|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 20, 2024 23:55:56 GMT -5
Would you have approved of Rick Pitino as coach last year had we hired him?
|
|
3xhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by 3xhoya on Mar 21, 2024 0:26:16 GMT -5
Would you have approved of Rick Pitino as coach last year had we hired him? I think the answer to this by those complaining about Johnson would be a resounding yes. The complaining is how half this board was holier than thou about Pitino and haven’t busted out the pitchforks about this hire.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
|
Post by TC on Mar 21, 2024 6:13:49 GMT -5
The complaining is how half this board was holier than thou about Pitino and haven’t busted out the pitchforks about this hire. As far as I know, DeGioia doesn't post on this board, and he's the one who deserves this criticism rather than randos on a message board. Jack DeGioia is the one who pretty publicly leaked he could not hire Rick Pitino because he was the President of the NCAA - it was never elaborated whether this was optics or a moral stance. There weren't many people here that actually had a moral stance against hiring Pitino. I know I didn't. What's turned me off on Pitino and made me dislike Pitino intensely is the way a group of our fans have not been able to let that hire go and have bashed Ed Cooley at every turn because of it since day one. I don't love this potential hire. I think it differs from both the Broadus and Nickelberry hires in that what he's accused of is legal now, and we are actually putting it to use through legal channels. It's tremendously at odds with our President's stance about who he could and couldn't hire though. I also have the feeling it has not been greenlighted yet given Johnson's post yesterday.
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,667
|
Post by seaweed on Mar 21, 2024 6:25:57 GMT -5
I had and have a moral objection to Pitino - there is a difference between paying dudes and their families and procuring hookers for minors (or even banging waitresses on restaurant tables though I certainly have no objection to unmarried guys doing that, but if memory serves Tricky Dick was married at the time). I have brought this up many times and have heard people say “whatever” but have never heard a defense of why it is OK to have a guy like that at our school. Would you let your kid go on an Pitino supervised recruiting knowing he may try to get them laid? Come on fans of the guy, defend that! And that’s not even talking about 123 vacated wins, which I never want to see happen here even if it meant winning our next 123 straight.
As for Johnson, I find it a little icky but per above, cash and whores are different and I think it matters that we would be taking him while he is on restricted duty, I.e. embracing the sanction. I know little else about him so don’t have much to say o. The merits, but unlike most, I still TTS.
|
|
jackofjoy
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 235
|
Post by jackofjoy on Mar 21, 2024 6:49:12 GMT -5
So we’re pulling up tweets from 6 years ago when the rules (at least on the surface) were quite literally 180 degrees from where we are now? Let’s be honest. It’s an arms race now. Unless someone can find the magic Billy Beane of a coach who can spend $500k on NIL and build a tournament team, the pearl clutching needs to stop. also this “Georgetown has $5-6 mm in NIL to spend” is the most ridiculous game of Telephone ever …
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,489
|
Post by Elvado on Mar 21, 2024 6:54:20 GMT -5
So we’re pulling up tweets from 6 years ago when the rules (at least on the surface) were quite literally 180 degrees from where we are now? Let’s be honest. It’s an arms race now. Unless someone can find the magic Billy Beane of a coach who can spend $500k on NIL and build a tournament team, the pearl clutching needs to stop. also this “Georgetown has $5-6 mm in NIL to spend” is the most ridiculous game of Telephone ever … Imagine what we would have to spend if not for that 2021 extension… I hope this trainwreck gets cleaned up and we can again be a competitive program at the highest level which brings pride to the University community. Bringing in NCAA sanctioned retreads is only one of the reasons I have almost zero confidence in that renaissance.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,866
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Mar 21, 2024 8:43:22 GMT -5
There are two ways to look at guys who were paying players back before it was legal:
First, you can take the view that paying players is legal now, and that the players should have been compensated all along, so past violations for paying players (as opposed to procuring prostitutes, or I don't know, creating an entire fake academic department to keep players eligible) shouldn't really be held against those coaches.
