SVP Calling Out Snowflakes

[Hollisp]

Speaking of Knight. The 30/30 on him and the last few days at IU was amazing. Great TV.

All college basketball fans should watch.

 

[WichitaSooner]

I certainly don't see anything wrong with a coach getting on a player verbally. The one thing that I think gets overlooked is whether coaches who constantly lose control of their emotions (and I am not thinking of Izzo when I say this) are effective when it comes to leading their teams. There are a lot of college basketball coaches who seem to come unglued (at players and refs) for a good chunk of every game. To me, it seems like that isn't an effective way of teaching your players to play with poise and overcome adversity. Plus, the guys who constantly ride the refs (e.g., Hurley) probably don't get the benefit of the doubt on many close calls. I think there are some coaches who do a great job of striking the balance between being very intense, but not showing anyone up. Sampson and Self come to mind. And even though he never yells or does anything demonstrative, if you watch Lon, you will see several times during a game that he is calmly talking to the ref closest to him when he thinks they missed a call or if there is something he wants them to watch.

Again, nothing at all wrong with challenging your players and holding them accountable. But coaches themselves need to be able to control themselves so they don't hurt their teams, which is the same thing they expect of their players.

 

[BoulderSooner]

Also, one can think Izzo (or any coach) crosses the line at times, and still not be at the other extreme -- that everything should be made easy for everyone all the time. There's a huge area in between. That's the biggest fallacy in SVP's remarks, in my opinion.

if you listen to the video there is acutally 0 fallacy in SVP's remarks

 

[skyvue]

if you listen to the video there is acutally 0 fallacy in SVP's remarks

I did listen to the video, but thanks.

 

[Sooner04]

I know how this one will end.

 

[sheepdogs1]

I know how this one will end.

Gift ribbon removal?

 

[Eielson]

Bobby Knight had lots of defenders too, including on this board, and sorry, he crossed the line many times, pure and simple.

Yes, he did, but what does that have to do with this thread? We're not talking about if it's okay to throw chairs and physically abuse players. I find it interesting that you mention fallacies in your post while using this kind of logic.

It's also ironic how viewpoints can change. When many fans were calling for Mike Stoops' return to OU, his passion and fire and willingness to chew players out was cited as something we needed.

But then, once it was clear he was not a quick fix and our defense was struggling, he was suddenly painted by many of those same fans as a nutjob whose antics with players were indefensible. I suspect that if the results on the field had been better, no one would have had a problem with his interactions with players.

I don't really see the irony. Results on the field matter. This is not breaking news.

But "Hey, the kid had no problem with it" doesn't fly. Maybe the kid didn't have a problem with it; that's entirely possible. But it's also possible he did but felt he'd be putting his own and his team's prospects at risk if he said anything.

Izzo has been a household name for decades, and his style hasn't changed. This kid knew what he was getting into when he signed. MSU is one of the best programs in the country, so none of their players were forced to go there. They all had other offers. If they wanted a different coaching style, they could have picked one.

 

[coolm]

There's really no right or wrong answer. This is all just a matter of leadership styles. The gruff, aggressive style is like a default mode not just because of social convention but also because of nature. The hunter-gatherer social order that our ancestors coalesced around was based on patriarchal dominance and a familial size for efficient travel. Our instincts push us in that direction and often leadership is little more than being the first one to step-up.

We learn later to be flexible and allow other attributes to play a bigger role in our decisions. But that's learned behavior ... and until that learning is all taking place as a result of a common culture then the learning will differ. Some people will agree with aggressive leadership - and others with a more thought oriented approach.

I think there are psychological benefits that promote an aggressive style being more efficient and effective. But that's just my opinion. And that's only in this arena.

 

[Eielson]

Not trying to start a huge argument, but I've seen some others, including ESPN talent push back on SVP.

Some point out the balance of Izzo making 6+ million dollars, while the unpaid athlete is taking it. I think that's a fair point, but I know it's the nature of the sport.

Bomani Jones also discussed how no one else has a job where their boss would come up and do this to them, stick a finger in their face yelling and get praised for it.

I don't really like the argument that if you pay somebody, it's okay to treat them however you want. If that's the case, though, college athletes are getting compensated. Some players are clearly undercompensated, but they're still compensated.

