Friday, February 27, 2009

Lots and Lots of Words

Because I'm some sort of Kentucky masochist, I wade through comments sections and get really angry. Sometimes I punch my computer. What's most frustrating, I think, is how stupid people are. What's second most frustrating, I think, is that these people argue relentlessly with others that will never, ever agree with them.

Typical argument:

"Tubby sucks."
"He was a great guy and he got the most out of his players."
"He couldn't recruit a piece of fried chicken to his mouth."
"Neither could you."
"Good. I'm glad. Because fried chicken is really bad for you."
"I just meant any sort of chicken, because if you get it grilled or something it's fine."
"Eating grilled chicken is gay."
"Really mature."
"You're the one arguing; all I said was that Tubby sucked."
"Well, you suck."
"Whatever, that's what your mom does."
"Really mature."
....

It goes on like that for some time. Regardless, due to my sleuth-like vision, I was able to glean some actual meaningful insights from these morons. Basically, I see 5 schools of thought concerning BCG. Below, I outline each with their pros and cons:

Tubby Left the Cupboard Bare:
This is probably the most popular of theories. While I think it's insane that people STILL blame Tubby for UK's inability to perform at a very low level, people do---quite frequently. My problem here is that the cupboard wasn't bare. There's a lot to be said about this, which I'll save for another day, but here's the premise: (1) Tubby was, though on a different level, left with a bare cupboard as well. He didn't have "his" players and adjusted his coaching accordingly...like a normal person. Ergo, perhaps BCG shouldn't be so "hard-headed like your mother." (2) Joe Crawford, Ramel Bradley, and Patrick Patterson is enough. How many good players does a team need? Really, a couple will do, if the others are serviceable and know what to do.

I said I wasn't going to get into this, and I won't, but I want to make one point: does anyone else find it ironic that Tubby, at his best (2003-2005), had a tougher team than anyone in the country? And they were a bunch of marginal players.

Wait Until Billy Gets His Players In:
This somewhat mirrors the above sentiment, but with a slight difference. Again, I have to bring Tubby into this.

First of all, this isn't a terrible argument. However, one thing good coaches can do well is communicate. BCG does this very, very poorly. Poor communication with others is a byproduct of being stupid, and it generally leads to utter failure (see "America," 2000-2008). Stupid people, like BCG, are too stupid to listen to anyone else. It's their way or your locker gets cleaned out.

I don't think that a coach asserting his dominance over a team is all bad, but he must let it go both ways and listen to his players. And adjust.

Still, if no one leaves and BCG brings some more guys in next year, we might be good. Maybe.

Give Him a Few Years:
This one also mirrors the previous one, and again, not completely irrational. People love pointing to the progress Meeks and Patterson have made (you can throw Miller in there as well). However, one thing people don't admit is that a) Meeks was a Tubby guy, and b) he and Patterson were good upon arrival. Also, is it totally insane for me to say that after a year of BCG coaching, Patterson has digressed?

That's not really the point here, though. People love pointing to Rich Brooks and what he has done for the football team, though they glaringly omit how fucking shitty that team was. Brooks didn't take over a bowl team; he took over a team on probation. I think the situation is totally different. Plus, rebuilding a basketball team is not nearly as hard as a football team. Look at LSU.

Still, it is not unreasonable to give this guy a third year. And by the way, I reserve the right to call him clueless and stupid until we are good again. Even with all of the talent we should have next year, I still think we'll underachieve.

This Just Isn't Working:
I think if my opinion on this subject were a Venn diagram, the circles representing "give him one more year" and "this isn't working" would have a large overlap. I watched the USC game and thought, 'nope, he's done. Get him out. The guy's clueless.' Then, I think about what could happen next year and how we still have time to make this year's tourney, and I think, 'well, maybe one more year.'

The problem, of course, has been our lack of improvement. It's like we are defiant in terms of fixing what the problems are. For instance, Porter, no matter how hard he tries, cannot handle the point. We've played almost 30 games, and it was obvious after 2. Still, he's there, trying to dribble. You know why Liggins and Galloway are frustrated? Because they have to watch his shitty ass fuck everything up (no offense). Why practice hard when, regardless of what your coach says, it doesn't matter? Worse, why play well? Playing well is the death knell for a bench player.

Further, his defiance towards changing defenses is astounding. Someone in the comments, you know, one of those assholes who says things about the Tampa 2 and shit, said something to the effect of, 'zoning would be stupid, b/c teams like USC would just shoot over it. Plus, we'd be learning new defenses on the fly.'

Sadly, he's right. Now, it's too late to learn these defenses. Had the offseason been spent learning new defenses rather than puking, we wouldn't be in this predicament. Regardless, it's still BCG's fault. We're probably in better shape than anyone, but it doesn't matter when you give Downey his left hand and he blows by you. (Does anyone remember this? They showed the replay a million times. Apparently, Ramon was told Downey couldn't go left, so Ramon shaded his right side. Downey went left and scored an uncontested lay-up. It was a microcosm of Ramon's career.)

It seems more like we are lighlty coached, rather than poorly coached. We don't get outcoached because our schemes are bad; we get outcoached b/c we don't have schemes. We show up, talk about toughness, then the ball is tossed up and every player thinks, 'oh fuck, now what?'

Seriously, is He Drunk or Retarded:
Probably not either of these, but who can tell?

I realize I'm kind of hedging by saying that I think he should be back next year to see what he can do with a team full of talent. Still, I wouldn't say that he deserves it. This team has talent; why can't they win games?

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I've never understood why basketball coach is a profession in which it is acceptable to be a dickhead. Also, is there anything less tasteful than publically throwing your kids under the bus? Gillispie is starting to make a habit of this (i.e. "why didn't Perry, A.J., and Jorts help Patterson"). This has been a Pitino staple for years and is a practice that I hate.

I tend to side with your stance that he may just be stupid and thus his inablity to be anything other than defiant when confronting resistance. Even when he tries to explain things, they don't make sense. I love Patterson's effort normally, but he didn't play defense for shit against USC and repeatedly didn't box out his man. Then, Gillispie gets on the call in and criticizes everyone for not helping him....then he benches his best player for getting lost on one inbounds play.

Nothing he does makes sense and he isn't smart enough (unlike Pitino) to spin his ridiculous antics in a positive light.

Thom

Anonymous said...

Here is my take.
All good points and the best is that we can't get rid of this creep. Which is what is wrong with sports. If I did what this guy has done at my job; it would be like wiring something wrong, it blowing up, hurting a lot of people, and then telling my boss lets not talk about that. Or just saying, man i screwed that up, hope we can move on. I would be sitting at home with no job.

Anonymous said...

No, thats not completely true. BCG has never admitted fault. He just puts on his players. Great leadership?

Anonymous said...

"Tubby left the cupboard bare" is a reasonable excuse for losing to North Carolina...not to VMI. The BCG apologists refuse to see this.