TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:HJS {l Wrote}:...Seems to be a big fan of Gene and the search...
he MUST be a post 2004 grad...
NorthEndEagle {l Wrote}:cat hair pee fire
HJS {l Wrote}:BC's own... working at Sports Illustrated... has been following the BC search on Twitter.
Seems to be a big fan of Gene and the search - http://twitter.com/ChrisMannixSI
Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:HJS {l Wrote}:BC's own... working at Sports Illustrated... has been following the BC search on Twitter.
Seems to be a big fan of Gene and the search - http://twitter.com/ChrisMannixSI
Can't read Twitter at work. Can you paraphrase? Thanks
Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:HJS {l Wrote}:BC's own... working at Sports Illustrated... has been following the BC search on Twitter.
Seems to be a big fan of Gene and the search - http://twitter.com/ChrisMannixSI
Can't read Twitter at work. Can you paraphrase? Thanks
NorthEndEagle {l Wrote}:cat hair pee fire
HJS {l Wrote}:Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:HJS {l Wrote}:BC's own... working at Sports Illustrated... has been following the BC search on Twitter.
Seems to be a big fan of Gene and the search - http://twitter.com/ChrisMannixSI
Can't read Twitter at work. Can you paraphrase? Thanks
Written in reverse chron...
That BC refused to throw around all that ACC cash to make them a top program is, for an alum, really sad.
about 11 hours ago via UberTwitter
No disrespect to Donahue, but he had a senior laden team and got lucky with a 7-foot transfer. I'm not sold.
about 11 hours ago via UberTwitter
Steve Donahue is another classic mistake by a program that won't make the committment to being an elite athletic program.
about 11 hours ago via UberTwitter
I still want Bruce Pearl. But I'll take Brad Stevens.
about 11 hours ago via UberTwitter
MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:This guy wants Pearl or Stevens? What about Izzo? He's my first choice. He's taken MSU to six Final Fours and won the 2000 National Championship. Come on, Gene! Give him a call!
MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:This guy wants Pearl or Stevens? What about Izzo? He's my first choice. He's taken MSU to six Final Fours and won the 2000 National Championship. Come on, Gene! Give him a call!
thebs19 {l Wrote}:MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:This guy wants Pearl or Stevens? What about Izzo? He's my first choice. He's taken MSU to six Final Fours and won the 2000 National Championship. Come on, Gene! Give him a call!
Nets are gonna offer him 12 mill/year.
If Gene can't match that offer he's a fucking joke!!
Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:thebs19 {l Wrote}:MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:This guy wants Pearl or Stevens? What about Izzo? He's my first choice. He's taken MSU to six Final Fours and won the 2000 National Championship. Come on, Gene! Give him a call!
Nets are gonna offer him 12 mill/year.
If Gene can't match that offer he's a fucking joke!!
That's nice, rip the guy for wanting BC to hire the best coach.
thebs19 {l Wrote}:Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:thebs19 {l Wrote}:MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:This guy wants Pearl or Stevens? What about Izzo? He's my first choice. He's taken MSU to six Final Fours and won the 2000 National Championship. Come on, Gene! Give him a call!
Nets are gonna offer him 12 mill/year.
If Gene can't match that offer he's a fucking joke!!
That's nice, rip the guy for wanting BC to hire the best coach.
Big difference between wanting them to hire the best head coach, and ripping the program because they didn't hire Pearl or Stevens, which is what he did.
Did he say "Pearl or Stevens are my top choices, but since they're not attainable, Donahue seems like a good fit"?
Or did he label Donahue, before he is even hired, a "classic mistake", "really sad" and basically imply he'd "settle" for Brad Stevens, but anything less is a joke?
Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:
You don't have to explain any further, I get it...We are what we are.
BCWest {l Wrote}:MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:This guy wants Pearl or Stevens? What about Izzo? He's my first choice. He's taken MSU to six Final Fours and won the 2000 National Championship. Come on, Gene! Give him a call!
Make fun, but Stevens is going somewhere in the next year or two. And BC could not entice him with the current perception about what it is like to work for our AD and the current facility commitments BC is willing to make.
