|
Post by trimster on Mar 23, 2024 10:14:29 GMT -5
I am delighted to see the presumed "top dogs" get their comeuppance. What is so great about the Big Dance is haughty gasbags like Jay Bills and even worse, the late Billy Packer, get their bubbles burst.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Mar 23, 2024 10:23:19 GMT -5
Izzo can stuff it!
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Mar 23, 2024 11:33:57 GMT -5
I go back to Mike Francessa. It was infurating to hear his picks and then hear him say, when they were wrong, that he knew exactly why and to see him then act as if he had expected the upset all along. I still think he and "Maddog" were a big reason why Fordham left the Patriot League. From the time Fordham joined, they said over and over what a bad move this was. But that is another story.
|
|
|
Post by hcnj on Mar 23, 2024 12:20:02 GMT -5
Very disappointed with Colgate. Four years being dominant in the PL, a couple 5th year seniors, and they laid another rotten egg. It seemed they weren’t ready to play in each tourney appearance. Meanwhile, Yale hung tough and got it done. Connecting the dots it's just reinforcement where we are relative to the ivies. We were bottom of PL and got smoked by Colgate who's still the clearly best PL team who just got punished by a good big program. Yale beats Auburn. Even with our self-projected improvements there's a huge gap to beleve we could beat Auburnlike teams in 2-3 years. I haven't been following pl recruiting but if other programs are doing similarly to us it's even going to be difficult to get the PL auto bid. We've got to get a good portal big soon.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Mar 25, 2024 7:49:04 GMT -5
The Big East was treated very unfairly given their strength this year - only 3 teams got in (all won their first round games). The SEC, in contrast, got 8 teams in. 5 have already lost (many - including Kentucky and Auburn - via upset). All 3 Big East teams in the Sweet 16 Tennessee & Alabama only two SEC teams still standing Big 12 which also had 8 bids down to 2 ACC with 5 bids has 4 teams in the Sweet 16
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Mar 25, 2024 8:04:15 GMT -5
The Big East was treated very unfairly given their strength this year - only 3 teams got in (all won their first round games). The SEC, in contrast, got 8 teams in. 5 have already lost (many - including Kentucky and Auburn - via upset). All 3 Big East teams in the Sweet 16 Tennessee & Alabama only two SEC teams still standing Big 12 which also had 8 bids down to 2 ACC with 5 bids has 4 teams in the Sweet 16 Plus two Big 10, one each MWC, PAC 12, WCC. Off the top of my head, foul shooting killed Baylor (when they made their run, it should have put them ahead by a few points, then the kid bricked up two shots in the last 20 seconds) and A&M (25 out of 41!).
|
|
|
Post by nhteamer on Mar 25, 2024 8:51:33 GMT -5
I go back to Mike Francessa. It was infurating to hear his picks and then hear him say, when they were wrong, that he knew exactly why and to see him then act as if he had expected the upset all along. I still think he and "Maddog" were a big reason why Fordham left the Patriot League. From the time Fordham joined, they said over and over what a bad move this was. But that is another story. It was a terrible move: nearly as bad as our pissing away our program. Remember that Dee Rowe of UConn said when asked about his program "we're just trying to keep up with Holy Cross." The only thing worse is all you sycophants saying Fr Brooks was right. He was 100% wrong! WE ARE INVISIBLE: enjoy the tourney. (you bet I'm bitter)
|
|
|
Post by hc1996 on Mar 25, 2024 9:02:11 GMT -5
I go back to Mike Francessa. It was infurating to hear his picks and then hear him say, when they were wrong, that he knew exactly why and to see him then act as if he had expected the upset all along. I still think he and "Maddog" were a big reason why Fordham left the Patriot League. From the time Fordham joined, they said over and over what a bad move this was. But that is another story. It was a terrible move: nearly as bad as our pissing away our program. Remember that Dee Rowe of UConn said when asked about his program "we're just trying to keep up with Holy Cross." The only thing worse is all you sycophants saying Fr Brooks was right. He was 100% wrong! WE ARE INVISIBLE: enjoy the tourney. (you bet I'm bitter) Brooks was mesmerized by the Ivies. Wanted to be one. They pulled the wool over his eyes and laughed for years. Sad actually.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Mar 25, 2024 9:02:35 GMT -5
There are few things that are 100% true or false. Fr. Brooks made some mistakes, but overall did a great job in stabilizing HC at a critical time. Sycophant? Are we trying to score points with or get an advantage from someone who has already died? I am not sure what you describe as a terrible move, joining the PL or leaving it. It is good Fordham moved to the A-10. If they had not then they could have been deprived of all those horrific losing seasons in men's basketball. Fortunately they stayed PL for football and had some success there. I, for one, would welcome their return in all sports. The football rivalry we have with them could extend through all sports.
|
|
|
Post by nhteamer on Mar 25, 2024 9:11:14 GMT -5
Wrong:100% bad move.
