Izzo Still Pondering & Wooden Quotes

Looks like you had the same sentiment a week ago that Paris has echoed in this thread. There is a question of respect. And it strikes me as very unseemly to choose to raise the specter of perceived improprieties immediately upon the demise of an individual.

My sentiment was more along the lines that it looked like a gloat rather than pointing out an error, and I think gloating is not a good thing, particularly on the very day he passed.

I admit that I was not clear on that point, so your criticism is fair. So to clarify, I was objecting to the tone, not the facts.

When is it proper to say something that is an inconvenient truth? Maybe not the day of the sad occasion, but thereafter I think it is largely a matter of taste. Many others have had similar opinions much sooner, so I think Ken’s was as appropriate as any. Your mileage may vary, but that does not entitle one to excoriate someone else on such a subjective matter.

The day the man died is no time to bring up his shortcomings, on or off the court. The truth can be brought to light in a number of ways. In passing as a footnote, blazed across headlines as a representation of the sum total of a person or situation, or addressed in context with the rest of a lifetime of work, and the body of it thereof. Making the truth more or less than what it is in the fabric of one man’s 99+ years on this planet is not only the wrong thing to do, it undermines the basic fundamental truth that we hold dear as civilized people.

Once you allow for that, give proper respect and condolences to all parties involved, making an in-depth analysis of subject matter which has been thoroughly discussed here time and time again is not only prudent, it is expected. Paris made an ill-fated and ill-timed attempt at trying to posture on his view of what is right and what is wrong. He holds a place in his heart near and dear for those of a by-gone era. The Wooden’s, Knight’s, Rupp’s, etc. all have their place in history. But to cannonize someone here whose very existence as a legend proves the NCAA’s pathetic unwillingness to be “fair and balanced” to steal from a current day news outlet, is as Tru said, dishonest. I heard Wooden himself discuss the Gilbert situation on more than one occasion. He knew what had happened, if not during, then after the fact, and he does not dispute it himself.

Paris and I go back and forth on practically every subject for one reason only. He refuses to let go of the past, and his “jaded” view of today’s athletic situations. I too love what the past represents, but only in it’s contaxt with today and even tomorrow. The past teaches us the lessons we need to learn, if we will only choose to embrace that. Our problem in sports as well as many aspects of life is that we are not only enthralled by a romanticized view of the past, we are usually doomed to repeat it.

Coach Wooden was a man. Not a Greek god. For Pete’s sake.

anything you read, when it doesnt, you find it to be either intelectually beneath you, or compltetly off-point. One man’s “epiphany” is another man’s yawn, so to speak.

You still haven’t cited any evidnece. You haven’t shown any inconsistency in Tru’s position on Wooden v. Cal. If you want to say I am being naive for not assuming Cal knew and approved of all the shenanigans that resulted in the 2 FF being vacated, fine. But don’t comment as though there is evidence supporting your opinion which I chose to ignore. There isn’t. Your criticism is I don’t assume he’s a cheater given he had final fours vacated. You are right. Your opinion however still lacks factual support – all it has is assumptions.

You said you may need help determining who a credible witness is — well who is your witness against Cal? No one. You imply there is someone in your comment that BBN is just discrediting. It isn’t so. There is no witness that says Cal knew and approved of the Camby payouts, or knew and approved of Rose cheating, or knew and approved of any other alleged violation. But you imply there is.

Tru’s standard is easily applied to Cal and UCLA/Wooden. Even without relying on the NCAA, there is no witness or evidence that Cal knew of or condoned or ignored cheating by Camby, Rose or anyone else.

One witness in support of the Gilbert mess is Walton. Is he a disgruntled former player that is mad at Wooden? NO – he praised Wooden his entire life. I truely believe he loved Wooden like a father. Yet it is Walton that has provided some of the clearest statements that admit to the financial payouts and cheating. Wooden himself has made admissions that suggest he knew something was amiss, even if he didn’t know the whole story. So while we can’t say Wooden knew, there is some evidence to support a conclusion of wilfull blindness or naivity, and there is definitely evidnece that the program itself received the benefits of Gilbert’s cheating.

One standard. Easy to apply rules.

I admit to being “biased” as a fan, but I have stood alone at times criticizing Cuz’s early season and Bledsoe’s all season on court conduct, and Billy G’s conduct when he was still coach. I think I’ve earned some objectivity points at least.

And the two of you ought to get together on any site other than this one and discuss going bowling since you have so much in common…..call it “A SEA OF GREEN”

… are welcome as long as they make sense. You are arguing that any viewpoint, regardless of its intellectual validity, aught to be treated as though it were rational.

That suggestion, in se, is not rational. A “divergent viewpoint” must have the fairly important quality of defensibility. JackBluto just demonstrated why Hoze Kings argument must fail the test of reason.

I have not seen anyone question your literacy. Only your flawed reasoning and cheap shots.

Cal … and gosh knows who else, largely looked the other way with the Rose test situation and likely the Bledsoe GPA jump. But that’s just my matter of opinion informed by facts.

That lovely comment, followed by no facts. None. Not even when invited by Tru to provide such facts. There is nothing upon which to make an inference. Only an assumption he “must have known.” Why? Because he was living in the same time zone at Rose.

Seriously. A viewpoint is fine. A conclusion based on nothing is also fine – just don’t pretend that you have a factual basis for it when you don’t. Give us something other than “cause I said so.”

Come on! That’s really far out.

That is just how it is. Right or wrong.

the other night where I believe the goal was scored 80 minutes in. In order to properly criticize me you might want to know what I’m talking about before making assumptions.

I hate the NFL! And don’t remember a horse race being tied!

About criticizing without knowing what your talking about!

I can tell you that it is overrated as a spectator sport.