Stu Whitney

[Kemo]

Honestly, does Stu Whitney ever watch SDSU's Men's Basketball?... because really, if this is considered knowledge of who you are covering, I should start a NASCAR blog, because I "know" those cars go fast, and that's about it.

Here is the link: http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs...Id=personaDest

Just wondering what the more knowledgable Jackrabbit community thinks of Stu's insight here?

[filbert]

Re: Stu Whitney

It's Stu being Stu. What can you do?

(yes, it rhymes.)

[bub94]

Re: Stu Whitney

Best thing to do in regards to Stu is not to talk about him. His head is getting even bigger everytime I see it in the Argus.

[zooropa]

Re: Stu Whitney

Just wondering what the more knowledgable Jackrabbit community thinks of Stu's insight here?

You've already seen my rebuttal.

Frankly, Stu ought to be ashamed of himself for carefully selecting the worst areas for the Jacks, statistically, and making much of them when he HAD TO KNOW that the other statistics were nowhere near as damning. He should be ashamed of himself for failing to even mention that there was a whole other side to the story.

IMO, that post reeked of amateurism. There is no way on earth a guy who deliberately skews facts deserves a paycheck as a reporter, columnist, or editor. That was journalistically unacceptable, even if it was 'only' a blog entry.

In the past I've defended Stu's freedom to express his opinion. However, it's one thing to express one's opinion. It's another thing to muster only such facts as support one's opinion and completely ignore any facts that would tend to undermine it.

[TeaJackrabbit]

Re: Stu Whitney

I'm not claiming to be one of the "knowledgable" ones around here, but this is how I see it.

The thing that jumps out at me when Stu is talking about the struggles of the men and the future of Coach Nagy is the youth of the team. IMO, both have to be considered when talking about performance and Nagy's future. Also not mentioned is the success Nagy enjoyed before the transition to D-1. Nagy's track record, the youth of the team and the incoming recruiting class mean he clearly deserves another year, or more, to right the ship.

And if not Nagy, then who? Who will come in and do a better job?

There is no doubt the men have struggled since the transition. But next year, next year could quite possibly be the year that they put it all together and get over the .500 mark or even challenge for the conference. With everyone back (save Wipf and Mack) and a possible healthy Davis, the returning players and the incoming players, it's going to be a much improved team. State has more young contributing players than any team in the Summit I believe.

***I predict State gets that elusive road win at Centenary and makes the conference tourney as the 6th seed***

[filbert]

Re: Stu Whitney

You've already seen my putback.

Frankly, Stu ought to be ashamed of himself for carefully selecting the worst areas for the Jacks, statistically, and making much of them when he HAD TO KNOW that the other statistics were nowhere near as damning. He should be ashamed of himself for failing to even mention that there was a whole other side to the story.

IMO, that post reeked of amateurism. There is no way on earth a guy who that deliberately skews facts deserves a paycheck as a reporter, columnist, or editor. That was journalistically unacceptable, even if it was 'only' a blog entry.

In the past I've defended Stu's freedom to express his opinion. However, it's one thing to express one's opinion. It's another thing to muster only such facts as support one's opinion and completely ignore any facts that would tend to undermine it.

Once again, it's Stu being Stu. It's what he does.

[TeaJackrabbit]

Re: Stu Whitney

Another thing that has really hurt the program is all the players who have transfered. We're talking guys that went on to be 6th man at Illinois and a starter at K-State. I even think a kid like Cadwell could have helped this program. I think there are alot of factors involved as to why the men have struggled and don't expect someone like Stu to understand them.

[SUPERBUNNY]

Re: Stu Whitney

I guess you can see my response to Stu's lovely article. Let's just say I wasn't impressed. Purely bush league!

Normally this is where I go off on Stu and call him names and stuff.

What do all of those who come back and say he has some real talent think of this article? Tough to justify this one.

SUPERBUNNY

[zooropa]

Re: Stu Whitney

Once again, it's Stu being Stu. It's what he does.