Yes, only HC sycophantS with purple colored glasses don't admit it.
Here's one RGS: what if Bergen Catholic bowed to the critics that it was unfair because we "recruit" and caved. We then had a schedule of Saddle River Country Day type schools.
Good for Bergen? OF COURSE NOT!
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Mar 25, 2024 9:25:54 GMT -5
Wrong:100% bad move. OK you are 100% wrong on this point - clear enough?Yes, only HC sycophantS with purple colored glasses don't admit it. I have no idea what this means. Do you know the meaning of "sycophant?"Here's one RGS: what if Bergen Catholic bowed to the critics that it was unfair because we "recruit" and caved. We then had a schedule of Saddle River Country Day type schools. Actually, they had just that situation for years (and still do). It really helped Bergen in the long run because that is why they play so many teams out of state. Local schools refused to play BC. Even when they were defeated in court (because of their clear prejudice against Catholic schools) they segregated their conferences to put all the parochials in one "division."
BTW have you noticed that Saddle River Day has become a powerhouse in some sports? They recruit and give athletic scholarships (which BC does not).Good for Bergen? OF COURSE NOT! Well, as I explained above IT WAS GOOD so perhaps you are again wrong, but are unable to see it. (Do you need glasses?)
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Mar 25, 2024 13:10:51 GMT -5
Ignorant comments too stupid to be taken seriously. Getting sick & tired of these youngsters who don't know s#@t from shinola about Fr. Brooks & HC at that time. Want to see a sycophant? Look in a mirror & you won't like what you see.. Bug off. Stop with the childish name calling. Time to stop the bed wetting. Grow up & move on.
|
|
|
Post by Xmassader on Mar 26, 2024 16:06:19 GMT -5
Ignorant comments too stupid to be taken seriously. Getting sick & tired of these youngsters who don't know s#@t from shinola about Fr. Brooks & HC at that time. Want to see a sycophant? Look in a mirror & you won't like what you see.. Bug off. Stop with the childish name calling. Time to stop the bed wetting. Grow up & move on. As far as I know, one of the youngsters to whom you referred is a mid-‘70s graduate, who was at HC during the early years of Fr. Brooks’ tenure, co-education and the Potter/Vicens era of HC hoops. I would venture a guess that he knows a lot about Fr. Brooks and HC at that time. You may disagree with him as is your right to do but to suggest his comments are “ignorant” or “too stupid to be taken seriously” seems to miss the point that some number of posters legitimately feel that Fr. Brooks made the wrong decisions with respect to athletics in general, the Big East and the PL. As rgs pointed out, Fr. Brooks’ tenure was extremely positive in many ways (coeducation, financial stability, increasing the endowment). Overall he achieves high marks for his presidential tenure but the test of time has shown that his decisions regarding athletics (when considered in the light of on-field/on-court success, increasing the visibility/profile of the College to prospective students and enhancing the 1979 academic profile of the College vis-a-vis the 1979 academic profiles of our historical athletic competitors [BC, Georgetown, Providence, Villanova])have clearly been shown to be less than the best. I have to say that, as I watched UConn win the BE tournament and its first two NCAA tournament games, I thought back to 1979 when the BE was formed. At that point, HC had a 39-16 advantage in the series with UConn, two Final Four appearances and one NCAA championship. UConn had none of the above. We all know what UConn has accomplished since then…5 NCAA championships…and what HC hoops has not. Hard to seriously argue that Fr. Brooks’ path for HC athletics was the correct one. It’s tough enough to deal with the results of that decision path let alone having to hear folks try to defend it. Maybe not 100% wrong…but pretty close.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Mar 26, 2024 17:37:51 GMT -5
Ignorant comments too stupid to be taken seriously. Getting sick & tired of these youngsters who don't know s#@t from shinola about Fr. Brooks & HC at that time. Want to see a sycophant? Look in a mirror & you won't like what you see.. Bug off. Stop with the childish name calling. Time to stop the bed wetting. Grow up & move on. I have to say that, as I watched UConn win the BE tournament and its first two NCAA tournament games, I thought back to 1979 when the BE was formed. At that point, HC had a 39-16 advantage in the series with UConn, two Final Four appearances and one NCAA championship. UConn had none of the above. We all know what UConn has accomplished since then…5 NCAA championships…and what HC hoops has not. Hard to seriously argue that Fr. Brooks’ path for HC athletics was the correct one. It’s tough enough to deal with the results of that decision path let alone having to hear folks try to defend it. Maybe