A Sound Deal

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Longputter. Show Longputter's posts

    A Sound Deal

    Remember reading a few years ago that Tennessee showed interest in hiring Flippo as their A.D.?

    Well, never too late.

    How about sending him and Dear Leader there, in return for Eagle alum Bruce Pearl as our Head Coach, and bring in Condi Rice as our President and MA native Howie Long as our AD?

    Maybe we could even get the Vols to throw in a few Davey Crockett hats.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from undking. Show undking's posts

    Re: A Sound Deal

    In Response to A Sound Deal:
    [QUOTE]Remember reading a few years ago that Tennessee showed interest in hiring Flippo as their A.D.? Well, never too late. How about sending him and Dear Leader there, in return for Eagle alum Bruce Pearl as our Head Coach, and bring in Condi Rice as our President and MA native Howie Long as our AD? Maybe we could even get the Vols to throw in a few Davey Crockett hats.
    Posted by Longputter[/QUOTE]

    BC basketball could not attract anyone as it is running always on empty ...
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: A Sound Deal

    http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=ap-tennessee-ncaainvestigation

    "Pearl’s employment contract was officially terminated on Oct. 8. Hamilton said lawyers are working to finalize a new contract for Pearl which will reflect his lowered salary, but until then Pearl is working as an “at-will” employee and could be fired or resign at any time without penalty."

    Hmm but you said that BC(I) needs to rid themselves of a checkered past ? So bringing in a coach that knew he violated NCAA rules would go against your balatant lie that Dr. Tom Davis left the program becuase of a scandal.

    Contradiction hangs constantly over your head once again Mr. Double Standard.

    Poor LP I guess "try, try, try again" does mean failure in your case...
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Longputter. Show Longputter's posts

    Re: A Sound Deal

    Old SanDog,


    1. Dr. Tom DID leave The Institute  (it was then BC) as a result of the scandal. He, who'd led a model life, was horrified at what his players did at the bidding of organized crime. Check your facs before you make another false claim.

    2. So you are upset at the prospect of Bruce Pearl returning to his alma mater.  Well, let's try this:

    Which is worse: a coach who violated NCAA rules about having recruits to his house for a barbecue, or a school President - and a priest at that - who misled a whole conference about the school's intent, while negotiating on the sly with another conference?

    Hmmmmm
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Eagle79. Show Eagle79's posts

    Re: A Sound Deal

    LP,

    You are quite correct Dr. Tom left BC because of the scandal that happened on his watch.  He did not know about it and his players let him down. 

    The thing I struggle with is how much you rail against Fr. Leahy and GDF yet the scandals in BC program were under the Fr. Monan and Bill Flynn regime.  Two people you have said you admire greatly.

    Both of the sports "scandals" at BC had nothing to do with the administration.  The Bruce Pearl issue at Tennessee is directly tied to his administration of the program.  While I often view the NCAA rules as arcane and non-sensical Bruce Pearl was responsible for administering them.

    The real point is that you are upset that BC left the Big East for the ACC in order to peer with other schools and become part of a conference that had a sufficient focus on football.  Further, 2 of their traditional rivals from the BE left before them, Miami and VT. 

    You act like it is bad to leave a conference to improve the financials of the program yet it is done every day.  Just witness all the movement this year among schools.  Fr. Leahy made his concerns known to others in the BE as others have noted yet publicly he supported the conference.  The concerns about football were not addressed so they followed the rules for leaving and switched conferences.  It is time to move on and embrace the new rivals that BC has found.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ScreenNameGoesHere. Show ScreenNameGoesHere's posts

    Re: A Sound Deal

    In Response to Re: A Sound Deal:
    [QUOTE]Old SanDog, 1. Dr. Tom DID leave The Institute  (it was then BC) as a result of the scandal. He, who'd led a model life, was horrified at what his players did at the bidding of organized crime. Check your facs before you make another false claim. 2. So you are upset at the prospect of Bruce Pearl returning to his alma mater.  Well, let's try this: Which is worse: a coach who violated NCAA rules about having recruits to his house for a barbecue, or a school President - and a priest at that - who misled a whole conference about the school's intent, while negotiating on the sly with another conference? Hmmmmm
    Posted by Longputter[/QUOTE]

    More blather from the putter
    Not even sure what your point is about Davis, but the betting scandal went on for TWO YEARS under his watch.

