Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Why Don't You Like Auriemma More? Author: An Observer [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 17:05:15 04/05/24 Fri In reply to: sparman 's message, "Re: Passing on Clark for Bueckers is like..." on 12:51:38 04/04/24 Thu I'm not here to defend Auriemma, but I'm curious why you "have never liked" him. He runs a program which has never been touched by scandal, he graduates his players, UConn stars are good kids who go on to become model citizens like the one who runs your women's basketball program, and he carries himself with a reasonable personality for a guy who has eleven national championships. On top of all that, he is always ready with a quip or a punchline such as the delivery you cited, a la Jim Valvano. About the only knock on Auriemma is that he wins "too much." I find it fascinating how knowledgeable fans such as sparman, not to mention the general public, decide who they will and will not "like." Tiger Woods has set and then reset the bar in terms of personal scandal, yet all is forgiven because he could reliably drive a golf ball more than 300 yards down the middle of a fairway, then hit a short iron to within a few feet of the hole. Michael Jordan is a hyper-competitive athlete who, over the course of a two-decade career, made very few friends because he was too focused on beating them with a scowl on his face. He may or may not have been banned from his sport for two years for betting on games. But he too remains the GOAT because he could take off from the foul line on his way to six championship rings. Meanwhile, Auriemma wins and wins, too. He always has on his face either a smile in victory or a gracious grimace in defeat, but is less well liked. Is it simply because UConn wins too much? That's how some people feel about Princeton. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> Subject: Won't speak for sparman, but... Author: Go Green [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 07:32:18 04/06/24 Sat Back in the day, Auriemma (and others) employed recruiting tactics that many believed were code for homophobia. He talked about how UConn's program had great "family values" and "treated each other like family." It was believed he was taking digs against rival coaches (women) who were not married and did not want gay players on his team. Supposedly, it was the reason why Pat Summit stopped scheduling regular season games against UConn. Auriemma vehemently denied using homophobia. But at best, he was naive. Eventually, he knocked of the "family values" recruiting pitch entirely.

[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Why Don't You Like Auriemma More? Author: sparman [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 08:25:55 04/06/24 Sat This is partly why: https://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/39885228/not-reason-lost-iowa-final-four "CLEVELAND -- UConn coach Geno Auriemma said illegal screens could be called 'on every single possession' but stopped short of directly criticizing officials for a controversial offensive foul call that helped decide Iowa's 71-69 victory in Friday's women's Final Four. 'I just know there were three or four of them called on us, and I don't think there were any called on them,' Auriemma said. 'So I guess we just gotta get better on not setting illegal screens.'" https://www.courant.com/2024/04/05/late-foul-call-costs-uconn-as-huskies-fall-to-iowa-71-69-in-national-semifinals/ "Auriemma was frustrated by the inconsistencies in officiating Friday, noting that the Huskies took just four free throws in the entire game to Iowa’s 14. UConn was called for a combined 18 fouls, 11 of which came in the second half. Iowa was assessed three in the first half and six in the second. “There’s probably an illegal screen call that you could make on every single possession. I just know there were three or four of them called on us and I don’t think there were any called on them,” Auriemma said." I don't think these quotes are terribly surprising if you watched his demeanor in the final minutes of the game. Seems like he has become accustomed to having things turn out his way. Perhaps I would feel differently if he were coaching my team, but that's my reaction.

[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Why Don't You Like Auriemma More? The Moving Screen Call Last Night Author: An Observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 09:14:05 04/06/24 Sat Thanks to both GG and sparman for their quick, illuminating answers. The homophobia explanation is new information to me, so I'm just going to give you my immediate reaction off the top of my head. Just about EVERY SINGLE HEAD COACH says that their program is a "family" and they win because they "love" each other, that players compete and work hard for each other due to their "family values." The reference is so common that it's become so much blah blah blah. Are all these head coaches, all 363 * 2 = 726 Division I coaches, using "family values" as codespeak for homophobia? Because they all use that language. Having said that, I am thinking about the question for the first time. And you're right that, upon first glance, UConn players *DO* seem less gay than those at other programs. So empirically, I can't say you're wrong. Auriemma, I presume, is Catholic. Maybe that's part of the explanation. But maybe he really is just focused on attracting the right kind of players (that is, who will compete hard for their sisters) and that is his prerogative. We now live in a new world order where it appears the best returning players for Yale (Wolf), Harvard (Mack), Penn (Perkins) and Brown (Owusu-Anane) are all transferring out. At this point in time, it appears that Pierce and Lee are staying put in Tigertown. Is that due in part to the culture that Henderson encourages in the locker room? I would say, "Probably. Very likely, yes." I believe team chemistry is real and important. When a coach uses the catchphrase "family," should he or she be allowed to walk the walk as well as talk the talk? In terms of the moving screen called with 3.9 seconds left in a one-point game, I actually give Auriemma credit for handling the topic just about right. He made it clear that he was dissatisfied and frustrated with the call, but did not go further in his post-game language. I would say the exact same thing if Auriemma's press conference comments had been made by the coaches from Iowa, South Carolina or NC State. The moving screen was a bad call. I have said on this message board many times that I want to see college basketball called with more respect for the defense. I want to see charging called more often, I want to see traveling called more often and I want to see moving screens called. But last night's call was a bad one. Don't just listen to my opinion. Scott Van Pelt said out loud repeatedly, "You call that and you've got to call every single screen in the game." Ryan Ruocco and Rebecca Lobo (who obviously is a UConn alumna) were incredulous. LeBron James tweeted, "NAAAAAAH. I don't like that call." Andraya Carter told Van Pelt, "That call sucked, SVP." I don't have any problem saying the moving screen should not have been called.

