scooterbob

Let's say you offered two bits of evidence in support of the winner. That is better than nothing. However, your references to the departed Tubby are of no materiality but, instead, irrelevant. Please understand, that is not meant as criticism. Merely an observation. I again salute you for offering something positive for the winner. You are the first and you have saved me from the need to offer a justification of sorts myself. Actually, I can do so although it probably isn't as strong as can be made for a couple of others and it would have to include an assumption of subjectivity rather than objectivity on the part of the "voters".

You won't be criticized, LRCW. At least you, unlike others, made an attempt at justification. I salute you for the effort.

Debates require facts. You present none. However, if you could present some, possibly I can "learn" from you and "everyone wins". Of course, as Coach Rupp wisely stated, "If winning isn't important, why do we keep score?" His remark was in response to the statement of Grantland Rice that "It matters not who wins or loses but how we play the game." Coach Rupp thought Rice was full of fertilizer and I always agree with the philosophy of Coach Rupp.

If you can come up with anything, let us know. You will be the first.

No need for your expertise, 3ptshooter. I don't need it. I suppose reality often is as seen in the eyes of the beholder. Actually, there were some highly heralded girls that I would have expected more from in light of the headlines. However, I didn't feel moved to name them. We will just agree to disagree.

Congratulations to Jonathan VanHoose. The first team designation is well deserved and is the first for the 16th Region since O.J. Mayo in 2003.

Okay, Intentional Foul, you have finally made it clear that, neither in a post nor in a private message, can you make a positive case for the winner. You seem to claim to have facts but you never present any. Don't be dismayed. No one else of your persuasion has done so either. I'm sure it wasn't your intent but, in fact, you confirm my thesis.

Your last statement is absolutely true. For success, and for survival, the approach must be entirely different. Girls are not boys and boys are not girls. Liberal philosophers, historians, and politicians can never change that basic fact. Actually, aren't we all thankful that that is the case?

The real story is that numerous posters, particularly in another thread, are supporting the choice for the sole purpose of digging at those who feel the vote was less than legitimate. These posters have no interest in supporting their position but, instead, desire to criticize and belittle a particular coach and those who support that coach. We all know who won the award. Shoot, I was told, in writing over a year ago that one particular coach and two particular players would be excluded in these votes. Therefore, the votes, both last year and this year, are of no surprise to me. Nonetheless, rather than trying to stir up animousity (which, as we all know, is really the purpose of many of these posts), I, again, ask those "pleased" with the outcome to tell us why the winner deserved to win. I have asked that repeatedly on this and another thread and, to date, absolutely nothing has been offered. Now, that doesn't surprise me at all and it shouldn't surprise anyone else. If there is no legitimate argument for the choice made by the coaches, then the only answer is that the motives of a certain group of coaches were, shall we say, less than pure. I say that the evidence is conclusive that that was the case. Now, let someone offer something to rebut my conclusion.

The winner deserved the award for the following reasons........................ Can someone intelligently and with some factual documentation fill in the ............? By the way, I do congratulate the winner on receiving the most votes from his colleagues. I fully understand how it happened but I just don't comprehend how it can be justified.

If you saw all the girls "winding up" at 1,2,3,4, and 5, I must assume we attended different games. I don't recall Gray in particular ever at 4 or 5. She was always bringing the ball up the floor and running the offense from out front. But, then, who really cares one way or the other? My point was that it seems unfair for you partisans to hit on Terry. Her record speaks for itself.

I asked that you justify with facts why Coach A should receive the award over Coach B. Neither you nor anyone else has offered a scintilla of evidence to support that choice. In truth, there is no way that you can justify it with facts. Of course, when I presented the "puzzle" I knew that choosing Coach A could never be justified in any reasonable way. However, I see that the continued give and take is allowing people such as Marooncat to take unnecessary shots at a young girl who deserves far better and who is certainly a better human being than are those who seek to hurt her- both on this forum and from various and sundry coaching benches. Therefore, in deference to the request of Royal Uncle, I will make no further posts in this thread. I will say, though, that the young lady involved in some of this unfortunate discussion is an individual with remarkable talents and is a great credit to Rose Hill, to her family, and to her friends of whom I can proudly state that I am one. Much of the verbage from the "other side" is merely jealousy. If anyone wishes to take a shot at me or the offer the justification for Coach A (in truth an impossibility), please do so by use of a private message because this thread needs to be closed.

