MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[HopeConvert]

There seems to be no serious disagreement that such speculation is pointless: the search committee will not take into account the views expressed on this board.

While I would not presume to forbid such speculation, I think my original statement was misunderstood. While I can imagine circumstances under which such speculation could have adverse consequences for candidates for the position (if anyone has been in the position of dealing with concerns they might be leaving the school at which they currently work, they'll know what I mean; and I could also imagine that such reading might potentially be unpleasant for, say, friends of Matt Neil), my comment was directed at the potential harm done to the person doing the speculating. Why, exactly, would people start throwing names around, and what does it suggest not only about that which we can claim to know, but more importantly what we ought to know?

John Calvin, in his reflections on the doctrine of predestination, notes that "too daring speculation" is both the foster child and the nurse of "idle curiosity." Calvin further thought that pursuing acts of curiosity that could not lead to knowledge was a form of sloth to be avoided. In Institutes III.21 he describes it as "a climbing to the clouds." Aquinas is even more exacting in his analysis of curiosity as a vice. In the Summa II.2 he describes the indulgence of such curiosity as, first, a form of pride (making oneself seem more knowledgeable than one really is); second, as a form of sloth (distracting us from the questions that ought to concern us); and, third, as a fostering of intellectual confusion. For Aquinas, idle speculation is a form of human cravenness. To indulge the habit is, therefore, harmful to the person who engages in it.

[almcguirejr]

There seems to be no serious disagreement that such speculation is pointless: the search committee will not take into account the views expressed on this board.

While I would not presume to forbid such speculation, I think my original statement was misunderstood. While I can imagine circumstances under which such speculation could have adverse consequences for candidates for the position (if anyone has been in the position of dealing with concerns they might be leaving the school at which they currently work, they'll know what I mean; and I could also imagine that such reading might potentially be unpleasant for, say, friends of Matt Neil), my comment was directed at the potential harm done to the person doing the speculating. Why, exactly, would people start throwing names around, and what does it suggest not only about that which we can claim to know, but more importantly what we ought to know?

John Calvin, in his reflections on the doctrine of predestination, notes that "too daring speculation" is both the foster child and the nurse of "idle curiosity." Calvin further thought that pursuing acts of curiosity that could not lead to knowledge was a form of sloth to be avoided. In Institutes III.21 he describes it as "a climbing to the clouds." Aquinas is even more exacting in his analysis of curiosity as a vice. In the Summa II.2 he describes the indulgence of such curiosity as, first, a form of pride (making oneself seem more knowledgeable than one really is); second, as a form of sloth (distracting us from the questions that ought to concern us); and, third, as a fostering of intellectual confusion. For Aquinas, idle speculation is a form of human cravenness. To indulge the habit is, therefore, harmful to the person who engages in it.

Hope made it unpleasant for friends of Matt Neil by doing a national search.

I guess we will not have any posts regarding Hope's upcoming season from the Hope posters lest they be engaged in "idle speculation."

[Flying Dutch Fan]

I was thinking of this earlier but don't know where to find it.........was GVW a JV coach at Hope?.....or better, what where his credentials before being hired as the Hope coach?

I know he was at Grand Haven in some capacity at some time.

Anyone know?

I just think he was the (only) varsity assistant for a time, and also might think they didn't have JV back then. My guess is that the JV started after he was there sometime in the 1970s, but that's just conjecture.

The only assistant , you're kidding right?  That is close to blasphemy to have only one assistant coach at hope college.  so who did they get to fill up the team pictures then or was that back before cameras had the capability to take a panoramic photo and squeeze the one coach per player ratio in to the picture.  If that was the case I guess it made sense at the time to only have one assistant.  

The '70s were a different time.

