Not sure what HOF coach potentials act like that.To me, Hurley was acting insane all game (per usual, which is why we love him). Unless he said something, like COMPLETELY out of line there was no need for the ref to T him up with 40 seconds left in OT. It shoudl've been called on him earlier if they were going to call it IMO. I'm also a high school coach who yells a lot at the refs when they suck lol. Unless you've coached before at a competitive level, its hard to truly understand how frustrating bad officiating can be
Why would a ref give him a call. Geno will go off on the refs once or twice a game when they are wrong - not every playI know there's a lot of talk that he was calmer last year. He hasn't changed. He SEEMED calmer because we had three loses all year. I love Hurley. Wouldn't trade him for any other coach in D-1. But he is a lunatic, and from an outsider he and as a extension UConn is easy to hate. Based on our success we have to lean in and embrace that.
That being said. For Hurley's own health, physical and mental (which the latter has been well documented), he exhausts himself every game with the way he goes after the refs. I can't remember a game UConn has gotten a favorable whistle since he's been here. UConn bias I know but someone please give me a good rebuttal. So he must truly believe in the fact that the way he attacks the refs generates a positive return of amping his team and advocating for his players. Which is fine, but man it's a weird look for back-to-back champs to have someone losing his GD mind over every call, warranted or not.
This sounds like a throwaway line, but there's a better way of getting your point across than Hurley practices.There's some interesting discourse going on around the Internet right now that I find fascinating.
A whole lot of people were upset yesterday when Hurley called out officials for not respecting a two time national championship winning head coach. People were calling him entitled, arrogant, etc because he believes his success in his profession has earned him some benefit of the doubt. On the other side of the coin, those same people and types of people say that bad calls going against him are brought upon himself through his behavior.
I'm not sure how you can have it both ways. I don't see how you can be indignant and talk about respect for the game and not treating a good coach favorably, and then speak out of the other side of your mouth and say him and the team deserve bad calls because he, in his mind, is trying to hold officials accountable for their decisions.
It's clear as day that his theatrics are a net negative for the program; but I don't necessarily believe they should be. If there is word of any officials trying to "teach him a lesson" or any evidence of it, there really should be an investigation and some sort of repercussions. You can't, as a paid professional, take your bias into account when making work decisions. If you are, you're compromising the integrity of the sport. Maybe I'm one of the few that sees it as serious of an issue as I believe it to be, but I think it's a conversation the media should be having.
Sure. But also maybe don't suck? To me the issue Hurley has is that he holds himself to a high standard, he holds his staff to a high standard, he holds his players to a high standard, but no one seems to hold the refs to any standard. So he "takes it upon himself" to hold them to the standard he expects. It obviously doesn't work but I feel like that's the logic behind itThis sounds like a throwaway line, but there's a better way of getting your point across than Hurley practices.
His message is clearly lost in his method of communication. It turns out people don't like being screamed at and belittled in front of large groups of people.
I wish he would talk calmly about how every team UConn plays is allowed to be as physical as they want to be against us, and that has a cumulative effect game over game on how UConn is forced to play. How about that Danny?
You realize it doesn't matter when the technicals come, right? Free points are free points. Hurley had been super vocal all game and could've (and maybe should've) gotten at least one prior to that point. Did it make it harder for us to win? I don't know. Would we have come back and made it that close if he sat back and didn't say anything and let our lackluster effort continue in silence?Calling people that disagree with you pansies doesn't help your argument. Show me the evidence. Let me know the game Calhoun lost due to a technical. Or even a time when he got a T in a similar situation. Also, tell me how the T Hurley got yesterday did not make it harder for us to win.
I think our difference of opinion comes from your opening sentence. It does matter when the T was called. Hurley's T at the end of OT created a hole our players could not dig out of. Calhoun's Ts were not as poorly timed as Hurley's - they did not put the team in a position to lose.You realize it doesn't matter when the technicals come, right? Free points are free points. Hurley had been super vocal all game and could've (and maybe should've) gotten at least one prior to that point. Did it make it harder for us to win? I don't know. Would we have come back and made it that close if he sat back and didn't say anything and let our lackluster effort continue in silence?
Calhoun got a hundred technicals when his team was playing sloppy, lacking effort and already down in a game.
The game above, he got THREE technicals at the end of the first half and they lost 85-83 in OT. They were down 27-18, made all 6 FT's to extend it to 33-18 with 5 minutes in the half.
So stop being a Chicken Little pansy.
In the Purdue game last year, it was painfully obvious that Edey was getting away with murder while Kling was being charged for touch fouls. I saw the game, I saw AK getting hammered by Edey when he was playing the 5. It was ridiculous.Is it possible they're both in the wrong? I'm not gonna pick a side here.