Second, you can take the view that, while the players deserved compensation even before it was legal, it wasn't legal. Coaches weren't buying recruits out of the goodness of their hearts, they were doing it to get a leg up on the teams that weren't offering the bag. A coach who was willing to drop the bag under the old rules is a coach who was willing to cheat to get an edge. Now that the playing field has been leveled (from a rules perspective, if not a bankroll perspective), that edge is gone. But the willingness to break the rules and find a new edge might not be gone. In other words, the focus shouldn't be on the nature of the crime, but the active decision to be a criminal.
Personally, I fall closer to the first view, at least with respect to this (potential?) hire. Johnson has been caught, disciplined, and is serving his sentence, so to speak. Why should Georgetown punish itself by imposing harsher guidelines than the NCAA? Don't get me wrong, I understand the view that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard, but I don't know if I'm willing to go so far as to assume a potential assistant-coach hire is irredeemable because he committed infractions in the past, which would not be infractions today. I trust Cooley to do the diligence and decide whether Johnson is a guy who can be trusted to abide by the rules now that NIL is allowed, or whether he's just a guy who will cheat to get ahead, and will find a new way to cheat.
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,426
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyaboya on Mar 21, 2024 9:06:28 GMT -5
There are two ways to look at guys who were paying players back before it was legal: First, you can take the view that paying players is legal now, and that the players should have been compensated all along, so past violations for paying players (as opposed to procuring prostitutes, or I don't know, creating an entire fake academic department to keep players eligible) shouldn't really be held against those coaches. Second, you can take the view that, while the players deserved compensation even before it was legal, it wasn't legal. Coaches weren't buying recruits out of the goodness of their hearts, they were doing it to get a leg up on the teams that weren't offering the bag. A coach who was willing to drop the bag under the old rules is a coach who was willing to cheat to get an edge. Now that the playing field has been leveled (from a rules perspective, if not a bankroll perspective), that edge is gone. But the willingness to break the rules and find a new edge might not be gone. In other words, the focus shouldn't be on the nature of the crime, but the active decision to be a criminal. Personally, I fall closer to the first view, at least with respect to this (potential?) hire. Johnson has been caught, disciplined, and is serving his sentence, so to speak. Why should Georgetown punish itself by imposing harsher guidelines than the NCAA? Don't get me wrong, I understand the view that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard, but I don't know if I'm willing to go so far as to assume a potential assistant-coach hire is irredeemable because he committed infractions in the past, which would not be infractions today. I trust Cooley to do the diligence and decide whether Johnson is a guy who can be trusted to abide by the rules now that NIL is allowed, or whether he's just a guy who will cheat to get ahead, and will find a new way to cheat. Johnson cheated as an assistant for Louisville while Louisville was on probation. It takes a special kind of hubris/stupidity to cheat when you know that there are extra eyes on you. These are the kinds of characters our university leadership is bringing into the program - the level of hypocrisy is stunning.