And given the Hope v Calvin records from the 70's, I'm all for as many assistants as we can find

1970's Hope v Calvin 0-21

1980 to present Hope v Calvin 46-35

[hopefan]

Out of curiosity regarding a comment that Sac made....  I looked up and found that Freshmen became eligible for Varsity sports beginning in 1972.... an NCAA Rule at the time.......  Before that there were Frosh teams for ALL sports...  so there was definitely a secondary team that Glenn could have been coaching, and I doubt that when the rule changed in 1972 that Hope just turned around and deleted the frosh/JV team....    Having coached in the Mid 70's as a frosh coach in D3, I know ALL schools out east maintained a frosh or JV team in that era.....

Another comment that Sac made was the rarity of a coach leaving Hope...  reminded me of Greg Afman...  old heads on this site can retell that story, but I remember it was a surprise at the time....
Incidently, I looked up Greg and he is teaching at Westmont out in California....

[Knightmare]

There seems to be no serious disagreement that such speculation is pointless: the search committee will not take into account the views expressed on this board.

While I would not presume to forbid such speculation, I think my original statement was misunderstood. While I can imagine circumstances under which such speculation could have adverse consequences for candidates for the position (if anyone has been in the position of dealing with concerns they might be leaving the school at which they currently work, they'll know what I mean; and I could also imagine that such reading might potentially be unpleasant for, say, friends of Matt Neil), my comment was directed at the potential harm done to the person doing the speculating. Why, exactly, would people start throwing names around, and what does it suggest not only about that which we can claim to know, but more importantly what we ought to know?

John Calvin, in his reflections on the doctrine of predestination, notes that "too daring speculation" is both the foster child and the nurse of "idle curiosity." Calvin further thought that pursuing acts of curiosity that could not lead to knowledge was a form of sloth to be avoided. In Institutes III.21 he describes it as "a climbing to the clouds." Aquinas is even more exacting in his analysis of curiosity as a vice. In the Summa II.2 he describes the indulgence of such curiosity as, first, a form of pride (making oneself seem more knowledgeable than one really is); second, as a form of sloth (distracting us from the questions that ought to concern us); and, third, as a fostering of intellectual confusion. For Aquinas, idle speculation is a form of human cravenness. To indulge the habit is, therefore, harmful to the person who engages in it.

Are you serious?  Quoting John Calvin and then applying that to basketball discussion?  We might as well shut down the whole board.  Everything that is talked about on this board (and yes that includes all hope fans and fans of other schools too) is idle speculation.  When every hope or calvin fan gets on this board after games and critiques referees calls or coaches subbing patterns or what kind of condiments were served that night, that is ALL "idle speculation".  It is speculation why the ref made that call or why GVW or KVS didn't run in transition more or slow it down instead.  It's speculation on if a dunk was the best in the history of DIII bball.  It's speculation on who's student section had the best chant/cheer of the night.  It's speculation on whether that was just a good hard foul or is that player really just dirty.  That is ALL speculation in one form or another.  If you're going to apply John Calvin's thoughts in this case why don't the referees get the same consideration, understanding and grace extended to them, it is a tough job.

Folks, lighten up.  The reason people are talking about the different possibilities, and I've seen NO ONE do it in a malicious way, is because of their devotion and affection for their school and team and there is nothing wrong with that.  Alright, end of my rant which will probably destroy my karma rating, but oh well I felt it needed to be said though others will I'm sure disagree.

[HopeConvert]

AM and KM: surely you will see the difference between normal board discussion and throwing around guesses as to who the next coach will be. Also, I can't see why we can't have a little fun with this topic, and Aquinas and Calvin can only add to the fun.

I do not presume to speak for any other Hope posters; I speak only for myself. As far as I am concerned, I enjoy this board when it passes on genuine information, analysis (which is not idle speculation), humor, and a mutual aesthetic enjoyment of athletic beauty. The speculation interests me not at all.

And I still regard this as a valid question: why, exactly, would a person presume to throw around names concerning Hope's next coach? What are their motives for doing so? What ends or good are they serving in doing so?

KM: I think you need a primer in the meaning of the word "speculation."

[almcguirejr]

And I still regard this as a valid question: why, exactly, would a person presume to throw around names concerning Hope's next coach? What are their motives for doing so? What ends or good are they serving in doing so?

