So when some armchair QB on the BY starts making an argument that Geno doesn’t know what in the hell he’s doing, is it appropriate to gently point out that as a result of 33 years of unparalleled success coaching WBB, it just might be possible that Geno knows slightly more than any of us about the game of basketball, and how to motivate and develop players?
...This is the straw man that is employed, in one form or another, when using Geno's record as a bludgeon
[Where I say 'you' below, i don't actually mean you in particular, oldude, it's just rhetorical]
In every other major team sport (men's), this straw man still appears but a lot less often. In Chicago when I lived there, if someone asked fans what they thought of Phil Jackson and his multiple rings, they would all say he's great, awesome, genius, an all-time great, future HOFer, etc. But there was still a lot of the usual fan-talk and fan-argument over all kinds things having to do with the team, and what Phil might have said, done, in games, in interviews, etc., constantly, in multiple forums both public and private. People worshipped Mike Ditka at the time, but it was a sport in itself to argue play calling, draft picks, player substitution, player utilization, game strategy, whatever, and ask "what was he thinking." Same was true (even more so) when I was at Iowa State where Johnny Orr was the men's bball coach. The list goes on in other sports and cities everywhere. In sports, general admiration/respect/adulation and constant armchair quarterbacking of all kinds exist side by side. Disagreeing with a coach on something doesn't mean you don't still give him an A+ overall. If this weren't true, no fan of Iowa State basketball would have ever uttered a single
peep against anything Johnny did, because he was so loved. But they (we) did, and he walked on water to us.
Actual discussions arguments are made on the merits, not by playing the "coach has rings so you must be wrong" card in whatever sport. If one fan thinks the other is loony, the card they should play is the "you're full of s&#%, and here's why" card. Or just the "you're full of s&%$" card by itself if you feel like it. Which is totally fine and how it should be. It's sports, after all. Playing the "coach has rings" card means (A) you don't have a real argument; (B) you already used your real argument and nobody bought it; or (C) you already used your real argument, which was a good one, but instead of standing pat you decide to pile on with a straw man because the other guy just won't shut up. This doesn't magically make your argument better. It just gives you another chance at having the last word, if you equate that with 'winning.'
The reason (C) is weak is because it's just restating the obvious. It's obvious the coach has rings; he's the world famous one making zillions of $$. It's obvious none of us have rings or will be hired as coach any time soon--we're too busy drinking beer and yelling at the TV's around the bar, or the one across the living room. It's obvious which side of the argument coach would be on--
it's because of something he said or did that everybody's talking in the first place! It's also obvious that fans' arguments about all this is worth precisely $0.00 in the grand scheme. Any and all discussions about sports and sports figures take place against that backdrop. And yet millions of discussions/arguments about sports take place every day, a fair number of which will have something to do with a coach who has rings. Lather, rinse, repeat. If all that mattered was the coach's record or what he/she's thought, none of this would exist.
