Lou's Journey towards Mt Rushmore

[oldude]

I'm fully aware of that sir PLus her contributions to basketball outside of playing,
Kerry Bascom, Nakesha, Svetlana are no longer playing and it is Rebecca who gets the nod so far, that should give some credibility as to her impact as a player in her time, I could further argue Rebecca was probably never second to anyone she played with on her team at Storrs..

No doubt that Rebecca is deserving of enshrinement for her performance on the court as well as her exceptional ability as a broadcaster and spokeswoman for WBB. My clarification of your post was to those who might have misinterpreted your comments by assuming that the HOF did not view any other Husky worthy of enshrinement, when in fact Springfield may have to devote an entire wing to UConn WBB when all is said and done.

 

[DefenseBB]

1-- It is arbitrary at a certain point.
2- And yet the ones who say that Rebecca should be a lock? Aren't we having a discussion? So I've offered my pov.
3-- I am NOT irritated. If you could see me- you'd see all I do is love the conversation yet think the Rushmore analogy is silly. You know it's often on any website not just here it appears when there is a difference of opinion that one or both "are irritated." I guess the appearance could be taken that way. I for one am not. I hope you and others aren't as well?
4-- When you speak of no wrong answer. FOr example I responded to justine. The poster justine said the follwoing:
How is lobo not a lock for top 4?

Why wouldn't your beef be with him? He seems to think there is a right answer that Lobo is a lock. I haven't put out a top 4. I just disagree with the sentiment that IT MUST BE Rebecca when 1-- I don't understand the Rushmore analogy and 2- I don't know / agree with "most important recruit."

**I hope you aren't irritated with me because I just might not agree with your opinion. Please don't be if that is the case. ANd I'll repeat again-- I am not irritated.

Thank you for clarifying, and what I guess has me confused are two of the basic premises that you seem to have issue with:
Mt. Rushmore which has 4 faces of American Presidents supposedly deemed to be our most important up until 1934 (hence FDR exclusion). I don't mean to be rude on this but if you don't understand why people would then use an analogy for any other category to put their top 4 faces, then I guess we don't need any further discussion. Most of the others seem to grasp this. So yes, you saying you don't understand that analogy is sort of frustrating as you come across a tad dour on it. My other head-scratcher is your word arbitrary, which as defined:
arbitrary-based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system
Most people here have used logic-even Justine, which is that person's opinion and I respect that, I don't agree at all but I understand where that opinion is coming from. Does Justine need to embolden or use all caps, which is the equivalent of shouting or insulting? Probably not.
So all this said-do you have a top four?
Again, I do appreciate your clarification. Thanks.

 

[hoophuskee]

Thank you for clarifying, and what I guess has me confused are two of the basic premises that you seem to have issue with:
Mt. Rushmore which has 4 faces of American Presidents supposedly deemed to be our most important up until 1934 (hence FDR exclusion). I don't mean to be rude on this but if you don't understand why people would then use an analogy for any other category to put their top 4 faces, then I guess we don't need any further discussion. Most of the others seem to grasp this. So yes, you saying you don't understand that analogy is sort of frustrating as you come across a tad dour on it. My other head-scratcher is your word arbitrary, which as defined:
arbitrary-based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system
Most people here have used logic-even Justine, which is that person's opinion and I respect that, I don't agree at all but I understand where that opinion is coming from. Does Justine need to embolden or use all caps, which is the equivalent of shouting or insulting? Probably not.
So all this said-do you have a top four?
Again, I do appreciate your clarification. Thanks.

Not to be rude-- but you otherwise were rude. Make mention of DIALOGUE which is what I've done in a manner of not being rude - I questioned other points of view and made a few opinions. As far as arbitrary I put a "qualifier" in with" arbitrary" and you just choose to ignore it. And then you make up that I'm irritated for whatever reason to justify your position. That's fine. Think what you will. I've put you on ignore. Therefore you don;t have to worry about being rude to me anymore. This site is great. You don't have to be irritated. We're okay. I just don't want argue with you - you seem in my view extremely pedantic. So I disagreed- big deal. Anyways-- have fun.