It's the anticipation of what's next.  I don't think about what their motives are.  The speculation is neither good or harmful.

I thought the mention of Mike Phelps was ridiculous.  I thought Titan Q's names were kind of out of left field.  I think Realist" (I found something to agree with him on) mention of the Central College coach was someone of the type of caliber Hope may find attractive if he were to be interested.  There is no harm in bringing that up.

I can't see why we can't have a little fun with this topic either.  There has been speculation on this board the last few years about when GVW was going to retire.  It's natural to speculate who will be next.  When the new coach is named we will speculate how he is going to do.  It's part of what happens here.

[Knightmare]

AM and KM: surely you will see the difference between normal board discussion and throwing around guesses as to who the next coach will be. Also, I can't see why we can't have a little fun with this topic, and Aquinas and Calvin can only add to the fun.

I do not presume to speak for any other Hope posters; I speak only for myself. As far as I am concerned, I enjoy this board when it passes on genuine information, analysis (which is not idle speculation), humor, and a mutual aesthetic enjoyment of athletic beauty. The speculation interests me not at all.

And I still regard this as a valid question: why, exactly, would a person presume to throw around names concerning Hope's next coach? What are their motives for doing so? What ends or good are they serving in doing so?

KM: I think you need a primer in the meaning of the word "speculation."

I'm pretty sure I know the meaning of the word speculation.  My point is that everyone on this board that says it is "analysis" is really arm chair quarterbacking and that can also can be classified as speculation and here is why.  When you "analyze" about a referee's call or miscall you are doing so from a certain point of view in the stands and are thus SPECULATING on the position of the ref and what he was able to see from his vantage point on the court which is different from your seat.  When you "analyze" about the subbing pattern or lack thereof of GVW or KVS you are SPECULATING on the circumstances they are working with, i.e.-maybe player A is fighting sickness or player B turned his ankle last practice and that is affecting either of them physically and no one knows or maybe player C just had an unknown death in the family we don't know about that might be affecting him mentally.  The coach knows these type of circumstances that fans don't know and aren't aware of and take that all into consideration when making decisions and that is why all of our "analysis" on this board is also speculation because we are "analyzing" situations without having full knowledge of the circumstances that make up that situation.

So yes, I do know what speculation means.  It is one of the things I took from my priceless Calvin education.

[ziggy]

And I still regard this as a valid question: why, exactly, would a person presume to throw around names concerning Hope's next coach? What are their motives for doing so? What ends or good are they serving in doing so?

I don't view the preceding discussion as any different than an NFL fan bantering about the possibilities of the draft.

I agree that throwing around names is largely a useless exercise but there may be value in examining the attributes or history of each name. I wouldn't get caught up in the exact names so much as the reasons behind the suggestion (i.e. coaching success, connection to Hope or West Michigan, etc.). Such a view can create a relative profile for who Hope's next coach may be.

I haven't read anything that makes me question the motives of such posts other than starting a legitimate discussion. Some may like to engage in that discussion while others refrain. I don't think there is anything wrong with either position.

As such, the end isn't anything more than active discussion or entertainment during an otherwise quiet period in the d3hoops calendar. The good is served insofar as the discussion is relevant to those that wish to engage and motive remains pure.

[almcguirejr]

I wonder if Derek Van Solkema will apply, he played at hope.

I heard his dad was an assistant there too.

[realist]

Quoting HC: "...I could also imagine that such reading might potentially be unpleasant for, say, friends of Matt Neil)."

It was GVW who put M. Neil's name in play by recomending him for the job.  It seems to me if anyone put Matt (or his friends) in an awkward position it was GVW especially if he knew how the selection process was going to work.    One can read much into how the events have unfolded.  My reading, and my opinion is the College is going to use this opportunity to "get some fresh air" into it's athletic dept.

Forgive me for I have sinned

Hopefan:  Regarding freshman eligibility.  Freshemen were eligible as varsity players up until about 68-69 when the powers to be thought it would be a good idea to give the kids a chance to get used to college before being thrown to the wolves.  Bill De Horn of Calvin was All MIAA as a FR. in 66.  Obviously after trying fr. not eligible for several years that policy was reversed.   Mark Veenstra was All MIAA as a fr. in 74.  

