Resources

[85Wildcatsky]

I am sure there are success stories out there but most of my experience with "travel teams" was bad. I saw kids with no life, poser parents, and many burned out or injured kids that never desired or could get path youth sports. Parents go nuts when they think a scholarship is in the future. I pity the coach who benches a player whose parents think they have a big paycheck in the future.

Middle school kids will now have agents.

[Ursa Midmajor]

Read the first chapter of Range, a book on the generalist vs specialist debate. Roger Federer did not take up tennis full time until he was 16. Tiger Woods took golf up full time when he was 2. Talks about both the mental and physical aspects of Federer’s career length vs. Tiger.

Tom Glavine used to do a Friday radio spot. It was cool because the intro was a snippet of Bob Costas’s call of the one hitter in Game 6. Anyway, Glavine, who was an accomplished hockey player, railed against year-round baseball. He also noted John Smoltz, who also had a lengthy career, was a recruited basketball player in high school.

[loosha's lad]

I can’t tell you all how tired I am of the banal canard that all white men are evil racists who when given power hire only whites. That blanket generalization is itself evil.

I don't think that's the argument that's being made. The statistics about opaque hiring processes don't lie - the beneficiaries are heavily skewed toward reinforcing the patriarchy which, like it or not, is historically and undeniably not of color.

What I've taken away from this is, now that there are legitimate questions about the direction Davidson's on-court leadership has brought the team in the last three seasons, wouldn't we all like to have the security of knowing that our coach's hire was made for all the right reasons, and that every qualified candidate was considered? And not through a process that cannot put to rest questions about nepotism or cronyism?

I love our current head coach and assistant coaches. I'm proud that they represent Davidson. As Acorn has pointed out, this is the part of the debate that *isn't* about whether or not Matt is a capable coach or a good human being. Because he is. I, like SlowCat, continue to be floored that so many in this group of fellow Davidsonians seem incapable or unwilling to admit that the hiring process was far short of acceptable or appropriate. That is not a reflection on the person who was hired - but it is a decidedly bad look for the college that's not going to go away, because it happened. That bell cannot be un-rung.

SlowCat did not in any way suggest that our coach was hired because he's a white man. The commentary is about those defending a hiring process that is more suited for another decade or another century. I'm offended that this has been turned back on her for speaking truth to power.

Oh my gosh, enough of the hand wringing and "you hurt my feelings" argument.

Her truth is her truth and stop telling me that those of us who don't agree with her and you are somehow being mean to her in response for her speaking "truth to power." And thus it is AOK for her and you to tell others they are racist, etc. That is your truth buddy and unfortunately you being highly educated, like many others, does not ENTITLE YOU to impose "your truth" on others. Then you and SLOWCAT have the audacity to believe and look down your nose at the great unwashed masses and then actually believe that "your truth" is morally superior. ( And let's just go scorched earth and I will say please don't start again with the moral audacity of judging how rich people use their money to fund NIL versus the Salvation Army.)

Not imposing anything, actually. Just stepping up for someone in a public forum who is being bullied and told to keep quiet for the things she's pointing out. That is offensive to me.

[straycat]

I can’t tell you all how tired I am of the banal canard that all white men are evil racists who when given power hire only whites. That blanket generalization is itself evil.

I don't think that's the argument that's being made. The statistics about opaque hiring processes don't lie - the beneficiaries are heavily skewed toward reinforcing the patriarchy which, like it or not, is historically and undeniably not of color.

What I've taken away from this is, now that there are legitimate questions about the direction Davidson's on-court leadership has brought the team in the last three seasons, wouldn't we all like to have the security of knowing that our coach's hire was made for all the right reasons, and that every qualified candidate was considered? And not through a process that cannot put to rest questions about nepotism or cronyism?

I love our current head coach and assistant coaches. I'm proud that they represent Davidson. As Acorn has pointed out, this is the part of the debate that *isn't* about whether or not Matt is a capable coach or a good human being. Because he is. I, like SlowCat, continue to be floored that so many in this group of fellow Davidsonians seem incapable or unwilling to admit that the hiring process was far short of acceptable or appropriate. That is not a reflection on the person who was hired - but it is a decidedly bad look for the college that's not going to go away, because it happened. That bell cannot be un-rung.

SlowCat did not in any way suggest that our coach was hired because he's a white man. The commentary is about those defending a hiring process that is more suited for another decade or another century. I'm offended that this has been turned back on her for speaking truth to power.

Oh my gosh, enough of the hand wringing and "you hurt my feelings" argument.

