Big East Tournament

Quote from: prjohnnies on March 12, 2016, 08:44:40 PM

Easy with this. Willard was a JOKE for 5 years. He inherited a situation far better than what our staff got. And they didn't make the tourney for 5 years. They are on a great run but, as I've said repeatedly, if we have 5 years like Willards first 5, this board will combust.

If you are going to praise the Hall right now as a SJU fan you better have lots of patience for what this staff is taking over, and be pleased with incremental process. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.

Bingo!  Many on this board would've gone ballistic. 

Not to mention, this doesn't mean it'll be sustained success, although they're currently riding high.  If they're able to catapult their program from this, then the hiring of Morton and Antigua to land players paid off.  Otherwise, this season could be just a brief, albeit successful, blip on the radar.   

Many Seton Hall fans were fed up with Willard and wanted him gone a couple years ago. It was only the fact that he had this core of a roster returning for this year (and the fact that SHU is cheap and didn't want to pay his buyout) that got him to this year in the first place.

His chances on hiring Tiny and Antigua has already paid off. He won a championship. The program may not continue this type of success but they will never be worse off for having brought them in. If everybody returns for them next year they will be REALLY good.

Quote from: simplyred on March 12, 2016, 08:10:53 PM

Quote from: WillieG on March 12, 2016, 01:27:00 PM

Quote from: paultzman on March 12, 2016, 12:55:26 PM

Quote from: simplyred on March 12, 2016, 12:46:48 PM

Quote from: WillieG on March 12, 2016, 11:51:54 AM

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 12, 2016, 07:41:41 AM

Willard's job was seemingly on the line, so he did what a desperate man would do, he got the kid he needed that he thought would turn it around. I won't give him credit for Whitehead.

However I will give him credit for Carrington and Desi. Lav dropped the ball on Carrington. I remember Chiles recruiting him aggressively at one point and we had strong momentum then it just stopped. Clearly, he would have been a great get. He wouldn't have played as much as he did for us last year, but Lavin could have made it work.

Overall, I would say Seton Hall getting it done with a soph class of local kids basically reflects how bad Lavin was recruiting the last 2 years.

Carrington wanted to play with Whitehead, so whoever got Whitehead also got Carrington.  Whitehead was the one who Willard chaeated to get.  So he does not get credit really for Carrington in my mind.  To me he is just a big cheater.

Can you point me to the rule that Willard violated.  I've tried looking it up and I can't find it.  I know what he did seems slimy but I can find an actual violation.  You've called him out in no uncertain terms as a cheater.  I just can't find the rule that he broke.

Because there isn't one. Good post.

Not such a good post.  The rule clearly stated that you can hire the high school coach of a recruit, but the hire "cannot be a contingency of the commitment".  Now you could never prove this unless the school was stupid enough to writ e the contingency into the contract, but if you really believe it was not a package deal, I don't know what to say.

Why was it already known 8 months before the job opening was even posted that Tiny would be on the staff, for example?  And of all the people in the country that the job could have gone to, why did it go to the high school coach of the All American recruit they had coming in?  I mean come on.  You don';t even suspect foul play? Even Tiny himself was quoted as saying " I asked Coach Lavin why he didn't have a spot for me on his staff".  That was from Tiny himself, after the story that he was given a job on the Seton Hall staff, for the next season, broke.  And you don't even. . . . ."suspect" it was a package deal?

Recruiting rules seem to have been taken down except for the timing of when coaches can see players and visits can take place.  I'll try to see if I can research some articles regarding this sham recruitment.  I've seen a couple of articles, from the Times for example, saying it was OK to do what he did, but those articles don't make any sense.  Post them and they will be torn apart.

Please cite the specific rule number.  I downloaded the NCAA recruiting bylaws and I can't find a violation.  I don't care about "articles regarding this sham recruitment."  I'm asking for a specific rule number.

