John A.: KML - Pain leads to gain

[msf22b]

Sorry to not reply more promptly, was out skiing in oldecoach's place.

Please accept these comments as an example of my view that further factual information might lead to enlightenment.

For example: in the wake of the Notre Dame debacle, is not all information that might give understanding to that difficult afternoon, worthy of consideration and exploration.

At present, no one on the outside (us) is privy (to my knowledge)to the details of the travel arrangements or practices thereafter

If we would have won the game along the lines of your spread, the information would have been just of interest anecdotally or not at all.

But since we played seemingly such an uncharacteristic game, it seems fitting and proper, intellectually to make inquiries and consider all avenues even if this information is most usually closely held.

For example.
-Was the team flying commercial purely a budget matter and if so, why fly to St. Thomas on a charter?

-Or was it a matter of bad administration, waiting past the time that such transport was available and are heads going to role, people forgiven, or its just another mess up when such things happen all the time?

-Does the rumor about unusual practices, spread by the suspect announcers, have any basis in f act? I wouldn't have thought that they would have made that up themselves, rather that someone would have told them.

-Does the above imply that Geno might (perish the thought) have panicked in the face of an unresponsive team on Wednesday and Thursday (especially the latter)? Do the coaches have any culpability in the arrangements?

-Don't you really want to know if scheduling effected sleep patterns, which effected practices, which effected the game?
Or is Brtia's ankle is still iffy and effecting her performance.?
Or if Stewie's fall in the Stanford game is making her more tentative or is an actual injury alla Maya?

You picked a big win, they uncharacteristically lost and are not the same yet. Seems intellectually suspect to just shrug it off with a "get um next time" when so many factors are potentially on the table.

Rather than debate among ourselves, might we rather find ways to gain some additional knowledge.

Scotter stated that there are avenues to further enlightenment, I'm waiting to hear what ther are.

 

[trisailin]

msf22b: The team does not OWE you (or me) one bit of that information. They are not your personal entertainment center. For their privacy and safety, I think we already know a bit too much. Further, if you had any of that information, would it make any difference in any of the decisions you make.

 

[doggydaddy]

In the wake of the Notre Dame debacle, is not all information that might give understanding to that difficult afternoon, worthy of consideration and exploration.

At present, no one on the outside (us) is privy (to my knowledge)to the details of the travel arrangements or practices thereafter

If we would have won the game along the lines of your spread, the information would have been just of interest anecdotally or not at all.

But since we played seemingly such an uncharacteristic game, it seems fitting and proper, intellectually to make inquiries and consider all avenues even if this information is most usually closely held.

Did you want further enlightenment on any outside influences that might have impacted the team when they lost to St. Johns last year?

How about any of the ND losses last year? Especially the 13 point loss at home?

Were those loses not a debacle as much as this years ND game was?

Here's the thing. It's basketball, not as complicated as you are making it. You really need to know about their travel arraingments so you can say that you think they contributed to loss? Really??

They lost. They do that every year. Sometimes more than once. And some of those were because they played poorly. Were they all debacles?

"Seem intellectually suspect to just shrug it off, "get um next time" when so many factors are potentially on the table."

Maybe. But it seems to me that you are looking to point fingers. I just like to enjoy the games. I actually find your queries intellectually creepy.

 

[doggydaddy]

msf22b: The team does not OWE you (or me) one bit of that information. They are not your personal entertainment center. For their privacy and safety, I think we already know a bit too much. Further, if you had any of that information, would it make any difference in any of the decisions you make.

I think he found somewhere to bet on women's games and need that advantage as he stuggles with predicting games based on basketball facts.

 

[msf22b]

Trisalin

Not about entertainment
Not about decisions I would make

About pure knowledge for its own sake and the edification of the board

 

[msf22b]

Sorry to disabuse you Doggy but I don't bet on sports or anything else and am getting weary of your ad hominem attacks on anyone you disagree with. Getting old and absolutely predictable.

 

[msf22b]

"It's basketball, not as complicated as you're making it"
" This game has the possibility of being a mismatch, but McGraw will squeeze ever last bit of effort from her team and I expect them to play hard to the end keeping it fairly close.
Final prediction – Uconn by 13.

Me, I'm just looking into factors and influences.
I'm not doing a huge page of endless statistical analysis comparing every aspect of our team's game with their's, coming ultimately to the faulty conclusion that the game would be won by 13.
How is what I'm doing any different from your efforts? Or are you denying that your effort is an attempt to handicap the game. Or are you just P-O'ed that my handicapping was better than yours.


I find your disapproval intellectually suspect.

