U
Unregistered(d)
Guest
It must be fun to live in your world...the world where you just state your opinions that no one agrees with and act like you have won an argument so convincingly.
I already know this is going to be a waste of time and you are going to reply with some post that reads like an eight year old typed it that ends up with you patting yourself on the back with your self-assigned OBTUSE buster nickname.....but here goes anyway.
I think you are wrong in saying Stans is paid to win games if you are limiting it to that. It's the biggest part of it, but you know that there is more to it than just winning. Jerry Tarkanian won games and got fired. Bobby Knight, Bob Huggins, Nolan Richardson and Todd Bozeman all got fired for various reasons. The list like that is long, but I will agree that it is not as long as the list of coaches who didn't get in NCAA trouble, whose players made good grades, and who didn't treat players like dirt but who got fired for going 8-22 three years in a row.
The point of view that you either fail to see of refuse to agree with is that a coach can't let one player or a small group of players dictate how the rest of the team works. If Sharpe is lazy or absent and only has to run or do some other menial punishment, but still gets the minutes and the glory come game time, then what motivation is there for the rest of the team to work and try to get better? For that matter, what motivation is there for Sharpe to get better? I think that has to be where Rick is coming from with this. Sure he wants to win games, and if Billy Begley had been the one doing all of this, my bet is that he would be long gone. Rick knows how talented Sharpe is, and how much he could help us which is why he has had umpteen chances, but he also knows that Sharpe's immaturity could have a negative impact on the rest of the team if he doesn't do something to control it. There's not a management principle anywhere that promotes consistently rewarding negative behaviors at the expense of others.
Does Rick have to win games to keep his job? Yes. But he has three basic options.
1. Play without Sharpe because you kick him off the team.
2. Play a lazy Sharpe with him possibly having a negative impact on the work ethic of the rest of the team.
3. Continue to give Sharpe chances to earn his way on to the floor because your best chance to win is with him improving.
Rick is obviously going with #3. He is not playing him when he is lazy or absent, and he hasn't kicked him off, yet. The biggest payoff is in option #3, and it is a little risky for Rick because Sharpe could always quit. Until he does though, you have to hold out for the big payoff instead of settling for what Sharpe feels like giving you on any particular day.
Dampier and Dontae' may or may not have been late to practice. I don't know about that, but the comparison is not valid because that's clearly not all Sharpe is guilty of. I do know Damp and Dontae' never missed the team plane to a game, or flunked out, or transferred out to a junior college, and that Dontae' did spend a considerable amount of time on the bench early in the season until he stopped throwing up so many bad shots and playing a little bit of defense.
I know all of that was in vain, so I will go ahead and frame your reply for you. All you have to do is follow the outline.
I. You are a moron
A. You disagre with me
B. I am the OBTUSE buister
II. Stnas is payed to win
A. The best players needs to play
B. Morgan, Boler etc suck
C. Sharpe needs to run more laps
D. I am the OBTUSE buster
III. Suporting arguements
A. (Choose any invalid non-sensical comparison)
B. Why am I the only one who sees this?
C. I am the OBTUSE buster
IV. Conclusion and Self-Congratulations
A. (Choose some original phrase like "Thanks for playing" or "Next")
B. Proclame myself a genus, which I am
C. I am the OBTUSE buster
I already know this is going to be a waste of time and you are going to reply with some post that reads like an eight year old typed it that ends up with you patting yourself on the back with your self-assigned OBTUSE buster nickname.....but here goes anyway.
I think you are wrong in saying Stans is paid to win games if you are limiting it to that. It's the biggest part of it, but you know that there is more to it than just winning. Jerry Tarkanian won games and got fired. Bobby Knight, Bob Huggins, Nolan Richardson and Todd Bozeman all got fired for various reasons. The list like that is long, but I will agree that it is not as long as the list of coaches who didn't get in NCAA trouble, whose players made good grades, and who didn't treat players like dirt but who got fired for going 8-22 three years in a row.
The point of view that you either fail to see of refuse to agree with is that a coach can't let one player or a small group of players dictate how the rest of the team works. If Sharpe is lazy or absent and only has to run or do some other menial punishment, but still gets the minutes and the glory come game time, then what motivation is there for the rest of the team to work and try to get better? For that matter, what motivation is there for Sharpe to get better? I think that has to be where Rick is coming from with this. Sure he wants to win games, and if Billy Begley had been the one doing all of this, my bet is that he would be long gone. Rick knows how talented Sharpe is, and how much he could help us which is why he has had umpteen chances, but he also knows that Sharpe's immaturity could have a negative impact on the rest of the team if he doesn't do something to control it. There's not a management principle anywhere that promotes consistently rewarding negative behaviors at the expense of others.
Does Rick have to win games to keep his job? Yes. But he has three basic options.
1. Play without Sharpe because you kick him off the team.
2. Play a lazy Sharpe with him possibly having a negative impact on the work ethic of the rest of the team.
3. Continue to give Sharpe chances to earn his way on to the floor because your best chance to win is with him improving.
Rick is obviously going with #3. He is not playing him when he is lazy or absent, and he hasn't kicked him off, yet. The biggest payoff is in option #3, and it is a little risky for Rick because Sharpe could always quit. Until he does though, you have to hold out for the big payoff instead of settling for what Sharpe feels like giving you on any particular day.
Dampier and Dontae' may or may not have been late to practice. I don't know about that, but the comparison is not valid because that's clearly not all Sharpe is guilty of. I do know Damp and Dontae' never missed the team plane to a game, or flunked out, or transferred out to a junior college, and that Dontae' did spend a considerable amount of time on the bench early in the season until he stopped throwing up so many bad shots and playing a little bit of defense.
I know all of that was in vain, so I will go ahead and frame your reply for you. All you have to do is follow the outline.
I. You are a moron
A. You disagre with me
B. I am the OBTUSE buister
II. Stnas is payed to win
A. The best players needs to play
B. Morgan, Boler etc suck
C. Sharpe needs to run more laps
D. I am the OBTUSE buster
III. Suporting arguements
A. (Choose any invalid non-sensical comparison)
B. Why am I the only one who sees this?
C. I am the OBTUSE buster
IV. Conclusion and Self-Congratulations
A. (Choose some original phrase like "Thanks for playing" or "Next")
B. Proclame myself a genus, which I am
C. I am the OBTUSE buster