PDA

View Full Version : Basketball coaches apologetics thread



SeattleUte
12-31-2018, 02:08 PM
Let’s post all apologetics for Larry Krystkowiak and company here so that those who aren’t interested don’t have to see it. Thanks in advance.

concerned
12-31-2018, 02:18 PM
Let’s post all apologetics for Larry Krystkowiak and company here so that those who aren’t interested don’t have to see it. Thanks in advance.

If we set up a corresponding thread for "Seattle Ute's bashing everything Utah not named Majerus" I am all in.

UtahsMrSports
12-31-2018, 03:54 PM
If we set up a corresponding thread for "Seattle Ute's bashing everything Utah not named Majerus" I am all in.

Agreed. Wonderful place for Seattle, Portland ute, and comrade crimson to get together and rewrite history/dabble in conspiracy theories.

LA Ute
01-01-2019, 01:36 AM
Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse.

Sounds like Seattle writing here about our head football coach.

SeattleUte
01-01-2019, 02:25 PM
Sounds like Seattle writing here about our head football coach.

You may not agree with my reasoning or application of reason to facts, but at least that is my method. Unlike some, I don’t take positions because of my friends in the athletic department.

LA Ute
01-01-2019, 04:17 PM
You may not agree with my reasoning or application of reason to facts, but at least that is my method. Unlike some, I don’t take positions because of my friends in the athletic department.

I admire your commitment to defending Kyle. You know, however, that attacking people personally for their views, about Kyle or anything else, is not an “application of reason to facts.” It’s not a use of reason at all. Nor is making wild, unsupported accusations about the motives or actions of others. Both are also a violation of this board’s rules.

SeattleUte
01-01-2019, 08:55 PM
I admire your commitment to defending Kyle. You know, however, that attacking people personally for their views, about Kyle or anything else, is not an “application of reason to facts.” It’s not a use of reason at all. Nor is making wild, unsupported accusations about the motives or actions of others. Both are also a violation of this board’s rules.

You’re the one who started accusing people of bad faith and acting contrary to the institution’s interests for supporting Whittingham as though he were a cult figure. You started that.

In any event, I think people should be transparent about personal relationships with people in the athletic department that affect the views they express here. It’s not personal; it’s addressing the root of someone’s motivation for the views they express, which is key to credibility. It’s called a conflict of interest, and journalists probe this all the time. It’s why Sean Hannity isn’t to be believed about anything he says about Trump or Trump’s enemies. As you well know, I have no personal relationship with Whittingham; indeed, I have if anything personal reason to criticize him. I have never met him.

Your continuing obsession with this issue, however, does seem to not be entirely about the merits.

Old Standing ute
01-01-2019, 09:54 PM
San Diego paper today discussing possible Alford replacements, has a long list & includes Larry K.

That usually means we now all love him—or ??

SeattleUte
01-01-2019, 10:04 PM
San Diego paper today discussing possible Alford replacements, has a long list & includes Larry K.

That usually means we now all love him—or ??

:roll eyes:

LA Ute
01-01-2019, 10:06 PM
You’re the one who started accusing people of bad faith and acting contrary to the institution’s interests for supporting Whittingham as though he were a cult figure. You started that.

Interesting Stalinist tactic. Why do you do this? You accuse people of doing terrible things, presumably in the hope you’ll put them on the defensive, perhaps so they’ll feel forced to deny your outlandish charge. It’s really the kind of thing that we would see on the cougar stadium board, where mind games abound. Please don’t bring that here, which is supposed to be a friendly message board for Utah fans. This isn’t personal, it’s about what you are doing.


In any event, I think people should be transparent about personal relationships with people in the athletic department that affect the views they express here. It’s not personal; it’s addressing the root of someone’s motivation for the views they express, which is key to credibility. It’s called a conflict of interest, and journalists probe this all the time. It’s why Sean Hannity isn’t to be believed about anything he says about Trump or Trump’s enemies. As you well know, I have no personal relationship with Whittingham; indeed, I have if anything personal reason to criticize him. I have never met him.

It’s hard to know what you’re saying here. If you’re referring to certain individuals, please name them and clarify the innuendo. If you don’t have facts to back up what you are talking about, then drop this.