Here's something for you to ponder. If you don't use all stats and all the reason the same way- it is A RANDOM CHOICE. Not using Bascom as the number 1 important reason vs using Lobo is either a RANDOM CHOICE OR A PERSONAL WHIM.

 

[diggerfoot]

Here's something for you to ponder. If you don't use all stats and all the reason the same way- it is A RANDOM CHOICE. Not using Bascom as the number 1 important reason vs using Lobo is either a RANDOM CHOICE OR A PERSONAL WHIM.

I did not think we were essentially at odds until this last post of yours, particularly what you chose to put in caps. Using NCs is a criteria, not a random choice or personal whim. Some criteria can be graded stats based, many can be discrete either/or variables. If you want to claim the use of NCs as a criteria as a random choice or whim, all we would need to do to disprove that notion is take a poll about what fans think UConn WBB is all about. Some may say teamwork, excellence, etc., but I'm quite sure the leading vote getter would be winning NCs. Hence, it's neither a random choice nor a personal whim. You can disagree with that and suggest your own criteria, but you cannot correctly say it's random or a whim.

The analogy with the President's can be extended further for illustration. Benjamin Franklin, at least in some respects, both predates and exceeds Washington in terms of statemanship shaping America. Yet no one questions why Franklin is not on Mt. Rushmore because he simply was never President. Bascom never won a NC; whether she did more for the program, came first or was a better player, etc. is irrelevant if an empirical, criteria-based approach is used whereas NCs is mandatory to be on UConn's Mt. Rushmore.

 

[hoophuskee]

I did not think we were essentially at odds until this last post of yours, particularly what you chose to put in caps. Using NCs is a criteria, not a random choice or personal whim. Some criteria can be graded stats based, many can be discrete either/or variables. If you want to claim the use of NCs as a criteria as a random choice or whim, all we would need to do to disprove that notion is take a poll about what fans think UConn WBB is all about. Some may say teamwork, excellence, etc., but I'm quite sure the leading vote getter would be winning NCs. Hence, it's neither a random choice nor a personal whim. You can disagree with that and suggest your own criteria, but you cannot correctly say it's random or a whim.

The analogy with the President's can be extended further for illustration. Benjamin Franklin, at least in some respects, both predates and exceeds Washington in terms of statemanship shaping America. Yet no one questions why Franklin is not on Mt. Rushmore because he simply was never President. Bascom never won a NC; whether she did more for the program, came first or was a better player, etc. is irrelevant if an empirical, criteria-based approach is used whereas NCs is mandatory to be on UConn's Mt. Rushmore.

First off I just want to be clear you are replying not to a post I made to you. . .

The point I was making to the other poster - imo the randomness is giving kudos to Rebecca for being "the most important recruit." So as some think- she is "the most important recruit" therefore she must be included in this top 4. Yet Bascom got the Huskies 1st to the final four. So why is Rebecca "the most important recruit?" As I've questioned -- and I'd like to know what you think-- "do you think Lobo have come to UCONN if UCONN did not go to the Final Four previously?" Some will say "I don't know." Well if we are talking about "a mythical Mt Rushmore" for those I ask -- "you can't make a guess or have not gut feel about this?" I "don't know" either. But my guess would be POSSIBLY yes. We're not in a court of law when we discuss all this "stuff." Anyhow I digress-

And tell me why "Rushmore" should mean "ONE of the most important recruits" rather than "one of the top 4 PLAYERS." Where is this "Rushmore" allegory "defined" that some posters make it sound "of course YOU MUST INCLUDE" "the most important recruit?" And yet "the most important recruit is subjective" and imo nothing more than a "personal whim/ random choice of one tat suggests this must be Rebecca as the most important because I said so because my criteria/this most important recruit for Rushmore is the right criteria to use."

Where am I going wrong? Further, I hope you understand -- I am not irritated. The other poster seems (or seemed) to think I'm upset/ irritated. Also, I thought I have been contributing to "dialogue" yet the impression I got from that same poster was that I wasn't. When I get into these or other disagreements-- unless there insults or heavy sarcasm/talk down to/put down in nature-- as long as a disagreement doesn't stoop to that-I think disagreements are fun and a contribution. AM I wrong here as well that my posts reflect that I'm irritated/frustrated? Heck, recently even the poster bballnut thought I was angry / frustrated because she chose the ND guard over Kia Nurse - and at that moment I argued for Nurse. And part of what she said why she thought I was frustrated was because "I used CAPS." But I wasn't. I think back-and-forth as we are doing is fun.
No?

