http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/11/gws-patrick-nero-sets-out-to-win-hearts-and-minds/

Yet increased visibility, such as Nero’s ongoing negotiations with Comcast SportsNet and Mid-Atlantic Sports Network to land a six- to eight-game TV package this season, is not the only prong the athletic director must invest resources in to make the Colonials appealing.

Hope this works out!  

You have to constantly remind people you exist,”

Was Nero talking about GW or the "Washington Times" when he said that?

And side-bar blog post on OOC SOS with shout-out to GWHoops.com

 BM's schedule thread getting some credit too boot!

GWAA that's one of the funniest posts I have seen in a while. 

The best part about that blog post is the quote from  Nero that shows he understands the RPI in a way that Hobbs and Kvancz never did.  He gets the way lower-rated teams drag dowen the RPI, and why, if you are an NCAA-level team, it's better to play teams in the 150-200 range, rather than 300-350.  it's still a near-automatic win for a good team, but it helps your RPI, rather than drags it down.

I am absolutely thrilled he gets it.

That last post was me, forgot to put in my name.

I should add, Loyal is the perfect kind of team to play.  They are ok, but we ought to be good enough to beat them.  But as a team that is among the favorites in their league, they are likely to have a solid winning record, a better record than, say, a low-level BCS team that gets smoke in-conference. Therefore, they become better for our RPI than, say, a top 100 RPI team with a worse record.

(Because your opponent's record matters more than their RPI ).

All this isn't to say we need to worry about the RPI right now, but as Lonergan coaches us back into NCAA contention, it'll become important.

I think Hobbs and Kvancz understood the RPI game; they just played it differently than most of us thought was wise or prudent. What's undeniably crystal clear, however, is that Lonergan and Nero bring a totally different scheduling philosophy to GW than their predecessors. Interesting that we've seen an ML quote saying that the Hokies wouldn't play in the Smith Center. More interesting that GW is now aggressively seeking those better RPI schools who will. Groundwork is being laid for a reenergizing of all GW sports. Just hope that the historically impatient GW fan base cuts Lonergan and the coaches in other sports (not to mention Nero) some reasonable slack in making it happen where roster cards and supporting resources had already been dealt. But if nothing else, got to like the energy and vision emanating from all of the athletic department components.

I don't mean to keep beating the drum (or maybe I do), but here's yet another example of what LFO has been saying.  Nero looks at the A10 contract with ESPN, a total of 32 games I believe involving A10 teams.  Figure GW makes 1-3 appearances (since you know Xavier and Temple are getting at least 6-8 apiece).  The BB&T results in a televised game.  The national CBS College Sports contract has been a travesty (except for the A10 championship game component).  They show maybe 5-6 A10 matchups all season.  The regional component is where GW stands to have the most games televised.  I believe GW made 3 such appearances last season.  So if Jack Kvancz were still the AD, we'd have maybe 5-7 televised games this upcoming season.  Instead, Patrick Nero is negotiating with CSN and MASN to show 6-8 additional games.  Meaning 5-7 games could easily become as many as 11-15.  Nero and Lonergan are doers.  I love it.

From my vantage point, it has also been problematic that the vast majority of GW games that were televised were home games.  Obviously some fans can't go to the games, but otherwise a televised home game tends to discourage attendance.  It's not an accident that the NFL blacks out home games when the game isn't sold out.  Finally, if I'm going to the Smith Center for the games, then I don't benefit from televised home games, because I'm not trying to get my parents to send me money via a sign held up for tv.

It would be nice if the students and the alumni this year took a leap of faith with the program.  We don't know much about where things are going, but what we do know is that GW is trying.  Nero and Lonergan are coming in with some energy and trying to make something happen.  I hope the students in particular do not turn out to be as apathetic as ever about the program.  Don't wait until the team starts winning to show up.  How about showing up to help the team win?

GW can be a school with a better sports program and better school spirit.  And both of those things will make GW a better school as a whole.  So show up to the games this season.  It's not always about who we are playing and whether we win or lose, it's about showing up (or so Woody Allen said).  GW is trying to make something happen.  It's time for people in the GW community to stop complaining and jump on the bandwagon.  Nero and Lonergan deserve a shot.

Come on, Poog.  You are generally the voice of reason, but to say they understood the RPI game is pure spin, not reason.  There is ZERO evidence at all from their tenure that they understood the RPI game.

