Couldn't help but contact Dan Roche about the stunning comments that Thinker said he (Roche) confided in private, that Kvancz is part of the problem with the program.  Here is his reply, along with my original note.  He confirms the discussion with Thinker, but basically denies making the comment,. Make of it what you will.........

Greetings,

I would love to have a reasoned discourse with you concerning the state of our athletic department. That is, in fact, part of my job. But I can't really respond to anonymous emails. Tel me who you are, where you live, your affiliation with the university and/or the athletic program. Perhaps we could meet for a cup of coffee.

Having said that, I will tell you this. The conversation that I had with Thinker took place prior to the start of last season. At that point we were coming off of a second consecutive A10 Championship and a third straight NCAA appearance. So what would be the "problem" at that point?

Let me know,

Best,

Dan

Ah, thinker the rabble rouser. 

For the record, I had lunch with Dan Rocha at Tonic on April 9, 2008.  Not BEFORE last season but after last season.  Go back in the history and you'll see that I posted a thread about my meeting with Rocha on this board shortly thereafter (with his full consent and approval) encouraging people to get into contact with him.  It may be inconvenient for Rocha to have told me the things he told me (the vast majority of which I haven't shared on this board), it may be that he regrets telling me, it may be that some would feel that I shouldn't have shared the things I shared on this board (mind you Rocha never asked me to keep his comments confidential), but he said what he said.  Just like JK said what he said.  I didn't epound on it, I didn't eagerate it, in fact if anything I gave a very limited version of what Rocha had to say about GW basketball and JK.  I may be any number of things that some people are offended by, but I do have a very good memory and I have been careful to be precise and accurate about my posts that relay other's words.

As things continue to disintegrate around GW basketball, many people will have different objectives.  Mine, however, is not hidden.  I think that JK should leave the University under whatever terms the school finds agreeable.  That's my agenda and it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone because I've always been very clear about that.  The whole fucking liar thing isn't about a petty little greivance.  It's just a symptom of a much larger problem that I see and others have seen for even longer than I have about the incompetence and inefficiency with which the program is run.  But as the cover your ass syndrome starts to unfold; as JK distances himself from Hobbs to try and save his job; as Rocha finds it increasingly difficult to raise money for the Smith Center (for some obvious and some not obvious reasons); people will find it easier to focus on me than on the fundamental structural problems in the GW basketball program.  That's ok, since I'm just a fan, not really a stakeholder.  Sense we all agree - including me - that I have little influence over any of the powers that be - why am I so threatening?  Look, I've conceeded that I've aired my greivances to everyone that matters and they didn't seem to care.  That's ok too, since I don't have a $5 million check to make them care.  But casual and careful readers of this board shouldn't lose sight of a fundamental undeniable fact - GW basketball is in full free fall.  None of that is because of anything I posted or didn't post here. 

MV,

What you say about reporting lines of Dan Rocha is correct.  Let me add a few other comments about Rocha to inform what he might or might not know.  He is a former basketball coach (don't recall what level) and understands basketball VERY well.  Overall he seemed like a very smart guy.  He seemed etremely determined and gung ho about his personal commitment to Knapp to get the fundraising job done.  Based on our conversation he seemed to have a VERY good idea about the dynamics of GW basketball - coaches/players/fans/building/city/administration.  It was very clear to him what obstacles he faced in raising the money for the renovation.  He was ambitious and bold and confident in his ability to get the job done.

I'm not a professional fundraiser so I can't comment on his fundraising skills.  I don't know how well he has done so far (obviously plenty of larger issues have intruded into the picture - like the economy).  So if you're a really smart, eperienced fundraiser with a strong basketball background who is determined to accomplish a difficult task at a place like GW, it would seem to me that one should epect that he would have access to ALL or MOST of the pertinent information on the subjects we are discussing.  Although some people are in denial about GW basketball and there is a bit of an amen corner going on sometimes, I think any person who is smart and determined WITH ACCESS wouldn't have too hard of a time figuring out what plenty of us can see from mostly the outside as a hobby not a job.

I don't feel like I revealed some deep secret because what I said in the first place is so patently obvious that I find it hard that any reasonable objective person wouldn't say "Duh, obviously JK is part of the problem."  But whatever, there are plenty of people here who don't have eperience in the real political world of organizations and comple operations.  Most people have never actually been on the inside so it's hard to recognize actual inside truth - it sounds unfamiliar and so they question its validity.  That's fine.  It doesn't make me better than anyone.  It does eplain the disharmony.  People here beg for information, you give it and then they say prove it, you try to prove it and they say you shouldn't have revealed the information in the first place.  It is a Catch-22.  We want to know why this or that player had this or that discipline but of course we want to preserve their privacy but we still want to know.  So to be fair to all of one's values you have to ride a fine line sometimes.  Trust me, there were far more incendiary things that I have heard or seen in the various meetings I've gone to or conversations I've had that I haven't revealed because it seemed to me to be on the other side of that line.  Saying Dan Rocha agreed that JK was part of the problem hardly seems to me to be some damning revelation. 