You have done a fine job of dancing around the issue. Hypotheticals about sub.500 records, etc. are a smoke screen. Your post is to rationalize the exclusion of Coach B. I asked you to factually justify the choice of Coach A over Coach B. Leave out the dancing and address that comparison with facts.

As should probably be expected, marooncat, you miss the whole point of Uncle Royal's post. He is saying that it is detrimental for people to come on here and badmouth an eighteen year old girl. This is particularly true when those who are making the statements are basing their opinions on second, third, and fourth level heresay. I agree with Uncle Royal. As for the fans supporting the team next year, I would suggest that the level of support will surpass the level "enjoyed" by your girls during these rather lean years that you have experienced of late. Do you anticipate better crowds over there next year since your girls may be contenders? If you do so, you will be the first. By that, I mean you will be the first to actually address the question. You will not be able to give a convincing and objective argument.

Is that the best you can come up with, marooncat? Innuendo doesn't advance your position nor gain you any credibility. However, a few facts (you obviously have none) would help a little. I want you to justify giving the award to Coach A. I don't need any more disparaging remarks about Coach B. Of course, if that is all you have, I understand.

Intentional Foul, all of your analysis is well and good and, to be honest, I agree with most of it. All I asked was for those of you who support the choice of Coach A to justify your conclusion with facts. Such selections as COY are, of course, subjective. However, are they subjective because of interpretations of actual facts or because of personalities? If you think my facts are incorrect, point out the "errors" of my ways. As for bias, I have repeatedly stated that I am an advocate and not a reporter. Advocates are naturally biased in that they present the story from a particular viewpoint. While I am biased in believing that Coach B truly earned the COY, the facts back me up. If you disagree, give me a good valid argument, other than personalities and "good old boy" loyalties, as to why Coach A should win the award. I have received a pm that leads me to believe that the headband incident actually happened. However, I have far less problem with an 18 year old exercising her guaranteed First Amendment right to defend her friend/teammate than I do with coaches who, by acts of omission and acts of commission, exclude a fellow coach because they feel they are superior. Those of whom I speak know I am speaking the truth. Respect? Come on. Respect is earned not a sacred right reserved for men who coach girls.

I suppose the main difference in our orations is that you are condemning an 18 year old who, wisely or not, was defending her friend/teammate. I, on the other hand, am condemning allegedly mature individuals who lead our youth and who are in a position to, at least in theory, make reasoned judgments. Anyone disagree? Fine. Offer some proof.

The words "if true" get lost in the rest of your essay. I particularly was moved by your reference to "a slap in the face" to area coaches. If you are looking for a slap in the face at the area girls's coaches, read my posts concerning the COY vote because I feel sure you can conclude that I am verbally doing just that. However, keep in mind that I don't make statements for which there is no proof. And, I never resort to "preaching" because I realize that all of this is not a morality play but, instead, an exercise in human nature. As I have stated throughout this thread- offer proof instead of emotion. So far, nothing has been offered to refute anything.

For bluethunder: You obviously know nothing about the 16th Region. Russell was the preseason favorite and even more of a favorite at tournament time. If you do your homework, you will learn that Russell had two players near the equal of Terry and Queen as well as a far more experienced supporting cast. Being informed never hurts. For GoRadio: Surely you don't really mean to imply that I had anything to do with any headbands. I won't dignify your remark with a denial. I was at the school for an extended period yesterday afternoon and heard nothing of any headband. Did it really happen or is it as imagined? For LRCW: I'm rather disappointed in you. I don't expect GoRadio or a few others to be objective. However, since you really know all the individuals being accused in this "whinorama", I do expect you to get some facts before you join a lynch mob. For all: I stand by all the statements made in my above posts. Many of you disagree. I am not vouching for the truth of any other posts but mine so don't attribute the remarks of others to me. If I am wrong somewhere in my analysis, offer some proof. No innuendoes, no namecalling, no whining, no "victimization". Proof. You won't because you know I am factually correct.

I will assume that the obvious choice, Jonathan VanHoose, is the POY. I can't imagine any other outcome. Let me be one of the first to congratulate Jonathan and thank him for providing many good memories to those of us who proudly admit to being his fans.

