Martin Samarco

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 4:52 pm

San Diego Falcon wrote: Are we seeing these recurring instances year after year, and, if so, how come? Wrong type of recruit?

Yes. How DARE we keep recruiting COLLEGE KIDS who oversleep.

Bleeding Orange · Post by **Bleeding Orange** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 4:54 pm

TG1996 wrote:
San Diego Falcon wrote: Are we seeing these recurring instances year after year, and, if so, how come? Wrong type of recruit?
Yes. How DARE we keep recruiting COLLEGE KIDS who oversleep.

Fire Dakich!

San Diego Falcon · Post by **San Diego Falcon** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 4:59 pm

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by San Diego Falcon:
Are we seeing these recurring instances year after year, and, if so, how come? Wrong type of recruit?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. How DARE we keep recruiting COLLEGE KIDS who oversleep.

Are you implying that it's no big deal and happens everywhere, and the coach over-reacted? If so, you might be right.

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:15 pm

San Diego Falcon wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by San Diego Falcon:
Are we seeing these recurring instances year after year, and, if so, how come? Wrong type of recruit?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. How DARE we keep recruiting COLLEGE KIDS who oversleep.
Are you implying that it's no big deal and happens everywhere, and the coach over-reacted? If so, you might be right.

Has nothing to do with DD in this instance. I think that college kids oversleeping *does* happen everywhere. Doesn't make them "the wrong type of recruit".

That said, no one here really knows the specifics of what happened or why to warrant the benching, and speculating one way or the other only makes for nastyness.

San Diego Falcon · Post by **San Diego Falcon** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:43 pm

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by San Diego Falcon:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by San Diego Falcon:
Are we seeing these recurring instances year after year, and, if so, how come? Wrong type of recruit?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. How DARE we keep recruiting COLLEGE KIDS who oversleep.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you implying that it's no big deal and happens everywhere, and the coach over-reacted? If so, you might be right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Has nothing to do with DD in this instance. I think that college kids oversleeping *does* happen everywhere. Doesn't make them "the wrong type of recruit".

That said, no one here really knows the specifics of what happened or why to warrant the benching, and speculating one way or the other only makes for nastyness.

I agree that none of us know the specifics, and I never said anything about over-sleeping. I was just trying to ask a general question about rule violations - sorry I didn't do a very good job.

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:11 pm

San Diego Falcon wrote:I agree that none of us know the specifics, and I never said anything about over-sleeping. I was just trying to ask a general question about rule violations - sorry I didn't do a very good job.

No problem.

I think that in the end, we still have a pretty clean program going on, when the biggest thing I can remember for years that might tarnish the team's reputation is G. Fitch and his wacky weed last year. Discipline-type issues? Maybe, but despite all the problems we may appear to have, we're still a long way aways from some of the renegade programs college basketball has dealt with.

OSUFALCON · Post by **OSUFALCON** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:14 pm

I think he was more than 5 or 6 minutes late, again no details but who cares at this point. DD didn't want to talk about it

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:18 pm

OK, I just heard some of the coach's radio show and I am more ticked off about this than before. Samarco missed the bus. So Dakich says he can't play. Fine. Todd Walker tries to draw some positives from it saying that it looked like Samarco wasn't sulking and that he was encouraging his teammates from the bench. Dakich says that there is not one positive thing that can come from this situation. Not one. If I could have, I would have made him stay in the locker room and ride the exercise bike the whole game. So what is the point of not letting him play at all if nothing positve can come of it?

Dakich said he even talked to his dad before the game. His dad asked if he would make him sit for a half or ten minutes. Nope, the whole friggin game.

I think Dakich is taking this 'I have to teach these kids about life' way too far. This sounds like a line of crap you would hear from Bobby Knight.

OptionQB · Post by **OptionQB** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:38 pm

I did not hear the radio interview, so again I am interested in hearing all points of view. However, I do not understand the "nothing positive can come of this" innuendo. I understand he broke a team rule and that is wrong. I am not making excuses, in fact I have support Coach thus far, however, in addition to developing players and coaching, he's also responsible for maintaining positive relationships. I would be more than a little peeved if I travelled to Arkansas and my son didn't get to play, however, Coach does have a point to an extent in this situation.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:39 pm

Option, you misunderstood. Dakich talked to hiw own dad. Dakich's father was the one asking if he would sit Samarco a hlf or ten minutes. So even Dakich's own father thought the punishment was a lot.

OptionQB · Post by **OptionQB** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:51 pm

gotcha, thanks for the heads up!

Tricky_Falcon · Post by **Tricky_Falcon** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:06 pm

People jump all over coach Brandon for being a likeable coach and buddy-buddy with all of the players. We complain that we need a guy with discipline, a guy that enforces the rules but when we have a coach like that in Dakich who doesn't feel the need to be your best friend we jump all over him for being too strict.

Dakich is doing the same thing my middle school coach and high school basketball coaches did. If you're late for practice you're going to run a mile for every minute your late. If you don't practice you're not going to play in the game. If you're late for the bus or you don't bring all of your equipment with you, you don't play. It's not like no other coach does this. There are team rules that you have to follow and if you don't follow them you don't play. It doesn't matter if it sounds dumb a rule is a rule.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:12 pm

Todd is always trying to find the silver lining and Dan always tells him "there's no positives in this situation"... It's a routine that's gotten about as much play as Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First".

I'm going to put on my dime store psychoanalyst's cape and suggest that Samarco's penalty was a reaction by Dan to the general circumstances of the program. There have been a lot of things happening over the past couple of years that are out of his control. Moten isn't eligibkle right off, Sulivan has to sit, Holland leaves, Wright and Radkolacovicc are hurt, Vanderschmeer leaves, yadda yadda yadda... DD may feel that the program and his position here are heading down the pike and he has no way to stop it. As a result, when an opportunity arises to assert some control, he overreacts....

Speaking of Holland leaving...if we had an effective mass transit system in this country, the kid would have stayed. But no, we didn't want to pay for high speed rail to the kid's doorstep, so we lost a player because the cost of petrol is so high.

cowboyjoe · Post by **cowboyjoe** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:18 pm

Joplin would have not started Samarco but had him in after the first dead ball.

BleedOrange · Post by **BleedOrange** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:35 pm

Flipper wrote: Speaking of Holland leaving...if we had an effective mass transit system in this country, the kid would have stayed. But no, we didn't want to pay for high speed rail to the kid's doorstep, so we lost a player because the cost of petrol is so high.

While we're on the Holland topic, OSUFALCON recently posted that Marschall is the better and tougher of the two. Maybe Holland showed up, realized that he spend the next 4 years sitting behind him (and Sullivan), and got discouraged. (I suspected the same of Crawford when he transferred after Lewis, Moss, and Wright arrived.)