MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[wiz]

http://www.mlive.com/smallcolleges/grandrapids/index.ssf/2014/03/hope_coach_likes_colleagues_th.html#incart_flyout_sports

I don't think it was a good idea for coach to let out the secret strategy through the media.  Now opposing teams will know that Hope wants to beat them and not just be happy to play the game.  I can imagine many adjustments being made all throughout D3 as this information spreads.

Considering things like primary selection criteria apparently haven't spread throughout D3, I wouldn't worry about some quotes on a local website turning any tides of advantage.

It was on mlive for crying out loud!  Not to mention the article also appears in the print version of the Grand Rapids Press which is in newsstands right outside the DeVos Fieldhouse for other teams to see (unless, of course, it's not a Tuesday, Thursday or Sunday).

[HOPEful]

http://www.mlive.com/smallcolleges/grandrapids/index.ssf/2014/03/hope_coach_likes_colleagues_th.html#incart_flyout_sports

"We can't be happy just playing the game. But we want to beat the opponent."

Was anyone else's reaction to this negative? Is Coach Neil inferring that Hope didn't have enough desire to beat Calvin or win the conference tournament? Am I supposed to be excited that he seems to think they'll have it fixed for the playoffs? Because my first reaction is more along the lines of "how did you not have your guys prepared mentally to play Calvin in MIAA Championship game?!"

[KnightSlappy]

http://www.mlive.com/smallcolleges/grandrapids/index.ssf/2014/03/hope_coach_likes_colleagues_th.html#incart_flyout_sports

"We can't be happy just playing the game. But we want to beat the opponent."

Was anyone else's reaction to this negative? Is Coach Neil inferring that Hope didn't have enough desire to beat Calvin or win the conference tournament? Am I supposed to be excited that he seems to think they'll have it fixed for the playoffs? Because my first reaction is more along the lines of "how did you not have your guys prepared mentally to play Calvin in MIAA Championship game?!"

It's really just "the will to win" coachspeak nonsense.

[HopeConvert]

"Both games showed that teams will try and look and exploit weaknesses," said center Nate VanArendonk, who averages 10.2 points and 6.5 rebounds. "I'm not sure that's a good thing, but it served as a wake-up call."

As a general moral judgment, that's probably right, but I'm not sure how it stands up as a basketball judgment, where exploiting the opponent's weaknesses sounds like pretty sound strategy.  I once had a colleague from England, who didn't really get basketball, and he thought the idea of an "intentional foul" a peccadillo - demonstrating there is no place for Kantians in sports. Of course, being from England, he thought soccer (or, as he called it, "football") a jolly grand game, so I found it difficult to take his judgments too seriously.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

http://www.mlive.com/smallcolleges/grandrapids/index.ssf/2014/03/hope_coach_likes_colleagues_th.html#incart_flyout_sports

"We can't be happy just playing the game. But we want to beat the opponent."

Was anyone else's reaction to this negative? Is Coach Neil inferring that Hope didn't have enough desire to beat Calvin or win the conference tournament? Am I supposed to be excited that he seems to think they'll have it fixed for the playoffs? Because my first reaction is more along the lines of "how did you not have your guys prepared mentally to play Calvin in MIAA Championship game?!"

My $0.02

Anyone who uses what is published in the media to determine whether the coach is properly guiding his players is foolish. 

It's not like the coach doesn't realize that what he says is going to be public knowledge.  With that in mind, do you really think any coach is going to tell a reporter anything that the coach might consider the key to his team improving?  Why would he do that?  So what coaches do is talk in generic terms and generalities.  No different that after the two Hope wins over Calvin, when KVS said basically the same thing both times - I didn't have my guys ready.  Do we really think that KVS failed to prepare his team for the game - of course not.  But a coach is not going to tell you that player A needs to change the way he switches on a ball screen, or how he posts up, or anything else specific.   

And let's not forget that what you end up reading in an article like this is the writer taking everything the coach told him, and finding something he (the write) thinks is interesting or provocative and then shaping the story around that. 

[HOPEful]

http://www.mlive.com/smallcolleges/grandrapids/index.ssf/2014/03/hope_coach_likes_colleagues_th.html#incart_flyout_sports

"We can’t be happy just playing the game. But we want to beat the opponent.”

Was anyone else's reaction to this negative? Is Coach Neil inferring that Hope didn't have enough desire to beat Calvin or win the conference tournament? Am I supposed to be excited that he seems to think they'll have it fixed for the playoffs? Because my first reaction is more along the lines of "how did you not have your guys prepared mentally to play Calvin in MIAA Championship game?!"

My $0.02

Anyone who uses what is published in the media to determine whether the coach is properly guiding his players is foolish. 

It's not like the coach doesn't realize that what he says is going to be public knowledge.  With that in mind, do you really think any coach is going to tell a reporter anything that the coach might consider the key to his team improving?  Why would he do that?  So what coaches do is talk in generic terms and generalities.  No different that after the two Hope wins over Calvin, when KVS said basically the same thing both times - I didn't have my guys ready.  Do we really think that KVS failed to prepare his team for the game - of course not.  But a coach is not going to tell you that player A needs to change the way he switches on a ball screen, or how he posts up, or anything else specific.   

And let's not forget that what you end up reading in an article like this is the writer taking everything the coach told him, and finding something he (the write) thinks is interesting or provocative and then shaping the story around that.

My critique was more of symantics than of actually believing that either teams' players were ill prepared for any of their meetings. Neil is 8-4 against Calvin. I will take 2 out of 3 every day (and twice on Sundays) He doesn't seem to have a problem motivating them to win.

