By BOB VALVANO
sports@newsandtribune.com
April 11, 2007 12:08 am
—
In ancient Greece, Socrates was reputed to hold knowledge in high esteem. One day an acquaintance met the great philosopher and said, “Do you know what I just heard about your friend?”
“Hold on a minute,” Socrates replied. “Before telling me anything I’d like you to pass a little test. It’s called the Triple Filter Test.”
“Triple Filter?”
“That’s right,” Socrates continued. “Before you talk to me about my friend, it might be a good idea to take a moment and filter what you’re going to say. That’s why I call it the Triple Filter Test. The first filter is Truth. Have you made absolutely sure that what you are about to tell me is true?”
“No,” the man said. “Actually I just heard about it and.......”
“All right,” said Socrates. “So you don’t really know if it’s true or not. Now let’s try the second filter, the filter of goodness. Is what you are about to tell me about my friend something good?”
“No, on the contrary ........”
“So,” Socrates continued, “you want to tell me something bad about him, but you’re not certain it’s true. You may still pass the test though, because there’s one filter left: the filter of usefulness. Is what you want to tell me about my friend going to be useful to me?”
“No, not really.”
“Well,” concluded Socrates, “if what you want to tell me is neither true nor good nor even useful, why tell it to me at all?”
What has this story to do with this week’s column? I shall explain…
Last Friday, Rick Pitino hired his 24-year-old son Richard to be his new assistant coach. Like most news items in this area that concern any of the “Big Three” basketball teams of Indiana University, University of Kentucky and University of Louisville, it was cause for much discussion.
Fair enough.
And, as usual, most people had an opinion on the subject. Fair enough again.
But, sadly, the number of people who gleefully violate Socrates “Triple Filter” test is amazing in any sports discussion but especially one like this which seems to deal with possible nepotism.
Some people who claim to be loyal U of L fans (“friends” of the program, by Socrates description), were railing at the hire, and violating all three of the filters Socrates talked about. They played free and easy with facts, claiming Richard is not qualified, despite the truth is he is a Division I assistant with his second school and highly regarded by the head coach with whom he worked.
Does it pass the goodness test? Of course not.
But then — when it comes to sports — people love to violate the old rule, “If you don’t have something nice to say, say nothing at all…” Didn’t their mamas teach them that too?
And finally the usefulness test, maybe the best of all is this kind of talk useful, especially if you claim to be a fan of the team? The obvious answer is no. Don’t you have to let a person do the job, before you judge them about the job?
So I was left with the issue of trying to figure out why people speak about athletes and sports figures as they do and this is what I have come up with.
First, people spend a great deal of time in their own lives focusing not on what they actually do, but on what others do, and get, and earn, or sometimes are given.
There are a lot of people who feel, “Hey, I got passed over for that job because the boss gave it to his son/daughter/cousin/nephew/lover…that is not fair.”
No argument. Sometimes, it is probably not fair.
But most high profile jobs that are successfully filled go to qualified people who have some link with the hirer.
Think about it. You are going to dinner. You don’t pull in to the first place you see. You go to a place you know, or someone you trust recommends, and eat there. Now if a benign decision like where to dine out is based on personal experience and “contacts,” isn’t it logical that a decision that affects a person’s livelihood would be decided the same way?
Of course it is, but people still vent their personal frustrations on a decision that has nothing to do with them. It makes them feel better I suppose, though I don’t know how.
The second is the “objectification” of our celebrities. Sports has never been bigger in our country. We make stars of athletes at all levels, often in an unhealthy way when it involves very young kids.
A byproduct of that is in our own minds “they” (athletes, coaches, performers) are not one of “us” We begin drawing that line early in these athletes’ lives. Unlike years ago where members of Major League baseball teams might be seen shopping in the local market, they are perceived as removed from the everyday lives of most of the fans. It becomes easy to talk about them as “objects” not people.
It is easy to say, “I hate the color of this paint” or “that can of corn tastes awful,” but it used to be harder to say those kinds of things about people, especially if they were our neighbors. Now the public figures are just like colors of paint and cans of corn — “things” to be discussed and often derided.
When I was coaching I often got asked, “Why don’t you coach with your brother?” and I often responded I didn’t think I was thick-skinned enough to deal with comments I felt would be like the ones we are discussing here.
The first time U of L loses a recruit they want, there will be somebody out there who says, “If we weren’t so busy hiring family, we might recruit better.”
Stupid, right? I think so, but I am glad Rick and Richard are thicker skinned than I was.
It’s a good hire. Good luck kid, and Dad.
Bob Valvano lives in Sellersburg and can be reached via e-mail at bobvshow@yahoo.com. He is a former college basketball coach and current radio show host on ESPN Radio.
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.
Photos
Bob Valvano, Local Columnist