Joshua Smith Discussion

[sleepy]

Jan 12, 2014 17:55:39 GMT -5 Nevada Hoya said:

Jan 12, 2014 17:33:59 GMT -5 Big Dog said:

Like the integrity we showed with Iverson and Page, right?

As an alumni interviewer, I sent JTII a letter protesting AI's admission over one of the students I interviewed; she was only a tennis player and good student(and African American) and would have probably stayed all four years .

Shouldn't you protest the admission almost all of the basketball players and most athletes then, since their academic qualifications are generally never up to par? Instead of going after an extremely disadvantaged youth being given a second chance after being wrongly imprisoned because of the color of his skin and being a big name, why not go after the numerous kids admitted as a result of connections over qualifications?

[sleepy]

Jan 12, 2014 18:12:11 GMT -5 jwp91 said:

There is a difference IMHO between 'win at any cost' and Iverson and Page. JTjr had very clear social advocacy agenda that specifically sought to give the Georgetown academic opportunity to players who wouldn't otherwise qualify. Maybe you remember the deflated ball on the desk anecdote.

I think there were extenuating circumstances with Iverson that were well documented. Pops was clearly a potential change agent and role model for him . Not unreasonably, Iverson had some serious trust issues and chose to trust those from his youth after he left the Hilltop. While his game was ready for the NBA, I think Iverson would have greatly benefitted from more mentoring from JTjr his junior and senior year.

Page had an opportunity at Georgetown. It could have been a life changing difference maker for him. He didn't take full advantage of it and had to leave before he finished.

I don't know if you are an alum. I am. I had a classes with basketball players. I took Problem of God with Zo. He was in the front row of class every single class. I noticed a pattern too. If the basketball players weren't in class, they usually did stick too long in the program.

I don't have a problem with an approach that gives opportunities to players who would otherwise not get admitted, but I expect them to be student athletes and to uphold the standards of the community....which Iverson and Page both appeared to do.... while they are there.

Louisville is going to get what they deserve with Petrino. To say he has a pattern of 'extremely selfish' behavior is an understatement. I would bet a dollar vs. a hole in a donut we haven't seen the last instance of this trend.

Exactly. I think there is a difference between helping a player that lacks the advantages of most college students and using a player, eventually at their expense, just to get wins. If you can find that balance, I don't really care about playing by the rules. The inability to accurately find that balance, however, is why the rules were created. The current trend of completely bucking them is why big time college athletics is the toxic environment it currently is and probably doesn't benefit a lot of the top athletes within it.

[Big Dog]

Jan 12, 2014 18:12:11 GMT -5 jwp91 said:

There is a difference IMHO between 'win at any cost' and Iverson and Page. JTjr had very clear social advocacy agenda that specifically sought to give the Georgetown academic opportunity to players who wouldn't otherwise qualify. Maybe you remember the deflated ball on the desk anecdote.

'''

Louisville is going to get what they deserve with Petrino. To say he has a pattern of 'extremely selfish' behavior is an understatement. I would bet a dollar vs. a hole in a donut we haven't seen the last instance of this trend.

Everybody couches this in terms of an advocacy agenda--it is the number one self-rationalization I am sure all coaches use in bringing certain players in, helping them cut corners, etc. But what is the agenda--to give players a chance to get a degree? Then if so, Pops shouldn't have been recruiting anybody he wasn't sure was going to stay all 4 years, and neither should III.

Or is it about giving players a chance to get to the NBA? That seems more in line with bringing in kids who aren't there to go to college but to develop their basketball skills--something that all programs including ours are doing currently. And if you're going to concede that this is appropriate, it isn't clear to me why the line needs to be drawn at holding players to the same academic standards as the rest of the student body that is there to get a degree. They aren't there for a degree, so who cares?

