PDA

View Full Version : K's motivations?



KyDevilinIL
03-06-2007, 03:07 PM
I could be way off base here, but thereís a thought thatís been nagging at me since Sundayís postgame press conference. (I apologize if someone else has floated the following idea, but I havenít seen it.)

Regardless of how folks feel about K, few can legitimately claim heís not an intelligent guy. Now, when it comes to the press, K doesnít always say the right thing, but he rarely says the wrong thing. And he has a history of using his public comments as a way of motivating the team or as an attempt to direct the public discussion where he wants it to go.

Kís suggestion that TH shouldnít have been in the game seemed awfully petty and unusual to me when I first heard it. Seemed a bit out of character, especially since K must be aware of how Isaiah Thomas was raked over the coals for saying essentially the same thing.

So is it possible that Kís comment was planted intentionally and consciously? Could K have said that in an effort to draw criticism to himself rather than to GH Ė who, if the incident really was purely accidental, must feel awfully cruddy right now?

If that in fact was Kís plan, then itís sort of worked. Thereís been a fair amount of outcry over Kís postgame comments, and it may have helped quash a possibly damaging national debate about whether GH is a goon, for example. That sort of discussion could have a major negative influence on a young kid like GH, while K is more than capable of dealing with and overcoming a week or two of very bad press. Could K have immediately recognized that potential and taken steps to nip it in the bud, so to speak?

Am I giving K too much credit here? Wishful thinking? I guess the intensity and confusion of the end of Sundayís game might have made it a little difficult to so quickly decide on such a calculating measure, but itís not beyond the realm of possibility, is it?

Again, Iím sorry if someone else originated this thought.

Turtleboy
03-06-2007, 03:14 PM
Again, Iím sorry if someone else originated this thought.Greg Doyel did, for one (http://sportsline.com/columns/story/10042792).

NashvilleDevil
03-06-2007, 03:14 PM
If you read future Pulitzer winner Greg Doyel's most recent groundbreaking article he mentions this very thing.

dcarp23
03-06-2007, 03:22 PM
I don't think Coach K said what everyone says he did. His actual quotes from the press conference are as follows:

"We accept the responsibility no matter what, as we should…And the game’s over-the game was over before that. The outcome of the game-let’s put it that way. It’s unfortunate too that those people were in the game in that way. But that’s what happened-that’s what happens. But it’s unfortunate when those things happen-you don’t want those things to happen….

“With twenty seconds left-I’m not blaming anyone, I’m just saying that we both probably should have had our walk-ons in…I’m not blaming anyone. The game was over, and a situation like that you hope never happens, especially when it does not have any bearing on the outcome of the game. That’s the unfortunate part of that."

I think his point in saying all of this was that it was doubly unfortunate because the game was over and neither of those guys needed to be in the game. Even if that is inaccurate, there is no indication whatsoever that a) Tyler deserved it or b) it was Roy Williams fault.

Should he have just kept his mouth shut in these regards? In retrospect, yes, nothing good came from these remarks. But I think what he is most guilty of in this situation is trying to protect his player, not accusing Carolina of doing anything wrong.

KyDevilinIL
03-06-2007, 03:25 PM
Well, I make concerted efforts not to read Doyel, so that's why I hadn't seen that.

And I am horrified that I shared a thought with Doyel.

Troublemaker
03-06-2007, 03:29 PM
Kís suggestion that TH shouldnít have been in the game seemed awfully petty and unusual to me when I first heard it.

He never said that.

KyDevilinIL
03-06-2007, 03:32 PM
He never said that.

He didn't mention TH by name, no, but that seemed to me to be the insinuation.

Troublemaker
03-06-2007, 03:33 PM
What he actually said was that both teams should've had their walkons in. There's no blaming of Carolina or Roy in what Coach K actually said.

KyDevilinIL
03-06-2007, 03:39 PM
What he actually said was that both teams should've had their walkons in. There's no blaming of Carolina or Roy in what Coach K actually said.

I didn't mean to suggest K was blaming anyone else. Just that by inserting that particular comment, K was intentionally deflecting public ire away from GH by saying something controversial.

I still haven't read Doyel's take -- and I won't -- but if Doyel's saying the same thing I am, then I'm prepared to accept that my theory is total nonsense.

Troublemaker
03-06-2007, 03:42 PM
You suggested that what K said was "petty". How could it be petty if he didn't blame anyone?

Not a big deal. I know you're a Duke fan, which makes it even more important for you to not have the wrong perception of what was actually said.

KyDevilinIL
03-06-2007, 03:55 PM
Well, I will defend the "petty" comment. I don't think K was blaming anyone, but the mere suggestion that one or both coaches may or may not have mishandled the on-court personnel during the closing moments of the game -- thereby exacerbating the situation -- is wholly immaterial, especially after the fact. There's no reason, in my mind, to even bring that up unless you are trying to achieve something by doing it.

It's possible "petty" is the wrong word. I'm open to other suggestions. To me, K's comments were sort of like someone pointing out that it was a bad idea for me to, say, jump off the roof. That's fairly obvious, and it doesn't change the fact that the current focus should be on fixing my broken leg. There's usually no reason to say such things unless you're trying to get a rise out of someone, in my mind.

Troublemaker
03-06-2007, 04:12 PM
There's no reason, in my mind, to even bring that up unless you are trying to achieve something by doing it.

What he was trying to achieve was the making of a simple point, that it was unfortunate. In your example below, it would be the equivalent of saying that it was unfortunate that you were drunk because you otherwise would not have jumped off the roof. It was unfortunate that GH and TH were still in the game because if only walkons were in instead, the intensity would have been throttled down and such a play would not have occurred. To read anything more into than that, you would have to ignore that K already claimed responsibility and apologized for what happened.


To me, K's comments were sort of like someone pointing out that it was a bad idea for me to, say, jump off the roof. That's fairly obvious, and it doesn't change the fact that the current focus should be on fixing my broken leg.

I don't think that comparison works. K's responsibility or current focus at that time was not to worry about Hansbrough's broken nose; that was the doctor's responsibility. It was a press conference so his responsibility and current focus was to answer questions and provide his insight on what happened.

KyDevilinIL
03-06-2007, 04:19 PM
Fair enough, Trouble. We could argue semantics and minutiae forever, it seems, especially since I consider K's direct quote to be very vaguely worded. Others -- including you, I assume -- disagree, and that's perfectly fine.

Who knows what K may or may not have been trying to do in the press conference? We'll certainly never know for sure, and we may have already given this topic too much time and consideration, even though I started it. Ha. Like I said, I have doubts about my own theory, so you very well could be right.