A Suggested Offseason To Do List For Bruce Pearl.

[LawVol13]

I'm not sure why this matters.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I would guess that it matters because he has improved each year he has been there. So, if he improves by a couple points a game and a couple rebounds a game next year, he will meet Dickens expectations. I know that must be incredibly difficult to follow.

 

[Jonboy]

IMO, he has every bit the talent that Hansbrough has, but about 1/50th of the drive.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

100% accurate. In fact, I think it could even be argued that Wayne has a little more talent than Hansbrough.

 

[armchairvol]

Chism may be more talented than Hansbrough but it's irrelevant because Hansbrough works near the basket, scores more, has a bigger impact on games and therefore is a much more valuable player than Chism. Of course, the hells have lots more overall talent than UT, so they don't NEED one of the key bigs to shoot treys. Like all teams, UT will get better if and when Pearl puts a couple of good guards on the court. Guard play is a MAJOR part of basketball: without good guards, you are NOTHING!!

 

[kidbourbon]

This is retarded. If you've seen us play, you know full well that we scout poorly and play no D. Maybe the OSU debacle didn't occur to you in your drunken stupor, but the scouting job there was embarrassing. UK the same.

Next time you dream a corollary question that is simply the negative of mine, do us all a favor and keep your idiotic hole shut.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

For the record, BPV made no attempt to refute that his argument is of the near-textbook circular variety. Apparently, hat has yet to explain to him what a circular argument is. Hopefully, after a couple days/weeks of diligent studying on the basics of rhetoric, we can get an actual response from BPV.

Until then, I would again urge you to go with "because hat said so" as a more suitable and persuasive response.

 

[kidbourbon]

Do you have another argument, or is this your default?

No, I definitely do not have another argument -- don't know the first thing about Jason Shay.

However, I was -- and, indeed, still am -- curious as to whether BPV (a) has the ability to actually complete a thought on his own, or (b) simply waits till hat presents an argument, rewords that argument, and then posts the reworded argument, trying to pass it off as his own.

It is a fun hypothesis I have been playing around with for some time now. The results are quite astounding.

 

[kidbourbon]

He's done it to me a few times. I would still love to see his thoughts on my questions to him about deductive logic and reasoning. Apparently he didn't realize that I am a student of rhetoric (among other things) and I have a healthy interest in philosophy. In other words, you go strong to the rim or you don't go at all.

Forgive me if wasn't able to stay on VN late last night. Had a couple things going on. You were saying something about going strong to the rim?

 

[BigPapaVol]

For the record, BPV made no attempt to refute that his argument is of the near-textbook circular variety. Apparently, hat has yet to explain to him what a circular argument is. Hopefully, after a couple days/weeks of diligent studying on the basics of rhetoric, we can get an actual response from BPV.

Until then, I would again urge you to go with "because hat said so" as a more suitable and persuasive response.

When you add something to the debate, I'm sure people will take notice. Until then, you're the retarded kid running circles around the room in a motorcycle helmet.

Until then, your rhetoric gibberish and circular argument stupidity holds no water. Any evaluation of a coach that isn't empirical is simply talk. You submitted the negative to my question and I used empirical example to to make you look stupid. You simply reverted to this silliness because you don't know enough to talk about it. Just keep rockin' that helmet and drinking your stupidity away. Life will be more fun and you'll actually believe that you belong in conversations with normal folks.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[kidbourbon]

When you add something to the debate, I'm sure people will take notice. Until then, you're the retarded kid running circles around the room in a motorcycle helmet.

Until then, your rhetoric gibberish and circular argument stupidity holds no water. Any evaluation of a coach that isn't empirical is simply talk. You submitted the negative to my question and I used empirical example to to make you look stupid. You simply reverted to this silliness because you don't know enough to talk about it. Just keep rockin' that helmet and drinking your stupidity away. Life will be more fun and you'll actually believe that you belong in conversations with normal folks.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

At no point in any of this exchange have you said anything that would qualify as making me, or any poster for that matter, look stupid.

Quick recap of our exchange:
-BPV states conclusion that Jason Shay is incompetent
-KB respectfully requests support for this conclusion
-BPV assumes conclusion, then posts assumed conclusion
-KB points out that BPV has simply assumed the conclusion, rather than supporting it any way.
-BPV gets pissed. Tries to toss out insults, ostensibly for the purpose of being clever like hat.
-BPV fails to take into account that he is not, in fact, clever.
-KB laughgs a little, resumes morning.

 

[ukvols]

It also helps that Hansbrough has nearly unlimited steps to take in the post without dribbling.