I'm playing devil's advocate a little bit here in the interest of spicing things up, but I'm just pointing out that things aren't as black and white as they are made to appear around here when people trumpet "integrity" without actually figuring out where the lines are drawn. True integrity would be about recruiting only guys who will absolutely stay for four years or more of school to get a degree. Otherwise you're just imposing upon them the corrupt, absurd system that is the NCAA and that is totally inconsistent. I don't know why we have to go through the charade on that--other than it makes fans feel better when Syracuse achieves more than us to seize the moral high ground.

As for Louisville "getting what they deserve" with Petrino, is that like getting what they deserved with keeping Pitino on? Or do you mean they'll get lots of wins in football games, which is the only reason they want him. The only thing Louisville and Jurich should really be blamed for is going through the motions of pretending that they give a crap whether Petrino wants to have a little piece of something riding around on motorcylcles with him. They don't care about that and neither do most of the fans. They just want to win football games.

[Big Dog]

Jan 12, 2014 18:30:55 GMT -5 sleepy said:

Jan 12, 2014 18:12:11 GMT -5 jwp91 said:

There is a difference IMHO between 'win at any cost' and Iverson and Page. JTjr had very clear social advocacy agenda that specifically sought to give the Georgetown academic opportunity to players who wouldn't otherwise qualify. Maybe you remember the deflated ball on the desk anecdote.

I think there were extenuating circumstances with Iverson that were well documented. Pops was clearly a potential change agent and role model for him . Not unreasonably, Iverson had some serious trust issues and chose to trust those from his youth after he left the Hilltop. While his game was ready for the NBA, I think Iverson would have greatly benefitted from more mentoring from JTjr his junior and senior year.

Page had an opportunity at Georgetown. It could have been a life changing difference maker for him. He didn't take full advantage of it and had to leave before he finished.

I don't know if you are an alum. I am. I had a classes with basketball players. I took Problem of God with Zo. He was in the front row of class every single class. I noticed a pattern too. If the basketball players weren't in class, they usually did stick too long in the program.

I don't have a problem with an approach that gives opportunities to players who would otherwise not get admitted, but I expect them to be student athletes and to uphold the standards of the community....which Iverson and Page both appeared to do.... while they are there.

Louisville is going to get what they deserve with Petrino. To say he has a pattern of 'extremely selfish' behavior is an understatement. I would bet a dollar vs. a hole in a donut we haven't seen the last instance of this trend.

Exactly. I think there is a difference between helping a player that lacks the advantages of most college students and using a player, eventually at their expense, just to get wins. If you can find that balance, I don't really care about playing by the rules. The inability to accurately find that balance, however, is why the rules were created. The current trend of completely bucking them is why big time college athletics is the toxic environment it currently is and probably doesn't benefit a lot of the top athletes within it.

Come on, Sleepy, it isn't the bucking of rules that has created the toxic environment. The toxic environment exists because of money, and the bucking of rules is a direct effect of all that money.

I'm not saying we should break rules, obviously, but I'm not sure what the point is in being the stingiest or highest-minded about all of these things. That's all. (And of course I'm mostly just engaging in uninformed speculation because of the black box that is Gtown on this stuff.)

Again, this argument about giving people an opportunity can't be really about an opportunity to get a degree. Otherwise we're saying Otto Porter was a disappointment and a failure. It is about the opportunity to enhance their economic potential through playing at a high-profile program. And the best thing the program can do in service of that goal is to win and to help these athletes be the best basketball players--as opposed to students--that they can.

The kids can and should take the student stuff seriously as a backup plan. Yes. But being overly harsh or holding the team to the standards of everybody else just isn't consistent or fair or smart.

[sleepy]

Jan 12, 2014 18:40:10 GMT -5 Big Dog said:

Jan 12, 2014 18:30:55 GMT -5 sleepy said:

Exactly. I think there is a difference between helping a player that lacks the advantages of most college students and using a player, eventually at their expense, just to get wins. If you can find that balance, I don't really care about playing by the rules. The inability to accurately find that balance, however, is why the rules were created. The current trend of completely bucking them is why big time college athletics is the toxic environment it currently is and probably doesn't benefit a lot of the top athletes within it.