I'd actually be curious to hear your expanded argument -- you say they understood it, they just played it differently that most of us thought wise or prudent.   What do you even mean by that?   They may have played a scheduling game differently from what we thought wise or prudent, but that's not the same as the RPI game.  I don't see any possible way you can make that leap, and I'm curious how you arrive at your conclusion. 

I completely agree with FQ on this.  They DID NOT understand the RPI.  Period.  They may have thought they understood it, but sadly for a guy who was in charge of the NCAA selection committee, there is no way GW admin/coaches understood the RPI formula as it is actually calculated.

thinker- good point re: games at home being televised.  Just to play devil's advocate--a perk to having televised home games is that students want to be on TV.  Students want to rush the court on TV (not that every game is worthy of this, but you know).  Home games televised MAY increase student attendance.

I've been saying for years now that I think one of the many things plaguing GW's fleeting student attendance is an inability to truly follow the team, except when they are playing at GW.  The school doesn't show the games in the Smith Center or the Marvin Center.  There is one article written in the hatchet.  Occasionally the game can be watched online without spending money.

I think that, at a minimum, GW should show the away games, via the terrible computer feed, at the smith center for fans to watch.

Jack and Karl believed in W's and scheduled that way. They were far more concerned about shooting for a 20 win season than they were about calculating their chances as an NCAA at-large team based on RPI scheduling driven by prior year performance. Easy to assume what RPI Syracuse would bring to the table, not so easy to assess Bradley or other schools they believed to be within winning and scheduling reach. I also believe they assessed the strengths and weakneses of the team the Colonials were putting on the court to determine who they were more comfortable scheduling. For whatever reason, GW's talent level went down after the several classes represented by Omar/Pops/J.R./Carl et al. I believe the disconnect with GW fans came with the 27-3 season. Administration was thrilled with #6 ranking, national notoriety, school record, fan enthusiasm, NCAA bid. Fans were frustrated by weakness of schedule, poor NCAA seeding, and the failure to reach for better competition. Jack/Karl believed the way they played their cards going for victories was the way for GW to succeed; fans believed that approach (with limited, if any, regard for RPI's) to be the way to stunt program aspirations. That era is over and clearly contrasts with the higher profile competition being sought under Nero and Lonergan. Most of us think the current philosophy is the better way to go. I just believe that Jack and Karl fully understood what they were doing in scheduling the way they did. GW just didn't have the success on the court to test out its efficacy (though the #8 seeding before the NCAA got even tougher on SOS certainly provided evidence suggesting the way things were going). In the end, GW's new athletic leadership reflects the same thinking as most fans expressing their opinions here as well as those who expressed their attitude by staying away from the Smith Center.

 Danjsport I agree with you on the away games thing. I have no idea why the school doesn't play away games, either at the Smith Center or in the Marvin Center or something. IT would cost little to nothing and spark a lot of interest with the students, especially this year with the Cuse and K State games. 

I would also add that they figured the A-10 to be a stronger conference in terms of RPI than it turned out to be. Apples and oranges but Big East teams don't worry as much about cupcake scheduling because of the RPI derived from conference play.  20+ wins and a top of the conference finish and one is under consideration. A-10 is nowhere near that level but it had been a much tougher conference until the year GW went 16-0. Top to bottom, A-10 never quite recovered the lustre it once had, despite sneaking in multiple teams a couple of years.

Poog, I think we have a case of semantics.  Karl and Jack may very well knew what they were doing, but what they were doing was NOT playing the RPI game.  Jack once said in defense of the schedule, "I don't know, maybe it's me, but I like to win the games."  I'm sure this was an attempt at humor but what it really conveyed was a clear lack of understanding on how to achieve a more favorable RPI.

It's good to see Nero and Lonergan finally appear to be doing what's needed to be done for so many years.   In regard to Jack and Dom, it's my opinion that they both understood RPI but they didn't care at all.  The reason I fee this way is because it's almost impossible not to get it. I suspect that, other than the blind defenders of Jack and Dom, everyone else understands RPI.  How can anyone honestly believe that Jack and Dom, with all their experience, didn't get it?  Doesn't make any sense at all.  The only explanation is that they didn't care enought to force a change.

You're just right MV, the new administration are doers...a breath of fresh air from what we've been dealing with.

