I have never seen or heard the phrase "high emotional truisms", but by definition all truisms, emotional or emotionless, are true. So no hope is needed, high or otherwise.
Something to chew on for a Monday - I have a question about Aliyah Boston. This is speculation only. It's NOT about her being a generational player, it has to do with her being the best post in the country and the NPOY. I'm preferencing my question by acknowledging this WILL NOT HAPPEN!!!
That's definitely a valid conversation and one that I've thought about some. I guess it means whether one is thinking a generational College basketball player or just basketball player. Taking the sociological definition of a generation (~25 years), that's SIX four-year classes in college. If the average career length of a player who sticks in the WNBA is 5 years, that's five five-year sets of folks.
In the popular media, I have no doubt they'd be played up as the prohibitive favorite. I'd probably drink the Kool Aid myself. Just looking at the surface, insert an elite rim protector, general defender, and offensive rebounder onto a team that already can score and defend and always shoots a high percentage, and that is a recipe for success.
Ha! Better not vacation in the UK or Ireland... roundabouts are the way to go there and keep traffic moving very much better than traffic lights.
At UConn, HuskyNan, perhaps.
I agree that people are going to define a generation how they want to. To me, 4-5 years is more like a class, too short to be a generation or era. But as for quality I'll stick with my second sentence, a single player who dominates that time period with elite skill and ability. A clear talent supremacy. So whether it's 5 years, 10, or 25, to be THE generational player you have to be better than all of the others of that period. To throw in 15-20 different players just waters it down to " a lot of great players". And stats don't matter to me, high level players don't need numbers to know who has dominated, they know. Most fans just add up numbers or the most outrageous dunks or moves. I know it's pretty much impossible to split hairs on who's the very best and that's my point. "Generational" is a dumb term. They can't all have the trophy as the best like today's society wants so just call them great or whatever. Obviously JMO.
Excellent points by both you and Bigboote, BobbyJ.
I'd definitely put Tina ahead of her, hands down.
To me it is still a toss-up as far as college. You have to factor in the talent level that Boston has compared to what A'ja had her 4 years. I think A'ja will be the better pro.
Bascom was a classmate of mine at UConn. Fun player to watch back then. But sticking to the topic, Boston is a great player, but I would not call her "generational" player.
Maybe long term but in terms of college career it's Boston by a solid margin, especially considering her impact defensively.
Wilson had Coates, Mitchell, Gray and Davis. None of Boston's teammates seem particularly likely to get as good of pros or as talented as any of the listed above. I do think Wilson may be a better pro but Boston has been the clear better collegiate player through 3 years IMO.
Gray and Davis was only there for the championship year. I am talking about the whole team as far as talent. After the top 3, there was a significant drop off in talent with Dawn's early team compared to her present team. Just look at who A'ja had at the point guard and who Boston had at the point guard. A'ja had Sessions who was solid. They both had Ty Harris, but there is a big difference between a young Ty Harris and a Senior Ty Harris with Destanni Henderson. If you are looking at the numbers, it would tell you A'ja was the better offensive player and Boston was the better Defensive player. The accolades are the same after 3 years. Boston still has one more year to add to that. A'ja will still be the school all time leading scorer and probably shot blocker. Also she is the only player in SEC history to have won 3 SEC player of the year. Boston, if she has a great year, will probably be the most decorated player. She will probably go down as the school's leading rebounder. If she scores over 2,000 points, then it will be an argument. A'ja has about 2,400 and didn't even start her Freshmen year.
No, but a very, very good player.
So, it sounds like you think there is always a “generational” player in the system? I disagree, “generational” players have to earn that description. It is not awarded simply because you are the best player in a particular season. There is no rule that says there must be a generational player for every season/era!
absolutely Paige is not generational to me either, she is a really good player but still has to improve a lot defensively and get stronger.
No college player is generational. Some, like Boston, can become generational if , and not until, they have proven themselves in the pros - that is a league of the best of the best.
Stationed two years in Scotland. I know all about them.
Agree about the PG comparison, though I wasn't impressed by Henderson to the same degree until this year. Wilson's teammates were very good even if players 4-9 were stronger than Boston's. Boston has never played with a player comparable to Tiffany Mitchell (3x AP All American) or Alaina Coates who was 4x All SEC.
Your definition is halfway correct. Those truisms put forth by the ill informed or for devious reasons may be emotionally presented or meant to blur the meaning. All truisms are not true. Remember Webster lived before the internet. Fans often present half thought out facts when speaking or writing about their favorite team. Then they may present EMOTIONAL truisms. Human's are emotional animals, some more, some less so.I have never seen or heard the phrase "high emotional truisms", but by definition all truisms, emotional or emotionless, are true. So no hope is needed, high or otherwise.