Lance Stephenson - SF - Abraham Lincoln HS - Brooklyn, NY

Quote from: Marillac on June 28, 2009, 10:25:34 PM

Quote from: boo3 on June 28, 2009, 06:46:26 PM

        Someone took Zendons Sats?  never been proved.   Another players grades were changed ?  where?  Cars!  where's the proof?   Logic tells me if this was all true,  we would be considered a real "thug "  program.  guess what!  we're not.  Just by you. 

   This stuff happens everywhere.  Like i said,  I can't wait till next March when we are all on here debating whether our 8th place BE finish was an accomplishment.  You know what.  It's not!

Baldi doesn't have the same burden of proof of even Perez Hilton.  All he needs is a rumor--sometimes from himself.

Which of "my rumors" do you not believe to be true yourself?

They all might be true - but the point was, who cares?  The ONLY problem was Keita getting paid.

The car thing was outside of STJ and so was Z's SATs....if a player decides to break the NCAA rules and regs thats his business and will not get probation or anything from a program.

The goal isn't to stay away from all kids who might cause issues...the goal is to recruit the right way.  And so what if a booster sends a car to Lance and he signs up with Cincy?  Who the F cares?  Everyone does it.

Do you feel any better knowing we probably aren't as dirty as other programs?  Does that give you any more enjoyment during the regular season?

Hold up.  If a school's recruits are often involved with some booster activity, some extra perks, contact with agents, et cetera, it's a little more than who the F cares - the NCAA comes sniffing when they see what could be flagrant, easy-to-prove violations they can find, right? 

And again, not saying that I particularly care, or not agreeing with Marco's assertions, but there is an issue when players are getting unsanctioned benefits.  Any coach worth a hot damn knows not to actually hand a cat an envelope with cash, and they know how to encourage benefits without having their name in an email somewhere. But what about when someone starts snitching like Guillory (or whatever his name was) in the OJ Mayo case? What about enough violations that the schools wins are stricken from the record like U Mass' in the 90's? Didn't Barkley go pro (too early) in part because the NCAA was on his case about Myron Piggie's car? Even if everyone does it, there are consequences when the school gets caught near that stuff and you have to acknowledge that.

And Boo's right in what he says above.  This holier than thou approach is too far. 

That's a problem. Personally, I don't care that much, but an administration might care.  Moreover, if the local papers come up with some rumors, and there's a hint that the NCAA might come around, that's gonna be used against the school's team on the recruiting trail. 

So you gotta be wary of those "boosts" outside of the school.  Or at least know how to manage them.

Hold up.  If a school's recruits are often involved with some booster activity, some extra perks, contact with agents, et cetera, it's a little more than who the F cares - the NCAA comes sniffing when they see what could be flagrant, easy-to-prove violations they can find, right? 

And again, not saying that I particularly care, or not agreeing with Marco's assertions, but there is an issue when players are getting unsanctioned benefits.  Any coach worth a hot damn knows not to actually hand a cat an envelope with cash, and they know how to encourage benefits without having their name in an email somewhere. But what about when someone starts snitching like Guillory (or whatever his name was) in the OJ Mayo case? What about enough violations that the schools wins are stricken from the record like U Mass' in the 90's? Didn't Barkley go pro (too early) in part because the NCAA was on his case about Myron Piggie's car? Even if everyone does it, there are consequences when the school gets caught near that stuff and you have to acknowledge that.

And Boo's right in what he says above.  This holier than thou approach is too far. 

That's a problem. Personally, I don't care that much, but an administration might care.  Moreover, if the local papers come up with some rumors, and there's a hint that the NCAA might come around, that's gonna be used against the school's team on the recruiting trail. 

So you gotta be wary of those "boosts" outside of the school.  Or at least know how to manage them.

I'd prefer to get the kids without boosters.  But if it's a Michigan or UMass situation where NO sanctions occur but just records stricken, who cares?  If you're the 1-2 teams that get caught, bad luck for you, but tons of other teams do it.

You just need the coach and admin to have NO connections.

I will repeat: I prefer St. John's NOT do this.  I think if we get the right coach, which is NOT Norm, we can do this.  But if I found out a booster paid Lance something to get him to come to StJ while Norm was coach, and getting Lance got us to the sweet 16, and there were no ties to the admin so st johns got no violations...I wouldnt care much.

I still consider that we won the 2003 NIT...does anyone say oh crap its invalid it never happened? No, we enjoyed Marcus and the run.