 

[BigPapaVol]

At no point in any of this exchange have you said anything that would qualify as making me, or any poster for that matter, look stupid.

Quick recap of our exchange:
-BPV states conclusion that Jason Shay is incompetent
-KB respectfully requests support for this conclusion
-BPV assumes conclusion, then posts assumed conclusion
-KB points out that BPV has simply assumed the conclusion, rather than supporting it any way.
-BPV gets pissed. Tries to toss out insults, ostensibly for the purpose of being clever like hat.
-BPV fails to take into account that he is not, in fact, clever.
-KB laughgs a little, resumes morning.

Where did you do anything that you mentioned and if you don't see the Ok St.game as absolute proof that McShay is an idiot, you're beyond help.

I'm not pissed and when did you refute my original question? I'd understand you missing it on your own, as you want to play a little game to prove you don't need the motorcycle helmet, but you've done nothing to answer it.

If you've ever, since Pearl walked on campus, seen us play to another team's weakness, let me know. I saw us zone Memphis last season, which I imagine even you could figure out with a few hints. We hard switched every screen set for Devan Downey, Nick Calathes, Byron Eaton, ..., the list will take all day. We were murdered this year because we couldn't scout an O and made no defensive adjustments. Finally, regale us with your genius about the adjustments we made for Gonzaga after freaking playing them once.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[emainvol]

At no point in any of this exchange have you said anything that would qualify as making me, or any poster for that matter, look stupid.

Quick recap of our exchange:
-BPV states conclusion that Jason Shay is incompetent
-KB respectfully requests support for this conclusion
-BPV assumes conclusion, then posts assumed conclusion
-KB points out that BPV has simply assumed the conclusion, rather than supporting it any way.
-BPV gets pissed. Tries to toss out insults, ostensibly for the purpose of being clever like hat.
-BPV fails to take into account that he is not, in fact, clever.
-KB laughgs a little, resumes morning.

Are you familiar with enthymemes?

 

[kidbourbon]

If you've ever, since Pearl walked on campus, seen us play to another team's weakness, let me know. I saw us zone Memphis last season, which I imagine even you could figure out with a few hints. We hard switched every screen set for Devan Downey, Nick Calathes, Byron Eaton, ..., the list will take all day. We were murdered this year because we couldn't scout an O and made no defensive adjustments. Finally, regale us with your genius about the adjustments we made for Gonzaga after freaking playing them once.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

My initial post was in response to your statement that Jason Shay was incompetent or sucked, or something to that effect. My question -- "how do you know Jason Shay sucks" -- was straight forward and pretty fair. I follow the team as closely as a perosn living in DC can, but I have no inside information on the merits of the assistant coaches. I don't know anything about Jason Shay other than what I can read in his bio. I haven't seen how he interacts with players and recruits. I haven't seen him a conduct a practice. Others have….I thought perhaps you had. Hence, the question.

Your response -- that Jason Shay sucks because the vols coaching staff obviously sucks -- is pure garbage. It merely restates your conclusion and therefore adds nothing to the conversation. I’ve heard stronger arguments from remedial fourth graders. And your subsequent responses only shed light on the question of whether its easy to get a rise out of you.

I agree with most of the above-cited portion of your post. The only part of it, though, that tends to support the conclusion that Jason Shay == incompetent is the part about not being able to scout an O...and even that relies on the assumptions that (1) Jason Shay scouted the O for the games where our defense got torched while looking confused, and (2) the incompetent scouting report was the reason we got torched while looking confused. Everything else you mention could be attributed to any number of other factors (including the level of competence of the head coach or other assistant coaches).

So, we’ve now gone about six rounds back and forth and at no point have you written a single sentence that could be loosely characterized as supporting your conclusion.

 

[kidbourbon]

Are you familiar with enthymemes?

Aristotle is my boy.

 

[hatvol96]

For what it's worth, in my opinion not much considering the source of the rankings, Jason Shay was nowhere to be found on Clark Francis' list of Top 100 assistant coaches in this month's Basketball Times.

 

[ukvols]

Were any of our guys on the list?

 

[JZVOL]

Tony Jones is in charge of subs during the game, anyone else think it was horrendous this year?
I almost felt like once a guy got in a groove they took him out. Negedu would play five good minutes then never play again.

 

[hatvol96]

Were any of our guys on the list?

Jones and Forbes were both on it. I left it at the office, but if my memory is correct Jones was 17th and Forbes was somewhere in the 30s. In fairness to Jason Shay, Clark Francis is one of the last people in America whose opinion I would listen to on anything related to basketball.

 

[ukvols]

Got it. Thanks.