[KnightSlappy]

I've spent the past couple days nerding out (stealing John Hollinger's NBA metrics and applying them to the MIAA) and I finally updated the efficiency ratings for the 09-10 season.

I've also added a couple more metrics PAR (points above replacement) and WAR (wins above replacement). These attempt to quantify the player's contributions to their team with respect to the ficticious MIAA 'replacement' player.

Here's the Top 25:
 

Rank	Player	PER	PAR	WAR
1	Michael McClary	32.42	321.56	4.59
2	Peter Bunn	25.89	241.11	3.44
3	John Mantel	25.99	208.40	2.98
4	Joe Prepolec	25.12	170.86	2.44
5	Scott Rogers	23.50	169.40	2.42
6	Jovon Mosley	23.79	166.91	2.38
7	Matt Veltema	22.60	158.70	2.27
8	Will Bowser	20.69	155.24	2.22
9	J.C. Cruse	25.72	147.64	2.11
10	Nathan Jennings	20.77	142.95	2.04
11	Chris Nelis	20.58	138.90	1.98
12	Ryan Clark	21.64	134.28	1.92
13	Danny Rodts	18.68	112.12	1.60
14	Wes Weir	17.17	95.61	1.37
15	Andre Evans	15.91	92.81	1.33
16	Ian Jackson	19.81	89.52	1.28
17	Nate Snuggerud	17.37	87.07	1.24
18	Brent Schuster	18.87	81.64	1.17
19	Joe Post	16.71	80.34	1.15
20	Andy Venema	22.37	79.71	1.14
21	Wesley Reed	19.26	77.47	1.11
22	Chris Hutton	17.02	77.07	1.10
23	Matt Wayne	15.53	69.19	0.99
24	Tom Snikkers	15.23	67.20	0.96
25	Dennis Mason	18.50	64.04	0.91

It's easy to see that McClary was the right choice for MVP.

[realist]

Quoting Ziggy: "I agree that throwing around names is largely a useless exercise but there may be value in examining the attributes or history of each name. I wouldn't get caught up in the exact names so much as the reasons behind the suggestion (i.e. coaching success, connection to Hope or West Michigan, etc.). Such a view can create a relative profile for who Hope's next coach may be."

Most of us on this board can sit down, if we think about it or care to, and come up with a decent profile of what the next Hope coach will be.  Look at the College, and what it stand for, what are all present and past coaches like, etc. etc. etc.  Frankly it will be easy for the selection comm. to weed out the candidates they aren't interested in, and many of them will have "great" basketball credentials.  They will be lacking in some other area that Hope values.  The universe of individuals that will get serious consideration for the job is actually quite small.  
I applaud Hope for doing a national search.  It tells me they want to avoid  even the appearance of: "cronyism, becoming inbred, and using the ole boy network".  

Darn!  I already dislike Hope's new coach, and they haven't even selected him yet.

[ScotsFan]

And I still regard this as a valid question: why, exactly, would a person presume to throw around names concerning Hope's next coach? What are their motives for doing so? What ends or good are they serving in doing so?

The only question I have is what harm is it doing?

If you don't like the speculating going on wrt the next Hope College head coach, skip over it?!  It's pretty innocent conversation from where I'm sitting...

[ziggy]

Quoting Ziggy: "I agree that throwing around names is largely a useless exercise but there may be value in examining the attributes or history of each name. I wouldn't get caught up in the exact names so much as the reasons behind the suggestion (i.e. coaching success, connection to Hope or West Michigan, etc.). Such a view can create a relative profile for who Hope's next coach may be."

Most of us on this board can sit down, if we think about it or care to, and come up with a decent profile of what the next Hope coach will be.  Look at the College, and what it stand for, what are all present and past coaches like, etc. etc. etc.

If that is the basis for determining what is or is not discussion worthy then this board would look a lot more like the PrAC thread.