|
|
thedragon
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 2,323
|
Post by thedragon on Mar 21, 2024 9:16:53 GMT -5
There are two ways to look at guys who were paying players back before it was legal: First, you can take the view that paying players is legal now, and that the players should have been compensated all along, so past violations for paying players (as opposed to procuring prostitutes, or I don't know, creating an entire fake academic department to keep players eligible) shouldn't really be held against those coaches. Second, you can take the view that, while the players deserved compensation even before it was legal, it wasn't legal. Coaches weren't buying recruits out of the goodness of their hearts, they were doing it to get a leg up on the teams that weren't offering the bag. A coach who was willing to drop the bag under the old rules is a coach who was willing to cheat to get an edge. Now that the playing field has been leveled (from a rules perspective, if not a bankroll perspective), that edge is gone. But the willingness to break the rules and find a new edge might not be gone. In other words, the focus shouldn't be on the nature of the crime, but the active decision to be a criminal. Personally, I fall closer to the first view, at least with respect to this (potential?) hire. Johnson has been caught, disciplined, and is serving his sentence, so to speak. Why should Georgetown punish itself by imposing harsher guidelines than the NCAA? Don't get me wrong, I understand the view that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard, but I don't know if I'm willing to go so far as to assume a potential assistant-coach hire is irredeemable because he committed infractions in the past, which would not be infractions today. I trust Cooley to do the diligence and decide whether Johnson is a guy who can be trusted to abide by the rules now that NIL is allowed, or whether he's just a guy who will cheat to get ahead, and will find a new way to cheat. Johnson cheated as an assistant for Louisville while Louisville was on probation. It takes a special kind of hubris/stupidity to cheat when you know that there are extra eyes on you. These are the kinds of characters our university leadership is bringing into the program - the level of hypocrisy is stunning. Maybe you should take a break from the program for a bit considering they clearly arent living up to your moral and character expectations. We'd all miss you - but we will fight through. Good luck with jctnhoya on hiatus, we will give you a ring when we hire the Pope as an assistant coach and start compensating players with wafers, wine, and a weekly private confessional.
|
|
|
Post by ColumbiaHeightsHoya on Mar 21, 2024 9:33:46 GMT -5
There are two ways to look at guys who were paying players back before it was legal: First, you can take the view that paying players is legal now, and that the players should have been compensated all along, so past violations for paying players (as opposed to procuring prostitutes, or I don't know, creating an entire fake academic department to keep players eligible) shouldn't really be held against those coaches. Second, you can take the view that, while the players deserved compensation even before it was legal, it wasn't legal. Coaches weren't buying recruits out of the goodness of their hearts, they were doing it to get a leg up on the teams that weren't offering the bag. A coach who was willing to drop the bag under the old rules is a coach who was willing to cheat to get an edge. Now that the playing field has been leveled (from a rules perspective, if not a bankroll perspective), that edge is gone. But the willingness to break the rules and find a new edge might not be gone. In other words, the focus shouldn't be on the nature of the crime, but the active decision to be a criminal. Personally, I fall closer to the first view, at least with respect to this (potential?) hire. Johnson has been caught, disciplined, and is serving his sentence, so to speak. Why should Georgetown punish itself by imposing harsher guidelines than the NCAA? Don't get me wrong, I understand the view that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard, but I don't know if I'm willing to go so far as to assume a potential assistant-coach hire is irredeemable because he committed infractions in the past, which would not be infractions today. I trust Cooley to do the diligence and decide whether Johnson is a guy who can be trusted to abide by the rules now that NIL is allowed, or whether he's just a guy who will cheat to get ahead, and will find a new way to cheat. I would add another view on this. If they weren't cheating, would they still have been a good assistant? So now that the playing field is level, are their connections strong enough to stand on their own now that the payment is the same from every player? That is a legit question. I have no thoughts on this guy but if he is a takeover guy and takeover wants him in that position, that might be a good reason to hire him. His old recruiting successes when he could cheat aren't that special because he had a leg up. That is the real question in this new Jackie Moon semi-pro nonsense we are in with the NCAA.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 21, 2024 10:40:02 GMT -5
I had and have a moral objection to Pitino - there is a difference between paying dudes and their families and procuring hookers for minors (or even banging waitresses on restaurant tables though I certainly have no objection to unmarried guys doing that, but if memory serves Tricky Dick was married at the time). I have brought this up many times and have heard people say “whatever” but have never heard a defense of why it is OK to have a guy like that at our school. Would you let your kid go on an Pitino supervised recruiting knowing he may try to get them laid? Come on fans of the guy, defend that! And that’s not even talking about 123 vacated wins, which I never want to see happen here even if it meant winning our next 123 straight. As for Johnson, I find it a little icky but per above, cash and whores are different and I think it matters that we would be taking him while he is on restricted duty, I.e. embracing the sanction. I know little else about him so don’t have much to say o. The merits, but unlike most, I still TTS. If you had a moral objection to Rick Pitino because he cheated on his wife (even though they are still together), did you have the same moral objection to hiring Patrick Ewing given what he admitted doing as part of the Gold Club scandal? Just Google "Ewing gold club" and you'll see what I mean. You say you have "never heard a defense of why it is OK to have a guy like that at our school" and yet--we already did for five seasons recently. The NCAA heavily investigated the recruiting scandal with the strippers and strongly came down on the other assistant for it. Neither Pitino or Johnson were found to have any direct involvement as far as I know (but you could argue Pitino should have had better control of the program, of course). Obviously, there is likely more to the story, but I have no reason to think that Johnson was involved in that. If he was, my view of his hiring would be significantly different.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 21, 2024 10:42:14 GMT -5
It takes a special kind of hubris/stupidity to cheat when you know that there are extra eyes on you. These are the kinds of characters our university leadership is bringing into the program - the level of hypocrisy is stunning. You keep dodging my question. If you were Jack DeGioia last March would you have hired Rick Pitino?
