|
|
Post by knapplc on May 12, 2022 12:24:35 GMT -5
I have yet to see any generation of people who don't complain that "the kids these days are soft". That's just standard old-person whining. The famous quote from Kenneth John Freeman's dissertation on ancient Greece, where he comprises the Greeks' complaints about the youth of their day, talks about this: "The counts of the indictment are luxury, bad manners, contempt for authority, disrespect to elders, and a love for chatter in place of exercise. … Children began to be the tyrants, not the slaves, of their households. They no longer rose from their seats when an elder entered the room; they contradicted their parents, chattered before company, gobbled up the dainties at table, and committed various offences against Hellenic tastes, such as crossing their legs. They tyrannised over the paidagogoi and schoolmasters." It likely goes back much further in human history than that. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors likely derided the youth of their day for being lazy. |
|
|
|
Post by Word on May 12, 2022 12:31:16 GMT -5
I am by NO MEANS encouraging what this person said is good however there is a point to it. The reason why Aird was believed to be the next big thing at PSU was because he grew up in that system. But Rose didnt just retire because of his age. He started realizing that kids are getting tougher and tougher to coach. He knew he was not going to have the kids he used to have in his system where he could say what he needed to say and they understood the expectation. They did not transfer because they felt the grass was greener, they made the grass greener where they were. That is why his teams were so dominant. Not just because they were great players but he DEMANDED it and challenged these kids mentally and physically. Aird does know the game of volleyball. He was very competitive at Maryland. The fact he has been terrible at IU shows that it may not have just been Dunbar who struggled there. It was the culture of the program there. IU has never been known as a volleyball powerhouse and many of the recruits they get there are the kids that are not top tier Big Ten talent. They would be great mid major kids, just not big ten. Cook said it best. He has had to change his style of coaching more than ever to get it across to his athletes now. That is what makes him the best in the business. Instead of volleyball first relationship second he flipped the script. If the comments that Aird said are true they are across the line and I hope IU does something about it. But this guy with the comment about the kids being soft is not that far off of what the truth is right now... But this is everywhere. Not just IU. A note on Russ Rose, he has always struck me as being straight forward and no BS. He speaks the truth as he sees it, yet I have never heard any instances of him demeaning players in n public. He lays it out there in playing terms, but he never resorts to ad hominem attack. That is a major difference. When Russ would host boosters and others after a game and speak to them about the match, he would straight up call out his players for bad performances to the public. He was never shy about demeaning a player in front of others. That said, he did this because of was a brutally honest coach. His players knew this so if they did play bad, it was never a shock and was meant to be a motivating tactic. |
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on May 12, 2022 12:32:48 GMT -5
I have yet to see any generation of people who don't complain that "the kids these days are soft". That's just standard old-person whining. The famous quote from Kenneth John Freeman's dissertation on ancient Greece, where he comprises the Greeks' complaints about the youth of their day, talks about this: "The counts of the indictment are luxury, bad manners, contempt for authority, disrespect to elders, and a love for chatter in place of exercise. … Children began to be the tyrants, not the slaves, of their households. They no longer rose from their seats when an elder entered the room; they contradicted their parents, chattered before company, gobbled up the dainties at table, and committed various offences against Hellenic tastes, such as crossing their legs. They tyrannised over the paidagogoi and schoolmasters." It likely goes back much further in human history than that. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors likely derided the youth of their day for being lazy. My brother used to have a sarcastic comedic line he would regularly do on occasions such as this: "Uhh... kids these days... they dress like bums... they have NO respect... and the music they listen to? It's just noise!" (Always those three, in that order. Intonation can be modified to suit your mood.) |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 12, 2022 12:36:45 GMT -5
I have yet to see any generation of people who don't complain that "the kids these days are soft". That's just standard old-person whining. Correct. Every generation has complained about the generations younger (and older) probably since the beginning of civilization. I have observed this amusingly through Survivor. There was a season called Millennials v. Gen X in which the Gen X players complained about the "lazy" Millennials. But 20 seasons earlier, it was the Gen X players who were being derided as lazy by the older Baby Boomer players. And even in the season that's currently airing, some of the older players (a mixture of younger Gen X and older Millennials) were complaining about some of the young Gen Z players for being lazy. |
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on May 12, 2022 12:45:19 GMT -5