And I don;'t agree with your analogy of Ben Franklin over George Washington. This is the very thing why I think this Rushmore allegory is silly. YOUR OPINION IS NOT SILLY. You have awesome opinions. Even on this - please you make great points. Please don't ever think that I'm thinking your opinion or the poster justine or anyone else who I'm arguing with on this is "silly." It's a disagreement. That's all.

Anyhow, do we really want to go back and forth why we disagree on your analogy of Ben vs George? Who says that YOU MUST be factor in "the most important recruit" yet use National championships is the "Rushmore" criteria? (Who is to say Rebecca is 1st? She might be 2nd. Or 3rd. right? How isn't this a personal whim to declare her 1st and then use Championships for Rebecca and not for for others that have more titles than Rebecca?) If "national Championships" is the criteria then what about our discussions with MoJeff vs Bird? And just in case if one were then to try to use NPOY for Bird-- can we realistically say that she was better than DT" that year? Where is the line drawn on all of this make believe Rushmore allegory?

 

[diggerfoot]

First off I just want to be clear you are replying not to a post I made to you. . .

The point I was making to the other poster - imo the randomness is giving kudos to Rebecca for being "the most important recruit." So as some think- she is "the most important recruit" therefore she must be included in this top 4. Yet Bascom got the Huskies 1st to the final four. So why is Rebecca "the most important recruit?" As I've questioned -- and I'd like to know what you think-- "do you think Lobo have come to UCONN if UCONN did not go to the Final Four previously?" Some will say "I don't know." Well if we are talking about "a mythical Mt Rushmore" for those I ask -- "you can't make a guess or have not gut feel about this?" I "don't know" either. But my guess would be POSSIBLY yes. We're not in a court of law when we discuss all this "stuff." Anyhow I digress-

And tell me why "Rushmore" should mean "ONE of the most important recruits" rather than "one of the top 4 PLAYERS." Where is this "Rushmore" allegory "defined" that some posters make it sound "of course YOU MUST INCLUDE" "the most important recruit?" And yet "the most important recruit is subjective" and imo nothing more than a "personal whim/ random choice of one tat suggests this must be Rebecca as the most important because I said so because my criteria/this most important recruit for Rushmore is the right criteria to use."

Where am I going wrong? Further, I hope you understand -- I am not irritated. The other poster seems (or seemed) to think I'm upset/ irritated. Also, I thought I have been contributing to "dialogue" yet the impression I got from that same poster was that I wasn't. When I get into these or other disagreements-- unless there insults or heavy sarcasm/talk down to/put down in nature-- as long as a disagreement doesn't stoop to that-I think disagreements are fun and a contribution. AM I wrong here as well that my posts reflect that I'm irritated/frustrated? Heck, recently even the poster bballnut thought I was angry / frustrated because she chose the ND guard over Kia Nurse - and at that moment I argued for Nurse. And part of what she said why she thought I was frustrated was because "I used CAPS." But I wasn't. I think back-and-forth as we are doing is fun.
No?

And I don;'t agree with your analogy of Ben Franklin over George Washington. This is the very thing why I think this Rushmore allegory is silly. YOUR OPINION IS NOT SILLY. You have awesome opinions. Even on this - please you make great points. Please don't ever think that I'm thinking your opinion or the poster justine or anyone else who I'm arguing with on this is "silly." It's a disagreement. That's all.

Anyhow, do we really want to go back and forth why we disagree on your analogy of Ben vs George? Who says that YOU MUST be factor in "the most important recruit" yet use National championships is the "Rushmore" criteria? (Who is to say Rebecca is 1st? She might be 2nd. Or 3rd. right? How isn't this a personal whim to declare her 1st and then use Championships for Rebecca and not for for others that have more titles than Rebecca?) If "national Championships" is the criteria then what about our discussions with MoJeff vs Bird? And just in case if one were then to try to use NPOY for Bird-- can we realistically say that she was better than DT" that year? Where is the line drawn on all of this make believe Rushmore allegory?

