, if Geno did say it, it's not only unfortunate, but it describes an action that was entirely avoidable. Say that Geno came to realize in 2012 that Parker just wasn't playing his idea of team ball--which is what that paragraph suggests. Wouldn't Geno have been better off back channeling to Parker before the try outs that she wasn't going to make the team, so that she could make up an excuse and save face (and save Geno and the rest of the Committee a lot of grief)?

No way to know any of this for sure, of course. Just seems unlikely that Geno would have gone out of his way to bring Parker into this discussion. When in doubt, I'd rather blame sloppy reporting/writing than Geno being a sloppy communicator (though, Lord knows, he can be).

And you know Geno didn't have that conversation How? I've never heard a player in any sport say I'm benched or I'm off the team because coach didn't see me as a team player. My uneducated guess is he did have that conversation.
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
5,306
Reaction Score
28,416
And you know Geno didn't have that conversation How? I've never heard a player in any sport say I'm benched or I'm off the team because coach didn't see me as a team player. My uneducated guess is he did have that conversation.
My point was that IF, IF, IF Geno had actually said those things in that paragraph and therefore knew ahead of time that Parker wasn't going to make the team, he would most likely have told her that ahead of time ....and so she might well have not tried out because of "family concerns" (say, Zika) and saved face. I'm only trying to determine the origins of that disputed paragraph, which I believe seems more reasonable to attribute to the reporter than to Geno.

I see now that warbler13 nailed it before I did: sorry I missed your post.
 
Last edited:

JoePgh

Cranky pants and wise acre
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
3,625
Reaction Score
21,052
To me, it fits better with the pattern that we have seen in the previous cases that I mentioned: Geno wants the WCBB-following public to understand that he had a good reason for what might seem to be a bad decision, so he has found a way to let us know what his rationale was. That's great for us, and perhaps for Geno's reputation as a fair coach, but it does have a cost to the privacy of the individuals involved. In my book, those privacy concerns should have outweighed his concern about being perceived as spiteful or unfair. After all, his reputation is solid enough (a gross understatement) that it can withstand the barbs of a few uninformed critics of a specific decision.

Actually, his decision to recommend Parker's exclusion was courageous -- certainly he realized that if the USA did not win a Gold Medal and was missing one of its most talented players because of his recommendation, he might have had trouble living down the consequences of that. It would have been easy to take Candace on the team and give her a share of the minutes -- the USA probably still would have won, and if they didn't, at least they would have used their "best" (note the quotes) roster. But he was committed to having the Olympic team play a certain style of basketball, and was not willing to compromise that. Good for him in that respect!
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
5,306
Reaction Score
28,416
To me, it fits better with the pattern that we have seen in the previous cases that I mentioned: Geno wants the WCBB-following public to understand that he had a good reason for what might seem to be a bad decision, so he has found a way to let us know what his rationale was. That's great for us, and perhaps for Geno's reputation as a fair coach, but it does have a cost to the privacy of the individuals involved. In my book, those privacy concerns should have outweighed his concern about being perceived as spiteful or unfair. After all, his reputation is solid enough (a gross understatement) that it can withstand the barbs of a few uninformed critics of a specific decision.

Actually, his decision to recommend Parker's exclusion was courageous -- certainly he realized that if the USA did not win a Gold Medal and was missing one of its most talented players because of his recommendation, he might have had trouble living down the consequences of that. It would have been easy to take Candace on the team and give her a share of the minutes -- the USA probably still would have won, and if they didn't, at least they would have used their "best" (note the quotes) roster. But he was committed to having the Olympic team play a certain style of basketball, and was not willing to compromise that. Good for him in that respect!
Hate to be a defendant in your court, O Judge JoePgh: what happened to innocent until proven guilty? :) Seriously, that text can certainly be read either way.
 

BigBird

Et In Hoc Signo Vinces
Joined
Nov 13, 2013
Messages
3,849
Reaction Score
10,566
"... Geno wants the WCBB-following public to understand that he had a good reason for what might seem to be a bad decision, so he has found a way to let us know what his rationale was. That's great for us, and perhaps for Geno's reputation as a fair coach, but it does have a cost to the privacy of the individuals involved. In my book, those privacy concerns should have outweighed his concern about being perceived as spiteful or unfair.