I agree on that.  And I think the NCAA sanctions are often wrong-headed, but that's the best they've come up with.  It's the schools that are sanctioned, and not the coaches or the player; I am pretty sure the booster is never sanctioned, either.  I mean, the schools still make the money and sell the merchandise, right?

And I remember U Mass well, the 2003 NIT was more enjoyable to me than it should have been, given that it was the f'in' NIT.

Quote from: peter on June 29, 2009, 02:03:12 PM

Hold up.  If a school's recruits are often involved with some booster activity, some extra perks, contact with agents, et cetera, it's a little more than who the F cares - the NCAA comes sniffing when they see what could be flagrant, easy-to-prove violations they can find, right? 

And again, not saying that I particularly care, or not agreeing with Marco's assertions, but there is an issue when players are getting unsanctioned benefits.  Any coach worth a hot damn knows not to actually hand a cat an envelope with cash, and they know how to encourage benefits without having their name in an email somewhere. But what about when someone starts snitching like Guillory (or whatever his name was) in the OJ Mayo case? What about enough violations that the schools wins are stricken from the record like U Mass' in the 90's? Didn't Barkley go pro (too early) in part because the NCAA was on his case about Myron Piggie's car? Even if everyone does it, there are consequences when the school gets caught near that stuff and you have to acknowledge that.

And Boo's right in what he says above.  This holier than thou approach is too far. 

That's a problem. Personally, I don't care that much, but an administration might care.  Moreover, if the local papers come up with some rumors, and there's a hint that the NCAA might come around, that's gonna be used against the school's team on the recruiting trail. 

So you gotta be wary of those "boosts" outside of the school.  Or at least know how to manage them.

I'd prefer to get the kids without boosters.  But if it's a Michigan or UMass situation where NO sanctions occur but just records stricken, who cares?  If you're the 1-2 teams that get caught, bad luck for you, but tons of other teams do it.

You just need the coach and admin to have NO connections.

I will repeat: I prefer St. John's NOT do this.  I think if we get the right coach, which is NOT Norm, we can do this.  But if I found out a booster paid Lance something to get him to come to StJ while Norm was coach, and getting Lance got us to the sweet 16, and there were no ties to the admin so st johns got no violations...I wouldnt care much.

I still consider that we won the 2003 NIT...does anyone say oh crap its invalid it never happened? No, we enjoyed Marcus and the run.

Its obvious the administration cares, otherwise their might be a different coach here. But, you and I could argue this point til we;re red in the face and it wont matter. WE dont make the decisions

Quote from: Tha Kid on June 29, 2009, 02:08:38 PM

Quote from: peter on June 29, 2009, 02:03:12 PM

Hold up.  If a school's recruits are often involved with some booster activity, some extra perks, contact with agents, et cetera, it's a little more than who the F cares - the NCAA comes sniffing when they see what could be flagrant, easy-to-prove violations they can find, right? 

And again, not saying that I particularly care, or not agreeing with Marco's assertions, but there is an issue when players are getting unsanctioned benefits.  Any coach worth a hot damn knows not to actually hand a cat an envelope with cash, and they know how to encourage benefits without having their name in an email somewhere. But what about when someone starts snitching like Guillory (or whatever his name was) in the OJ Mayo case? What about enough violations that the schools wins are stricken from the record like U Mass' in the 90's? Didn't Barkley go pro (too early) in part because the NCAA was on his case about Myron Piggie's car? Even if everyone does it, there are consequences when the school gets caught near that stuff and you have to acknowledge that.

And Boo's right in what he says above.  This holier than thou approach is too far. 

That's a problem. Personally, I don't care that much, but an administration might care.  Moreover, if the local papers come up with some rumors, and there's a hint that the NCAA might come around, that's gonna be used against the school's team on the recruiting trail. 

So you gotta be wary of those "boosts" outside of the school.  Or at least know how to manage them.

I'd prefer to get the kids without boosters.  But if it's a Michigan or UMass situation where NO sanctions occur but just records stricken, who cares?  If you're the 1-2 teams that get caught, bad luck for you, but tons of other teams do it.

You just need the coach and admin to have NO connections.

I will repeat: I prefer St. John's NOT do this.  I think if we get the right coach, which is NOT Norm, we can do this.  But if I found out a booster paid Lance something to get him to come to StJ while Norm was coach, and getting Lance got us to the sweet 16, and there were no ties to the admin so st johns got no violations...I wouldnt care much.

I still consider that we won the 2003 NIT...does anyone say oh crap its invalid it never happened? No, we enjoyed Marcus and the run.