 

[emainvol]

Aristotle is my boy.

That's what his argument was, in essence. Basically,

The coaching staff is in charge of x
x was inadequate this season
Jason Shay is part of the coaching staff.
Jason Shay is inadequate.

The major premise here is that the coaching staff is in charge of x. The major premise is assumed, the rest was included and the conclusion logically follows the rest.

 

[BigPapaVol]

My initial post was in response to your statement that Jason Shay was incompetent or sucked, or something to that effect. My question -- "how do you know Jason Shay sucks" -- was straight forward and pretty fair. I follow the team as closely as a perosn living in DC can, but I have no inside information on the merits of the assistant coaches. I don't know anything about Jason Shay other than what I can read in his bio. I haven't seen how he interacts with players and recruits. I haven't seen him a conduct a practice. Others have….I thought perhaps you had. Hence, the question.

Your response -- that Jason Shay sucks because the vols coaching staff obviously sucks -- is pure garbage. It merely restates your conclusion and therefore adds nothing to the conversation. I’ve heard stronger arguments from remedial fourth graders. And your subsequent responses only shed light on the question of whether its easy to get a rise out of you.

I agree with most of the above-cited portion of your post. The only part of it, though, that tends to support the conclusion that Jason Shay == incompetent is the part about not being able to scout an O...and even that relies on the assumptions that (1) Jason Shay scouted the O for the games where our defense got torched while looking confused, and (2) the incompetent scouting report was the reason we got torched while looking confused. Everything else you mention could be attributed to any number of other factors (including the level of competence of the head coach or other assistant coaches).

So, we’ve now gone about six rounds back and forth and at no point have you written a single sentence that could be loosely characterized as supporting your conclusion.

I'll just suggest to you that I know plenty about scouting other teams and Jason Shay. UT is at a disadvantage today because we either scout poorly or implement any changes based upon those observations poorly. Both of those issues would fall upon Shay's shoulders. If he's simply watching other teams, video is infinitely better than he is. If he is making suggestions that aren't being followed, then he and his boss are inept.

I earnestly want to know what you think his function is and how you think him doing it well might manifest itself. Get over your circular argument drivel and let me know how you evaluate his performance if it's not empirical evidence.

 

[BigPapaVol]

That's what his argument was, in essence. Basically,

The coaching staff is in charge of x
x was inadequate this season
Jason Shay is part of the coaching staff.
Jason Shay is inadequate.

The major premise here is that the coaching staff is in charge of x. The major premise is assumed, the rest was included and the conclusion logically follows the rest.

that's only part of the argument. Many of the things that we should be doing against particular teams, we don't even consider doing. That's a failure.

 

[kidbourbon]

I earnestly want to know what you think his function is and how you think him doing it well might manifest itself. Get over your circular argument drivel and let me know how you evaluate his performance if it's not empirical evidence.

1. If you've read my posts you'll note that I've been quite frank in saying that I have little information by which to evaluate Shay's performance. You made the statement that he sucks, so the burden of proof lies with you. You have a bad habit of asking your opponent to present a counterargument rather than actually presenting an argument yourself.

To illustrate your bad habit, imagine if If the following hypothetical exchange took place in a thread:
KB: Went and saw Selby play last night. Very overrated. I'd be surprised if he could crack UT Chattanooga's starting five.
BPV: Really? What did see in his performance in the game that makes you think that he isn't capable of playing at UT?
KB: Why don't you tell me why he's such a superstar, smart guy. Please enlighten me with your evaluation of his performances and your assessment of how he could fit into the system of a competitive Division 1 college basketball program. Waiting with baited breath.

You see how ridiculous that exchange sounds? And how I come across as a pure *******. Yeah...you do it all the time. Its like your "go-to" response.

2. Empirical evidence of what? I assume you are referring to game performance as empirical evidence, because that's the only way the term really makes any sense in this context. If that is the only way of evaluating assistant coaches then there is no good way of evaluating assistant coaches.

Case in Point:
-Can there be a great team with a single incompetent assistant coach? YES
-Can there be a lousy team with an excellent assistant coach? YES

Thus, I think team performance is a pretty weak barometer for gauging the strength of a single assistant coach.

 

[kidbourbon]

That's what his argument was, in essence. Basically,

The coaching staff is in charge of x
x was inadequate this season
Jason Shay is part of the coaching staff.
Jason Shay is inadequate.

The major premise here is that the coaching staff is in charge of x. The major premise is assumed, the rest was included and the conclusion logically follows the rest.

But you would agree that it doesn't work, right? Now, don't get me wrong, I very much appreciate it that you dropped a syllogism into a VN post. But I think you and I would both agree that that it is nowhere approaching airtight.