Don't disagree, MV. But I would suggest it was more about not valuing RPI over wins. Right or wrong, don't think the "Lunardi" world of bracketology was given much credence. Maybe it was simply that Jack learned his lessons serving on an NCAA selection committee whose guiding principles no longer applied. Or maybe Jack and Karl just believed that wins were more important than any artificial RPI rating for a team swimming upstream to get an at-large berth. I don't know. Regardless, that's all part of GW's past.

It's good to see Nero and Lonergan finally appear to be doing what's needed to be done for so many years.   In regard to Jack and Dom, it's my opinion that they both understood RPI but they didn't care at all.  The reason I fee this way is because it's almost impossible not to get it. I suspect that, other than the blind defenders of Jack and Dom, everyone else understands RPI.  How can anyone honestly believe that Jack and Dom, with all their experience, didn't get it?  Doesn't make any sense at all.  The only explanation is that they didn't care enought to force a change.

You're just right MV, the new administration are doers...a breath of fresh air from what we've been dealing with.

 "Or maybe Jack and Karl just believed that wins were more important than any artificial RPI rating"

What's more artificial: a bunch of wins against terrible opponents or games against teams with a certain RPI? I started combing through the RPIs of ALL of Hobbs era victories and it was not pretty. Suffice to say, his career head coaching victory totals did not come against the toughest of opponents and there's a LOT of smoke and mirrors.

In fairness to Jack, we did play a tougher schedule before Hobbs was the coach, but while he was AD.  The variable that changed things was the change to Hobbs.

That's why I believe Hobbs is primarily at fault.  He was a cowardly scheduler, and he was more concerned with padding his win numbers than testing his team. And it's undeniable that he didn't understand how to use the RPI formula to help our team -- or his own career.  

Maybe not for NCAA purposes, but wins don't have asterisks next to them. No measure of the quality of the opponent, injuries or illnesses, suspensions, or conditions under which the games were played or decided. Team with the most points at the end of the game gets the W. Recounting one's resume over the long-term, 20 win or +.500 seasons would seem to carry a larger public marker than does a top 50/100/150 RPI.  Maybe bogus is a better term for your concerns, herve.

Remember when the A-10 brass (maybe Linda's last season?) said they would penalize teams that played 300+ RPI opponents?  Then we went right ahead took on mighty number 337 Sacramento State on the way to that infamous Rainbow cluster.   If a wrist gets slapped and no one is around to hear it, was it slapped?  Although in retrospect, that was the only win for the next 3 months.

I agree that at least 50% was on Hobbs.  He did not want to schedule good RPI teams for fear of losing  ( which he pretty much always did against them).  The terrible RPI schedules bought Hobbs some wins against cupcake teams but it almost single-handedly killed the program.  There should be no question why GW has had the lowest attendance in the A-10.  Playing the worst teams in Division 1 was just a disaster for GW basketball.  Nero and Lonergan are looking forward now to playing some good teams, so we should be too.

Concur with Poog. What some of you are missing is that you have to win games. You can have a great RPI but if you go 14-14 what did it get you? Probably eventually fired. Also, perhaps as important is the difficulty of getting an at large bid in the A-10. I once spoke with Steve Donahue (BC/Cornell) about this. His view was that he scheduled a great OOC only when he thought Cornell had a chance to win the Ivies because it was a one bid league and he would get a better seed. He said if his team was not expected to win the league he scheduled differently - for wins. A team who had a good OOC schedule this year (Harvard) really got no benefit because they didn't win the league.

Now the A-10 is more than a one bid league but if you are not going to be in the top 3-4 playing a great OOC is not necessarily going to help you and could get you fired. KH was fired because he did not win enough games lately not because of the way he scheduled. Take the exact same schedules we played and give us 4 20-win seasons and we are not talking about KH being fired. Poog is right - at the end of the day they look at your record. Does anybody believe that if KH won 2 less games a year the last 4 years but played two highly rated RPI teams he would still be coach? That's about the difference of what we are talking about now at least versus the last two years' schedules.

Concur with Poog. What some of you are missing is that you have to win games. You can have a great RPI but if you go 14-14 what did it get you? Probably eventually fired. Also, perhaps as important is the difficulty of getting an at large bid in the A-10. I once spoke with Steve Donahue (BC/Cornell) about this. His view was that he scheduled a great OOC only when he thought Cornell had a chance to win the Ivies because it was a one bid league and he would get a better seed. He said if his team was not expected to win the league he scheduled differently - for wins. A team who had a good OOC schedule this year (Harvard) really got no benefit because they didn't win the league.