A note on Russ Rose, he has always struck me as being straight forward and no BS. He speaks the truth as he sees it, yet I have never heard any instances of him demeaning players in n public. He lays it out there in playing terms, but he never resorts to ad hominem attack. That is a major difference. When Russ would host boosters and others after a game and speak to them about the match, he would straight up call out his players for bad performances to the public. He was never shy about demeaning a player in front of others. That said, he did this because of was a brutally honest coach. His players knew this so if they did play bad, it was never a shock and was meant to be a motivating tactic. Is criticizing performance the same thing as demeaning a person? You played badly versus you are fat and worthless. There is a very broad spectrum in between those two. |
|
|
|
Post by knapplc on May 12, 2022 12:54:45 GMT -5
I have yet to see any generation of people who don't complain that "the kids these days are soft". That's just standard old-person whining. Correct. Every generation has complained about both the generations younger (and older) probably since the beginning of civilization. I have observed this amusingly through Survivor. There was a season called Millennials v. Gen X in which the Gen X players complained about the "lazy" Millennials. But 20 seasons earlier, it was the Gen X players who were being derided as lazy by the older Baby Boomer players. And even in the season that's currently airing, some of the older players (a mixture of young Gen X and older Millennials) were complaining about some of the young Gen Z players for being lazy. This is purely anecdotal, but Gen Xers seem to be somewhat blase about this trait. It seems to have skipped this generation over, as evidenced by the rivalry between Boomers and Millennials. Xers certainly have their gripes, but for the most part they've stayed out of the generational battles, and are as likely to side with Millennials as Boomers. |
|
|
|
Post by Word on May 12, 2022 13:07:17 GMT -5
When Russ would host boosters and others after a game and speak to them about the match, he would straight up call out his players for bad performances to the public. He was never shy about demeaning a player in front of others. That said, he did this because of was a brutally honest coach. His players knew this so if they did play bad, it was never a shock and was meant to be a motivating tactic. Is criticizing performance the same thing as demeaning a person? You played badly versus you are fat and worthless. There is a very broad spectrum in between those two. I agree with that. The point is that Russ wasn't afraid to put down his kids publicly. It wasn't just a someone played bad. Would be more like we lost because of the way someone played can be considered a demeaning comment to a college player. Puts the blame on their shoulders for why the team lost. Again, the players knew they signed up for this. And it clearly worked for Russ. To me, the issue with Steve is that Russ had the respect of his players and those players would run through walls for him. Steve doesn't seem to have the respect and relationship with the players so when he acts like this, it doesn't work at all and completely backfired. |
|
|
|
Post by justahick on May 12, 2022 13:35:09 GMT -5
Is criticizing performance the same thing as demeaning a person? You played badly versus you are fat and worthless. There is a very broad spectrum in between those two. I agree with that. The point is that Russ wasn't afraid to put down his kids publicly. It wasn't just a someone played bad. Would be more like we lost because of the way someone played can be considered a demeaning comment to a college player. Puts the blame on their shoulders for why the team lost. Again, the players knew they signed up for this. And it clearly worked for Russ. To me, the issue with Steve is that Russ had the respect of his players and those players would run through walls for him. Steve doesn't seem to have the respect and relationship with the players so when he acts like this, it doesn't work at all and completely backfired. The players knew they signed up for this? You sure about that? |
|
|
|
Post by Word on May 12, 2022 13:37:28 GMT -5
I agree with that. The point is that Russ wasn't afraid to put down his kids publicly. It wasn't just a someone played bad. Would be more like we lost because of the way someone played can be considered a demeaning comment to a college player. Puts the blame on their shoulders for why the team lost. Again, the players knew they signed up for this. And it clearly worked for Russ. To me, the issue with Steve is that Russ had the respect of his players and those players would run through walls for him. Steve doesn't seem to have the respect and relationship with the players so when he acts like this, it doesn't work at all and completely backfired. The players knew they signed up for this? You sure about that? All my friends that are former players of Russ's were well aware of his coaching style. So I guess I can't speak for everyone, but the ones I'm familiar with did. |
|
|
|
Post by willtravel2cwvb on May 12, 2022 14:10:30 GMT -5
I am by NO MEANS encouraging what this person said is good however there is a point to it. .... .... I look at the Grambling case as an example of coaches and universities flipping the tools available on its head and try to regain their advantage. A note on Russ Rose, he has always struck me as being straight forward and no BS. He speaks the truth as he sees it, yet I have never heard any instances of him demeaning players in n public. He lays it out there in playing terms, but he never resorts to ad hominem attack. That is a major difference. Better yet, never heard of him demeaning players in private. From what I saw/read/understood: He was blunt but not mean; that also meant he was understood. His commentary was based on real data/metrics instead of a vague, undefined or extraneous standards. He gave constructive advice and not mean criticism. I remember during one timeout back in the 2010s, maybe, maybe a bit earlier, where the PSU block was getting hammered at the left pin. He looked at his famous notebook, looked at the OH and MB, told them what the stats said and calmly looked at them and said "You might want to work on that." Did not tell them someone on the bench was ready to take their place. That they could quit. That they shouldn't have eaten whatever. He knew they had the tools to clean it up. That simple "You might want to work on that" was all it took. |