not 100% wrong…but pretty close. This still makes the assumption that HC would have enjoyed similar success. Back in the 70's athletes were still legitimate students. Many might have been on the lower end of the academic bell curve of a school, but they were on the bell curve. Then comes 1981 and a high academic Big East school decided to change the norm and take in a kid who, without his athletic prowess, would have been laughed at for applying. One could reasonably argue that HC could accept athletes that couldn't handle the academic requirements of the school. HC could make special academic programs to get those kids through to keep up with the Joneses and be nationally relevant in hoops. And in so doing raise the academic profile of the school. That doesn't mean that considering that price. too high is a totally unreasonable position. .Personally , I think if HC didn't go all in with an "ends justifies the means" attitude. HC's history in the Big East would probably be a lot closer to Fordham's record in the A-10 than UConn in the Big East
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Mar 26, 2024 17:41:08 GMT -5
Obviously, "youngsters" was not literal but a figurative term of use describing the lack of maturity exhibited in the comment. More than a difference of opinion, the egregious comment was an attack on those who disagreed with the poster. The inartful use of "sycophant" was stupid and an uncalled for insult. Since we're dishing. I found their ignorance about the context of the school, its size & academics at that time and the rationale for the decision appalling! Appreciate your reasonable post. We can agree to respectfully disagree.However, there is no doubt Fr. Brooks made the correct decision. Comparing HC a small high academic college with UConn, a state university which upped its sports profile & spending just doesn't fly. Why, almost 50 years after the fact do some keep resurrecting the decaying bones of this decision? IMO, HC athletics/academics is in a better place than it has been in my 60+ years involvement w/ the school. Disagree if you must but it is long past time to move on. Peace. PS Fr. Brooks was a transformational leader, one who is widely admired. Pres. VR appears to be a transformational leader, too.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Mar 26, 2024 17:46:42 GMT -5
HC could have been the next Seton Hall, but we missed that opportunity. Oh, what might have been…..,
|
|
|
Post by purplehaze on Mar 26, 2024 18:35:42 GMT -5
I agree that we missed an opportunity with the Big East and we could have followed the ‘Villanova’ model - a school which unquestionably raised its academic profile over the last 30 plus years.
|
|
|
Post by Xmassader on Mar 26, 2024 20:07:58 GMT -5
I have to say that, as I watched UConn win the BE tournament and its first two NCAA tournament games, I thought back to 1979 when the BE was formed. At that point, HC had a 39-16 advantage in the series with UConn, two Final Four appearances and one NCAA championship. UConn had none of the above. We all know what UConn has accomplished since then…5 NCAA championships…and what HC hoops has not. Hard to seriously argue that Fr. Brooks’ path for HC athletics was the correct one. It’s tough enough to deal with the results of that decision path let alone having to hear folks try to defend it. Maybe not 100% wrong…but pretty close. This still makes the assumption that HC would have enjoyed similar success. Back in the 70's athletes were still legitimate students. Many might have been on the lower end of the academic bell curve of a school, but they were on the bell curve. Then comes 1981 and a high academic Big East school decided to change the norm and take in a kid who, without his athletic prowess, would have been laughed at for applying. One could reasonably argue that HC could accept athletes that couldn't handle the academic requirements of the school. HC could make special academic programs to get those kids through to keep up with the Joneses and be nationally relevant in hoops. And in so doing raise the academic profile of the school. That doesn't mean that considering that price. too high is a totally unreasonable position. .Personally , I think if HC didn't go all in with an "ends justifies the means" attitude. HC's history in the Big East would probably be a lot closer to Fordham's record in the A-10 than UConn in the Big East In my previous post in this thread, I did not assume that HC’s success had we joined the BE would have been the same as UConn’s. What I do believe, and IMO justifiably so, is that our success would have been much greater than it has been since 1979. From 1945-46 until 1978-79 (34 seasons), HC had 30 winning seasons, 3 losing seasons and one .500 season. In the 45 seasons since 1979, HC has had 20 winning seasons, 24 losing seasons and one .500 season and 8 of those winning seasons occurred when HC had more scholarships than many of its PL competitors. In the initial years of the BE, Seton Hall, BC and UConn struggled a bit. But with