I like some of your thinking here. Perhaps you meant "embarrassment" when you typed privacy. That would have been clear, and it would be a good point. But if not that, then I must ask...since when is olympic basketball a "private" endeavor? Like most all sports, it is an entertainment vehicle played out in front of an interested (it is hoped) audience for their inspection and enjoyment. Similarly, the thoughts, views, opinions, and decisions of athletes and coaches are part of that package. They pretty much have to be, unless being a "sports fan" means merely noting the final scores on your ESPN smart phone app.

Whatever the reason for the omission of Parker, suggesting that it is "private" is a stretch at best, and more likely just erroneous. This notion of extended privacy rights for public figures and their public actions seems especially popular here on the BY, for reasons I understand (opinions can vary, and do), even if I disagree on some of the particulars. For a professional athlete, part of the deal they sign on for provides less privacy and maximum compensation. They understand it, so why don't we?

While the law has nothing much to offer here, it's worth noting that the law in all fifty states (when last I taught this stuff) actually provides LESS protection to the privacy of public figures, and an expanded right of public scrutiny. This, of course, does not mean we need to push this right to the max while covering a local high school track team. We develop ethics, thank goodness. On this, I think we'd agree.

It still strikes me as odd that an professional athlete who refers to media access as their "platform" would then suppose that their words, reasoning, deeds, and performance on that stage were not to be discussed or examined on someone else's platform.
 

CL82

2023 NCAA Men’s Basketball National Champions
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
56,511
Reaction Score
206,273
Sorry, I'm confused. Do you think that it was Geno who actually mentioned why Parker was left off? That's not how I took it. I thought it was the writer of the article, Sean Deveney, who drew that conclusion: that discussion is sandwiched between two direct quotations from Geno, and I just assumed Deveney was explicating the larger point himself. There's no way to decide which interpretation is right here, but, unless it is known for certain, I think we shouldn't criticize Geno for it.

Indeed, if Geno did say it, it's not only unfortunate, but it describes an action that was entirely avoidable. Say that Geno came to realize in 2012 that Parker just wasn't playing his idea of team ball--which is what that paragraph suggests. Wouldn't Geno have been better off back channeling to Parker before the try outs that she wasn't going to make the team, so that she could make up an excuse and save face (and save Geno and the rest of the Committee a lot of grief)?

No way to know any of this for sure, of course. Just seems unlikely that Geno would have gone out of his way to bring Parker into this discussion. When in doubt, I'd rather blame sloppy reporting/writing than Geno being a sloppy communicator (though, Lord knows, he can be).
Unlikely. If the decision leave Candace off the team was made in 2012, she wouldn't have figured so prominently in the pre Olympic games team USA advertising. I think this was one of those decisions that evolved at the last minute as the committee looked at their choices.
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
5,306
Reaction Score
28,416
For a professional athlete, part of the deal they sign on for provides less privacy and maximum compensation.

Indeed. Wasn't there a recent story that Dee was actually required by her Russian team to spend more time on social media, to tell her followers more about herself?
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
5,306
Reaction Score
28,416
Unlikely. If the decision leave Candace off the team was made in 2012, she wouldn't have figured so prominently in the pre Olympic games team USA advertising. I think this was one of those decisions that evolved at the last minute as the committee looked at their choices.
I'm not saying that it was made in 2012, but that Geno's eventual decision was based on what he saw in 2012. But you make a great point about the pre-Olympic advertising. That does pretty much vitiate my hypothesis that Geno would have backchanneled her. Thanks for this.

But it still in no way either proves or disproves Geno's authorship of that middle paragraph--which wasn't your point, so I'm not arguing with you, I'm just saying that, at least, remains speculative at this point.
 

RockyMTblue2

Don't Look Up!
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
21,884
Reaction Score
95,782
So, a thread about one aspect of UC greatness becomes a thread about the Parker "whatever you wanna call it"! Really bags... really! You don't know how far off you are. I'm sworn to secrecy, but it is absolutely true that lots of folks talk to the guy next to them on an airplane as if it's going down.
 