    Your other hero Bruce Pearl was suspended for recruiting violations and for LYING about it to investigators

    Here are the facts about BC, Fr Leahy and the ACC
    After the June 2003 vote where BC was not voted in to the ACC, nobody from BC ever said or did anything to suggest that BC had a fiirm commitment to staying in the ACC. Here are some direct quotes from the minutes of the July BE meeting
    "The group then visits the question of its commmitment to each other. Fr Leahy suggest that we defer this discussion"

    "Bill Leahy indicates that he never felt the Big East had a committment to excellence and, further it had difficulty in balancing basketball/football issues. If people within the room at some point feel uncomfortablle about the direction of the league and, secondly, is presented with an attractive alternative, they would pay the $5M penalty and give the 27 month notice"

    How could anyone conclude from this that BC was happy with the BE and was committed to staying a member? There is nothing in the meeting minutes to suggest that BC was planning to stay in the BE.

    After the no vote on BC, the ACC focused on asking the NCAA to allow a conference title game with only 11 members. When the NCAA said no to this in September, Fr Leahy told the BE he intended to open discussions again with the ACC. Here is a qote from the October 1 meeting minutes
    "Fr Leahy then speaks to the potential of a possile marriage between Boston College and the ACC. He explains that because of recent media reports - and at his board's urging  he must determine how genuine the ACC's reported interest in Boston College as a potential 12th member is before he is willing to commit BC to an exit penalty larger than already agreed to $5M"

    How is any of that misleading? How could anyone not conclude that BC had every intention of leaving the BE at the first opportunity?

    Please cite 1 source (not from a BC hater on an internet message board) that shows that BC lied or misled at any point in this process
    I would love to see it
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from CHAS881. Show CHAS881's posts

    Re: A Sound Deal

    In Response to Re: A Sound Deal:
    [QUOTE]LP, You are quite correct Dr. Tom left BC because of the scandal that happened on his watch.  He did not know about it and his players let him down.  The thing I struggle with is how much you rail against Fr. Leahy and GDF yet the scandals in BC program were under the Fr. Monan and Bill Flynn regime.  Two people you have said you admire greatly. Both of the sports "scandals" at BC had nothing to do with the administration.  The Bruce Pearl issue at Tennessee is directly tied to his administration of the program.  While I often view the NCAA rules as arcane and non-sensical Bruce Pearl was responsible for administering them. The real point is that you are upset that BC left the Big East for the ACC in order to peer with other schools and become part of a conference that had a sufficient focus on football.  Further, 2 of their traditional rivals from the BE left before them, Miami and VT.  You act like it is bad to leave a conference to improve the financials of the program yet it is done every day.  Just witness all the movement this year among schools.  Fr. Leahy made his concerns known to others in the BE as others have noted yet publicly he supported the conference.  The concerns about football were not addressed so they followed the rules for leaving and switched conferences.  It is time to move on and embrace the new rivals that BC has found.
    Posted by Eagle79[/QUOTE]

    The problem is they can't beat any of these "new rivals"
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from aquinnah1. Show aquinnah1's posts

    Re: A Sound Deal

    Longputter..go back on your medication...please
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Longputter. Show Longputter's posts

    Re: A Sound Deal

    Lads,

    Y'all conveniently omit two central points:

    1. After The Institute was rejected by the ACC, Dear Leader and Flippo (especially the latter) publicly pledged to make the BE the best conference possible.

    2. As solid Globe writer Mark Blaudschun made patent in his article about the October, 2004 meeting of the BE presidents at a hotel near Newark Airport, Dear Leader "squirmed" when confronted by other presidents about The Institute's plan to leave the BE. It was ONLY when so confronted that Dear Leader told the truth - i.e. that he had been negotiating (secretly) with the ACC to take The Institute.

    Bottom line (for the 100th time): As Coach Calhoun said, it is not so bad THAT The Institute left the BE (although only avarice prompted the move, and fans can't won't go to road games); rather, the sin here is HOW they left - i.e. deceptively.

    Personally, I voew the deception by a president of a Catholic college as far worse than a coach (and an alum of The Institute, as it happens) lying to the NCAA about whether recruits had hot dogs at his barbecue.

    I hold a priest to a far higher standard than that.

    And y'all wonder why The Institute is not trusted by other schools.

    They'd be nuts to rely on any oral representation made by Dear Leader or Flippo. 

    With the track record of The Gang of Two, what school would not demand that their "word" be reduced to writing?

    Peace, chums.