 

[msf22b]

Seriously, I think this is becoming a matter for Nan and the mods to chime in on.
Am I going out of bounds with my desire for more hard information.
Can members of the board act in the manner of investigative journalists?
Are such efforts useful and within the statutes?
I just went through the rules and can find no clear arguement for or against.
Perhaps, there should be some discussion of where the lines are.

 

[trisailin]

Once again - it's none of our business what the team had for breakfast, the thread-count of the sheets in the hotel where they stayed or if the seats on their airplane ride were comfortable.
And quite frankly, it's pretty creepy that some posters here think they need MORE access.

 

[Scotter]

Scotter: I find your piece very persuasive as a counterbalance to my views. I have two questions:

1. You mention "resources available," Would you be willing to share them with the board.

2. I don't completely understand your paragraph on "connecting the dots," and whether you approved or disapproved.

But in any case, there was a smidgeon of public information out there; actually far worse than my research, that allowed one to make a reasonable guess at what time the team arrived back in Hartford. The implication allowed for discussion of how that trip might have effected the point spread. For me that's an example of having some information not the other way around. I'm certainly not saying (even if I did, half in jest), that that's why we lost the game, but if it was the pro's and there was a line, the travel would have been reduced to points in a spread. For me, this is an example of having some real information. I just covert more.

For example, did someone in the Athletic Dept wait too long to book a charter and found none available? but of course, no one will ever own up to that.

You're paragraph in this thread describes is a great an example of only connecting visible dots and not respecting the unknown. You don't know what the actual options available were. You don't what factored in to the decisions were made and you don't appear to have a good handle on that actual impact of jet lag on a basketball game. You stated a 5-7 point affect on the spread. This made me question your knowledge of how point spreads are calculated and the degree to which travel is factored into point spreads. Your range at is largest is roughly double that typically given for home court advantage. Does that ratio make sense to you? If you have a question ask a question, but the whole string shouldn't read like their is a need to uncover a conspiracy to sabotage the team.

As far as resources, if you're looking for travel schedules and medical files I can't help you. I was talking about resources to help understand Geno's philosophy and the some of the X's and O's. To me understanding what is actually trying to be accomplished on the court has far merit than trying to divine the impact of jet lag.

There are the books that have been written about the program. There are obviously the coaching tapes that Geno has done, although those can be pricing. You can read Tex Winter's Triple Post Offense book originally published in 1962, which had a significant impact on Geno around 1994. Although Geno has put his own stamp on it over the years most of the offensive philosophies and principles still apply to today's UConn offense. And if you or anyone PM's me their e-mail address I do have some PDF articles that Geno wrote for coaching publications talking about his offensive philosophy and going through some X and O's that I can dig out and send you. I believe one is written after the first championship and Geno discusses his thinking regarding changing to the triple post (triange) offense and some of the theory behind how his practices are typically structured. It isn't the Da Vinci Code, but it is fairly interesting.

 

[pinotbear]

Seriously, I think this is becoming a matter for Nan and the mods to chime in on.
Am I going out of bounds with my desire for more hard information.
Can members of the board act in the manner of investigative journalists?
Are such efforts useful and within the statutes?
I just went through the rules and can find no clear arguement for or against.
Perhaps, there should be some discussion of where the lines are.

msf, I don't have much of a dog in this fight, but I do find your level of inquiry out of bounds. Perhaps it's because I've got daughters not that far out of college, and perhaps it's because I've done a bit of coaching (nothing anywhere near this level). But, I wouldn't want my kids, nor my players, subject to the level of scrutiny you seem to seek - not medically, not psychologically. I wouldn't want my program subject to this level of scrutiny - not because I'm hiding any malfeasance, but because it's a drain, a distraction, and (literally) a waste of my time, in the sense that I've got things I want to accomplish and I'm spending time being analyzed, and second-guessed that should be spent working on other things.

That's not a blank check for "I'll do what I want, and don't have to answer for it". It's more of a "everybody (including me) is gonna make mistakes, but everybody needs to be cut a certain amount of slack, baseline, and I've earned more that that. My record, both in terms of team success, and in terms of my past players' growth/success/loyalty after they graduate, should have earned me some leeway."

I've ranted before about how ..upsetting..I find the short-term mindset that has taken hold in this country. We want immediate satisfaction/explanation, we want immediate results/information, and we want it on our terms. To me, I find this mindset so short-sighted and selfish: selfish in the sense of self-centered, my wants, my expectations. I went down this tangent largely because of your use of the word "debacle". I was unhappy that ND beat UConn, very unhappy. But, losing by 1 point to a top-5 team, a team that played quite well, and knowing that UConn had fair opportunity to hit shots in the last minute - that's a debacle? Debacle, to me, means more than a last-minute, couldn't-be-any-closer loss to a very good opponent who played well. (and an opponent, as we all know, who has done this sort of thing before, recently). It means a significant failure, due to serious error/lack of effort/intention on somebody(ies) part. And, the word debacle is usually used when something quite significant is at stake, and lost. I don't know as loss, this close, in any early January game, to anybody, warrants the use of the word "debacle".

