FB Recruiting Parting shots: Poythess' greatest legacy, final thoughts on Simmons, crowd gets an A+

[JRowland]

Decided to reflect on yesterday's game in a more in-depth way with this linked below.

The last section is on Alex Poythress' greatest legacy at Kentucky, or what I believe his greatest legacy to be, in terms of his helping to shatter negative stereotypes about Calipari's program. His first class restored the program in the eyes of recruits. But players like Brandon Knight and Alex Poythress made Kentucky acceptable to pundits and people who believe they're the judges of acceptability.

Also, reflections on "inconsistency," and why it's unfortunate that the label so defines a player and implies negative things about his work ethic or things in his control.

I also ruminate on the crowd yesterday, and the great job they did. Also, how their relationship with Skal Labissiere is a sign of the fan base's underrated loyalty, and how family is the best comparison for Skal's time with UK fans thus far.

Finally, a parting shot on Ben Simmons and his poorly received answer to the question about Tyler Ulis after the game. I say the best thing to do is relax, step back, acknowledge youth and the circumstances, and don't let something that really wasn't personal overshadow the more significant good things from yesterday. Because there were a lot of them.

I'll delve into something that interests me and maybe nobody else, but I'm never shy about giving my opinion so here goes: I really don't mind what Simmons said. I don't agree with it, but it doesn't bother me. I don't think it should bother anyone, and I think unfortunately a lot of the outrage over postgame comments like that is a large reason I find so many interviews/press conferences to be unbearable shows of superficiality that are basically like public speaking tests for adults.

First, Simmons' comment was really more of a reflection/reinforcement of Johnny Jones' mismanagement of this team. At true 'pro' organizations in college, like Alabama football and Kentucky basketball, rarely are comments like these voiced to the media. Coaching social media habits and post-game interview answers might be a kind of window dressing that promotes a level of conformity that seems shallow, boring or less than human, but that's the way of the sports world. I don't get offended by things and I hate that Simmons is being vilified for giving a human response, even if it was raw, unfiltered, outside of convention and 'unacceptable.' Surely he could have answered better, but the players/coaches/figures who ramble for days saying nothing but fluff never draw negative headlines. And that's more frustrating for me. The outrage following so-called poor taste answers to questions is understandable when it's deemed an offense to someone beloved (i.e. UK fans and Ulis, and his honor), but I hate that the outrage inevitably contributes to the canned, boring, unoriginal cliches and coach-speak that make so many interviews and press conferences unbearable. I'd rather know what someone's really thinking even if they'll regret saying it tomorrow.

Part of that is mass media has become a vehicle to advance a so-called politically correct (but usually, if we're honest, simply decent/respectable/honorable- not always) litmus test on everything under the sun. I mostly don't like that because I dislike conformity, shallow answers/responses and the dehumanizing of athletes into robots who say what they're supposed to. That's not the media's fault, except when the editorial page subtly bleeds into the rest of the papers and the self-identified reporters are really opinion-givers (which is quite often). But, I think it's unfortunate that the media plays a role in this even unintentionally. It's so widespread and commonly accepted, this conformity and outrage at interview missteps, that people literally say, quite explicitly, that it's a mark of maturity when a person gives an interview without saying something that might not be outside supposed (really arbitrary) parameters of what an acceptable answer isl

STORY: Parting shots from yesterday

 

[Blueaz]

But was Simmons being honest or just sour grapes? I think he was just pissed, and trying to cause issues. All of his interviews seem to have a very common theme "I" and "me".
IMO he will not be a great pro... He can dribble and pass at this level, and seems to be athletically gifted. I just don't think he translates to the pros. And he hasn't shown a work ethic to make the improvements, he needs.

 

[KentuckyCat420]

Anyone who seriously doesn't think Simmons is going to be one of the top players in the NBA for years to come is nothing but a hater. I don't like the kid's personality at all but if you think he's going to be a bust do yourself a favor and never evaluate talent.

 

[Blueaz]

Wow

Anyone who seriously doesn't think Simmons is going to be one of the top players in the NBA for years to come is nothing but a hater. I don't like the kid's personality at all but if you think he's going to be a bust do yourself a favor and never evaluate talent.

disagreeing with your opinions makes someone a "hater". I think you over value yourself, hmmmm; much like Simmons

 

[HICATFAN]

Decided to reflect on yesterday's game in a more in-depth way with this linked below.