     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from JamesGatz1. Show JamesGatz1's posts

    Re: A Sound Deal

    In Response to Re: A Sound Deal:
    [QUOTE]Lads, Y'all conveniently omit two central points: 1. After The Institute was rejected by the ACC, Dear Leader and Flippo (especially the latter) publicly pledged to make the BE the best conference possible. 2. As solid Globe writer Mark Blaudschun made patent in his article about the October, 2004 meeting of the BE presidents at a hotel near Newark Airport, Dear Leader "squirmed" when confronted by other presidents about The Institute's plan to leave the BE. It was ONLY when so confronted that Dear Leader told the truth - i.e. that he had been negotiating (secretly) with the ACC to take The Institute. Bottom line (for the 100th time): As Coach Calhoun said, it is not so bad THAT The Institute left the BE (although only avarice prompted the move, and fans can't won't go to road games); rather, the sin here is HOW they left - i.e. deceptively. Personally, I voew the deception by a president of a Catholic college as far worse than a coach (and an alum of The Institute, as it happens) lying to the NCAA about whether recruits had hot dogs at his barbecue. I hold a priest to a far higher standard than that. And y'all wonder why The Institute is not trusted by other schools. They'd be nuts to rely on any oral representation made by Dear Leader or Flippo.  With the track record of The Gang of Two, what school would not demand that their "word" be reduced to writing? Peace, chums.
    Posted by Longputter[/QUOTE]

    More lies from LP.

    LP you state that Fr. Leahy and Gene promised that they would stay in the Big East. This is an absolute lie. At no point did Fr. Leahy promise that they would stay in the Big East and you cannot prove your point becuase it is untrue. Here is that article from Blauds that you trumpet:

    By October, the issue had again come to a boiling point. At a Big East meeting in Newark Oct. 1, conference presidents asked BC president Rev. William P. Leahy, S.J., about the Eagles' intentions. Leahy squirmed, but conceded that the Eagles might indeed be leaving the conference. It was suggested that BC might have remained if the Big East had finally made the split with its basketball-only schools and reconfigured as an eight- or nine-team league.


    You take an article where Fr. Leahy explicilty states that they were thinking of leaving the Big East and somehow turn it into the exact opposite...a promise that they would stay in the Big East. As you have done many times on this board, you are lying. You cannot prove that Fr. Leahy promised BC would stay in the Big East becuase it never happend. Again, the meeting minutes are online!

    Oh, and who else couldn't wait for BC to leave the Big East? Your sainted Coach O'Brien:

    And the more Miami talked about leaving, the more nervous BC got. Without Miami, the Big East had no guarantees. BC football coach Tom O'Brien recognized that. By late winter 2003, the chatter was constant. O'Brien made his preference clear from the start. ''Where Miami goes is where I want to be," he said. The joke was that if Miami exhaled, BC

    would inhale.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from JamesGatz1. Show JamesGatz1's posts

    Re: A Sound Deal


    LP please provide an article where Fr. Leahy or Gene is publicly quoted as saying they promise to stay in the Big East. You can't do it, because it never happened!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Longputter. Show Longputter's posts

    Re: A Sound Deal

    Gatzie,

    Why do you (in your many incarnation identities on this board) insist on continuing to be embarrassed by fact?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ScreenNameGoesHere. Show ScreenNameGoesHere's posts

    Re: A Sound Deal

    In Response to Re: A Sound Deal:
    [QUOTE]Gatzie, Why do you (in your many incarnation identities on this board) insist on continuing to be embarrassed by fact?
    Posted by Longputter[/QUOTE]

    JamesGatz - putter has nothing except his usual drivel

    You have the facts and you win again!!!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ScreenNameGoesHere. Show ScreenNameGoesHere's posts

    Re: A Sound Deal

    Bump....

    Never thought I would say this but I miss the days  of Longputter.

    He always had a point, wrote in understandable English, stayed on point and usually presented some facts or logic. Of course his interpretation of the facts and his pretzel logic was annoying but at least worth reading and responding to.

    Today we have a sad collection of ADD afflicted morons making irrelevant, random posts in every thread and generally wasting internet space.  

    Longputter, come back!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from undking. Show undking's posts

    Re: A Sound Deal

    I gather your including yourself in past myriad of rants in the absence of the 'Putter's commentary that you verbally attacked often.

    Perhaps, we should go back to a chronology of your past insipid posts and earmark your sad collection of points.

    When you resurrect the dead, consider yourself along with the BC athletic program on a go forward basis a DEAD issue. Bringing back 2011 commentary suits your personality well past tense. 

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share