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Why Don't You Like Auriemma More? The Moving Screen Call Last Night Author: sparman [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 10:43:36 04/06/24 Sat I agree that call was borderline. My larger point was that he complained about the totality of calls, and you may also remember there were several calls in his team's favor during the game that were questionable, including in the opinions of the TV commentators, that could have affected the outcome had UConn won. Maybe I missed it but I don't recall the Iowa coach making a comparable fuss.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Why Don't You Like Auriemma More? The Moving Screen Call Last Night Author: An Observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 11:27:19 04/06/24 Sat In general, I'm not a fan of complaining about the officiating, especially not in basketball where the blocking/charging call is by definition a judgment call. You can slow the replay down to super slo mo and different refs will still make that decision differently. It's the most subjective call in sports. So almost inevitably, if you want to beef about the officiating in basketball, you'll be able to find something to complain about. Spend some time on the Ivy basketball board. There is complaining by fans of every team, of course, but after every single game, Penn fans post about how they got jobbed by the officials, even when the game is at The Palestra. Penn television play-by-play man Vince Curran complains about the officiating in every single broadcast -- and he only does home games! So no, I'm not a fan of complaining about the refs. But that moving screen was a bad call.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Why Don't You Like Auriemma More? The Moving Screen Call Last Night Author: Tiger81 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 20:42:32 04/06/24 Sat Paige Bueckers after the game had perfect pitch when she was asked about that call. She said games never come down to one play and she felt that she had made her share of mistakes that put UConn in the position of having that call end their season. Very impressive sportsmanship and leadership from Bueckers. I think Geno A is a great coach, and I’m grateful as a Princeton fan that he advocated for Carla Berube to be hired by the Tigers, but he could learn a few lessons from his star player about losing with dignity and grace.

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: I get what you're saying... Author: Go Green [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 11:31:27 04/06/24 Sat That said, there was a period of time when ostensibly "pro-family" groups were at the forefront of actively opposing LGBT rights. It's very easy to see how a "pro-family" recruiting pitch by a women's basketball coach could have been misinterpreted... Personally, I'm willing to give Auriemma the benefit of the doubt. He certainly never said anything expressly homophobic the way that old Penn State WBB coach did.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: I get what you're saying... Author: An Observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 11:59:35 04/06/24 Sat Your bringing up possible homophobia in Storrs was new information to me. The empirical evidence does make one rub their chin, "Hmmm. . . ." On the other hand, Auriemma does want to win, badly. And in women's basketball, that's really difficult to do without gay players. Don't forget the only reason Carla Berube is running rampant over our conference now is that Auriemma called Marcoux with an unsolicited enthusiastic recommendation. If Berube ends up being his successor in Storrs, that will refute your suspicions because, like Krzyzewski and Scheyer/Amaker, Auriemma isn't going to hand over the keys to the Ferrari he hand built over four decades to somebody that he didn't hand pick. Chris Dailey doesn't want the job, so Auriemma will choose his successor.

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Why Don't You Like Auriemma More? The Moving Screen Call Last Night Author: Ivy Patriot [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 23:24:10 04/06/24 Sat Watch replays, particularly in slow motion, and it's obvious the call was correct. But Auriemma is correct in saying that call could have been made numerous times in the game and it wasn't. That it wasn't a foul earlier calls into question the decision to whistle it at the end. It's too bad because it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the play UConn was running had resulted in a shot to win.