Her truth is her truth and stop telling me that those of us who don't agree with her and you are somehow being mean to her in response for her speaking "truth to power." And thus it is AOK for her and you to tell others they are racist, etc. That is your truth buddy and unfortunately you being highly educated, like many others, does not ENTITLE YOU to impose "your truth" on others. Then you and SLOWCAT have the audacity to believe and look down your nose at the great unwashed masses and then actually believe that "your truth" is morally superior. ( And let's just go scorched earth and I will say please don't start again with the moral audacity of judging how rich people use their money to fund NIL versus the Salvation Army.)

Not imposing anything, actually. Just stepping up for someone in a public forum who is being bullied and told to keep quiet for the things she's pointing out. That is offensive to me.

I stand by what I think and you do the same. That is fine. But one barb: I will be so impressed at the men like you who swoop in to protect the damsel in distress after she consistently throws firebombs in the forum about racism and misogyny. And then makes assumptions about what "we" look like!!!!

[loosha's lad]

Read the first chapter of Range, a book on the generalist vs specialist debate. Roger Federer did not take up tennis full time until he was 16. Tiger Woods took golf up full time when he was 2. Talks about both the mental and physical aspects of Federer’s career length vs. Tiger.

Tom Glavine used to do a Friday radio spot. It was cool because the intro was a snippet of Bob Costas’s call of the one hitter in Game 6. Anyway, Glavine, who was an accomplished hockey player, railed against year-round baseball. He also noted John Smoltz, who also had a lengthy career, was a recruited basketball player in high school.

Tim Duncan was a swimmer before Hurricane Hugo wrecked all the pools where he grew up, so started playing basketball as a teenager. I think I have those details right?

My office here in Freeport is (among other things) the Rec Department for our community. The number of young kids I've seen give up all sports except for one is impressive. There are so many chances to develop different skills, try out new things, enjoy new friends and teammates... and yet many parents who are absolutely certain that "with the right exposure" (the siren's call of many AAU/club organizations) their child will be the next Cooper Flagg or Caitlin Clark.

[loosha's lad]

I can’t tell you all how tired I am of the banal canard that all white men are evil racists who when given power hire only whites. That blanket generalization is itself evil.

I don't think that's the argument that's being made. The statistics about opaque hiring processes don't lie - the beneficiaries are heavily skewed toward reinforcing the patriarchy which, like it or not, is historically and undeniably not of color.

What I've taken away from this is, now that there are legitimate questions about the direction Davidson's on-court leadership has brought the team in the last three seasons, wouldn't we all like to have the security of knowing that our coach's hire was made for all the right reasons, and that every qualified candidate was considered? And not through a process that cannot put to rest questions about nepotism or cronyism?

I love our current head coach and assistant coaches. I'm proud that they represent Davidson. As Acorn has pointed out, this is the part of the debate that *isn't* about whether or not Matt is a capable coach or a good human being. Because he is. I, like SlowCat, continue to be floored that so many in this group of fellow Davidsonians seem incapable or unwilling to admit that the hiring process was far short of acceptable or appropriate. That is not a reflection on the person who was hired - but it is a decidedly bad look for the college that's not going to go away, because it happened. That bell cannot be un-rung.

SlowCat did not in any way suggest that our coach was hired because he's a white man. The commentary is about those defending a hiring process that is more suited for another decade or another century. I'm offended that this has been turned back on her for speaking truth to power.

Oh my gosh, enough of the hand wringing and "you hurt my feelings" argument.

Her truth is her truth and stop telling me that those of us who don't agree with her and you are somehow being mean to her in response for her speaking "truth to power." And thus it is AOK for her and you to tell others they are racist, etc. That is your truth buddy and unfortunately you being highly educated, like many others, does not ENTITLE YOU to impose "your truth" on others. Then you and SLOWCAT have the audacity to believe and look down your nose at the great unwashed masses and then actually believe that "your truth" is morally superior. ( And let's just go scorched earth and I will say please don't start again with the moral audacity of judging how rich people use their money to fund NIL versus the Salvation Army.)

Not imposing anything, actually. Just stepping up for someone in a public forum who is being bullied and told to keep quiet for the things she's pointing out. That is offensive to me.

I stand by what I think and you do the same. That is fine. But one barb: I will be so impressed at the men like you who swoop in to protect the damsel in distress after she consistently throws firebombs in the forum about racism and misogyny. And then makes assumptions about what "we" look like!!!!

Once again, there has been no suggestion that any of the groups discussed here is absolute. Are all of Davidson's decision-makers -- or all of the participants in this forum who are discussing their decisions -- white, or men? Of course not. But in each of those groups the likelihood that the individual is one or the other, or both, is strong enough to make some generalizations.

In our history the levers of power and authority were long protected by a particular demographic. I hope there's no debate in that point. As we collectively and continually try and move beyond those times, I believe it's especially important for a place like Davidson to bear out the importance of removing all doubt from the way it conducts its business.