Now the A-10 is more than a one bid league but if you are not going to be in the top 3-4 playing a great OOC is not necessarily going to help you and could get you fired. KH was fired because he did not win enough games lately not because of the way he scheduled. Take the exact same schedules we played and give us 4 20-win seasons and we are not talking about KH being fired. Poog is right - at the end of the day they look at your record. Does anybody believe that if KH won 2 less games a year the last 4 years but played two highly rated RPI teams he would still be coach? That's about the difference of what we are talking about now at least versus the last two years' schedules.

FQ, are you saying that, as it relates to scheduling, the buck stops at the coach's desk?

sorry for the duplicative posts something happened.

Yes, it was clearly Hobbs that pushed to cream puff schecule, not Jack.  GW had much more competitive schedules with both Jarvis and Penders as the head coach but somehow those schedules took a nose dive after Hobbs came to town.  Hobbs even stated his self-imposed scheduling preferences (limitations):  Regional preferences (boston), avoidance teams that created difficult style match-ups, avoidance of teams that played well at home and an overal desire to play as many games as home as he could get away with.

What resulted was a consistent piss-poor OOC schedule under Hobbs.  With his yearly warnings that his teams were either too young, too inexperienced or simply over-acheiving (the good years), Hobbs never seemed to have confidence to put his team up in difficult postions, especially early in the season.  This was his choice and I beleive a bad one at that. 

Bobo, your willingness to exonerate Jack from this discussion speaks to your lack of knowledge on this subject.  Do you really think that Jack had zero input regarding the schedule?  You do realize that KH reported to Jack, not the other way around.  I'm not suggesting that the scheduling philosophy didn't have a lot of KH's fingerprints all over it.  But Jack is the guy who was in charge of either signing off on it or changing the philosophy.  By the way, in 2004-05, GW played #1 ranked Wake Forest, BB&T games against Michigan State and Maryland, and at West Virginia.  The OOC schedule got progressively worse thereafter.

Seneca, stop insulting this board.  Nobody is missing the point that you have to win games.  But if you don't give yourself ample opportunities at winning quality games, then perhaps you'll go 26-1 and end up with a #8 seed and a terrible draw in the tournament.  If you test yourself in your OOC schedule and fail to win any of these matchups, then you're likely just not good enough to expect an at-large.however, if you beat a Syracuse or a Kansas State, then you have an attention-getting signature win.  At the end of the day, 21-11 with a high quality OOC win will likely put you in better shape than say 23-9 without having played anybody in the OOC.  And I believe in the committee's collective mind, not having played anyone in the OOC is worse than playing several quality OOC games but not winning any of them.  The committee knows a transparent schedule when they see one.  But even if you want to argue that playing nobody isn't worse,  I would suggest that if not, it's equally as bad. 

There have been numerous examples over the years to illustrate the point.  Utah State had back to back seasons with 24 and 23 wins but failed to receive an at-large both years because the OOC schedule was too soft.  When changes were made to the RPI formula, the very loud message sent was to play challenging games in the OOC and to play at least some of these on the road.  Unfortunately, Karl and Jack still decided to do things their way...which really was the wrong way.

Not sure what your point was about the 2004-05 schedule. WF was part of the pre-season NIT and the BB&T was arranged by Feinstein. In fact, the change in the BB&T format and the way that "tourney" was treated by the NCAA may have had as much to do with our lack of quality games as anything else.

 JK knew the RPI issues, he was on the selection committee!  As to the schedule, who do you fault for weapons of mass destruction - the Prez, the Vice Prez, Secretary of State, DoD, CIA the NSA?  It was a joint screw-up by JK and KH.  KH probably had a typical coach's amount of latitude in making his schedule with some requests and suggestions from the AD, the VP of Student Affairs, and the development office.  When the schedule was being formulated, no doubt that JK could have said "no."  The issue is did JK not have the will, was he being undermined by KH going over his head, did JK go along a few years with some type of understanding that KH was doing it on a temporary basis because his team was young, or he needed to pay back some other coaches, or he wanted to face teams that were not as good and ran some defensive or offensive sets like some A-10 teams - and KH just ran away with it.  Who knows?  The point is the coach did the schedule and the AD would have signed-off on the schedule fully aware of the external and internal implications - he had been in the business for 40 years folks.  They are both responsible.  Now, that the program is starting anew, it's obvious the upgrade will be for a three-headed monster - the recruits who want to play against Big East, and ACC teams before they are willing to come to GW, the selection committee/RPI folks, the fans who do not want to see the team play a full roster of sub 200 RPI teams. 