Here's what I found: (I apologize for the length)
_____________________
11.4 EmploymentofHighSchool,PreparatorySchoolorTwo-YearCollege Coaches, or Other Individuals Associated With Prospective Student- Athletes.
11.4.1 High School, Preparatory School or Two-Year College Coach. An institution may not em- ploy a high school, preparatory school or two-year college coach who remains a coach in the same sport at the high school, preparatory school or two-year college.  is provision does not preclude employment of a high school, preparatory school or two-year college coach in a di erent sport. Men’s and women’s teams in the same sport are considered di erent sports for purposes of this legislation. Men’s and women’s teams in the same sport are consid- ered di erent sports even if an athlete from the opposite gender is playing on a high school, preparatory school or two-year college men’s or women’s team, provided the team is classi ed as a separate team (as opposed to a “mixed” team) by the appropriate institution or the state high school, preparatory school or two-year college governing body. (See Bylaw 13.12.2.2 for regulations relating to the employment of high school, preparatory school or two- year college coaches in institutional camps or clinics.) (Revised: 1/10/91, 3/16/07, 1/16/10)
11.4.1.1 Contract for Future Employment. An institution is permitted to enter into a contractual agree- ment with a high school, preparatory school or two-year college coach for an employment opportunity that begins with the next academic year, provided the employment contract with the member institution is not con- tingent upon the enrollment of a prospective student-athlete and the coach does not begin any coaching duties (e.g., recruiting, selection of coaching sta ) for the member institution while remaining associated with the high school, preparatory school or two-year college.
11.4.2 Individual Associated with a Prospective Student-Athlete—Men’s Basketball. In men’s basketball, during a two-year period before a prospective student-athlete’s anticipated enrollment and a two-year period after the prospective student-athlete’s actual enrollment, an institution shall not employ (or en- ter into a contract for future employment with) an individual associated with the prospective student-athlete in any athletics department noncoaching sta  position or in a strength and conditioning sta  position. (Adopted: 1/16/10; a contract signed before 10/29/09 may be honored, Revised: 6/17/11)
11.4.2.1 Application. A violation of Bylaw 11.4.2 occurs if an individual associated with a prospective stu- dent-athlete (see Bylaw 13.02.17) is employed by the institution and, at the time of employment, a student- athlete who enrolled at the institution in the previous two years (and remains enrolled at the institution) was a prospective student-athlete by which the individual meets the de nition of an individual associated with a prospective student-athlete. A violation of Bylaw 11.4.2 also occurs if an individual associated with a prospec- tive student-athlete is employed and, within two years after such employment, a prospective student-athlete by which the individual meets the de nition of an individual associated with a prospective student-athlete enrolls as a full-time student in a regular academic term at the institution. In either case, the student-athlete becomes ineligible for intercollegiate competition unless eligibility is restored by the Committee on Student-Athlete Re- instatement. (Adopted: 6/20/13)
_____________________________

The rule forbids hiring the Individual associated with the student athlete for a non-coaching position.  Tiny was given an assistant coach position.  That is permissible.  This has been discussed on these boards ad nauseum.  Yet, you make categorical and absolute statements without the ability to provide anything to substantiate your accusations.

I am not a Willard or Seton Hall fan and I hated how the Whitehead recruiting saga unfolded.  But, come on!  Don't make such inflammatory allegations if you don't know what you are talking about.  I am not trying to attack you.  I thought you might know something and that I might be wrong.  But that doesn't appear to be the case.  I just want to set the record straight.

Sorry for the delay. Saturday is a busy day with the kids. Missed much of the Saturday games this year because of this.

I'm not sure you read my post carefully enough. I want to set the record straight now.   I was not making categorical statements without providing anything to substantiate my accusations.  My post is contained within yours.  You posted article 11.4.1.1.  within your text.  This states, just as I said. "An institution is allowed to enter into a contractual agreement with a [high school coach of a recruit] provided the contract is not contingent on the enrollment of the [recruit].  Then I went on to say, "Now you could never prove this unless the school was stupid enough to write the contingency into the contract, but if you really believe it was not a package deal, I don't know what to say".  This is what I posted, you can check above.

Everybody here seems to agree it was a package deal because, as you say, it has been discussed ad nauseum.  What there does not seem to be is the knowledge that that quid pro quo is against regulations.   Heck, you even said it was slimy.  And why? Well because the hire was contingent on the commitment as I said.

I apologize for not posting the rule again. I thought people would trust I did my research. (I did it two years ago, and posted it on another board I think).  I was going to do it again for this board, but you beat me to it.  I was able to remember the gist of the language though. i.e. the contract cannot be contingent on the commitment.

Now that brings us to the issue of why I say that there was a package deal.  If you check out the second paragraph of my post above, I outline some of the reasons why I think it was.  Why Kevin Willard is a cheater who is now basking in the glory of a Big East championship.