The last section is on Alex Poythress' greatest legacy at Kentucky, or what I believe his greatest legacy to be, in terms of his helping to shatter negative stereotypes about Calipari's program. His first class restored the program in the eyes of recruits. But players like Brandon Knight and Alex Poythress made Kentucky acceptable to pundits and people who believe they're the judges of acceptability.

Also, reflections on "inconsistency," and why it's unfortunate that the label so defines a player and implies negative things about his work ethic or things in his control.

I also ruminate on the crowd yesterday, and the great job they did. Also, how their relationship with Skal Labissiere is a sign of the fan base's underrated loyalty, and how family is the best comparison for Skal's time with UK fans thus far.

Finally, a parting shot on Ben Simmons and his poorly received answer to the question about Tyler Ulis after the game. I say the best thing to do is relax, step back, acknowledge youth and the circumstances, and don't let something that really wasn't personal overshadow the more significant good things from yesterday. Because there were a lot of them.

I'll delve into something that interests me and maybe nobody else, but I'm never shy about giving my opinion so here goes: I really don't mind what Simmons said. I don't agree with it, but it doesn't bother me. I don't think it should bother anyone, and I think unfortunately a lot of the outrage over postgame comments like that is a large reason I find so many interviews/press conferences to be unbearable shows of superficiality that are basically like public speaking tests for adults.

First, Simmons' comment was really more of a reflection/reinforcement of Johnny Jones' mismanagement of this team. At true 'pro' organizations in college, like Alabama football and Kentucky basketball, rarely are comments like these voiced to the media. Coaching social media habits and post-game interview answers might be a kind of window dressing that promotes a level of conformity that seems shallow, boring or less than human, but that's the way of the sports world. I don't get offended by things and I hate that Simmons is being vilified for giving a human response, even if it was raw, unfiltered, outside of convention and 'unacceptable.' Surely he could have answered better, but the players/coaches/figures who ramble for days saying nothing but fluff never draw negative headlines. And that's more frustrating for me. The outrage following so-called poor taste answers to questions is understandable when it's deemed an offense to someone beloved (i.e. UK fans and Ulis, and his honor), but I hate that the outrage inevitably contributes to the canned, boring, unoriginal cliches and coach-speak that make so many interviews and press conferences unbearable. I'd rather know what someone's really thinking even if they'll regret saying it tomorrow.

Part of that is mass media has become a vehicle to advance a so-called politically correct (but usually, if we're honest, simply decent/respectable/honorable- not always) litmus test on everything under the sun. I mostly don't like that because I dislike conformity, shallow answers/responses and the dehumanizing of athletes into robots who say what they're supposed to. That's not the media's fault, except when the editorial page subtly bleeds into the rest of the papers and the self-identified reporters are really opinion-givers (which is quite often). But, I think it's unfortunate that the media plays a role in this even unintentionally. It's so widespread and commonly accepted, this conformity and outrage at interview missteps, that people literally say, quite explicitly, that it's a mark of maturity when a person gives an interview without saying something that might not be outside supposed (really arbitrary) parameters of what an acceptable answer isl

STORY: Parting shots from yesterday

Mahalo JR, well done!

AlohaCat

 

[Icecoldbrewdoggy]

Anyone who seriously doesn't think Simmons is going to be one of the top players in the NBA for years to come is nothing but a hater. I don't like the kid's personality at all but if you think he's going to be a bust do yourself a favor and never evaluate talent.

You're not nearly as talented at message board posting as you think you are. I see you as a bust.

 

[docholiday51]

The OP has an interesting take on things,but i think it is more about the big picture than the game yesterday.

First of all Alex's stay at UK has been star crossed because of injuries.I wish he had been healthy all of last year(we probably have an extra NC in the trophy case) Alex has been a credit to the program,he may not be a superstar,but all that he brought to the table can't be measured by the 94 feet of a basketball court.

The strange case of Skal probably won't be answered or solved in the remaining games of this season,the fan base wanted him to be a feel good story turned superstar.Maybe it still does to a degree just not the year long ride that we thought it would be,maybe he returns maybe he doesn't,no doubt BBN wants Skal to succeed to the highest degree possible.