JordyG

Stake in my pocket, Vlad to see you
Joined
Jan 21, 2016
Messages
13,103
Reaction Score
54,870
Interesting piece, and I think the first one I have read that specifically stated at least the author's opinion on why Parker was not included in the team.
It is not a novel concept in athletics either, though usually the permutations are finite within the offensive flexibility. In basketball particularly the unpredictability tends to have three or four options at most, before resetting and going through a new sequence. With Geno, it is more often a continuous sequence with infinite options, though occasionally it gets so messed up that a restart does happen.
Yes, and hardly new to basketball as evidenced by the Paul Westphal based offenses and the old Celtics offenses, as well as the triangle offense. Although with the latter certain movements are precise and particular. Again as some of the men's Olympic team members have noted, many of the things done in the women's game seems to have been lost on the men's side. There where ball movement means merely passing around the perimeter and an option offense means if I can't get off I'll pass it to you so you can.
 

Plebe

La verdad no peca pero incomoda
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
19,373
Reaction Score
69,542
The paragraph about Parker going outside the sandbox in 2012 is pretty clearly the author's words, not Geno's. If the author had intended to attribute the Parker-related statement to Geno, he would've included included verbiage to explicitly mark it as an indirect quotation (e.g., "yada yada yada, Geno continued, yada yada"). The fact that no such verbiage is present in that paragraph indicates to me that it's the author's idea.

Back in April, when Carol Callan was asked by journalists about Candace's non-selection, she said that they don't get into specifics when discussing individual players publicly. I don't think Geno would depart from that prudent policy to discuss Candace's specifics with The Sporting News.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
9,874
Reaction Score
29,425
The paragraph about Parker going outside the sandbox in 2012 is pretty clearly the author's words, not Geno's. If the author had intended to attribute the Parker-related statement to Geno, he would've included included verbiage to explicitly mark it as an indirect quotation (e.g., "yada yada yada, Geno continued, yada yada"). The fact that no such verbiage is present in that paragraph indicates to me that it's the author's idea.

Back in April, when Carol Callan was asked by journalists about Candace's non-selection, she said that they don't get into specifics when discussing individual players publicly. I don't think Geno would depart from that prudent policy to discuss Candace's specifics with The Sporting News.
Totally agree. When I was reading the article it didn't even occur to me the the writer might be attributing those words to Geno.
 

JoePgh

Cranky pants and wise acre
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
3,625
Reaction Score
21,052
Totally agree. When I was reading the article it didn't even occur to me the the writer might be attributing those words to Geno.
I didn't mean to suggest that the writer was attributing the words to Geno. On the contrary, I was suggesting that he was intentionally avoiding that, even though the information almost certainly came from Geno.

I'm guessing that a conversation approximately as follows took place between Geno and Sean Deveney, the author of the article:

Geno: (describes "sandbox" offensive concept, as quoted in the article)
Deveney: Does that sandbox concept, and players not being allowed to deviate from it, have anything to do with why Candace Parker wasn't selected for the 2016 Olympic team?
Geno: Um, that's a confidential matter within USA Basketball, so I can't comment on it -- for the record.
Deveney: It doesn't have to be on the record. I'm sure you know that many knowledgeable people were very surprised by that decision, and they say they don't understand it. Tennessee fans are up in arms. Can you give me something that I can share with our readers about the background to that?
Geno: Hmmm, all right. I'll tell you why that decision was made, and you can print it, but I don't want my name associated with it. You'll commit to that, right?
Deveney: Sure, boss. All I want to do is write an accurate story for our readers.
Geno: OK, then, here is the deal ...​

It wouldn't be the first or last time that confidential information was leaked to serve the interests of the leaker. In fact, it happens every day.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
9,874
Reaction Score
29,425
I didn't mean to suggest that the writer was attributing the words to Geno. On the contrary, I was suggesting that he was intentionally avoiding that, even though the information almost certainly came from Geno.