And why Lavin is now relegated to the ranks of goofy sideline reporters.

11.4.2 is specific to men's basketball.  If he violated that, the NCAA would have taken action.  Check Memphis' coaching staff and compare the last name of one of the assistance coaches to the last names of two of it's players and a third brother who has already pledged to them.  As long as it is an actual assistant coach position, it is not a rule violation.

Old article but discusses the Memphis clan

http://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2014/7/23/5925423/memphis-basketball-keelon-lawson-josh-pastner-sons-recruits

As "shady" as this may seem, would it be right to tell a kid he can't go play for his father?  The "non-coaching position" limitation seems to me to be a good rule, without going to the other extreme.

Quote from: WillieG on March 12, 2016, 11:11:29 PM

Quote from: simplyred on March 12, 2016, 08:10:53 PM

Quote from: WillieG on March 12, 2016, 01:27:00 PM

Quote from: paultzman on March 12, 2016, 12:55:26 PM

Quote from: simplyred on March 12, 2016, 12:46:48 PM

Quote from: WillieG on March 12, 2016, 11:51:54 AM

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 12, 2016, 07:41:41 AM

Willard's job was seemingly on the line, so he did what a desperate man would do, he got the kid he needed that he thought would turn it around. I won't give him credit for Whitehead.

However I will give him credit for Carrington and Desi. Lav dropped the ball on Carrington. I remember Chiles recruiting him aggressively at one point and we had strong momentum then it just stopped. Clearly, he would have been a great get. He wouldn't have played as much as he did for us last year, but Lavin could have made it work.

Overall, I would say Seton Hall getting it done with a soph class of local kids basically reflects how bad Lavin was recruiting the last 2 years.

Carrington wanted to play with Whitehead, so whoever got Whitehead also got Carrington.  Whitehead was the one who Willard chaeated to get.  So he does not get credit really for Carrington in my mind.  To me he is just a big cheater.

Can you point me to the rule that Willard violated.  I've tried looking it up and I can't find it.  I know what he did seems slimy but I can find an actual violation.  You've called him out in no uncertain terms as a cheater.  I just can't find the rule that he broke.

Because there isn't one. Good post.

Not such a good post.  The rule clearly stated that you can hire the high school coach of a recruit, but the hire "cannot be a contingency of the commitment".  Now you could never prove this unless the school was stupid enough to writ e the contingency into the contract, but if you really believe it was not a package deal, I don't know what to say.

Why was it already known 8 months before the job opening was even posted that Tiny would be on the staff, for example?  And of all the people in the country that the job could have gone to, why did it go to the high school coach of the All American recruit they had coming in?  I mean come on.  You don';t even suspect foul play? Even Tiny himself was quoted as saying " I asked Coach Lavin why he didn't have a spot for me on his staff".  That was from Tiny himself, after the story that he was given a job on the Seton Hall staff, for the next season, broke.  And you don't even. . . . ."suspect" it was a package deal?

Recruiting rules seem to have been taken down except for the timing of when coaches can see players and visits can take place.  I'll try to see if I can research some articles regarding this sham recruitment.  I've seen a couple of articles, from the Times for example, saying it was OK to do what he did, but those articles don't make any sense.  Post them and they will be torn apart.

Please cite the specific rule number.  I downloaded the NCAA recruiting bylaws and I can't find a violation.  I don't care about "articles regarding this sham recruitment."  I'm asking for a specific rule number.