This has quickly become one of my favorite threads and I'm very impressed with Thinker's responses.

Few thoughts: 

Alum1- D MV definitely helped your cause (no matter how much it pained him) when he pointed out that LFO was NOT a LFO 100% on an issue.  wow.  Truth is: Rocha doesnt work for JK and your open letter to him is perfectly reasonable since Thinker made the meeting public in April.  Your decision to post the letter here, in its entirety, is a fine display of evidence that things have gotten so bad at GW and with the AD specifically, that we have come to epect lies and cover-ups.  GWhoops Hospital has been airing for years now.  The AD has no transparency with the fans and the end result is that many of us have become fed up with JK's insanely backward approach to the pursuit of success for the men's teams and disinterested and utterly confused with Hobbs, tiring of his antics and poor game coaching among other undesirable attributes.

I respect all of the former players telling us how it was when they balled.  i believe that at one point a few years back, before the fucking Times issue, things were so good for JK and Hobbs that life WAS better for the players and ultimately, the fans.   But shit can easily get raided by flies and the net thing ya know, every fly around the shitpile is now covered in shit.  We're at the point where the shit has spread to all the flies wings and now most of them can't even fly.  They are just fallin back into that one big pile of shit and dying a slow painful and shitty death.  And fuckin costing Lev here a bet with his old friend GWAA.  fuckin maggots.  We need to clean up the shit quick before it start's attracting all our other flies.

I think the question is whether Jack K has strong relationships with any of the major donors to the Smith Center renovation project.  If so then his dismissal could lead to a delay in its contruction.  Of course his critics will claim that his outster will open up a flood gate of new potential donors, happy with his absense and dishartened by the direction of the program.  But a bird in hand is nice to have...

Obviously Dan Rocha would be in a position to know.  It's interesting that in his response to Alumni, Dan did not speak up for Jack.  It was a clear opportunity to back the AD but Rocha offered no support.

This is ridiculous; the circumstances during the time Rocha commented on this subject were completely different. It was a different year and different team. If someone is going to attempt to get the true information out of a person with some knowledge and understanding of the topic, seeing as recognized he knows by asking him the question, wouldn’t you at least have the balls to tell him your name? And then you proceed to copy and paste his comment online which displays to the public your immaturity and absence respectability. I think it would be more productive for everyone reading this thread and looking for some helpful information on the GW basketball program that you man up and ask so that we could maybe get a small grain of good info. And if you are NOT looking for helpful or interesting information on GW Bball, then maybe try another hobby other than bitching and moaning (getting nothing done) and having cat fights online over college athletics. Just a thought.

Bobo,

I doubt that JK has relations with major donors.  If he did he would have gotten them already.  From what I understand very definitely - it is Dr. Knapp that personally brokered the deal for the anchor donation from the Kogod/Smith Foundations. 

Given the economic climate, who knows where that puts the Smith Center renovation.  GW may have to come up with more internal money to make it go OR they may have to delay/change/cancel.  I don;t know what the current money status is.  Probably I can't call Rocha to ask him.  Duh.

It wouldn't be appropriate for Rocha to publicly say any thing about JK support or otherwise.  They aren't in the same chain.  JK doesn't report to Rocha - they're in different parts of the school.  In the hierarchy of things I don't even know if Rocha is a "higher" rank than JK.  I have never seen anything public that gives any indication that JK is in any personal jeopardy for his job.  Obviously the same cannot be said for Hobbs.  Bob Chernak is JK's boss - if someone has to say or do something it's him.  A significant open motive of all of my posts in recent times has been to help people understand that all of the focus on Hobbs alone is misguided and that everyone should be looking at JK as well.  JK is just a big of a problem as is Hobbs, if not more.  People don't focus on that because what we see is Hobbs losing games and making stupid statements and stomping his feet on the sidelines.  But JK put him there and has been his boss for all of these years now.  JK has a deep and full resume in basketball and one would have hoped that he could have mentored Hobbs better so that we weren't in the place we are.  Shit Perno was a big coach too.  But they've all given up and seem prepared for Hobbs to take the fall for all of them.  More on this later, I'm currently searching old tv shows for additional fantasy material for Chris W. 

Fivefour,

I agree in part, people should man up and talk directly with the powers that be like I did.

I think you're missing a big thing here though.  I never said I talked to Rocha about Hobbs.  If Hobbs came up, I don't recall it.  At that point when I talked to Rocha I was definitely still on the Hobbs bandwagon.  We talked about fundraising and the broader program i.e. JK, Perno et. al.  I've felt strongly that JK was a big problem for several years so that was my focus and that was what we talked about.  Completely relevant and understandable given the obvious markers of  a downward arc GW basketball has been on for several years.  I had great hopes for Hobbs and the team and terpered optimism until we got into the season and have seen the rapid and unmistakeable signs of implosion.  So what I reported is consistent with the circumstances at the time of our conversation.

