Kevin Ollie makes Second Round Interview with Pistons > takes job w/ Brooklyn Nets

[August_West]

Imagine pretending that major sports teams don't regularly make hiring mistakes due to nepotism or pure incompetence. Getting hired on staff for a sports team is literally a who you know, not what you know, endeavor.

What?

 

[HooperScooper]

The first group. Not a difficult question.

They're equally annoying to me.

 

[August_West]

They're equally annoying to me.

At one point maybe. Not now.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

What?

It’s hilarious to watch the goalposts move.

It used to be “he’ll never coach again.”

Now, it’s “well, teams make mistakes and it’s all about who you know anyway.”

Ollie makes this board look hilariously pathetic, and all he did was win as many national championships as Tom Izzo and Jim Boeheim.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

The first group. Not a difficult question.

Whether it is or is not a difficult question, it's easy to see that it wasn't posed to you.

I'm not asserting that the question presented difficulty for you to recognize this aspect of it, but it was similarly easy for me to see - by way of derisive laughter emojis and substance free rejoinders like this - that you're putting more energy into shutting down or making fun of those who disagree with your seeming POV than into shedding light on the merits of your posture for those (like myself) who do not have immutable opinions.

I continue to wonder how & why some parties project absolute confidence in their stances but seem strongly disinclined to be informative.

Coming from either camp, that kind of behavior raises suspicions in me. I doubt I'm alone here.

In other words, as far as I can tell, there are non-dummies on both sides of a divide who act as though being helpful is off the table. Why?

I was delighted in 2012-13 and thrilled by 2013-14. Varying but not insignificant portions of subsequent seasons displayed blatantly bad entertainment product that I was not used to seeing in quite some time.

Eventually, it projected an Occam's Razor obviousness that could not be explained away.

I think that in some quarters there is denial of this that rivals the absurdity of some claims by those who would wave away head-to-head defeats of Martelli, Wright, Izzo, Hoiberg, Donovan, and Calipari (if I'm remembering the order correctly).

I'm not trying to score wounding points so much as wondering why people I regard as capable of good argument dispense with it on this topic.

Functionally, I am complimenting you by posing these questions. Some others I do not take seriously enough to bother.

I can't demand, not do I anticipate a considered response, but I sure would appreciate one from you or anyone.

Something similar from someone of the contrary position would be similarly appreciated.

 

[Madmannsucks]

Whether it is or is not a difficult question, it's easy to see that it wasn't posed to you.

I'm not asserting that the question presented difficulty for you to recognize this aspect of it, but it was similarly easy for me to see - by way of derisive laughter emojis and substance free rejoinders like this - that you're putting more energy into shutting down or making fun of those who disagree with your seeming POV than into shedding light on the merits of your posture for those (like myself) who do not have immutable opinions.

I continue to wonder how & why some parties project absolute confidence in their stances but seem strongly disinclined to be informative.

Coming from either camp, that kind of behavior raises suspicions in me. I doubt I'm alone here.

In other words, as far as I can tell, there are non-dummies on both sides of a divide who act as though being helpful is off the table. Why?

I was delighted in 2012-13 and thrilled by 2013-14. Varying but not insignificant portions of subsequent seasons displayed blatantly bad entertainment product that I was not used to seeing in quite some time.

Eventually, it projected an Occam's Razor obviousness that could not be explained away.

I think that in some quarters there is denial of this that rivals the absurdity of some claims by those who would wave away head-to-head defeats of Martelli, Wright, Izzo, Hoiberg, Donovan, and Calipari (if I'm remembering the order correctly).

I'm not trying to score wounding points so much as wondering why people I regard as capable of good argument dispense with it on this topic.

Functionally, I am complimenting you by posing these questions. Some others I do not take seriously enough to bother.

I can't demand, not do I anticipate a considered response, but I sure would appreciate one from you or anyone.

Something similar from someone of the contrary position would be similarly appreciated.

I guess to me the difference is simple. People blatantly wish bad things for KO, making things up about him with no 1st hand knowledge or evidence of his actions. On top of this the assertions that he single handedly shattered relationships with no blame to any other parties involved. So yes for me the choice is pretty simple. There are other examples like if he cared about the school he would give the money back.

 

[superjohn]

I guess to me the difference is simple. People blatantly wish bad things for KO, making things up about him with no 1st hand knowledge or evidence of his actions. On top of this the assertions that he single handedly shattered relationships with no blame to any other parties involved. So yes for me the choice is pretty simple. There are other examples like if he cared about the school he would give the money back.

What has been made up about him?

 

[jleves]

Well this is about to restart the cycle, so time to lock this one down. I'm sure we can rehash the debate at a later time.