Here's what I found: (I apologize for the length)
_____________________
11.4 EmploymentofHighSchool,PreparatorySchoolorTwo-YearCollege Coaches, or Other Individuals Associated With Prospective Student- Athletes.
11.4.1 High School, Preparatory School or Two-Year College Coach. An institution may not em- ploy a high school, preparatory school or two-year college coach who remains a coach in the same sport at the high school, preparatory school or two-year college.  is provision does not preclude employment of a high school, preparatory school or two-year college coach in a di erent sport. Men’s and women’s teams in the same sport are considered di erent sports for purposes of this legislation. Men’s and women’s teams in the same sport are consid- ered di erent sports even if an athlete from the opposite gender is playing on a high school, preparatory school or two-year college men’s or women’s team, provided the team is classi ed as a separate team (as opposed to a “mixed” team) by the appropriate institution or the state high school, preparatory school or two-year college governing body. (See Bylaw 13.12.2.2 for regulations relating to the employment of high school, preparatory school or two- year college coaches in institutional camps or clinics.) (Revised: 1/10/91, 3/16/07, 1/16/10)
11.4.1.1 Contract for Future Employment. An institution is permitted to enter into a contractual agree- ment with a high school, preparatory school or two-year college coach for an employment opportunity that begins with the next academic year, provided the employment contract with the member institution is not con- tingent upon the enrollment of a prospective student-athlete and the coach does not begin any coaching duties (e.g., recruiting, selection of coaching sta ) for the member institution while remaining associated with the high school, preparatory school or two-year college.
11.4.2 Individual Associated with a Prospective Student-Athlete—Men’s Basketball. In men’s basketball, during a two-year period before a prospective student-athlete’s anticipated enrollment and a two-year period after the prospective student-athlete’s actual enrollment, an institution shall not employ (or en- ter into a contract for future employment with) an individual associated with the prospective student-athlete in any athletics department noncoaching sta  position or in a strength and conditioning sta  position. (Adopted: 1/16/10; a contract signed before 10/29/09 may be honored, Revised: 6/17/11)
11.4.2.1 Application. A violation of Bylaw 11.4.2 occurs if an individual associated with a prospective stu- dent-athlete (see Bylaw 13.02.17) is employed by the institution and, at the time of employment, a student- athlete who enrolled at the institution in the previous two years (and remains enrolled at the institution) was a prospective student-athlete by which the individual meets the de nition of an individual associated with a prospective student-athlete. A violation of Bylaw 11.4.2 also occurs if an individual associated with a prospec- tive student-athlete is employed and, within two years after such employment, a prospective student-athlete by which the individual meets the de nition of an individual associated with a prospective student-athlete enrolls as a full-time student in a regular academic term at the institution. In either case, the student-athlete becomes ineligible for intercollegiate competition unless eligibility is restored by the Committee on Student-Athlete Re- instatement. (Adopted: 6/20/13)
_____________________________

The rule forbids hiring the Individual associated with the student athlete for a non-coaching position.  Tiny was given an assistant coach position.  That is permissible.  This has been discussed on these boards ad nauseum.  Yet, you make categorical and absolute statements without the ability to provide anything to substantiate your accusations.

I am not a Willard or Seton Hall fan and I hated how the Whitehead recruiting saga unfolded.  But, come on!  Don't make such inflammatory allegations if you don't know what you are talking about.  I am not trying to attack you.  I thought you might know something and that I might be wrong.  But that doesn't appear to be the case.  I just want to set the record straight.

Sorry for the delay. Saturday is a busy day with the kids. Missed much of the Saturday games this year because of this.

I'm not sure you read my post carefully enough. I want to set the record straight now.   I was not making categorical statements without providing anything to substantiate my accusations.  My post is contained within yours.  You posted article 11.4.1.1.  within your text.  This states, just as I said. "An institution is allowed to enter into a contractual agreement with a [high school coach of a recruit] provided the contract is not contingent on the enrollment of the [recruit].  Then I went on to say, "Now you could never prove this unless the school was stupid enough to write the contingency into the contract, but if you really believe it was not a package deal, I don't know what to say".  This is what I posted, you can check above.

Everybody here seems to agree it was a package deal because, as you say, it has been discussed ad nauseum.  What there does not seem to be is the knowledge that that quid pro quo is against regulations.   Heck, you even said it was slimy.  And why? Well because the hire was contingent on the commitment as I said.

I apologize for not posting the rule again. I thought people would trust I did my research. (I did it two years ago, and posted it on another board I think).  I was going to do it again for this board, but you beat me to it.  I was able to remember the gist of the language though. i.e. the contract cannot be contingent on the commitment.

Now that brings us to the issue of why I say that there was a package deal.  If you check out the second paragraph of my post above, I outline some of the reasons why I think it was.  Why Kevin Willard is a cheater who is now basking in the glory of a Big East championship.

And why Lavin is now relegated to the ranks of goofy sideline reporters.

11.4.2 is specific to men's basketball.  If he violated that, the NCAA would have taken action.  Check Memphis' coaching staff and compare the last name of one of the assistance coaches to the last names of two of it's players and a third brother who has already pledged to them.  As long as it is an actual assistant coach position, it is not a rule violation.