the right coaching and recruiting, each eventually made it to the Elite Eight or beyond. In 1979, we had a very good coach and were on a roll, competing successfully with BE opponents without jeopardizing our academic standards. No one can prove or disprove the point with certainty but I like the odds of HC achieving more in the BE in the last 45 yrs. than Fordham has accomplished in the A-10…and more than has been accomplished in the ECAC North, the MAAC and the PL. Just look at where Xavier was in the early ‘80s and where it is now. We beat them twice in a home and home. They made smart decisions and are now competitive in the BE. Effectively, several years ago they took the “HC slot” in the BE and have prospered both athletically and academically compared to where they were in the early ‘80s. No one can convince me that with HC’s history and resources that we could not have achieved success similar to Xavier with the requisite motivation and decision making at the presidential, BOT and AD levels.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Mar 26, 2024 20:42:38 GMT -5
How has Xavier prospered academically?
|
|
|
Post by Xmassader on Mar 26, 2024 21:00:19 GMT -5
How has Xavier prospered academically? Prospered? Improved? Compared to where it was in the early ‘80s and relatively so in the comparison with HC. The main point is not to debate the merits of the relative academic standing of HC vs. Providence, Xavier, BC et al. but rather to clearly refute Fr. Brooks’ assertion that BE participation would tarnish HC’s academic standing. That does not appear to have happened to those that joined the BE. On the contrary, most have seen a jump in their academic standing. When I posted this point several years ago, someone asked whether I was suggesting that entry into the BE would have improved our academic standing. My response is: I don’t know. But, based on the experience of those that did join, it appears that their academic standing did not fall, exactly the opposite of what Fr. Brooks said would happen to HC if HC did join the BE.
|
|
|
Post by Xmassader on Mar 26, 2024 22:29:49 GMT -5
Obviously, "youngsters" was not literal but a figurative term of use describing the lack of maturity exhibited in the comment. More than a difference of opinion, the egregious comment was an attack on those who disagreed with the poster. The inartful use of "sycophant" was stupid and an uncalled for insult. Since we're dishing. I found their ignorance about the context of the school, its size & academics at that time and the rationale for the decision appalling! Appreciate your reasonable post. We can agree to respectfully disagree. However, there is no doubt Fr. Brooks made the correct decision. Comparing HC a small high academic college with UConn, a state university which upped its sports profile & spending just doesn't fly. Why, almost 50 years after the fact do some keep resurrecting the decaying bones of this decision? IMO, HC athletics/academics is in a better place than it has been in my 60+ years involvement w/ the school. Disagree if you must but it is long past time to move on. Peace. PS Fr. Brooks was a transformational leader, one who is widely admired. Pres. VR appears to be a transformational leader, too. mm67 said: "However, there is no doubt Fr. Brooks made the correct decision." There is clearly some doubt. Just look at the record prior to 1980 and after 1979 as outlined in my response to Tom's post in this thread. Then look at the fact that those BE entrants in 1979 have not suffered academically since BE entry. One could make a cogent argument that all have flourished. I would argue the opposite of your point. There is little if any doubt that he made the incorrect decision...in baseball parlance went 0 for 2. His decision diminished our athletic profile dramatically, (particularly when compared to historical norms) and did not save us from academic or financial Armageddon. mm67 said: "Comparing Holy Cross, a small high academic college, with UConn, a state university which upped its sports profile & spending, just doesn't fly". First of all, up until 1979, HC was a small high academic college and UConn was a state university and HC dominated UConn in men's hoops (39Ws vs. 16Ws as of 1979). My point in the comparison of the two programs was to show that HC's starting point was much better than UConn's at the time of BE formation. I am not suggesting that HC would have won 5 national titles since 1979 as UConn has done but rather to suggest that BE entry in 1979, with a very good coach and a run of recent success from '74-'75 to '79, would have allowed HC to compete in the BE and eventually do what every initial BE entrant has done at least once (reach the Elite 8). It is much harder to posit a scenario in which HC would have had 25 non-winning seasons in the last 45 years, especially when BE teams can stuff their schedules with many non-conference home games. mm67 said: "Why, almost 50 years after the fact, do some keep resurrecting the decaying bones of this