Come on, Sleepy, it isn't the bucking of rules that has created the toxic environment. The toxic environment exists because of money, and the bucking of rules is a direct effect of all that money.

I'm not saying we should break rules, obviously, but I'm not sure what the point is in being the stingiest or highest-minded about all of these things. That's all. (And of course I'm mostly just engaging in uninformed speculation because of the black box that is Gtown on this stuff.)

Again, this argument about giving people an opportunity can't be really about an opportunity to get a degree. Otherwise we're saying Otto Porter was a disappointment and a failure. It is about the opportunity to enhance their economic potential through playing at a high-profile program. And the best thing the program can do in service of that goal is to win and to help these athletes be the best basketball players--as opposed to students--that they can.

The kids can and should take the student stuff seriously as a backup plan. Yes. But being overly harsh or holding the team to the standards of everybody else just isn't consistent or fair or smart.

I wasn't totally disagreeing with you, but I wasn't totally agreeing either. I don't think we should be following the rules to the letter academically either, but only to the benefit of the player not just to get wins. If "helping" a player along allows him to get a degree he couldn't get on his own while still getting an education, classroom and in life, then why not? Failing a kid out who is actually trying isn't going to benefit the kid or anyone else for that matter.
I don't think it's about getting a degree, but it's more than enhancing their economic potential too. Look at Iverson. He's broke and struggling in life despite having been more blessed economically for a decade than most Georgetown graduates. You need to teach these kids about life or in the classroom and not treat them like cattle being herded in and out, because eventually the air will leave the basketball and they will need to rely on a different skill set for a living. I'm not saying that's what your advocating, but it seems to be the sad reality of college sports at the moment. It needs to be about the kids and what will most benefit them in the long run, not what's best for our win loss column.

[kghoya]

I can't believe I came here for Joshua Smith information. What in the world was I thinking?

[HoyaChris]

Jan 12, 2014 16:30:36 GMT -5 Big Dog said:

Jan 11, 2014 13:44:42 GMT -5 hoyas1995 said:

Honestly my gut tells me we wont be seeing him again this season.

This isnt Syracuse with Southerland

And honestly I'm starting to tire of it. If we aren't going all-in on winning, then why am I following this team? Maybe I read one-too-many absurd wool-over-the-eyes "Bobby Petrino is the devil I can't believe Louisville hired him" pieces this week, but this isn't beanbag. Would any of you honestly not have traded for a 2013 NCAA title if it meant a world in which JTIII was playing with Perkins' waitresses on restaurant floors? Give me the freakin' title!

Chirping about academics and program cleanliness and everything else is what programs that don't win do. This isn't the Ivy League. Some of you wish it were--I don't. We don't follow this because we love the ideal of the student-athlete and the purity of amateurism--almost no one in the country (and certainly not the people who sponsor the games or pay for the TV rights) does. We follow it because we want to Editeding win, and we want to hear "Georgetown" on the mouths of everyone who follows college basketball. Otto Porter--who I love--wasn't in this for the student-athlete experience, and he didn't decide he owed it to the program to stick around and get a four-year degree. Why the hell we should care about getting the best student-athletes, as opposed to the best players? Give me your Victor Pages, your Allen Iversons, your one-and-dones. Please! Make exceptions for the athletes so that its easier for them to abide their basketball commitments--which by the way will require them to be in Providence, Indy, and Cincinnati in the span of a week--but hey, better get those studies done!

I cannot remember disagreeing more with a post on this talk board from a poster that I respect. First, Hoya basketball players receive - as they should - significant academic accommodation. They take a lighter course load (making it up in the summer)and they have access to a superb tutoring program. Their courses are organized with regard to the flexibility necessary to accommodate in-season travel.

