greybeard
03-30-2010, 11:34 AM
We've all seen the pictures of Singler's hand, and we all know that K and Jon and Nolan made no mention of the injury when asked about Singler's shooting "slump." What I want to know is what planet were the guys' asking the question on. They were at the game right. One of them had to get an up close look, no? And, what about the guys who announced the game. They didn't see the swelling, the discoloration?
How is it possible that even through today no one in the media has picked up on this. My bet is is that this is about to change. Yeap, I wised up Mr. Tony, who has been referencing me on his local radio show as an expert on all things Duke (thanks to DBR) and other stuff (we'll get to that in a moment) since the tourney began. By the way, you all will be happy to hear that Mr. Tony took it up a notch, last night gave me a shout out on PTI. Thanks boyz.
Now to the second point. Most all the heads were saying going in that West Virginia's chances went down the drain with their point guard's injury. I wrote to Tony to "remember When Harvard Beat Yale and not count WVa out." As I did for him, a brief explanation, that thankfully does not apply at your school, at least with regard to basketball.
One of the unfortunate things about Sport, organized sport from college on down, is adults run the show. For some reason, these people think it okay for them to decide to NOT play guys (I'm including gals here too) who have proven their ability to contribute. They think that their judgments about who their very best players are supercedes the right, that's right, "right" of kids who have earned it be given the chance to play, to contribute in actual games. They only think, in self-proving fashion, that their judgments in that regard are the best way to win, and that even if it is, that whatever advantage is gained is somehow worth the cost that others must pay. To me, this is a profoundly unfortunate and indefensible reality; extremely hurtful to young people who get involved in competative sport from the age 8 on up.
For those of you who have not seen it, When Harvard Beat Yale is a wonderful documentary about the closing game in the 1969 Ivy league season. Harvard and Yale went into their final game undefeated. Yale had Grant's Dad and a terrific quarterback who had never lost a game in high school and college and were considered in a different league. The game was to be a blowout and for one half it was. Yale was crushing Harvard.
Then Harvard's professorial-type coach (that is how his players described him in the documentary) made a startling move. He took out his star quarterback and gave the team's reigns to a guy who had not played a meaningful down the entire season. Anyway, like some cheap movie, the guy brings Harvard back, throwing two touchdown passes and two two-point conversions in the final 1:45.
Okay, Grey, but what does this have to do with the price of tomatoes. There is a point lurking here somewhere, yes? Patience boyz, we're getting there. After thoroughly enjoying this docu-drama it hit me. How does this happen? How does it happen that at a school like Harvard, with its laid back approach to sport, that a guy of this talent does not get ONE meaningful down an entire season?
So, what I asked Tony and now ask the rest of you, how did the talking heads, all these experts, assume that there was no one lurking on Huggin's roster who could step in to do the job. How could they possibly make such an assumption? I'd like to be able to say that I predicted that the guy who won the game for WVa would. I didn't. What I did tell Tony was that the premise of the collective wisdom of the sports media was so out of touch with the lessons of When Harvard Beat Yale as to be sad. Sad because the people who sit on the benches are presumed by those who should know better to be incapable of contributing on a high level when anyone familiar with sport should know that that just ain't true.
For those of you with children who love to play and invest it, remember When Harvard Beat Yale and do not let it happen. I know that convention is to cede all power to the coach, to honor the ethos of the good of the team over individual interests, but that convention does a tremendous injustice to the games that we play.
We can do better. The Heads, on the other hand, I fear that there is no hope.
Go Duke, a team that deserves it.
How is it possible that even through today no one in the media has picked up on this. My bet is is that this is about to change. Yeap, I wised up Mr. Tony, who has been referencing me on his local radio show as an expert on all things Duke (thanks to DBR) and other stuff (we'll get to that in a moment) since the tourney began. By the way, you all will be happy to hear that Mr. Tony took it up a notch, last night gave me a shout out on PTI. Thanks boyz.
Now to the second point. Most all the heads were saying going in that West Virginia's chances went down the drain with their point guard's injury. I wrote to Tony to "remember When Harvard Beat Yale and not count WVa out." As I did for him, a brief explanation, that thankfully does not apply at your school, at least with regard to basketball.
One of the unfortunate things about Sport, organized sport from college on down, is adults run the show. For some reason, these people think it okay for them to decide to NOT play guys (I'm including gals here too) who have proven their ability to contribute. They think that their judgments about who their very best players are supercedes the right, that's right, "right" of kids who have earned it be given the chance to play, to contribute in actual games. They only think, in self-proving fashion, that their judgments in that regard are the best way to win, and that even if it is, that whatever advantage is gained is somehow worth the cost that others must pay. To me, this is a profoundly unfortunate and indefensible reality; extremely hurtful to young people who get involved in competative sport from the age 8 on up.
For those of you who have not seen it, When Harvard Beat Yale is a wonderful documentary about the closing game in the 1969 Ivy league season. Harvard and Yale went into their final game undefeated. Yale had Grant's Dad and a terrific quarterback who had never lost a game in high school and college and were considered in a different league. The game was to be a blowout and for one half it was. Yale was crushing Harvard.
Then Harvard's professorial-type coach (that is how his players described him in the documentary) made a startling move. He took out his star quarterback and gave the team's reigns to a guy who had not played a meaningful down the entire season. Anyway, like some cheap movie, the guy brings Harvard back, throwing two touchdown passes and two two-point conversions in the final 1:45.
Okay, Grey, but what does this have to do with the price of tomatoes. There is a point lurking here somewhere, yes? Patience boyz, we're getting there. After thoroughly enjoying this docu-drama it hit me. How does this happen? How does it happen that at a school like Harvard, with its laid back approach to sport, that a guy of this talent does not get ONE meaningful down an entire season?
So, what I asked Tony and now ask the rest of you, how did the talking heads, all these experts, assume that there was no one lurking on Huggin's roster who could step in to do the job. How could they possibly make such an assumption? I'd like to be able to say that I predicted that the guy who won the game for WVa would. I didn't. What I did tell Tony was that the premise of the collective wisdom of the sports media was so out of touch with the lessons of When Harvard Beat Yale as to be sad. Sad because the people who sit on the benches are presumed by those who should know better to be incapable of contributing on a high level when anyone familiar with sport should know that that just ain't true.
For those of you with children who love to play and invest it, remember When Harvard Beat Yale and do not let it happen. I know that convention is to cede all power to the coach, to honor the ethos of the good of the team over individual interests, but that convention does a tremendous injustice to the games that we play.
We can do better. The Heads, on the other hand, I fear that there is no hope.
Go Duke, a team that deserves it.