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,667
|
Post by seaweed on Mar 21, 2024 10:45:38 GMT -5
I had and have a moral objection to Pitino - there is a difference between paying dudes and their families and procuring hookers for minors (or even banging waitresses on restaurant tables though I certainly have no objection to unmarried guys doing that, but if memory serves Tricky Dick was married at the time). I have brought this up many times and have heard people say “whatever” but have never heard a defense of why it is OK to have a guy like that at our school. Would you let your kid go on an Pitino supervised recruiting knowing he may try to get them laid? Come on fans of the guy, defend that! And that’s not even talking about 123 vacated wins, which I never want to see happen here even if it meant winning our next 123 straight. As for Johnson, I find it a little icky but per above, cash and whores are different and I think it matters that we would be taking him while he is on restricted duty, I.e. embracing the sanction. I know little else about him so don’t have much to say o. The merits, but unlike most, I still TTS. If you had a moral objection to Rick Pitino because he cheated on his wife (even though they are still together), did you have the same moral objection to hiring Patrick Ewing given what he admitted doing as part of the Gold Club scandal? Just Google "Ewing gold club" and you'll see what I mean. You say you have "never heard a defense of why it is OK to have a guy like that at our school" and yet--we already did for five seasons recently. The NCAA heavily investigated the recruiting scandal with the strippers and strongly came down on the other assistant for it. Neither Pitino or Johnson were found to have any direct involvement as far as I know (but you could argue Pitino should have had better control of the program, of course). Obviously, there is likely more to the story, but I have no reason to think that Johnson was involved in that. If he was, my view of his hiring would be significantly different. Hell of a straw man, focusing on parenthetical instead of substance. The substance is yhr hooker thing, not the infidelity. I am well aware of Ewing’s Gold Club story and don’t like it but don’t really care. Running a program that gets boomers for kids is the focus here. Defend that. And hiding behind “the NCAA didn’t nail him” is lame as we agree he knew it should have known and is ultimately responsible for any lack of oversight
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,426
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyaboya on Mar 21, 2024 10:47:28 GMT -5
It takes a special kind of hubris/stupidity to cheat when you know that there are extra eyes on you. These are the kinds of characters our university leadership is bringing into the program - the level of hypocrisy is stunning. You keep dodging my question. If you were Jack DeGioia last March would you have hired Rick Pitino? Yes - it's the hypocrisy that disgusts me from people that say Georgetown should be above hiring Pitino but are OK with hiring people like Kenny Johnson. My personal take is that most college basketball coaches have some sketchy personal characteristics in one way or another. I think Ewing did, I think Cooley does, I think JT2 did. I think JT3 was unique among Georgetown coaches in that regard, and it's one reason that I liked him so much. I have a much bigger problem with admitting people like Dug McDaniel when I know how difficult it is for a regular student to gain admission to Georgetown University.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 21, 2024 10:51:35 GMT -5