Fivefour,

I sincerely mean no offense, but are you new to this board?  This debate has been among the most curteous and least personal of the longer debates in recent years.  It's full of substance and serious discourse on real issues.  I think that there is nothing 5th grade girlish about this, you bitch nobody likes you anyway and now you can't come to my birthday party!!

Regardless of one's views on JK, we are treated so badly as fans and get so little information, when someone like Thinker chooses to share information, we should encourage him or anyone else. Not go back to someone who couldn't admit it, anyway.

Alum1 may have had sincere motivations to check out the information and it is appreciated,but it hurts us all to do something like that.

I would encourage anyone with the program,or who talks with someone associated with the program,players, coaches, administrators or the University to telll us all they know. Believe me, that, along with media outlets from other team's cities,is the only way we will ever find out anything.

Keep those private conversations coming.

A few thoughts from the guy that started it all.

1.  I sincerely doubt that Dan Rocha thought his personal views made in private about JK would be made public on a message board.  Only Thinker and Dan know if that was a violation of the tenents of the meeting.  Being in media/pr/politics, I know that people believe all the time that they are saying things that are "off the record" and then find out otherwise the hard way.  Should he have been surpised?  Please.  He was meeting with a known blogger.  If he's now embarrassed with Jack he's got no one to blame but himself. 

2. I'm astounded that Dan or anyone wouldn't have thought I was intending to post his reply here, first, becuase I first chellenged him to reply here on the board, and moreso because I opened the frickin' letter with the follwing line:  "I have a question prompted by something that is being attributed to you on the GWHoops.com board.  I believe it merits clarification on your part, or a least a chance for you to eplain."  Add the fact that I was writing anonomously, (and that clearly made him suspicious based on the fact that he "instructed me" to tell him who I am, where I live etc etc. if I wanted him to engage.  I mean, seriously.  Give me a break. 

3. I don't subsribe to the notion that somehow to be a man I've got to go personally meet with Dan Rocha or anybody else in the University.  beyond the fact that I live in another country and wouldn't waste my time meeting with dan, this also ain't a gulag, last time I checked, and people don't get know "who I am and where I live" unless I decide to tell them.  That doesn't make me ineligible to comment on whatever I want, including GW Basketball.  This is a blog.  Blogs have a lot of power today.  Maybe Dan and the rest of the attractions in Jurrassic Park should bone up a little bit on the information flow in the 21st century.

4. Why did I do this? First, see point 3. above about this being a blog.  Second, I believe that the

Second, I believe that the University needs a change at the AD level.  Thinker's relevation that Dan Rocha was privately admitting that Jack Kvancz was part of the problem was a fascinating revelation.  Whether you believe he should have divulged it or not is irrelevant.  He did, and it was public.  After that it's fair game to talk about.  And having this discussion helps keep the focus on the issue with a new angle. 

Finally, both Dan (in communicating back to me)  and Fivefour used similarly eerie language about "being a man" and not remaining anonymous on the blog.  I believe they may be one in the same, but I'll leave that for others to decide.  To both of them, I quote my old friend Ric Flair, who famously said "To be the man, you've got to beat the man.  WOOOOOOO!!!!!!!"

On that note......

My final points on this thread.  That an anonymous emailer is going to get an answer on a debate on an anonymous message board from a Univeristy official is really out of touch, regardless of the power of the blog.  Blogs aren't good places for organization officials to formely participate on.

Everyone is so focused in on this narrow little part of what I reported - but to me it was almost a throwaway comment.  I doubt I got Rocha into any kind of trouble because within a week of him being here he would have seen the situation and made his views known.  I would imagine that JK understood quickly that "things were going to have to change" as it were since things weren't going in an ideal way.  I'm sure JK and Rocha have been at loggerheads any number of times.  Rocha DID NOt tell me any of these things - it's just what I would certainly epect given the contet. 

Not only do I believe that Dan Rocha was in no way put off by Thinker's post here on the subject of their meeting, but as you may recall, it prompted Dan to write a very comprehensive post on the fundraising effort.  I just don't think that Dan takes the time or effort to do this if he's been put off by Thinker.  And the notion in question, that JK is part of the problem, is akin to "KH is likely to stomp his feet tomorrow."  It's really not the news flash that some of you are making it out to be.

Alum1, I have to disagree that there should have been an "epectation" on DR's part to have his response presented here.  Whether it was the right or wrong thing to do is up for debate.  However, you could have easily asked for his permission to do so which would have taken all of the uncertainty out of the equation. 