To illustrate with an example, here is a syllogism similar to yours:
-The oklahoma sooners players are in charge of scoring.
-Scoring has been inadequate this season for the sooners
-Blake Griffin is one of the oklahoma sooner players.
-Thus, Blake Griffin is an inadequate scorer.

See, doesn't really work.

But I do appreciate your attempt to actually engage in some intelligent sparring with me. Perhaps BPV can drop some syllogisms on us tomorrow....or maybe he'll wait till hat does one first.

out for the night,

KB

 

[BigPapaVol]

1. If you've read my posts you'll note that I've been quite frank in saying that I have little information by which to evaluate Shay's performance. You made the statement that he sucks, so the burden of proof lies with you. You have a bad habit of asking your opponent to present a counterargument rather than actually presenting an argument yourself.

To illustrate your bad habit, imagine if If the following hypothetical exchange took place in a thread:
KB: Went and saw Selby play last night. Very overrated. I'd be surprised if he could crack UT Chattanooga's starting five.
BPV: Really? What did see in his performance in the game that makes you think that he isn't capable of playing at UT?
KB: Why don't you tell me why he's such a superstar, smart guy. Please enlighten me with your evaluation of his performances and your assessment of how he could fit into the system of a competitive Division 1 college basketball program. Waiting with baited breath.

You see how ridiculous that exchange sounds? And how I come across as a pure *******. Yeah...you do it all the time. Its like your "go-to" response.

2. Empirical evidence of what? I assume you are referring to game performance as empirical evidence, because that's the only way the term really makes any sense in this context. If that is the only way of evaluating assistant coaches then there is no good way of evaluating assistant coaches.

Case in Point:
-Can there be a great team with a single incompetent assistant coach? YES
-Can there be a lousy team with an excellent assistant coach? YES

Thus, I think team performance is a pretty weak barometer for gauging the strength of a single assistant coach.

You nimrod. You asked me why I ASKED SOMEONE ELSE WHAT HE HAS SEEN THAT MAKES HIM BELIEVE that Shay doesn't suck. Maybe you've forgotten that. I responded that I watched the OSU game and need no more information, even though the empirical record is littered with it. Your hypothetical exchange was retarded. It presumes there wasn't an answer for Selby, just as your "proof" that Shay could be great even though he's mired on an awful staff. Selby could be great because he might grow 3 feet over the next 6 months too. See how stupid that is?

You don't like the argument because you know too little to refute it and you likely know too well that I don't. Turning this to a senseless academic exercise has gotten you to the brilliant conclusion that, even though all evidence points to the contrary, he might be solid since solid coaches coach on poor staffs. Clearly the route to coaching stardom is coaching on obviously weak staffs and being in one of the roles that appears particularly weak.

Your final statement is idiotic and your rhetoricals used as reasoning don't lend to your conclusion just because you penned an answer beside them that "could be" true. The odds of him being absolutely atrocious are dramatically higher than your "chance" that he isn't.

I like your effort at appearing to be the rhetoric king, but you've done nothing but shift the argument to the point of looking silly. With that, you hang your hat on the chance that he might someday be decent. I'll stick to the empirical and you keep the HS debate team rolling.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[kidbourbon]

You nimrod. You asked me why I ASKED SOMEONE ELSE WHAT HE HAS SEEN THAT MAKES HIM BELIEVE that Shay doesn't suck. Maybe you've forgotten that. I responded that I watched the OSU game and need no more information, even though the empirical record is littered with it. Your hypothetical exchange was retarded. It presumes there wasn't an answer for Selby, just as your "proof" that Shay could be great even though he's mired on an awful staff. Selby could be great because he might grow 3 feet over the next 6 months too. See how stupid that is?

You don't like the argument because you know too little to refute it and you likely know too well that I don't. Turning this to a senseless academic exercise has gotten you to the brilliant conclusion that, even though all evidence points to the contrary, he might be solid since solid coaches coach on poor staffs. Clearly the route to coaching stardom is coaching on obviously weak staffs and being in one of the roles that appears particularly weak.

Your final statement is idiotic and your rhetoricals used as reasoning don't lend to your conclusion just because you penned an answer beside them that "could be" true. The odds of him being absolutely atrocious are dramatically higher than your "chance" that he isn't.

I like your effort at appearing to be the rhetoric king, but you've done nothing but shift the argument to the point of looking silly. With that, you hang your hat on the chance that he might someday be decent. I'll stick to the empirical and you keep the HS debate team rolling.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

You make me laugh.