If you had a moral objection to Rick Pitino because he cheated on his wife (even though they are still together), did you have the same moral objection to hiring Patrick Ewing given what he admitted doing as part of the Gold Club scandal? Just Google "Ewing gold club" and you'll see what I mean. You say you have "never heard a defense of why it is OK to have a guy like that at our school" and yet--we already did for five seasons recently. The NCAA heavily investigated the recruiting scandal with the strippers and strongly came down on the other assistant for it. Neither Pitino or Johnson were found to have any direct involvement as far as I know (but you could argue Pitino should have had better control of the program, of course). Obviously, there is likely more to the story, but I have no reason to think that Johnson was involved in that. If he was, my view of his hiring would be significantly different. Hell of a straw man, focusing on parenthetical instead of substance. The substance is yhr hooker thing, not the infidelity. I am well aware of Ewing’s Gold Club story and don’t like it but don’t really care. Running a program that gets boomers for kids is the focus here. Defend that. And hiding behind “the NCAA didn’t nail him” is lame as we agree he knew it should have known and is ultimately responsible for any lack of oversight You mentioned in your post Pitino's infidelity as a reason why you would not have wanted to hire him. I pointed out we already had a coach who exhibited infidelity. I was responding directly to your point. That's not a straw man. As far as the prostitute scandal at Louisville, I would not hire anybody with a direct role in that. That behavior was abhorrent. While I agree that Pitino should have been held responsible for lack of institutional discipline (and he was, including being fired), I think if he was directly involved in that incident, that he would have been implicated. Did he willingly ignore it? Maybe. I have no idea. But there is no indication that Kenny Johnson had any involvement in that, and I don't think Archie Miller would have hired Kenny Johnson if he did.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 21, 2024 10:56:12 GMT -5
You keep dodging my question. If you were Jack DeGioia last March would you have hired Rick Pitino? Yes - it's the hypocrisy that disgusts me from people that say Georgetown should be above hiring Pitino but are OK with hiring people like Kenny Johnson. My personal take is that most college basketball coaches have some sketchy personal characteristics in one way or another. I think Ewing did, I think Cooley does, I think JT2 did. I think JT3 was unique among Georgetown coaches in that regard, and it's one reason that I liked him so much. I have a much bigger problem with admitting people like Dug McDaniel when I know how difficult it is for a regular student to gain admission to Georgetown University. I really cannot think of anybody who was anti-Pitino but pro-Johnson. I certainly was pro-Pitino, and I support hiring Johnson if Cooley thinks he's the best option. And I agree with you on the sketchiness of college coaches. JT3 really was unique in that regard (at least as far as you know), and as those of you who were around in 2017 when I was basically the last person left defending him, I loved him as our coach. As far as admission to Georgetown University, I am not sure we want to go down that road. This is no knock on our basketball players, but like almost every university, the enrollment standards for players are significantly different than for people like us who applied and got in. That's just the reality of college sports. And I know from specific examples in the past (granted, they are old now) that it isn't just basketball. Someone from my high school who was very, very, good at track and field got admitted to Georgetown (he decided not to go), with an SAT score that would shock many people. This is absolutely nothing new. And you want to talk about preferential admissions...what about Allen Iverson and his baggage?