It may be best to PM at this point, but since I'll reference defense88 in this I'll reply here and try to keep it brief. There are two basic goals of "discussion," one is to arrive at shared meaning, the other is to prove a point. One is a collaborative process, the other combative. Shared meaning may prove elusive, but will then end is some type of "we'll have to agree to disagree." When d88 asked for your list, I took that as a sign that he wanted to achieve shared meaning. Whether this is true for you or not, you present the appearance of proving a point as your main goal for discussion. The use of caps feeds into this, though with me you are giving the appearance of wanting shared meaning, which is why I reply. People can engage in proving their point, resulting in "lively discussions" that all enjoy no matter how combative in appearance. However, when the different goals of shared meaning and proving a point clash, there are likely to be frustrations on both ends.

All social systems, a basketball team being one of them, are subjective. Any criteria for evaluating social phenomenon, even when they can be objectively compared, are still subjectively chosen. Thus proving your point that Mt. Rushmore is a subjective endeavor does not enlighten. Of course it is. I understand how you might think that someone suggesting Lobo is most important may be failing to understand the subjectivity of their statement, but you don't know if something empirical like "first NC" is part of their unspoken assessment and they simply have not expressed themselves well. In essence you assume the worst, a kind of a straw man approach, which may or may not be accurate, to prove your point. Attempting shared meaning would assume the best in another poster's response, whether true or not, and work from there.

There is a difference in using "most important player" or "most important statesman" as a criteria versus "first NC" or "first President." The first can never be empirically determined, which is part of your point, but the latter can. Indeed, the latter turns the "importance" criteria into a discrete variable. Both Bascomb and Lobo are important and this does not distinguish them, unlike the first NC. You can fault "first NC" on the basis of validity, whether it is the sort of criteria that should be used for a "Mt. Rushmore," in which case you should provide an example of what you think is more valid. However, faulting it on the basis of subjectivity or "personal whim," while proving a point that is already a given, will do nothing towards reaching shared meaning.

For what it's worth, if this were an exercise in nominating best players I would abandon the Mt. Rushmore analogy entirely, like others have suggested, in favor of a more basketball-pertinent five player all star team, or even better a tiered system where, for now, only Taurasi, Moore and Stewart make the first tier, others to be determined. However, while fully understanding Mt. Rushmore to be an arbitrary subjective endeavor, as are all these endeavors, I made an analogy between "firsts," with the notion that the real Rushmore has on it the first President even though he was neither objectively the first statesman nor subjectively the greatest President in the eyes of many.

Oops! I did not keep this brief, but since you asked, I sincerely hope this helps. If it doesn't, maybe we'll have to agree to disagree. ;-)

 

[hoophuskee]

It may be best to PM at this point, but since I'll reference defense88 in this I'll reply here and try to keep it brief. There are two basic goals of "discussion," one is to arrive at shared meaning, the other is to prove a point. One is a collaborative process, the other combative. Shared meaning may prove elusive, but will then end is some type of "we'll have to agree to disagree." When d88 asked for your list, I took that as a sign that he wanted to achieve shared meaning. Whether this is true for you or not, you present the appearance of proving a point as your main goal for discussion. The use of caps feeds into this, though with me you are giving the appearance of wanting shared meaning, which is why I reply. People can engage in proving their point, resulting in "lively discussions" that all enjoy no matter how combative in appearance. However, when the different goals of shared meaning and proving a point clash, there are likely to be frustrations on both ends.

All social systems, a basketball team being one of them, are subjective. Any criteria for evaluating social phenomenon, even when they can be objectively compared, are still subjectively chosen. Thus proving your point that Mt. Rushmore is a subjective endeavor does not enlighten. Of course it is. I understand how you might think that someone suggesting Lobo is most important may be failing to understand the subjectivity of their statement, but you don't know if something empirical like "first NC" is part of their unspoken assessment and they simply have not expressed themselves well. In essence you assume the worst, a kind of a straw man approach, which may or may not be accurate, to prove your point. Attempting shared meaning would assume the best in another poster's response, whether true or not, and work from there.

