M0TIVAT0R wrote:I believe the difference between the two coaches is one has compassion for the other team, and the other does not. Eastern's coach IS aware of the effects of a beat down on a team and he makes attempts to not do that. Waterford's coach has no concern for the opponent. Now that could be that he is focused solely on his team improving as some of you say. But for what ever reason he has that, "you coach your team, and I'm going to coach mine the same way no matter the score," attitude. That in itself makes him unpopular. I believe the admin at Waterford is the only thing that changed that attitude. Again, not saying either approach is right or wrong, that's just my perspective.
Here is what I don't agree with (btw, I'm not a wife...or anything else related to Waterford's program), you say one guy doesn't have compassion for the other team. You don't know him. I do not personally believe it was "fun" for Waterford to win by that much. That team simply didn't play any kind of half court offense and really, that was their undoing when they finally played a team on whom they couldn't harrass into easy buckets. The starting five didn't play the entire game; the reserve players just happen to play the same style and it lead to easy points. I understand that may be "bad" coaching, but I just don't see it as mailicious and again, I don't feel there was ever a great feeling about the final score.
Now you say Eastern's coach takes it easy on teams. But I will go back to the fact that in one of their blowouts they were up by 65 points going into the 4th quarter. If you are looking for compassion, I don't know how on earth you can possibly justify outscoring that team 19-2 in the 4th quarter. If you want a coach to take it easy, was there a reason to even take a shot at that point? Couldn't they have gone to the 4 corners and closed out the game? Additionally, if you beat a team once by 64 points and know that their program is in shambles, could you not bring up several JV kids to play them the second time - maybe putting them in the game once it got to 21-1 in the 1st quarter...instead of going on to beat them by 79 the second time?
I just don't see a difference in results and it looks pretty obvious that because you already like one guy, you stick with your personal feelings that "he wouldn't do that" and because you don't know the other, you've jumped to some conclusion that for him it is all about seeing how bad he can make it on other teams. It just isn't true. I want to be clear that I don't have an issue with either of the situations; on one hand, it is really cool that a couple of local schools have elevated their programs - it's made for several big match ups and accomplishments were previously unheard of in the area. On the other hand, it obviously creates a huge competitive discrepancy and the end result is NEVER going to please everyone. And again, I'm not standing up for one individual because of any ties, but rather because I find the calling out of
anyone personally (who isn't likely to read the site anyway) kind of a b@#$% move (especially when it is such a surface level assessment). And also because karma would actually be if that coach had to go through maybe a whole season of similar whippings (one game isn't really that big of a deal and doesn't change much of the landscape).
You can all have your opinions; I don't expect to change anyone's mind. But my opinion is that its equally unclassy to call out a person by first name, who you don't know, on a message board when your reason is somewhere between flimsy and completely hypocritical.