Yes, Pearl was not coming under almost any circumstances because of his buyout and contract, but that is ok. But that does not mean a serious and committed BC could not have gotten Stevens.
thebs19 {l Wrote}:Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:
You don't have to explain any further, I get it...We are what we are.
Love that this is the standard fallback response here.
thebs19 {l Wrote}:Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:thebs19 {l Wrote}:MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:This guy wants Pearl or Stevens? What about Izzo? He's my first choice. He's taken MSU to six Final Fours and won the 2000 National Championship. Come on, Gene! Give him a call!
Nets are gonna offer him 12 mill/year.
If Gene can't match that offer he's a fucking joke!!
That's nice, rip the guy for wanting BC to hire the best coach.
Big difference between wanting them to hire the best head coach, and ripping the program because they didn't hire Pearl or Stevens, which is what he did.
Did he say "Pearl or Stevens are my top choices, but since they're not attainable, Donahue seems like a good fit"?
Or did he label Donahue, before he is even hired, a "classic mistake", "really sad" and basically imply he'd "settle" for Brad Stevens, but anything less is a joke?
thebs19 {l Wrote}:Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:
You don't have to explain any further, I get it...We are what we are.
Love that this is the standard fallback response here.
Rather than debate on the facts, just turn to the "we are what we are" crap.
HJS {l Wrote}: That isn't at all what he wrote. He wrote he wanted Pearl and Stevens. He wrote that he doesn't like the Donahue hire because he thinks he rode a senior-laden team plus a lucky 7-foot transfer to the Sweet Sixteen. He DID NOT write that he hates Donahue because he isn't Pearl or Stevens. He DID write that he is disappointed that BC didn't go all out in its search and wasn't willing to spend ACC money and make the necessary commitments to hire a great coach.
Wait... I know, I know... how does a Sports Illustrated reporter know what Gene did not do? It is reasonably inferred from the results of the "search": Donahue, Cooley, Coen. How do YOU know that Gene DID have an exhaustive search and WAS willing to spend ACC cash and WAS willing to make the necessary commitments to hire a big name?
Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:thebs19 {l Wrote}:Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:
You don't have to explain any further, I get it...We are what we are.
Love that this is the standard fallback response here.
Rather than debate on the facts, just turn to the "we are what we are" crap.
There's nothing to debate, from everything you have been posting it is clear that you think this is the best BC can do. Gene shouldn't set his sights on a better caoch with a deeper track record and just settle for the first guy he interviewed that was able to sell himself. How about Gene doing his fucking job and selling the basketball program to a guy like Mark Few?????? Is that a lot to ask for? Would that have take two fucking weeks to come up with a compensation package, a committment to enhancing the facilites and an offer to allow him to let in one recruit of his choice per season (for starters)? Is that too much to ask GDF to do? My guess is that if he had done that, someone else would be announced the head coach today. If you think that is unreasonable or unrealistic, then you truly think that "we are what we are."
thebs19 {l Wrote}:Give me the motivation for Mark Few to leave Gonzaga for 350 different Division 1 teams. Thats not a BC thing...thats like every school outside of a very very very select few. Ditto Brad Stevens to come to Boston with his entire team returning next year. Ditto Bruce Pearl. You have to look at it from both sides...why does it make sense for the coach to come here, not just why it makes sense for the school to look at the coach.
I've said this from the beginning, if Steve Donahue was not part of the first round but then added later, it would be a great move. But because he was the first guy interviewed and is causing the total number of candidates to not meet some threshold, everyone is flipping out.
Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:thebs19 {l Wrote}:Give me the motivation for Mark Few to leave Gonzaga for 350 different Division 1 teams. Thats not a BC thing...thats like every school outside of a very very very select few. Ditto Brad Stevens to come to Boston with his entire team returning next year. Ditto Bruce Pearl. You have to look at it from both sides...why does it make sense for the coach to come here, not just why it makes sense for the school to look at the coach.
I've said this from the beginning, if Steve Donahue was not part of the first round but then added later, it would be a great move. But because he was the first guy interviewed and is causing the total number of candidates to not meet some threshold, everyone is flipping out.