During the 42 years of the Thompson era at Georgetown well over 100 athletes have been offered the opportunity of a Georgetown education.
The fundamental purpose of a university is to teach and I am extraordinarily proud of the graduation record of the basketball team, because of the University's commitment that said graduation means that the degree actually means something.

This does not mean that we can't take one and done or two year players. Both Greg Monroe and Otto Porter were easily on course to graduate with their classes should they have remained at Georgetown. Jeff Green left after three years and cared enough about the diploma to finish 5 years into an NBA career. We should not begrudge a basketball player looking to earn a livelihood any more than we would tell a sophomore software wizard to stay in school and turn down an IPO.

Other than my family and my work, nothing matters more in my life than Hoya basketball. I share Big Dog's frustration with what Josh Smith's and Greg Whittington's absence probably means for the rest of the season. But I know that there is no support among the donor base to either the basketball program or the University for a lessening of academic standards that Big Dog suggests.

Finally, can we dispense with the false dichotomy that posits an either/or choice between being an Ivy League program or competing like Kentucky. Since the start of the 2006=7 season, we are somewhere in the top 10 for victories against top 25 programs. While we sometimes forget that on this board, this achievement has to mean something.

Go Hoyas!!!

[Big Dog]

Jan 12, 2014 19:48:09 GMT -5 HoyaChris said:

Jan 12, 2014 16:30:36 GMT -5 Big Dog said:

And honestly I'm starting to tire of it. If we aren't going all-in on winning, then why am I following this team? Maybe I read one-too-many absurd wool-over-the-eyes "Bobby Petrino is the devil I can't believe Louisville hired him" pieces this week, but this isn't beanbag. Would any of you honestly not have traded for a 2013 NCAA title if it meant a world in which JTIII was playing with Perkins' waitresses on restaurant floors? Give me the freakin' title!

Chirping about academics and program cleanliness and everything else is what programs that don't win do. This isn't the Ivy League. Some of you wish it were--I don't. We don't follow this because we love the ideal of the student-athlete and the purity of amateurism--almost no one in the country (and certainly not the people who sponsor the games or pay for the TV rights) does. We follow it because we want to Editeding win, and we want to hear "Georgetown" on the mouths of everyone who follows college basketball. Otto Porter--who I love--wasn't in this for the student-athlete experience, and he didn't decide he owed it to the program to stick around and get a four-year degree. Why the hell we should care about getting the best student-athletes, as opposed to the best players? Give me your Victor Pages, your Allen Iversons, your one-and-dones. Please! Make exceptions for the athletes so that its easier for them to abide their basketball commitments--which by the way will require them to be in Providence, Indy, and Cincinnati in the span of a week--but hey, better get those studies done!

I cannot remember disagreeing more with a post on this talk board from a poster that I respect. First, Hoya basketball players receive - as they should - significant academic accommodation. They take a lighter course load (making it up in the summer)and they have access to a superb tutoring program. Their courses are organized with regard to the flexibility necessary to accommodate in-season travel.

During the 42 years of the Thompson era at Georgetown well over 100 athletes have been offered the opportunity of a Georgetown education.
The fundamental purpose of a university is to teach and I am extraordinarily proud of the graduation record of the basketball team, because of the University's commitment that said graduation means that the degree actually means something.

This does not mean that we can't take one and done or two year players. Both Greg Monroe and Otto Porter were easily on course to graduate with their classes should they have remained at Georgetown. Jeff Green left after three years and cared enough about the diploma to finish 5 years into an NBA career. We should not begrudge a basketball player looking to earn a livelihood any more than we would tell a sophomore software wizard to stay in school and turn down an IPO.

Other than my family and my work, nothing matters more in my life than Hoya basketball. I share Big Dog's frustration with what Josh Smith's and Greg Whittington's absence probably means for the rest of the season. But I know that there is no support among the donor base to either the basketball program or the University for a lessening of academic standards that Big Dog suggests.

