Defining toughness in college hoops - Essay Example

It is evident from the study that Jay Bilas, the author of the article “Defining toughness in college hoops” clarified that his original perception of toughness was “physical and based on how much punishment I could dish out and how much I could take”. Therefore, by using explicit description of what toughness was not necessarily what it obviously means, the author started establishing his arguments using narration, description, and comparison. For example, the guidelines expounded on setting a good screen, the author defined what it takes for basketball players to manifest the necessary actions in terms of “improving the chances for a teammate to get open…and greatly improving your chances of getting open.

A good screen can force the defense to make a mistake”. In contrast, setting a bad screen was not effectively described. The only explanation provided was that “a lazy or bad screen is a waste of everyone's time and energy”. The definition is lacking and insufficient to clearly differentiate disparity with an effective strategy. In addition, as readers get to evaluate the guidelines, it was apparent that the author did not provide an effective structure or logical format of presentation.

In this regard, there is failure to use logical reasoning. The guidelines, though effective in the entirety, could have been presented in a more logical structure that categorizes the topics in sub-headings. For example, the author explained “set a good screen” and another topic as “don’t get screened”. These topics could actually be lumped together under ‘techniques for effective screening’. . Another example is the author’s discussion on: “jump to the ball” (Bilas 2) and “play the ball, see your man” (Bilas 3); which could again be discussed in one sub-heading that could be entitled ‘tough ways of handling the ball’.

The guidelines were apparently written in no particular order and could have been presented depending on the ideas that came to the author’s mind. It could be rationalized though that since the author knew that the article was specifically written with basketball enthusiasts, particularly players, as the audience of his discourse, the style, format or structure would not be examined and critiqued to diminish the veracity of the contents. However, considering that the author was duly established as a renowned basketball analyst, his credibility in providing the information was rightfully validated.

Further, as indicated from the discourse, his personal experiences playing “in the ACC, for USA Basketball, in NBA training camps, and as a professional basketball player in Europe” (Bilas 1) has proven that he was acquired vast authority in to relay competency in the topic. The ability to conform to ethos due to his reputable background made his contentions and arguments valid. Finally, the article’s ability to more the audience through eliciting emotional appeal could be viewed as effective.

The main support to validate the author’s success was his narrative discourse attesting that when he initially wrote a short blog on the topic, the response was “overwhelming. Dozens of college basketball coaches called to tell me that they had put the article up in the locker room, put it in each player's locker, or had gone over it in detail with