Finally,Ben Simmons made a poor choice in where he decided to go to college,he would have been better served at UK,Duke or anywhere other than LSU. This is true from a basketball point of view and a life point of view be it in the NBA or elsewhere. Simmons should have gone to class and held up the academic part his one year college experience, doing what you are supposed to do is a lesson everyone needs to learn.

His comments about Tyler may be a combination of what went on over the previous 3 days and the game just ended,they amount to slightly less than a hill of beans.

 

[turkeywildturkey]

Decided to reflect on yesterday's game in a more in-depth way with this linked below.

The last section is on Alex Poythress' greatest legacy at Kentucky, or what I believe his greatest legacy to be, in terms of his helping to shatter negative stereotypes about Calipari's program. His first class restored the program in the eyes of recruits. But players like Brandon Knight and Alex Poythress made Kentucky acceptable to pundits and people who believe they're the judges of acceptability.

Also, reflections on "inconsistency," and why it's unfortunate that the label so defines a player and implies negative things about his work ethic or things in his control.

I also ruminate on the crowd yesterday, and the great job they did. Also, how their relationship with Skal Labissiere is a sign of the fan base's underrated loyalty, and how family is the best comparison for Skal's time with UK fans thus far.

Finally, a parting shot on Ben Simmons and his poorly received answer to the question about Tyler Ulis after the game. I say the best thing to do is relax, step back, acknowledge youth and the circumstances, and don't let something that really wasn't personal overshadow the more significant good things from yesterday. Because there were a lot of them.

I'll delve into something that interests me and maybe nobody else, but I'm never shy about giving my opinion so here goes: I really don't mind what Simmons said. I don't agree with it, but it doesn't bother me. I don't think it should bother anyone, and I think unfortunately a lot of the outrage over postgame comments like that is a large reason I find so many interviews/press conferences to be unbearable shows of superficiality that are basically like public speaking tests for adults.

First, Simmons' comment was really more of a reflection/reinforcement of Johnny Jones' mismanagement of this team. At true 'pro' organizations in college, like Alabama football and Kentucky basketball, rarely are comments like these voiced to the media. Coaching social media habits and post-game interview answers might be a kind of window dressing that promotes a level of conformity that seems shallow, boring or less than human, but that's the way of the sports world. I don't get offended by things and I hate that Simmons is being vilified for giving a human response, even if it was raw, unfiltered, outside of convention and 'unacceptable.' Surely he could have answered better, but the players/coaches/figures who ramble for days saying nothing but fluff never draw negative headlines. And that's more frustrating for me. The outrage following so-called poor taste answers to questions is understandable when it's deemed an offense to someone beloved (i.e. UK fans and Ulis, and his honor), but I hate that the outrage inevitably contributes to the canned, boring, unoriginal cliches and coach-speak that make so many interviews and press conferences unbearable. I'd rather know what someone's really thinking even if they'll regret saying it tomorrow.

Part of that is mass media has become a vehicle to advance a so-called politically correct (but usually, if we're honest, simply decent/respectable/honorable- not always) litmus test on everything under the sun. I mostly don't like that because I dislike conformity, shallow answers/responses and the dehumanizing of athletes into robots who say what they're supposed to. That's not the media's fault, except when the editorial page subtly bleeds into the rest of the papers and the self-identified reporters are really opinion-givers (which is quite often). But, I think it's unfortunate that the media plays a role in this even unintentionally. It's so widespread and commonly accepted, this conformity and outrage at interview missteps, that people literally say, quite explicitly, that it's a mark of maturity when a person gives an interview without saying something that might not be outside supposed (really arbitrary) parameters of what an acceptable answer isl

STORY: Parting shots from yesterday

As usual, the media only refers to that one sentence about the fouling. If you read his complete answer, he does compliment Ulis. Not nearly as bad as the media made it out to be.

 

[.S&C.]

The media is largely to blame for all of the PC nonsense. That's why you get fluff BS on nearly every single issue out of a players mouth.

 

[JRowland]

As usual, the media only refers to that one sentence about the fouling. If you read his complete answer, he does compliment Ulis. Not nearly as bad as the media made it out to be.