Your continuing obsession with this issue, however, does seem to not be entirely about the merits.

I really was hoping for an apology from you for making stuff up about people and posting it here. If you don’t have it in you to apologize, please just stop doing it.

SeattleUte
01-01-2019, 11:14 PM
Interesting Stalinist tactic. Why do you do this? You accuse people of doing terrible things, presumably in the hope you’ll put them on the defensive, perhaps so they’ll feel forced to deny your outlandish charge. It’s really the kind of thing that we would see on the cougar stadium board, where mind games abound. Please don’t bring that here, which is supposed to be a friendly message board for Utah fans. This isn’t personal, it’s about what you are doing.



It’s hard to know what you’re saying here. If you’re referring to certain individuals, please name them and clarify the innuendo. If you don’t have facts to back up what you are talking about, then drop this.



I really was hoping for an apology from you for making stuff up about people and posting it here. If you don’t have it in you to apologize, please just stop doing it.

Let’s not be a drama queen. Godwin’s law applies as much to Stalin as Hitler references. I don’t think it’s “terrible” that you questioned the devotion of Whitt’s defenders to the man vs. the university. It was just your usual obnoxious passive-aggressive self. Also kind of weird. I know that besides myself sancho was put off by what you did.

MUS tried to silence criticism of the Utah coaching staff for losing Daniels by announcing that he had inside information about what really happened. There are two ways to read that—he knows more than us about what really happened because has inside information about what happened, or he’s a mouthpiece for the coaches’ side of the story from his source, a contact inside the program. He’s free to use his contact as a source of his authority but he needs to accept criticism for being biased.

LA Ute
01-02-2019, 07:54 AM
Let’s not be a drama queen.

Why SU, is this a personal jab? I’m disappointed.


Godwin’s law applies as much to Stalin as Hitler references.

I guess I could have described your technique as Alinskyite instead of Stalinist. Alinsky’s Rule 13 is: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Notably, I was talking about your technique, your argument, not you personally. An important distinction.


I don’t think it’s “terrible” that you questioned the devotion of Whitt’s defenders to the man vs. the university. It was just your usual obnoxious passive-aggressive self.

Dang. There goes that ad hominem thing again. Have you found that to be effective in court?


Also kind of weird. I know that besides myself sancho was put off by what you did.

Let’s talk about weird arguments. What I’ve been saying here is that you and others brook no criticism of Whitt. Your own response has been {1) to leap to KW’s defense when any criticism of the head coach is raised, (2) to attack the critics personally, and (3) to accuse them of wanting Whitt fired, of some sort of personal agenda or active participation in a behind-the-scenes anti-Whitt cabal or movement, or some other perfidious skullduggery. In other words, put them on the defensive by making baseless accusations. That’s all pretty weird.


MUS tried to silence criticism of the Utah coaching staff for losing Daniels by announcing that he had inside information about what really happened.

A great example. He “tried to silence criticism?” Really? A less accusatory take would be that MUS was simply trying to add information and perspective to a discussion that is inherently speculative anyway and always will be. (My own position on Daniels is agnostic. I don’t know what happened.)


There are two ways to read that—he knows more than us about what really happened because has inside information about what happened, or he’s a mouthpiece for the coaches’ side of the story from his source, a contact inside the program. He’s free to use his contact as a source of his authority but he needs to accept criticism for being biased.

Is this about MUS’s bias or your personal accusation that he has the ulterior motive of serving as a “mouthpiece?” Good grief. These sharp-edged ad hominem innuendos are toxic to discussion here. Let’s try to elevate things a bit.

SeattleUte
01-02-2019, 03:11 PM
I read Wilner, and he suggests making a push for Tony Bennett or Fred Hoiberg. I would be afraid of either at UCLA.

Tony Bennet wouldn’t work. He’d be Howland redux. Half court motion offense is not for UCLA. The players would revolt like eventually happened with Howland. Bennett needs players committed to his somewhat anachronistic system. With the thoroughbreds UCLA gets they need someone like Roy Williams. Not the greatest Xs and Os coach, but somehow he makes it work by letting the thoroughbreds just play a full court game of which they are in charge. We need someone like Bennet who has a system that makes the absolute most out of his talent.