[monsoon]

Is it game time yet?

[oldknight]

"Both games showed that teams will try and look and exploit weaknesses," said center Nate VanArendonk, who averages 10.2 points and 6.5 rebounds. "I'm not sure that's a good thing, but it served as a wake-up call."

As a general moral judgment, that's probably right, but I'm not sure how it stands up as a basketball judgment, where exploiting the opponent's weaknesses sounds like pretty sound strategy.  I once had a colleague from England, who didn't really get basketball, and he thought the idea of an "intentional foul" a peccadillo - demonstrating there is no place for Kantians in sports. Of course, being from England, he thought soccer (or, as he called it, "football") a jolly grand game, so I found it difficult to take his judgments too seriously.

Holmes, the father of legal realism, would find your English friend's attitude to be rather quaint. The American jurist--whose legal philosophy included decoupling law and morality--opined that a person's duty to keep an agreement merely means that you must pay damages if you do not keep it. In the case of committing an intentional foul, the "damages" simply allows your opponent to shoot free throws.

[HopeConvert]

"Both games showed that teams will try and look and exploit weaknesses," said center Nate VanArendonk, who averages 10.2 points and 6.5 rebounds. "I'm not sure that's a good thing, but it served as a wake-up call."

As a general moral judgment, that's probably right, but I'm not sure how it stands up as a basketball judgment, where exploiting the opponent's weaknesses sounds like pretty sound strategy.  I once had a colleague from England, who didn't really get basketball, and he thought the idea of an "intentional foul" a peccadillo - demonstrating there is no place for Kantians in sports. Of course, being from England, he thought soccer (or, as he called it, "football") a jolly grand game, so I found it difficult to take his judgments too seriously.

Holmes, the father of legal realism, would find your English friend's attitude to be rather quaint. The American jurist--whose legal philosophy included decoupling law and morality--opined that a person's duty to keep an agreement merely means that you must pay damages if you do not keep it. In the case of committing an intentional foul, the "damages" simply allows your opponent to shoot free throws.

Of course, Holmes' decision in Buck v. Bell pretty much vacates any moral authority he might otherwise have. Three generations of imbeciles is enough. I'm not sure I want someone who "see(s) no reason for attributing to man a significance different in kind from that which belongs to a baboon or a grain of sand," protecting my rights. Or the rim.

[HOPEful]

"Both games showed that teams will try and look and exploit weaknesses," said center Nate VanArendonk, who averages 10.2 points and 6.5 rebounds. "I'm not sure that's a good thing, but it served as a wake-up call."

Holmes, the father of legal realism, would find your English friend's attitude to be rather quaint. The American jurist--whose legal philosophy included decoupling law and morality--opined that a person's duty to keep an agreement merely means that you must pay damages if you do not keep it. In the case of committing an intentional foul, the "damages" simply allows your opponent to shoot free throws.

"protecting my rights. Or the rim."

I see what you did there.

[oldknight]

"Both games showed that teams will try and look and exploit weaknesses," said center Nate VanArendonk, who averages 10.2 points and 6.5 rebounds. "I'm not sure that's a good thing, but it served as a wake-up call."

As a general moral judgment, that's probably right, but I'm not sure how it stands up as a basketball judgment, where exploiting the opponent's weaknesses sounds like pretty sound strategy.  I once had a colleague from England, who didn't really get basketball, and he thought the idea of an "intentional foul" a peccadillo - demonstrating there is no place for Kantians in sports. Of course, being from England, he thought soccer (or, as he called it, "football") a jolly grand game, so I found it difficult to take his judgments too seriously.

Holmes, the father of legal realism, would find your English friend's attitude to be rather quaint. The American jurist--whose legal philosophy included decoupling law and morality--opined that a person's duty to keep an agreement merely means that you must pay damages if you do not keep it. In the case of committing an intentional foul, the "damages" simply allows your opponent to shoot free throws.

Of course, Holmes' decision in Buck v. Bell pretty much vacates any moral authority he might otherwise have. Three generations of imbeciles is enough. I'm not sure I want someone who "see(s) no reason for attributing to man a significance different in kind from that which belongs to a baboon or a grain of sand," protecting my rights. Or the rim.

Some contemporary political philosophers who smugly look down their noses at Holmes for his decision in Bell happily accept his reasoning when convenient for purposes of advancing the modern agenda. Holmes' reasoning was based on his belief that the purpose of the law is the deterrence of undesirable social consequences. Knowing you as I do, I'm confident you don't share the nauseating hypocrisy of your class.

[oldknight]

Nicely done sethteater. On a related note, I've often thought that Bo Ryan is the coaching disciple of Holmes' legal philosophy.

[Pat Coleman]

My critique was more of symantics than of actually believing that either teams' players were ill prepared for any of their meetings. Neil is 8-4 against Calvin. I will take 2 out of 3 every day (and twice on Sundays) He doesn't seem to have a problem motivating them to win.

I didn't think you were allowed to do that.

[realist]

Who do I have to talk with to get my CEU (continuing education unit) credits for the above discussion?
I qualify for:
Basketball 101
Journalism 101
Philosophy 203 (with a side order of legal philosophy)
Coach speak 501.  Definitely a graduate level course.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

My critique was more of symantics than of actually believing that either teams' players were ill prepared for any of their meetings. Neil is 8-4 against Calvin. I will take 2 out of 3 every day (and twice on Sundays) He doesn't seem to have a problem motivating them to win.

I didn't think you were allowed to do that.

Nicely played