So, player X is highly ranked in high school, gets drafted high, fans say "wow our coach can develop talent" while opposing fans say "he would have succeeded anywhere, your coach didn't develop him".
So, player X is highly ranked in high, goes undrafted/very late in the draft, fans say "it's not our coaches fault, the rankings were off" while opposing fans say "see, your coach can't develop talent.
Rinse. Repeat.
Does anyone find it ironic that most are using both angles in their arguments? In one case, the rankings were off if it makes your coach look better, while it's the coach that can't develop talent (and the rankings are never wrong) if it makes another teams coach look worse. I've never understood this, but it's now common-place in arguments involving fans of every school. Seriously, does anyone else see this?
So, player X is highly ranked in high, goes undrafted/very late in the draft, fans say "it's not our coaches fault, the rankings were off" while opposing fans say "see, your coach can't develop talent.
Rinse. Repeat.
Does anyone find it ironic that most are using both angles in their arguments? In one case, the rankings were off if it makes your coach look better, while it's the coach that can't develop talent (and the rankings are never wrong) if it makes another teams coach look worse. I've never understood this, but it's now common-place in arguments involving fans of every school. Seriously, does anyone else see this?