No one is disputing that playing a schedule where you go 23-9 versus 21-11 against a tougher OOC is worse MV. But do you know what our record is going to be this year? Or any year for that matter? A tough RPI is an accelerator both ways. It can enhance the value of a given record but it can also enhance the chances you get fired if you don't have the horses and put up poor records. Both approaches (scheduling wins versus RPI strength) can be valid in different situations. It's clear that PN and ML have the confidence to go out and schedule tougher games. Only time will tell whether that confidence will be rewarded. I hope it will be.

No one is disputing that playing a schedule where you go 23-9 versus 21-11 against a tougher OOC is worse MV. But do you know what our record is going to be this year? Or any year for that matter? A tough RPI is an accelerator both ways. It can enhance the value of a given record but it can also enhance the chances you get fired if you don't have the horses and put up poor records. Both approaches (scheduling wins versus RPI strength) can be valid in different situations. It's clear that PN and ML have the confidence to go out and schedule tougher games. Only time will tell whether that confidence will be rewarded. I hope it will be.

 The scheduling issues were ultimately a combination problem between the two. Hobbs was reluctant to schedule the best teams because he didn't think we could beat them and JK was happy to sit back and let game offers come in rather than go out and aggressively seek better opponents. They both deserve blame. What was really outrageous is using a team like Oregon State as the "tough game" just because they happen to play in a good conference. 

nice post notta. KH and JK understood how to get to the dance. they made a bad decision. KH wanted a cake schedule to pad wins and keep the job. ML and PN appear to have more brain power and guts. i think most fans want to see GW play good teams rather than teams we scheduled under KH and JK.

Poog, while the WF, Maryland, and Michigan State games were arranged via tournament pairings, the West Virginia game was not.  Consequently, it would have been easy for Hobbs/Kvancz to back out of the West Virginia game using the rationale that they already had three high quality opponents on their schedule if the goal was to avoid tough games wherever possible.  Actually, the 2007-08 schedule also saw four OOC opponents from BCS conferences (Alabama, Auburn, Virginia Tech and UCLA as I recall).  So what I'm saying is that KH/JK didn't necessarily duck big games; what they were really guilty of was failing to schedule a competent middle-tier of games (seemingly, all other OOC opponents were sub-200 teams).

Seneca, falling back on not knowing what your record will be, or what other school's records will be, is a weak argument.  Everyone has that same vantage point before the start of a season but schools can reasonably determine ahead of time whether their schedule will be an easy or difficult one.  I'm not sure if you're explaining the previous scheduling philosophy or defending it.  If you are explaining it, I think we all understand it.  If you're defending it, I'd just say that I'd rather have a philosophy designed to give GW the best chance of making the NCAA's as opposed to one designed to not get a coach fired.

I do remember the question and answer session a few seasons back between an embattled JK and the season ticket holders, with JK trying to explain why the home OOC schedule sucked every year and why we were leaving games on the table.  JK tried and tried to explain the difficulties of bringing in teams into the Smith Center.   Didn't buy it back then, and now we are seeing that perhaps it wasn't true.  As for the drop off in the scheduling under JK, I do wonder how much, if any, it had to do with the A-10 forbidding ts member schools to play in "buy in" games.

What do you mean by "buy-in" games?

LSF and others, with all due respect, I've been pointing out that athletic department wasn't telling the truth about this for years (much to chagrin of the blind defenders of Jack and Dom).  We were able to get good teams to come to the Smith Center in the past and we're getting them to come to Foggy Bottom again now. It looks like were not leaving games on the table anymore either, which is almost as important.  Together, Nero and Lonergan have made a huge short-term boost for the program.  While there's a very long way to go, they've made a great start in repairing the damage.  If Levinator is right about Nero's fund raising ability (and I believe he is), GW basketball going to be in a much better place in a few years.