Now I'm losing my patience.  Rule 11.4.2 refers to NON-COACHING positions.  It is obviously not the operative rule here.  Rule 11.4.1.1 is the operative rule because it is specific to COACHING POSITIONS.  It states that the school is allowed to enter into such an agreement provided THE CONTRACT IS NOT CONTINGENT ON THE COMMITMENT.  It's right there in black and white. Now unless your assertion is that The Hall would have hired high schooler Tiny to be their coach, even if IW did not commit to them, (unlikely because you are too intelligent) you cannot deny that Willard cheated.

Now as far as the other point you made, the NCAA did rule that you can hire the parent of a recruit even if it is contingent on the commitment.  That is a totally different case then here because Tiny is not IW's parent.  The times reported the same thing about Larry Brown and Manning but the paper of record also failed to mention that Tiny is not IW's parent.  OK. I'll deal with Dinkins later.  No more personal attacks from him I hope.

SH has continued to show they know how to win.  Love em or hate em, Willard doing what he is paid to do..

He shouldn't be paid to break rules.

Quote from: RedStormNC on March 12, 2016, 07:56:46 PM

SH has continued to show they know how to win.  Love em or hate em, Willard doing what he is paid to do..

He shouldn't be paid to break rules.

The horse is beyond dead man!

Quote from: simplyred on March 12, 2016, 12:46:48 PM

Quote from: WillieG on March 12, 2016, 11:51:54 AM

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 12, 2016, 07:41:41 AM

Willard's job was seemingly on the line, so he did what a desperate man would do, he got the kid he needed that he thought would turn it around. I won't give him credit for Whitehead.

However I will give him credit for Carrington and Desi. Lav dropped the ball on Carrington. I remember Chiles recruiting him aggressively at one point and we had strong momentum then it just stopped. Clearly, he would have been a great get. He wouldn't have played as much as he did for us last year, but Lavin could have made it work.

Overall, I would say Seton Hall getting it done with a soph class of local kids basically reflects how bad Lavin was recruiting the last 2 years.

Carrington wanted to play with Whitehead, so whoever got Whitehead also got Carrington.  Whitehead was the one who Willard chaeated to get.  So he does not get credit really for Carrington in my mind.  To me he is just a big cheater.

Can you point me to the rule that Willard violated.  I've tried looking it up and I can't find it.  I know what he did seems slimy but I can find an actual violation.  You've called him out in no uncertain terms as a cheater.  I just can't find the rule that he broke.

Because there isn't one. Good post.

The rule was found Paultz.  I researched it two years ago for another board.  NCAA bylaw 11.4.1.1.  It states the hires contract cannot be "contingent on the commitment".  It is why SH had to wait until the summer to even post the sham listing on their athletics website for the "coaching vacancy" .  Most people knew it was a package deal 8 months before that posting was even listed. They were attempting to make it look like there was no quid pro quo because they were aware of the rule even though most journalists were not. He was then hired some time later and nobody batted an eye because it had been known for almost a year.

Quote from: RedStormNC on March 12, 2016, 07:56:46 PM

SH has continued to show they know how to win.  Love em or hate em, Willard doing what he is paid to do..

He shouldn't be paid to break rules.

No matter. Even if we got IW he would have been declared inelligible for some reason or another and transferred . Remember we are ....

Quote from: WillieG on March 13, 2016, 01:55:14 PM

Quote from: RedStormNC on March 12, 2016, 07:56:46 PM

SH has continued to show they know how to win.  Love em or hate em, Willard doing what he is paid to do..

He shouldn't be paid to break rules.

The horse is beyond dead man!

Are you kidding me?  I was called out on our own board for defending the program against cheaters and I'm the one that should not post about it?  Someone got fired here for not bringing in recruits and you shouldn't post about it?  I cited the rule.  How is this not relevant to the program?  Everyone was saying Willard did not break the rules.  I pointed out how he did, and I'm the one who shouldn't have made the posts? If someone makes an error while they are trying to refute my argument then I have to respond.  Right?  What is the board for if you can't point things like this out?  Read the rule and explain to me how he did not break it.  What, because the Hall was not stupid enough to write the contingency into the contract so you can't prove there was quid pro quo?

It reminds me of when Clinton pardoned that fugitive criminal and said you can't prove there was quid pro qou for the gifts I received from him.  And  then Jimmy Carter, a Democrat himself, published an editorial in the Times saying "one assumes there was quid pro quo".  It was a pretty damning piece by Carter. 