And this is where the line between objective journalism and editorializing is extremely thin and sometimes impossible to see unless you're paranoid. I don't think it's intentional in most cases, but it's simply a fact that what you 'choose' to write about as fact, history, events, etc., is impossible to separate from subjectivity. The choice to single out a quote, an idea, a theme, etc., is a subjective judgment that will always be based on a media person's unique perspective, for good or bad. I'm talking about the bigger picture, sure, and yes, as an annoyed person recently added to the broader media ranks. The specific point, as relates to Simmons, is reinforced well by your point about the bigger context missing. Absent the context it's impossible to get a full picture of Simmons' response and even the entire way he comes across. Given the circumstances, e.g. at UK, on Senior Day, knowing how UK fans are about their team, etc., any missing context (and there is usually some key context missing) really distorts some part of the story and maybe all of it. It's frustrating to me that the media's primary purpose is, purportedly and when it's best, to honestly report the facts of events, so people can stay informed and make informed judgments and choices. Yet, so much of what's advertised as news (and is on some level news, of course) is not only part of the truth, but the media's work is an expression of biases, what people "want" to read, things that are supposedly "out of the ordinary," ideas that are "unacceptable," etc. I'm not saying outlets should all be C-SPAN because nobody would want to be informed, but in today's media world even the most reputable papers, websites and stations in print and broadcasting are largely projecting a very small set of ideas that rarely vary, and increasingly promote a kind of conformity/uniformity of thought as mainstream while highlighting (in screaming headlines, op-ed pages, the amount of coverage things are given, the questions asked in interviews/press conferences, etc) the things that a very small number of people decide are 'the big story.'

The problem is, the media making something out to be this or that, really does happen. Even if people aren't giving opinions, as reporters or even throw in opinion-givers advertising themselves as such, the amount of coverage something is given, the duration of the coverage, the slant of the coverage, the words/framing of the coverage, etc., all express biases and things that limit the reader's/watcher's understanding of the bigger picture -- almost all the time. I think it's a huge deal and this was just a glaring example because a young guy's being singled out after a dumb comment following a basketball game. That people can't just write that off as another, "He's young, give him a few minutes," is mind-blowing.

I've probably been hypocritical on this point but this is a long-running concern of mine, and so I've never tried to advertise myself as being perfectly objective on anything. That's part of the problem-- when the people who (clearly, I think, as I just rambled about it) really shape attitudes, perceptions, opinions, etc., i.e. media people, advertise themselves or put off the vibe of being truly without opinions or allegiances. That's either incredibly dishonest or ignorant, and it's a big deal because they're often the only source of information the public draws from (or they're part of a small pool).

 

[JRowland]

The media is largely to blame for all of the PC nonsense. That's why you get fluff BS on nearly every single issue out of a players mouth.

It's frustrating and a huge behemoth that I have no clue how to tackle. If you're 'that guy' that asks questions designed to crack the facade that public figures are encouraged to conform to (for good or bad) then you fall out of favor, lose work opportunities, invariably upset enough people that sources leave you dry, etc. There are few incentives to be a real gadfly to the point of causing real discomfort to this system. Okay, that's one problem. But at a certain point I wish the media, collectively, would take a big step back and start asking fundamental questions again; Journalism 101 questions, questions that are about life, and not just work through a very narrow lens shaped by assumptions, practical concerns and established patterns. I may be the only person that's bothered in a significant way by this, and that may be because I studied philosophy as my primary concentration, rather than a more conventional route to this job. I think that prompts me to probably look at things differently; not better, but to question the conventional wisdom of the way things are done.

 

[.S&C.]

It's frustrating and a huge behemoth that I have no clue how to tackle. If you're 'that guy' that asks questions designed to crack the facade that public figures are encouraged to conform to (for good or bad) then you fall out of favor, lose work opportunities, invariably upset enough people that sources leave you dry, etc. There are few incentives to be a real gadfly to the point of causing real discomfort to this system. Okay, that's one problem. But at a certain point I wish the media, collectively, would take a big step back and start asking fundamental questions again; Journalism 101 questions, questions that are about life, and not just work through a very narrow lens shaped by assumptions, practical concerns and established patterns. I may be the only person that's bothered in a significant way by this, and that may be because I studied philosophy as my primary concentration, rather than a more conventional route to this job. I think that prompts me to probably look at things differently; not better, but to question the conventional wisdom of the way things are done.

I agree very well put.