I'm guessing that a conversation approximately as follows took place between Geno and Sean Deveney, the author of the article:

Geno: (describes "sandbox" offensive concept, as quoted in the article)
Deveney: Does that sandbox concept, and players not being allowed to deviate from it, have anything to do with why Candace Parker wasn't selected for the 2016 Olympic team?
Geno: Um, that's a confidential matter within USA Basketball, so I can't comment on it -- for the record.
Deveney: It doesn't have to be on the record. I'm sure you know that many knowledgeable people were very surprised by that decision, and they say they don't understand it. Tennessee fans are up in arms. Can you give me something that I can share with our readers about the background to that?
Geno: Hmmm, all right. I'll tell you why that decision was made, and you can print it, but I don't want my name associated with it. You'll commit to that, right?
Deveney: Sure, boss. All I want to do is write an accurate story for our readers.
Geno: OK, then, here is the deal ...​

It wouldn't be the first or last time that confidential information was leaked to serve the interests of the leaker. In fact, it happens every day.
My, "[not] attributing those words to Geno" includes your scenario - sorry not to be more clear.
 

UcMiami

How it is
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
14,056
Reaction Score
46,330
I didn't mean to suggest that the writer was attributing the words to Geno. On the contrary, I was suggesting that he was intentionally avoiding that, even though the information almost certainly came from Geno.

I'm guessing that a conversation approximately as follows took place between Geno and Sean Deveney, the author of the article:

Geno: (describes "sandbox" offensive concept, as quoted in the article)
Deveney: Does that sandbox concept, and players not being allowed to deviate from it, have anything to do with why Candace Parker wasn't selected for the 2016 Olympic team?
Geno: Um, that's a confidential matter within USA Basketball, so I can't comment on it -- for the record.
Deveney: It doesn't have to be on the record. I'm sure you know that many knowledgeable people were very surprised by that decision, and they say they don't understand it. Tennessee fans are up in arms. Can you give me something that I can share with our readers about the background to that?
Geno: Hmmm, all right. I'll tell you why that decision was made, and you can print it, but I don't want my name associated with it. You'll commit to that, right?
Deveney: Sure, boss. All I want to do is write an accurate story for our readers.
Geno: OK, then, here is the deal ...​

It wouldn't be the first or last time that confidential information was leaked to serve the interests of the leaker. In fact, it happens every day.
In my mind - Nope!
I don't believe Geno would have come out and said anything about Parker to any reporter even someone he has worked closely with. If he has said anything it has been within the confines of his inner circle of colleagues and friends. It is a 'third rail' and something he would not touch because of his respect for USA basketball and Carol.

I am sure those within the universe of USA basketball and probably most of those in the WNBA coaching ranks and player ranks have an idea of why the decision was made and don't even talk about it or ask questions. Just as many of the fans without blue or orange glasses have pretty solid suspicions. And I think most reports probably have their own pretty clear idea as well. This is just the first instance where a reporter has actually published his suspicions and couched them in the language the Geno used to describe his offense.
 

BRS24

LisaG
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
3,411
Reaction Score
20,670
Geno has said that he teaches his players how to play basketball. Very few set plays, however some strong fundamentals on player and ball movement, which forces the players to make decisions as the offense develops. This is not easy for everyone to do, and perhaps his reference to pass here, pass there, do what you want in the sandbox makes reference to needing players that can think, react, and sometimes predict. Not everyone can do this, and it doesn't make them a bad player, however makes it difficult to fit within the system.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2015
Messages
11,335
Reaction Score
25,045
Uh, he could have watched the games and noticed the bench? I'm just sayin' :rolleyes:

You are a ruiner!! Ruiner! That is too rational as a solution--no conspiracy or paranoia---without that can those who dislike Geno or Uconn can they have any real life at all??

This horse isn't just dead --it's rotten. Candace Parker didn't play--there is a reason (maybe)--if there is--why must we know what it is?? If Candace Parker requires an explanation at this point, she'd have to be masochist, why would that be needed except for ego??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
447
Guests online
3,535
Total visitors
3,982

Forum statistics

Threads
155,780
Messages
4,031,415
Members
9,864
Latest member
Sad Tiger


Top Bottom