 

[Scotter]

If you have questions ask questions. There is a lot of combined knowledge on this board from people that have been following the program closely for a long time, but do everyone a favor and drop the John Stossel act. I'm much more reluctant to engage with you and share what I may know because of it. At least for me it is tiresome and unproductive.

Can members of the board act in the manner of investigative journalists?

 

[msf22b]

I appreciate the seriousness of the arguments put forward in the last three posts and will carefully consider them.
Just a few preliminary points.

Pinot: the reason I used the word debacle was that it was in relationship to the over-hyped prognostications of two threads of the forum that for the most part, anticipated a run-away. In retrospect, I should have explained the use of the word or chosen a more appropriate substitute. If you recall, I called the game a toss-up. I accept your points but request that you don't hold against me the use of the word which I incorrectly used to convey the reality of the outcome.

Scotter: You are completely correct in your (unspoken) thought that I am an amateur w/o real knowledge or education about such matters as point spreads and how they are constructed. I so admit. And I have not researched the literature as you have, indeed only started seriously following the team in the last 4 or 5 years.
I was intrigued by what I refer to as beautiful basketball, the game of my youth, a mixture of the Knicks of 73 and the Celtics previously, also the game I played in the playground.

Considering these limitations, I've done as well as most in identifying issues and especially in identifying games in which the opposition may potentially prevail often to the howls of the pure loyalists who labeled me as negative.

I do believe that there is significant circumstantial evidence that outside events may have effected the outcome of the game in question but until more is known about the week, my suspicions are just that.

Without knowing the details of the offense and Geno's theories thereof, it is quite clear that the team did not run it for important segments of the game and I do not think that Notre Dame's defense was the only cause of that.

Other than that, as I mentioned at the top of this piece, I want to further consider your position

Michael Feldman
St. Johnsbury Vt

 

[doggydaddy]

The reason I used the word debacle was that it was in relationship to the over-hyped prognostications of two threads of the forum that for the most part, anticipated a run-away. In retrospect, I should have explained the use of the word or chosen a more appropriate substitute. If you recall, I called the game a toss-up.

Debacle - A sudden, disastrous collapse, downfall, or defeat; a rout. A total, often ludicrous failure

Yep, you got this one right. How about the Stanford game? How did you do predicting last year.

Considering these limitations, I've done as well as most in identifying issues and especially in identifying games in which the opposition may potentially prevail often to the howls of the pure loyalists who labeled me as negative.

They are 13-1. Did you predict that?

I do believe that there is significant circumstantial evidence that outside events may have effected the outcome of the game in question but until more is known about the week, my suspicions are just that.

You are the only one that cares about this. Why don't you get it?

Without knowing the details of the offense and Geno's theories thereof, it is quite clear that the team did not run it for important segments of the game and I do not think that Notre Dame's defense was the only cause of that.

They had a bad game. It happens almost every year. And it's usually because of bad offense flow for important segments of the game. Sometimes they do it to themselves.

If Lewis makes that shot, 90% of the post game posts would be gone.

Michael Feldman
St. Johnsbury Vt

Always cracks me up when you use your full name and address. Like it adds more credibility to your post.

 

[Kibitzer]

One thing is certain. This thread supports one powerful American tradition about medical judgments. The one about "seeking a second opinion."

On edit. Perhaps I should have referred to getting a second opinion, whether you want or not.

Oh, well. Marquette tomorrow, Louisville Tuesday.

 

[msf22b]

A very informative piece by Fuller today illustrates the type of information that enlightens us all; a perfect example of
the sort of information that I am referring to above.

Both Bria and KLM are very upfront re: Bria's difficulties and health situ.

Obviously (based on this interview), the kids aren't muzzled, just ask them the right questions in an appropriate context.

Certainly not a puff-piece but good journalism; all admit something's not right and they search for answers as do all struggling athletes.

Bria is exceedingly articulate in her personal disappointment.

There is even the possibility of a hint of controversy when KLM says that her ankle isn't right and Bria says she is a fine.
Without jumping all over it, Fuller's writing underlines the discrepancy.

See...it isn't so hard, it's not "creepy," no laws are broken, the girls are perfectly forthcoming, and we are enlightened.

The working press clearly have it within their means to bring us the information (I hope) we (and they) crave.

Now Fuller should ask CD senior about the trip and put that to rest (sorry Doggy, I admit to being the only one).