Bria May Not be Going to Vegas

[calpedaler]

world-view regarding sports discussions

 

[diggerfoot]

I believe that you can enjoy, even love and solidly root for and admire the artistic excellence of a team without leaving your brain in the trash with regard shortcomings, especially by the adults in charge but most often by the uncritical fan base.

.....

Please…let's discuss the issues rather than calling each other names.

Referring to the fan base as uncritical is simply in error. There are a few who will always "deify," but also a few who will always "vilify." Beyond that the fan base for a team as successful as the Huskies will include both the diehard, perhaps even growing up in a culture of supporting their team, and the bandwagon type, those who don't just love a team or support the "artistic" side as you do, but whose enjoyment and/or self-esteem in following depends on them being dominant winners. The problem with the bandwagon type is it doesn't take that much for them to turn sour and, make no mistake, it does not take much for the UConn fan base to turn critical. In this thread alone there were three critics to give voice, but of a different nature.

Wbb1, I find, simply responds to information as it occurs, without agenda. In my mind he seems to hold no bias, nor even a determination to be negative, but he will share what he sees as negative information without much of a vetting process behind it, and that sometimes draws heat. Winlots has some negative theories, digs deeper if you will, but will only run where the information leads him and backs down on occasion when he sees the information doesn't quite lead him where he thought. You have your theories as well, but rather than let information lead you, you tend to lead the information.

This thread provides a good example. You wonder if Auriemma's previous musing about maturity was based on information "disclosed here." You next clarify that you suspect his musing on maturity is in regards to the "young uns." Yet the information "disclosed here" reflects only on Bria, and thus would not relate to Auriemma's musing if you suspect it was in regards to the "young uns." Meanwhile, I recall that musing you were referring to and it was, indeed, purely a musing. Auriemma did not anticipate a maturity issue, only wondering what would take shape in terms of handling being champions. You are making information conform to what you want to believe, and that's going to garner some heat.

I do agree with you that ascribing character rather than describing behavior accomplishes little.

 

[doggydaddy]

Referring to the fan base as uncritical is simply in error. There are a few who will always "deify," but also a few who will always "vilify." Beyond that the fan base for a team as successful as the Huskies will include both the diehard, perhaps even growing up in a culture of supporting their team, and the bandwagon type, those who don't just love a team or support the "artistic" side as you do, but whose enjoyment and/or self-esteem in following depends on them being dominant winners. The problem with the bandwagon type is it doesn't take that much for them to turn sour and, make no mistake, it does not take much for the UConn fan base to turn critical. In this thread alone there were three critics to give voice, but of a different nature.

Wbb1, I find, simply responds to information as it occurs, without agenda. In my mind he seems to hold no bias, nor even a determination to be negative, but he will share what he sees as negative information without much of a vetting process behind it, and that sometimes draws heat. Winlots has some negative theories, digs deeper if you will, but will only run where the information leads him and backs down on occasion when he sees the information doesn't quite lead him where he thought. You have your theories as well, but rather than let information lead you, you tend to lead the information.

This thread provides a good example. You wonder if Auriemma's previous musing about maturity was based on information "disclosed here." You next clarify that you suspect his musing on maturity is in regards to the "young uns." Yet the information "disclosed here" reflects only on Bria, and thus would not relate to Auriemma's musing if you suspect it was in regards to the "young uns." Meanwhile, I recall that musing you were referring to and it was, indeed, purely a musing. Auriemma did not anticipate a maturity issue, only wondering what would take shape in terms of handling being champions. You are making information conform to what you want to believe, and that's going to garner some heat.

I do agree with you that ascribing character rather than describing behavior accomplishes little.

It's an interesting take. It just seems to me that our friend Michael likes the controversy and looks for ways to present theories that go against the grain of many posters here.

There are very few uncritical fans here. And there are very few overly negative fans here. But extreme positions always get responses from posters and those folks just need to deal with the criticism. And not be so sensitive and think "The consistent and constant passive aggressive innuendoes that redundantly befoul your posts." Is name calling. Ozzie would never do that.

 

[diggerfoot]

Well, dd, I agree with you 99% of time, and I love your general empirical approach to backing up your claims, but you really are not the one to lecture people that they should deal with criticisms better ... I say that in the most loving way, of course .

 

[doggydaddy]

Well, dd, I agree with you 99% of time, and I love your general empirical approach to backing up your claims, but you really are not the one to lecture people that they should deal with criticisms better ... I say that in the most loving way, of course .

It wasn't a lecture. It was a suggestion. And falling into the no critical extreme (I rarely criticize) I was talking as much to means anyone else

 

[Ozzie Nelson]

Not being au courant on exactly what passive aggressive exactly entails I checked out some articles.
For example: http://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/counsellor-articles/what-is-passive-aggressive-behaviour

Sorry, Oz, I can't find much that is applicable.

But if you are referring to what a few call my "negative" comments about the team, it's actually a part of my world-view regarding sports discussions and the nature of sporting activity.

I believe that you can enjoy, even love and solidly root for and admire the artistic excellence of a team without leaving your brain in the trash with regard shortcomings, especially by the adults in charge but most often by the uncritical fan base.

In the case of this post and the thread I started based on Geno's interview.

I've stated that in the final 4, Bria was a major catalyst in both of those wins…over shadowed at the end by the media and almost forgotten, but her aggressive play and made shots at key moments early were momentum changes. Without her healthy, the team is much weaker.

And I have been the "voice in he wilderness" with regard Geno's handling of the "kids" last season. I understand that the base is prepared to deify the gentleman; I admire him and his accomplishments to a very high degree, have been a season ticket holder, watch and re-watch every game. Have seen the final 4 re-runs a dozen times, with great satisfaction, the last time last evening.

During the final, the announcers twice, referred to Geno's admitted disconnect with team last season, quoting him…And then when he voiced…what would you call it…mild apprehension (in my transcribed post)…the hairs on the back of my neck suggested that there were still some issues to be worked out.

Isn't it better to have civilized discussions about such matters, even heated ones, without name calling and personal disparagement?

Please…let's discuss the issues rather than calling each other names.

I did not call you a “name”…name calling would be , e.g.. Asinine Apple Knocker, or Petulant Pissant, or Depressed Doofus, or Nattering Negative Newfie….the kind of childish and churlish attention seeking message board stuff that I so assiduously avoid(sorry if I am laughing this fine fall morning). What I did, indeed intended to do, was characterize your post(you asked why I was a “critic”, as I “disliked” your post…a name BTW,).

IAC, I guess I have a short leash for any poster using an injury to one of our beloved players to advance their own manipulative posting agenda. Hey, I know this is a message board…and we all have different styles and positions. But, you did ask and I answered. Go ahead and have the last word, no need for me to further bore others here.

 

[meyers7]

Sorry, Oz, I can't find much that is applicable.

I can.


They might appear in agreement, polite, friendly, down-to-earth, kind and well-meaning. However, underneath there may be manipulation going on - hence the term "Passive-Aggressive".

And

It is a creation of negative energy

Isn't it better to have civilized discussions about such matters, even heated ones, without name calling and personal disparagement?

Some more from your link

Victimisation Unable to look at their own part in a situation will turn the tables to become the victim and will behave like one
Self-Pity the poor me scenario