When the composition of our board of trustees was being discussed years ago, one sticking point was the requirement that a certain number of them be "active members of a Presbyterian church." On the surface, for an institution that wishes to honor its past while seeking its future, that requirement might have seemed benign enough... until you dig deeper and consider how few of our alumni/ae are non-white, and how very very few of those non-white alumi/ae are Presbyterians. There was virtually no path for alumni of color to aspire to that sort of leadership at their alma mater. THAT is how access, authority, and power remain exclusive to a demographic. I do not believe that Davidson chose that stipulation in order to exclude non-white leadership. But once its ramifications were uncovered, the process was changed to allow more transparent and equitable access to those levers. This is my allegory to an opaque hiring process used to hire Davidson's highest-paid employee. If we're aware that a process has been used or could be used to exclude good and qualified people, whether they are white or male or not, whether purposefully or inadvertently, then we should leave that process behind.

That's my position on this. I know that many are gouging their faces because of the direction this thread has gone, so I promise this will be my last post on it other than showing my hope and excitement over the Curry-Berman fund. I'd be happy to continue conversation about the other matter if anyone would like to PM me, but that's probably the better place for this now.

[stevelee]

The school could have spent millions on a worldwide search to make you happy before they hired Matt.

Since you have inside information, can you give more detail about what went on out of the public eye, or would that violate some promises of confidentiality? Can you name names of those contacted or considered?

[MLC67]

No loosha’s lad you are entitled to your flawed opinions just not your own facts. So you don’t get to post another long argument than declare that any further discussion here is inappropriate. At no point in this back and forth has Slowcat been bullied or told to be quiet. Because her commentary was so divisive, it caused strong disagreement - the very positive give and take that this august forum exists to foster. I find it deeply offensive that when we offer contrary views we are personally attacked as bullies rather than continuing this vigorous debate on the merits.

[loosha's lad]

No loosha’s lad you are entitled to your flawed opinions just not your own facts. So you don’t get to post another long argument than declare that any further discussion here is inappropriate. At no point in this back and forth has Slowcat been bullied or told to be quiet. Because her commentary was so divisive, it caused strong disagreement - the very positive give and take that this august forum exists to foster. I find it deeply offensive that when we offer contrary views we are personally attacked as bullies rather than continuing this vigorous debate on the merits.

Simply trying to do a service to those who spotted a dead horse four pages ago. Give me what ya got!

[Acorn]

The school could have spent millions on a worldwide search to make you happy before they hired Matt.

Since you have inside information, can you give more detail about what went on out of the public eye, or would that violate some promises of confidentiality? Can you name names of those contacted or considered?

Maybe you were told Bob was hiring ahead of time, but I found out at the same press conference where Matt was announced as his replacement. I don’t believe anyone is claiming to have inside knowledge about who was contacted. But most job openings are advertised so that external candidates can apply. We do know that that didn’t happen with this search.

There are plenty of people who love Davidson and would do a great job for a given position at the College (including some who worked at the College (doing a great job) at the time of the job opening) who have been required to go through an open search process.

[bvgerd]

Ill advance a strong urge that we reconsider any further trading of barbs regardless if people are taking offense to comments or strongly disagree with different perspective. If we cant restrain from responding, please at least take it elsewhere. We are not going to achieve anything with this sideshow and this just totally derails a conversation that multiple people have tried to restart regarding the resources available to the basketball program and outlook for the team moving forward.

[ScootCat]

Maybe in a quarter-century or so from now Matt can publicly pull back the curtain on his hiring process. Hopefully after completing a hall of fame worthy tenure as our basketball coach. GO CATS!!

[stevelee]

Ill advance a strong urge that we reconsider any further trading of barbs regardless if people are taking offense to comments or strongly disagree with different perspective. If we cant restrain from responding, please at least take it elsewhere. We are not going to achieve anything with this sideshow and this just totally derails a conversation that multiple people have tried to restart regarding the resources available to the basketball program and outlook for the team moving forward.

Rick Barnes comes to mind.

[i77cat]

When Chris Clunie was hired, I was thrilled. In general, because I was happy to be rid of Murphy and have him replaced by a brillliant, energetic person. It didn't occur to me to have opinions about his age, gender, or skin tone. In particular, I was thrilled because I assumed that his hiring would clear the path for Matt to get the job. I worried that Murphy would screw it up with a national search and fear that someone would accuse him of nepotism. I'm glad that Clunie wasted neither time nor money. I was sure that we had the best coach for the job. I still am. I understand the criticisms of the process but I'm glad that Chris Clunie didn't concern himself with appearances.

[Wildcat92]

Some people in this country love to make everything about race. It has proven very divisive. I believe there’s a better, more productive approach.

Some people live life unable to not have most things they deal with be about race whether they want it to be or not, which is sort of the damn point.