Stanford 2015-The end of world (or not)

[Rickster]

Definition of implicit - capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed : implied <an implicit assumption>

Now, it is very rare to hear a player ever criticize a coach. It happens sometimes in the professional ranks and it generally creates a scandal.

So, Mercedes or Jamie or Diamond or another LV are not at all likely to cast any negative comments toward Holly in a press conference. And I believe that the players genuinely like Holly and would not want to put her under even more pressure by she suggesting that some of their problems trace to coaching.

But, when a player sits in silence when ask about why they are repeating the same mistakes from last year or is unsure why the team is not giving an effort, I would venture that the implicit assumption is that something is lacking in the guidance from the coaching staff.

I'm well aware of the definition. There was nothing said in that press conference that would imply what you are postulating. It is just another situation of assumptions not in evidence. If you want to diss then go ahead but don't use the reactions of visibly disappointed players to further the "bad coach" agenda. No need for it and it is just not the fair thing to do.

In the end, whether someone believes your position or not depends more on credibility than anything else. Isn't that what you and the other coaching experts here want...to convince others that you have the answers? If so, the persuasion will come with credibility....not rhetoric.

If every post written disses Holly then it becomes the same thing over and over and over again. That muddles whatever credibility has been established. Some of you fervently attack over anything said that is not in line with the fire Holly crowd. What lends credence to that position? Forums are not your way or the highway....they are about people voicing their opinion (at least that is what a lot of you would have the program supporters believe). There will be similarities and opposites. You should embrace the diversity of opinions rather than slam those who are not of the same opinion. If I disagree, then I should be able to say so and why I disagree and so should you but calling people idiots, stupid, clueless, etc... is not a really convincing effort to persuade.

You want credibility, then practice patience with others and persuade them rather than brow beat them. You might convince some of them to join the fire Holly crusade then again, don't be too disappointed if they don't. In the end, credibility will be what convinces people.

 

[madtownvol]

I'm well aware of the definition. There was nothing said in that press conference that would imply what you are postulating. It is just another situation of assumptions not in evidence. If you want to diss then go ahead but don't use the reactions of visibly disappointed players to further the "bad coach" agenda. No need for it and it is just not the fair thing to do.

In the end, whether someone believes your position or not depends more on credibility than anything else. Isn't that what you and the other coaching experts here want...to convince others that you have the answers? If so, the persuasion will come with credibility....not rhetoric.

If every post written disses Holly then it becomes the same thing over and over and over again. That muddles whatever credibility has been established. Some of you fervently attack over anything said that is not in line with the fire Holly crowd. What lends credence to that position? Forums are not your way or the highway....they are about people voicing their opinion (at least that is what a lot of you would have the program supporters believe). There will be similarities and opposites. You should embrace the diversity of opinions rather than slam those who are not of the same opinion. If I disagree, then I should be able to say so and why I disagree and so should you but calling people idiots, stupid, clueless, etc... is not a really convincing effort to persuade.

You want credibility, then practice patience with others and persuade them rather than brow beat them. You might convince some of them to join the fire Holly crusade then again, don't be too disappointed if they don't. In the end, credibility will be what convinces people.

Well, how about let's dropping the us versus them; you are you with us or against us rhetoric., MY ORIGINAL post was suggesting that the Baylor game was not the end of the world and that the team bounced back from an equally dismal performance against Stanford last season (though as one poster noted, the situation is a bit different because Baylor was a home game and the team still came out flat).

Though it is not so much they came out flat but after missing a bunch of early shots and falling behind, the LVs seemed to throw in the towel (with the exceptions of Nared and Russell).

But, as the thread moved on, I began to question why would this pattern repeat itself, with a LV team that is more experienced and healthier (in terms of stars DD and MR) than last year. We don't have Cooper but she was just working her way into the rotation last year and of course Graves is gone. But on the whole, this is the same team back with more experience; and yet, they looked completely unprepared-- and after having lost two games to lower ranked opponents.

Wouldn't you have expected the LVs to come out ready to battle in front of the home crowd fans, rather than basically rolling over when facing some early adversity?

Saying that the blame for this dismal repeat lies with Holly is not a demand that she be fired now but just a recognition that there is a problem.

I am not a crusade to have Holly fired. You know what, that will be a call made by the new AD and the alumni donors who have the ADs ear. It is money that talks not fan boards.

And as I have repeatedly said, I think Holly has two years after this to get the program back to elite status. She has earned through her multiple elite 8 finishes and most of all, the high profile recruiting class (plus being CPS handpicked successor). By the time this incoming class are sophomores or maybe juniors, if the LVs are still losing to teams like VT and PSU and getting embarrassed on national TV against the bigger teams, there is no way that she can stay in the job.

I don't want to distract from the main point but really where I have called anyone "idiots, stupid, clueless, etc..." who has a different opinion?


Maybe you have confused me with someone else...

 

[Nute Gunray]

Now we are not clicking over the past season and beginning of this one but what I wanna know is what is different from the team that won 30 games to this team. Holly was the coach then and im sure the same Philosophy. So what has changed? Hmmmm This group does not seem to work together. I am almost sure holly warlick is not telling them hey go in the game and just throw the ball around and just shoot the damn ball. at penn state I heard diamond tell the players to get in the gaps. But then turn around and not get in the gaps in the game . This team is undisciplined. Yes some of that falls on Holly and SOME on the players they are not expemt as well . we would have not been calling for pat job after they lost 10 games that one season. would we? Here is the issue everyone wants Holly to be PAT and she is not . It may take a while for her to find her footing but I am saying this about a coach in just 4 years won 100 games. but Because she took of lady vols the microscope is huge. IF holly had this success any where else we would be telling her to come here. AND lets be honest there is no way holly job is in jeopardy not with here resume period.

The 30 games won team had 3 players who supplied the leadership skills that Holly lacks. They were: Ariel Massengale, Cierra Burdick and Isabelle Harrison.