I've been careful to always try to write from a factual basis and I'm happy that Nero and Lonergan are proving with thier actions that what I've been writing about is accurate.  I've been progressively more critical of Jack and Dom over the years.  That's because the problems had gotten worse and worse and our program had basially been destroyed....to the point where this season hardly anybody bothered coming to important conference games and the press barely gave us a mention.  In spite of all of this, I'm pretty sure some posters will continue to defend what transpired and make flimsy excuses.

Anyway, more important than the fact that Nero and Lonergan are proving me right, they look to be getting the program out of the ditch and back on track.

Actually, Lev, I believe a buy in game is just the opposite, namely when the larger, BCS school pays the smaller, low to mid major school, to play one game at the home of the larger school, an almost certain loss for the smalle school, with no return game or other concessions to the smaller team other than money.  The smaller program gets needed cash in return for being fodder for the larger team.

I've heard the claim that A10 teams are forbiden to play "buy" games, but I don't beleive this is realilty.  "Buy" games meaning the A10 school playing some big BSC powerhouse, getting paid and not getting a return date.  But Duquesne has played at Iowa and Duke recently without any return dates scheduled.  I'm sure they got paid for their troubles.  SBU always plays SU and SU is never, ever going to drive the bus to Olean.

A10 schoos can create their OOC schedule without the A10 commisioner's approval.  The goal of the policy changes was to help the league play the RPI game better:  more wins in the OOC means a higher winning% and SOS for the league as a whole.  But I seriously doubt the A10 stepping in and imposing any financial penalty for an A10 team scheduling 1 road game vs a quality BCS team per year.  You use that pay check to schedule some more home games.  If a team like Fordham used the OOC to pay for the program buy assuming a bunch of road losses, then the league would probably have to impose a penalty, but I seriously doubt that GW can not put a UCLA/KU/Duke/FL on the schedule once a year without getting into trouble with the league. 

speaking of lunatic fringe good to hear from you LFO.  can MV come out and play?

I am not defending KH or JK, but I would not take the fact that it may be easy in 2011-12 to schedule some better teams as evidence that they were lying about difficulties in getting them here in the past.  I think that things have been very fluid in since the NCAA let in a ton of at-large mid-majors - including GMU which went to the final four.  Since then the scheduling message, the conference RPI, etc., have been a moving target at the NCAA selection Sunday crashed-car debriefing by the committee on why some schools got into the dance and folks like VCU got into the tournament.  With that said, although I understand that they could not bring-in the top-half of the Big-10, Big-12, PAC-10 or ACC each season, the crap they did bring here evaded any since of logic or fairness to the fans.

I tried to contact MV but no response.  He usueally gets back to me when I use the board as a way to get in touch with him.  Good point Notta.  No, we couldn't necessarily get Pitt or Notre Dame but what about Rutgers or DePaul?  Not Ohio State or Wisconsin, but maybe Iowa or Minn?  Problems with those teams???   There are 30 or 40 more high quality teams we could have gotten to the Smith Center and decided against it.  Agree that the fans got the short end of the stick...and they walked away.  Playing better teams and not leaving games on the table would have helped us recruit and build a real program for the long term.  We're on a better path now.

LFO I have a way for you to get in touch with MV much more easily. Just look in the mirror and you will see him. It's likely  that with all the voices and conspiracy theories running around in your head sometimes you might forget that.

Diageo, first you reveal that you are oh-so-close to revealing the identity of LFO and now you've deduced that LFO and myself are the same person?  Why you must be the smartest person on this board.  But wait a minute...aren't Blue Seats and I supposed to be the same poster?  Did you buy into that theory as well?  If so, I guess that makes all three of us one and the same.  But why stop there?  I enjoy Newtman's and Mentzinger's wry senses of humor so maybe I'm them too.  How about Free Quebec, I'm into sports statistics.  How about this..sometimes, I post something a bit too venemously and feel the need to calm down and offer a sensible, rational post.  That's when I become Poog.  Maybe there's only three actual posters here, you, me and Herve.  Unless Diageo, maybe you're Herve too.  Could be just the two of us.

Why is it that when you respond to LFO here MV responds but somehow LFO can't get in touch with him? MV, I don't pretend to know the complex web of personalities you have spun here. Nor do I have the time or desire to find out. But yes, I do have a good idea of who LFO is so maybe I now know who you are too.