I also agree with you that this notion of "be a man and say who you are if you want information" is a ridiculous one.  It is well within your right to ask for information anonymously and it is DR's right to withhold the information.  The "be a man" aspect to it is juvenile.

Personally, if I had to guess, I think JK hangs around until age 65 and then rides into the sunset.

Um...the point is not to get a response from a university official.  The point is to continue to build the case for change.  I don't give a hoot what Dan Rocha's answer was.  I assumed I was going to get pablum.  No dummy in his right mind would have provided a totally honest response to an anonymous blogger he didn't know.

The point was to let people know who are reading this -- and I know "they" read this, that there is dissension in your ranks.  And we all know dissension is often the best ingredient for real change. 

ps, maybe rocha did make his views known internally.  but i sure would have been pissed to read on some board, comments that i had made in a "private" meeting.  it may or may not be that he has told others internally that he thinks JK is part of the problem.  Or it may be that he didn't want to be the skunk at the party whn JK finds out he's badmouthing him to posters.  I can't know the internal poilitics between the the athletic department and development, or kvancz and rocha and knapp.  But it's hardly a "throwaway line" to publically epose one university official as having claimed that the AD is part of a problem behind their back in what he thought was a private meeting.   

But I don't blame Thinker for eposing Rocha and I do believe Rocha said it (his non-denial in his response speaks volumes).  But it's all his fault for not being careful in what he said to someone he didn't know very well.   

Alum1, I can't swear as to eactly when this was initially revealed either.

Smith Center Renovation

BY: thinker

4/25/2008 2:49:00 PM

I just met with Dan Rocha, who is the head of Development for the Smith Center renovation.  There are a number of important points that came out of the meeting.

1)  Dr. Knapp is deeply commited to the project and he personally put together the $10 million deal with the Smith and Kogod families.

2)  Dan understands that there needs to be a significant change in culture with the entire athletic department at GW for this renovation effort to succeed.

3)  Dan is a very serious and determined guy who is going to do whatever has to be done to build up the program at GW.  And there are major changes coming down the pike.

4)  For all of those (including me) that have complained about how things are run AND want to be a part of the solution or have questions, you should contact Dan and he will give it to you straight - no nonsense - no bullshit.

5)  His email is: drocha@gwu.edu and he will talk to any serious GW basketball fan and lay out the plan.  He is also receptive to input.

6)   You can't complain that no one listens anymore until you talk to him.

---

MORE

Alumnus

4/9/2008 2:51:00 PM

Thinker, good stuff, and it's good to hear this is coming from the very top.

I am close to 100% sure that I didn't say the JK part in my first post on Rocha.  I'm pretty sure though I said it for the first time long before this current round of discussions.  My thinking was that when Rocha and I met, he said "I understand what the situation is -- watch in the coming months how things are going to change before drawing any conclusions about us.  We're going to do better - things are going to change."  I watched, listened and it appeared that nothing changed and nothing got better.  Then I first talked about Rocha's view on JK after I saw that things weren't particularly changing.  After I met with Knapp in the September time frame, I clearly saw that no one cared what I thought so I saw no reason to not talk more broadly about things that I hadn't said before.  Trust me, there are plenty of other details from all my talks that I haven't revealed because they aren't germane and, in my mind wouldn't be fair to discuss here.  I'm not a flamer or a serial blurter.  And I really HATE what has happened to the basketball program under JK and Hobbs and all I want is for the people in power to take note of the situation and make some moves to better the situation. 

And seriously, I imagine (and hope) that Rocha is meeting or talking to prospective donors MANY times a day.  Some of them are basketball followers and some aren't.  For those that are, of course he's going to have to be candid that "Yes the program has some problems - we're aware of that and we're trying to fi it."  Of course he has to say that because 1) It's true, and 2) If he doesn't say that to a potential donor who follows the program carefully he has no credibility and the donor is not going to contribute.  If you are a donor and you meet with Rocha now - and I encourage you to do so if you are - do you really think he's going to say "We want your money, and oh yeah we think the basketball program is right on track - everything's great - I wouldn't change a thing."  It's a silly proposition, any way you look at it the problems of the program are evident.  That in the end is why I think my Rocha/JK comments are much ado about nothing.  Because OF COURSE THERE'RE PROBLEMS and OF COURSE JK IS A PART OF THE PROBLEM. 

Thinker -- don't get me wrong.  I'm glad you eposed Rocha.  Things like that are necessary for change to happen.  But it is far from a piddly thing you mentioned.  By way of analogy, for eample. I work at a very big company.  It would be terribly embarrassing if I made comments about my boss, or an influential peer,  in a private meeting, only to have them splayed out on a message board.  Think of it in that contet. 

Again, I'm glad you did this.  But don't for a second think Rocha isn't pissed, becuse he is.  He's accused you and I both of taking "flights of fancy" for what that's worth.