Finally, can we dispense with the false dichotomy that posits an either/or choice between being an Ivy League program or competing like Kentucky. Since the start of the 2006=7 season, we are somewhere in the top 10 for victories against top 25 programs. While we sometimes forget that on this board, this achievement has to mean something.

Go Hoyas!!!

I don't really disagree with any of this. I guess I was mostly just reacting to the "we have integrity!" sanctimonious crap, and to the terrible job JTIII has done with identifying and developing recruits--especially big man recruits--lately. I haven't been this frustrated and pessimistic about the future of the program since the Esherick era. The lackluster performance of the conference and the extremely weak debut of FS1 are major disappointments.

[Nevada Hoya]

Jan 12, 2014 18:21:19 GMT -5 sleepy said:

Jan 12, 2014 17:55:39 GMT -5 Nevada Hoya said:

As an alumni interviewer, I sent JTII a letter protesting AI's admission over one of the students I interviewed; she was only a tennis player and good student(and African American) and would have probably stayed all four years .

Shouldn't you protest the admission almost all of the basketball players and most athletes then, since their academic qualifications are generally never up to par? Instead of going after an extremely disadvantaged youth being given a second chance after being wrongly imprisoned because of the color of his skin and being a big name, why not go after the numerous kids admitted as a result of connections over qualifications?

Okay. If AI had just been a regular player and had been in the same situation, would we have offered. I was trying to get a disadvantage youth into Georgetown, but she didn't have the hops of AI.

[DFW HOYA]

Jan 12, 2014 17:55:39 GMT -5 Nevada Hoya said:

As an alumni interviewer, I sent JTII a letter protesting AI's admission over one of the students I interviewed; she was only a tennis player and good student(and African American) and would have probably stayed all four years .

The only person Allen Iverson's admission really cost (in terms of a place in the class) was Eric Micoud.

[FrazierFanatic]

Jan 12, 2014 17:55:39 GMT -5 Nevada Hoya said:

Jan 12, 2014 17:33:59 GMT -5 Big Dog said:

Like the integrity we showed with Iverson and Page, right?

As an alumni interviewer, I sent JTII a letter protesting AI's admission over one of the students I interviewed; she was only a tennis player and good student(and African American) and would have probably stayed all four years .

Wait - Iverson played tennis,too? What an athlete!

[sleepy]

Jan 12, 2014 21:09:27 GMT -5 Nevada Hoya said:

Jan 12, 2014 18:21:19 GMT -5 sleepy said:

Shouldn't you protest the admission almost all of the basketball players and most athletes then, since their academic qualifications are generally never up to par? Instead of going after an extremely disadvantaged youth being given a second chance after being wrongly imprisoned because of the color of his skin and being a big name, why not go after the numerous kids admitted as a result of connections over qualifications?

Okay. If AI had just been a regular player and had been in the same situation, would we have offered. I was trying to get a disadvantage youth into Georgetown, but she didn't have the hops of AI.

We weren't even recruiting Iverson until his mom begged John Thompson to give him a chance. We didn't take him despite his problems, we took him because of his problems. The scholarship Iverson got was going to a basketball player anyways so it had zero effect on whatever girl you were trying to help. In addition, I'm sure the girl you wanted to get in was deserving and therefore was given a chance at a different school. No other school was going to take A.I. and I don't believe he was even draft able at that point. God knows where he would have ended up if Thompson hadn't granted Anne Iverson her wish ad taken a chance on her son. And up to that point in his life, I can't think of too many people more deserving of that chance after the hand he was dealt growing up the way he did. So, sorry, I don't think any miscarriage of justice was committed considering it had zero effect on your girls chances anyways.

[MCIGuy]

Jan 12, 2014 20:01:44 GMT -5 Big Dog said:

Jan 12, 2014 19:48:09 GMT -5 HoyaChris said:

I cannot remember disagreeing more with a post on this talk board from a poster that I respect. First, Hoya basketball players receive - as they should - significant academic accommodation. They take a lighter course load (making it up in the summer)and they have access to a superb tutoring program. Their courses are organized with regard to the flexibility necessary to accommodate in-season travel.

