|
Post by JohnGalt on Mar 31, 2011 10:57:22 GMT -5
Peacock:
There you go again, using my comments to side door in again on JD. If only I could trust your motives here, since I will admit, a good case can be argued here for individual responsibility and fidelity. Given some of my well documented comments on individual duty and obligation, it is hard for me, in principle, not to enjoin John in some of my censure. To counter, I can only offer the pragmatic view that is shown in the prevailing behavior of his counterparts. This is a societal thing, with individuals opting out of contracts/agreements by simply taking the relativist position of following what is done by others. Still, and as you note, what compounds here is that John apparently has actively pursued within the boundaries of his own conference. This is unacceptable to me and acknowledgment of his culpability does deserve mention.
Again a good point. Only wish it came with a history that was less biased.
|
|
|
Post by peacockblue on Mar 31, 2011 11:41:14 GMT -5
We don't know for sure if JD is the one actively pursuing the job, if Fairfield showed the interest in him, or if there is little interest from either side. IF JD is the one chasing the job, than that to me is unacceptable. He has every right to better himself, but you don't play yourself off against another school in the conference. Even if he stays, which to me is very likely, there still could be damage done to his recruiting- what's worse than chasing a job in the same conference is chasing a job in the same conference and being turned down.
|
|
|
Post by oldtimer1 on Mar 31, 2011 12:29:11 GMT -5
Most of the above posts are right on target but as peacockblue points out we are talking hypotheticals. We simply do not know what has transpired.
There is no doubt that a coach, any coach, interviewing somewhere else will probably have a negative effect, short term, on recruiting. Unfortunately, that's a fact of life. How each coach in this situation handles that probably differs from coach to coach. Some convince incoming recruits (Fran @ Siena to Iowa) to follow them, others encourage those players to stay. Don't like the former, admire the latter.
With regard to FF, Sludge, early on, made a very good point. If FF encouraged JD (and we are talking if's) what does that say about the supposed rule that coaches do not transfer within a Conference. Even if JD pursued on his own (we don't know that either), why did they grant an interview? We don't even know if one or both sought permission or an opinion from Ensor and the MAAC office. Yet here we sit willing to make judgements with knowing all the facts.
In my mind, the only thing that these events make crystal clear is the lack of financial committment ( coaches salaries, facilities, appropriate administrative staffing in the Athletic Department etc.) for years at SPC. My understanding is that things are improving. Our NCAA appearance and the resulting Alumni support give hope, but it still is what it is. Few Conferences that I am aware have the disparity between the haves (Fairfield) and the have nots (SPC) that the MAAC Conference has.
Quite frankly, the only good that could come out of this is an additional wake up call to the powers that be that SPC needs to make a greater committment to Athletics...across the board and not at a snails pace. Reference my comment that the Survey that most of us took made not one inquiry into the role of Athletics at SPC!!!
|
|
|
Post by Peacock on Mar 31, 2011 14:38:39 GMT -5
Peacock: There you go again, using my comments to side door in again on JD. If only I could trust your motives here, since I will admit, a good case can be argued here for individual responsibility and fidelity. Given some of my well documented comments on individual duty and obligation, it is hard for me, in principle, not to enjoin John in some of my censure. To counter, I can only offer the pragmatic view that is shown in the prevailing behavior of his counterparts. This is a societal thing, with individuals opting out of contracts/agreements by simply taking the relativist position of following what is done by others. Still, and as you note, what compounds here is that John apparently has actively pursued within the boundaries of his own conference. This is unacceptable to me and acknowledgment of his culpability does deserve mention. Again a good point. Only wish it came with a history that was less biased. There you go again Newt. You never seem to grasp the whole context. The big words have always been IF he is doing this or IF what you read on the INTERNET is true, then we actually agree. However your need to assign agendas to any post that offends your exceptionally biased need to assign a bias to others. Now my use of the word class revolves around the issue of whether they are allowing this or is Dunne pursuing this. Some have no ability to parse thoughts for their premises and need to wrap them selfs up in retorts in an attempt to make themselves look like intellectuals. If you have ever read anything without your biased approach to assign others falsely of biases which you yourself hold too, I have predicted he will remain at SPC and the reason is that much of what we read on the INTERNET is false and his resume doesn't justify it. However if I am wrong there, then you can argue with my hypotheticals. You use the word biased. How do you classify the constant grandiose posts of you bosom buddy. You do realize that most outsiders have put Dunne in this position because SPC is garbage in their eyes. Most here seem to second that if you read through their sentiments. I am one of the few that believe he makes a lot more than the suspected $85. When you read how some buy into this one only needs to review the last five years and the fact that it starts with the lie that he inherited garbage. They will do anything to justify their position. Revisionist history is wonderful.
|
|
|
Post by JohnGalt on Mar 31, 2011 15:14:16 GMT -5
Now you talk in the hypothetical after you provide all the inuendo for a jury to convict. Try dealing with the substance here rather than attempt to persuade through intimidation and attack of one's character. Same old tactics. Attack those that unmask your agendas, rather than deal with what is known or logical. Only change I see is that, now that your motives are exposed, you've lost the balls to say anything that will make your bias even more transparent. Read more carefully and you might recognize my contingent word....APPARENTLY.
I will ignore your attempt to bait with the "Newt" reference, as it would only draw me down to your level of political mudslinging.
|
|
|
Post by Peacock on Mar 31, 2011 16:23:20 GMT -5
Got your balls in a sling. I know what you thought about Dunne and you accuse me of lacking balls. You are a basic liar when backed up. A fraud with all the attributes of of your political affiliation. The truth and your opinion have little to do with one another. In addition your reading comprehension also sucks as there is no more innuendo im my posts then what you posted on the subject. Tell us what you really think without assigning premises that you invent.
|
|
|
Post by JohnGalt on Mar 31, 2011 17:13:26 GMT -5
Hey Mr. Master of the personal attack. Try for once to offer something of substance rather than retreat to your customary role of attacking everything offered by others. Guess in your own little world it gives you some warped sense of superiority to tell others how much more you know of events and developments. Truth is you know dip shit other than what you read off the numerous blogs you patronize.
Unlike you, I have been very satisfied with the job John has accomplished with my only criticism being over some of the recruits chosen. Minor, since in fairness, not sure his resources have allowed him to gain better choices. You talk about evaluating someone on the basis of development. Well, apparently you haven't looked at his record and the improvements made in each of his five year's of tenure. Your words, on the other hand, lack even a morsel of humility, not showing the balls or courage to admit your judgment was wrong and/or offer some credit to John and the team for what has been accomplished. No, not your m.o, you just lack the guts to admit your mistakes and continue to take shots at John through innuendo and subterfuge.
Enjoy your life of denial. Hopefully the team will continue to do well so we can count on you going into hiding, allowing us some rest from your negative attacks and reporting on this board.
|
|