Help me understand the dispute here. Is ATL1 saying coaches play favorites over talent "a lot", or is ATL1 saying coaches don't play to win for other reasons: discipline, for instance. (The No. 1 clearly is superior but is a jerk so No. 2 gets the start though the team might lose.) In short, enforce discipline but lose, or go with favorites but lose? If the latter, I agree with RonJohn: the coaches I know want to win far more than playing favorites, and the team sees through it instantly and he loses all of them. So what is the argument, because discipline I buy. That does happen a lot, and should.
For what it is worth in this the Transfer Season, when we tend to lose some players amidst a lot of teeth gnashing and finger pointing: one of the boards I kind of check in on but don't post because they're not "my" team, is Clemson. Last check I made on such things Clemson has had four transfers so far -- not playing much, but none of them said daddies had anything to do with them sitting -- and as of today they have five --count 'em, five -- quarterbacks on the roster. The consensus top three are two five stars and a four-star, freshmen and sophomores. This board expects a couple of them to transfer out. Clemson's mantra is surprisingly like Johnson's -- nobody promised anything, it is all won in competition. I can't be critical of somebody moving on when it is clear he won't see the field much and wants to playl
I don't buy into the daddy story, but here's a look in a different situation by Steve Kerr of the Warriors, talking about wall-to-wall coverage of the Ball family and an ESPN story about the daddy claiming the players wouldn't play for the Lakers' coach:
Hope he becomes All American and wins the Heisman.
That's what it would appear to be for anyone checking in on the last page or so... [emoji6]