During the 42 years of the Thompson era at Georgetown well over 100 athletes have been offered the opportunity of a Georgetown education.
The fundamental purpose of a university is to teach and I am extraordinarily proud of the graduation record of the basketball team, because of the University's commitment that said graduation means that the degree actually means something.

This does not mean that we can't take one and done or two year players. Both Greg Monroe and Otto Porter were easily on course to graduate with their classes should they have remained at Georgetown. Jeff Green left after three years and cared enough about the diploma to finish 5 years into an NBA career. We should not begrudge a basketball player looking to earn a livelihood any more than we would tell a sophomore software wizard to stay in school and turn down an IPO.

Other than my family and my work, nothing matters more in my life than Hoya basketball. I share Big Dog's frustration with what Josh Smith's and Greg Whittington's absence probably means for the rest of the season. But I know that there is no support among the donor base to either the basketball program or the University for a lessening of academic standards that Big Dog suggests.

Finally, can we dispense with the false dichotomy that posits an either/or choice between being an Ivy League program or competing like Kentucky. Since the start of the 2006=7 season, we are somewhere in the top 10 for victories against top 25 programs. While we sometimes forget that on this board, this achievement has to mean something.

Go Hoyas!!!

I don't really disagree with any of this. I guess I was mostly just reacting to the "we have integrity!" sanctimonious crap, and to the terrible job JTIII has done with identifying and developing recruits--especially big man recruits--lately. I haven't been this frustrated and pessimistic about the future of the program since the Esherick era. The lackluster performance of the conference and the extremely weak debut of FS1 are major disappointments.

You getting depressed because the conference didn't come out like gangbusters? Even if a couple of teams had lived up to early pre-season expectations, this conference was still one or two years before making a lot of noise. And why are you and others crying about FS1? It needs time too to find its legs too. Frankly I don't find it all that bad. The BE could have ended up much worse off.

[MCIGuy]

By the way I'm almost done reading "Big Man on Campus" thanks to the wonder magic of the Kindle White. For those who had forgotten or for those who don't know, let me point out that although JT got a lot of kids into school who were a bit iffy, he also lost quite a few of them to academic issues as well. And those difficulties tended to prop up just before the second semester of the player's season after the first semester grades came in. So if Whitt and Josh ended up having the same issue at least you can know that this isn't anything new with the program. For better or worse there are certain standards the school and program has. The frustrating thing about Whitt and Josh is that their problems have sprouted so close together after a long stretch in which none of III's players appeared to be getting into any academic difficulties.

[sleepy]

Jan 12, 2014 23:31:06 GMT -5 MCIGuy said:

Jan 12, 2014 20:01:44 GMT -5 Big Dog said:

I don't really disagree with any of this. I guess I was mostly just reacting to the "we have integrity!" sanctimonious crap, and to the terrible job JTIII has done with identifying and developing recruits--especially big man recruits--lately. I haven't been this frustrated and pessimistic about the future of the program since the Esherick era. The lackluster performance of the conference and the extremely weak debut of FS1 are major disappointments.

You getting depressed because the conference didn't come out like gangbusters? Even if a couple of teams had lived up to early pre-season expectations, this conference was still one or two years before making a lot of noise. And why are you and others crying about FS1? It needs time too to find its legs too. Frankly I don't find it all that bad. The BE could have ended up much worse off.

Plus, the Big East is probably the third or forth best conference this year anyways. Two ranked teams and that's with us and Marquette having uncharacteristic down years. With Dukes loss we could have more top 25 teams than the ACC with half as many teams and yet they are supposed to be "the greatest conference in college basketball history". That's a pretty solid foundation to build upon.

[the_way]

There is integrity. And at Georgetown we should maintain it.