For Few it would be a better conference, bigger stage, tougher competition, take on the challenge and more money. Again, it is the AD's job to give him the reasons to want to come to BC. My view is that a more well know coach with a longer track record of success will automatically uplift the program and recruiting (what DeFilippo stated he wanted) versus a more risky choice who hasn't had a experience on the recruiting trail at this level. Do everything you can to minimize the risk of setting the program back and I don't think DeFilippo did everything in his power, that is just my opinion. I am happy with Donahue, I think he will do well but there is still a much bigger risk going with him over a more proven coach.
campion {l Wrote}:BrightonEagle {l Wrote}:i think people are ignoring how few programs around the country are in the position to hire "established" coaches. i think that there are really only a handful of programs in the country that are in the position to do that. look at nova, tenn, and gtown (just to name a few). none of those coaches were "established" before they got there big job. i understand why bashing gene and the "we are what we are" stuff makes for nice rhetoric, but it's not always realistic in this context. we definitely shouldn't have the "we are what we are" attitude in terms of the program's potential, but it also doesn't really make sense to pretend we're unc when hiring a coach.
If God could tell Moses that His name was "I AM WHO I AM" why should we be ashamed to say "WE ARE WHO WE ARE"?
MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:campion {l Wrote}:BrightonEagle {l Wrote}:i think people are ignoring how few programs around the country are in the position to hire "established" coaches. i think that there are really only a handful of programs in the country that are in the position to do that. look at nova, tenn, and gtown (just to name a few). none of those coaches were "established" before they got there big job. i understand why bashing gene and the "we are what we are" stuff makes for nice rhetoric, but it's not always realistic in this context. we definitely shouldn't have the "we are what we are" attitude in terms of the program's potential, but it also doesn't really make sense to pretend we're unc when hiring a coach.
If God could tell Moses that His name was "I AM WHO I AM" why should we be ashamed to say "WE ARE WHO WE ARE"?
I have no idea if you are joking or not, but I do think this "we are who we are" complaining has a decent amount of self-loathing involved. I love BC. I am proud of who we are now and what we can become in the future.
NorthEndEagle {l Wrote}:cat hair pee fire
b0mberMan {l Wrote}:MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:campion {l Wrote}:BrightonEagle {l Wrote}:i think people are ignoring how few programs around the country are in the position to hire "established" coaches. i think that there are really only a handful of programs in the country that are in the position to do that. look at nova, tenn, and gtown (just to name a few). none of those coaches were "established" before they got there big job. i understand why bashing gene and the "we are what we are" stuff makes for nice rhetoric, but it's not always realistic in this context. we definitely shouldn't have the "we are what we are" attitude in terms of the program's potential, but it also doesn't really make sense to pretend we're unc when hiring a coach.
If God could tell Moses that His name was "I AM WHO I AM" why should we be ashamed to say "WE ARE WHO WE ARE"?
I have no idea if you are joking or not, but I do think this "we are who we are" complaining has a decent amount of self-loathing involved. I love BC. I am proud of who we are now and what we can become in the future.
... and gosh, darnit. People like you!
MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:b0mberMan {l Wrote}:MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:campion {l Wrote}:BrightonEagle {l Wrote}:i think people are ignoring how few programs around the country are in the position to hire "established" coaches. i think that there are really only a handful of programs in the country that are in the position to do that. look at nova, tenn, and gtown (just to name a few). none of those coaches were "established" before they got there big job. i understand why bashing gene and the "we are what we are" stuff makes for nice rhetoric, but it's not always realistic in this context. we definitely shouldn't have the "we are what we are" attitude in terms of the program's potential, but it also doesn't really make sense to pretend we're unc when hiring a coach.
If God could tell Moses that His name was "I AM WHO I AM" why should we be ashamed to say "WE ARE WHO WE ARE"?
I have no idea if you are joking or not, but I do think this "we are who we are" complaining has a decent amount of self-loathing involved. I love BC. I am proud of who we are now and what we can become in the future.
... and gosh, darnit. People like you!
Ha. As I was typing it I knew I was giving the board regulars a HUGE softball...
NorthEndEagle {l Wrote}:cat hair pee fire
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests