MoJo on NBC Sports CBT Podcast
gw0509
 5/19/2017 10:42:27 AM      Replies: 67

gw05095/15/2017 9:04:03 AM

http://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2017/05/15/cbt-podcast-george-washington-head-coach-maurice-joseph/

1

ziik the peasant5/15/2017 9:45:10 AM

He's a fast talker.

ziiks third cousin twice removed5/15/2017 9:49:43 AM

Is Canada overseas?

yawle5/15/2017 12:08:22 PM

just an incredible amount of knowledge and information and insight on the GW program.  Tremendous stuff.

 

 

3

ziik the bureaucrat5/15/2017 12:10:18 PM

Twice as much info as we'd get from a slow talker. 

He also sounds real smart, like his voice can't quite keep up with his brain cells.

I like the guy.

He's got energy.

 

 

2

bigfan5/15/2017 12:29:53 PM

1) Good to hear he can Skype in French with a player's family. Limited application in recruiting, but still helpful on occasion.

2) Mojo handles himself well in the media as noted during the season. Excellent communications skills.

3) Greatly downplays the tension amongst the staff competing for the job, but in this incredible softball interview, the interviewer (Dauster) was good to bring it up.

4) Always good to hear about Mojo's four years at Michigan State with his only mentor in basketballs, Tom Izzo.

5) Halfway through the interview, but imagine a certain name will never be mentioned by Mojo. Wonder if there is a penalty or firing clause in his contract if he mentions that name.

The verbal contortions in order not to say that name are stunning.

 

4

ziik5/15/2017 12:36:40 PM

What name? 

hondo5/15/2017 12:38:48 PM

Great interview. Big Fan get over your ML obsession.  Onward and upward 

9

bigfan5/15/2017 12:51:18 PM

You forget to end with "Raise High!" Pay will be docked.

Doesn't the university give you a lunch break?

 

2

gw fan5/15/2017 12:53:51 PM

@bigfan I don't think there is a firing clause. He just doesn't want to talk about ML. He's in the past and doesn't care about him. He doesn't need ML anymore. He's 31 and a head coach of a divison 1 program. ML Who?? 

11

thinker5/15/2017 2:15:08 PM

If you want to understand why GW picked MoJo to lead the team - listen to the podcast.

If you are skeptical that someone so young can lead the program - listen to the podcast.

If you wonder whether MoJo will likely be able to recruit well - listen to the podcast.

If you are excited about the future of GW basketball with MoJo at the helm - listen to the podcast regularly.

Mike who? You mean the guy that posts here sometimes - Mike K? That's the only Mike I'm aware of.

16

the dude5/15/2017 3:23:48 PM

^^^ this

7

ziiks third cousin twice removed5/15/2017 3:38:57 PM

 

I think Thinker's thoughts are today's best thoughts.

Mojo is our man right now, and for the foreseeable future. 

6

mike k5/15/2017 4:02:21 PM

You called??!!??!!

2

ziik the bureaucrat5/15/2017 4:11:55 PM

More:

 

http://www.a10talk.com/a10-talk-coach-countdown-7-maurice-joseph/

2

thinker5/15/2017 5:32:01 PM

There you are Mike K - The best and only relevant Mike on GWHoops!

2

the mv5/15/2017 6:00:23 PM

MoJo is very impressive, but this has never been about MoJo the person and has always and only been about MoJo the coach.  I'm glad he can say that he felt prepared for this opportunity but by conventional standards, he could not have been.  John Kuester was also the youngest head coach in the country when he was hired at BU.  But, he was an assistant for two years under Rick Pitino and an assistant at Richmond prior to replacing pitino at BU.  The late Gerry Gimelstob (really weird typing that) was I believe also 31 when he landed the GW job but he was Bob Knight's top assistant at Indiana and also served under Jerry Pimm at Utah prior to that.  Mike Jarvis was a nationally prominent high school coach and then, the head coach at BU.  Penders was very experienced.  Hobbs was a key assistant at UConn.  Lonergan was very experienced.

There is no law that says that a young head coach without a great deal of experience can not go on to become a great head coach.   However, there is a reason why the vast majority of head coaches first climbed a far more substantial career ladder than MoJo has to date.  This isn't a function of me or anyone holding this against him.  Instead, it's a function of whether his inexperience will work against him.  Does the VCU game end the same way had MoJo been a more experienced coach?  There is absolutely no way to know for sure but the possibility is at least plausible.  Will some parents of recruits really like MoJo personally but ultimately want their sons in the hands of a more experienced coaching staff?  I understand that these are basically "what if" scenarios but they are not "out of left field "scenarios.  These possibilities are realistic.  Only time will tell.

None of this is meant at all to disparage MoJo the person.  In fact, MoJo has done exactly what he's supposed to do under these circumstances.  This interview is another example of the basic fact that GW hired a high quality individual to lead its basketball program.  I don't believe anyone could debate this.  And of course, any fan of this program ought to be rooting hard for his success.  But this interview does not change the most pertinent issue regarding MoJo's long-term hiring; namely, whether GW hired the best possible coach that it could have.  There is a reason why certain things in life are conventional.  There is often less risk associated with conventional decisions.  Whether the school wanted to make an unconventional hire or did not know any better or wanted to save money, or simply fell in love with MoJo's candidacy is unknown.  What is known is that there is a roll of the dice in play...that MoJo evolves into becoming a great coach.  Let's all hope so.

 

2

bigfan5/15/2017 7:02:28 PM

It could work out great or it could be a nightmare or most likely, in between for some time.

Mojo is a great communicator. Personally long been applauding that.  He also apparently listens to the same music as some recruits. Whether that scores points with their parents might be an open quesiton.

Question is why roll the dice and whether ultimately it was best and fair for Mojo, as well as us? And the no-bid contract, as one poster aptly noted.

And yes, the decision has been already taken, albeit never explained, much like bypassing the associate head coach and another more experienced assistant.

But that doesn't preclude us from forgetting anyone or talking about it, as we did in Hobbs and Lonergans early years ( as well as their middle and end years).   So no, we don't have to sit with our hands folded and not ask any questions. About anything really, as longs as it pertains to GW basketball.

Sometimes it's actually being loyal to ask questions. Other times, it is the right of paying customers. We are both.

All of us are proud of Mojo's communications skills  and the way he represents GW (hopefully with a less selective memory over time) and truly hope that he keeps growing in the job--and is a longshot bet that pays off big.

 

2

colonial775/16/2017 12:34:34 PM

 The longshot is that you type something interesting or original or stop the broken record approach. 

9

thinker5/16/2017 1:08:00 PM

MV,

"Whether GW hired the best possible coach that it could have," is an extremely problematic formulation.

Best for what? By whose definition? What are the criteria for "best?"

What is your budget?

What is your appetite for more upheaval?

What is your absolute objective - wins only? Personal values? Who will be a great "face" of the program? Who will recruit the best players? Now or down the road?

I would say there was less risk in hiring MoJo than almost anyone else because he's been at GW for all these years AND he had a full year audition. GW was certainly evaluating him EVERY day for a year so we had a better idea of what he would be like than we did any of these other hires.

And no matter what research you do; whatever due dilligence; whatever references; You still never know exactly how it will turn out.

5

the mv5/16/2017 2:43:53 PM

So who was exactly evaluating him every day for a year?  Self-proclaimed non-basketball fan Forest Maltzman or potentially conflict-of-interest filled Patrick Nero?  Sure, if everyone unequivocally knew that PN both acted completely appropriately throughout his GW tenure and did not have to be mindful of a possible lawsuit and/or settlement, then the answer of PN makes perfect sense.  But, do we know all of this as facts?  Only you (Thinker) and those who agree with you seem to.

While "best" may be a subjective word, I would like to think we could all agree on a few things.  First, "best possible coach that it could have" already takes budget into account.  Maybe Roy Williams or Coach K or Rick Pitino are the best possible coaches out there but GW could not realistically afford any of these coaches under any circumstances.  More upheaval is not much of a consideration.  Programs clean house all of the time.  Failing to clean house in order to avoid upheaval is a bogus reason that fails to account for any mid or long range thinkng.  You knew when it was Hobbs's time to leave but any upheaval which could have been avoided (Copes and Trey Davis arriving, Pellom and Lasan subsequently staying) was not worth the alternative of not making the move.

Beyond this, without meaning to push my priorities on the fan base as a whole, I would feel that "best" encompasses an ability to recruit and coach players who will realistically compete for an NCAA berth in most seasons (not always making the dance but being in contention).  In addition, I would place great importance on a coach who realizes the value in attracting players who are serious about their academics and who are community-minded and solid ambassadors for the school.

The point, as I'm sure you realize, isn't whether my version of the best is different than your version.  And, I agree that you can very easily feel you've hired someone great yet it does not turn out this way in retrospect.  However, by not even considering anyone else for this position, given the overall lack of real coaching experience of MoJo, certainly when compared to others who may otherwise have been considered, the school/Nero/Maltzman have opened themselves up to some scrutiny, particularly if the program falls short of its goals over the next several years.  I'm not sure how anyone can not acknowledge this.

 

5

the dude5/16/2017 3:12:33 PM

Its true you never do know.  The ex VCU Coaches all looked great on paper and didn't do well elsewhere.  The Paul Hewitt types in my view usually do not do well when they take a step or 2 down, but Steve Fisher has been a huge success. Larry Brown was too.

I personally advocated for a young guy from a minor conference who pulled off a rapid rebuild and sustained it for a few years, but frankly those guys were going above GW in this cycle, and no guarantee on them either.  

If you are selling this though as Mojo, the happy go lucky lottery winner who was the lowly 3rd assistant picked for all of the wrong reasons, you are doing him and us all a big disservice. As I've said before, if you are going to make an internal hire, I'd prefer it be the best guy, not just the slightly most senior and slightly oldest of 3 young assistants. Pick the best man for the job.  

6

squid5/16/2017 3:40:52 PM

Really enjoyed the podcast. Looking forward to this year.

1

the mv5/16/2017 4:16:58 PM

Hard to rationalize that the answer was to do nothing, or to do the easiest, or the quickest, or the cheapest, under the philosophy that there would not be any guarantees for success no matter who was hired.  Plenty of more experienced yet affordable coaches could have been considered.  To suggest that all of the up and comers were getting head coaching jobs above GW is pure fallacy.  Sure some guys did but there are a ton of assistants at major programs and even some head coaches at smaller programs who could easily have been considered.  My feelings have nothing to do with MoJo being selected ahead of Hajj or Carm.  They have everything to do with GW's unwillingness to go out of house and consider other options.  Let's face it, GW liked MoJo the person, liked his cost, and hired him, plain and simple.  If there were other factors that made it easy for GW to reach this conclusion, then those would just be bonuses but not even really needed.  Am hoping it turns out to be a great hire because I want huge success for this program first and foremost, but I don't think it's overstating matters to suggest that it will likely set this program back a long time if it turns out not to be.

3

bigfan5/16/2017 4:22:52 PM

For just one example, LeBron's high school coach who also toiled successfully at Akron, was available and took the job at Duquesne.

Hard to argue the Duquesne job is better than GW. And easy to argue that the GW job is better than Duquesne.

2

ziik the bomb thrower5/16/2017 4:30:44 PM

So, we want, what? Anyone but Mojo? Or, anyone who does not have any acquaintance with GW? DC? 

A decision has been made. So far as I know, only two regular posters on the board were consulted. And, one was not BF. 

Let's see some of your smart posts, BF. Mojo will have a target on his face soon enough. 

1

the dude5/16/2017 4:51:07 PM

Dambrot has been basically blacklisted for use of a racial term from 25 years ago.  You can see why ML was so defensive about the Lin situation, coming on the heels of last summer's events.

Dambrot would have otherwise parlayed Akron about 10 years ago into a better job. He would also be just about the last guy GW would hire after firing ML.  Eustachy maybe.

 

bigfan5/16/2017 4:54:12 PM

Mojo is fine and has a great future if we didn't screw it up by placing too much on him too early.

Appeciate characterization of at least some posts, though reject other implications.

But think it is smart to note whether rightly or wrongly, elevating the third assistant was bound to cause resentment from the deputy (associate actual title) head coach, as well as the second head coach.

This apparently caused Jordan Roland to leave just when we need him after being brought along for two years,according to his named cosch in high school.

If this happened any other time than now, there'd be howling and headlines.

Don't know why it is being pretty much glossed over here. Especially since coaching staff remains intact.

Couldn' t be a clearer warning shot.

ziik the bureaucrat5/16/2017 5:07:49 PM

BF, my sainted grandfather was the deputy head principal of his high school, in addition to being head basketball coach, head baseball coach, and a teacher of several academic and vocational subjects on the side. (It was a small regional vocational high school, and he damned near ran it himself.) He did all that for 31 years. When his boss retired, he fully expected to move up a notch, as he was 59 to his boss's 65. Well, after all that time, he was promoted over, because he was "too old." 

The guy had a mental breakdown, and was out of action for maybe 6 months. We were lucky he did not shoot himself. 

But, even he said, when he got back on the job, "It happens." 

In the long haul, he said, he was lucky. He had got tenure on his job after disbanding his jazz band, right in time to not get hammered by The Depression

We all will have an awful lot of what ifs in our lives. 

But, the way you are carrying on, I am worried for your mental health. I speak from way too much experience.

1

thinker5/16/2017 5:20:43 PM

MV,

You've made several good points. I don't know that we'd all agree on the criteria for "best," but totally agree that it is a subjective determination. But GW definitely knew what their criteria were and we don't. So even if it it doesn't make sense to you -- It definitely made sense to them.

I don't know, in the current situation, who at GW would have had to ultimately sign off on the decision to hire MoJo. I think that it's virtually impossible that Nero could make that decision on his own. It seems extremely unlikely that the buck would have stopped with Maltzman. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Board ultimately would have had to agree as I imagine they would have to agree on all major decisions the University makes.

What seems mysterious and opaque to you seems normal in the GW bureaucratic sense of things to me.

You recently asked me, in a sense, "how long was I going to persist in my narrative about what happened to ML?" I'd return the question to you - how long will you persist in - what I call - the "gay cabal did ML in conspiracy theory?" If your theory is correct - that GW was so intimitaded by the gay cabal that they got rid of the mostly innocent ML to protect against a suit from the dastardly Nero -- Then WHY ON EARTH would GW let Nero pick the next coach? If GW was sooooooo intimitaded by Nero they'd be working overtime to move him out in some way that they couldn't get sued over. The ONLY person that benefits from the gay cabal theory is ML himself because he needs some exceptionally bizarre rationale to somehow explain and justify his own fundamentally unprofessional behavior.

So Nero is dastardly and GW knows it AND GW is continuing to give Nero great power and latitude are virtually mutally exclusive. It has to be one or the other but it can't be both. 

5

squid5/16/2017 5:26:47 PM

I for one enjoyed this podcast.

2

the mv5/16/2017 5:54:58 PM

Thinker, please don't refer to this as MY theory.  This would assume that it's a theory that I believe to be true.  I have simply raised it as a possible theory.  I don't know for a fact whether there is a shred of truth to it or not.  I have consistently and steadfastly maintained that I'm unsure whether the entire truth has been reported by the Post article and the school's statement about ML's termination.  This seems to be the rudimentary difference between your camp and mine...your camp read the article, knew about an investigation, learned the outcome, and basically said "OK, we know all we need to know."  My camp very freely admits that there could be another side to all of this that we have not heard, a side that could shed some light on the entire situation, but we have never said that there is definitely such a side.  All we've asked for is for the entire truth to come out, if it hasn't already, so that we can draw our own conclusions over the fairness of the school's decision to terminate.

While I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, I'll also add that you are reading way too much into this Nero scenario.  For this to have legs does not mean that Nero needed to act dastardly in any way.  Hypothetically, the school could have heard that PN's inappropriate actions (I'm practically fearful of typing those words...one more time...this is hypothetical...I am not saying this is what definitely happened or even happened at all) caused ML to say and act the way he did.  PN denies such actions.  The school realizes that it's one man's word against another with little opportunity to get to the real truth.  It makes the decision to part ways with ML because there is evidence to suggest he said certain things while there is no real evidence of ML's claim against PN.  Plus, taking ML's side without ample evidence would likely result in a much larger lawsuit against the school not to mention a PR nightmare.  There's your possibility...Nero keeps his job and hasn't acted dastardly in any way.  

 

3

nj colonial5/16/2017 6:49:49 PM

MV - I feel your pain, I did want GW to go with a veteran, proven winner for head coach. I was pulling for Dooley since he is a Colonial and it would have been a homecoming for him.  But MoJo is impressive (this podcast is great) and he is our HC - so he needs and deserves all of our support!

6

thinker5/16/2017 8:20:43 PM

MV,

I only call it your theory because you have postulated it. I don't imagine at all that you invented it - because I'm quite certain that the theory came directly from ML. But when I asked you why you thought ML was fired, this is what you said:

THE MV5/10/2017 10:02:52 AM

 

Thinker, I think he was fired because he and Nero could not work together culminating in ML making at least one very regrettable remark (the masturbation line) at Nero's expense.  I think this quickly got back to Nero who demanded that ML be released with cause.  Had the school sided with ML, it would have taken on the risk of absolutely horrendous publicity backed by the LGBT community, not to mention a lawsuit that I'm guessing could far exceed any suit ML could file.

That said, I don't KNOW why he was fired.  And from what I can gather, neither does anyone who has posted on this site.  Or, nobody is at liberty to say.

 

So while you didn't invent this theory; you also didn't raise it as a hypothetical; you said you believe it even though you couldn't prove it. If you want to retract your statement above, of course you should. But you've said that's what you believe happened. Nonetheless, going forward I will call it the ML gay cabal theory.

I have never said that I know exactly who said what. I've never said that I believe everything in the Post article. Almost all of my discussion has been about context and how law, politics within large organizations, and human nature works. It's also not consistent with my understanding of the different individuals involved in this -- Though I don't have much of any personal experience with Nero.

I would bet almost anything that your hypothetical could not be the way things played out because that simply doesn't make sense the way I understand law, bureaucratic politics, and human nature work. Or the personalities of the players, coaches or administrators or the Washington Post or GW. I don't need to see the report; I don't need to interview anyone; I don't need to see depositions. Because the ML gay cabal theory simply is thoroughly impossible. And I've discussed extensively over time on this board what I base my understanding of these topics on. I've given people here about 1000% more context about me so people can at least judge my credentials to make the judgments that I make. I don't live in my Mom's basement. People know me - you know me. I worked at GW at a very high level. And all my other background. Most of the things I have commented on about how I believe the ML situation played out are in areas that I have extensive personal and professional experience in. The ML gay cabal theory just isn't true or even near true or even a hint of true. It just isn't how things work in the real world. Because that's not the way GW works, or the way the law works, or the way the Post works, or the way a bunch of players would have worked. AND most importantly it's positively not the way the LGBT world works - and I have extensive experience with that world politically, legally and legislatively. 

You just aren't going to find ANY cases where someone fires the $3 million guy instead of the $200K guy where the $200K guy committed serious misdeeds but the organization is afraid of getting sued by the gay $200K guy. That's never going to be a case. If neither person was at fault, but they just couldn't get along any ORGANIZATION is ALWAYS going to fire the least expensive guy or the least valuable guy. The ML gay cabal theory is just not plausible.

4

the dude5/16/2017 8:32:31 PM

That's all true Thinker, but I think not really necessary.  The one comment only theory, or the ML vs Nero theory ignores that half a dozen players, current and former staff documented what they described as abusive behavior.   

Why is that so underplayed on this site?

2

rich maier5/16/2017 9:02:41 PM

MV, nice comparison. ML $3million v Mojo $200K. You made a rookie mistake by comparing a 5-year contract with a 1 year contract. That doesn't make sense.  However, it does fit your needs. Also, has Mojo's contract been publized? I don't follow things as closely you so I may have missed it. Thanks.

4

mike k5/16/2017 10:05:06 PM

 I am interested in Mojo's contract

1

thinker5/17/2017 1:08:57 AM

Dude, I don't refer to that as much because:

1) People can just say those facts weren't true so that's that. My main arguments haven't relied on facts in the same way. I relied on deeper contextual analysis of how people and institutions operate which is harder to just reject offhand.

2) Fundamentally I don't think ML was fired for abusive behavior with the players. I think he was abusive. I think he should have gotten fired for that. But I think he was fired for the toxic environment he created around his disputes with Nero and his inabilty to stand down from that after being repeated counseled to do so.

1

the dude5/17/2017 2:16:53 AM

Thinker, I hear ya and I follow.  I think he did in fact get fired for the treatment of the players. My view is that once the WaPo story comes out, GW's investigation would have had to clear ML of every major allegation contained in the article for him to remain as Coach, specifically the behavior in relation to the players.  Comments about the AD, far less of a concern from a PR standpoint. That alone he could probably survive.

The other under-discussed aspect of all of this is that WaPo story shows that GW, contrary to the narrative of looking to fire ML, actually basically ignored the first Title IX investigation, and his reported behavior generally, as long as they could.   I'd suggest they would have kept ML, if not for the WaPo story, the crux of which is in fact his treatment of the players.  

This runs sharply in contrast to the counter-narrative of just ML vs Nero.  Finally, to fire him for cause and without pay required much more than merely a falling out and mere insubordination, so pretty easy to push back on that falsehood.

4

the mv5/17/2017 10:07:14 AM

Not quite sure who the biggest idiot is...Rich for claiming that I made a rookie mistake with the contract numbers when it was Thinker who wrote that in the first place (and he was comparing ML $$ to Nero, not to MoJo), or any of the three imbeciles who liked Rich's post.

Thinker, I have repeatedly said that I don't know for a fact why ML was fired (yes, I know what's been said on the subject but don't know if that represents the entire truth or not).  Nevertheless, you pressed me on why I thought ML was fired.  I could have easily answered you by saying that it doesn't matter what I think; the point is that I don't unequivocally know.  However, I felt you were entitled to my "best guess" and wrote what I thought might be the case.  Somehow, you've subsequently managed to put words in my mouth by stating that I have postulated this theory and that I believe it to be true.

No.  I've said for months that I don't know why.  Not knowing something completely contradicts the notion of believing in it.  Each time I have mentioned it, I have carefully written that this is either hypothetical or not necessarily the truth.  That's hardly grounds for postulation.

You have given your explanation as to why a theory I believe might be the case is in all likelihood, not the case.  No need to go any further.

thinker5/17/2017 3:17:56 PM

MV,

Not to belabor it and this will likely be my last post on this particular part of stuff directed to you -- If you say you think this is why ML was fired, then that is your narrative. You are saying that you believe the ML gay cabal conspiracy theory. When I asked you directly why you believe ML was fired, you didn't say "I believe xxx might be the case."

Maybe it doesn't matter; maybe you don't KNOW that it's true; maybe it can't be proven; BUT that is your belief. Beliefs are the raw ingridients of message boards. So mostly the only things that matter here are beliefs anyway. So the fact that you and others continue to believe the ML gay cabal conspiracy theory -- that matters to me. I would guess that it matters to other people as well.

1

the mv5/17/2017 4:24:19 PM

Once again, no.  I am not saying I believe the gay cabal conspiracy theory.  I do not believe that is why ML was fired.  Do I believe that this theory COULD have been the reason?  Absolutely.  But, that's different than saying that I do believe this to be the case.

You asked me why I thought he was fired and I answered your question with this theory.  I apologize if I misled you with my answer.  The actual answer I should have given is that I have no beliefs as to why he was fired because I'm convinced I don't know everything there is to know regarding what happened.  Next time, I'll do the board a big favor and know better.

1

ziik the peasant5/17/2017 4:49:09 PM

What of the Gay Caballeros? That is a thing, not a theory.

(I think, you make fun of your boss to your staff and your players, you are lucky not to be fired. You make fun of him, skate yourself out on to the thin ice, then start up with the masturbation cracks, well, it's damned near impossible not to get thrown off the deep end.)

 

bigfan5/17/2017 5:33:22 PM

Let this distasteful reference pass a number of time.

But maybe we could discuss this better, for this who are interested in still discussing it, without loaded propaganda terms.

This one is cleverly done, but clearly designed to shut off debate with its dismissive description of anyone who doesn't subscribe fully without any questions to the authorized and sanitized story.

Doesn't add anything. Just designed to shut down debate.

 

the dude5/17/2017 6:20:09 PM

Actually, I think you have been asked several times rather specifically to enumerate your views, which you are more than welcome to do.  I for one would like to hear them.

1

the mv5/17/2017 6:29:06 PM

Same old shit.  BF has been asked several times to explain why he thinks ML is innocent.  Like me, I don't think that BF thinks that he's necessarily innocent.  As they say in traffic court, he is perhaps guilty with an explanation.  And what he and I and a few others have been repeatedly saying is that it sure would be nice to hear what this explanation was.  That way, we could decide for ourselves whether it was worth the school disrupting the upward trajectory of this program under ML or not.

2

bigfan5/17/2017 7:28:44 PM

And have been excoriated by you, Dude and others who on the same side but in an even worse manner for expressing my views.

Or mental health questioned by someone who though seemingly sincere, should hardly be asking that.

So what is the point of rehashing in this thread?

Trying to ignore the subject and yet you and others are trying to goad one into revisiting it.

So you and the paid trolls and volunteer acolytes can bitch that it's like a broken record.

Would say that its Internet bullying so it fits in with the mentality of some here, but it's really more like pre-teen Mean Girl sniping. Or the annoying yapping of a purse dog.

The record isn't what's broken. It's our basketball program. With players and recruits, from those who couldn't come to those who voted with their feet this year as not very collateral damage from the implosion.

Everyone is free to draw their own conclusions as to whether it was worth it.

 

 

 

 

 

1

the dude5/17/2017 7:43:27 PM

"Paid trolls?" "Volunteer acolytes?"  Huh? 

I'm not on any side, I see what transpired as obviously true and obviously untrue. I'd prefer to have reached the opposite conclusion frankly.  I've sincereley asked for your view since you like to gripe about the decision a lot and never answer any questions when they are posed to you.  I'd prefer your actual view, than mere griping about it on every thread for 8 months running. Seems clear its you and "your side" who are hung up on it.

You diverted us here (see above) so by all means please do answer. You say it was designed by Thinker to shutdown debate, I don't agree. Any time someone asks for you/others for your views on the matter when you raise it, you decline, and then default to vague griping. I'd prefer answers.

 

 

 

 

2

ziik the peasant5/17/2017 8:09:11 PM

This continued questioning of the 'real reason' for ML's departure is puzzling. I have tried to think of parallels, but, I have had too much cheap red wine and really nice hashish to always think clearly these days. 

But, I wonder. There is this Great Divide on this board, about whether ML got a raw deal, or whether he brought it on himself.

There is another Great Divide, between the Texas Schoolbook Depository shooting site, and, the Grassy Knoll.  Having been to both spots, long ago, I always thought the shot from the building window was so easy I could have made it. Seriously, yoú'd have to be nuts to think it was a tough shot, that it required superhuman skill.

Any schlub could make it, and did.

My guess, 50 years or more from now, this Board will have a similar Great Divide.

dudes cousin5/17/2017 10:41:43 PM

My cousin is frequently wrong. What's worse is he really has no idea he is wrong. He has trouble remembering names too. Hence the multiple names here. Please I beg of you all to understand what you are dealing with here. We are trying to get him help.

1

thinker5/18/2017 12:30:57 AM

Thank you for that clarification, MV. Going forward, until you will specify otherwise, I will understand your view to be as you stated above.

long suffering fan5/18/2017 8:15:18 AM

Again, not getting into whether ML should or should not have been fired...I understand both sides.   What I still don't understand is how so many of you can conclude (and quite passionately and articuably) that we are a better basketball team/program with Mojo in charge rather than ML

Take a step back and think about that for a second.   If the answer still doesn't come to you let me help...we would have been a better basketball team or program with a veteran, successful, well connected coach than a novice with no experience...no matter how good the podcast may be or how impressed you were with a 20 win, 2nd round CBI loss season.   (FWIW...20 wins becomes a bit less impressive with 16 losses.   Again...we are NOT better off than we were one year ago today, and will not reach that level again for the foreseeable future.

4

thinker5/18/2017 9:43:26 AM

LSF,

I don't really get how you have come to frame the issue that way or to believe that anyone else is framing the issue that way.

And "better basketball team/program" is way more of a complicated notion than you seem to think it is. Is it mere wins? Is it who represents the university better? Is it who leads the players better? Is it who presents the greater or lesser insitutional risk going forward?

The only thing that GW said publicly about firing ML was that essentially - his behavior wasn't consistent with the values of GW. They didn't say he didn't win enough - they said they couldn't accept the way he behaved while he was winning enough. I am 1000% sure that ML was counseled to tone down his approach to the players and to his bosses and HE DIDN'T. Things continued to escalate and so he was fired when things reached the breaking point.

Ultimately this was a path that ML forced on GW because I imagine that GW was exceptionally reluctant to take this path.

So are we a better program with MoJo than with ML? I believe so, but it doesn't matter anyway because ML forced GW to fire him. At no point did GW sit down and ask "who would be better ML or MoJo?" They first asked "can we as an insitution have our basketball team led by this man?" They decided the answer was no. At that point who the new coach would be was unrelated because it's was completely separate question.

4

the mv5/18/2017 10:41:56 AM

There is no question that this would be a more successful program under Lonergan than MoJo at this point in time (and this past season), success measured solely by on-court performance.  Those like Thinker who feel GW had no choice but to fire ML are reaching a different conclusion: while we may be better with Lonergan, we are better off without Lonergan.

This is the crux as to why some of us simply want all of the facts out on the table.  We know we are a better team with him; we would like to feel assued (beyond taking the word of several posters here) that the school really had no choice so that we can also clearly see that we'll be better off without him.  While I understand why so little information has been made public about this, it is this lack of information that in turn is not helping this cause.

6

long suffering fan5/18/2017 1:31:59 PM

Thinker...I am not sure how I could have framed it any clear, especially when I start my post by saying

"not getting into whether ML should or should not have been fired...I understand both sides"  So, I will ask you straight out...as a basketball fan, do you believe we will be a better team this year and over the next few years with Mojo or if ML was still here, even with his flaws.  And please, don't respond that he was insubordinate and should have been fired, because that is NOT what I am asking.  So, to put it again, even more bluntly, would we be a better basketball team with the prick Lonergan in charge or nice guy Mojo in charge?  

As an aside, the podcast was fantastic and very insightful, and if you haven't listened to it yet, you should do so.  