It's like someone gets into an argument then talks behind that persons back, usually most people will nod and agree or at least pretend to agree with that person to avoid any conflict. There's 2 sides to a story and there's a good chance both are in the wrong.
It's ugly when the refs lose control of the game. Then, you end up with a patchwork quilt of calls, some good, some bad, and some simply ridiculous. If they call the game tight, they have to show the teams what they can tolerate and what they can't. If they deviate from that standard, we have games like Memphis and Colorado which are action/reaction slipshod games. If we had a defense, we'd have won both. But, we have poor peripheral defense and we can't stop drivers as touch fouls are considered as major maulings.So you cherry picked literally the one call that went in our favor which offset the 10-15 blown calls against us? Samson’s technical was not good, but it was a result of the refs having no control over that game. Johnson was getting thrown around like a ragdoll but he was the one who committed 5 fouls in 10 minutes.
I guess my difference in opinion comes from actual math and not a flimsy "feeling".I think our difference of opinion comes from your opening sentence. It does matter when the T was called. Hurley's T at the end of OT created a hole our players could not dig out of. Calhoun's Ts were not as poorly timed as Hurley's - they did not put the team in a position to lose.
Strong leaders know the importance of situational awareness and command presence. Hurley is a great coach with many strengths; however, he has to improve those aspect of his leadership.
2 Time Defending Champions. Everyone will be looking for blood and will shed no tears. I don't know if this video was posted anywhere else here but this random twitter feed was the only place I saw it. I think it's hilarious. Dan Hurley is our psycho so the backlash comes with the territory.
When you always act like an abusive a hole towards someone they will inevitably want to get back at you. Also when you complain and b^^ch the refs out for everything you become the boy who cried wolf.There's some interesting discourse going on around the Internet right now that I find fascinating.
A whole lot of people were upset yesterday when Hurley called out officials for not respecting a two time national championship winning head coach. People were calling him entitled, arrogant, etc because he believes his success in his profession has earned him some benefit of the doubt. On the other side of the coin, those same people and types of people say that bad calls going against him are brought upon himself through his behavior.
I'm not sure how you can have it both ways. I don't see how you can be indignant and talk about respect for the game and not treating a good coach favorably, and then speak out of the other side of your mouth and say him and the team deserve bad calls because he, in his mind, is trying to hold officials accountable for their decisions.
It's clear as day that his theatrics are a net negative for the program; but I don't necessarily believe they should be. If there is word of any officials trying to "teach him a lesson" or any evidence of it, there really should be an investigation and some sort of repercussions. You can't, as a paid professional, take your bias into account when making work decisions. If you are, you're compromising the integrity of the sport. Maybe I'm one of the few that sees it as serious of an issue as I believe it to be, but I think it's a conversation the media should be having.
Sorry, if it's a coordinated effort or people are purposefully giving his teams a bad whistle, that's a bigger problem than his behavior. And if you can't get over it then you should find a different job.When you always act like an abusive a hole towards someone they will inevitably want to get back at you. Also when you complain and b^^ch the refs out for everything you become the boy who cried wolf.
It's human nature for the refs to react to it as much as you think they should be above it.
It doesn't have to be coordinated or premeditated in any way. Could be as simple as swallowing a whistle on a single play.Sorry, if it's a coordinated effort or people are purposefully giving his teams a bad whistle, that's a bigger problem than his behavior. And if you can't get over it then you should find a different job.
Hence the ifIt doesn't have to be coordinated or premeditated in any way. Could be as simple as swallowing a whistle on a single play.
Humans are emotional beings who use post hoc rationale to justify their judgments without even realizing it.
Calhoun was very strategic about getting his technicals. He made his point, and I pretty much always got the sense it was done purposefully.Name a game that Calhoun cost the team a win with a technical. I don't believe it.
Good response to what was an ill formed and jerky post. I'm a big believer if you have to name call to make your point, you probably don't have one. Nice job, not taking the bait.I think our difference of opinion comes from your opening sentence. It does matter when the T was called. Hurley's T at the end of OT created a hole our players could not dig out of. Calhoun's Ts were not as poorly timed as Hurley's - they did not put the team in a position to lose.
Strong leaders know the importance of situational awareness and command presence. Hurley is a great coach with many strengths; however, he has to improve those aspect of his leadership.
Does anyone think there’s a correlation between having practices with fouls not being called and now our players not being 100% sure of what’s a foul or not.
It’s not like those kind of practices have made us better at finishing around the rim either.
You keep acting as if only one party has control over when a Technical Foul is called . . .I think our difference of opinion comes from your opening sentence. It does matter when the T was called. Hurley's T at the end of OT created a hole our players could not dig out of. Calhoun's Ts were not as poorly timed as Hurley's - they did not put the team in a position to lose.
Strong leaders know the importance of situational awareness and command presence. Hurley is a great coach with many strengths; however, he has to improve those aspect of his leadership.