(06-06-2018 03:05 PM)IndyOwl Wrote:  (Quote) Not hyperbole at all. I suggest you look at Clyde Drexler's coaching career; participation at high levels of a sport are not ipso facto experience 'to coach' that same sport as you seemingly imply. Your comment here is objectively and factually incorrect (quote)

I probably am not doing this correctly but want to try to address some of these separately.

First, anecdotal evidence doesn’t prove anything in this specific case. Consider Brad Stevens, who didn’t pay his dues in a traditional sense before becoming Butler’s HC. An NCAA finals appearance and likely NBA coach of the year award later, and it seems that was a good call by the school. So what? Some qualified people fail and some less traditionally qualified people succeed.

The bigger disconnect between us is that you seem to equate your preferred “experience” as the only factor in success. I disagree. I don’t think Drexler failed because he lacked the experience to succeed. He failed because he lacks the skill set to be a good coach. Sure. Experience as a successful D1 HC at a similar program can provide an outsider with some insight into whether those skills are there (I haven’t read here that any such successful major program HCs have applied) and can also help develop those skills. But it’s not an absolute. Coaching is fundamentally teaching. Both Drexler and Berkman (and Cruz Jr for that matter) have abundant experience with their sports to be qualified to teach/coach them to anybody. Whether they have the talent and skills to be good at it is a different question entirely. The safe course is to look for that track record as a D1 coach. Your preference isn’t unreasonable. Your categorical dismissal (if not disdain) of lessons learned in earning a world championship is.

The major difference between us is that I dont take field performance and 'earning a championship' (through actions on the field, mind you) as ipso facto proof of an ability to manage or coach as you seemingly do.

But you categorize those who dont believe that it is ipso facto proof positive of an ability to successfully coach or manage as engaging in "hyperbole at best" and being "objectively unreasonable." (which, by my count, looks a lot like hyperbole as well.... and may additionally qualify for the former as well....)

Disdain? Not at all. I am in awe of Berkman's athletic prowess, skill, and accomplishments *on the field*. If it is supposed 'disdain' that prevents me from automatically qualifying those as proof positive of being a good HC, I would posit that you are employing a rather loose definition of that word --

Without a doubt I am skeptical of that supposed chain of semi-automatically linking accomplishments *on the field* to *backgrounds and skills to successfully manage* you promulgate. Skeptical, without a doubt. Highly skeptical, perhaps. Disdain -- not even close.

By the way, perhaps you may wish to tell me where I stated that 'my preferred "experience" [is] the only factor in success.' There is a massive logical difference between being skeptical that on-field success and awards are indicia (of any sort) to success in coaching, and that I believe 'my preferred "experience" [is] the *only* factor in success'. I think you are constructing a strawman here, tbh (and perhaps in a tad hyperbolic manner, to boot ).