Quote from: paultzman on March 13, 2016, 01:59:33 PM

Quote from: WillieG on March 13, 2016, 01:55:14 PM

Quote from: RedStormNC on March 12, 2016, 07:56:46 PM

SH has continued to show they know how to win.  Love em or hate em, Willard doing what he is paid to do..

He shouldn't be paid to break rules.

The horse is beyond dead man!

Are you kidding me.  I was called out on our own board for defending the program against cheaters and I'm the one that should not post about it.  Someone got fired here for not bringing in recruits and you shouldn't post about it.  I cited the rule.  How is this not relevant to the program.  Everyone was saying Willard did not break the rules.  I[pointed out how he did, and I'm the one who shouldn't have made the posts. If someone makes an error while they are trying to refute my argument then I have to respond.  Right?  What is the board for if you can't point things like this out.  Read the rule and explain to me how he did not break it.  What, because the Hall was not stupid enough to write the contingency into the contract so you can't prove there was quid pro quo.

It reminds me of when Clinton pardoned that fugitive criminal and said you can't prove there was quid pro qou for the gifts I received from him.  And  then Jimmy Carter, a Democrat himself, published an editorial in the Times saying "one assumes there was quid pro quo".  It was a pretty damning piece by Carter. 

Nothing is changing, so may be time to move on or take it to Supreme Court. Getting tedious. You have made your point. This is getting like an Aleve commercial.

Quote from: WillieG on March 13, 2016, 02:18:55 PM

Quote from: paultzman on March 13, 2016, 01:59:33 PM

Quote from: WillieG on March 13, 2016, 01:55:14 PM

Quote from: RedStormNC on March 12, 2016, 07:56:46 PM

SH has continued to show they know how to win.  Love em or hate em, Willard doing what he is paid to do..

He shouldn't be paid to break rules.

The horse is beyond dead man!

Are you kidding me.  I was called out on our own board for defending the program against cheaters and I'm the one that should not post about it.  Someone got fired here for not bringing in recruits and you shouldn't post about it.  I cited the rule.  How is this not relevant to the program.  Everyone was saying Willard did not break the rules.  I[pointed out how he did, and I'm the one who shouldn't have made the posts. If someone makes an error while they are trying to refute my argument then I have to respond.  Right?  What is the board for if you can't point things like this out.  Read the rule and explain to me how he did not break it.  What, because the Hall was not stupid enough to write the contingency into the contract so you can't prove there was quid pro quo.

It reminds me of when Clinton pardoned that fugitive criminal and said you can't prove there was quid pro qou for the gifts I received from him.  And  then Jimmy Carter, a Democrat himself, published an editorial in the Times saying "one assumes there was quid pro quo".  It was a pretty damning piece by Carter. 

Nothing is changing, so may be time to move on or take it to Supreme Court. Getting tedious. You have made your point. This is getting like an Aleve commercial.

If someone contradicts you in error then you have to respond. Right? If someone attacks you personally you have to respond. Right? I was asked to cite a rule. I did it.  People didn't have to call me out.  Several posters.  They are the reasons why this has gone on.  Not me. I have to defend myself. You should trust me by now that I know what I'm talking about.  Don't attack me.

I could understand if this was a Seton Hall board that there would be some fireworks because they would lose their objectivity.  They do.  But come on dudes this is the Jungle.  We should be circling the wagons.  Our program is on life support.  Someone stole key recruits at a critical juncture in program history.  Someone lost their job because of this.  This is relevant.  This is important.

Willard and SHU out worked us on the court and off it.. Unless the ncaa accuses them of something shady,  they are good to go... Crying now looks weak. 

Bottom line , they got to celebrate a big east title at MSG ( which thru referred to as their home),  and St. John's is at , yet another, rock bottom... Amazing how year after year, that bottom floor gets lowered. 

We are.....

Quote from: paultzman on March 13, 2016, 02:26:38 PM

Quote from: WillieG on March 13, 2016, 02:18:55 PM

Quote from: paultzman on March 13, 2016, 01:59:33 PM

Quote from: WillieG on March 13, 2016, 01:55:14 PM

Quote from: RedStormNC on March 12, 2016, 07:56:46 PM

SH has continued to show they know how to win.  Love em or hate em, Willard doing what he is paid to do..

He shouldn't be paid to break rules.