Its an opportunity for the school and the student-athlete to make the most of it.

Players who are awarded scholarships are awarded them because they can play the game of basketball. There is nothing dirty about that. And at Georgetown and a few other schools the term student-athlete actually means something.

Guys who are good at putting a basketball in a hoop get to play at big-time program. And the school gets visibility, money, etc. because of it. The player gets visibility on a national stage and possible opportunities in the NBA or overseas to earn a sizable living. And if they can't play professionally, there is an opportunity to earn education at one of the best colleges in the country.

Nothing dirty about that.

JT2 recruited all types of kids to his program when he was the coach. Some guys were a lot like himself as a high school basketball players. As educated and intelligent as he is today, JT2 admitted back in high school he really didn't care about school or have any interest in the books. Basketball was his interest and his interest only. He had all his eggs in one basket. That is what got him to Providence. But once he arrived on a college campus, his outlook changed and he experienced things hadn't before in his life. And we see how his career and life turned out. He wanted the same for some of the guys who came from the rough backgrounds he recruited.

Part of the appeal of Pops programs back in the day is that they won and they did it the right way. They didn't cheat. Kids were required to go to class and pass or they were shown the door. There is a reason why we poked fun at Gary Williams' graduation rates or Boeheims' graduation rates at Syracuse. We could do that because if a guy stays all 4 years at Georgetown, he would most likely graduate.

Honestly, as a Georgetown fan, i don't want the win at all cost approach. I would cease to be fan if the program took that direction. We haven't been to the final four for a while now. That is not why I'm a fan of the program. That is not what this program has been about under Pops. That is what the deflated basketball was about. Win at all cost is not the Georgetown way.

We can win and win big and still maintain our integrity. The issue with our program is a fixable one. It is a talent evaluation and recruiting issue. III has made an attempt to fix this with a new staff. Josh Smith was given another opportunity. Whether he made the most of that opportunity remains to be seen in the coming weeks. Greg Whittington's situation is not uncommon. It happened. The opportunity was there. Just didn't work out.

Their absences don't hurt as much if III had addressed the recruiting issues in the past. He waited too long. Poor recruiting rears its ugly head eventually. And it has this year. Pinning all hope and hype on Josh was a little too much. If he returns...great. If he doesn't, we move forward with who is on the roster.

Nothing you can do about it, but move forward. We are doing that, and our guys this year are good group of hard working guys with a lot of heart. The Butler game showed that.

[lichoya68]

i think gu and its bball program offer kids a great oppotunity YUP and its their job to be responsible and LEARN from that opportunity . Yup was and always will be the case. Look at tyler adams cant play at all but a great hoya and getting a great education and great cheer leader ON THE BENCH it IS about much more than just the bball. I felt more badly that greg didnt do what he needed to do much more badder than losing him as a player. Yup felt bad about losing him as a player but MUCH MORE BADDER about losing him as a person. It is what it is. Go hoyas still proud of our programs and coach and staff and TEAM. loved markel's comment that when he fouled out and caprio went in he knew we had it YUP WE ARE GEORGETOWN. LOTS OF HEART in these HEART ATTACK HOYAS. yup here we go again GO HOYAS

[swhoya]

Jan 13, 2014 1:10:17 GMT -5 the_way said:

There is integrity. And at Georgetown we should maintain it.

Its an opportunity for the school and the student-athlete to make the most of it.

Players who are awarded scholarships are awarded them because they can play the game of basketball. There is nothing dirty about that. And at Georgetown and a few other schools the term student-athlete actually means something.

Guys who are good at putting a basketball in a hoop get to play at big-time program. And the school gets visibility, money, etc. because of it. The player gets visibility on a national stage and possible opportunities in the NBA or overseas to earn a sizable living. And if they can't play professionally, there is an opportunity to earn education at one of the best colleges in the country.

Nothing dirty about that.