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,604
|
Post by guru on Mar 21, 2024 11:31:50 GMT -5
Hell of a straw man, focusing on parenthetical instead of substance. The substance is yhr hooker thing, not the infidelity. I am well aware of Ewing’s Gold Club story and don’t like it but don’t really care. Running a program that gets boomers for kids is the focus here. Defend that. And hiding behind “the NCAA didn’t nail him” is lame as we agree he knew it should have known and is ultimately responsible for any lack of oversight You mentioned in your post Pitino's infidelity as a reason why you would not have wanted to hire him. I pointed out we already had a coach who exhibited infidelity. I was responding directly to your point. That's not a straw man. As far as the prostitute scandal at Louisville, I would not hire anybody with a direct role in that. That behavior was abhorrent. While I agree that Pitino should have been held responsible for lack of institutional discipline (and he was, including being fired), I think if he was directly involved in that incident, that he would have been implicated. Did he willingly ignore it? Maybe. I have no idea. But there is no indication that Kenny Johnson had any involvement in that, and I don't think Archie Miller would have hired Kenny Johnson if he did. You still don’t know what a straw man is do you? It’s amazing.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,604
|
Post by guru on Mar 21, 2024 11:34:50 GMT -5
If you had a moral objection to Rick Pitino because he cheated on his wife (even though they are still together), did you have the same moral objection to hiring Patrick Ewing given what he admitted doing as part of the Gold Club scandal? Just Google "Ewing gold club" and you'll see what I mean. You say you have "never heard a defense of why it is OK to have a guy like that at our school" and yet--we already did for five seasons recently. The NCAA heavily investigated the recruiting scandal with the strippers and strongly came down on the other assistant for it. Neither Pitino or Johnson were found to have any direct involvement as far as I know (but you could argue Pitino should have had better control of the program, of course). Obviously, there is likely more to the story, but I have no reason to think that Johnson was involved in that. If he was, my view of his hiring would be significantly different. Hell of a straw man, focusing on parenthetical instead of substance. The substance is yhr hooker thing, not the infidelity. I am well aware of Ewing’s Gold Club story and don’t like it but don’t really care. Running a program that gets boomers for kids is the focus here. Defend that. And hiding behind “the NCAA didn’t nail him” is lame as we agree he knew it should have known and is ultimately responsible for any lack of oversight And of course it wasn’t just infidelity - there was also a rape allegation and payment for an abortion mixed in there as well. I know Georgetown is barely a Catholic institution at this point, but …
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 21, 2024 11:48:52 GMT -5
You mentioned in your post Pitino's infidelity as a reason why you would not have wanted to hire him. I pointed out we already had a coach who exhibited infidelity. I was responding directly to your point. That's not a straw man. As far as the prostitute scandal at Louisville, I would not hire anybody with a direct role in that. That behavior was abhorrent. While I agree that Pitino should have been held responsible for lack of institutional discipline (and he was, including being fired), I think if he was directly involved in that incident, that he would have been implicated. Did he willingly ignore it? Maybe. I have no idea. But there is no indication that Kenny Johnson had any involvement in that, and I don't think Archie Miller would have hired Kenny Johnson if he did. You still don’t know what a straw man is do you? It’s amazing. I see you are taking a break from responding to every post TC makes to go back to your old stomping grounds. I appreciate the attention. To make it clear: 1. seaweed said he "had and have a moral objection to Pitino." The two bases for that were the prostitution situation at Louisville and Pitino's alleged marital indiscretions. 2. He said "I have brought this up many times." Presuambly "this" is both of the above. 3. He then said he "has never heard of a defense why it is OK to have a guy like that at our school." 4. I responded that "If you had a moral objection to Rick Pitino because he cheated on his wife (even though they are still together), did you have the same moral objection to hiring Patrick Ewing given what he admitted doing as part of the Gold Club scandal? Just Google "Ewing gold club" and you'll see what I mean." I also made the point that the NCAA did not find Pitino or Johnson directly culpable on the prostitute piece. So, I responded to both arguments. 5. seaweed responds with "hell of a straw man." There is no straw man here. Seaweed made an argument and I responded to it. Merrium Webster's definition of straw man: "a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted." Let's go to Dictionary.com: "a fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous person, object, matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument." Nothing in my post created a weak or imaginery argument or adversary. Nor did I fabricate anything. I responded directly to seaweed's points. My response was not to a straw man nor did it set up a straw man.
|
|
|
Post by dariantownesvanzandt on Mar 21, 2024 11:53:10 GMT -5
I'd say the current state is strong... to quite strong.
|
|