Just an Observation

[diggerfoot]

Digger

The lucidity and erudition of your learned prose escapes me. So sorry.

If what you meant to say was: that as Connecticut loses so few games and fewer less to St. Johns;
that to criticize Geno for such a failure is the worst type of monday-morning quarterbacking and therefore intellectually dishonest.

Then that was more or less the sentiment of the board at the time. Some went further and questioned my allegiance to the team and the suitability of my and like comments in such a fan-based forum.

What was undiscussed (or at least given short shrift) was the fact (as noted in my posting above), that matters seemingly leading to that loss had surfaced much earlier, had become a subject of much discussion and that the issues surrounding that regrettable blemish were not unforeseen.

I remember not actually predicting the loss but recall being concerned at a time when the sentiment was clearly one of unconcern.

Where does that fit into your various definitions?

I can't comment on St. John's in specific, even with the detail that you provide, because I did not experience/observe it myself. My experience of the Boneyard leads me to assume that a meltdown occurred, but I know not the details. I would be going on your hearsay, which could be 100% on the money, or could be flawed. Please don't take offense to that; that would be my position regarding anyone's report.

My "general" comment, void of all the dressing, would not be criticism of "monday morning quarterbacking" so much as the lack of humility in that pursuit. Something along the lines of "it seems to me," rather than "Auriemma's got to." I understand the role emotions play in leading one to overstate their case with certainty, but I can't sympathize with fans whose emotions get inflamed at the inadequate success rate of the most successful program in the country.

For what it's worth, I sometimes think people defend Auriemma with a little too much certainty as well. Sometimes I think people's self-esteem are too wrapped up in following what's only a game. Yet they usually are supported better by the results of the most successful program in the country. The benefit of the doubt still lies on their side, even if their certainty is a problem.

Basketball is more complicated than how it is often treated here. There always will be more than one plausible explanation. What strengthens the case for "it seems to me," what strengthen one's plausible explanation over another, is repetition. If something keeps occurring that fits the plausible explanation, then each instance strengthens that over competing explanations which do not fit as well for every instance. That's just hard to come by in terms of UConn losses for evidence. Other types of evidence can matter, but the compilation of that evidence still would have to be large to transcend "it seems to me" into the certainty with which fans often express their plausible explanations on here.

 

[meyers7]

Hey guys, this is a message board. We need to dumb it down some.

Plausible, lucidity, erudition, deductive reasoning???? Come on guys, think about who reads this stuff.

 

[pinotbear]

Hey guys, this is a message board. We need to dumb it down some.

Plausible, lucidity, erudition, deductive reasoning???? Come on guys, think about who reads this stuff.

"Mongo no understand. Has to do with where choo-choo go. Mongo only pawn in game of life".

 

[meyers7]

"Mongo no understand. Has to do with where choo-choo go. Mongo only pawn in game of life".

Much better.

 

[msf22b]

Digger

After I wrote my reply last night, I went back to last year's boards (which you can access by simply looking back to earlier pages).

As I suggested, there was considerable unease starting around the West Virginia game, that things were not completely simpatico with the team.

Issues were rationally identified (short bench, Tiff, Dolson struggles, Kelly shooting, use of freshmen. lack of time for end of bench , etc., mental exhaustion) as well as outside, commentary...Jeff Van Gundy for one, that raised issues that were analyzed in detail, quite coherently by the board.

You can easily go back and check it out. I'm sure that many of the Yarder's have tapes of the games and a full analysis on your part could be undertaken w/o too much difficulty.

I must say that I enjoyed going back and reading last year's entries.

And we must remember that Geno correctly anticipated the problems and the losses pre-season.

 

[diggerfoot]

Digger

After I wrote my reply last night, I went back to last year's boards (which you can access by simply looking back to earlier pages).

As I suggested, there was considerable unease starting around the West Virginia game, that things were not completely simpatico with the team.

Issues were rationally identified (short bench, Tiff, Dolson struggles, Kelly shooting, use of freshmen. lack of time for end of bench , etc., mental exhaustion) as well as outside, commentary...Jeff Van Gundy for one, that raised issues that were analyzed in detail, quite coherently by the board.

You can easily go back and check it out. I'm sure that many of the Yarder's have tapes of the games and a full analysis on your part could be undertaken w/o too much difficulty.

I must say that I enjoyed going back and reading last year's entries.

And we must remember that Geno correctly anticipated the problems and the losses pre-season.

When I first read this latest entry, I could not see why me looking back at the St. John's threads was so important to you .... or my initial comments for that matter. After all, it's not like I need to see that thread for confirmation or refutation of fans being too emotional and/or certain as a general comment, there is plenty other evidence to go by. Also, a general comment is just that, I'm not pointing fingers at either particular incidents OR particular individuals.

So I went back to what started it, Wilton's comment. I took his comment as a rhetorical question. It looks like you took it as a genuine question, and I think that may be at the heart of the disconnect between us. Perhaps there was no meltdown when I assumed there was; that's certainly my mistake if that was the case. Perhaps everyone was rational and coherent over that particular incident (or are you intimating that only particular sides were rational and coherent?). Still, there is plenty of evidence to suggest fans get too emotional and certain of their positions even if St. John's is an extraordinary outlier.

Perhaps it's not important to you that I look back at the St. John threads, perhaps you thought it would be important to me. Thank you for that consideration, but it's not. On the other hand if it was important to you, than an inducement to get me to do so would be to provide links. That's just a tip for the future, I'm not asking for them now.

And now I must apologize to Boneyarders in general for how geeky and long-winded I get at times. I'll try to stick to my relatively short-winded PON posts.