JT2 recruited all types of kids to his program when he was the coach. Some guys were a lot like himself as a high school basketball players. As educated and intelligent as he is today, JT2 admitted back in high school he really didn't care about school or have any interest in the books. Basketball was his interest and his interest only. He had all his eggs in one basket. That is what got him to Providence. But once he arrived on a college campus, his outlook changed and he experienced things hadn't before in his life. And we see how his career and life turned out. He wanted the same for some of the guys who came from the rough backgrounds he recruited.

Part of the appeal of Pops programs back in the day is that they won and they did it the right way. They didn't cheat. Kids were required to go to class and pass or they were shown the door. There is a reason why we poked fun at Gary Williams' graduation rates or Boeheims' graduation rates at Syracuse. We could do that because if a guy stays all 4 years at Georgetown, he would most likely graduate.

Honestly, as a Georgetown fan, i don't want the win at all cost approach. I would cease to be fan if the program took that direction. We haven't been to the final four for a while now. That is not why I'm a fan of the program. That is not what this program has been about under Pops. That is what the deflated basketball was about. Win at all cost is not the Georgetown way.

We can win and win big and still maintain our integrity. The issue with our program is a fixable one. It is a talent evaluation and recruiting issue. III has made an attempt to fix this with a new staff. Josh Smith was given another opportunity. Whether he made the most of that opportunity remains to be seen in the coming weeks. Greg Whittington's situation is not uncommon. It happened. The opportunity was there. Just didn't work out.

Their absences don't hurt as much if III had addressed the recruiting issues in the past. He waited too long. Poor recruiting rears its ugly head eventually. And it has this year. Pinning all hope and hype on Josh was a little too much. If he returns...great. If he doesn't, we move forward with who is on the roster.

Nothing you can do about it, but move forward. We are doing that, and our guys this year are good group of hard working guys with a lot of heart. The Butler game showed that.

Very well said.

[calhoya]

It's not that I disagree with anything I have read on this board or in the other social media, but I have a different perspective than some. Hypocrisy is the operative word for schools, coaches and fans. Have a bad season and everyone goes crazy complaining about the failure of the coach, the players and the recruiting. Also we get to hear the sanctimonious speeches about the integrity of the program and the lack of ethics at other schools such as Syracuse or Louisville or Memphis.

College basketball and football are big business-- the BIG East is no exception. Decisions are made because of the money involved. I am quite certain that during the formation of the new Big East at no point was the success of the student a concern, other than to continue to utilize the basketball programs to fund the schools and other sports teams. And that is okay with me. I know it does not place me in the crowd who likes to tout the history of Hoya academic atheletes and their success in the classroom. However, in my mind, the school should adopt reasonable standards for recruits, recognizing their backgrounds and the overwhelming time commitment to practice and play. It should provide tutoring and mentoring and it should expect players to meet those standards. Most will. Some won't. When a player fails, it is not the end of the world or the symbolic beginning of the decline of the program. It is simply a mistake--by the school and the player. The player and the program bear the consequences and you move on. If it happens too frequently, the team needs to reassess its recruting.

As for recruiting kids like Otto who have no likelihood of completing four years--well that is what the business has become. Yet, how much good resulted to the University from the time spent with this team by those type of players? How much money was made, and how many other students benefitted directly or indirectly? How much did Otto benefit--he is articulate and well-spoken and successful--thus far. That is the goal of the university education process, even when it is not completed. No one complains when a non-athlete is admitted and drops out or transfers. They are all just kids and they act in similar ways. Some are unbelievably gifted on the court and others in the science lab. Let's stop this talk about the integrity of the program. When basketball joined football as a big business, the rules on integrity changed forever. You can choose to play by the new rules or you can become a smaller program with much more realistic expectations and goals. I am good either way, but until we all worry similarly about the drop-out rate in the Foreign Service School or the economics department it makes no sense to single out the failure of some basketball players to fulfill their academic commitment.

[cheer48]

lich + me