1

the douche5/18/2017 1:59:48 PM

I think we would be a better team in both the short run and the long run under MoJo.  MoJo has recruited 4 freshmen to play for the team and not one of them has transferred out of the program yet.  That's 4 for 4.  Sure, they haven't arrived at GW yet but they haven't transferred out either.  Compare that to Longeran whose last 11 recruited high school players has resulted in 10 of these guys transferring out.  Sure, I know that this includes some who transferred after Longergan left, and doesn't include incoming transfers like Tyler, Matt and Patrick who have stayed.  But, nothing else matters except the point I'm making.   And that point is that 10 of our last 11 recruits have left this program.  And yes, I know that when I exclude the transfers and include those who transferred after this past season, it's actually 9 out of the last 10, but I don't care because I really enjoy typing 10 of 11 and saying 10 of 11 in my mind over and over again.  So, I have to believe that a team where 4 out of 4 guys stay is preferable to one where 10 of 11 guys leave, don't you?  What I don't understand is why more isn't being made out of this.

1

the dude5/18/2017 2:18:48 PM

Same question Thinker had and its an important one.  You still have not answered it.  Its rather clear, who is arguing this???   :

"What I still don't understand is how so many of you can conclude (and quite passionately and articuably) that we are a better basketball team/program with Mojo in charge rather than ML"

Who is suggesting GW thought so? Can you find me one fan here who said, great idea lets fire ML in September after a scandal, and elevate an assistant with an interim tag for a season?

 

long suffering fan5/18/2017 2:29:25 PM

Great.  We are finally all in agreement (with the exception of the poster right before Dude) that we would have been a better basketball team now and in the foreseeable future if ML was still running the show, even with all of his recruiting blunders, underachieving, lack of NCAA wins, etc..  I can move on now.

1

ziik the tentmaker5/18/2017 2:35:43 PM

I think Bob Takkent would have won big with Mike Brown and Troy Webster.

I wonder why GW never gave the great Joe Lalli a shot to coach the team?

the dude5/18/2017 2:53:10 PM

No one has stated otherwise.  No one suggested (that I've read at least) this was a basketball based decision, or has said even if it wasn't, they think it was good anyway as if it were a pure basketball based decision.

You often post as if it was and as if people are saying so.  BF too. 

ziik the peasant5/18/2017 3:02:50 PM

Forgive my ignorant cousin, please, Bob Tallent. 

ziiks third cousin twice removed5/18/2017 3:07:13 PM

Forgive them both, Coach Bob.

nygw5/18/2017 3:13:56 PM

you got em?

squid5/18/2017 4:43:03 PM

I for one enjoyed this interview

contract5/18/2017 11:03:46 PM

One would have to presume the contract is not guaranteed, right?

That's the only way the hiring of the 3rd assistant makes any sense... just a placeholder to fire after two awful seasons, with minimal financial ramifications.

 

3

maine colonial5/19/2017 7:31:43 AM

I think we've learned in the last year that no one can predict what is going to happen today let alone two years from now. I'm an optimist by nature so I see a bright future for GW men's basketball as well as the whole athletics program. It's a beautiful morning in Maine and spring is finally here so that definitely helps along with knowing that Bob Mueller is on the case.

2

the mv5/19/2017 9:51:09 AM

Of course it is guaranteed.  And, it's for 5 years.  It's likely below market value.

It only make sense if the school is preparing or anticipating either a lawsuit or a settlement.  Pay a less experienced coach less than you otherwise would for this reason.  If it's the school's expectation is to not spend a dime in settlement money or legal fees over ML's termination, then the MoJo signing is nothing more than a desired cost-cutting decision (as opposed to a prudent or needed one) which should speak volumes about the regard and support men's basketball is now receiving.  That said, my guess is that they are anticipating a settlement or lawsuit.

2

gw695/19/2017 10:42:27 AM

Im not trying to be cute--but for all of you and me-- don't always 

believe what you think.

      Stuff you should read

  • Make an argument
  • Don't call someone an evil pant-load
  • Don't threaten to sue someone for your free, voluntary participation on a semi-anonymous site

 Respond

Thread Stats

Active Responders

  • thinker - 13% (9)
  • the dude - 13% (9)
  • the mv - 13% (9)
  • bigfan - 10% (7)
  • ziik the peasant - 6% (4)
  • ziiks third cousin twice removed - 4% (3)
  • ziik the bureaucrat - 4% (3)
  • squid - 4% (3)
  • long suffering fan - 4% (3)

Timeline

  • Most active day: 5/16/2017 (19 / 27.94%)
  • May: 68 (100.00%)