The horse is beyond dead man!

Are you kidding me.  I was called out on our own board for defending the program against cheaters and I'm the one that should not post about it.  Someone got fired here for not bringing in recruits and you shouldn't post about it.  I cited the rule.  How is this not relevant to the program.  Everyone was saying Willard did not break the rules.  I[pointed out how he did, and I'm the one who shouldn't have made the posts. If someone makes an error while they are trying to refute my argument then I have to respond.  Right?  What is the board for if you can't point things like this out.  Read the rule and explain to me how he did not break it.  What, because the Hall was not stupid enough to write the contingency into the contract so you can't prove there was quid pro quo.

It reminds me of when Clinton pardoned that fugitive criminal and said you can't prove there was quid pro qou for the gifts I received from him.  And  then Jimmy Carter, a Democrat himself, published an editorial in the Times saying "one assumes there was quid pro quo".  It was a pretty damning piece by Carter. 

Nothing is changing, so may be time to move on or take it to Supreme Court. Getting tedious. You have made your point. This is getting like an Aleve commercial.

If someone contradicts you in error then you have to respond. Right? If someone attacks you personally you have to respond. Right? I was asked to cite a rule. I did it.  People didn't have to call me out.  Several posters.  They are the reasons why this has gone on.  Not me. I have to defend myself. You should trust me by now that I know what I'm talking about.  Don't attack me.

I could understand if this was a Seton Hall board that there would be some fireworks because they would lose their objectivity.  They do.  But come on dudes this is the Jungle.  We should be circling the wagons.  Our program is on life support.  Someone stole key recruits at a critical juncture in program history.  Someone lost their job because of this.  This is relevant.  This is important.

"Storm the Bastile" 

  Coming for you Willard, you cheating bastard

Coming for you Willard, you cheating bastard

Starting to appreciate you more Petey.  You must be one of those people who takes pride in their condescending expression.  You must have developed it throughout your life.  Cultivated it.  But I have to admit I'm starting to appreciate you.  You don't have to change, but just realize it does not necessarily make you smarter then anyone.  "Coming for you Willard, you cheating bastard."  Most people would never want to spend the time and effort to think like that .

Quote from: mjdinkins on March 13, 2016, 12:27:28 AM

Quote from: prjohnnies on March 12, 2016, 08:44:40 PM

Easy with this. Willard was a JOKE for 5 years. He inherited a situation far better than what our staff got. And they didn't make the tourney for 5 years. They are on a great run but, as I've said repeatedly, if we have 5 years like Willards first 5, this board will combust.

If you are going to praise the Hall right now as a SJU fan you better have lots of patience for what this staff is taking over, and be pleased with incremental process. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.

Bingo!  Many on this board would've gone ballistic. 

Not to mention, this doesn't mean it'll be sustained success, although they're currently riding high.  If they're able to catapult their program from this, then the hiring of Morton and Antigua to land players paid off.  Otherwise, this season could be just a brief, albeit successful, blip on the radar.   

Many Seton Hall fans were fed up with Willard and wanted him gone a couple years ago. It was only the fact that he had this core of a roster returning for this year (and the fact that SHU is cheap and didn't want to pay his buyout) that got him to this year in the first place.

His chances on hiring Tiny and Antigua has already paid off. He won a championship. The program may not continue this type of success but they will never be worse off for having brought them in. If everybody returns for them next year they will be REALLY good.

It's paid off short term, but we don't know how it'll play out long-term.  Not to mention, Willard won a conference championship.  We all know that's totally different than winning a national title.  If Willard wins a national championship this season (or any, other season for that matter), then it doesn't matter what happens long-term, as it would means his moves have definitely paid off. 

If the Hall wins, at least, a game or two in the tournament, and Whitehead plays big, then I believe he's a goner.  If everyone returns, then they should be extremely good, and probably would be a top 10-15 preseason pick. 

Another thing....  Will Willard be able to sustain recruiting over the long haul?   

Quote from: WillieG on March 13, 2016, 02:46:06 PM

Quote from: paultzman on March 13, 2016, 02:26:38 PM

Quote from: WillieG on March 13, 2016, 02:18:55 PM

Quote from: paultzman on March 13, 2016, 01:59:33 PM

Quote from: WillieG on March 13, 2016, 01:55:14 PM

Quote from: RedStormNC on March 12, 2016, 07:56:46 PM

SH has continued to show they know how to win.  Love em or hate em, Willard doing what he is paid to do..

