It should be noted that on four separate occasions yesterday, I heard four different media persons use the exact same line when questioned about Pelphrey's future. Everyone of them said this, "I think regardless of what happens this year, John Pelphrey will be allowed to coach the kids next year, and if he doesn't win then, then something will be done. With Pelphrey taking over what he did, I think Jeff Long believes Pelphrey had to take some chances and gamble on some kids".... I have several problems with this.
The first problem is this: The people stating this did so as if they were reading it from a card. That isn't the case, though. The real reason it sounded that way is because they've had lots of practice the last two years saying it. I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of hearing it.
The second problem is: There's no way on earth John Pelphrey should be allowed anywhere near these kids. Based on events the past two years, it should be considered reckless on Jeff Long's part for even entertaining the notion of it. Plus, whom among us honestly believes there will be any significant improvement next year? Does anyone actually think after giving Pelphrey another pass, Jeff Long and this media base won't earnestly try again to find some way to excuse another bad season?
Thirdly: How in the world can anyone blame the failure of Pelphrey's first two recruiting classes on his "having to gamble and take chances"? Pelphrey took this job in the spring of 2007, and had four scholarships to use then. If any gamble was made on players it was then. There were some time constraints for Pelphrey. However, out of the four kids recruited that year, only two turned out to be busts. As for the other two, Micheal Sanchez and Marcus Brit, there still on the team.
Those using this line aren't speaking of the first recruiting class. What they're speaking of is the second recruiting class. It's that class they want you to believe he gambled on. That year Pelphrey had six scholarships to use, and only one of those players remain. By claiming Pelphrey gambled and took chances there, they've conveniently removed the fault from Pelphrey for the last two seasons. This is what they've done. Listen people, John Pelphrey had a full year and a half to get ready for that recruiting class, and it still turned out a bust. If any gambling took place there it's his own fault.
How long must we be held hostage by these people that won't shoot straight with us? John Pelphrey doesn't get a pass there in my book, and I'm tired of people telling me he does. It's like I've said before, these people will do anything and sacrifice everything to avoid having a coaching search right now. Even to the point of risking these young men's careers next year with a lame coach. This should be troubling for people.
Dudley Dawson once again tried to deceive the fans yesterday when B.J. Young was brought up. While he admitted B.J. Young had some growing up to do, he omitted the truth about the incident the kid was involved in. The fact is, Young, after scoring 34 points, and with 46 seconds left in a game, doubled up his fist and swung at a player blocking him out. Young missed, but the punch he threw drew him a two game suspension by the St. Louis High School Administration. (Check My Source)
Needless to say, It was a little bit more than a competitive struggle like Mr. Dawson described it as being. Mr. Dawson went on to say Pelphrey should take a chance on this kid. People, Mr Dawson knows as well as anyone the troubles this young man has had on and off the court. (Check My Source)
Is John Pelphrey not gambling on this kid? This is the second time this year BJ Young has been thrown out of a game for problems on the court. This in light of all the other problems he's had. I've claimed Pelphrey didn't gamble on his second recruiting class, but Mr. Dawson says he did, and so do the others! Is it not a little odd to anyone that those claiming Pelphrey gambled then---as a means to excuse what happened then---should be of the opinion it's alright to gamble now? Is it not absurdly inconsistent on their part? Yes, it is.... I will address this further, I promise.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequeces of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of it's powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the state."