DavidsonCats.com

Swinette wrote: ...that everything is cool with Steph, and they even joke about it now. He said that he's also joked about it over the years with Dell. Patsos can't understand what all the fuss is about. He was just a ball coach trying to do his job. He also said that the guys on his team told him at half time that they thought the strategy was working and asked him to keep doing it.

Buffoon! Honestly - I imagine that word, and I see Patsos, and vice versa.

stevelee wrote:Now all the Republicans oppose the 30-second clock.

No. Just the employment of stupid stereotypes.

raptorcat wrote:I want to see a Jimmy Patsos-inspired rule that requires a squad to double-team the opponent's leading scorer, leading to a 4-on-3 mismatch every offensive possession. It would promote good sportsmanship, because the two-on-one players can stand around and chat, getting to know each other.

The triangle and two has been used for many years by many other coaches other than Patsos. I've never quite understood why people get pissed off that a coach should pay Steph the ultimate compliment by defending him the way Maravich was often defended.

Freud said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Sometimes a joke is just a joke.

Having played rugby throughout my Davidson and UNC law school years, I now shudder to think what today's proper society would think about some of the boorish and politically incorrect things we did at every post-match party, and sometimes even during matches, when the beer keg was tapped at halftime. It's a shame the entire team had to suffer due to a mere eight players.

Perhaps they could claim it was an independent study project that was engaged in experiential research regarding nineteenth century British drinking songs. This would certainly be allowed at UNC, and they'd receive course credit.

stan wrote:

raptorcat wrote:I want to see a Jimmy Patsos-inspired rule that requires a squad to double-team the opponent's leading scorer, leading to a 4-on-3 mismatch every offensive possession. It would promote good sportsmanship, because the two-on-one players can stand around and chat, getting to know each other.

The triangle and two has been used for many years by many other coaches other than Patsos. I've never quite understood why people get pissed off that a coach should pay Steph the ultimate compliment by defending him the way Maravich was often defended.

Of course, stan is right, but it becomes a theater of the absurd when the man being guarded by the two defenders calls the opposing coach's bluff and just stands along the sidelines. I never heard of Pistol Pete unselfishly taking himself out of the offense and standing at half court, thus guaranteeing the 4-on-3 mismatch.

Trying it wasn't the problem. Continuing to do it down 15-20 points while allowing the other team to get good looks almost every possession is a problem. At some point it became less about stopping Steph and more about Patsos' self-promotion.

There weren't two guys who could stop Maravich. Many tried. And his teammates for the first couple of years at LSU wouldn't have been that good at 4 on 3.

Patsos' job is to win basketball games. He made no attempt to win that game. He was only interested in creating an anomaly.

I've seen lots of coaches make all kinds of really stupid mistakes. Patsos vs Steph doesn't even come close to making a list of the top 1000 dumbass coaching moves. And of course, no one on this forum has ever managed to point out how his move was even wrong.

I don't give a crap about him, but I would hope smart folks from DC would demonstrate a better understanding. For a little on the nature of risky strategies by a decided underdog, some might profit from reading this. http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2009/ ... tball.html

For example, just because your risky strategy hasn't yet paid dividends is no argument that you should stop trying the only hope you have of winning. And the fact that a decided underdog loses, even by a lot, is no argument that the strategic choice was wrong.

NCAA -- Taking brain dead stupid to a new level http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... police.php

His move was wrong once it was obvious it wasn't working.

It became insane when he kept doing it, expecting a different result. But he didn't really expect a different result, he just wanted attention.

Gimmick.

stan wrote:I've seen lots of coaches make all kinds of really stupid mistakes. Patsos vs Steph doesn't even come close to making a list of the top 1000 dumbass coaching moves. And of course, no one on this forum has ever managed to point out how his move was even wrong.

I don't give a crap about him, but I would hope smart folks from DC would demonstrate a better understanding. For a little on the nature of risky strategies by a decided underdog, some might profit from reading this. http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2009/ ... tball.html

For example, just because your risky strategy hasn't yet paid dividends is no argument that you should stop trying the only hope you have of winning. And the fact that a decided underdog loses, even by a lot, is no argument that the strategic choice was wrong.

Stan, I certainly understand your point, but in the case of Patsos and Steph, it became very clear that by half time it was no longer about being a strategic move to win the game, but rather about putting the spotlight on himself. His ego created a situation that was unfair to his athletes and by no means was in an effort to win the game (or even make it close).