He shouldn't be paid to break rules.

The horse is beyond dead man!

Are you kidding me.  I was called out on our own board for defending the program against cheaters and I'm the one that should not post about it.  Someone got fired here for not bringing in recruits and you shouldn't post about it.  I cited the rule.  How is this not relevant to the program.  Everyone was saying Willard did not break the rules.  I[pointed out how he did, and I'm the one who shouldn't have made the posts. If someone makes an error while they are trying to refute my argument then I have to respond.  Right?  What is the board for if you can't point things like this out.  Read the rule and explain to me how he did not break it.  What, because the Hall was not stupid enough to write the contingency into the contract so you can't prove there was quid pro quo.

It reminds me of when Clinton pardoned that fugitive criminal and said you can't prove there was quid pro qou for the gifts I received from him.  And  then Jimmy Carter, a Democrat himself, published an editorial in the Times saying "one assumes there was quid pro quo".  It was a pretty damning piece by Carter. 

Nothing is changing, so may be time to move on or take it to Supreme Court. Getting tedious. You have made your point. This is getting like an Aleve commercial.

If someone contradicts you in error then you have to respond. Right? If someone attacks you personally you have to respond. Right? I was asked to cite a rule. I did it.  People didn't have to call me out.  Several posters.  They are the reasons why this has gone on.  Not me. I have to defend myself. You should trust me by now that I know what I'm talking about.  Don't attack me.

I could understand if this was a Seton Hall board that there would be some fireworks because they would lose their objectivity.  They do.  But come on dudes this is the Jungle.  We should be circling the wagons.  Our program is on life support.  Someone stole key recruits at a critical juncture in program history.  Someone lost their job because of this.  This is relevant.  This is important.

"Storm the Bastile" 

I find it amazing how thousands and thousands of posts could be made by someone about SJU hoops and the person doesn't seem to care, even when they  shown how Lavin was cheated out of his job.  And now Willard basks in the glory.  Oh but wait a minute.  You knew the whole time he broke the rule, you just didn't care that we were cheated out of IW and Carrington.   Gee, "Storm the Bastille".  Wow you're so sophisticated you don't even care that we only won one game. Fourteen thousand posts.

Quote from: paultzman on March 12, 2016, 12:55:26 PM

Quote from: simplyred on March 12, 2016, 12:46:48 PM

Quote from: WillieG on March 12, 2016, 11:51:54 AM

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 12, 2016, 07:41:41 AM

Willard's job was seemingly on the line, so he did what a desperate man would do, he got the kid he needed that he thought would turn it around. I won't give him credit for Whitehead.

However I will give him credit for Carrington and Desi. Lav dropped the ball on Carrington. I remember Chiles recruiting him aggressively at one point and we had strong momentum then it just stopped. Clearly, he would have been a great get. He wouldn't have played as much as he did for us last year, but Lavin could have made it work.

Overall, I would say Seton Hall getting it done with a soph class of local kids basically reflects how bad Lavin was recruiting the last 2 years.

Carrington wanted to play with Whitehead, so whoever got Whitehead also got Carrington.  Whitehead was the one who Willard chaeated to get.  So he does not get credit really for Carrington in my mind.  To me he is just a big cheater.

Can you point me to the rule that Willard violated.  I've tried looking it up and I can't find it.  I know what he did seems slimy but I can find an actual violation.  You've called him out in no uncertain terms as a cheater.  I just can't find the rule that he broke.

Because there isn't one. Good post.

The rule was found Paultz.  I researched it two years ago for another board.  NCAA bylaw 11.4.1.1.  It states the hires contract cannot be "contingent on the commitment".  It is why SH had to wait until the summer to even post the sham listing on their athletics website for the "coaching vacancy" .  Most people knew it was a package deal 8 months before that posting was even listed. They were attempting to make it look like there was no quid pro quo because they were aware of the rule even though most journalists were not. He was then hired some time later and nobody batted an eye because it had been known for almost a year.

Sometimes coaches make these deals and they backfire more times than not which is why you rarely see them happen. How's DePaul doing with Billy Garret Jr?

Looks like Garrett was coaching at Depaul for a while and was at other colleges before Depaul.  Seems a bit different.

Either way, Depaul is lousy... and so were we this year.