- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 9,379
- Reaction Score
- 23,674
Four days ago I wrote a post that included the words, to paraphrase, "to say that I'm glad to have Ollie is an understatement" that was liked by 47 people. There were a lot of other words in that post and people probably liked it for different reasons, their pity for my livelihood being among them. But nonetheless, 47 people are not liking a post that includes those words today no matter what they're prefaced with. The euphoria of the victory over Oregon made it very easy to ignore the mounting presence of conflicting evidence.
Now I would not consider myself an "Ollie apologist" (tangentially, if there anything worse than the people who post the 'I told you so' threads after a game like that?), but my angst with him - or at least that which I expressed - dates back about a year. I certainly wasn't the first to lose patience with him and one poster in particular seemed to sense that things were awry long before anyone, but I was also surprised at the resistance I got to the assertion that he did a really bad job with last years team. I've been in a weird place where I've simultaneously been arguing against his performance and for his long term viability, and at a time like this, I'm certainly not looking for credit. I've hedged my bets enough where I won't look like the biggest idiot here but probably won't be making a living as a gambler either.
But as I said in another thread yesterday, it's OK to admit to being really confused. That doesn't mean you're confused about what you saw in the last game or the last season or the last three seasons, it just means that they confuse your ability to predict the future. Trust me I would know, as I was ready to anoint him as the greatest coach to ever live a few years ago. And if we were confused eighteen months ago, when hardly anybody objected to his extension, then what is to prohibit us from being confused again?
The idea that we can't predict the future is obvious. The idea that recency bias might be invading our ability to assess the situation might not be. It's why the anti-Ollie sentiment seemed to grow tamer and tamer as the off-season progressed until it had just about sputtered out by halftime of the Michigan State game. It's why the prevailing narrative following the Michigan State game - and I actually argued post game that people were giving the team too much credit - was that we were heading in the right direction.
My ultimate point, then, is that our opinions on these things don't derive from conviction, they derive from the fear that we are somehow being duped, that all of these games and possessions warrant an omniscient narration that enlightens us, retroactively, to all of the warning signs. Nobody wants to think that these games are merely limited samples of data that progressively and in a very linear way enlighten us to the truth. Otherwise, the totality of an entire career - and the inherent worth of our players - wouldn't have swayed so dramatically with literally one game. That's what happens when a particular subject matters to us. Our conviction is not rooted in the opinion itself, our conviction is rooted in the emotion. On this topic, a topic that matters to all of us, our opinions resonate strongly not from a lack of evidence, but from the presence of competing evidence. That's why one game and seven KenPom slots represent the difference between Kevin Ollie taking this program forward and not - because we are really confused. One game absolutely lends credibility to the (building) idea that he should be out, it just shouldn't be the singular pivot point from which the degree of separation is formed. It only seems that way because we're at the line that at some point has to become binary.
If nothing else, pay attention not to what the narrative is, but to how much it changes, how fast. See how fast a CBI bound team with a sunken coach becomes a tournament team. See how fast a win over Syracuse takes this from "hopeless" to something else. See how the win over Oregon becomes a resume builder again, how Michigan State becomes the best team in the county that beat UNC more thoroughly than us, how those poor kids had to play a consolation game 3,000 miles from home after emptying the tank to beat Oregon and MSU and of course they had nothing less. Nobody will make those excuses faster than us. Nobody. Nobody will reduce this disaster of epic proportions to "three bad halves" faster than us IF WE NEED TO.
We're a team that went from 69 to 65 to 72. We might be at 55 in two weeks or we might be at 94. I have no damn idea.
Now I would not consider myself an "Ollie apologist" (tangentially, if there anything worse than the people who post the 'I told you so' threads after a game like that?), but my angst with him - or at least that which I expressed - dates back about a year. I certainly wasn't the first to lose patience with him and one poster in particular seemed to sense that things were awry long before anyone, but I was also surprised at the resistance I got to the assertion that he did a really bad job with last years team. I've been in a weird place where I've simultaneously been arguing against his performance and for his long term viability, and at a time like this, I'm certainly not looking for credit. I've hedged my bets enough where I won't look like the biggest idiot here but probably won't be making a living as a gambler either.
But as I said in another thread yesterday, it's OK to admit to being really confused. That doesn't mean you're confused about what you saw in the last game or the last season or the last three seasons, it just means that they confuse your ability to predict the future. Trust me I would know, as I was ready to anoint him as the greatest coach to ever live a few years ago. And if we were confused eighteen months ago, when hardly anybody objected to his extension, then what is to prohibit us from being confused again?
The idea that we can't predict the future is obvious. The idea that recency bias might be invading our ability to assess the situation might not be. It's why the anti-Ollie sentiment seemed to grow tamer and tamer as the off-season progressed until it had just about sputtered out by halftime of the Michigan State game. It's why the prevailing narrative following the Michigan State game - and I actually argued post game that people were giving the team too much credit - was that we were heading in the right direction.
My ultimate point, then, is that our opinions on these things don't derive from conviction, they derive from the fear that we are somehow being duped, that all of these games and possessions warrant an omniscient narration that enlightens us, retroactively, to all of the warning signs. Nobody wants to think that these games are merely limited samples of data that progressively and in a very linear way enlighten us to the truth. Otherwise, the totality of an entire career - and the inherent worth of our players - wouldn't have swayed so dramatically with literally one game. That's what happens when a particular subject matters to us. Our conviction is not rooted in the opinion itself, our conviction is rooted in the emotion. On this topic, a topic that matters to all of us, our opinions resonate strongly not from a lack of evidence, but from the presence of competing evidence. That's why one game and seven KenPom slots represent the difference between Kevin Ollie taking this program forward and not - because we are really confused. One game absolutely lends credibility to the (building) idea that he should be out, it just shouldn't be the singular pivot point from which the degree of separation is formed. It only seems that way because we're at the line that at some point has to become binary.
If nothing else, pay attention not to what the narrative is, but to how much it changes, how fast. See how fast a CBI bound team with a sunken coach becomes a tournament team. See how fast a win over Syracuse takes this from "hopeless" to something else. See how the win over Oregon becomes a resume builder again, how Michigan State becomes the best team in the county that beat UNC more thoroughly than us, how those poor kids had to play a consolation game 3,000 miles from home after emptying the tank to beat Oregon and MSU and of course they had nothing less. Nobody will make those excuses faster than us. Nobody. Nobody will reduce this disaster of epic proportions to "three bad halves" faster than us IF WE NEED TO.
We're a team that went from 69 to 65 to 72. We might be at 55 in two weeks or we might be at 94. I have no damn idea.