Some of you have posted that you were disappointed/unimpressed with the play of Laura Terry. I thought she looked uncomfortable on the floor. I have since learned that she practiced with the team only as a 4 or a 5. However, at game time, she was told that she would play 3. That fact answers my concerns and should answer yours, also.

I will agree with Royal Uncle. Close the thread. No one will attempt to intelligently answer my "puzzle" anyway. Why not? Well, the answer is obvious that Coach B should win the award. However, many prefer Coach A which is an answer that cannot be objectively defended. The problem lies in the fact that Coach A supporters (or Coach B dissenters as the case may be) cannot justify their answer using facts rather than emotion, prejudice, and pettiness or without coming to the conclusion that the vote was anything but a "joint effort" of sorts (of course, I have tangible evidence). My point has been made. I rest my case. As for the all area girls's team, many will agree and disagree with the choices. As usual, there will be agreement and disagreement as to individual girls. In regard to the particular young lady who is mentioned in this thread, I would suspect that she doesn't give a tinker's you know what. After all, she came out the winner in the melodrama. She won all direct encounters and made two trips to Bowling Green. She, like some others, doesn't need the approval of a group of coaches who could only watch from the stands, sack of popcorn in hand, as she played in the big arena. Twice. Actually, there may just be a little poetic justice on this earth after all. Puzzle solved.

Try reading it, goherd96. You need some facts. Your knowledge of the situation is, shall we say, incomplete. Of course, I suspect you really know that. If not, show me where I am wrong with my puzzle or with my analysis.

Now, you don't really believe what you have suggested, do you? If so, I have some real estate in Florida that I would like to sell you.

Okay, goherd96, let's cut out all the crap and get to the truth of the matter. My "puzzle" is factual. There are no misstatements as to the scenerio presented. I described the actual situation with both Coach A and with Coach B. I took no shots at either. I praised neither. I merely stated facts. Then, I solicited comments as to which of the two should, in the opinion of posters, receive the COY award. Was that really too difficult for you to understand? I repeat, no shots were taken at anyone. Just the facts. Of course, if you see a shot in the post, possibly it is because the facts indicate one way or the other. The truth is that I like Coach A. However, facts are facts and facts are not shots. There is no shot. You created a shot. Truth is not a shot. So again, for those of you who seem to have firm beliefs in this matter, from the actual facts which one should receive the award? And, let me add another reasonable query. Justify your choice with some facts. Not more crap but facts. Now, as to your statement that the attitude of some of us RH advocates is the reason for the feelings of you Russellites toward RH, let me suggest that either you are less than honest or you are uninformed. Let me lay it out for those who may be unaware. Russell supporters oppose Rose Hill because the Faulkner girls transferred from Russell to Rose Hill. That is the truth of the matter. Nothing more. Nothing less. The bottom line is that, because of the transfer, Russell is convinced that it was knocked out of three trips to the state tournament. Russell, particularly those close to the girls's program, were anticipating the 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007 seasons because, with the talent available, they saw three trips to Bowling Green. The transfer burst the bubble. The result was zero trips to Bowling Green. In 2004-2005, Rowan County won. That was the year that the Faulkner girls had to sit out after leaving Russell. In 2005-2006, with the Faulkners for most of the year, Rose Hill rolled through the region which included beating Russell twice. And, of course, in 2006-2007, we all know what happened. Russell had the obvious talent advantage over everyone. However, Rose Hill, with Britt Faulkner playing a major role, upset Russell and deprived Russell another trip to Bowling Green. Worst of all, Coach Euton did a masterful coaching job. That, goherd96, is the main reason why Russell dislikes Rose Hill. All close to the Russell program know it, I know it, and you should know it. Of course, reminders from people like me don't help and, in reality, do fan the flames. However, I don't make statements that I cannot prove with tangible evidence. You can bank on that. It is unfortunate that your girls didn't get to go to Bowling Green. Fortman, in particular, deserved the opportunity to play in the big event. Nonetheless, it didn't happen and we all know that that still festering sore is what eats at you people. Like it or not, that is the truth. Just ask some of your people. Now that that has been said, let's see some of those learned opinions with accompanying justification.