Great Diageo.  You think you know who I am or who we are as the case may be.  Now, what do you plan to do with this valuable information?  Are you an extortionist? Do I have to write you a "hush money" check, and if so, won't this mean I'll find out who you are?  So many ways this can go.

All kidding aside, Herve meant for this to be an anonymous message board.  In this spirit, it should remain that way.  I don't believe that you know either of our identities but if you are somehow convinced you do, either spill it or keep it to yourself.  Both options are better than this "I'm about to crack the case" vibe of yours that frankly, I don't believe anyone here is even remotely interested in. 

It seems like the only thing Diagio doesn't know is that, since Jack and Dom have departed, we've seen a dramatic improvement in the schedule, the implementation of some real marketing, straight-forward interactions with the fan base, a move toward getting more games (including more games televised), and the creation of a feeling that things are getting better for the program, the fans and supporters of GW basketball.  If Diagio had his way, Jack and Dom would still be running the show.  Wouldn't that be fantastic?

MV and LFO ain't me!

No LFO, I said nothing about whether Dom and Jack should still be running the show. What I said was you have lied and deliberately misled people about them and attempted to ruin their reputations. What would be fantastic if you could overcome your tendency to be a complete asshole while at your keyboard.

Diagio, I have only told the truth. What I have written has been based on facts, and those facts have been described by me and other posters on this board over the years. I understand you don't like facts whey they paint a picture of ineptitude and/or dishonestly attributable to Jack or Dom.  I also understand that you don't like the tone of some or most of my posts.  Diagio, the mismanagement had gone on for so many years that anyone who wasni' furious about the demise of the men's basketball program couldn't have cared very much about the program.  I invite you to call out any lies you think I told. I'd be happy to point you to the facts.  Maybe then you'll find out that you're being the asshole.

LFO - please state the following:

1. What direct evidence you have that JK or DP, individually, or both of them collectively, committed any criminal acts under federal or state law?

2. What direct evidence you have that JK or DP, individually, or both of them collectively, deliberately cheated GW or any fan of GW?

3. What direct evidence you have that JK or DP, individually, or both of them collectively, lied about anything related to GW athletics?

4. What direct evidence you have that JK or DP, individually, or both of them collectively, stole money from GW or any fan?

If you have the evidence (facts) let's see it. Otherwise, I'd shut the pie hole before one of the aforementioned individuals decides to stuff legal papers in it.

WTF??? Go away.

Levinator you are correct - ML and PN deserve their due. But somehow our "friend" LFO can't give them their due without also taking broadsides at JK and DP. I am quite confident that neither PN or ML would want to be associated with LFO's running diatribe as I know ML respects JK and DP and so does PN. And for the record I am not JK or DP or anyone related to them. I'll tell you what - I promise not to bring this up if LFO would just stop with all the lies. It's a rather simple request and I am making it so we can all just look forward.

Where can I find the game on the Internet? 

"as I know ML respects JK and DP and so does PN."  Another poster "in the know."  First Blue Seats, then Seneca and now Diageo. (I'm excluding DEA and THE from this "club".)  Pretty soon, we're going to have more posters in the know than we will have plain old ordinary fans. 

Diageo - maybe if MV spent less time posting here and spent more time talking to folks at GW he would be "in the know." Doesn't seem to be any initiation fees or other problems getting into this "club." PN and ML much like JK, DP and KH before them are all to happy to talk to friendly faces.

Diagio, what I told you I would do is respond to any lies you think I told.  Of course, I have never lied. You might disagree with me, but hey, that's what you do.  Instead you posted a list of ridiculously phrased questions.  In regard to that list, I'd be happy to tell you things I think JK and DP did which I believe were akin to being dishonest or unethical, were the result of apathy or laziness, and/or resulted in the fans being cheated...season after season. All of these things have been discussed by me and many others over the years, but if you want to read or discuss them again, just ask and I'll do my best to identify some of them.  If you don't want to discuss them again right now, that's ok too.

In other words LFO you are full of shit about JK and DP. Thanks for confirming what I imagine most of us already knew.

Full of shit??? That's hilarious...you really are disconnected from reality.  The only shit left around here is you. 

10:32:23 PM - having been exposed, LFO becomes unglued. You can't make this stuff up folks.

oops, I am on the wrong thread, I thought this was about a Miami booster paying tons money to athletes.  My bad.