decision?" Please consider that, perhaps, it is because there are some who refuse to acknowledge that it was not a good decision, either at the time or 45 years in the rear view mirror, in effect defending the indefensible. Not only have those who believe that it was the incorrect decision had to live with results of the last 45 years (poorer athletic performance and a diminution of relative academic standing with BE peers) but they have had to listen to those trying to defend it-- a sort of double penalty. Quite frankly, I don't understand why it is so difficult for some to say that Fr. Brooks' overall tenure as president was very successful but that he erred with respect to athletics and the BE. I hold Fr. Brooks in high regard but I simply cannot ignore his decisions on athletics in my overall view. Lastly, I do not intend to engage in a continual back and forth on this topic. My views are clear and I will let this post stand as my response to any who contend that Fr. Brooks' decision was the "correct decision". Peace
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Mar 26, 2024 22:33:52 GMT -5
I wonder if we turned the clock back and asked students, alums, fans, and the community from that era what they thought of the decision at that time would it be a different response from what we read or hear today?
Just guessing but at that time I think about 90% were disappointed, upset, and confused by the decision. Many continue to hold those feelings today.
A few years later, with the narrative presented by the good Father and his BOT, and HC athletics with nowhere to go, we found a path to the Colonial/Patriot League. The faculty, many in the Administration, and a percentage of the alumni found a degree of comfort around the mission statement and the narrative, and a place for all sports to have a home. Others waved the white flag and accepted the next forty years of our athletic mediocrity, while the third group remained firm in its opposition.
While we will never know what might have been, I think the 90% of those opposed in 1980 probably has been reduced to 70% today, but the emotions on both sides remain. When you include those who know nothing different than the PL the number likely drops to 35-40%, if they care at all.
With all of the realignment, will another opportunity for our student-athletes be offered? Time will tell, but even if offered I doubt the school will select a different path, and it certainly won't tap into its significant treasures to make the right investments and allow a different level of commitment and success.
Rest easy and everybody have a special Holy Week and Blessed Easter.
🙏🙏✝️✝️✝️😇😇
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Mar 27, 2024 6:49:30 GMT -5
Rest easy and everybody have a special Holy Week and Blessed Easter. 🙏🙏✝️✝️✝️😇😇 And may you as well.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Mar 27, 2024 6:49:42 GMT -5
HC in the BE in the late 70's? How does one spell moot? Answer? PL. Case closed.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Mar 27, 2024 7:13:52 GMT -5
This still makes the assumption that HC would have enjoyed similar success. Back in the 70's athletes were still legitimate students. Many might have been on the lower end of the academic bell curve of a school, but they were on the bell curve. Then comes 1981 and a high academic Big East school decided to change the norm and take in a kid who, without his athletic prowess, would have been laughed at for applying. One could reasonably argue that HC could accept athletes that couldn't handle the academic requirements of the school. HC could make special academic programs to get those kids through to keep up with the Joneses and be nationally relevant in hoops. And in so doing raise the academic profile of the school. That doesn't mean that considering that price. too high is a totally unreasonable position. .Personally , I think if HC didn't go all in with an "ends justifies the means" attitude. HC's history in the Big East would probably be a lot closer to Fordham's record in the A-10 than UConn in the Big East I think that we have to acknowledge that GB recruited a number of athletes who had academic issues in the late 70s/early 80s.. No reason to put their full names here, but EF, CB and CG all had to leave the school to get their grades back in order and JC left and never returned. (The three that returned all graduated as far as I know.) I don't know if those athletes shouldn't have been admitted in the first place or if they didn't put the work in once they arrived on campus. To be clear, I knew several basketball players who were very capable students. My point is that HC was already making academic concessions for athletes. Although I don't condemn the BE decision like many because I think that in order to do it succesfully HC would have had to either drop football or keep football and drop several other sports, I don't know that Brooksie was right that we would have had to make any more academic concessions for basketball than we already were.
|
|