And, one supposes, out of the other side of his mouth he laments the declining stature which his profession commands......

[mitchell]

Re: Stu Whitney

I think Stu just goes and tries to ruffle peoples feathers.
I think it would be funny to pull a prank and have everyone send him some SDSU apparel. Find some old SDSU sweatshirts and mail them to the argusleader care of Stu Whitney and attach a thank you note on the inside that sarcastically says thanks for the great SDSU insight Stu. It would be funny to me if he came to work Monday and was bombarded with packages, all with sdsu garb inside.

[zooropa]

Re: Stu Whitney

I think Stu just goes and tries to ruffle peoples feathers.

There's a point, past which, what he does is detrimental to the profession.

For him to note the worst statistical categories without even so much as a "While the Jacks are doing better in other categories, their performance in these key areas....." or, "A 7-2 home record is of small value when the team has missed far too many opportunities to win on the road...." or, "Statistics don't lie--the Jacks are, at best, a middle of the road team", or "Despite some improvement at home, the Jacks woes on the road have continued throughout this season."

That's the difference between -professional- writing and the stuff that's given away for free on the internet.

What Stu did in the blog is highly censurable.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: Stu Whitney

Not that big of a deal. He blows a lot of smoke to basically say that if the men's team doesn't make it in the tournament the new AD may want to go in a new direction.

Not that controversial of a statement, wish I would have saved my time from reading it.

[JACKGUYII]

Re: Stu Whitney

There's a point, past which, what he does is detrimental to the profession.

For him to note the worst statistical categories without even so much as a "While the Jacks are doing better in other categories, their performance in these key areas....." or, "A 7-2 home record is of small value when the team has missed far too many opportunities to win on the road...." or, "Statistics don't lie--the Jacks are, at best, a middle of the road team", or "Despite some improvement at home, the Jacks woes on the road have continued throughout this season."

That's the difference between -professional- writing and the stuff that's given away for free on the internet.

What Stu did in the blog is highly censurable.

I think our Midwest skin is a little thin here. Nagy would be torched in a bigger market with a 0-16 road record. I think all things considered the press has been very kind to him and the team. Stu's job is to poke and antagnoize and it seems he has accomplished his job based on some of the reactions.

[zooropa]

Re: Stu Whitney

I think our Midwest skin is a little thin here.

Understand, I'm not saying that Stu's OPINION is out of line. He's paid to offer his opinion, and frankly, I don't care what it is.

HOWEVER, he crosses a line when he starts playing fast and loose with the facts available to him.

Good:

"I think Scott Nagy should be fired. My buddy's dog has fleas that could coach better than him."

Good:

"Scott Nagy is a fantastic coach. Dean Smith himself couldn't have gotten more from these kids"

Bad:

"Scott Nagy should be fired. The Jacks are last in the conference in scoring defense."

Bad:

"Scott Nagy is doing an awesome job. The Jacks are 3rd in the conference in 3 point defense."

Why? Because the first two statements rest on no authority whatsoever, they're bluster meant to be taken as bluster. The second two statements, however, muster facts in support of their argument. Facts should always be contextualized. Failing to provide any kind of background for the facts advanced, failing to provide any context... well, shoot, you might as well be lakesbison.

[bub94]

Re: Stu Whitney

Another thing that has really hurt the program is all the players who have transfered. We're talking guys that went on to be 6th man at Illinois and a starter at K-State. I even think a kid like Cadwell could have helped this program. I think there are alot of factors involved as to why the men have struggled and don't expect someone like Stu to understand them.

Steve transferred to play for his home state of Ill. He didn't play that many minutes to be considered their sixth man(played 14 games with 6.9 minutes a game average). Andre pretty much had to transfer, even though he was found not-guilty. I just don't see any way he could have played his last 2 years at SDSU. Again, he did start some games for K-State (15 of 27) but he was suspended during the year too. He left K-State after his junior year. As for Matt, did you see how he played his soph. year? He didn't want to be here.