|
|
|
Post by karellen on May 12, 2022 14:23:21 GMT -5
The players knew they signed up for this? You sure about that? All my friends that are former players of Russ's were well aware of his coaching style. So I guess I can't speak for everyone, but the ones I'm familiar with did. Something else to consider... Russ could get away with things because he was Russ, with Russ's track record. Someone who has never won a thing, and without Russ's length of service, can not be that type of coach. Everyone knew Russ's style and wanted that...from Russ. Do those same players want anything close to Russ from someone without Russ's record? No |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 12, 2022 14:29:13 GMT -5
Correct. Every generation has complained about both the generations younger (and older) probably since the beginning of civilization. I have observed this amusingly through Survivor. There was a season called Millennials v. Gen X in which the Gen X players complained about the "lazy" Millennials. But 20 seasons earlier, it was the Gen X players who were being derided as lazy by the older Baby Boomer players. And even in the season that's currently airing, some of the older players (a mixture of young Gen X and older Millennials) were complaining about some of the young Gen Z players for being lazy. This is purely anecdotal, but Gen Xers seem to be somewhat blase about this trait. It seems to have skipped this generation over, as evidenced by the rivalry between Boomers and Millennials. Xers certainly have their gripes, but for the most part they've stayed out of the generational battles, and are as likely to side with Millennials as Boomers. I think it's more that Millennials dislike Baby Boomers more than they dislike Gen X. But Gen X people definitely still complain about Millennials. Or at least they did when we Millennials were younger. At this point, the oldest Millennials are 40 years old or close to it. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 12, 2022 14:32:50 GMT -5
Is criticizing performance the same thing as demeaning a person? You played badly versus you are fat and worthless. There is a very broad spectrum in between those two. I agree with that. The point is that Russ wasn't afraid to put down his kids publicly. It wasn't just a someone played bad. Would be more like we lost because of the way someone played can be considered a demeaning comment to a college player. Puts the blame on their shoulders for why the team lost. Again, the players knew they signed up for this. And it clearly worked for Russ. To me, the issue with Steve is that Russ had the respect of his players and those players would run through walls for him. Steve doesn't seem to have the respect and relationship with the players so when he acts like this, it doesn't work at all and completely backfired. Yeah, this is also why a lot of the Belichick disciples had a hard time. None of them had the winning credibility that he had, so they got less leeway from players. When Belichick does something, he's got a fistful of rings, so people are more likely to buy in. When it's Charlie Weis, not so much. |
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on May 12, 2022 14:39:01 GMT -5
All my friends that are former players of Russ's were well aware of his coaching style. So I guess I can't speak for everyone, but the ones I'm familiar with did. Something else to consider... Russ could get away with things because he was Russ, with Russ's track record. Someone who has never won a thing, and without Russ's length of service, can not be that type of coach. Everyone knew Russ's style and wanted that...from Russ. Do those same players want anything close to Russ from someone without Russ's record? No I would disagree somewhat. I think it has more to do with trust, that the players know the messenger has their backs all the time. That is the key difference. Being Russ Rose doesn't hurt obviously, but I still think it is mostly to do with trust. |
|
|
|
Post by karellen on May 12, 2022 15:39:46 GMT -5
Something else to consider... Russ could get away with things because he was Russ, with Russ's track record. Someone who has never won a thing, and without Russ's length of service, can not be that type of coach. Everyone knew Russ's style and wanted that...from Russ. Do those same players want anything close to Russ from someone without Russ's record? No I would disagree somewhat. I think it has more to do with trust, that the players know the messenger has their backs all the time. That is the key difference. Being Russ Rose doesn't hurt obviously, but I still think it is mostly to do with trust. I do not disagree with that...but the trust that existed between Russ and his players is also something that goes with his record/experience, etc... I also remember watching a Tennessee WBB game when Pat Summit was coaching. At halftime, they were losing and the TV camera's went into the locker room and broadcast her halftime talk. She singled out one player has someone who was not playing well and needed to step up in the second half, or else...but was not that polite. Again, who she was, what she had accomplished, let her get away with that. Someone not on her level, or Russ's, gets run out of town. |
|