There is a difference in using "most important player" or "most important statesman" as a criteria versus "first NC" or "first President." The first can never be empirically determined, which is part of your point, but the latter can. Indeed, the latter turns the "importance" criteria into a discrete variable. Both Bascomb and Lobo are important and this does not distinguish them, unlike the first NC. You can fault "first NC" on the basis of validity, whether it is the sort of criteria that should be used for a "Mt. Rushmore," in which case you should provide an example of what you think is more valid. However, faulting it on the basis of subjectivity or "personal whim," while proving a point that is already a given, will do nothing towards reaching shared meaning.

For what it's worth, if this were an exercise in nominating best players I would abandon the Mt. Rushmore analogy entirely, like others have suggested, in favor of a more basketball-pertinent five player all star team, or even better a tiered system where, for now, only Taurasi, Moore and Stewart make the first tier, others to be determined. However, while fully understanding Mt. Rushmore to be an arbitrary subjective endeavor, as are all these endeavors, I made an analogy between "firsts," with the notion that the real Rushmore has on it the first President even though he was neither objectively the first statesman nor subjectively the greatest President in the eyes of many.

Oops! I did not keep this brief, but since you asked, I sincerely hope this helps. If it doesn't, maybe we'll have to agree to disagree. ;-)

We can agree to disagree here. I was going to PM (part of my PM was going to be my big issue with the poster defensebb - but it feels weird to post to you and I don't send to defensebb. Just a quick point on that. His posts to me were nothing like yours. I can elaborate with you or him if you really wish.) you but instead I have one basic question I'll put in italics below. Because I don't "see" everything you speak/ disagree as well. Anyways I'd like to ask you a question on here though if anyone else that would like to chime in would love to hear their response that disagrees with me. The poster Olddude even referred on this thread- "Others might suggest Bird, Charles et al."

So by asking this question I am not trying to "completely" prove a point (which you've indicated I was doing?) -- but the question it's not only for me and for the poster Los24 who said Mojeff should be on. And it's for the poster mrhuskies who said KBascom should be on. And it's for the poster bootonbomber who said Tina should be on. My post that set off the response by the poster defenseebb to me and subsequently you sent others posts to me- in which I asked the poster justineguy why he thought Lobo was a lock. I am not bashing justineguy. But I replied to justine guy with questions why maybe she isn't a lock. He was sort of saying the others (anyone) were crazy not to have Lobo on the list, wasn't he? (No offense to justineguy). I wanted to pursue that line of thought. It seemed more put Lobo on here for top 4.

So my question to you or anyone else is "Why Lobo over each of Bascom, Bird, Tina and Mojeff?" It seems to me the criterion to “fit” Rebecca in this Rushmore is a "personal whim" of selecting criterion that fits Rebecca perfectly. I don’t know the 4th player. But I'd like to know why her over the others "is a lock" which was the post/point I made to justine. And I think for it to be a lock you (not you personally) are cherry-picking / using personal whim/selective factors such as for example- "well NC's count but not so much. But it counts for Rebecca over Bascom but it doesn't count for Bird/MoJeff or Tina over Rebecca." IMO that is a personal whim/ randomly picking/ pre-determining what stats to use for those that are close. As I stated to the poster defenssebb I called it "arbitrary at a certain point." At a certain point -- the players generally thought to be close for the 4th spot- I don't see the rhyme or reason to refer to Lobo as a lock. The cherry-picking is a personal whim isn't it? And I don't believe this is being pedantic. I believe it is encouraging further dialogue. Asking for further clarification. Coming back at me "well that's his opinion." That's fine-- but I asked "why?" That's not a big deal to ask the question. And my question I believe was "the common ground" which you refer to- it's from my perspective. I wanted to know "Why her?" It was not for me to have to make a list. Instead, why is it Lobo over the others? And not only that but . . . "she's a lock?" I find it fun to have further dialogue on this. Maybe someone can convince me. I got convinced as I said a while ago to have Lobo as one of the top 5 for the 1st team over Tina. A poster got me a long time ago to change my pov. My pov on issues can be changed.

Anyways thanks for the posts. Loved the discussions with ya as usual. And from this point on I'll take your advice for as long as I can remember; No more CAPS. errr- I mean "No more caps."

And just to reiterate I don't get irritated or frustrated unless I'm "talked down to" or worse. You never do that to anyone.