|
|
|
Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
|
| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| hshuler |
Posted - 04/21/2015 : 04:35:54
I would love for you guys to chime in after reading this article.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12702303/augie-garrido-wayne-graham-say-entitlement-problem |
| 2 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Footballforsanity |
Posted - 04/21/2015 : 11:04:15
I love the general idea of "team ball", and "playing as a team". But one must remember all the horrible stories of abuse that players endured during the era that these coaches are bragging about getting players to do whatever necessary to "help the team".
Absolutely the team must come first nearly all of the time. But when a player says, "I'm gonna get me mine" or a parent says to their player "get yours", that's not always a selfish idea. Especially when dealing with top talent and especially top talent in bulk. Great players must contribute to feel valued.
See my previous post of good vs. bad coaches, I don't want to repost. Best thing to happen to Michael Jordan was getting cut in high school. Better to be away working than watching a coach not value you while valuing lesser talent. Watch the 30 for 30 on Marcus Dupree RB for OU and later the LA Rams. Worst thing for him was getting to OU and Coach Barry Switzer resenting him because he was better than everyone else without having to work at all. He was just born better than anyone, similar to Herschel. Dupree should've went to UGA or another school that valued him. Switzer came as close as he'll ever come in the 30 for 30 special to taking responsibility because he resented Dupree's natural talent with little work ethic needed. He nor his coaches knew what to do with such a naturally gifted player. Well, for one they could've let him go somewhere else instead of selling him a bill of goods. But they were so terrified of him going to Texas, they brought him in. Best for the team? Yes. Best for Marcus? No. If only Dupree would've chosen a Coach that valued his talent no matter where it came from.
Point being; yes team, team, team... But not at the cost or sacrifice of a player. If the team can live without the player, the Coach should not have chosen the player. Remember, during the times in this article there were little to no scholarship limitations. Coaches would sign players they didn't need, just so their rival wouldn't get them. Knowing good and well they didn't really need them. If the team wants to sacrifice a player, that player should sacrifice his team and move on to a place that's best for him. It isn't all about the player, no. But it isn't all about the Coach either. In between there, you'll find your T E A M ! ! ! |
| CaCO3Girl |
Posted - 04/21/2015 : 10:50:38
In short my response is....yes things chance, people change, and athletes change with the times. If you are going to run a program for 25+ years you have to be able to adapt to change. I don't think the article really claimed an entitlement epidemic of athletes, I think it claimed a generational shift in attitude.
|
|
|
| Georgia Travel Baseball - NWBA |
© 2000-22 NWBA |
 |
|
|