Its obvious the administration cares, otherwise their might be a different coach here. But, you and I could argue this point til we;re red in the face and it wont matter. WE dont make the decisions

They don't give a F about the program being clean/not clean, boosters paying/not paying.  They make decisions because Fr. harrington doesn't want HIS personal name to be tarnished and the scandal did that.  I don't believe that the admin is scared so sh!tless that they need Mr. Clean coaching no matter what the record because of the Keita incident.  It was the Pitt incident that scared Harrington and changed his ways, and nothing could convince me otherwise.  That is what hurt St. John's rep as a school and Harrington's rep - not Keita.

Quote from: Marco Baldi on June 29, 2009, 03:26:24 PM

Quote from: Tha Kid on June 29, 2009, 02:08:38 PM

Quote from: peter on June 29, 2009, 02:03:12 PM

Hold up.  If a school's recruits are often involved with some booster activity, some extra perks, contact with agents, et cetera, it's a little more than who the F cares - the NCAA comes sniffing when they see what could be flagrant, easy-to-prove violations they can find, right? 

And again, not saying that I particularly care, or not agreeing with Marco's assertions, but there is an issue when players are getting unsanctioned benefits.  Any coach worth a hot damn knows not to actually hand a cat an envelope with cash, and they know how to encourage benefits without having their name in an email somewhere. But what about when someone starts snitching like Guillory (or whatever his name was) in the OJ Mayo case? What about enough violations that the schools wins are stricken from the record like U Mass' in the 90's? Didn't Barkley go pro (too early) in part because the NCAA was on his case about Myron Piggie's car? Even if everyone does it, there are consequences when the school gets caught near that stuff and you have to acknowledge that.

And Boo's right in what he says above.  This holier than thou approach is too far. 

That's a problem. Personally, I don't care that much, but an administration might care.  Moreover, if the local papers come up with some rumors, and there's a hint that the NCAA might come around, that's gonna be used against the school's team on the recruiting trail. 

So you gotta be wary of those "boosts" outside of the school.  Or at least know how to manage them.

I'd prefer to get the kids without boosters.  But if it's a Michigan or UMass situation where NO sanctions occur but just records stricken, who cares?  If you're the 1-2 teams that get caught, bad luck for you, but tons of other teams do it.

You just need the coach and admin to have NO connections.

I will repeat: I prefer St. John's NOT do this.  I think if we get the right coach, which is NOT Norm, we can do this.  But if I found out a booster paid Lance something to get him to come to StJ while Norm was coach, and getting Lance got us to the sweet 16, and there were no ties to the admin so st johns got no violations...I wouldnt care much.

I still consider that we won the 2003 NIT...does anyone say oh crap its invalid it never happened? No, we enjoyed Marcus and the run.

Its obvious the administration cares, otherwise their might be a different coach here. But, you and I could argue this point til we;re red in the face and it wont matter. WE dont make the decisions

They don't give a F about the program being clean/not clean, boosters paying/not paying.  They make decisions because Fr. harrington doesn't want HIS personal name to be tarnished and the scandal did that.  I don't believe that the admin is scared so sh!tless that they need Mr. Clean coaching no matter what the record because of the Keita incident.  It was the Pitt incident that scared Harrington and changed his ways, and nothing could convince me otherwise.  That is what hurt St. John's rep as a school and Harrington's rep - not Keita.

I thought Jarvis was fired before the Pitt incident? Why did they fire him if it didnt matter?

Because they cared about winning back then maybe?  It was stupid to fire him when they did, but that had noithing to do with Keita either, Baldi.  So what's your point?

Because they cared about winning back then maybe?  It was stupid to fire him when they did, but that had noithing to do with Keita either, Baldi.  So what's your point?

In all seriousness, why do you think they got rid of Jarvis? How did it go down in your opinoin, meaning in senses of timing of events?

Quote from: Tha Kid on June 29, 2009, 06:00:34 PM

Because they cared about winning back then maybe?  It was stupid to fire him when they did, but that had noithing to do with Keita either, Baldi.  So what's your point?

In all seriousness, why do you think they got rid of Jarvis? How did it go down in your opinoin, meaning in senses of timing of events?

First of all, I think Harrington did not like the fact that Jarvis would call the program out and demand all this $ be spent to improve facilities, etc.  Jarvis was right, too.

I think in Feb 2003, they were ready to fire Jarvis at season's end for poor performance, lack of recruiting, etc.  Then St. John's made a crazy run, beat Duke, won the NIT, hopes were high, and they couldn't fire him.  They start off the next season HORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIBLY and Harrington goes well now public opinion is against him, I better do it now before they make a stupid run at season's end again, and he cans him.