I've only watched Bomani a few times (and hope to not have to ever again), but I'm not impressed with him in any way, shape, or form. I'll try to stick to his argument itself rather than him, though. Every profession is different, and what works on the court doesn't necessarily work in an office. I agree that many other professions don't tolerate this behavior, but to say none do is absolutely false. There are a lot of things done in sports that would be strange at my current position (e.g. changing in front of them), but that doesn't make them wrong.

 

[Eielson]

Some people will agree with aggressive leadership - and others with a more thought oriented approach.

Absolutely. If you want to play for a Tom Izzo-style coach, go do it. If you want to play for a Lon Kruger-style coach, go do it. If you change your mind part way through or there's a coaching change, then transfer. This isn't HS -- you get a choice.

 

[SuperHoops]

I don't really like the argument that if you pay somebody, it's okay to treat them however you want. If that's the case, though, college athletes are getting compensated. Some players are clearly undercompensated, but they're still compensated.

I've only watched Bomani a few times (and hope to not have to ever again), but I'm not impressed with him in any way, shape, or form. I'll try to stick to his argument itself rather than him, though. Every profession is different, and what works on the court doesn't necessarily work in an office. I agree that many other professions don't tolerate this behavior, but to say none do is absolutely false. There are a lot of things done in sports that would be strange at my current position (e.g. changing in front of them), but that doesn't make them wrong.

If you get in a fight at your worksite you get arrested and more than likely fired. If you are an athlete you get escorted to the locker room and sit in a plush recliner and eat catering while you watch the game on the big screen.

 

[MsProudSooner]

There is a big difference between being a tough, disciplinarian coach and being an aSShole. Yell at them while you are telling them to switch on screens all the time and not just part of the time. But don't make it insulting or personal.

 

[coolm]

There is a big difference between being a tough, disciplinarian coach and being an aSShole.

actually there's not. it's a very thin line that is often crossed purposefully for effect.

 

[thebigabd]

Izzo was being restrained by other players and coaches from yelling at the player.. It seemed pretty ridiculous to me. Izzo is a grown man making $3.5 million per year and essentially threw a temper tantrum.

This is a societal argument more than a basketball one... one group of people thinks young people are soft because of stuff like this, the other group thinks the old way is ineffective and that these guys practically abuse people (whether that be coaches, employers, parents, etc)...

Was Izzo being so passionate and throwing a tantrum to help that guy become a better person, better man, hold him accountable, etc? Or was he doing it because he just wanted to win the game?

Lots of questions here...

 

[Eielson]

Izzo was being restrained by other players and coaches from yelling at the player.. It seemed pretty ridiculous to me. Izzo is a grown man making $3.5 million per year and essentially threw a temper tantrum.

There's a huge difference between "being restrained" and "having to be restrained."

Was Izzo being so passionate and throwing a tantrum to help that guy become a better person, better man, hold him accountable, etc? Or was he doing it because he just wanted to win the game?

Is there something wrong with that? It's what he's getting paid over 4M this year to do.

 

[stormspencer]

I know how this one will end.

I was thinking the same thing.

My favorite line in the comments section..."when ESPN is calling you soft...."

 

[WTSooner]

There's a huge difference between "being restrained" and "having to be restrained."

So very true. I watched that video, and never once thought he needed to be, or had to be restrained.

 

[Ghost of Gar Heard]

Steve Jobs of Apple fame behaved in the same manner. He is idolized.

Steve Jobs is idolized?

Wasn't he pretty well known as one of the world's biggest assholes? Treated everyone he ever met terribly, including his entire family? He died rich...I guess there's that but I think he was widely reviled by anyone he ever interacted with.

 

[skyvue]

I don't really see the irony.

The irony is that they later criticized him roundly for his interactions with Sooner athletes, the same behavior that they had previously cited as the very reason he should be brought back--actions with which they would have had no problem if the results had been better.

If the behavior is inappropriate, it is so win or lose.

 

[sheepdogs1]

Steve Jobs is idolized?

Wasn't he pretty well known as one of the world's biggest assholes? Treated everyone he ever met terribly, including his entire family? He died rich...I guess there's that but I think he was widely reviled by anyone he ever interacted with.

He was viewed as a genius, a strong leader, an innovator, a philanthropist etc. Sure, there were people who new the real Steve, but they were in the minority. If you polled most people they would speak well of him.