christophero said:

Not the best timing in the world but I wish him well. His players can transfer now correct? We need more depth on the wing maybe we can get Power to come back.

Click to expand...

Liftee said:

This further weakens the ACC. All the coaches who won titles are gone. Coaches like Buzz, Barnes (for better or worse), and Jamie Dixon have had success other places and done better than the coaches who replaced them. The next generation of coaches in the ACC have yet to prove themselves and, as said above, we will be losing two more very soon.

Click to expand...

SWEc/o95 said:

If this was in the works why did he sign an extension in June?

Click to expand...

Dattier said:

I did a little deeper digging. (Don't worry; it was fun.) There's a link in the article to the rankings themselves.
Here are some numbers:
* Conservatives and liberals agree on 7 of the top 10, 18 of the top 20, and all of the bottom 7, in some order.
* 32 of the 45 (remember, Grover Cleveland counts twice as both the 22nd and 24th President) were ranked within 3 spots of each other, from conservatives to liberals.
* More recent Presidents had the biggest disparity in ranking from one group to the next. In reverse order, with the difference in parentheses: Biden (17), Trump (just 2), Obama (7), GW Bush (14), Clinton (just 2, but w/ conservatives ranking him better!), GHW Bush (11), Reagan (12), Carter (just 1, w/ both in the top 20!), Ford (just 3), Nixon (6), LBJ (5).
* From LBJ, you have to skip the four before him back to Hoover, and right before him, Coolidge, to get a difference greater than 3 (6 each).
* From Coolidge -- the 30th President -- you have to go all the way back to Garfield -- the 20th President -- to find the next difference higher than three (9).
* Of the first 19 Presidents, only Grant at #18 was higher than 4 (6), and only Van Buren at #8 and Jackson at #7 were as high as that.

A few observations, then...
* It would be easy to conclude that we're living in more polarized times than any time in US history at least since the Civil War. I tend to agree, but not because of these numbers. I'm guessing it's more due to how things settle over time. Like, 50 years from now, those same discrepancies probably will have shrunk some. GW Bush has already risen from last place among liberals at the time he left office to 32nd. I suspect he might climb another spot or 3, and he may drop a few from 18th for conservatives. Truman went from pretty unpopular at the time he left office to top 10. Wilson has dropped from the top 10 to 15th or 16th and I suspect he will continue to drop sharply. Neither Eisenhower nor LBJ were anywhere near the top 10 when I was a kid.
* Y'all are speaking from emotion and recency bias when you claim Biden is the worst ever ever ever by far, and that Obama is the next worst ever ever ever by far. Conservative scholars -- scholars, mind you, not message board keyboard warriors and social media blowhards -- rank Biden 30th, 13 spots above where they themselves rank Trump. (I'm not sure where I would rank Biden, but I suspect it would be closer to 30th than the 13th liberals have him at in this study.)
* You can disagree with any or all of these rankings. I certainly disagree with many. You're a hypocrite and an idiot to question the integrity of the people participating and compiling them... when all you do is trot out your spoon-fed rightwing talking points about mainstream media and socialist educators. Show your receipts or shut up or just keep announcing your idiocy to the world as is. If this were a proverbial d***-measuring contest, they just lay their junk out on the table while you cover your crotches in shame and back away claiming you're bigger. Show. Your. Work. (Proverbially).

Click to expand...

Dattier said:

Agreed. Liberal students freak out over conservative guest speakers. Full stop.

And conservative students freak out over liberal professors.

Those may not be equivalent things, but the freaking out is: both are emotionally compromised and exaggerated. Again, I doubt you'll concede anything here because you're rigid.

Click to expand...

Dattier said:

I don't see the relevance in engineering or accounting, either. I know from teaching middle school, high school, and college that students often bring these things up themselves whether it's related to the class content or not. Those are teachable moments and contribute to building rapport and classroom culture.

There are certain things that are absolutely vital to schools' missions of educating all their students that qualify as beliefs, and unapologetically so. For example, courts have consistently ruled that while students have free speech on campus (Tinker v Des Moines, for one), there are permissible restrictions on free speech that disrupts the school's educational purpose (Bethel v Frasier, for one). A kid denouncing homosexuality in a public school classroom, for example, may be seen as threatening to a gay student, and school employees would be within their rights to quash it. That's not "pushing a gay agenda." That's maintaining a safe environment for all students. That could happen even in an engineering or accounting class.

Courts have also ruled that students deserve public school educations regardless of immigration status (Plyer v Doe). Obviously that gets into a hot button political issue. If it comes to it, it would be appropriate for school employees to quash certain conservative rhetoric about immigration as threatening toward immigrant classmates. (Again, certain rhetoric.)

There is a difference between stating one's beliefs and pushing those beliefs just like there's a difference between teaching how to think (critical thinking skills) and what to think (specific beliefs).

(Speaking of taxpayer funded positions, as long as public schools are funded by tax dollars, as they should be, there will always be an inherently political element to them.)

Click to expand...

Dattier said:

No, moron, name-calling would be like what I just did in the second word of this sentence. When there's a thorough explanation with it, it's appropriate labeling.

Stereotypes all have a prototype. There's a fine line between talking about trends and stereotyping. I tried to be careful, using words like "more often" and "broadly." It appears I was right on the money predicting you would not concede that there's any gray area.

Further, don't be a hypocrite about name-calling and stereotyping. You do both all the time, as do most of us. I acknowledge my role in that.

Click to expand...

Dattier said:

Sen Byrd famously renounced his brief membership in the KKK for years.

While data on Republican and Democratic historians is available, I focused on conservative and liberal, which aren't inherently the same.

President Jackson is certainly a darling of conservatives, whatever his political party was. Washington and Jefferson were both top 5 for liberal historians despite having owned slaves.

It seems like you're just looking for a fight. All I did was present facts and reasonable analysis.

Click to expand...

Dattier said:

Irrelevant. The point is that Truman was not popular when he left office in 1953. Many scholars now disagree that he truly needed to drop the bombs, but his status in the top 10 is evidence that his decision is viewed within the context of the time he made it. Just like Washington and Jefferson get some leniency for owning slaves, Jackson gets some leniency for killing Native Americans, and FDR and LBJ get some leniency for social reforms that are still imperfect.

Click to expand...

ConorONeill said:

If it's something health-related, a whole lot of CBB media are going to be backpedaling on what they've reported tonight.

This was rumored to be coming in February. And if I knew about it then -- premium members can attest -- I'm sure anybody around UVA's program knew about it.

Tony's best teams at UVA were built on years of development in his system. That is obviously a lot more difficult to build in the current climate. Look at the teams UVA has put on the court in recent seasons. It's been a minor miracle some of these teams have made the NCAA tournament, given there have been maybe 3 halfway decent offensive players and a hodgepodge of mediocre-to-subpar transfers.

He's got a national championship, he's made a ton of money; it just reads like a coach who's burnt out by fighting an uphill battle of what college basketball has become. So, all of the critics of the transfer portal/NIL/immediate eligibility for transfers can rejoice.

The only surprise here is the timing. And that gets reasoned out when considering that resigning this close to the season guarantees Ron Sanchez -- who was Charlotte's head coach and left that position to go back to UVA -- gets a season to audition for the job.

Click to expand...

The_Only_Blue said:

What big name will be next? My guest is Izzo.

Click to expand...