Then because Jarvis had the planes chartered and st johns stopped that, the Pitt incident happened, etc. etc. etc.

Do you remember the incidents Marco?  Do you REALLY believe Keita talks if he doesn't get expelled for the Pitt incident? I think it's pretty obvious how it all went down.

How do YOU think it went down Mr. Mel Gibson from Conspiracy Theory?

Huggins has got to be laughing at this.

Quote from: Marco Baldi on June 29, 2009, 06:25:35 PM

Quote from: Tha Kid on June 29, 2009, 06:00:34 PM

Because they cared about winning back then maybe?  It was stupid to fire him when they did, but that had noithing to do with Keita either, Baldi.  So what's your point?

In all seriousness, why do you think they got rid of Jarvis? How did it go down in your opinoin, meaning in senses of timing of events?

First of all, I think Harrington did not like the fact that Jarvis would call the program out and demand all this $ be spent to improve facilities, etc.  Jarvis was right, too.

I think in Feb 2003, they were ready to fire Jarvis at season's end for poor performance, lack of recruiting, etc.  Then St. John's made a crazy run, beat Duke, won the NIT, hopes were high, and they couldn't fire him.  They start off the next season HORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIBLY and Harrington goes well now public opinion is against him, I better do it now before they make a stupid run at season's end again, and he cans him.

Then because Jarvis had the planes chartered and st johns stopped that, the Pitt incident happened, etc. etc. etc.

Do you remember the incidents Marco?  Do you REALLY believe Keita talks if he doesn't get expelled for the Pitt incident? I think it's pretty obvious how it all went down.

How do YOU think it went down Mr. Mel Gibson from Conspiracy Theory?

Of course I remember the incidents, just the timetable of events is a bit blurry. Do  you think the Erick Barkley incidents were the start of Harrington and the administration decisison set in motion?

This backhistory stuff could be another topic. Marco, I leave splitting the topic (and taking a bunch of these threads) to you!  Because I have to run soon.

Quote from: Marillac on June 28, 2009, 11:41:17 PM

Quote from: Dave on June 28, 2009, 10:57:18 PM

wow this is pretty shocking and sudden

What are you reading Cosmo again, Dave?  You sound like a 17 year old chick that just got dumped.

I'm not sure I get the reference.

Not sure what part confuses you    Haven't you ever heard a girl you dumped say those things?  Shocking?  So sudden?  I remember Baldi saying the same things to RSHF at the last gathering.

Quote from: Dave on June 29, 2009, 12:18:03 AM

Quote from: Marillac on June 28, 2009, 11:41:17 PM

Quote from: Dave on June 28, 2009, 10:57:18 PM

wow this is pretty shocking and sudden

What are you reading Cosmo again, Dave?  You sound like a 17 year old chick that just got dumped.

I'm not sure I get the reference.

Not sure what part confuses you    Haven't you ever heard a girl you dumped say those things?  Shocking?  So sudden?  I remember Baldi saying the same things to RSHF at the last gathering.

lol ok i get it now. Lance, was it something I did? 

I tried to get some interviews with him but stretch shut me out.

Quote from: Tha Kid on June 29, 2009, 06:34:13 PM

Quote from: Marco Baldi on June 29, 2009, 06:25:35 PM

Quote from: Tha Kid on June 29, 2009, 06:00:34 PM

Because they cared about winning back then maybe?  It was stupid to fire him when they did, but that had noithing to do with Keita either, Baldi.  So what's your point?

In all seriousness, why do you think they got rid of Jarvis? How did it go down in your opinoin, meaning in senses of timing of events?

First of all, I think Harrington did not like the fact that Jarvis would call the program out and demand all this $ be spent to improve facilities, etc.  Jarvis was right, too.

I think in Feb 2003, they were ready to fire Jarvis at season's end for poor performance, lack of recruiting, etc.  Then St. John's made a crazy run, beat Duke, won the NIT, hopes were high, and they couldn't fire him.  They start off the next season HORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIBLY and Harrington goes well now public opinion is against him, I better do it now before they make a stupid run at season's end again, and he cans him.

Then because Jarvis had the planes chartered and st johns stopped that, the Pitt incident happened, etc. etc. etc.

Do you remember the incidents Marco?  Do you REALLY believe Keita talks if he doesn't get expelled for the Pitt incident? I think it's pretty obvious how it all went down.

How do YOU think it went down Mr. Mel Gibson from Conspiracy Theory?

Of course I remember the incidents, just the timetable of events is a bit blurry. Do  you think the Erick Barkley incidents were the start of Harrington and the administration decisison set in motion?

Were you even a St. John's fan back then?  Do you not remember anything?  Barkley's incidents went down in 1999-2000.  Then Barkley left.  After that, there was Omar Cook's first season (2001-02), Hatten's first season AND NCAA berth (2002-03), and the NIT title season (2003-04).  Now you tell me.  Do you think the Barkley incident which was TOTALLY separate from Jarvis had anything to do with Jarvis' firing 3+ years later?

He was fired because the team wasn't winning, they were getting bad recruits, etc.  And this is a guy who took us to THREE NCAA tourneys and an NIT title in 5 years!  He brought in 2 MCD AA's of his own AND Daryll Hill and Marcus Hatten.

Jarvis had NOTHING to do with the Pitt strip club scandal.
Jarvis - if he directly had something to do with Keita's payments, which there is no proof of, he was paying a poor dude from West Africa $250 a month.  If you're gettin the heebiejeebies because of that, perhaps you should get a reality check.

Jarvis hurt this program badly...but he hurt it by ruining the ties to the city AAU programs.

I think you need to pull up some articles of the Jarvis years and re-read them, bro.  I don't think you quite get it.

    Supposedly  a done deal.   lance to Cincy.  truly remarkable!!!!

Which of "my rumors" do you not believe to be true yourself?

Was it ever proven that someone took Zendon Hamilton's SAT for him..?

  sorry

http://web.sny.tv/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090630&content_id=5614770&oid=2&vkey=21

Quote from: Marco Baldi on June 29, 2009, 07:03:40 PM

Quote from: Tha Kid on June 29, 2009, 06:34:13 PM

Quote from: Marco Baldi on June 29, 2009, 06:25:35 PM

Quote from: Tha Kid on June 29, 2009, 06:00:34 PM

Because they cared about winning back then maybe?  It was stupid to fire him when they did, but that had noithing to do with Keita either, Baldi.  So what's your point?

In all seriousness, why do you think they got rid of Jarvis? How did it go down in your opinoin, meaning in senses of timing of events?

First of all, I think Harrington did not like the fact that Jarvis would call the program out and demand all this $ be spent to improve facilities, etc.  Jarvis was right, too.

I think in Feb 2003, they were ready to fire Jarvis at season's end for poor performance, lack of recruiting, etc.  Then St. John's made a crazy run, beat Duke, won the NIT, hopes were high, and they couldn't fire him.  They start off the next season HORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIBLY and Harrington goes well now public opinion is against him, I better do it now before they make a stupid run at season's end again, and he cans him.

Then because Jarvis had the planes chartered and st johns stopped that, the Pitt incident happened, etc. etc. etc.

Do you remember the incidents Marco?  Do you REALLY believe Keita talks if he doesn't get expelled for the Pitt incident? I think it's pretty obvious how it all went down.

How do YOU think it went down Mr. Mel Gibson from Conspiracy Theory?

Of course I remember the incidents, just the timetable of events is a bit blurry. Do  you think the Erick Barkley incidents were the start of Harrington and the administration decisison set in motion?

Were you even a St. John's fan back then?  Do you not remember anything?  Barkley's incidents went down in 1999-2000.  Then Barkley left.  After that, there was Omar Cook's first season (2001-02), Hatten's first season AND NCAA berth (2002-03), and the NIT title season (2003-04).  Now you tell me.  Do you think the Barkley incident which was TOTALLY separate from Jarvis had anything to do with Jarvis' firing 3+ years later?

He was fired because the team wasn't winning, they were getting bad recruits, etc.  And this is a guy who took us to THREE NCAA tourneys and an NIT title in 5 years!  He brought in 2 MCD AA's of his own AND Daryll Hill and Marcus Hatten.

Jarvis had NOTHING to do with the Pitt strip club scandal.
Jarvis - if he directly had something to do with Keita's payments, which there is no proof of, he was paying a poor dude from West Africa $250 a month.  If you're gettin the heebiejeebies because of that, perhaps you should get a reality check.

Jarvis hurt this program badly...but he hurt it by ruining the ties to the city AAU programs.

I think you need to pull up some articles of the Jarvis years and re-read them, bro.  I don't think you quite get it.

Why so angry? You should take some time off  

What I meant was maybe the Barkley ordeal was the beginning-by the time of the firing maybe Harringtone had had enough of the shenanigans. But since you are a better fan than me, mabybe you know better